• Browser built in viewer
• PDF Viewer
• Universal Document Viewer
• Google Docs View
• Google Drive View
• Download Document [pdf]
Not Your Device? Search For Manuals / Datasheets:



File Info : application/pdf, 223 Pages, 16.13MB

Document Document

Appendix A ­ Notice of Intent
Appendix A ­ Notice of Intent

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2019 / Notices

39885

in File No. 4­747, between FINRA and LTSE, filed pursuant to Rule 17d­2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective.
It is further ordered that LTSE is relieved of those responsibilities allocated to FINRA under the Plan in File No. 4­747.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18 Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019­17208 Filed 8­9­19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011­01­P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS
ANNOUNCEMENT: 84 FR 38321, August 6, 2019.
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF
THE MEETING: Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Open Meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., has been cancelled. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551­5400.
Dated: August 7, 2019. Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019­17248 Filed 8­8­19; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011­01­P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meetings
TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 15, 2019. PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the
18 17 CFR 200.30­3(a)(34).

meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at https:// www.sec.gov.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551­5400.
Dated: August 8, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019­17353 Filed 8­8­19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011­01­P
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6) Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. ACTION: Notice of intent.
SUMMARY: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed expansion of mining operations by Sugar Camp Energy, LLC to extract TVA-owned coal reserves in Hamilton and Franklin counties, Illinois. A portion of the expansion area contains coal reserves owned by TVA that are leased to Sugar Camp Energy, LLC. TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres (``project area'') of TVA-owned coal reserves.
DATES: Comments must be received or postmarked by September 11, 2019. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Elizabeth Smith, NEPA Specialist, Tennessee Valley Authority,

400 W Summit Hill Drive #WT11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. Comments may be sent electronically to esmith14@ tva.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Smith, by phone at 865­632­ 3053, by email at esmith14@tva.gov, or by mail at the address above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800).
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC (Sugar Camp) proposes to expand its underground longwall mining operations at its Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 in southern Illinois by approximately 37,972 acres. TVA owns coal reserves underlying approximately 12,125 acres of the Herrin No. 6 seam within the expansion area. In November 2017, Sugar Camp obtained approval for the expansion from the State of Illinois, when the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Office of Mines and Minerals (OMM) Land Reclamation Division (LRD) approved Significant Revision (SR) No. 6 to the company's Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Permit--Underground Operations (Number 382). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres (``project area'') of the TVA-owned coal reserves.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).
Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques during a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area. Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1

jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 Aug 09, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1

39886

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2019 / Notices

facilities to process and ship extracted coal.
Background
TVA is a federal corporation and instrumentality of the United States government, created in 1933 by an act of Congress to foster the social and economic well-being of the residents of the Tennessee Valley region. As part of its diversified energy strategy, TVA completed a series of land and coal mineral acquisitions from the 1960s through the mid-1980s that resulted in the coal ownership of two large coal reserve blocks in the southwestern section of the Illinois Basin. TVA owns coal reserves underlying approximately 65,000 acres of land containing approximately 1.35 billion tons of Illinois No. 5 and No. 6 coal seams.
TVA executed a coal lease agreement with Sugar Camp in July 2002 which allows Sugar Camp to mine the TVA coal reserves in the Illinois Basin coalfield. The purpose of this agreement is to facilitate the recovery of TVA coal resources in an environmentally sound manner. Under the terms of the agreement, Sugar Camp may not commence any mining activity pursuant to a mining plan or revisions until satisfactory completion of all environmental and cultural resource reviews by TVA required for compliance with all applicable law and regulations. Sugar Camp submitted to TVA a plan for the mining of 12,125 acres of coal reserves within the area previously approved by the State of Illinois as SBR No. 6. The EIS initiated by TVA will assess the environmental impact of approving this plan. In doing so, TVA also expects to address the cumulative impacts from the mining of the larger 37,972-acre area previously approved by the State of Illinois as SBR No. 6.
The operations of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 have previously been subject to TVA review and approval. In 2008, Sugar Camp obtained a permit from the State of Illinois for underground longwall mining operations on approximately 12,103 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties; the original permit did not include TVA-owned coal reserves. In 2010, Sugar Camp applied to the state for a SBR of that permit to mine TVA-owned coal under an additional 817-acre area. The permit was issued in May 2010. In 2011, TVA prepared an EA to document the potential effects of Sugar Camp's proposed mining of TVA-owned coal underneath a 2,600-acre area for Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
In November 2017, Sugar Camp obtained approval from the IDNR to

expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 by 37,792 acres. The Sugar Camp proposal included the expansion of operations along the north perimeter of its original mine perimeter, into a 2,250-acre area referred to as Viking District #2. In November 2018, TVA completed an EA entitled ``Sugar Camp Coal Mine Expansion Viking District #2'' which addressed expansion of mining operations into the area. In May 2019, TVA supplemented this EA to consider Sugar Camp's proposal to expand its mining into a 155-acre area within the Viking District #3, adjacent to Viking District #2.
Alternatives
TVA has initially identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. Under the action alternative, TVA proposes to assess the direct and indirect effects of the mining operations to extract TVAowned coal reserves underlying approximately 12,125 acres within the expansion area. The mining of the remaining acreage within the 37,792acre expansion area is not a connected action; however, TVA will address the effects of mining the remaining acreage in the cumulative impacts section of the EIS. The description and analysis of these alternatives in the EIS will inform decision makers, other agencies and the public about the potential for environmental impacts associated with the mining operations. TVA solicits comment on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Proposed Resources and Issues To Be Considered
Public scoping is integral to the process for implementing NEPA and ensures that issues are identified early and properly studied, issues of little significance do not consume substantial time and effort, and the analysis of those issues is thorough and balanced. This EIS will identify the purpose and need of the project and will contain descriptions of the existing environmental and socioeconomic resources within the area that could be affected by mining operations. Evaluation of potential environmental impacts to these resources will include, but not be limited to, water quality, soil erosion, floodplains, aquatic and terrestrial ecology, threatened and endangered species, botany, wetlands, land use, historic and archaeological

resources, as well as solid and hazardous waste, safety, socioeconomic and environmental justice issues. The final range of issues to be addressed in the environmental review will be determined, in part, from scoping comments received. TVA is particularly interested in public input on other reasonable alternatives that should be considered in the EIS. The preliminary identification of reasonable alternatives and environmental issues in this notice is not meant to be exhaustive or final.
Public Participation
The public is invited to submit comments on the scope of this EIS no later than the date identified in the DATES section of this notice. Federal, state and local agencies and Native American Tribes are also invited to provide comments. After consideration of comments received during the scoping period, TVA will develop and distribute a scoping document that will summarize public and agency comments that were received and identify the schedule for completing the EIS process. Following analysis of the issues, TVA will prepare a draft EIS for public review and comment; the draft EIS is scheduled for completion in late 2020. In finalizing the EIS and in making its final decision, TVA will consider the comments that it receives on the Draft EIS.
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7.
M. Susan Smelley, Director, Environmental Compliance and Operations.
[FR Doc. 2019­17214 Filed 8­9­19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120­08­P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Modifications to Special Permits
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for

jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:16 Aug 09, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1

Appendix B ­ Scoping Comments
Appendix B ­ Scoping Comments

September 12, 2019
Tennessee Valley Authority Elizabeth Smith, NEPA Specialist 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B-K Knoxville, TN 37902 esmith14@tva.gov
Submitted via USPS and e-mail
Re: NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Proposed Expansion
Dear Ms. Smith:
The Sierra Club submits the following comments on the scope of Tennessee Valley Authority's ("TVA's") upcoming environmental review of the proposed expansion at the Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 in Illinois. The proposal entails mining approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves as part of a larger 36,000-acre Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.1 Although not included in the scoping notice, TVA stated in an email to Sierra Club counsel that the expansion would allow the company to mine approximately 105 million tons of TVA-owned coal.2
This area is part of a larger block of TVA coal reserves in Illinois, and, according to TVA's 2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ("EA") at Sugar Camp, "TVA owns coal reserves underlying 64,959 acres of land containing approximately 1.35 billion tons of the Illinois Springfield (No. 5) and Herrin (No. 6) coal seams."3 Sugar Camp Mine is owned by Foresight Energy, and, according to Foresight's website, Sugar Camp produced 14.5 million tons of coal in 2018 and has more than 1.3 billion tons of coal reserves, even without the proposed 105 million
1 Tennessee Valley Authority, Scoping Notice at 1 (Sept. 9, 2019). Attached as Exhibit 1. 2 Elizabeth Smith, TVA NEPA Specialist, email to Nathaniel Shoaff, Sierra Club (Sept. 9, 2019) (on file with Sierra Club). 3 TVA, Sugar Camp Coal Mine Expansion, Supplemental Environmental Assessment at 2 (May 2019), available at https://www.tva.gov/file_source/TVA/Site%20Content/Environment/Environmental%20Stewardship/En vironmental%20Reviews/Sugar%20Camp%20Mine/sugar_camp_coal_mine_viking_district_2__supplem ental_ea_may_9_2019.pdf, (last accessed Sept. 11, 2019). Attached as Exhibit 2.
1|P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

ton expansion.4 This means ­ by its own calculations as to reserves and current production rate ­ that Sugar Camp already has an approximately 90-year supply of coal without the additional 105 million ton expansion sought here.
As explained more fully below, we are at a critical juncture in national and international efforts to prevent the worst effects of climate disruption. Rather than commit to using our federallyowned lands and minerals to further the fossil fuel industry's agenda, we must ensure our public resources are managed to benefit all Americans. Sierra Club requests that TVA reject the proposed lease of TVA reserves by application in favor of the No Action alternative. At a minimum, TVA's upcoming environmental analysis must address the following issues, discussed in detail below.
Sierra Club is America's largest grassroots environmental organization, with more than 3 million members and supporters nationwide and more than 30,000 members in Illinois. Sierra Club is dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the Earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the Earth's resources and ecosystems; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to carry out these objectives.
On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we urge TVA to deny Sugar Camp's proposed expansion into TVA-owned coal reserves in favor of the No Action alternative.
I. TVA MUST ADEQUATELY ADDRESS IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES.
As explained in detail in the attached comments submitted by Sierra Club in April 2019 regarding TVA's Supplemental Assessment at Sugar Camp Mine, the proposed expansion poses a serious threat to water resources that has not been previously analyzed.5
Sierra Club members are concerned and potentially affected by pollutant discharges from the Sugar Camp Mine into the Middle Fork Big Muddy River and creeks in Franklin County, including an unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Big Muddy River, an unnamed tributary to Akin Creek. Further, our members are concerned with the growing levels of chloride and other water pollutants in the Middle Fork Big Muddy River and Big Muddy River, which are Waters of the State as part of the Mississippi River Basin. The Middle Fork Big Muddy River is listed on the draft 2016 303(d) list of impaired waters for reasons that may include pollutants from coal mining.
4 Foresight Energy, "Operations," http://www.foresight.com/operations/ (last accessed Sept. 11, 2019) (stating "Coal Production: 14.5 million tons in 2018 . . . Coal Reserves: 1,309.9 million tons."). Attached as Exhibit 3. 5 Sierra Club, Letter to Tennessee Valley Authority, "Comment Regarding Sugar Camp Coal Mine Expansion Viking District #2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois," (April 11, 2019). Attached as Exhibit 4.
2|P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

At a minimum, TVA's upcoming Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for the 105 million ton expansion must address the following issues regarding impacts to water resources:
Repeated history of water discharge violations at Sugar Camp: The repeated history of violations and non-compliance on record for the Sugar Camp Mine clearly shows this mine has consistently failed to remove coal in an environmentally sound manner as evidenced by its repeated quarters in non-compliance with basic permit levels, including 125 state and federal violations from 2015 to 2018.6 There have been at least two formal enforcement actions in recent years, and unpermitted construction activities, including creation of two deep underground injection wells before being permitted to do so. According to the EPA ECHO database, Sugar Camp has a repeated history of contaminated water releases and coal slurry releases to area waterways. The mine has a history of failing to maintain its waste containment structures, to the detriment of area creeks and discharging to the Middle Fork Big Muddy River. There are also recorded instances of coal waste overflowing mine containment structures.7
In the forthcoming EIS, TVA must analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of the mine's water pollution and its struggles to keep discharges within permitted levels. Given the fact that the applicant has been discharging chloride at high concentrations (higher even than its current permit allows), the EIS must also consider impacts from chloride toxicity and other effects on the environment.
Cumulative impacts of pollution loading on the Big Muddy River: TVA must analyze and disclose the cumulative impacts to the Big Muddy River that would result from this massive expansion when combined with past, present, and future mining at Sugar Camp and other nearby projects. For example, the Williamson Energy Pond Creek No. 1 Mine, located near Johnston City, Williamson County, but also with shadow area in Franklin County, has proposed a 12.5-mile pipeline to pump contaminated mine water for direct discharge into the Big Muddy River. The proposal would entail discharges of up to 2,700,000 to 3,500,000 gallons per day of high chloride and sulfate contaminated water. The cumulative impacts of mine discharges to the Big Muddy River and its tributaries must be analyzed and disclosed.
Impacts to Rend Lake: The Sugar Camp Mine obtains water from Rend Lake and TVA must analyze impacts to water quantity and water quality at Rend Lake based on the proposed and past withdrawals, both from Sugar Camp and other projects.8 For example, a contract signed in 2007 with Adena Resources, LLC for direct withdrawal of water from Rend Lake to supply Sugar Camp and Pond Creek mines, states that the daily withdrawal quota will initially be set at 6 million gallons per day. That amount is likely to be higher now. Rend Lake provides public water
6 Id. at 2 and Exhibit 1. For a summary of water discharge violations and enforcement actions, see attachment 1 to Sierra Club's April 2019 letter, which shows the Sugar Camp data posted on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ECHO (Enforcement and Compliance History Online) database. 7 Id. 8 Id. at 3.
3|P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

for all or part of seven counties in Southern Illinois. A water main break in 2018 put 60 communities at risk due to lack of water and resulted in school and business closures and extended boil orders for the water users. In 2007, drought conditions caused a significant drop in Rend Lake water levels and restrictions on lake use. According to the latest data we have obtained, the Sugar Camp Mine can use up to 4.3 million gallons per day of Rend Lake water. The EIS must disclose these prior impacts and address cumulative withdrawals on the lake when evaluating the proposed expansion.
II. TVA MUST ADDRESS SUBSIDENCE-RELATED IMPACTS.
Room and pillar mining can cause subsidence, resulting in massive costs to the public and governmental entities. Coal mine subsidence insurance is mandatory in Franklin County, where this Sugar Camp Mine expansion is located, and is also mandatory in other near-by counties. Thirty four counties in Illinois require mine subsidence insurance because of subsidence risks. The EIS should consider eventual subsidence and potential societal harm to the public, as well as private costs that will be incurred. The EIS must also consider the applicant's specific plans to determine whether the risk of subsidence has been minimized.
III. TVA MUST ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED COAL MINE EXPANSION.
A. TVA Must Provide the Public with a Thorough, Objective, and Transparent Accounting of the Climate Impacts of Expanded Mining at Sugar Camp.
In evaluating a proposal that would result in the mining and burning of more than 105 million tons of federally-managed coal, TVA must do more than simply quantify carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions that will result from burning the TVA reserves at Sugar Camp.
Climate scientists' understanding of climate disruption has increased significantly in recent years, and we have clear scientific consensus that we must quickly and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions in the U.S. if we are going to avoid the most damaging effects of climate change.
Specifically, we request TVA analyze and disclose the following issues, which must be accounted for in the forthcoming Environmental Impact Statement:
1) Acknowledge the robust scientific consensus on the need to drastically cut global CO2 emissions;
2) Assess whether the proposed mining and related burning of approximately 105 million tons of federal coal are inconsistent with guidance from recent climate reports, including the Fourth National Climate Assessment and reports prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Geological Survey;
4|P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

3) Model the market impacts of the proposed expansion of federal coal mining in order to understand the differences in GHG emissions when comparing Action and No Action alternatives;
4) Use the social cost of carbon to analyze and disclose the climate impacts of the proposal and the mining of other TVA-managed coal reserves; and
5) Recognize the scale of the carbon emission problem and take into account the remaining carbon budget for CO2 emissions from the U.S.
B. TVA Must Disclose Scientific Consensus on the Urgent Need to Cut U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Based on an overwhelming amount of climate evidence published in recent years, TVA must acknowledge the findings of recent climate reports, including the Fourth National Climate Assessment of 2018 and those prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") and U.S. Geological Survey. Additionally, information published in January 2019 by Oil Change International specifically highlights the urgent need for federally-managed fossil fuels to remain in the ground in order to effectively combat climate change. The findings of these recent and important climate reports are summarized below.
1. Fourth National Climate Assessment
Prepared by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and published in 2018, the Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II ("NCA4") identifies and evaluates the risks of climate change that threaten the U.S., and how a lack of mitigation and adaptation measures will result in dire climate consequences for the U.S. and its territories. This report builds upon the foundational physical science set out in the first volume of NCA4, the 2017-released Climate Science Special Report, which analyzed how climate change is affecting geological processes across the U.S.9 Volume II focuses on national and regional impacts of human-induced climate change since the Third National Climate Assessment in 2014, as well as highlighting the future of global warming that will jeopardize human health, economy, and the environment.
The report affirms that it is no longer reliably true that current and future climate conditions will resemble the recent past. Due to human activities that produce greenhouse gas emissions, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased approximately 40 percent since the beginning of the industrial era in the 19th century.10 In fact, USGCRP concludes that evidence of anthropogenic climate change is staggering, and that the impacts of climate change
9 USGCRP, Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Report-in-Brief (2018), 1. Attached as Exhibit 5. 10 Id. at 30.
5|P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

are intensifying across the U.S. and its territories. These impacts are multiplying climate risks to Americans' physical, social, and economic well-being.11 Climate risks threatening the U.S. and its territories include: impacts to the economy, such as property losses up to $1 trillion in coastal property destruction; loss of reliable and affordable energy supplies and damaged energy infrastructure; declines in agricultural productivity; loss of two billion labor hours annually by 2090 due to temperature extremes; recreational and cultural losses of wildlife and ecosystems such as coral reefs; decreased water quality and security; diminished snowpack, sea level rise, and frequent flooding; increase in droughts, wildfires, and invasive species; and rise in deaths across vulnerable populations due to extreme weather events and heat waves.12 To avoid these grave scenarios, the U.S. public and private sectors must invest in and implement mitigation actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as adopt adaptation plans to prepare for future impacts.
Furthermore, while cutting carbon dioxide production is most efficient in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting global warming, the report also mentions the need to reduce other climate pollutants such as methane. Methane (CH4) is removed naturally from the atmosphere at a faster rate than carbon dioxide, and can help slow the global rise in temperature.13 In terms of methane reduction, NCA4 specifically calls for the replacement of coal with other sources of energy, like wind and solar renewables, in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.14 As mentioned previously in this letter, fossil fuel combustion accounts for approximately 85 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, of which methane from fossil fuel extraction and processing accounts for most of the remainder.15 NCA4 demonstrates how it is essential to phase-out fossil fuel extraction in favor of more renewable energy sources. Renewable energy will not only create less greenhouse gas emissions, but will provide other economic and societal benefits including improving air quality and public health and increasing energy independence and security through increased reliance on domestic sources of energy.16
These findings are significant in regards to TVA moving forward with the proposed coal lease expansion, since no matter the amount of methane and carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel extraction and end-source combustion, NCA4 unequivocally states that we must immediately reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. TVA must take into account this updated climate report, and explicitly acknowledge its findings. We urge TVA to consider the report's conclusions and not move forward with the proposed federal coal lease expansion at Sugar Camp.

11 Id. at 26. 12 Id. at 36-48. 13 Id. at 31. 14 Id. at 51. 15 Id.
16 Id. at 53.

6|P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

2. IPCC SR 1.5
In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") released a special report on the impacts of global warming, commissioned by the Paris Agreement of 2016. Global Warming of 1.5°C, finds greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity have significantly contributed to global warming since the industrial revolution of the 19th century, increasing the rise in global temperature by 0.2°C per decade at present.17 The report forecasts the state of climate at 1.5°C and 2°C, describing the devastating consequences continued warming has for our earth ­ destroying ecosystems, disrupting global economy, and jeopardizing public health. The report is a stark warning that delayed actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the implementation of other mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change, will be extremely costly.
The IPCC report assessed scientific, technical, and socio-economic literature to compare the impacts of global warming at 1.5°C to 2.0°C above pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and the results are severe. At 2.0°C warming, as compared to 1.5°C, the following will be even more certain to occur: heavy precipitation and flooding; loss of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland triggering multi-meter sea level rise; heat waves, heat-related morbidity and mortality, and spread of vector-borne diseases; species loss and extinction, including doubling the number of insects, plants, and invertebrates losing over half of their geographic range; increased risks of forest fires and the spread of invasive species; increase in ocean temperature, acidity, and deoxygenation; risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries, and the near extinction of coral reef ecosystems; climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, and freshwater supply; and risks to economic growth and the increase of poverty by several hundred million by 2050.18
Global Warming of 1.5°C concludes that anthropogenic CO2 emissions must decline approximately 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 in order to stay within the range of 1.5°C, reaching net zero emissions around 2050.19 In addition to cutting carbon emissions, the IPCC reports other non-CO2 emissions, including methane, must be deeply reduced to achieve limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot.20 To progress in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, rapid and transformative changes must be made to our global economy, particularly energy infrastructure. For instance, the IPCC suggests the complete phase-out of coal, explaining "the use of coal, with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, shows a
17 IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5°C, An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, Summary for Policymakers at SMP-4 (2018) (hereafter "IPCC "). Attached as Exhibit 6. 18 Id. IPCC at 8-14. 19 Id. at 15. 20 Id. at 16.
7|P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

steep reduction in all pathways and would be reduced to close to 0% (0-2%) of electricity (high confidence)."21
In summary, the lower the greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, the less challenging it will be to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Far-reaching climate mitigation and adaptation efforts are needed to both slow the rise in global temperature as well as prepare the planet for climate change impacts that are already in place, due to past and ongoing greenhouse gas emissions. The report specifically notes that "the challenges from delayed actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include the risk of cost escalation, lock-in carbon-emitting infrastructure, stranded assets, and reduced flexibility in future options in the medium- and long-term (highconfidence)."22 Therefore, collective, international cooperation on all levels is needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Given this report from the IPCC and its strong evidence of the rise in global temperature and severity of future climate change impacts, TVA should deny the proposed coal mine expansion and instead take steps to ensure that its decisions do not further exacerbate the climate crisis.
3. U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey ("USGS"), a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior, released a study in November 2018 that calculates the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from fossil fuel extraction and combustion on federal lands, as well as the sequestration, or absorption of carbon that naturally occurs on undisturbed public lands. Specifically, from 2004 to 2015, USGS quantified the amounts of carbon (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) produced from coal, gas, and oil activities, as a result of public lands management.
Using data collected from 28 states (not including tribal lands) and offshore Gulf and Pacific continental shelves, USGS concludes that 1,279.0 million metric tons (MMT) CO2, 47.6 MMT CO2 equivalent CH4, and 5.5. MMT CO2 equivalent N2O were released between 2004 and 2015.23 During the same time period, federal lands sequestered an average of 343 MMT CO2, of which nine states accounted for 60 percent of carbon storage.24 Therefore, only approximately 15 percent of CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel extraction and end-use combustion were offset by sequestration. Depending on public lands management, federal lands can either be a net sink or source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Significantly, over the 10-year period of this study, the report finds emissions from fossil fuels produced on federal lands represent, on average, 23.7 percent of national emissions for carbon
21 Id. at 21. 22 Id. at 24. 23 Matthew D. Merrill et al., Federal lands greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in the United States--Estimates for 2005­14, (2018), 6. Attached as Exhibit 7. 24 Id. at 13.
8|P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

dioxide, 7.3 percent for methane, and 1.5 percent for nitrous oxide.25 In 2014, Wyoming, offshore Gulf areas, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Colorado had the highest CO2 emissions from fossil fuels produced on federal lands. CO2 emissions attributed to federal lands in Wyoming are 57 percent of the total from federal lands in all states and offshore areas combined.26 In addition, in 2014, methane emissions were highest from federal lands in Wyoming (28 percent), New Mexico (23 percent), offshore Gulf areas (20 percent), Colorado (13 percent), and Utah (7 percent).27
In short, TVA must not only acknowledge this new scientific information, but it must address the policy implications that necessarily follow. Releasing additional methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere intensifies global warming, and thus the impacts of climate change.28 TVA must disclose the scientific conclusions about rising global temperatures and the need to keep carbon in the ground if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate disruption.
4. Oil Change International: Drilling Towards Disaster
In January 2019, Oil Change International in collaboration with another 17 not-for-profit organizations published a report called Drilling Towards Disaster: Why U.S. Oil and Gas Expansion is Incompatible with Climate Limits ("Report").29 In addition to discussing why further oil and gas expansion must be halted to avoid climate crisis, the Report discusses the dire need of saying "no" to additional coal reserve development. Already with all developed reserves of coal, gas, oil, and cement combined, we have surpassed the threshold of a 50 percent chance of only a 1.5°C global temperature increase.30 In fact, we have surpassed this threshold by so much that we are now on the doorstep of a 66 percent chance of a 2°C increase with developed reserves alone.31 Approving this proposed coal expansion at Sugar Camp for mining an additional 105 million tons of coal would only further lock us into an unsustainable and catastrophic climate trajectory.
To date, the U.S. is still the world's third-largest coal producer, behind China and India.32 Federally leased coal is a huge player as "[a]round 40% of all U.S. coal production comes from federally leased land."33 Existing U.S. mines already contain far more coal than the U.S. can extract under a coal phase-out timeline that is consistent with the Paris Agreement goals.34
25 Id. at 6. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 USGCRP, 30. 29 Kelly Trout and Lorne Stockman, Drilling Towards Disaster: Why U.S. Oil and Gas Expansion is Incompatible with Climate Limits, Oil Change International, (January 2019). Attached as Exhibit 8. 30 Id. at 5. 31 Id. 32 Id. at 21. 33 Id. at 22. 34 Id.
9|P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

Based on both economic efficiency and equity, the U.S. should phase out coal much faster than the global average to meet responsibilities under the Paris goals.35 To be consistent with Powering Past Coal Alliance's (an alliance that include 28 national governments) coal mining phase out of 2030, more than 70 percent of coal reserves in existing mines need to remain in the ground.36
Although U.S. coal mining is currently in decline, it is not being managed in a way that is fast enough for climate or fair for workers. Again, "[i]f U.S. coal production is phased out over a timeframe consistent with equitably meeting the Paris goals, at least 70 percent of coal reserves in already-producing mines would [need] to stay in the ground."37 Federal agencies as well as policymakers need to focus on accelerating the phase out of coal by 2030 or sooner, while ensuring a just transition for communities and workers.
Based on the overwhelming scientific consensus that we must drastically reduce GHG emissions as quickly as possible in order to avoid a climate catastrophe, TVA should reject further mining of TVA-owned coal reserves at Sugar Camp Mine.
C. TVA Must Discard the Perfect Substitution Theory and Properly Analyze the Market Impacts of the Proposed Coal Mine Expansion.
NEPA requires TVA to analyze and disclose the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative climate impacts of the proposed mining, and evaluate the "significance" of these impacts. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1502.16. In the 2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment at Sugar Camp, TVA improperly rejected the mine's contribution to climate change by claiming, incorrectly, that leasing TVA reserves would have no impact on the amount of coal mined in the U.S. or on the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from burning coal to generate electricity. Under this theory, which has been squarely rejected by the federal courts, even if federal agencies were to deny a particular coal lease, the same amount of coal would ultimately be mined elsewhere, and thus the greenhouse gas emissions from our electricity sector would remain the same regardless of agency decisions. This "perfect substitution" theory defies economics and ignores the fundamental economic principles of supply and demand, denying the public and decision makers a full and fair opportunity to review and consider a project's climate impacts, as required by NEPA. TVA's upcoming EIS for the proposed 105 million ton expansion must not repeat this error.
Under NEPA, agencies must provide a clear basis for choice among considered alternatives, and, in particular here, TVA must distinguish between the climate impacts of Action and No Action alternatives. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(E), and 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1508.9(b). In the context of climate change, TVA must, at the bare minimum, analyze and disclose the

35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id. at 7 (emphasis in original).

10 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

difference in greenhouse gas emission levels between considered alternatives, including the No Action alternative.
TVA must address the key climate question: whether there is a measurable difference in greenhouse gas emissions between approving and rejecting this approximately 105 million ton mine expansion. TVA must answer this question in order to make an informed decision. Without such an answer, neither TVA nor the public can adequately distinguish between the climate impacts of the Action and No Action alternatives.
TVA's 2019 Supplemental EA at Sugar Camp improperly dodged this critical issue, stating:
Under the No Action Alternative, the energy that would have been produced by the Sugar Camp mined coal would most likely be replaced by alternate energy sources (including coal from other production areas). While the production and consumption of those replacement energy sources would have associated GHG emissions, the emissions from the replacement sources of energy are unknown because they would not be under TVA's control. For the purposes of analysis, TVA assumes that the No Action Alternative could result in actions to be taken by Sugar Camp and other entities, ranging from complete replacement of the coal mined from the project area to no replacement. TVA anticipates, then, that GHG emissions would be the same or less under the No Action Alternative than under the proposed Action Alternative because, typically, coal combustion is more carbon intensive per unit energy than other forms of fossil fuels (EPA 2018f).38
As an initial matter, stating that "TVA assumes that the No Action Alternative could result in action . . . ranging from complete replacement of the coal mined from the project area to no replacement" is a meaningless sentence because the range TVA provides spans the entire gamut of possibilities from complete substitution of other coal under the No Action alternative to no replacement by other coal and a switch to less GHG-intensive sources of energy such as gas or renewables like wind and solar.
Second, TVA's conclusion that "GHG emissions would be the same or less under the No Action Alternative than under the proposed Action Alternative" is similarly non-specific. Stating that impacts may be "the same or less" does not tell the public or decisionmakers whether TVA's proposed decision matters when it comes to climate impacts. Moreover, the statement directly contradicts TVA's acknowledgement that other forms of energy could substitute for coal under the No Action alternative and its recognition that "coal combustion is more carbon intensive . . . than other forms of fossil fuels."39
TVA cannot repeat this improper dodge here.
38 TVA, Sugar Camp Supplemental EA at 15-16 (May 2019) (emphasis added). 39 Id.
11 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

1. Federal Courts Have Rejected the Myth of Perfect Substitution.
The Tenth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, and other courts have repeatedly rejected agency attempts to assert near perfect substitution of fossil fuels, and federal courts have consistently required agencies to study the market impacts of agency decisions. Most directly on point here, in 2017 the Tenth Circuit rejected the Bureau of Land Management's ("BLM's") refusal to study the market effects of its decision to authorize the expansion of two coal mines on public lands in the Powder River Basin. BLM's assertion in the Wright Area coal mine EIS, like the one made by TVA in 2019, was that even if the agency rejected the proposed expansion in favor of the No Action alternative, an equivalent amount of coal would be mined elsewhere, making the climate impacts a wash. The Tenth Circuit rejected BLM's conclusion and its analytic approach to the problem, holding that the notion of "perfect substitution" was unsupported in the record and illogical based on sound economic principles, stating, "[e]ven if we could conclude that the agency had enough data before it to choose between the preferred and no action alternatives, we would still conclude this perfect substitution assumption arbitrary and capricious because the assumption itself is irrational (i.e., contrary to basic supply and demand principles)."WildEarth Guardians v. BLM, 870 F.3d 1222, 1236 (2017).
Notably, the D.C. Circuit expressly rejected a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") NEPA review for the Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline where the Commission refused to study this question, instead cloaking its analysis in an assertion of uncertainty as to the likely effect of the agency action on the energy market. In Sabal Trail, the D.C. Circuit rejected FERC's analysis, which stated that the project's greenhouse gas emissions "might be partially offset" by the market replacing the project's gas with either coal or other gas supply. Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 867 F.3d 1357, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The Court dismissed FERC's failure to study this issue, stating:
An agency decision maker reviewing this EIS would thus have no way of knowing whether total emissions, on net, will be reduced or increased by this project, or what the degree of reduction or increase will be. In this respect, then, the EIS fails to fulfill its primary purpose. Id.
Similarly, the federal district court in Montana recently rejected a Department of the Interior environmental assessment where the agency claimed its decision would not likely have any impact on nationwide greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector because other coal mines would be available to meet a supposedly immutable demand for coal. Montana Environmental Information Center v. OSM, 274 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1098 (D. Mont. 2017). In MEIC, OSM asserted in its environmental assessment that:
12 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

The No Action Alternative would not likely result in a decrease in CO2 emissions attributable to coal-burning power plants in the long term. There are multiple other sources of coal that could supply the demand for coal.
Id.
The MEIC court squarely rejected OSM's assertion:
This conclusion is illogical, and places [OSM's] thumb on the scale by inflating the benefits of the action while minimizing its impacts. It is the kind of "inaccurate economic information" that "may defeat the purpose of [NEPA analysis] by impairing the agency's consideration of the adverse environmental effects and by skewing the public's evaluation of the proposed agency action."
Id. (quoting NRDC v. Forest Service, 421 F.3d 797, 811 (9th Cir. 2005)).
Similarly, the Eighth Circuit in Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 550 (8th Cir. 2003), and more recently the District of Colorado, High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F.Supp. 3d 1174, 1197-98 (D.Colo. 2014) have rejected similar unsupported, "illogical" assumptions of perfect substitution in essentially identical contexts. As the Eight Circuit explained:
[T]he proposition that the demand for coal will be unaffected by an increase in availability and a decrease in price . . . is illogical at best. The increased availability of inexpensive coal will at the very least make coal a more attractive option to future entrants into the utilities market when compared with other potential fuel sources, such as nuclear power, solar power, or natural gas. . . . [The railroad] will most certainly affect the nation's long-term demand for coal.
Mid-States Coal. for Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d at 549. The Eighth Circuit then concluded that even if the "extent" of the increase in coal use was not reasonably foreseeable, the "nature" of the effect was, and that in this circumstance, "the agency may not simply ignore the effect." Id. (citing 40 C.F.R. §1502.22).
The Forest Service's error in High Country is also on point. The Forest Service in High Country, like TVA in 2019, argued that "if the coal does not come out of the ground in the North Fork consumers will simply pay to have the same amount of coal pulled out of the ground from somewhere else--overall [greenhouse gas] emissions from combustion will be identical under either scenario." 52 F.Supp. 3d 1174, 1197-98. The court in High Country held that the Forest Service's FEIS was deficient, concluding that the increased supply made possible by the Forest Service's decision would "impact the demand for coal relative to other fuel sources" and that "[t]his reasonably foreseeable effect must be analyzed." Id. at 1198.
13 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

These federal court decisions illustrate that TVA must answer this question: whether its decision to allow the proposed mine plan amendment will change greenhouse gas emissions, and, if so, by what amount. Basic economic principles of supply and demand dictate that as holder of more than 1 billion tons of coal reserves in the Illinois Basin, TVA's choices matter. Federal agencies cannot legally avoid analyzing the impact that their decisions have on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, either by flatly denying any responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions (as BLM did in Wright Area and elsewhere) or by blandly asserting that it is uncertain whether the agency's decision will affect overall carbon dioxide and methane emission levels (as FERC did in Sabal Trail).
NEPA requires federal agencies to study and disclose the effects of their decisions; it does not permit agencies to leave key questions unanswered or deny responsibility for environmental harms without adequate review. There is no doubt that agencies must provide a clear basis for choice among alternatives, and in particular between the climate impacts of Leasing and No Leasing alternatives here. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(E); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1508.9(b). In the context of climate change, TVA must, among other obligations, analyze and disclose the difference in greenhouse gas emission levels between alternatives, including the No Action alternative.
2. The Secretary of the Interior Has Recognized that the Supply of Federally-Managed Coal Affects Energy Markets and the Climate.
In addition to federal courts, the Secretary of the Interior has recognized that opening up more federal lands for fossil fuel production could not only affect the amount of coal produced, but also the amount of wind and solar generation in our energy grid. That is why, in ordering a comprehensive study of the climate impacts of the federal coal program ­ since cancelled for political purposes ­ then-Secretary Sally Jewell directed the Department of the Interior to evaluate "how the administration, availability, and pricing of Federal coal affect regional and national economies (including job impacts), and energy markets in general, including the pricing and viability of other coal resources... and other energy sources."40 The Secretary further directed the Department to study, "[t]he impact of possible program alternatives on the projected fuel mix and cost of electricity in the United States."41
More recently, in releasing a scoping report on the now-cancelled Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ("PEIS") process, the Department of the Interior acknowledged that the climate impacts of various alternatives for the federal coal leasing program are "largely contingent on the degree to which the substitute fuel sources are less carbon intensive (e.g., natural gas-fired generation or renewable generation) as opposed to similarly carbon intensive
40 Secretarial Order 3338 at 8, (January 15, 2016). Attached as Exhibit 9. 41 Id.
14 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

(e.g., non-Federal coal)."42 The Department acknowledged that this issue has not yet been studied and evaluated by either the Department or BLM, explaining that "BLM will develop and use economic models to assess these substitution dynamics and the impact they have on the costs and benefits of any changes."43 The fact that BLM cancelled that PEIS process only highlights the need for TVA to study and disclose the market effects of its decision here.
3. TVA Cannot Ignore Basic Economic Principles.
Simply put: supply and demand matter. TVA cannot ignore basic economic principles or refuse to analyze their effects. Under NEPA, agencies have a duty to "insure the professional integrity" of the analyses in an EIS, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24, and must present "high-quality" information and "[a]ccurate scientific analysis." 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). TVA's prior use of the flawed "perfect substitution" assumption is illogical, unsupported, and has been soundly rejected by the courts. TVA must correct these past errors here by adequately studying the market effects using available tools.
In the U.S. energy market ­ where coal, gas, wind, solar, and nuclear all compete for market share, where utilities can choose among these competing options on an on-going basis, and where utilities and grid operators can quickly alter the rates at which these commodities are utilized ­ price, supply, and demand interact in predictable ways. As mentioned previously, though Department of the Interior agencies have at various times asserted that other coal mines "could supply the demand" if they were to reject a coal mine expansion proposal, that statement fundamentally misunderstands how supply and demand work.
Economic demand is not a fixed threshold that suppliers of a commodity will necessarily rise to meet; it is instead a relationship among economic parameters that ultimately leads to certain levels of consumption.44 As the supply of a good is restricted, price increases, and this in turn affects demand. As explained by Judge Posner, these "straightforward, intuitive premises" dictate that "[i]f quantity falls, price will rise. . . [i]f price rises, quantity falls because consumers buy less of the good."45 In the energy context, that means that if TVA restricts the supply of coal, coal prices will increase. This is particularly true if TVA were to stop new coal leasing at all of its billion-plus ton reserves in the Illinois Basin. This increase in coal price would cause some utilities to switch from coal to a cheaper alternative. Because switching from coal to anything else ­ gas, wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear energy, etc. ­ results in decreased carbon dioxide emissions, fuel switching results in quantifiable decreases in greenhouse gas emissions.
4. TVA Cannot Ignore Available Economic Models.
42 DOI, Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Scoping Report, Vol. II, (January 2017). Attached as Exhibit 10. 43 Id. 44 Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of the Law 5-6 (9th Ed. 2014). Excerpts attached as Exhibit 11. 45 Id.
15 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

As noted, NEPA does not allow TVA to refuse to analyze the environmental effects of its decisions. NEPA affirmatively requires "reasonable forecasting," and requires agencies to provide information that is "essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives," where the cost of obtaining the information is not exorbitant. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a). In order to comply with NEPA, TVA must either use available tools to provide that essential information or explain why it cannot do so. Under NEPA regulations, the agency "shall" explain in its EIS (1) why such essential information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) its relevance to reasonably foreseeable impacts; (3) a summary of existing science on the topic; and (4) the agency's evaluation based on any generally accepted theoretical approaches. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b).
In order to fully understand the climate impacts of its decision to authorize this massive expansion, TVA must use one of the available climate energy models to evaluate market changes. There are several relevant factors that TVA must address in assessing the market and climate impacts of its decision, including, for example, the price and availability of substitute sources of coal, and other alternative fuels such as gas; shipping prices; existing reserves; sulfur or heat content of other sources of coal; the relationship between supply, price, and demand in the U.S. energy market; and the price and availability of other sources of electricity generation such as renewables.
Fortunately, as described in detail below, there are multiple models available that TVA could use to study these market dynamics and provide the public and decisionmakers with critical information. Without using available tools to compare the greenhouse gas emission levels between Leasing and No Leasing alternatives, TVA cannot make an informed decision or take the hard look NEPA requires.
Here, TVA cannot merely assert without substantiation that emissions differences between Leasing and No Leasing alternatives would be uncertain. In fact, there are multiple energy-economy models that could supply TVA with the projected levels of emissions in comparing the Leasing and No Leasing alternatives. These tools are already widely used by private parties and federal agencies to evaluate market effects of agency proposals in the coal mining and energy sectors.
For example, the U.S. Department of Energy has a computer model created by the EIA that has been in use since 1994, and it could be utilized by TVA here to undertake precisely the kind of analysis that would be useful to decisionmakers. EIA's National Energy Modeling System ("NEMS") is an energy-economy model that projects future energy prices and supply and demand, and can be used to isolate variables such as changes in coal supply and variations in delivered coal price.46
Similarly, ICF International's Integrated Planning Model has been used to evaluate these types of market responses to numerous federal proposals in recent years. Examples include, but are
46 EIA, National Energy Modelling System: An Overview, at 1 (2009). Attached as Exhibit 12.
16 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

not limited to the following projects: EPA, Clean Power Plan; U.S. State Department, Keystone XL Pipeline; Surface Transportation Board, Tongue River Railroad; U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Roadless Rule; Washington Department of Ecology, Millennium Bulk Export Terminal. Critically, every time these robust modeling tools discussed above have been used, they have documented market impacts.
D. OSM Must Evaluate the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Using Available Methodologies.
1. TVA Should Use the Social Cost of Carbon to Analyze Climate Impacts.
TVA must analyze and assess the climate impacts of mining the Sugar Camp TVA reserves using the social cost of carbon protocol. The social cost of carbon is a tool that was created by federal agencies, and is one method TVA can use to quantify and disclose the harm caused by the proposed project's carbon dioxide emissions. The social cost of carbon provides a metric for estimating the economic damage, in dollars, of each incremental ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.47
2. TVA Should Use Carbon Budgets to Assess Climate Impacts
One of the measuring standards available to the agency for analyzing the magnitude and severity of TVA-related fossil fuel emissions is by applying those emissions to the remaining global carbon budget. A "carbon budget" offers a cap on the remaining stock of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted while still keeping global average temperature rise below scientifically-backed warming thresholds ­ beyond which climate change impacts may result in severe and irreparable harm to the biosphere and humanity. Utilizing carbon budgets would offer TVA a methodology for analyzing how the proposed mine expansion and the continued coal combustion from the Sugar Camp Mine, and specifically from the TVA-managed reserves at the mine, may affect the country's ability to meet recognized greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Scientific research has estimated the global carbon budget ­ the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted ­ for maintaining a likely chance of meeting the Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C or well below 2°C. According to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change total cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions must remain below 400 GtCO2 from 2011 onward for a 66 percent probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and below 1,000 GtCO2 from 2011 onward for a 66 percent probability of
47 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, "Technical Support Document: Technical Updated of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866" (May 2013, Revised August 2016). Attached as Exhibit 13.
17 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

limiting warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels.48 The 2018 IPCC report Global Warming of 1.5°C provided a revised carbon budget for a 66 percent probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C, estimated at 420 GtCO2 and 570 GtCO2 depending on the temperature dataset used, from January 2018 onwards.49 At the current emissions rate of 42 GtCO2 per year, this carbon budget would be expended in just 10 to 14 years, underscoring the urgent need for transformative global action to transition from fossil fuel use to clean energy.50
Importantly, a 2016 global analysis found that the carbon emissions that would be emitted from burning the oil, gas, and coal in the world's currently operating fields and mines would fully exhaust and exceed the carbon budgets consistent with staying below 1.5°C or 2°C.51 Further, the reserves in currently operating oil and gas fields alone, even excluding coal mines, would lead to warming beyond 1.5°C. An important conclusion of the analysis is that most of the existing oil and gas fields and coal mines will need to be closed before their reserves are fully extracted in order to limit warming to 1.5°C.52 Some existing fields and mines will need to be closed to limit warming to 2°C.53
In short, there is no room in the carbon budget for new fossil fuel extraction anywhere, including in the United States.54 Additionally, most of the world's existing oil and gas fields and coal mines will need to be closed before their reserves are fully extracted to meet the 1.5°C target. The U.S. has an urgent responsibility to lead in this transition from fossil fuel production
48 IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)], Cambridge University Press (2013) at 25; IPCC, in: 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, (2014), at 63-64, Table 2.2. 49 IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5°C, SPM, (2018). 50 Id. 51 Greg Muttitt et al., The Sky's Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production, Oil Change International, (September 2016), http://priceofoil.org/2016/09/22/the-skyslimit-report/. Attached as Exhibit 14. 52 Kelly Trout et al., The Sky's Limit California: Why the Paris Climate Goals Demand That California Lead in a Managed Decline of Oil Extraction, Oil Change International, (May 2018), http://priceofoil.org/caskys-limit at 7, 13. Exhibit 15. 53 Oil Change International, The Sky's Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production, at 5, 7. 54 This conclusion was reinforced by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report which estimated that global fossil fuel reserves exceed the remaining carbon budget (from 2011 onward) for staying below 2°C (a target incompatible with the Paris Agreement) by 4 to 7 times, while fossil fuel resources exceed the carbon budget for 2°C by 31 to 50 times. See Bruckner, Thomas et al., 2014: Energy Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press (2014), http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf at Table 7.2. Attached as Exhibit 16.
18 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

to 100 percent clean energy as a wealthy nation with ample financial resources and technical capabilities, as well as due to our dominant role in driving climate change and its harms. The U.S. is the world's largest historic emitter of greenhouse gas pollution, responsible for 26 percent of cumulative global CO2 emissions since 1870, and is currently the world's second highest emitter on an annual and per capita basis.55
Research on the U.S.' carbon budget and the carbon emissions locked in U.S. fossil fuels similarly establish that the U.S. must halt new fossil fuel production and rapidly phase out existing production to avoid the worst dangers of climate change. Scientific studies have estimated the U.S. carbon budget consistent with a 1.5°C target at 25 GtCO2eq to 57 GtCO2eq on average,56 depending on the sharing principles used to apportion the global budget across countries.57 The estimated U.S. carbon budget consistent with limiting temperature rise to 2°C ­ a level of warming well above what the Paris Agreement requires and which would result in devastating harms ­ ranges from 34 GtCO2 to 123 GtCO2,58 depending on the sharing principles
55 Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget, (November 13, 2017) at 10, 18, 32, http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/17/presentation.htm. Attached as Exhibit 17. 56 Robiou du Pont, Yann et al., Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, 7 Nature Climate Change 38 (2016), and Supplemental Tables 1 and 2. Quantities measured in GtCO2eq include the mass emissions from CO2 as well as the other well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2,methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and SF6) converted into CO2-equivalent values, while quantities measured in GtCO2 refer to mass emissions of just CO2 itself. Attached as Exhibit 18. 57 Robiou du Pont et al. (2016) averaged across IPCC sharing principles to estimate the U.S. carbon budget from 2010 to 2100 for a 50 percent chance of returning global average temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2100, consistent with the Paris Agreement's "well below 2°C" target, and based on a cost-optimal model. The study estimated the U.S. carbon budget consistent with a 1.5°C target at 25 GtCO2eq by averaging across four equity principles: capability (83 GtCO2eq), equal per capita (118 GtCO2eq), greenhouse development rights (-69 GtCO2eq), and equal cumulative per capita (-32 GtCO2eq). The study estimated the U.S. budget at 57 GtCO2eq when averaging across five sharing principles, adding the constant emissions ratio (186 GtCO2eq) to the four above-mentioned principles. However, the constant emissions ratio, which maintains current emissions ratios, is not considered to be an equitable sharing principle because it is a grandfathering approach that "privileges today's high-emitting countries when allocating future emission entitlements." For a discussion of sharing principles, see Kartha, S. et al., Cascading biases against poorer countries, 8 Nature Climate Change 348 (2018). 58 Robiou du Pont et al. (2016) estimated the U.S. carbon budget for a 66 percent probability of keeping warming below 2°C at 60 GtCO2eq based on four equity principles (capability, equal per capita, greenhouse development rights, equal cumulative per capita), and at 104 GtCO2eq based on five principles (adding in constant emissions ratio, but see footnote above). For a 66 percent probability of keeping warming below 2°C, Peters et al. (2015) estimated the U.S. carbon budget at 34 GtCO2 based on an "equity" approach for allocating the global carbon budget, and 123 GtCO2 under an "inertia" approach. The "equity" approach bases sharing on population size and provides for equal per-capita emissions across countries, while the "inertia" approach bases sharing on countries' current emissions. Similarly using a 66 percent probability of keeping warming below 2°C, Gignac et al. (2015) estimated the U.S. carbon budget at 78 to 97 GtCO2, based on a contraction and convergence framework, in which all countries adjust their emissions over time to achieve equal per-capita emissions. Although the
19 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

used. Under any scenario, the remaining U.S. carbon budget compatible with the Paris Climate targets is extremely small.
An analysis of U.S. fossil fuel resources demonstrates that the potential carbon emissions from already leased fossil fuel resources on U.S. federal lands would essentially exhaust the remaining U.S. carbon budget consistent with the 1.5°C target. This analysis estimated that recoverable fossil fuels on U.S. federal lands would release up to 349 to 492 GtCO2eq of carbon emissions, if fully extracted and burned.59 Of that amount, already leased fossil fuels would release 30 to 43 GtCO2eq of emissions, while as yet unleased fossil fuels would emit 319 to 450 GtCO2eq of emissions. Thus, carbon emissions from already leased fossil fuel resources on federal lands alone (30 to 43 GtCO2eq) would essentially exhaust the U.S. carbon budget for a 1.5°C target (25 to 57 GtCO2eq), if these leased fossil fuels are fully extracted and burned. The potential carbon emissions from unleased fossil fuel resources (319 to 450 GtCO2eq) would exceed the U.S. carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C many times over.60 This does not include the additional carbon emissions that will be emitted from fossil fuels extracted on nonfederal lands, estimated up to 500 GtCO2eq if fully extracted and burned.61 This research further establishes that the United States must halt new fossil fuel projects and close existing fields and mines before their reserves are fully extracted to achieve the Paris Climate targets and avoid the worst damages from climate change.
Furthermore, research that models emissions pathways for limiting warming to 1.5° or 2°C shows that a rapid end to fossil fuel extraction in the United States is critical. Specifically, research indicates that global fossil fuel CO2 emissions must end entirely by mid-century and likely as early as 2045 for a reasonable likelihood of limiting warming to 1.5° or 2°C. 62 Due to the small U.S. carbon budget, our country must end fossil fuel CO2 emissions even earlier:
contraction and convergence framework corrects current emissions inequities among countries over a specified time frame, it does not account for inequities stemming from historical emissions differences. When accounting for historical responsibility, Gignac et al. (2015) estimated that the United States has an additional cumulative carbon debt of 100 GtCO2 as of 2013. See Peters, Glen P. et al., Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions, 10 Environmental Research Letters 105004 (2015); Gignac, Renaud and H. Damon Matthews, Allocating a 2C cumulative carbon budget to countries, 10 Environmental Research Letters 075004 (2015). 59 Mulvaney, Dustin et al., "The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels," EcoShift Consulting, prepared for Center for Biological Diversity & Friends of the Earth (2015), http://www.ecoshiftconsulting.com/wpcontent/uploads/Potential-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-U-SFederal-Fossil-Fuels.pdf. Attached as Exhibit 19. 60 Mulvaney, Dustin et al., The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels, at 4. 61 Mulvaney, Dustin et al., The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels, at 3 ("the potential GHG emissions of federal fossil fuels (leased and unleased) are 349 to 492 Gt CO2e, representing 46% to 50% of potential emissions from all remaining U.S. fossil fuels"). 62 Rogelj, Joeri et al., Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5°C, 5 Nature Climate Change 519 (2015); IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5°C, IPCC, (2018). Attached as Exhibit 20.
20 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

between 2025 and 2030 on average for a reasonable chance of staying below 1.5°C, and between 2040 and 2045 on average for a reasonable chance of staying below 2°C.63 Ending U.S. fossil fuel CO2 emissions between 2025 and 2030, consistent with the Paris Climate targets, would require an immediate halt to new production and closing most existing oil and gas fields and coal mines before their reserves are fully extracted.
Ending the approval of new fossil fuel production and infrastructure is also critical for preventing "carbon lock-in," where approvals and investments made now can lock in decades' worth of fossil fuel extraction that we cannot afford. New approvals for wells, mines, and fossil fuel infrastructure ­ such as pipelines and marine and rail import and export terminals ­ require upfront investments that provide financial incentives for companies to continue production for decades into the future.64 Given the long-lived nature of fossil fuel projects, ending the approval of new fossil fuel projects avoids the lock-in of decades of fossil fuel production and associated emissions.65
IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons explained above, we request that TVA reject the proposed Sugar Camp expansion in favor of the No Action alternative. That is the only responsible choice. Should you have any questions about the information presented in this letter or the attached exhibits, please feel free to contact me at the phone number or email address listed below.
63 Climate Action Tracker, USA (last updated 30 April 2018), http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa at Country Summary figure showing U.S. emissions versus year. Attached as Exhibit 21. 64 Davis, Steven J. and Robert H. Socolow, Commitment accounting of CO2 emissions, Environmental Research Letters 9: 084018 (2014); Erickson, Peter et al., Assessing carbon lock-in, 10 Environmental Research Letters 084023 (2015); Erickson, Peter et al., Carbon lock-in from fossil fuel supply infrastructure, Stockholm Environment Institute, Discussion Brief (2015); Seto, Karen C. et al., Carbon Lock-In: Types, Causes, and Policy Implications, 41 Annual Review of Environmental Resources 425 (2016); Green, Fergus and Richard Denniss, Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies, Climatic Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2162-x (2018). 65 Erickson et al. (2015): "The essence of carbon lock-in is that, once certain carbon-intensive investments are made, and development pathways are chosen, fossil fuel dependence and associated carbon emissions can become "locked in," making it more difficult to move to lower-carbon pathways and thus reduce climate risks." Green and Denniss (2018): "When production processes require a large, upfront investment in fixed costs, such as the construction of a port, pipeline or coalmine, future production will take place even when the market price of the resultant product is lower than the longrun opportunity cost of production. This is because rational producers will ignore `sunk costs' and continue to produce as long as the market price is sufficient to cover the marginal cost (but not the average cost) of production. This is known as `lock-in.'"
21 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

Sincerely,

Nathaniel Shoaff Senior Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

Cindy Skrukrud, PhD Clean Water Program Director Illinois Chapter, Sierra Club

Joyce Blumenshine Conservation Co-Chair & Mining Committee Chair Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter

22 | P a g e Sierra Club's NEPA Scoping Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Expansion

From: Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 5:42 PM To: Smith, Elizabeth <esmith14@tva.gov> Subject: Public Comment on Expansion of Coal Mining Operations by Sugar Camp Energy, LLC
TVA External Message. Please use caution when opening.
Dear Ms. Smith, I am a member of the public, with little to no experience with coal mining. However, I know that the federal government took away a requirement for coal and oil companies to set aside funds for cleanup costs. I also know the coal industry has been declining for over a decade. The expansion of this company demonstrates a misinformed business decision, not sustainable growth. The writing is on the wall: companies will take the resources at minimal costs and wages then leave the mess. The coal industry has not changed and never will if their actions and pollution do not have consequences. In this case, coal mining will take place on public land, the mere fact of which is absurd and backwards on its face. Heavy metals from the mining will pollute the numerous local lakes and public lands like the Shawnee National Forest. I urge you and any sensible people left in a regulatory capacity to prevent the decades of pollution, illness, and death that this project could cause. Best Regards,
1

Appendix C ­ Draft EIS Comments and Responses
Appendix C ­ Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Comment No. 1
2
3
4

Topic Purpose and Need; Record of Decision
Purpose and Need; Record of Decision
Action Alternative
Public Involvement

Comment Environmental impacts would result in net losses to taxpayers, who collectively own TVA, and could cause billions of dollars in environmental liabilities for U.S. taxpayers.
Rather than commit to using federally owned lands and minerals to further the fossil fuel industry's agenda, we must ensure our public resources are managed to benefit all Americans. We request that TVA reject the proposed lease of TVA reserves by application in favor of the No Action alternative.

Commenter(s) Lisa Salinas

Response
TVA is a corporate agency of the United States that receives no taxpayer funding and derives virtually all of its revenues from sales of electricity to local power companies and industrial and government customers. Moreover, any financial liabilities accrued by Sugar Camp due to environmental liabilities are unrelated to the agreed-upon lease payments and royalties under the authority of the 2002 Illinois Coal Lease for TVA Tract No. XENC-3L. Finally, the net losses regarding the environmental impacts are speculative and do not create environmental liabilities for TVA or the Federal government.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment n/a

Sierra Club TVA's mission is described in Section 1.1 of the EIS. The

n/a

Action Alternative would help fulfill TVA's mission to

provide safe, clean, reliable, and affordable electricity to

the residents of the Tennessee Valley region and would

implement the terms of the lease agreement with Sugar

Camp.

We recommend that Figure 1-1 of the Draft EIS USEPA depict the boundary of the overall 37,972-acre SBR No. 6 expansion area.

The Draft EIS does not address impacts to water resources identified in our scoping letter on this project as well as in comments we made in April 2019 regarding TVA's Supplemental Environmental Assessment pertaining to Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.

Sierra Club

The overall 37,972-acre SBR No. 6 expansion area is

n/a

depicted in Figure 1-2 of the EIS. Figure 1-1 shows the

location of the TVA-owned coal proposed to be mined

under the Action Alternative (the "shadow area") and the

location of facilities (the "indirect effects area") used to

process that coal as well as other coal mined under Permit

No 382.

EIS Sections 3.2 and 3.14.3.2 analyze Project-related and n/a cumulative impacts to water resources including effects on the quality and quantity of these resources. Significant impacts to water resources associated with the Proposed Action would not occur due to implementation of the IDNROMM-required groundwater monitoring program, water quality sampling activities, and reclamation plan.

Comment No. 4 (cont.) 5 6
7

Topic Public Involvement Permits
Permits; Action Alternative

Comment

Commenter(s) Response
See responses to Comments 18 and 19 for more details on changes in the Final EIS per related comments. See also Appendix B of the Final EIS for the scoping comments received.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment

We suggest that the Final EIS include complete copies and summaries of scoping and Draft EIS comments and responses to these and/or reference to how these were addressed in the EIS.

USEPA

The comments received during scoping for this EIS are summarized in Final EIS Section 1.4 and provided in Appendix B. Section 1.4 also references the specific EIS sections where scoping comments were addressed.

Section 1.4 and Appendix B

Prior to bleeder shaft construction, Sugar Camp should consult with IEPA to determine if bleeder shaft construction should be evaluated for applicability of Clean Air Act permitting requirements.

USEPA

The Final EIS should state whether the increased throughput associated with the Project would have an impact on the existing Coal Preparation Plant, such as physical or operations changes to the plant. In addition, TVA should consult with IEPA and indicate whether an additional permit, such as a Clean Air Act permit, would be required for the additional volume the plant would need to process.

USEPA

As discussed in Section 1.5 of the Final EIS, prior to construction of the Bleeder Shaft Facilities, Sugar Camp would submit Insignificant Permit Revisions in association with UCM Permit No. 382 to IDNR-OMM for review and approval. This would require documentation of permits received or applied for associated with each bleeder shaft facility, including any air permits issued by IEPA. In addition, TVA would conduct environmental reviews to consider the existing conditions surrounding each Bleeder Shaft Facility location, any required permits associated with the Bleeder Shaft Facilities, and impacts associated with construction and operation of each Bleeder Shaft Facility.

Section 1.5 and 1.5.3

In the Final EIS, Section 1.5.3 has been revised to clarify the Clean Air Act permitting associated with the plant, and Section 2.1.2.1 clarifies that the Project would not affect capacity. The Coal Preparation Plant is currently processing both privately owned coal and TVA coal previously approved for mining. The plant was approved by IDNROMM in 2008 and did not require TVA approval. The plant operates under Title V Permit No. 12070021, and the addition of the TVA coal that is the subject of the Proposed Action would not require additional surface facilities or increase the capacity of the plant. As the physical processing of the plant would not change, a permit modification is not necessary for the processing of additional TVA coal.

Sections 1.5.3 and 2.1.2.1

Comment No. 8
9
10

Topic
No Action Alternative

Comment
Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 has approximately 37 years of existing coal reserves even without the proposed 186 million ton expansion. Therefore, we see no reason to push the review through now given that the mine has nearly four decades worth of coal already under lease.

Commenter(s) Sierra Club

Response
Under SBR No. 6, Sugar Camp's ongoing activities include extraction of approximately 359 million unprocessed tons of coal, which equates to 179.5 million processed tons of coal. At an annual production rate of 9.5 million processed tons of coal, Sugar Camp's current supply of private/TVAapproved coal would be mined over a period of approximately 19 years. The addition of the coal associated with the Action Alternative would extend this period by approximately 10 years. However, while the existing and planned coal reserves are less than the commenter reported, a maximum planning period for the leased coal reserves is not stipulated in the lease agreement, is not a condition of the IDNR permit, is unrelated to the decision to be made by TVA except in calculating environmental impacts, and is solely a decision of Sugar Camp and/or its parent company.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment n/a

Project Description; Permits

I am concerned that the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Foresight Energy, the parent company of Sugar Camp, LLC, complicates the permitting, insurance, bonding, reclamation, etc., of the proposed mining.

Lisa Salinas

TVA understands the company is undergoing bankruptcy n/a proceedings; however, the IDNR permit has been received by Sugar Camp, and TVA is currently determining whether to approve the mining plan per the 2002 Illinois Coal Lease for TVA Tract No. XENC-3L. In the case of Foresight Energy being declared bankrupt, TVA has the right to immediately terminate the lease without further notice. TVA would then pursue other means to recoup its investment.

Project Description

The TVA coal lease is technically under contract with Ruger Coal; the EIS should therefore describe the involvement of Ruger Coal in the proposed action.

Lisa Salinas

The 2002 Illinois Coal Lease for TVA Tract No. XENC-3L with n/a Illinois Fuel Company, LLC was assigned to Ruger Coal Company, LLC in the 2009 Assignment and Assumption Agreement for TVA Tract No. XENC-3L. Per the 2009 agreement, upon assignment of the lease to Ruger, TVA consented to permit the lease reserves to be mined by Sugar Camp Energy, LLC, an affiliate of Ruger. For purposes of the NEPA review, the IDNR permit holder pertaining to the mine expansion (i.e., Sugar Camp) is the relevant party of focus.

Comment No. 11
12

Topic Action Alternative; Environmental Impacts - Water
Action Alternative; Environmental Impacts Environmental Justice

Comment
We recommend the Final EIS include information on the low permeability liner of the proposed East Refuse Disposal Area and how leachate would be managed, the composition of the waste rock and water being discharged from the East Refuse Disposal Area, and how the mine closure plan would affect the East Refuse Disposal Area. We recommend that water quality monitoring be employed to ensure compliance with standards during operation and post-closure.

Commenter(s) USEPA

Response
Refer to Sections 2.1.2.1, 3.2.4.1, and 3.2.4.2 of the Final EIS. The proposed East Refuse Disposal Area would be constructed similarly to the existing refuse disposal areas by installing a low permeability liner as approved by IDNROMM. The East Refuse Disposal Area would require a revision of the NPDES permit issued by IDNR to include any new discharge outfalls. The permit revision may include additional groundwater monitoring wells. No leachate is anticipated.
As described in Section 2.1.2.3, the East Refuse Disposal Area would not be fully reclaimed to existing conditions and, instead, would be filled to capacity, capped with soil, and made to adequately drain. Due to the lack of full reclamation, this area could likely be used as pasture land following partial restoration.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment Sections 2.1.2.1, 3.2.4.1, and 3.2.4.2

We encourage TVA to include more detail in the Final EIS about the siting considerations for the bleeder ventilation shafts, such as a smaller area where bleeder shafts may be constructed. TVA should commit to siting these away from communities, schools, environmental justice populations, or other potentially sensitive receptors. EPA further recommends that the Final EIS show a map figure depicting environmental justice populations.

USEPA

Final EIS Sections 2.1.2.1 and 3.12.2.2 have been updated to include details regarding siting of the Bleeder Shaft Facilities. The siting of the Bleeder Shaft Facilities is influenced by environmental constraints and state regulations, and proposed facility locations are also coordinated with landowners. Details on landowner coordination have been added to Section 2.1.2.1 of the EIS.

Sections 2.1.2.1 and 3.12.2.2 and Figure 316

Environmental justice populations are specifically considered in EIS Section 3.12, which documents that lowincome populations (one type of environmental justice population) are present in the Project area. However, TVA concluded that the Project would not disproportionately affect the identified low-income populations because the overall impacts of the Action Alternative would be minor, and off-site impacts would generally be negligible. These populations were identified through USCB data assigned to the large 2010 Census tracts that encompass the Project Area and not through means that would allow more detailed mapping of low-income populations. Figure 3-16 has been added to the Final EIS to show the census tracts in the Project Area, which can be correlated with the poverty

Comment No. 12 (cont.)

Topic

13

Alternatives

Considered but

Eliminated

14

Environmental

Impacts -

Floodplains

Comment
Alternative project locations were not adequately considered in the Draft EIS or shown to be environmentally or economically more or less impactful than the current Project Area. EPA recommends that the Final EIS provide information to support that shifting the shadow area to the north, west, or south offers no environmental or economical advantage, perhaps by adding a table that presents potential impacts to each resource within alternate shadow areas.

Commenter(s) USEPA

Response
percentages given in the text of the EIS to know the general locations of low-income populations. Environmental justice populations will also be considered in future environmental reviews conducted by TVA in conjunction with the siting of the Bleeder Shaft Facilities. Figure 2-5 in the Final EIS shows the extent of the TVA Illinois Coal Reserve under lease to Sugar Camp, as well as the portions of the reserve that have been previously mined or approved for mining and the portions that are the subject of the current Proposed Action. TVA is responding to the request by Sugar Camp to mine the subject 12,125 acres of TVA coal in conjunction with 25,847 acres of nonTVA coal under SBR No. 6. The overall 37,972-acre permitted area was configured to maximize the efficient and economical mining of coal, while utilizing existing surface facilities and minimizing impacts to the extent feasible. Mining TVA coal in alternative locations would not necessarily result in reduced environmental impacts or economic advantages.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment
Section 2.1.3 and Figure 2-5

We suggest that the Final EIS clarify the regulatory requirements that the Floodplains No Practicable Alternatives analysis addresses.

USEPA

While there is no direct regulatory requirement for the Floodplains No Practicable Alternative analysis referenced in the EIS, TVA's NEPA procedures involve these analyses as standard operating practices due to the requirements of EO 11988, Floodplain Management. The EO requires that agencies avoid the 100-year floodplain unless there is no practicable alternative. In response to the EO, TVA developed the 1981 Class Review of Repetitive Actions in the 100-Year Floodplain. Because bleeder shaft facilities are not one of the repetitive actions evaluated in the class review, the Floodplains No Practicable Alternative analysis needs to be completed for any bleeder shaft facilities that are proposed to be constructed in 100-year floodplains. These details have been added to Section 3.2.3.2.2 of the Final EIS.

Section 3.2.3.2.2

Comment No. 15 16
17

Topic
Preferred Alternative; Record of Decision

Comment

Commenter(s) Response

Has TVA made a decision on the proposed mine plan approval? I am asking this in light of Foresight Energy, the parent company of Sugar Camp, entering into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Lisa Salinas

The final decision on the proposed mine plan approval has not yet been made but is expected by the end of 2020.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment n/a

Preferred Alternative; Record of Decision

I am concerned about the potential for federal coal royalty lease rates to be set to zero, per national news and a letter sent to the U.S. President, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader from the National Mining Association. The potential low to no royalty payments call into question the justification by TVA to approve the mining of coal when considering the net loss for the federal government alongside the environmental impacts.

Lisa Salinas

Environmental Impacts

Environmental impacts have not been "fully scoped out, nor investigated" and would result in unacceptable consequences for affected parties.

Lisa Salinas

Per the attachments to this comment, TVA understands

n/a

that this comment refers to recent requests by the National

Mining Association and other entities for royalty payment

reductions for fossil fuels on U.S. Department of Interior

(USDOI)-administered leases in light of recently decreased

demand for fossil fuels. USDOI administers these leases

under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The

lease rates and royalty payments for TVA-owned coal are

established through contract with other parties under the

authority of the TVA Act, independent of the authority of

the Mineral Leasing Act or any USDOI jurisdiction, and are

defined in the 2002 Illinois Coal Lease for TVA Tract No.

XENC-3L and the subsequent the 2009 Assignment and

Assumption Agreement for TVA Tract No. XENC-3L.

The EIS analyzes the potential for impacts to a variety of resources with consideration of applicable measures to reduce those impacts. Several of the impacts of the Proposed Action would be short-term and insignificant. Other impacts would be longer term and/or adverse. The implementation of the Proposed Action, including the coal mining and processing, would comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations.

Executive Summary

Comment No. 18

Topic
Environmental Impacts - Water Resources

19

Environmental

Impacts - Water

Resources

Comment
Considering the effluent exceedances by Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 over the past four quarters, including 125 state and federal violations from 2015 to 2018, TVA should confirm and report in the Final EIS whether the existing onsite treatment systems would be able to treat an increased volume of wastewater that would occur with mine expansion and whether monitoring is being conducted on the schedule required by the NPDES permit. TVA's NEPA review should consider impacts from the discharge of chloride at higher concentrations than its current permit allows and the effects of this on the environment.
The EIS should analyze and report the cumulative impacts to the Big Muddy River and to Rend Lake, via withdrawals, that would result from the mine expansion when combined with past, present, and future mining at Sugar Camp and other nearby projects, such as the 12.5-mile water discharge pipeline proposed by Williamson Energy Pond Creek No. 1 Mine, located near Johnston City in Williamson County.

Commenter(s) USEPA; Sierra Club
Sierra Club

Response
Per Section 3.2.4.2.2 of the Final EIS, when a release of water from permitted discharge points registers one or more parameters above the water quality standard, Sugar Camp Mine personnel correct the non-compliant situation and also provide applicable reports to IEPA. IDNR provides oversight and monitoring of Sugar Camp activities and would take appropriate enforcement actions to remedy any violations. As of July 2020, all Notice of Violations issued by IDNR had been abated.
IEPA Division of Water Pollution Control reviews, approves, and issues NPDES permits. These permits dictate discharge limitations, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Sugar Camp's NPDES Permit No. IL0068565, valid through April 30, 2021, concluded that effluent mixing in Middle Fork Big Muddy River, which is allowed by the NPDES permit, functions to dissipate chloride to water quality standard levels and, overall, that no adverse impacts to streams would occur. Overall processing capacity of the existing Coal Preparation Plant, and associated permitted discharges that are covered under the current NPDES permit, would not increase under the proposed action; however, the Coal Preparation Plant would likely operate and discharge over a longer time period. Any revisions to the NPDES permit, including revisions associated with the proposed East Refuse Disposal Area to treat wastewater discharges, would require review and approval by IEPA. The analysis of cumulative effects in Section 3.14 of the Final EIS has been revised to address impacts to water resources that would result from the mine expansion when combined with past, present, and future mining at Sugar Camp and other nearby projects. These include discharges from the Williamson Energy Pond Creek No. 1 Mine. Similar changes were applied to Section 3.2.5.2.2.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment Section 3.2.4.2.2
Sections 3.2.5.2.2 and 3.14

Comment No. 20

Topic
Environmental Impacts - Surface Water

21

Environmental

Impacts - Surface

Water

Comment
We recommend the Final EIS provide relevant site-specific information to facilitate compliance determination under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and provide the document to USACE St. Louis District for review and comment. TVA should also consult with USACE to determine what information should be provided in the Final EIS to meet Clean Water Act permit requirements.

Commenter(s) USEPA

Response
Please refer to Sections 1.5 and 3.2.2.2 of the Final EIS. Per IDNR-OMM permit requirements, Sugar Camp Energy has committed to securing all necessary approvals from other agencies, including but not limited to, USACE and IDNR Office of Water Resources. Any impacts to waters of the U.S would be subject to USACE 404 permits and IEPA 401 Water Quality Certifications and would be mitigated as required by these permits.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment Sections 1.5 and 3.2.2.2

We recommend that the Final EIS include a map figure showing how subsidence would impact water resources and how impacts to water resources would be addressed.

USEPA

Planned subsidence would occur within the sections of the Shadow Area where longwall mining techniques would be employed. Areas proposed for longwall mining where impacts to water resources are anticipated are illustrated in Figure 3-5. Impacted areas cannot be predicted with high specificity prior to subsidence; however, predicted subsidence profiles and post-subsidence contours were modeled using the Surface Deformation Prediction System software developed for the U.S. Office of Surface Mining. Due to limitations in computer modeling, the actual extent of subsidence may vary from what is projected. The anticipated Project impacts to water resources from subsidence and associated mitigation measures are described in Section 3.2.2.2.2 of the EIS. As required and approved by IDNR-OMM, the subsidence mitigation plan is site specific and consists of re-establishing pre-mining drainage patterns by grading and/or tilting to drain areas of trapped or standing water, as necessary, with input from the surface property owner and applicable government agencies.

Section 3.2.2.2

Comment No. 22
23

Topic
Environmental Impacts - Biological Resources, Surface Water

Comment
We recommend that an onsite biological and water resource survey be conducted to provide information to delineate these resources and assess their characteristics and use those data to fully evaluate impacts to these resources in regards to severity and to discuss specific minimization and mitigation efforts that would be employed. These additional data, along with additional information on the presence of aquatic life in impacted watersheds such as reference to existing state and watershed ecological assessments, should be incorporated into the Final EIS and would help prepare for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application.

Commenter(s) USEPA

Response
Sections 3.2 and 3.4 of the Final EIS present information on the biological and water resource identification efforts that have been performed to date and employs these in analyses of anticipated impacts. Water resource and vegetation surveys were conducted for the known disturbance area (the East Refuse Disposal Area). For impacts to surface waters, per IDNR-OMM permit requirements, Sugar Camp would secure all necessary approvals from other agencies, including, but not limited to, USACE, IEPA, and the IDNR Office of Water Resources and implementing IDNR-OMM-approved mitigation plans. Federally listed threatened and endangered species have been the subject of consultation and review by IDNR-OMM, IDNR Office of Realty and Environmental Planning, and USFWS. As a standard practice for surface disturbances, Sugar Camp coordinates with USFWS to conduct presence/absence threatened and endangered bat surveys or assumes threatened and endangered bat presence and limits tree clearing to between October 15 and March 31. USFWS also consults on coal extraction-related activities such as subsidence.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment Sections 3.2 and 3.4

Environmental Impacts - Air Quality

We recommend that additional consideration be given the potential for particulate matter and hazardous emissions from the Bleeder Shaft Facilities. Additionally, Sugar Camp should consider whether the fugitive dust emissions control plan needs updating.

USEPA

As clarified in Section 1.5.3 of the Final EIS, Insignificant Permit Revision requests would be submitted to IDNROMM for the Bleeder Shaft Facilities. Dust (particulate matter emissions) is not associated with the operation of these facilities; thus, the Bleeder Shaft Facility operations are not included in the fugitive dust emissions control plan associated with the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 Coal Preparation Plant. Regarding hazardous emissions, the Bleeder Shaft Facilities are permitted under the same Clean Air Act permit that is associated with the Coal Preparation Plant.

Section 1.5.3

Comment No. 24
25

Topic

Comment

Commenter(s) Response

Environmental Impacts - Air Quality

The Draft EIS states that between 53 and 77 percent of the coal produced at Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 was shipped to U.S. power plants during the period 2014 through 2018. EPA recommends the transportation emissions and consumption data be updated and recalculated to reflect changes in the coal market, wherein coal-fired plants are being closed in the U.S. and more domestic coal is being shipped abroad.

USEPA

The reported period for coal shipments used in the EIS is the most current data available from USEIA's Coal Data Browser, as of July 2020. These data show that the amount of coal shipped from the mine to domestic power plants between 2014 and 2018 increased each year rather than decreased. Whether this trend will continue is not known, particularly given the very recent decline in coal consumption, both domestically and internationally.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment n/a

Environmental Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Draft EIS asserts that "emissions from the replacement sources of energy are unknown because they would not be under TVA's control," yet NEPA regulations require analysis of indirect impacts "caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." The assumptions made in the Draft EIS do not fully consider the range of potentials that could occur in the No Action Alternative scenario. For example, the Draft EIS does not tell the public or decision-makers which sources of electricity (coal, wind, solar, gas, etc.), the amount of those resources (or combination of resources) would replace electricity generated by burning Sugar Camp coal if TVA rejects the proposed expansion, or what the difference in GHG emissions would be between the Action and No Action alternatives. We recommend that TVA analyze whether there is a measurable difference in greenhouse gas emission levels between considered alternatives, including the No Action alternative, and report that difference to avoid "perfect substitution."

Sierra Club

The analyses of cumulative effects in Section 3.14 of the Final EIS have been revised, as discussed in response to Comment 27. The anticipated GHG emissions of the No Action and Action Alternatives are described in EIS Section 3.3.2.2. The GHG analysis was prepared in accordance with recent court rulings.

Sections 3.3.2.2 and 3.14

Comment No. 26

Topic
Environmental Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Comment
The Draft EIS does not provide information on the nature, scale, or causes of climate change or adequately present details on the Project's potential to effect climate change. TVA should 1) acknowledge the scientific consensus on the need to cut global CO2 emissions; 2) assess whether the proposed mining and burning of TVA-owned coal extracted by Sugar Camp are inconsistent with guidance from recent climate reports, including the including the 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment prepared by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the 2018 special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on global warming, the U.S. Geological Survey's 2018 study of the climate impacts associated with federal lands and minerals extraction, and Oil Change International's 2019 study on the impact of fossil fuel development on the global carbon budget; 3) model the market impacts of the proposed expansion of federal coal mining to understand the differences in GHG emissions between the No Action and Action Alternatives, per substitution of different fuel types in the No Action case, and report the difference, if measurable; 4) use the "social cost of carbon" tool to analyze the climate impacts of the proposal and the mining of other TVA-managed coal reserves; and 5) recognize the scale of the carbon emission problem and take into account the remaining carbon budget for CO2 emissions from the U.S. Further, TVA should report the GHG emissions associated with the proposed expansion by using the current 20-year global warming potential for methane.

Commenter(s) Sierra Club

Response
TVA considered using the social cost of carbon (SCC) metric in the assessment of climate change impacts on downstream GHG emissions resulting from combustion of the coal mined under the Action Alternative. However, after due consideration, TVA believes that the SCC metric is not an appropriate measure or proxy of project-level climate change impacts and their significance under NEPA. The SCC metric is not appropriate or informative in the current context because (1) the SCC tool does not measure the actual incremental impacts of a project on the environment; (2) there are no established criteria identifying the monetized values considered significant for NEPA purposes; and 3) the EIS does not contain a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, the context where SCC is most useful. The evaluation of GHG included in the EIS was prepared per the court rulings in place at the time of preparation.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment n/a

Comment No. 27
28

Topic Cumulative Effects
(No Comment)

Comment

Commenter(s) Response

EPA recommends that the cumulative effects analysis of the Final EIS incorporate more specifics regarding the specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts that would be employed per IDNR permit requirements and more detail regarding the individual resource areas, as follows: the vicinity within which cumulative effects are being considered as pertains to the resource area, the current health of the resource area per past actions or trends and future predicted health of the resource, other reasonably foreseeable coal projects or public or private project or development and their impacts to the resource area, and consideration of the combined effects of the proposed project and these reasonably foreseeable actions on the resource area.

USEPA

The analyses of cumulative effects in Section 3.14 of the Final EIS have been revised to more clearly identify the geographic area of study for each resource area, describe the current condition of each resource area within the cumulative effects analysis area, present the specific IDNROMM permit requirements that would help avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts, and consider known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the study area with similar effects to the Proposed Action. Where appropriate, other sections of Chapter 3 have also been revised.

Final EIS Section, if edited per comment Cumulative Effects subsections of Sections 3.1­3.13 and Section 3.14

USDOI has no comments on the Draft EIS at this USDOI

TVA appreciates USDOI's review of the Draft EIS and

n/a

time.

encourages review of the Final EIS.

From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Smith, Elizabeth
RichardsonSeacat, Harriet; Colverson, Colin
FW: Sugar Camp EIS
Monday, April 6, 2020 10:10:53 AM
ATT00001.png XENC 3L Assignment.pdf XENC-3L Amendment One Redacted-1.pdf XENC-3L Amendment Two Redacted-1.pdf 031820 Covid19 Response Letter Final-1.pdf

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

FYI
Due to COVID-19 safety precautions enacted by TVA, I am currently teleworking.
Should you need to speak with me directly, my mobile phone # is listed below.
Elizabeth R. Smith
NEPA Specialist
NEPA Programs Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902
865-632-3053 (w) 865-250-9138 (m) esmith14@tva.gov

From: Lisa Salinas Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 11:01 AM To: Smith, Elizabeth <esmith14@tva.gov> Cc: McKenzie, Jeffrey T. <jtmckenzie@tvaoig.gov> Subject: Re: Sugar Camp EIS
This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL from outside TVA. THINK BEFORE you CLICK links or OPEN attachments. If suspicious, please click the "Report Phishing" button located
on the Outlook Toolbar at the top of your screen.
Please find attached the letter I referenced related to the call for lower federal coal lease rates.
Note that the letter is erroneous in its assertion of the higher federal royalty rate paid in the "East", at least related to the TVA deposit.
It is not publicly known at present what the rate is that Ruger Coal pays to TVA (as it appears there is a sealed court settlement between Ruger and TVA which could have further modified the terms in the publicly available contracts).

However, the lease rate even at the low rate of 5% for a 1.1 billion ton reserve is very low for coal that is not located in the Powder River Basin, and note that Ruger Coal was at one point receiving a 3.5% or thereabouts lease override for allowing Sugar Camp to mine the reserve (this fact is noted in Foresight Energy SEC filings). I am uncertain of the current lease rates and arrangements on the TVA coal deposit between the parties, but nonetheless, there in no justification for a national energy security argument for any federal coal lease, especially at a likely huge net loss for the federal government, when extensive environmental impacts that have not been fully scoped out, nor investigated, are the net loss taxpayers will fund, and affected parties will experience will have their properties ruined, their health affected, their water polluted and in short, the devastation from mining the TVA deposit has no positive effect for a corporation we, as US Taxpayers, own. Lisa Salinas
On 4/6/20 10:21 AM, Smith, Elizabeth wrote: Ms. Salinas,
Thank you for your comment.
Elizabeth
Due to COVID-19 safety precautions enacted by TVA, I am currently teleworking. Should you need to speak with me directly, my mobile phone # is listed below. Elizabeth R. Smith NEPA Specialist
NEPA Programs Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 865-632-3053 (w) 865-250-9138 (m) esmith14@tva.gov

From: Lisa Salinas Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 10:19 AM To: Smith, Elizabeth <esmith14@tva.gov> Cc: McKenzie, Jeffrey T. <jtmckenzie@tvaoig.gov> Subject: Re: Sugar Camp EIS
This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL from outside TVA. THINK BEFORE you CLICK links or OPEN attachments. If suspicious, please click the "Report Phishing" button located on the Outlook Toolbar at the top of your screen. Thank you.
You are aware that Foresight Energy (parent co. of Sugar Camp) is in bankruptcy?
Ch 11 adds multiple other dimensions in permitting, insurance, bonding, reclamation , etc. matters.
And last I was aware, the TVA coal lease was technically under contract to Ruger Coal, with contract language stating Sugar Camp was granted the right to mine the reserve.
It is relevant to understand who currently owns and controls Ruger.
It is also noteworthy that there was recent discussion in the national news about setting federal coal royalty lease rates at zero.
That notion is troubling. First of all, it appears on its face to be a bias toward coal operators to keep them in business for Trump donors.

Foresight is controlled by Trump donor Robert Murray, and Ruger Coal, last I knew, was controlled by billionaire Chris Cline (now the Cline estate) , who was also a VIP Trump donor.
What is the Purpose for TVA to approve an EIS for a coal ci. when the US government cannot possibly justify the income from the deposit vs. the incredible damage and reclamation and off site pollution and the like caused from mining the deposit.
The TVA deposit could cause literally billions in environmental liabilities for US taxpayers.
Please add my comments to the public comments.
Lisa Salinas
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2020, at 9:44 AM, Smith, Elizabeth <esmith14@tva.gov> wrote:
No, TVA issued the draft Environmental Impact Statement for public comment period through May 27, 2020. The final decision is expected by the end of the year.
More information is available by visiting www.tva.com/nepa.
Thanks,

Elizabeth
Due to COVID-19 safety precautions enacted by TVA, I am currently teleworking. Should you need to speak with me directly, my mobile phone # is listed below. Elizabeth R. Smith NEPA Specialist
NEPA Programs Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 865-632-3053 (w) 865-250-9138 (m) esmith14@tva.gov
<image001.png>
From: Lisa Salinas Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2020 1:16 PM To: Smith, Elizabeth <esmith14@tva.gov> Subject: Sugar Camp EIS
This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL from outside TVA. THINK BEFORE you CLICK links or OPEN attachments. If suspicious, please click the "Report Phishing" button located on the Outlook Toolbar at the top of your screen. Ms Smith,

Did TVA issue a final decision on the attached Environmental Impact review of Sugar Camp?
Just wondering because the parent of Sugar Camp is in Ch 11 bankruptcy.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/12/201917214/sugar-camp-energy-llc-mine-expansion-revision-6environmental-impact-statement

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 1 of 35

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT E AST E R N D IST R I C T O F M ISSO U R I E AST ERN DIVISION

In re: FORESIGHT ENERGY LP, et al.,
Debtors.

) Chapter 11 ) ) Case No. 20-41308-659 ) ) (Jointly Administered) ) ) Objection Deadline: April 10, 2020 ) Hearing Date: April 17, 2020 ) Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. (Central Time) ) Hearing Location: Courtroom 7 North

DEBTORS' APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE RETENTION AND E M P L O Y M E N T O F B A I L E Y & G L ASSE R L L P AS SPE C I A L C O U NSE L F O R T H E D E B T O RS A N D D E B T O RS I N POSSESSI O N N U N C PRO T U N C T O PE T I T I O N D A T E Foresight Energy LP and its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession in the above-
captioned cases (each a "Debtor" and, collectively, the "Debtors"), hereby move this Court for entry of an order (the "Proposed Order"), pursuant to sections 327(e), 328, and 1107(b) of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (the "Bankruptcy Code"), Rules 2014 and 2016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the "Bankruptcy Rules") and Rules 2014 and 2016-1 of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the "Local Rules"), authorizing the retention and employment of Bailey & Glasser, LLP ("Bailey Glasser" or the "Firm") as special counsel to the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, effective nunc pro tunc to March 10, 2020. In support of this Application (the "Application"), the Debtors rely upon the Declarations of Nicholas S. Johnson (the "Johnson Declaration") and Robert D. Moore (the "Moore Declaration"), attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and respectfully represent as follows:

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 2 of 35
Jurisdiction 1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). 2. The statutory and legal predicates for the relief requested are sections 327(e), 328, and 1107(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules 2014 and 2016 and Local Rules 2014 and 2016.
Background 3. On March 10, 2020 (the "Petition Date"), each of the Debtors filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code thereby commencing the instant cases (the "Chapter 11 Cases"). 4. The Debtors continue to manage and operate their businesses as debtors-inpossession under 1107 and 1008 of the Bankruptcy Code. 5. The Court has entered an order [Docket No. 86] providing for the joint administration of these chapter 11 cases pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b). 6. No request for the appointment of a trustee or examiner has been made in these Chapter 11 Cases. On March 17, 2020, the United States Trustee appointed the Official Unsecured Creditors Committee. 7. Additional information about the Debtors' businesses and the events leading up to the Petition Date can be found in the Declaration of Robert D. Moore, President and Chief Executive Officer of Foresight Energy LP, in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions (the "Moore Declaration") [Docket No. 17], the Declaration of Alan Boyko, Senior Managing Director of F TI Consulting, Inc., in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions and F irst Day Relief (the "Boyko

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 3 of 35
Declaration") [Docket No. 18], and the declaration of Seth Herman in support of the Debtors' motion for approval of debtor-in-possession financing and use of cash collateral (the "Herman Declaration" [Docket No. 29-3] (the "First Day Declarations").
Relief Requested 8. By this Application, the Debtors seek authority to employ and retain Bailey Glasser, pursuant to sections 327(e), 328, and 1107(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules 2014 and 2016 and Local Rules 2014-1, as special counsel with regard to the Chapter 11 Cases nunc pro tunc to the Petition Date. 9. Specifically, the Debtors seek this Court's approval to employ and retain Bailey Glasser as special counsel to the Debtors to provide legal services related to environmental, regulatory, and other discrete corporate transaction and commercial litigation matters, services that Bailey Glasser has provided to the Debtors for many years prior to the commencement of these cases. 10. Particularly in light of its extensive experience in representing the Debtors and the specialized coal-industry services Bailey Glasser provides to the Debtors, the Debtors submit that the engagement and retention of Bailey Glasser as their special counsel in these Chapter 11 Cases is necessary and in the best interests of the Debtors, their estates, their creditors, and other parties in interest and should be approved.
Basis of Relief Requested 11. A debtor is required to obtain bankruptcy court approval before it is permitted to hire certain professionals and compensate them with funds from property of the estate. In addition to authorizing the employment of general counsel for the debtor, the Bankruptcy Code also allows a debtor -- with court approval -- to employ "for a specified special purpose" a
3

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 4 of 35
lawyer who has previously represented the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 327(e). In contrast to general counsel for the debtor which must, in accordance with Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, be "disinterested," an attorney employed as special counsel must only not represent or hold an interest adverse to the debtor or its estate with respect, particularly, to the matters on which he or she is to be employed. Id.
12. Bailey Glasser has represented the Debtors in many capacities since their inception and formation. Beginning in 1999, Bailey Glasser began representing the Debtors' founder, Chris Cline, personally and his various business interests generally. In that regard, Bailey Glasser assisted Mr. Cline in forming the entities that eventually comprised the Foresight Energy, LP family of companies ("Foresight") beginning in 2004. From that time until Mr. Cline sold a portion of his interests in Foresight to Murray Energy Corporation ("Murray") in 2015, Bailey Glasser acted as general counsel to both Mr. Cline and Foresight. After Murray acquired a majority of the economic interests in Foresight, Bailey Glasser continued to represent Foresight through the commencement of these Chapter 11 cases on a more limited basis on environmental, regulatory, and other discrete corporate transaction and commercial litigation matters. Both in connection with and after the Murray transaction, Bailey Glasser continued to represent generally Mr. Cline and his business interests, including his business interests in Foresight through Foresight Reserves LP, until his untimely death in 2019. Since the Murray transaction, Bailey Glasser has also represented certain Murray subsidiaries in connection with various matters unrelated to the Debtors. Since his death, Bailey Glasser has represented generally Mr. Cline's estate and his various ongoing business interests, including his business interests in Foresight through Foresight Reserves LP.
4

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 5 of 35
13. To enable Bailey Glasser to represent Foresight and various of its subsidiaries while simultaneously representing Mr. Cline and the Cline-related entities, both in connection with Foresight and other unrelated matters and the Murray subsidiaries, Foresight has entered into a series of conflict waivers with Mr. Cline and the Cline-related entities and the Murray subsidiaries stretching back to 2015.
14. From its long history of representation of Mr. Cline and Foresight, Bailey Glasser has gained a detailed institutional knowledge of Debtors' operations, corporate structure, material agreements, and personnel that cannot be replicated in the short term at another law firm.
15. Given Bailey Glasser's extensive prepetition experience in representing the Debtors, the Debtors have determined that it is essential that the employment of Bailey Glasser be continued to avoid disruption of the Debtors' normal business operations. In connection therewith, the Debtors submit that the proposed employment of Bailey Glasser on the terms set forth below is in the best interest of their estates and their creditors.
.Services To Be Rendered 16. Subject to the approval of this Court, Bailey Glasser will provide legal services to the Debtors on the following specific matters: a. Seeking various environmental permits necessary to construct pipelines and
diffusers in the Big Muddy River to allow discharges of chloride water into mixing zones approved under Clean Water Act mixing zones, a matter which Bailey Glasser has handled for five years;
5

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 6 of 35
b. Advising on groundwater management zones at Macoupin Energy and related Consent Orders, a matter which Bailey Glasser has handled since Macoupin Energy acquired the affected assets from Exxon in 2009;
c. To the extent any litigation occurs during the pendency of Debtors' cases, continuing to represent Williamson Energy, LLC in the claims brought by an alleged partnership (Mitchell-Roberts), a matter which Bailey Glasser has handled since 2014;
d. Advising on chloride and sulfate water treatment at Sugar Camp Energy, a matter which Bailey Glasser has assisted on since 2014;
e. Pursuing an injunction related to unconstitutional regulations in Kentucky involving coal price bidding, an expedited matter which Bailey Glasser has assisted on since December 2019; and
f. Other day-to-day environmental, permitting, regulatory, commercial, and land matters for which Bailey Glasser has provided similar assistance since inception of Foresight Energy.
17. In addition to those specified matters, Bailey Glasser will provide legal services, as requested by the Debtors, with respect to (a) other environmental litigation, regulatory and compliance matters, including monitoring permits, negotiating with state and federal environmental entities regarding compliance matters, and advising the Debtors as to state and federal environmental compliance standards and (b) other commercial advice or lawsuits.
18. Bailey Glasser's representation will be limited to the matters set forth above (the "Special Counsel Matters"). Bailey Glasser will not provide general bankruptcy advice or legal service. Neither the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel nor Bailey Glasser anticipate any overlap in
6

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 7 of 35

responsibility or duplication of efforts between them. Bailey Glasser and the Debtors' other

counsel will work together to ensure that legal services are coordinated and that there is no

unnecessary duplication of services performed or charged to the Debtors' estates.

Compensation

19. Bailey Glasser intends, generally and subject to the caveat discussed below, to

apply for compensation for professional services rendered on an hourly basis and reimbursement

of expenses incurred in connection with these chapter 11 cases, subject to the Court's approval

and in compliance with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the

Local Rules, and any other applicable procedures and orders of the Court.

20. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtors prepaid Bailey Glasser on a flat-fee basis

for its services, plus reimbursement of expenses, through March 31, 2020. Bailey Glasser

intends to honor that arrangement. Although it will apply for approval of its compensation for

services rendered and reimbursement of expenses prior to March 31, 2020 in accordance with the

rules of the Court and the United States Trustee, Bailey Glasser will not seek payment of compensation for the services by that prepetition arrangement during that period.1 Beginning

April 1, 2020, Bailey Glasser will seek compensation for professional services in accordance

with its hourly rates described below.

21. Because of the long-standing and broad relationship between Debtors and Bailey

Glasser, Bailey Glasser provides Debtors a substantially discounted hourly rate as compared to

its standard rates. The range of Bailey Glasser's rates applicable to Debtors' matters are as

follows:

a. Partners

$475­$850

1 For the avoidance of doubt, the Debtors understand that Bailey Glasser may seek compensation for services rendered in connection with this application and the Debtors' bankruptcy cases, services that fall outside of the prepetition fee arrangement.
7

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 8 of 35

b. Associates/Of Counsel

$400­$450

c. Paraprofessionals (Including Investigators)

$250­$300

22. The following attorneys and paraprofessionals are currently expected to provide

legal services to the Debtors at the substantially discounted hourly rates specified below, which

may change from time-to-time based upon agreement with Debtors:

Name Brian A. Glasser Nicholas S. Johnson Jennifer S. Fahey Jeffrey R. Baron Amy S. Rubin Joshua I. Hammack Christopher D. Smith John C. Ailes, Jr.
Linda Sadler

Position Partner Partner Partner Partner Of Counsel Associate Associates Investigator Paralegal

Hourly Rate $650 $500 $550 $500 $450 $425 $400 $300 $250

23. Other Bailey Glasser lawyers and paraprofessionals will be utilized or consulted from time-to-time and may appear on behalf of the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, as necessary.
24. Bailey Glasser's hourly rates are set at a level designed to compensate Bailey Glasser fairly for the work of its attorneys and paraprofessionals and to cover fixed and routine overhead expenses of the Firm. Hourly rates vary with the experience and seniority of the individuals assigned. These hourly rates are subject to periodic adjustments to reflect economic and other conditions.

8

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 9 of 35
25. The rate structure provided by Bailey Glasser is appropriate and not significantly different, and in fact is substantially discounted, from (a) the rates that Bailey Glasser charges for other similar types of regulatory and commercial litigation representations or (b) the rates that other comparable counsel would charge to do work substantially similar to the work Bailey Glasser will perform on behalf of the Debtors.
26. In addition to the fees set forth above, the Debtors have agreed, subject to the Court's approval and pursuant to applicable orders of this Court, the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules and the Local Rules, to reimburse Bailey Glasser for direct expenses incurred in connection with the performance of the Special Counsel Matters. Direct expenses include reasonable and customary out-of-pocket expenses such as travel, meals, accommodations, and other expenses specifically related to the Special Counsel Matters.
27. Consistent with the firm's policy with respect to its other clients, Bailey Glasser will charge the Debtors for all charges and disbursements incurred in rendering services to the Debtors, including those services rendered through March 31, 2020.
28. The Debtors understand and have agreed that Bailey Glasser will apply to the Court for allowances of compensation and reimbursement of expenses from and after the Petition Date in accordance with sections 330 and 331 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Rules, and this Court's Order (A) Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses of Retained Professionals and (B) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 122].
9

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 10 of 35
Compensation Received by Bailey G lasser 29. In the 12-month period preceding the Petition Date, the Debtors paid Bailey Glasser $1,958,097.39 in the aggregate. Bailey Glasser has been paid for all prepetition services rendered and expenses incurred prior to March 31, 2020. 30. Of the amounts paid to Bailey Glasser during that 12-month period, the Debtors paid Bailey Glasser $325,000 on January 7, 2020 as an advance payment retainer covering all services Bailey Glasser was to provide through March 31, 2020. That advance payment retainer was, in accordance with Bailey Glasser's agreement, earned by Bailey Glasser upon receipt. As stated, Bailey Glasser intends to abide by that agreement and provide the covered services through March 31, 2020 at no additional expense to the Debtors, other than expenses Bailey Glasser incurs. 31. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b), Bailey Glasser has neither shared nor agreed to share (a) any compensation it has received or may receive with another party or person, other than with the partners, associates, and contract attorneys associated with Bailey Glasser or (b) any compensation another person or party has received or may receive. 32. As of the Petition Date, the Debtors did not owe Bailey Glasser any amounts for legal services rendered or expenses incurred before the Petition Date.
No Adverse Interest 33. Based on the Johnson Declaration and Moore Declaration, to the best of the Debtors' knowledge and except as set forth in the Johnson Declaration and otherwise as set forth herein, Bailey Glasser does not represent or hold any interest adverse to the Debtors or their estates with respect to the Special Counsel Matters on which Bailey Glasser is to be employed. Furthermore, to the best of the Debtors' knowledge and based on the Johnson Declaration,
10

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 11 of 35
Bailey Glasser does not have any connection with the Debtors or any creditor or other parties in interest in these Chapter 11 Cases, or their respective attorneys or accountants, except as otherwise set forth in the Johnson Declaration and otherwise as set forth herein. None of the connections disclosed in the Johnson Declaration or otherwise herein relate to or constitute an adverse interest with respect to the matters on which Bailey Glasser is to be employed, and thus the Debtors believe Bailey Glasser has no connections that would disqualify it as serving as their special counsel herein.
34. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtors provided Bailey Glasser with a list of all known parties in interest in connection with the Debtors' cases. Bailey Glasser has advised the Debtors that it has conducted a preliminary review and disclosed all currently known contacts with those parties in interest in the Johnson Declaration. Bailey Glasser has also advised the Debtors that it is continuing to and will in the future conduct an ongoing review of its records to ensure that no conflicts or other disqualifying circumstances exist or arise. Bailey Glasser has informed the Debtors that if there is a material change to any of the foregoing statements and representations or the statements and representations in the Johnson Declaration during the course of these cases, Bailey Glasser will supplement the Johnson Declaration as needed.
Notice 35. Notice of this Application will be provided to: (a) the Office of the United States Trustee for Region 13; (b) counsel to the Ad Hoc First Lien Group; (c) counsel to the Ad Hoc Crossover Group; (d) counsel to the Facilities Agent; (e) counsel to the Term Agent; (f) counsel to the Indenture Trustee (g) counsel to the collateral trustee under the Debtors' secured debt facilities; (h) counsel to the DIP Agent; (i) counsel to DIP Lenders; (j) counsel to Murray Energy Corporation; (k) counsel to Foresight Reserves LP; (l) counsel to Javelin; (m) counsel to Uniper
11

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 12 of 35
Global Commodities UL Limited; (n) the Internal Revenue Service; (o) the Securities and Exchange Commission (p) the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Missouri; (q) the state attorneys general for all states in which the Debtors conduct business; (r) the holders of the thirty (30) largest unsecured claims against the Debtors, on a consolidated basis; (s) counsel to the Committee; and (t) any party that has requested notice pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002 (collectively, the "Notice Parties"). Notice of this Application and any order entered hereon will be served in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-3(A)(1). In light of the nature of the relief requested herein, the Debtors submit that no other or further notice is necessary.
No Prior Request 36. No prior request for the relief sought in this Application has been made to this or any other court.
12

Case%&0(41308%%%%Doc%&06%%%%Filed%035315&0%%%%Entered%035315&0%08:13:13%%%%Main%Document% Pg%13%of%3A

WHEREFORE, the Debtors respectfully request that the Court enter an order granting the

relief requested in this Application and such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Dated: March 31, 2020 St. Louis, Missouri

Respectfully submitted!
FORESIGHT ENERGY LP (for itself and on behalf of each of its affiliated Debtors and Debtors in Possession)

/s/ Robert D. Moore_________________ Name: Robert D. Moore Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
Foresight Energy LP

Case%20(41308%%%%Doc%206%%%%Filed%03/31/20%%%%Entered%03/31/20%08:13:13%%%%Main%Document% Pg%14%of%35
EXHIBIT A JO HNSON DE C L ARA TION

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 15 of 35

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT E AST E R N D IST R I C T O F M ISSO U R I E AST ERN DIVISION

In re: FORESIGHT ENERGY LP, et al.,
Debtors.

) Chapter 11 ) ) Case No. 20-41308-659 ) ) (Jointly Administered) )

D E C L A R A T I O N O F NI C H O L AS S. JO H NSO N IN SUPPO R T O F T H E D E B T O RS' A PPL I C A T I O N T O E M P L O Y B A I L E Y & G L ASSE R L L P AS SP E C I A L C O U NSE L I, Nicholas S. Johnson, hereby declare:
1. I am a Partner of the law firm Bailey & Glasser LLP ("Bailey Glasser"), which maintains offices for the practice of law at, among other places, 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540, Washington, D.C., 20007.
2. I am admitted, practicing, and a member in good standing of the Bars of the State of West Virginia, the State of Missouri, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and I have been admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Northern District of West Virginia.
3. I submit this declaration ("Declaration") in support of Debtors' Application for an Order Authorizing the Retention and Employment of Bailey & Glasser LLP as Special Counsel for the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession Nunc Pro Tunc to Petition Date (the "Application") and pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 2014 and 2016 and sections 327(e), 328(a), and 329 of the Bankruptcy Code.
4. I am authorized to make this Declaration on behalf of Bailey Glasser. 5. Except as otherwise indicated herein, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called as a witness, would testify competently thereto. Indeed, I was

1

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 16 of 35
Assistant General Counsel for Foresight Energy Services, LLC, one of the Debtors in these cases, from 2014-2015, advising on operational issues across the company, with a focus on commercial and environmental matters.
6. I am in all respect competent to make this Declaration pursuant to sections 327, 328, and 329 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules 2014 and 2016.
Bailey Glasser's Qualifications 7. Foresight Energy LP and its subsidiaries that are debtors and debtors in possession in the above referenced proceedings (collectively the "Debtors") have requested that Bailey Glasser continue to provide services to the Debtors similar to those Bailey Glasser provided prior to the Petition Date, and Bailey Glasser has consented to provide those services. 8. Bailey Glasser has represented the Debtors in many capacities since their inception and formation. Beginning in 1999, Bailey Glasser began representing the Debtors' founder, Chris Cline, personally and his various business interests generally. In that regard, Bailey Glasser assisted Mr. Cline in forming the entities that eventually comprised Foresight Energy, LP and its family of companies ("Foresight") beginning in 2004. From that time until Mr. Cline sold a portion of his interests in Foresight to Murray Energy Corporation ("Murray") in 2015 (the "Murray Acquisition"), Bailey Glasser acted as general outside counsel to both Mr. Cline and Foresight. 9. After Murray acquired a majority of the economic interests in Foresight, Bailey Glasser continued to represent Foresight through the commencement of these chapter 11 cases on a more limited basis on environmental, regulatory, and other discrete corporate transaction and commercial litigation matters.
2

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 17 of 35
10. A non-exhaustive list of Bailey Glasser's prior representative matters of Foresight includes:
a. Litigating against WPP, LLC in a $800 million claim pressed as a result of spontaneous combustion and subsequent declaration of force majeure by Hillsboro Energy, LLC;
b. Negotiating and drafting sale-leaseback style transactions at each of the Debtor's mining facilities (Macoupin Energy, LLC; Hillsboro Energy, LLC; Sugar Camp Energy, LLC; and Williamson Energy, LLC) pre-Murray Acquisition;
c. Representing Foresight Coal Sales, LLC in multiple coal pricing arbitrations; d. Representing Williamson Energy, LLC, both pre-and post-Murray Acquisition, in
long-running dispute with an alleged partnership over mineral rights related to Williamson Energy, LLC's mine plan e. Representing Foresight Coal Sales, LLC, both pre-and post-Murray Acquisition, in commercial disputes with railroads and railcar leasing companies; f. Representing the debtors mining facilities in every regulatory appeal made to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources ("IDNR") and/or the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") since inception and g. Representing the debtors mining facilities in every enforcement action initiated by either the IDNR or IEPA since inception. 11. Both in connection with and after the Murray Acquisition, Bailey Glasser also continued to represent generally Mr. Cline and his business interests, including his business interests in Foresight through Foresight Reserves LP, until his untimely death in 2019. Since his
3

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 18 of 35
death, Bailey Glasser has represented generally Mr. Cline's estate and his various ongoing business interests, including his business interests in Foresight through Foresight Reserves.
12. Since the Murray Acquisition, Bailey Glasser has also represented certain subsidiaries of Murray in connection with various matters unrelated to the Debtors.
13. To enable Bailey Glasser to represent Foresight and various of its subsidiaries while simultaneously representing Mr. Cline and the Cline-related entities, both in connection with Foresight and other unrelated matters, and subsidiaries of Murray, Foresight has entered into a series of conflict waivers with Mr. Cline and the Cline-related entities and certain Murray subsidiaries stretching back to 2015.
14. As a result of its long history of representation of Mr. Cline and Foresight, Bailey Glasser has gained a detailed institutional knowledge of Debtors' operations, corporate structure, material agreements, and personnel that cannot be replicated in the short term at another law firm and that cannot be replicated without substantial cost to the Debtors.
Services to be Rendered 15. Subject to the approval of this Court, Bailey Glasser will provide legal services to the Debtors on the following specific matters:
a. Seeking various environmental permits necessary to construct pipelines and diffusers in the Big Muddy River to allow discharges of chloride water into mixing zones approved under Clean Water Act mixing zones, a matter which Bailey Glasser has handled for five years;
b. Advising on groundwater management zones at Macoupin Energy, LLC and related Consent Orders, a matter which Bailey Glasser has handled since Macoupin Energy, LLC acquired the affected assets from Exxon in 2009;
4

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 19 of 35
c. Advising on chloride and sulfate water treatment at Sugar Camp Energy, LLC a matter which Bailey Glasser has assisted on since 2014;
d. To the extent any litigation occurs during the pendency of Debtors' cases, continuing to represent Williamson Energy, LLC in the claims brought by an alleged partnership (Mitchell-Roberts), a matter which Bailey Glasser has handled since 2014;
e. Pursuing an injunction related to unconstitutional regulations in Kentucky involving coal price bidding, an expedited matter which Bailey Glasser has assisted on since December 2019; and
f. Other day-to-day environmental, permitting, regulatory, and land matters for which Bailey Glasser has provided similar assistance since inception of Foresight Energy.
16. In addition to those specified matters, Bailey Glasser will provide legal services, as requested by the Debtors, with respect to (a) other environmental litigation, regulatory and compliance matters, including monitoring permits, negotiating with state and federal environmental entities regarding compliance matters, and advising the Debtors as to state and federal environmental compliance standards and (b) other commercial advice and lawsuits.
17. Bailey Glasser will also undertake legal work related to this application to retain Bailey Glasser as special counsel, periodic applications for payment of professional fees and expenses, and related matters.
18. Bailey Glasser's representation will be limited to the matters set forth above (the "Special Counsel Matters"). Bailey Glasser will not provide general bankruptcy advice or legal service. Neither the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel nor Bailey Glasser anticipate any overlap in
5

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 20 of 35

responsibility or duplication of efforts between them. Bailey Glasser and the Debtors' other

counsel will work together to ensure that legal services are coordinated and that there is no

unnecessary duplication of services performed or charged to the Debtors' estates.

Compensation

19. Subject to Court approval and the caveat described below, Bailey Glasser will

charge the Debtors for its legal services on an hourly basis in accordance with its ordinary and

customary rates for this client and for matters of the types in effect on the date such services are

rendered and for reimbursement of its actual and necessary expenses and other charged incurred

by Bailey Glasser.

20. The Debtors prepaid Bailey Glasser on a flat-fee basis for its services, plus

reimbursement of expenses, through March 31, 2020. Bailey Glasser intends to honor that

arrangement. Although it will apply for approval of its compensation for services rendered and

reimbursement of expenses prior to March 31, 2020 in accordance with the rules of the Court

and the United States Trustee, Bailey Glasser will not seek payment of compensation for the services by that prepetition arrangement during that period.1 Beginning April 1, 2020, Bailey

Glasser will seek compensation for professional services in accordance with its hourly rates

described below.

21. Because of the long-standing and broad relationship between Debtors and Bailey

Glasser, Bailey Glasser provides Debtors a substantially discounted hourly rate as compared to

its standard rates. The range of Bailey Glasser's rates applicable to Debtors' matters are as

follows:

a. Partners

$475­$850

1 For the avoidance of doubt, the Debtors understand that Bailey Glasser may seek compensation for services rendered in connection with this application and the Debtors' bankruptcy cases, services that fall outside of the prepetition fee arrangement.
6

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 21 of 35

b. Associates/Of Counsel

$400­$450

c. Paraprofessionals (Including Investigators)

$250­$300

22. The following attorneys and paraprofessionals are currently expected to provide

legal services to the Debtors at the substantially discounted hourly rates specified below, which

may change from time-to-time based upon agreement with Debtors:

Name Brian A. Glasser Nicholas S. Johnson Jennifer S. Fahey Jeffrey R. Baron Amy S. Rubin Joshua I. Hammack Christopher D. Smith John C. Ailes, Jr.
Linda Sadler

Position Partner Partner Partner Partner Of Counsel Associate Associates Investigator Paralegal

Hourly Rate $650 $500 $550 $500 $450 $425 $400 $300 $250

23. Other Bailey Glasser lawyers and paraprofessionals will be utilized or consulted and may appear on behalf of the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, as necessary.
24. None of the professionals included in this engagement increase their rate based on the geographical location of these chapter 11 cases.
25. The hourly rates set forth above reflect a substantial discount from Bailey Glasser's standard hourly rates, owing to the age of many of the matters which we are handling and the long-standing attorney-client relationship with Debtors. These rates are set at a level designed to fairly compensate Bailey Glasser for the work of its attorneys and paralegals and to cover fixed and routine overhead expenses of the Firm.
7

Ca#$ &'()*+', -o/ &'0 Fil$4 '+5+*5&' E7t$r$4 '+5+*5&' ',:*+:*+ ;ai7 -o/<m$7t P? && of +A
26. Additionally, it is Bailey Glasser's policy to charge its clients in all areas of practice for all other expenses incurred in connection with the client's case or transaction, subject to any modification to such policies that Bailey Glasser may be required to comply with sections 330 and 331 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Bankruptcy Rules, and Orders of this Court.
27. These hourly rates are subject to periodic adjustments to reflect economic and other conditions, and to reflect their increased experience and expertise in this area of the law. Bailey Glasser may make periodic applications for compensation, and if, at the completion of the case the results merit it, may make application to the Court for the allowance of a premium above their designated hourly rates.
28. Bailey Glasser intends to apply to the Bankruptcy Court for allowance of compensation for professional services rendered and reimbursement of expenses incurred in these cases in accordance with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and the Local Rules and Orders of this Court.
Compensation Received by Bailey G lasser 29. In the 12-month period preceding the Petition Date, the Debtors paid to Bailey Glasser $1,958,097.39 in the aggregate for legal services rendered and expenses incurred. Bailey Glasser has been paid for all prepetition services rendered and expenses incurred prior to March 31, 2020. 30. Of the amounts paid to Bailey Glasser during that 12-month period, the Debtors paid Bailey Glasser $325,000 on January 7, 2020 as an advance payment retainer covering all services Bailey Glasser was to provide through March 31, 2020. That advance payment retainer was, in accordance with Bailey Glasser's agreement, earned by Bailey Glasser upon receipt. As
8

!"#$ &'()*+', -./ &'0 123$4 '+5+*5&' 678$9$4 '+5+*5&' ',:*+:*+ ;"27 -./<=$78 >? &+ .@ +A
stated, Bailey Glasser intends to abide by that agreement and provide covered services through March 31, 2020 at no additional expense to the Debtors, other than expenses Bailey Glasser incur on Debtors' behalf.
31. The Debtors owe the firm $0.00 for prepetition services and Bailey Glasser has been paid for all prepetition services and expenses rendered prior to March 31, 2020.
32. Neither I nor any partner or associate of Bailey Glasser has shared or agreed to share (a) any compensation it has received or may receive with another party or person, other than with the partners, associates, and contract attorneys associated with Bailey Glasser or (b) any compensation another person or party has received or may receive.
No Adverse Interest 33. Bailey Glasser has performed services in the past and may perform services in the future, in matters unrelated to these chapter 11 cases, for persons that are parties in interest in the Debtors' chapter 11 cases. As part of its customary practice, Bailey Glasser is retained in cases, proceedings, and transactions involving many different parties, some of whom may represent or be claimants or employees of the Debtors, or other parties in interest in these chapter 11 cases. Except as specifically set forth herein, Bailey Glasser does not and will not perform services for any such person in connection with these chapter 11 cases. 34. Bailey Glasser does not have any relationship with any person, any such persons' attorneys, or any such persons' accountants that would be adverse to the Debtors or their estates with respect to the matters on which Bailey Glasser is to be retained.
Bailey Glasser's Connections with the Debtors 35. As set forth above, over a period of approximately 15 years, Bailey Glasser has provided extensive general legal and corporate advice and other professional services to the
9

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 24 of 35
Debtors. Bailey Glasser has represented the Debtors as their outside counsel, working closely with and advising the Debtors in connection with a wide range of matters including significant corporate transactions and commercial and environmental litigation.
36. In connection therewith and insofar as is pertinent to the Application, Bailey Glasser has served as Debtors' legal advisors regarding environmental and other regulatory compliance, and has provided as well advice to the Debtors' board of directors and other services for the Debtors in relation to the issues that have a direct and significant impact on the Debtors' day-to-day operations. If authorized to so by this Court, Bailey Glasser will continue to act as special counsel for the Debtors with respect to those matters, advising the Debtors with respect, specifically, to the Special Counsel Matters set forth in the Application.
Bailey Glasser's Connections with Parties in these Chapter 11 Cases 37. To confirm that Bailey Glasser did not have any conflicts or other connections that might preclude its representation of the Debtors as special counsel, I caused Bailey Glasser attorneys under my supervision to conduct a review of potential connections and relationships between Bailey Glasser and parties in interest in these chapter 11 cases within the categories articulated in the Potential Parties in Interest List (ECF No. 33) hereto (the "Potential Parties in Interest"). 38. Bailey Glasser has conducted a preliminary investigation and review of its connections to the Potential Parties in Interest. To the best of my knowledge, all such entities and the nature of Bailey Glasser's representation of, or connections to, such entities are set forth in this Declaration or in E xhibit 1 to this Declaration (the "Disclosure Schedule").
10

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 25 of 35
Connections with the Debtors and Their Representatives 39. As noted, Bailey Glasser has represented Foresight Energy and various of its
subsidiaries for more than fifteen years. 2 40. In connection with its representation of the Debtors during that period of time,
Bailey Glasser and various of its attorneys, paralegals, and investigators have had professional and personal relationships with many of the Debtors' current and former officers and directors, some of whom are (or were) representatives or appointees of Cline-related entities and Murray that Bailey Glasser also represented as described below, and various of the Debtors' attorneys, advisors, and accountants.
41. In addition, Bailey Glasser has had contacts with those persons listed as Former Officers and Directors on the List of Potential Parties in their activities after departing Foresight Energy LP, and in some instances, has been retained by such former officers and directors to represent them and their new employers in matters unrelated to the Debtors. Bailey Glasser currently represents Lesslie Ray, a former director of the Debtors, in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Chris Cline in a litigation matter pending in Florida. Cline-Related Connections
42. Bailey Glasser, and the partners, counsel, and associates of Bailey Glasser, represented Chris Cline and his estate and business interests in the past, and currently represent and expect to represent his estate and business interests in the future, in connection with matters unrelated to the Debtors.

2

Bailey Glasser has represented and/or assisted in the formation of each of the Debtors listed on the

Potential Parties in Interest List (ECF No. 33), except for Foresight Energy Employee Services.

11

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 26 of 35
43. In addition, Bailey Glasser represented Chris Cline, his estate and certain of his business interests in the past, currently represent, and may represent in the future the following Cline-related entities in connection with matters directly related to the Debtors:
a. Foresight Reserves, LP, a 20% equity holder of the limited partnership interests in Foresight Energy LP;
b. Colt, LLC, which leases coal reserves to the Debtors and entered into a restructuring support agreement with the Debtors; and
c. New River Royalty LLC, which leases property to the Debtors. 44. Prior to the Petition Date, Bailey Glasser simultaneously represented certain of the Debtors and those identified Cline-related entities in connection with matters directly related to the Debtors pursuant to conflict waivers executed by each of the relevant parties. 45. As set forth in the Moore Declaration, the Debtors have agreed to waive the same conflicts to allow Bailey Glasser to continue to represent the Debtors and such Cline-related entities in such matters directly related to the Debtors in connection with Bailey Glasser's employment as special counsel. Other Non-Cline-Related Connections 46. In addition to those Cline-related entities, Bailey Glasser, and the partners, counsel, and associates of Bailey Glasser, presently represent, have represented in the past, and may represent in the future entities (or affiliates of entities) that are claimants of and/or interest holders in the Debtors, and/or are parties in interest in these chapter 11 cases, in matters unrelated to these chapter 11 cases. To the best of my knowledge, all such parties and Bailey Glasser's relationship thereto are specifically described in E xhibit 1.
12

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 27 of 35
47. Bailey Glasser has also represented certain Murray Energy Company subsidiaries: Consolidation Coal Company, McElroy Coal Company, and The American Coal Company (the "Murray Subsidiaries") in providing compliance advice and in litigation matters unrelated to the Debtors. Bailey Glasser's representation of the Murray Subsidiaries was undertaken with all potentially interested parties consenting in writing. Bailey Glasser expects to continue to represent the Murray Subsidiaries in matters unrelated to these chapter 11 cases.
48. Bailey Glasser currently represents Javelin Global Commodities (UK) LTD ("Javelin") in various bankruptcy or litigation matters unrelated to the Debtors. Bailey Glasser's representation of Javelin was undertaken with all potentially interested parties consenting in writing. Bailey Glasser will continue to represent Javelin in matters unrelated to these chapter 11 cases.
49. Lastly, certain of Bailey Glasser's attorneys acquired and continue to hold de minimis amounts of limited partnership interests in Foresight, which limited partnership interests are expected to receive no distributions or other consideration in connection with these Chapter 11 cases.
50. Except as set forth in the preceding paragraphs and E xhibit 1 hereto, and based on the conflicts review conducted to date and described herein, to the best of my knowledge, neither I, nor any member, counsel, associate, or other attorney of Bailey Glasser, insofar as I have been able to ascertain, currently represents or has represented any of the other Potential Parties in Interest.
51. Bailey Glasser is, however, continuing to conduct a review of its records for connections to the Potential Parties in Interest and reserves the right to supplement this disclosure as to its relationships with the Potential Parties in Interest.
13

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 28 of 35
52. In addition, and in light of the extensive number of the Debtors' creditors and parties in interest and because definitive lists of all such creditors and other parties have not yet been generated or obtained, neither I nor Bailey Glasser are able to conclusively identify all potential relationships with the Debtors' creditors and other parties at this time, and we reserve the right to supplement this disclosure as additional relationships that may be relevant to Bailey Glasser come to our attention.
53. The records upon which this investigation is based are maintained by Bailey Glasser in the ordinary course of business and are believed to be accurate; to the extent I become aware hereafter that any such records or other information contained herein is not accurate, I will promptly apprise the Court.
54. I am not related, and to the best of my knowledge, no attorney at Bailey Glasser is related, to any United States Bankruptcy Judge in the Eastern District of Missouri or the United States Trustee for such district or any employee in the office thereof, or any clerk, deputy, or personnel working in the Court, except (i) to the extent any partner, counsel, or associate (a) may have appeared in the past and may appear in the future in cases where one or more of such parties may be involved; and (b) may have represented or may represent one or more of such parties in interest in matters unrelated to these chapter 11 cases.
55. To the best of my knowledge and insofar as I have been able to ascertain, neither Bailey Glasser nor any of its partners, counsel, or associates holds or represents any interest adverse to the Debtors or their estates with respect to the matters upon which it is to be engaged.
56. With respect to the foregoing representations, and any other representation set forth in E xhibit 1, the identified, ongoing, and potential future representations of any Clinerelated entities or any other creditor or party in interest will not affect Bailey Glasser's
14

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 29 of 35

representation of the Debtors in the specific matters for which it is to be retained as set forth in

the Application.

57. Bailey Glasser further states that it has not shared, nor agreed to share (a) any

compensation it has received or may receive with another party or person, other than with the

partners, counsel, associates of Bailey Glasser and other employees generally retained by Bailey

Glasser in the ordinary course of business and that have not been specifically retained for this

particular matter; or (b) any compensation paid by the Debtors to any other person or party in

these chapter 11 cases.

58. The foregoing constitutes the statement of Bailey Glasser pursuant to sections

327(e), 328, and 329 of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules 2014(a) and 2016(b), and Local

Bankruptcy Rules 2014 and 2016.

59. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of

the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this

Dated: March 31, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nicholas S. Johnson____________ Name: Nicholas S. Johnson Title: Partner
Bailey & Glasser LLP

15

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 30 of 35 EXHIBIT 1
DISC L OSURE SC H EDUL E
16

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 31 of 35

Debtors

Bailey Glasser has represented and/or assisted in the formation of each of the Debtors listed on the Potential Parties in Interest List (ECF No. 33), except for Foresight Energy Employee Services.
Non-Debtor Affiliates

Matched Entity Adena Minerals, L.L.C. Consolidation Coal Company McElroy Coal Company Colt LLC Javelin Global Commodities (UK) LTD Foresight Reserves LP Ruger Coal Company, LLC Ruger, LLC

Relationship to Bailey G lasser Former Client1 Current Client Former Client Current Client Current Client Current Client Current Client Current Client

Matched Entity Lesslie Ray

Current Officers and Directors
Relationship to Bailey G lasser Current Client

Matched Entity Anthony Webb

Former Officers and Directors
Relationship to Bailey G lasser Former Client

Joint Ventures, Partnerships and Consortiums

Matched Entity Foresight Reserves LP

Relationship to Bailey G lasser Current Client

F iver Percent and Greater Shareholders and Beneficial Owners

Matched Entity Cline Trust Company, LLC [Estate of] Christopher Cline

Relationship to Bailey G lasser Current Client Current Client

Significant F inancial Institutions (Including Administrative Agents, Lenders and Equipment F inancing)

Matched Entity

Relationship to Bailey G lasser

1

The term "current client" means an entity or person identified as presently having a matter open with

Bailey Glasser. The term "former client" means an entity or person identified as having a closed matter with Bailey

Glasser.

Case 20-41308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 32 of 35

PNC Bank, National Association

Current Client

Matched Entity New River Royalty, LLC

Royalty Contract Counterparties
Relationship to Bailey G lasser Current Client

1L Lenders2

Matched Entity Cline Resource and Development Company The Cline Trust Company Midtown Acquisitions L.P.

Relationship to Bailey G lasser Current Client Current Client Former Client

2L Lenders3

Matched Entity

Relationship to Bailey G lasser

The Cline Group

Current Client

Davidson Kempner Capital Management L.P. Former Client

Matched Entity The American Coal Company

Significant Customers
Relationship to Bailey G lasser Current Client

Matched Entity State Electric Supply Co.

Top 50 Unsecured Creditors
Relationship to Bailey G lasser Former Client

2

Neither Cline Trust Company LLC nor Cline Resource and Development Company, Inc. owned any 1L

debt as of the bankruptcy petition.

3

The Cline Group is a d/b/a for Cline Resource and Development Company, Inc. It owed no 2L debt as of

the bankruptcy petition.

2

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 33 of 35
EXHIBIT B MOORE DECLARATION

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 34 of 35

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT E AST E R N D IST R I C T O F M ISSO U R I E AST ERN DIVISION

In re: FORESIGHT ENERGY LP, et al.,
Debtors.

) Chapter 11 ) ) Case No. 20-41308-659 ) ) (Jointly Administered) )

!"#$%&%'()*+),+&)-"&'+!.+/))&"+(*+0122)&'+),+'3"+!"-')&0'+ APPLIC A TION F OR ENTRY O F AN ORDER AUT H ORIZING T H E RE T ENTION AND
E M P L O Y M E N T O F B A I L E Y & G L ASSE R L L P AS SPE C I A L C O U NSE L , NUNC PRO TUNC T O T H E PE TITION DA T E
I, Robert D. Moore, under penalty of perjury, declare as follows: 1. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Foresight Energy LP located at
One Metropolitan Square, 211 North Broadway, Suite 2600, St. Louis, Missouri 63102. 2. I submit this declaration (the "Declaration") in support of Debtors' Application
for an Order Authorizing the Retention and Employment of Bailey & Glasser LLP as Special Counsel for the Debtors and Debtors in Possession Nunc Pro Tunc to Petition Date (the "Application"). Except as otherwise noted, all facts in this Declaration are based on my personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, information gathered from my review of relevant documents, and information supplied to be by members of the Debtors' senior management and the Debtors' advisors.
3. The Debtors are seeking the employment of Bailey Glasser despite Bailey Glasser's continuing representation of parties-in-interest who hold or may hold an interest adverse to the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases. However, the Debtors have determined that Bailey Glasser, by its representation of those parties-in-interest listed below, does not hold an

Case 2041308 Doc 206 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 08:13:13 Main Document Pg 35 of 35

interest adverse to the Debtors in the matters for which the Debtors seek their representation in these cases, i.e. the Special Counsel Matters as defined in the Application.
4. Additionally, the Debtors, as debtors in possession, hereby agree to waive any actual or potential conflicts now existing or arising from Bailey Glasser's continued representation of other parties-in-interest in any business or litigation matter relating to the Debtors and as to which the Debtors' interests are adverse:
a. The Estate of Chris Cline; b. Foresight Reserves LP; c. Colt, LLC; and d. New River Royalty, LLC. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

Dated: March 31, 2020 St. Louis, Missouri

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert D. Moore_____________________ Robert D. Moore Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
Foresight Energy LP

2

March 18, 2020
The President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20500
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Speaker of the House of Representatives United States Capitol Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Mitch McConnell Majority Leader United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader McConnell:
As the country faces this unique and mounting challenge around the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. coal miners continue to work to provide the resources necessary to power America while bracing for the severe financial distress facing all sectors across the nation. To minimize the impact of this crisis on the coal industry, Congress should ensure all businesses have the financial resources necessary to ride out the pandemic.
The coal industry is absolutely critical to securing a domestic, secure supply of affordable energy. As global supply chains are disrupted, countries close their borders and the shock of national quarantines buffets the global economy, American-mined coal is here when it is needed. The industry remains steadfast. The fuel security provided by coal reserves at power plants offers resiliency to a system that is bracing for uncertainty, and it is imperative to keep these plants online--whether through the use of the Defense Production Act or other means--in the interest of national security. Further, as an essential industry for the processing of raw materials for equipment essential to primary operations in the electric power sector under Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21) and the 2013 Department of Homeland Security National Infrastructure Protection Plan, additional designation is necessary to ensure the continued national operation of critical infrastructure and supply chains to allow uninterrupted operations.
To maintain this essential role, it is imperative that coal companies have access to the necessary cash flow they need to continue operations. Even before the recent crisis, the coal industry was struggling to recover from a series of disabling public policies

impairing coal demand and production. Compounding the impacts, late last year Congress imposed a $220 million tax increase on the industry through the Black Lung Excise Tax (BLET). The U.S. Department of Labor recently testified that increasing the tax rate was unnecessary as the lower tax rate is sufficient to cover beneficiary payments and program administration costs. Congress should immediately reduce--not eliminate--the BLET to its 2019 levels. Doing so would provide much needed relief for the coal industry and ensure continued revenue for the payment of benefits under the program that could otherwise face financial stress.
Separately, coal companies paid approximately $150 million in fees in fiscal year 2019 into the Abandoned Mine Land Fund to reclaim high-priority coal mines abandoned or not sufficiently reclaimed before 1977. Over the last 40 years, more than $11 billion plus interest have been collected into the fund. Reclamation projects at existing operations and historic sites continue today even during this time of crisis. With an estimated $2.2 billion already in the fund, Congress should provide a temporary 50 percent reduction in the amount of fees collected for surface-, underground- and lignitemined coal to ensure the continued purpose of reclaiming high priority abandoned and active coal mines.
Congress should also suspend or reduce the federal royalty payments to the treasury. Royalty rates for federal coal are 30 percent to 65 percent higher than the prevailing rates for private coal in the East. Moreover, federal coal lessees pay bonus bids and surface rentals, financial features rarely found in private coal leasing transactions. Between taxes, fees and royalties, the federal, state and local governments receive almost 40 cents on every dollar of coal sold from the Powder River Basin. This relief, well in line with other industries, would help companies operating on federal lands to mitigate the economic impacts of COVID-19 while maintaining operational capacity and ensuring access to in-demand energy resources.
Recent policy announcements to immediately increase the availability of credit must also be expanded to make certain that the credit is readily available to all operating businesses in the short term without prejudice or discrimination. Under pressure from environment groups, financial institutions have divested from carbon-intensive industries, specifically coal, over the last decade, leaving very limited options available to the coal industry. Without access to available credit, the operations of hundreds of mines will be threatened, together with the nearly 81,000 miners they employ.
In a perilous time, the essential work of our coal miners to produce the fuel to keep the lights on and homes warm and the certainty and security provided by coal power is just what we need to keep the country moving forward. We appreciate your consideration and thank you for your leadership during these very difficult times.
Sincerely,
Rich Nolan
2

08/04/2003

1831 FAX 304 304 342

1.10

BAILE/6LA22ER

cc2/014

Prepared by and rcnxrn to

Michael

Tindle All orney

Tenncsree Vafly Authority

1101 Market Street SP 3L

Chattanooga Ten.nesec 37402-2801
423 751-3 17

YVATrDCLNO.XENC.3L

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

THIS ASS1GN4ENT AND ASSUMPIION AORMENT sometimes kreinafter

retrred to as

Assignnint Agre mcntD effectve this 4th day of ugust 2009 such datc

Lcsof sometimes herein.ailer

Datc referred Co az the 1Eftectlve

OF AMERICA sometimj herinaor referred to as

by and aniong

UNITED STATES

acting hireln by and thrriugh its

cgaJ agent the Termese Valley Authority sonjetime herekafter refcrred to

TVA

government corporation created and existing under an Act of Congress hiown

thc Tcruonec

Vallcy Authority Act of 1933 as ameudc HOl Market Sheet Caiisnooga Tenesscc 37402

2801 and flhinois Fucl Campany LLC

IZantucky

limitcd liabitity company sometimes

hereinafbr referred to as Msignor and omcdmes hereinafter rferrtxi 10 as Lessee and

Fuel sornctinies bereinaftcr referred to as Illinois

1500 North Big Rtrn Ioad Ashiand

Kcntucky 41102 and Ruer Coal Company LLC Delawarc limited Ubi1ity cornpny 301 PGA Boulevard Suite 903 PaLm Beach Gsrdens FIorld 33410 soetirnea hereinafter referred
1uger to as A.ssicc and somimes herizafter refcrrd to as

IT

TH

WHEREAS TVA Pul as 1eal agent for the LessoT and illinois

as Lessee executed thc

Illinois Coal Lease effective July
t1le as TVA Tract No XENC-3L

ae 2002 whieh Lease is

desiatcd

TVA in the

land

rr copy of which Lease is attichi

and rnadc

part

hereof

Exbjbit

Lease the

arid mniorad.a of which is cfrccrd as Doctitnctt

Number 200 7-S22 in the offIce of the Recorder of Franklin County 1l1iryls as Xnstrumnt

Number 2007005805

in the offlc of the Recorder of I-thmilton

County Illinois and as

Instrument Ntirrjber 200706923

in the oftice of the Recorder of Jeffrcson County flhinois and

WHEREAS Illiuioiri

Fuel as L.sec deires to assign to Ruger 1l c.f Ll1inoi Fuels estate

right title and intertst in to and under the Lease and Ruger desires to

acoept from Illinois

Fuel the assient of all of its right titJ and terestlrtto and uit-l the Leasc and ii

a.scwne

all of its duties and obligations

aM under the Lease

ttIOd

L8

si WLJ

Gaoto-Dfly

8/14/29

16 31 FA

304 3n4 342 11 ic

bILE LA ER

nri3/ri 14

1VA Tract t4o XENC-3L

WHEREAS pursuarttto Section TVAs prior writien consent and

12 of the Lease the asaiment of the Lcasc requires

WHEREAS TVA desires to consent to 1lllnoi Fuels assig menXto Ruger of all of

Fuds Illinois

estate right title and interest in 10 and undcr the Lense provided that Rugcr

agrees to be bound by and tubjcet to all of the terms of the Lease

TVA WHEREAS Rugcr further desires to obtain

sconsent upon the assiunertt of the

Rug Lcasc to

to permit the Lease reser.es to be niead by Sugar Camp Energy LLC

Camp Delaware limited liability company that is an affiliate of Rugcr Sugar

WHEREAS TVA further desires to consent Camp after assign-merit of the Lcasc to Ruger

to the mining of the Lease reserves by Sugar

NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained

and other good and valuable consideration

acknowledged

the parties covenant

the receipt and sufficicncy asfp1ows

of which is hereby

and

bzn.muti Assignor as of the ffectiva Date does

set over unto Assignee and Its successors

and assIgns

hereby gmcu ssigii transfir convey and

all of the right title and interest

of the

Assignor in to and under the Lease Assignee as of the tffective Date hereby accepts

Assignors right title and wrercat in to end tinder the Lease

AumptlOn Assignee hereby assumes as of and after the Effective Date all of the tenns

covenants agreements conditions

duties and obligations of the Asaigtor puzsuwfl to the Lease

Assignee agrccs that it will perform and comply with the terms and conditions

of the Lease as of

and after the Effvctive Date as if Assignee had bccn an original party to the Lcasc.

Lea9 Pyuicjitu

R.tiger hereby covenants

TVA atid agrees that it shall pay to

the full eruount

of any payments that may become Fuel hereby covenants and agrees

due under the Lease on or after the Effective

thon TVA or after the Eftoctivc Date

will

Dale fliinois be under no duty

or ob igation to makc arty payments toit under on apc unt of or with respect to the Lease

including mit not limited to on account of or with respect to any lease payments minimum

royalty paymcntS production royalty paymen1 TecoUpEtIetits

repay3i1ents or any coal

production that may or may not occur on the leased premises

or after the Effective Date

TVA the auke of clarity and avoidance of all doubt

sbalI be wdcr no duty or obligation

For

whatsoever

on or after the Eftcctivc Date to make any payments or repayments to Illinois Fuel

under on account of with respect to or in connectiOn

with the Lease

TVA The Lease Tenut

Tlflnois Fuel and Ruger acknowledge arid agree

not agreed to any change

rtvislon modification

or ectension

of the tei-m

that the parties hays of the Lease

Ratifkation

The partics uxl rstand and agree that the terrrs and conditions

Lease ihall remain in full force and effect and the copy of the Lease attached

incorporated

hareia by reference and is hereby ratified and eon.flrmed

contained hereto is

in the

COOd

AC

S1M

jvT

500

0-OftV

O8/O4/2O9

16

42 FAX O4 O4

11

fl

BAILE

6LAER

O4/114

WA

No XENC4L

wd TVA D1auIt Assignor

acicaowlcdge

arid represent to Assignee

bz rate arid to thc

of Assignors and 1VAs.icnowledge

and bclic

that as of the J3ffeve the Lcase is in ii.iil foxtc

sirtct and enact btha

fthc Lease to Assignee will not coef1ic with or reuir ui any

brcacji or violation of or default of any party to the Lease and

under the Lease

no defaults

no fact cirithstance or cvcnt

exist under the Lease on the pan cxLcts that with notice or the

passage

of lirnc or both would constitute

default under the Lease

give rise to

right of

termination

cancdlrnion

or accclcration of any obligation or Loss of any iight or beneft under

the L.c.ec

Cent TVA hereby consents to Assignors assignment of the Lease to Assignoa and releases

Lse fom Assignor

any obligations or liabiIiics

under the

arisuig on or after the Effective

TVA further consents to the mining of the Lease reseis by Sugar Camp after the Lease

Date

nmcnJJ Leo assigned to Rugcr
Section 12

This consent

shall

riot be con.cd as waiver of TVAs rights under

of the

with respect to tuy subsequent

ass gnmenLs

and Ruger shajinot assign in whole or in part any of the estate right or benefit

accruing

to it under the tcrms of the Lease and/or under the terrn of this Atsgiiment Agreeznent

TVA without the prior ittci consent of

which consent shall not eimreasonably

withhekL

Fntirc Arcernenf

This Assignment Agreement and the atrachmeri

agrecmcnt matt among the paz-ties hcreto with respect to the subject

prior agreements reprccntatIons understandings

anti conirnulicntioas

hxcto constitut. the entire icmedf and supcrsedr all
of the rtles

Bin dm1 Effct This Assignment Agreement shell be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
each of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns

Ameimeut9 No term or proVision no4idor amended or compliance
executed by sach party herrto

ng of this Assimeut Agrccsnent may be tcrminated
therewith waived except by an instnimcnt in

J-1cadngj The hdings of the sections of this
of convenience Only and shaU not be consuucd to the provisions hereof

inient Agreement affe the meaning

ar inserted
construction

for purpos of arty of

construn

The parties acknowledge that each party and its counsel have reviewed this

Assignmrrt Agreement

aeement arad that the terms ol diis

have becri

axrivxL at after mutual

aM negotiation

drafbng and thcrcll.rc the rule of coosuciiori to the rect that any arnbiguitle.c

are io be resolved against the drafting party haII not be employed in theintarpretation

of this

agreement or arty term or provision thereof

Gove-njng

Law This Assirucnt Agreement will be governed by and construed

in accordance

with Federal law and to the exten not inconsistent with Federal law the laws of the St.ace of

Iiiinoi

Th Chpee of Forum

parties agree that any 1avuit between them

claims arising out of or related to this Assignrzient Agreement end/or

that asserts claim or LhO Lease shall be tiled

and

Iitigarcd

to conclusion

only in the United States Dis-ict COurt for the Eastern District of

Tennessee at Knoxville and each party hereby consents to the jurLs tion and venue of that

Od

I2fld Vi

Jttt GOOZ-tDuv

08/04/2003 1832 FAX 304 304 3421110

BILEJ3LER

0c5/c14

WA Trct No XENC-3L

court for

such 1awsuI

iy sch The PJte$ furthcr igree that in

Iitigatiox

each will

stipuiatcto have

United Sates Magistratc Judge conduct any and all proceedings

in the

litigatIon in accordance With

U.S.C 636c and FxL

Civ

73 and

each will waive

rIght

Tflay have to

o1 trial by jury This provision is

dispulaf

clause thin the

meaning of the Contra bisputc to that Act

Act 41 US.C

601-613 and this Agreement is not subjeci

Countcrpj This Asignmcnt Artement may be executed
including by means of facsimile sgnatures each of wh.ich shall shall constitute one end the same instruniont

in any be an

iii.imbcr original

of counterparrs but all of which

Lnd siznu Suraci

Assignor agrees that

with the assignment of the Lease and as

TVA con diti on of

consent to the assignment

of the Lease Assignor will convey or cause it

afuUiaes to convey to Assigncc all right tItle and interest Assigrior or its affiliates havc

acquircd in and to the surface overlying

the lands described

In the Lease pursuanto Section

of

the Lease or othcrwise

Performance Assurance

Miotmun Royi1t Paymen

Assie rind Assignor agree as

TVAs Msiee condition of

consent to the issgnment of the Lease that

shall pay or pre-pay all

the remainthg unpaid twdve zriinirnum royalty payments under Section

of the Lease which

TVA yc amounts have no bccn paid to

prIor to August 4th 2009 through the Lnitial ten

Lease

tcnn by paying the amount of

TVA 1.31 U.20.20 United Statc Dollars hy wire transfer to

no

TVA later than August 4th 2009 to the follov-ing

account at the United States Trca.suTy

BANK NAME BANx ADDRESS

TREAS NYC OFVICLL ABBREViATION
NW YORK FEDERAL RESEP..VE BANK
33 LIBERTY STRE27
NEW YONEW YOJ 1004

NUMBR ABA

O2d3cJCO4

ACCOUN1NO

4912

T5xpy1D

62 0474417

namoM 081 Pro vidt .Out organlazIda

itivoica

iiumbcr or explaitbn

oFpymeu

TVA Contaet
Stephario Raley Neva Borgor Maitin Riner

865 632-7143 Z65 6324410
865 632-8127

rforxrirnce Asthratice

Asaicc shall provide IVA

30 written notice at least thirty

calendar

days prIor to the dce Assignee

reasonably

ostimates

Assignee will initially benrernoving coal from the leased premises In the event coal is being

IVA produced pursuanrto the Lease from the leased premises

nay from time to time rind rpon

written notice to Msignee requiro Assignee to ftu-nish perfonance

assurancc fcr the protecon

SC0 C9C 1L

sn

ocz-o-onv

08/04/2003

1632 FAX 304 304 342 1110

BAILEY GLA33ER

OO8/014

TVATrctNo.XEIJC-3L

TVA of

in an amount that is eqimi to the greater ofSl000000 or fcnir

tfrnes TVAs

re.sonable detcniiiation

of the Msignees estimated average morixhly produation royalty

TVA payment to

in the foxm of an standby iievocabIs letter of credit isucd by

comniercial

bank having

ofA senior unsecured cred.it ratings

or higher with

tJ.S Smndsrd

nd

A3 Poors end

or higher with Moodys investors Service

Subixrevocablc letter of credit shall

be in the form attached bcrcto end shall gtiaiantee all payrnmt tor.A of amounts

LLe uEdr

the Lease and this Assigurnenx

Agreement and shnil not be terminated prior to 90 days following

TVA the expiration of the Lease Upon rcceipt of notice from

requiring perforrnanoe assurance

paiaph pursiairt to this

Assignee shall have 11leen

of such notic

TVA provide such letter of credit to

15 calcndar
In the event

days a.ttet such letter

the day of receipt of credit is not

provided within fifteenealandar

TVA days

Will be entitled

to the remedies set forth in Section

15 Defanlt eM

ncti

of the Lease The Msinee acknowledges TVA and agrees that

may from rime to time require an inerease or reduction in the amount of such letter of credit

TVAs based on

reasonable deteminaxion of the Assignees estimated average monthly

produon royalty pymcnl undcr thc Lease Assignee may upon sitten notice toTVA

provide asubstitute

or additional or rtnewed letter of credit in order to

this prnvIsion provi4ed

that the fLnncial

iostithtion issuing suth ettr

meet its obligations under

of credit satisfies

all of

the req

nrs of this provision atd the letter of credit is in the form attached

hereto

IN W11NESS WHEREOF the Tenaesset Valley Authority aedng herein as legal agent

of the United States of America arid being duly outhor2.od

to do so has caused this Asignrucnt

A-rement to be executed in the name of tha United Sr.atca of America by Its duly authorized

rcprcsentarives this

299 day of August

and Ruger Coal Company Inc and Illinois Fuel

Company.LLC have c.uscd this insmeat to be eccuted by thdr duly azzthorized

representatives thi

day of August 2009

.. .1

S1GNAE FACE FOLLOWS

9OU

LCE 1L

SIrfld

ai GO0-nv

08/04/2008

1832 FAX 304 304 342 1110

BAILE GLA2ER

O0/Ol4

UNITLD STATES OF AMERICA By TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORTh
gent

Manager

PS
ealty Serve.a

ILLINOIS FUEL COMPANY LLC

Kentucky tiniPted

flabity ccmpary

Pc/ By
Name

___l_iJ ___j_/d___

Titic

RUGER COALCOMPANf LLC

ro aI

mtd Irabity npany

By Name
Tit1

______4_o___

WA Td No XENC-L

s__-

PZ i9l
--

Stfl VM

OVT GOC0-CflV

08/04/2009 1832 FAX 30.4 304 342 1110 V..0BLE.rA3ER

008/0l4

TVA Tract No XEN-3L

STATE OF TEN NESSEE SS
cotft4rOFHAMILTON

thday td Der w VsAaAMiildoLELRrEOb1peYCnirAna gAUtibaTognHdfOmlResIhTedYulaaycuokthfsnowoArcciwutoyrglnrepUdcoLgrdfteildIodt2sn0sa0By9oatrhadbnaiednt feoostftrrhtueealiw tmnseattitodiolepinMpsbeaatenrnrudaetm hgeeaersDnfrAteleIeSR wgYaaealsaclattgygaennnSSdeteNdcdIfvPoelcarEeerdSitdhoodtffoeUtlhitNvmheeeIreTeEUdTDpNEeNITNzoESnEoDTSnAbSTaeSEhElaTESlfAkTnEoOowSfFn

OF AMERICA as princlpsi

and theTENNIESSEE

VALLEY AUTH0RITY aolts agent

my VVflNIESS

hand and oflicial

ce

office in Ch9ttriooge

Tennevo the dy nd yoar

a1oresad

i02o
My mmlssion expires

TEOF E
SPUUC

STATE OF _________________

COU4OF

Jiju cj4Trr Bafor me

j1fl-r sworn did say that

nd wa conlpany
by authority
free ct and

that of
daed

to me peraonally known who being by me duly

appaared he Is the

4-311

of lilnoie

said instrumeit

sned and delivered

on

Board of DIrectors and he/she ca such officer

of said limited iblllty oompny on the day and

Fuel Company LLC

irmited iabfllty

behalf of said limited abl1iy company

acknIodged aaid insiimOrt to

year hern mrrtianed

tP

WLThS5

.A ny hand and seal

office th _______ day of August 2009

Notary Public

My comrnIOfleWirss

eOUd

LC9C tL
00_

oa-o-ocv

08/04/2008

1832 FAX 304 304 342 1110

.BAILE LA2$ER

008/014

TVA Tract No XENC-3L

STATOF ________________
COUN1YOF PArn racj

9efr me appeere

LOki dJjplavrij to me porsnally kvowr who being by

duty

sWorn id say ttat he

Lh flJLtli/lyJZiii

J.k1SY

of Ruger CoI Company LLC Delawere Ilmtted

liability company

nd that ald Intrurnerit

gnad and detvred on behall of

mpany

hIho aithori1y of ts Board ci Dlrcors and

is suct olUcer

free

and deed of .aid corporation

yr on the day end

Mreln

knov1edg
rnentlorncd

saId Iriswnent

to be me

oif WITNESS my hand and seal of

thie

L7Ltt

day of August 2009

__________

ota

PLJbInC

My commison expIrs 3J5/W IL

soc.i

C8ESL

siiid VAL

eu 600-UEUV

oe/04/2003

132 FAX 304 304 342 iiib

9AIL6LA3ER

010/o14

FORM LETTER OF CTED1T

WA Tract No XNC-3L

LETTERHEAD
DATE No lrrcccabJe Standby Lcrtcr of Credit
BnefIciry

Tennessee VaBey Authority 400 Wcst Surnmh Hill Drivo
KnoxvUte TN 37902-1401

WT4C

Atth

Kirk

Kelley

Senior Manager

Corporate Credit

Applicant

DearMedarnorSir

SeBctnf -___jSe1ier1 We hereby establish

for the account

of

or Applicants

our

irrevocablc

standby

lctct

of credir in your ftvor

for an arnoi.nL

of USD

________ iJoIl United

_S__tt_ 2O and

.s

ourronoy

Applicant has e4vlsed us

Agrmcnt dated as of

rr.zy be further

uncnded

supplemented

tha this lcttcr of credit is issuod in connection

with the

becwocn

Applicant und Beneflciniy as ameridi

or otherise modified the

Agreeeiit This

letter of creditahatl

bccoin effective imrnedktaIy and shall ex.pfre on

_______

the ExpirAtion

Date andii is subject to the fbllowin2

Furtds under this tatter

credit shAil be made aisailable to enefioay igainst its drnf drawi

on us in the form of Anuc.x

hereto accompanied

by

certificate

in the torm of Annex

hereto

appropriitely corn pIetd and lgned by an

and

the original of the latter of crodt

authorized oThcr of enefLlciiuy dated the Acompaiying Documents and

the data of presentation presented ax our office

located

at

attention _________

or at any other office which may be desiiated by u.s

you der mda by written notice

delivered to

Day rid thiring hours

in which such office

aya1 and thc A000Tnpsnybg

tooumcnt

prcscn1ition

this letter of oredt

open for business

Businea

such cfce on any Business

may be

only on

clay

we If

receive your draft

in strict

car.formity

with thc

termS end conditioas of this letter oI crcdit

Will houor the same by miking payment In accordance

with your payment iflStTuOtiOflS

01 the third succeeding usinis Day after presontion

This1itterofcrcdi

shall tetniinate

ofI upon the earliest to occur

our receipt of

n-otca in the

form credit

of Annex

hereto signed by

ror cancellation ii our close

an authorized officer

of icneflciary

itct..onrpanied

by this

of business si

aforesaid

office on ThG Expiron Date

Expiration Date

Busins

Day then co the preceding

Business Day

This latter of credit

letter

of

or if the

shall be

surrendered to us by y

upoii the carler of presn.tion

or expiratioii

It
amendntent

conditi nof

the

for periods of one

letter of etedftthtit shall be deemedtO be autcni.atically

extended witbeit

yrfrom the preteit or any f.jture expiration

dale unks at least forty-

OtUd

1L

LfLt JJL

PT 6OOZ-O-fl

08/04/2009

18 32 FAX

904 904 942 1110

BAILE

GLAER

lu11/014

TVA Tract No XENC3L

4$ ys five

prior to iny such expiration date we

requested or courier ei-viee Icrler of credit extended for

or 1irid d1ivcry az
any uoh additional

the above period

yu notice by registered

mnil roturn reccipt

address that we hereby elect not to cordcr this

This jtxerotreedJt

lsued gnd subjeottr

the intcrn.atknal

1SP Slandby Psrlces 1998

sS This letter of credit

forth ic full our ndcrtakIn

wid suob uridertakiag

shall not in any way

mod be

anlc4lded amplified or

Aamcs referred to herth except for

limite4 by sand

re$rerue to asty docurnfl jnmnnt hcin hereto and the noicas fcrred to

or aCciXflt and any such

rderenc shall oot be deemed Lo incorporate herein by reference

document lntrument

agreeruellt

except as othcrwise provided in this panigraph

CommunIcations at the addrea referred

WIth rcspvct to to In paragraph

this letter

of credit

thafl be hi

aboie and shall specifically

wrfdng and sbslI be refer to this Ieer

addresaed t.c
of credit no

Vezy trul yours Issier
AuthOrlZCd sgnatJrc

ttOd

taaE TL

la S131I j\J

$I oociooiv

08/04/2009

1633 FAX 304 304 342 1110

BAILEY

6LA9SER

012/014

TVA Tract No XEfIC-L

ANNEX TO LETrER OF CRFDIT NO.______

pnavYJ
.1

On fthfr hu.cm sdqy

cicLfrig dai ofDrieic1fr1

Pay to

Teneee Valley AuThority

$_______ qot

Drv WT 400 West Sutnrnit Hill

4C

Knocville1 TN 37902-1401

xce4 rnaum viii1 b1e

dr to be

4V Wjj lthPzsI

c1g No For value received arid

to ccouni of Lett of Crcdt

______ of ________________

By

___________________

Title ___________________

tOd

Lesc

11

Sl3fld YAJ

iLt SOOZ-O-IflV

-r

08/04/2009

1633 FAX 304 304 342 1110

BAILEY

6LA3SER

013/014

ANNFX2
TO LEUER OF CRWIT NO.______

WA Tract No XENC-3L

Drawing utder Leer of Credit No ______________

Thy undcrsiged

duly autIiorizd officer of the Tecmesse VnUey Authority

corpor

instrumentaEty and agency of The Unitc4 SiBIe of Arnc-ica Benefieary hereby crtlfIe

xtb accountof__ _X Bencficay to
of Credtfsud

with rcference to frravocabte

standby 1.cttr fCrdit No _______ Thet

on bchalf of the Letter

to tho

Agrcncnt between 8eneoiaiy and

encficiay

cntitlcd to draw wider thc Letter of Credi

as of the dato hcrxf

--Or

ha eneficiary

recoved

notice

from ch Issuing

and ai such as of the daze hrcto Benefciay

Bank purtuant to Sectiot

of the Lttr of Credit

entitled to draw wider thc Letter of CreditJ

byprescriring this

rifcare and the accompazybg

sight draft Be ficay

in the arnowtt of

spifcd on 5aid draft be made under

wire -msfrr or dsposic of funds itito the account specified

on a1d draft

Is rcquctIng that peyntenc the Lettor of Credit by

the

amount

th spoci lied on

sgfit

draft

accompanyln

whidi Beefkary iz enthled to draft imder said

this ccrticeto

does tiot exceed Areernent

the amount to

wcs lit

hereof

auuot-izcd oft9oi- as

ncficary of the date

haA cnused thc ccrtificxteto

icu and year

beLow

be duly executd and dehvcred by ls dUlr

Date __________________________________

________________________________

13y Title

___________
________________________________________

10d

L8C 194 CZ

Vi1

gpt1 OQ-t0-flV

0804/2003

1623 FAX 304 304 242 1110

BAILEY

6LA3SER

014/014

ttd T1O.L

WA Trc No XENC-3L

ANm3
TO LETTER OF CREDiT NO.______

Notice ofunenderofLeue of Credit No ____________

D8te

____________

ALtcrCior Letter of Cred Dpartnen

Re Letter of Credit No ________________

vsEucdfocthccolntofjjjJj

Ladics ad C.cntJemen

We refer to your bo.-mntiuijed irrevocable

taudby Lett of Credit the Letter of Crcdh

underigied ervby urrenders the Lcttcr of Credit to you for cancelhtion

dt of the

hereof

icmwdcd pyrnetlt

of you unrThisLer1er of Credit in connecton with thii surrender

11i No

Veiy ouy your

By ____

_______

TitIe

_______________________

1Od CC 5L

S1cL VAL

LI OflZ-W1-E1LV

IN REPLY REFER TO:

United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Custom House, Room 244 200 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2904

May 21, 2020
9043.1 ER 20/0144
Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
Dear Ms. Smith:
The Department of the Interior (Department) does not have comments at this time on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement by the Tennessee Valley Authority for the Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease at Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, located in Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,

Lindy Nelson Regional Environmental Officer

May 27, 2020
Tennessee Valley Authority Elizabeth Smith, NEPA Specialist 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B-K Knoxville, TN 37902 esmith14@tva.gov
Submitted via e-mail
Re: NEPA Draft EIS Comments on TVA's Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 Proposed Expansion Boundary Revision 6
Dear Ms. Smith:
The Sierra Club submits the following comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) recently prepared on the proposed expansion of the Sugar Camp Coal Mine No. 1 in Illinois. The proposal entails mining approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves as part of a larger 36,972-acre Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.1 The proposed expansion would allow Sugar Camp to mine approximately 186 million tons of coal over 16 years through a combination of room-and-pillar and longwall mining. DEIS at 1-5, 2-1.
This area is part of a larger block of TVA coal reserves in Illinois, and, according to TVA's 2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) at Sugar Camp, "TVA owns coal reserves underlying 64,959 acres of land containing approximately 1.35 billion tons of the Illinois Springfield (No. 5) and Herrin (No. 6) coal seams."2 According to TVA's DEIS, the No Action alternative would still entail Sugar Camp mining 359 million tons of coal at a rate of approximately 9.5 million tons per year. DEIS at 2-1. Thus, under TVA's own estimates, Sugar Camp mine has approximately 37 years of existing coal reserves even without the proposed 186
1 Tennessee Valley Authority, DEIS Public Notice at 1. Attached as Exhibit 1. 2 TVA, Sugar Camp Coal Mine Expansion, Supplemental Environmental Assessment at 2 (May 2019), available at https://www.tva.gov/file_source/TVA/Site%20Content/Environment/Environmental%20Stewardship/En vironmental%20Reviews/Sugar%20Camp%20Mine/sugar_camp_coal_mine_viking_district_2__supplem ental_ea_may_9_2019.pdf, (last accessed Sept. 11, 2019) (previously attached as Exhibit 2 to Sierra Club's scoping comments).
1|P a g e

million ton expansion. There is no reason to push this review through now given that the mine has nearly four decades worth of coal already under lease.
As explained below, we are at a critical juncture in national and international efforts to prevent the worst effects of climate disruption. Rather than commit to using our federally-owned lands and minerals to further the fossil fuel industry's agenda, we must ensure our public resources are managed to benefit all Americans. Sierra Club requests that TVA reject the proposed lease of TVA reserves by application in favor of the No Action alternative.
Sierra Club is America's largest grassroots environmental organization, with more than 3 million members and supporters nationwide and more than 30,000 members in Illinois. Sierra Club is dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the Earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the Earth's resources and ecosystems; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to carry out these objectives.
On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we urge TVA to deny Sugar Camp's proposed expansion into TVA-owned coal reserves in favor of the No Action alternative.
I. TVA MUST ADEQUATELY ADDRESS IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES.
The DEIS fails to address serious threats to water resources which were identified in Sierra Club's scoping letter on this project as well as in comments (attached as an exhibit to our scoping letter) made by Sierra Club in April 2019 regarding TVA's Supplemental Assessment at Sugar Camp Mine.3
Sierra Club members are concerned and potentially affected by pollutant discharges from the Sugar Camp Mine into the Middle Fork Big Muddy River and creeks in Franklin County, including an unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Big Muddy River, an unnamed tributary to Akin Creek. Further, our members are concerned with the growing levels of chloride and other water pollutants in the Middle Fork Big Muddy River and Big Muddy River, which are Waters of the State as part of the Mississippi River Basin. The Middle Fork Big Muddy River is listed on the draft 2016 303(d) list of impaired waters for reasons that may include pollutants from coal mining. The concerns highlighted below, which were raised in our scoping letter, have not been adequately addressed in the DEIS.
Repeated history of water discharge violations at Sugar Camp: The DEIS fails to acknowledge or evaluate the repeated history of violations and non-compliance on record for the Sugar Camp Mine, which clearly shows this mine has consistently failed to remove coal in an
3 Sierra Club, Letter to Tennessee Valley Authority, "Comment Regarding Sugar Camp Coal Mine Expansion Viking District #2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois," (April 11, 2019). Attached as Exhibit 4 to Sierra Club's scoping comments on this project.
2|P a g e

environmentally sound manner as evidenced by its repeated quarters in non-compliance with basic permit levels, including 125 state and federal violations from 2015 to 2018.4 There have been at least two formal enforcement actions in recent years, and unpermitted construction activities, including creation of two deep underground injection wells before being permitted to do so. According to the EPA ECHO database, Sugar Camp has a repeated history of contaminated water releases and coal slurry releases to area waterways. The mine has a history of failing to maintain its waste containment structures, to the detriment of area creeks and discharging to the Middle Fork Big Muddy River. There are also recorded instances of coal waste overflowing mine containment structures.5
The DEIS fails to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of the mine's water pollution and its struggles to keep discharges within permitted levels. Given the fact that the applicant has been discharging chloride at high concentrations (higher even than its current permit allows), TVA's NEPA review must also consider impacts from chloride toxicity and other effects on the environment. Sierra Club requests TVA analyze these issues, and those raised below, in a supplemental DEIS and provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on TVA's new information.
Cumulative impacts of pollution loading on the Big Muddy River: TVA must analyze and disclose the cumulative impacts to the Big Muddy River that would result from this massive expansion when combined with past, present, and future mining at Sugar Camp and other nearby projects. For example, the Williamson Energy Pond Creek No. 1 Mine, located near Johnston City, Williamson County, but also with shadow area in Franklin County, has proposed a 12.5-mile pipeline to pump contaminated mine water for direct discharge into the Big Muddy River. The proposal would entail discharges of up to 2,700,000 to 3,500,000 gallons per day of high chloride and sulfate contaminated water. The cumulative impacts of mine discharges to the Big Muddy River and its tributaries must be analyzed and disclosed. The DEIS makes no mention of this reasonably foreseeable project and fails to address it in the cumulative impacts to water resources section.
Impacts to Rend Lake: The Sugar Camp Mine obtains water from Rend Lake and TVA must analyze impacts to water quantity and water quality at Rend Lake based on the proposed and past withdrawals, both from Sugar Camp and other projects.6 For example, a contract signed in 2007 with Adena Resources, LLC for direct withdrawal of water from Rend Lake to supply Sugar Camp and Pond Creek mines, states that the daily withdrawal quota will initially be set at 6 million gallons per day. That amount is likely to be higher now. Rend Lake provides public water
4 Id. at 2 and related documentation attached as Exhibit 1 to Sierra Club's scoping comments. For a summary of water discharge violations and enforcement actions, see attachment 1 to Sierra Club's April 2019 letter, which shows the Sugar Camp data posted on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ECHO (Enforcement and Compliance History Online) database. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 3.
3|P a g e

for all or part of seven counties in Southern Illinois. The EIS must disclose prior impacts and address cumulative withdrawals on the lake when evaluating the proposed expansion.
II. TVA FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED COAL MINE EXPANSION.
In evaluating a proposal that would result in the mining of more than 186 million tons of federally-managed coal, of which TVA states 92.8 million tons would be sold into the market at processed coal, DEIS at 3-34, TVA must do more than simply quantify carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions that will result from burning the TVA reserves at Sugar Camp and compare those levels to national and global totals for greenhouse gas emissions. Doing so only provides a statement about the nature of the climate problem: many small projects add up to one very big impact. Here TVA's exceedingly limited climate analysis fails to provide any relevant science on the nature, scale, or causes of climate change; and it fails to adequately consider or disclose the project's contribution to the climate crisis in several critical ways, as discussed in detail below.
"Accurate scientific analysis ... [is] essential to implementing NEPA." 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). Accordingly, taking the required "hard look" at environmental impacts requires agencies to "utiliz[e] ... the best available scientific information." Colo. Envtl. Coal. v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1171 (10th Cir. 1999). Climate scientists' understanding of climate disruption has increased significantly in recent years, and we have clear scientific consensus that we must quickly and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions in the U.S. if we are going to avoid the most damaging effects of climate change.
In our scoping comments, Sierra Club requested TVA analyze the following aspects of the proposed expansion's climate impacts, none of which TVA analyzed or disclosed in the DEIS:
1) Acknowledge the robust scientific consensus on the need to drastically cut global CO2 emissions;
2) Assess whether the proposed mining and burning of the federal coal from Sugar Camp are inconsistent with guidance from recent climate reports, including the Fourth National Climate Assessment and reports prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Geological Survey;
3) Model the market impacts of the proposed expansion of federal coal mining in order to understand the differences in GHG emissions when comparing Action and No Action alternatives;
4) Use the social cost of carbon to analyze and disclose the climate impacts of the proposal and the mining of other TVA-managed coal reserves; and
5) Recognize the scale of the carbon emission problem and take into account the remaining carbon budget for CO2 emissions from the U.S.7

7 Sierra Club Scoping Comments on TVA Sugar Camp Expansion, at 4-5 (Sept. 12, 2019).

4|P a g e

TVA, however, failed to disclose any of these impacts or related climate science addressed above in its DEIS. Instead, TVA includes a cursory, 5-page section addresses GHG emissions that impermissibly downplays the significance of TVA's action and makes no mention of the looming climate crisis. Instead, despite disclosing that the direct and indirect GHG emissions (even when totaled using an improperly low global warming potential for methane) of 224.9 million tons of CO2e, DEIS at 3-36, TVA asserts that the climate impact of its action would be "immeasurably small." DEIS at 3-37.
A. TVA Failed to Acknowledge the Role of Coal Mining and Combustion as a Leading Cause of Climate Change, Failed to Acknowledge the Looming Climate Crisis, and Improperly Downplayed the Impact of Its Decision to Approve the Sugar Camp Expansion.
The DEIS fails to acknowledge any of the recent, robust scientific literature on climate change, including the Fourth National Climate Assessment prepared in 2018 by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s special report on global warming released in 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey's 2018 study of the climate impacts associated with federal lands and minerals extraction, and Oil Change International's 2019 study on the impact of fossil fuel development on the rapidly diminishing global carbon budget. Each of these reports, summarized below, was included as an exhibit to Sierra Club's 2019 scoping comments to TVA. It is particularly troubling that TVA failed to even acknowledge the current climate crisis, the role of coal combustion to the climate problem, or the need to reduce GHG emissions as a means to begin to address the existential threat posed to humanity by climate change. The DEIS contains an inexcusable lack of information on the current climate crisis, its causes, and the contributions made by TVA's own actions, all of which must be corrected in a supplemental DEIS and recirculated for public comment.
Prepared by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and published in 2018, the Fourth National Climate Assessment, identifies and evaluates the risks of climate change that threaten the U.S., and how a lack of mitigation and adaptation measures will result in dire climate consequences for the U.S. and its territories.
The IPCC released a special report on the impacts of global warming in October 2018, as commissioned by the Paris Agreement of 2016.8 Global Warming of 1.5°C, finds greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity have significantly contributed to global warming since the industrial revolution of the 19th century, increasing the rise in global temperature by 0.2°C per decade at present.9 The report forecasts the state of climate at 1.5°C and 2°C, describing
8 USGCRP, Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Report-in-Brief (2018). 9 IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5°C, An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, Summary for Policymakers at SMP-4 (2018).
5|P a g e

the devastating consequences continued warming has for our earth ­ destroying ecosystems, disrupting global economy, and jeopardizing public health. The report is a stark warning that delayed actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the implementation of other mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change, will be extremely costly.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior, released a study in November 2018 that calculates the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from fossil fuel extraction and combustion on federal lands, as well as the sequestration, or absorption of carbon that naturally occurs on undisturbed public lands.10
In January 2019, Oil Change International in collaboration with another 17 not-for-profit organizations published a report called Drilling Towards Disaster: Why U.S. Oil and Gas Expansion is Incompatible with Climate Limits.11 In addition to discussing why further oil and gas expansion must be halted to avoid climate crisis, the Report discusses the dire need of saying "no" to additional coal reserve development. Already with all developed reserves of coal, gas, oil, and cement combined, we have surpassed the threshold of a 50 percent chance of only a 1.5°C global temperature increase.
At a minimum, TVA must acknowledge the robust scientific consensus, as demonstrated in these reports, on the need to reduce GHG emissions and fossil fuel development in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. Instead, the closest TVA comes to acknowledging the danger of increasing GHG emissions is a single sentence, reading: "GHG emissions have the potential to affect both global and regional climate." DEIS at 3-33. TVA never even provides any indication as to whether this "potential to affect" would improve or exacerbate climate change, which is the most important environmental impact facing humanity today. It is an existential threat that TVA chose to gloss over in its DEIS. This error must be corrected.
B. TVA Failed to Disclose Scientific Consensus on the Urgent Need to Cut U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Failed to Adequately Assess the Impact of Its Decision to Approve the Proposed Sugar Camp Expansion.
Based on an overwhelming amount of climate evidence published in recent years, TVA must acknowledge the findings of recent climate reports, including the Fourth National Climate Assessment of 2018 and those prepared by the IPCC and U.S. Geological Survey. Additionally, information published in January 2019 by Oil Change International specifically highlights the urgent need for federally-managed fossil fuels to remain in the ground in order to effectively combat climate change.
10 Matthew Merrill, USGS, Federal lands greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in the United States--Estimates for 2005­14 (2018). 11 Kelly Trout and Lorne Stockman, Drilling Towards Disaster: Why U.S. Oil and Gas Expansion is Incompatible with Climate Limits, Oil Change International (January 2019).
6|P a g e

Instead, TVA's assessment of the climate impact of its decision is a mere three sentences, two of which raise and then waive off any concern about an unexplained term that TVA calls "urban heat islands."
DEIS at 3-37. This is an irresponsible approach to discussing climate change impacts associated with one of the largest coal mine expansions currently proposed in the Illinois Basin.
C. TVA Failed to Analyze the Market Impacts of the Proposed Coal Mine Expansion.
NEPA requires TVA to analyze and disclose the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative climate impacts of the proposed mining, and evaluate the "significance" of these impacts. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1502.16.
Here, TVA's assessment of the market effects of its decision amounts to an impermissible dodge that give the public and decision-makers no information as to TVA's assessment of the net GHG emissions that will result from the proposed Sugar Camp expansion. First, TVA asserts that "emissions from the replacement sources of energy are unknown because they would not be under TVA's control." DEIS at 3-35. NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze the foreseeable impacts of its decisions, without regard to whether those agencies control every aspect of a project. The ownership of other resources is irrelevant, as TVA implicitly recognizes throughout the DEIS. As one example, TVA does not control every federal power plant where Sugar Camp would send its coal, but TVA nonetheless discloses the emissions from burning Sugar Camp coal to generate electricity. NEPA regulations require not only analysis of direct project impacts, but also indirect impacts "which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). Where impacts are foreseeable, they must be disclosed regardless of TVA's ownership.
Next, TVA states that "[f]or the purposes of analysis, TVA assumes that the No Action Alternative could result in actions to be taken by Sugar Camp and other entities, ranging from complete replacement of the coal mined from the Project Area to no replacement." Id. This statement provides no information to the public, as the impacts that TVA "assumes" will occur range from 0% of the impact occurring, to 100% of the impacts occurring. This tells the public and decision-makers no useful information regarding the impacts of the proposed expansion.
TVA then states that it "anticipates that GHG emissions would be less under the No Action Alternative" "because, typically, coal combustion is more carbon intensive per unit energy than
7|P a g e

other forms of fossil fuels, or non-fossil energy sources." Again, this dodge does not tell the public or decision-makers which sources of electricity (wind, solar, gas, etc.), the amount of those resources (or combination of resources) would replace electricity generated by burning Sugar Camp coal if TVA rejects the proposed expansion, or what the difference in GHG emissions would be between the Action and No Action alternatives. For a decision-maker or member of the public that cares about climate change, knowing the difference in GHG emissions between two competing alternatives is crucial information. TVA cannot make an informed decision without knowing this information.
Under NEPA, agencies must provide a clear basis for choice among considered alternatives, and, in particular here, TVA must distinguish between the climate impacts of Action and No Action alternatives. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(E), and 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1508.9(b). In the context of climate change, TVA must, at the bare minimum, analyze and disclose the difference in greenhouse gas emission levels between considered alternatives, including the No Action alternative.
TVA must address the key climate question: whether there is a measurable difference in greenhouse gas emissions between approving and rejecting this approximately 186 million ton mine expansion. TVA must answer this question in order to make an informed decision. Without such an answer, neither TVA nor the public can adequately distinguish between the climate impacts of the Action and No Action alternatives.
1. Federal Courts Have Rejected the Myth of Perfect Substitution.
The Tenth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, and other courts have repeatedly rejected agency attempts to assert near perfect substitution of fossil fuels, and federal courts have consistently required agencies to study the market impacts of agency decisions. Most directly on point here, in 2017 the Tenth Circuit rejected the Bureau of Land Management's ("BLM's") refusal to study the market effects of its decision to authorize the expansion of two coal mines on public lands in the Powder River Basin. BLM's assertion in the Wright Area coal mine EIS, like the one made by TVA in 2019, was that even if the agency rejected the proposed expansion in favor of the No Action alternative, an equivalent amount of coal would be mined elsewhere, making the climate impacts a wash. The Tenth Circuit rejected BLM's conclusion and its analytic approach to the problem, holding that the notion of "perfect substitution" was unsupported in the record and illogical based on sound economic principles, stating, "[e]ven if we could conclude that the agency had enough data before it to choose between the preferred and no action alternatives, we would still conclude this perfect substitution assumption arbitrary and capricious because the assumption itself is irrational (i.e., contrary to basic supply and demand principles)."WildEarth Guardians v. BLM, 870 F.3d 1222, 1236 (2017).
Notably, the D.C. Circuit expressly rejected a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") NEPA review for the Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline where the Commission refused to study this question, instead cloaking its analysis in an assertion of uncertainty as to the likely effect of the agency action on the energy market. In Sabal Trail, the D.C. Circuit rejected FERC's analysis,
8|P a g e

which stated that the project's greenhouse gas emissions "might be partially offset" by the market replacing the project's gas with either coal or other gas supply. Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 867 F.3d 1357, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The Court dismissed FERC's failure to study this issue, stating:
An agency decision maker reviewing this EIS would thus have no way of knowing whether total emissions, on net, will be reduced or increased by this project, or what the degree of reduction or increase will be. In this respect, then, the EIS fails to fulfill its primary purpose. Id.
Similarly, the federal district court in Montana recently rejected a Department of the Interior environmental assessment where the agency claimed its decision would not likely have any impact on nationwide greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector because other coal mines would be available to meet a supposedly immutable demand for coal. Montana Environmental Information Center v. OSM, 274 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1098 (D. Mont. 2017). In MEIC, OSM asserted in its environmental assessment that:
The No Action Alternative would not likely result in a decrease in CO2 emissions attributable to coal-burning power plants in the long term. There are multiple other sources of coal that could supply the demand for coal.
Id.
The MEIC court squarely rejected OSM's assertion:
This conclusion is illogical, and places [OSM's] thumb on the scale by inflating the benefits of the action while minimizing its impacts. It is the kind of "inaccurate economic information" that "may defeat the purpose of [NEPA analysis] by impairing the agency's consideration of the adverse environmental effects and by skewing the public's evaluation of the proposed agency action."
Id. (quoting NRDC v. Forest Service, 421 F.3d 797, 811 (9th Cir. 2005)).
Similarly, the Eighth Circuit in Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 550 (8th Cir. 2003), and more recently the District of Colorado, High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F.Supp. 3d 1174, 1197-98 (D.Colo. 2014) have rejected similar unsupported, "illogical" assumptions of perfect substitution in essentially identical contexts. As the Eight Circuit explained:
[T]he proposition that the demand for coal will be unaffected by an increase in availability and a decrease in price . . . is illogical at best. The increased availability of inexpensive coal will at the very least make coal a more attractive option to future entrants into the utilities market when compared with other
9|P a g e

potential fuel sources, such as nuclear power, solar power, or natural gas. . . . [The railroad] will most certainly affect the nation's long-term demand for coal.
Mid-States Coal. for Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d at 549. The Eighth Circuit then concluded that even if the "extent" of the increase in coal use was not reasonably foreseeable, the "nature" of the effect was, and that in this circumstance, "the agency may not simply ignore the effect." Id. (citing 40 C.F.R. §1502.22).
The Forest Service's error in High Country is also on point. The Forest Service in High Country, like TVA in 2019, argued that "if the coal does not come out of the ground in the North Fork consumers will simply pay to have the same amount of coal pulled out of the ground from somewhere else--overall [greenhouse gas] emissions from combustion will be identical under either scenario." 52 F.Supp. 3d 1174, 1197-98. The court in High Country held that the Forest Service's FEIS was deficient, concluding that the increased supply made possible by the Forest Service's decision would "impact the demand for coal relative to other fuel sources" and that "[t]his reasonably foreseeable effect must be analyzed." Id. at 1198.
These federal court decisions illustrate that TVA must answer this question: whether its decision to allow the proposed mine plan amendment will change greenhouse gas emissions, and, if so, by what amount. Basic economic principles of supply and demand dictate that as holder of more than 1 billion tons of coal reserves in the Illinois Basin, TVA's choices matter. Federal agencies cannot legally avoid analyzing the impact that their decisions have on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, either by flatly denying any responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions (as BLM did in Wright Area and elsewhere) or by blandly asserting that it is uncertain whether the agency's decision will affect overall carbon dioxide and methane emission levels (as FERC did in Sabal Trail).
NEPA requires federal agencies to study and disclose the effects of their decisions; it does not permit agencies to leave key questions unanswered or deny responsibility for environmental harms without adequate review. There is no doubt that agencies must provide a clear basis for choice among alternatives, and in particular between the climate impacts of Leasing and No Leasing alternatives here. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(E); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1508.9(b). In the context of climate change, TVA must, among other obligations, analyze and disclose the difference in greenhouse gas emission levels between alternatives, including the No Action alternative.
2. The Secretary of the Interior Has Recognized that the Supply of Federally-Managed Coal Affects Energy Markets and the Climate.
In addition to federal courts, the Secretary of the Interior has recognized that opening up more federal lands for fossil fuel production could not only affect the amount of coal produced, but also the amount of wind and solar generation in our energy grid. That is why, in ordering a comprehensive study of the climate impacts of the federal coal program ­ since cancelled for political purposes ­ then-Secretary Sally Jewell directed the Department of the Interior to
10 | P a g e

evaluate "how the administration, availability, and pricing of Federal coal affect regional and national economies (including job impacts), and energy markets in general, including the pricing and viability of other coal resources... and other energy sources."12 The Secretary further directed the Department to study, "[t]he impact of possible program alternatives on the projected fuel mix and cost of electricity in the United States."13
More recently, in releasing a scoping report on the now-cancelled Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ("PEIS") process, the Department of the Interior acknowledged that the climate impacts of various alternatives for the federal coal leasing program are "largely contingent on the degree to which the substitute fuel sources are less carbon intensive (e.g., natural gas-fired generation or renewable generation) as opposed to similarly carbon intensive (e.g., non-Federal coal)."14 The Department acknowledged that this issue has not yet been studied and evaluated by either the Department or BLM, explaining that "BLM will develop and use economic models to assess these substitution dynamics and the impact they have on the costs and benefits of any changes."15 The fact that BLM cancelled that PEIS process only highlights the need for TVA to study and disclose the market effects of its decision here.
3. TVA Cannot Ignore Basic Economic Principles.
Simply put: supply and demand matter. TVA cannot ignore basic economic principles or refuse to analyze their effects. Under NEPA, agencies have a duty to "insure the professional integrity" of the analyses in an EIS, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24, and must present "high-quality" information and "[a]ccurate scientific analysis." 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). TVA's prior use of the flawed "perfect substitution" assumption is illogical, unsupported, and has been soundly rejected by the courts. TVA must correct these past errors here by adequately studying the market effects using available tools.
In the U.S. energy market ­ where coal, gas, wind, solar, and nuclear all compete for market share, where utilities can choose among these competing options on an on-going basis, and where utilities and grid operators can quickly alter the rates at which these commodities are utilized ­ price, supply, and demand interact in predictable ways. As mentioned previously, though Department of the Interior agencies have at various times asserted that other coal mines "could supply the demand" if they were to reject a coal mine expansion proposal, that statement fundamentally misunderstands how supply and demand work.
Economic demand is not a fixed threshold that suppliers of a commodity will necessarily rise to meet; it is instead a relationship among economic parameters that ultimately leads to certain levels of consumption.16 As the supply of a good is restricted, price increases, and this in turn
12 Secretarial Order 3338 at 8, (January 15, 2016). 13 Id. 14 DOI, Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Scoping Report, Vol. II, (January 2017). 15 Id. 16 Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of the Law 5-6 (9th Ed. 2014).
11 | P a g e

affects demand. As explained by Judge Posner, these "straightforward, intuitive premises" dictate that "[i]f quantity falls, price will rise. . . [i]f price rises, quantity falls because consumers buy less of the good."17 In the energy context, that means that if TVA restricts the supply of coal, coal prices will increase. This is particularly true if TVA were to stop new coal leasing at all of its billion-plus ton reserves in the Illinois Basin. This increase in coal price would cause some utilities to switch from coal to a cheaper alternative. Because switching from coal to anything else ­ gas, wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear energy, etc. ­ results in decreased carbon dioxide emissions, fuel switching results in quantifiable decreases in greenhouse gas emissions.
4. TVA Cannot Ignore Available Economic Models.
As noted, NEPA does not allow TVA to refuse to analyze the environmental effects of its decisions. NEPA affirmatively requires "reasonable forecasting," and requires agencies to provide information that is "essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives," where the cost of obtaining the information is not exorbitant. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a). In order to comply with NEPA, TVA must either use available tools to provide that essential information or explain why it cannot do so. Under NEPA regulations, the agency "shall" explain in its EIS (1) why such essential information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) its relevance to reasonably foreseeable impacts; (3) a summary of existing science on the topic; and (4) the agency's evaluation based on any generally accepted theoretical approaches. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b).
In order to fully understand the climate impacts of its decision to authorize this massive expansion, TVA must use one of the available climate energy models to evaluate market changes. There are several relevant factors that TVA must address in assessing the market and climate impacts of its decision, including, for example, the price and availability of substitute sources of coal, and other alternative fuels such as gas; shipping prices; existing reserves; sulfur or heat content of other sources of coal; the relationship between supply, price, and demand in the U.S. energy market; and the price and availability of other sources of electricity generation such as renewables.
Fortunately, as described in detail below, there are multiple models available that TVA could use to study these market dynamics and provide the public and decisionmakers with critical information. Without using available tools to compare the greenhouse gas emission levels between Leasing and No Leasing alternatives, TVA cannot make an informed decision or take the hard look NEPA requires.
Here, TVA cannot merely assert without substantiation that emissions differences between Leasing and No Leasing alternatives would be uncertain or that it anticipates that the No Action would be less based on generic statements about the carbon intensities of other forms of energy generation. In fact, there are multiple energyeconomy models, each of which TVA has entirely ignored in the DEIS, that could supply TVA with the projected levels of emissions in comparing the Leasing and No Leasing
17 Id.
12 | P a g e

alternatives. These tools are already widely used by private parties and federal agencies to evaluate market effects of agency proposals in the coal mining and energy sectors.
For example, the U.S. Department of Energy has a computer model created by the EIA that has been in use since 1994, and it could be utilized by TVA here to undertake precisely the kind of analysis that would be useful to decisionmakers. EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is an energy-economy model that projects future energy prices and supply and demand, and can be used to isolate variables such as changes in coal supply and variations in delivered coal price.18
Similarly, ICF International's Integrated Planning Model has been used to evaluate these types of market responses to numerous federal proposals in recent years. Examples include, but are not limited to the following projects: EPA, Clean Power Plan; U.S. State Department, Keystone XL Pipeline; Surface Transportation Board, Tongue River Railroad; U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Roadless Rule; Washington Department of Ecology, Millennium Bulk Export Terminal. Critically, every time these robust modeling tools discussed above have been used, they have documented market impacts.
D. OSM Must Evaluate the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Using Available Methodologies.
1. TVA Failed to Use the Social Cost of Carbon.
TVA must analyze and assess the climate impacts of mining the Sugar Camp TVA reserves using the social cost of carbon protocol. The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a tool that was created by federal agencies, and is one method TVA can use to quantify and disclose the harm caused by the proposed project's carbon dioxide emissions. The social cost of carbon provides a metric for estimating the economic damage, in dollars, of each incremental ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.19
Multiple courts have concluded that NEPA analysis merely quantifying ­ as TVA did here ­ the anticipated tonnage of GHG emissions from combustion of the resource and comparing it to national or global GHG emissions was inadequate to meet the requirement to disclose indirect impacts. These courts found that the SCC is a tool that can provide meaningful analysis of the actual harm associated with the carbon pollution. MEIC v. OSMRE, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 109798 (D. Mont. 2017); High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d. 1174, 1198 (D. Colo. 2014), and WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, No. CV 17-80-BLG-SPW-TJC, 2019 WL 2404860, at *10-12 (D. Mont. Feb. 11, 2019). These decisions are well grounded in NEPA, since a bare emissions volume number does not give the decisionmaker or the public an
18 EIA, National Energy Modelling System: An Overview, at 1 (2009). 19 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, "Technical Support Document: Technical Updated of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866" (May 2013, Revised August 2016).
13 | P a g e

understanding of the scale of the project's "ecological," "economic," and "social" impacts, or their significance, nor does it permit a meaningful comparison among alternatives, as NEPA requires. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8(b), 1502.16(b). Stopping at a volumetric disclosure is akin to, for example, an agency disclosing the effects of a decision to allow dumping a million tons of pesticide into a river by specifying that quantity, without disclosing the extent of actual impacts on drinking water, fish, or aquatic habitat. Federal courts have struck down such an approach. See Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 2004).
Instead of using the social cost of carbon here, TVA offers two excuses for not using this scientifically-accepted tool. First, TVA asserts that "the SCC tool does not measure the actual incremental impacts of a project on the environment." DEIS at 3-35. Second, TVA states that "there are no established criteria identifying the monetized values considered significant for NEPA purposes." Id. Neither excuse has merit.
First, the SCC does provide a measurement of environmental impacts caused by each additional ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and puts those in dollar terms that are readily understood by the public and decisionmakers. The SCC, developed by an interagency working group of experts convened in 2009, is based on multiple peer-reviewed models, and represents a facially reasonable approach for assessing the environmental impacts of carbon emissions. It was created with the input of several agencies, public comments, and technical models, and is based on widely accepted research methods, models, and peer-reviewed scientific and economic studies.20 The SCC is intended to capture various damages associated with climate disruption, including changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages, and the value of ecosystem services, all of which climate change can degrade.
NEPA regulations explicitly contemplate that, in many situations, the available scientific information may be incomplete. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22. In such instances, the regulations direct agencies to nonetheless consider and disclose the valid scientific information they do have. Agencies must provide "a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment," and evaluate a project's impacts "based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community," 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(3)-(4). The regulations thus make clear to agencies that, when faced with incomplete scientific information, disregarding that information altogether is not an option.
The SCC was a valid and generally-accepted scientific tool that TVA should have used pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.1(b) and 1502.22 to monetize the impact of GHG emissions in its estimation of the mine expansion's impacts. See High Country, 52 F. Supp. 3d at 1190 (in response to agency claim that "[s]tandardized protocols designed to measure factors that may contribute to climate change, and to quantify climatic impacts, are presently unavailable," the court responded, "[b]ut a tool is and was available: the social cost of carbon protocol.").
20 The IWG's Technical Support Document 2016 update, which was attached to Sierra Club's scoping comments, succinctly describes the usefulness of the SCC to decisionmakers.
14 | P a g e

Second, TVA's statement that there is "no established criteria identifying the monetized values considered significant for NEPA purposes," DEIS at 3-35, does not excuse TVA's failure to disclose the extent of climate harms, even if it chooses not to label those harms as "significant" or "insignificant." Moreover, TVA quantified 224,970,018 tons of CO2e from the direct and indirect effects of the Sugar Camp expansion. DEIS at 3-36. Using a conservative approach, assessing SCC based on the IWG's central 3% discount rate, each additional tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere causes $42 of global economic harm. At $42/ton, the global climate harm from the amount of CO2e disclosed by TVA is $9,448,740,756.21 If TVA's assertion is that more than $9 billion in global economic harm is not significant, it should say so. By any reasonable standard, $9 billion in harm is significant and TVA cannot pretend otherwise. TVA cannot dodge use of a scientifically valid tool for estimating climate harms on the assertion that NEPA does not set a specific threshold that would assist TVA in stating whether the $9 billion in harms disclosed by use of that tool is significant or not.
2. TVA Failed to Use Carbon Budgets.
One of the measuring standards available to the agency for analyzing the magnitude and severity of TVA-related fossil fuel emissions is by applying those emissions to the remaining global carbon budget. A "carbon budget" offers a cap on the remaining stock of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted while still keeping global average temperature rise below scientifically-backed warming thresholds ­ beyond which climate change impacts may result in severe and irreparable harm to the biosphere and humanity. Utilizing carbon budgets would offer TVA a methodology for analyzing how the proposed mine expansion and the continued coal combustion from the Sugar Camp Mine, and specifically from the TVA-managed reserves at the mine, may affect the country's ability to meet recognized greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The DEIS offers no explanation for TVA's refusal to use carbon budgets to assess the climate impacts of the proposed project. Additional information on carbon budgets is available in the scoping comments Sierra Club submitted on the project.
E. TVA Underreported the GHG Emissions From the Project By Using an Outdated and Improperly Low Global Warming Potential for Methane.
TVA underreported the GHG emissions associated with the proposed expansion by using an outdated global warming potential (GWP) for methane. GWP is a measure of the amount of
21 Calculated by multiplying total CO2e from direct and indirect emissions by the $42 per ton. This is conservative in that it does not include estimates at lower discount rates, it does not account for the fact that SCC values increase in later years, it does not separate out the higher social cost of methane values, and it does not translate $2007 dollars into $2020 dollars, all of which would increase the quantifiable climate harms from the proposed expansion.
15 | P a g e

warming caused by the emission of one ton of a particular greenhouse gas relative to one ton of carbon dioxide.22
For each greenhouse gas, a GWP has been calculated to reflect how long each gas remains in the atmosphere, on average, and how strongly it absorbs energy. The methane GWP estimates how many tons of carbon dioxide would need to be emitted to produce the same amount of global warming as a single ton of methane. This is important because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Relative to carbon dioxide, methane has much greater climate impacts in the near term than the long term, and, therefore, also including a short-term measure of climate impacts would be most effective in considering policies to avoid significant global warming in the near-term.
Here, TVA has completely ignored the 20 year GWP of methane, which EPA calculates as 84-87. As EPA explains, "for CH4, which has a short lifetime, the 100-year GWP of 28-36 is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84-87." Id. Instead, although TVA states that it us using a methane GWP of 28, DEIS 3-33, Table 3-4 "Action Alternative GHG Emissions," which shows annual GHG emissions, indicates that TVA used a GWP of 25 for methane. DEIS at 3-37, T.3-4. This is a significant error. TVA reports the total GHG emissions, including those for methane, in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). DEIS at 3-37. That is a defensible approach. However, in converting methane to CO2e, TVA used 25 as the GWP multiplier instead of 87. The result is that TVA dramatically underreported the GHG emissions associated with the proposed expansion.
In calculating annual GHG emissions, TVA reports direct methane emissions of 447,653 million tons CO2e per year, and indirect methane emissions of 48,676 metric tons CO2e per year. DEIS 3-37, T.3-4. However, using a methane GWP of 87 to reflect methane's short-term warming influence produces very different CO2e numbers: 1,662,232 metric tons CO2e per year for direct emissions, and 169,392 tons CO2e per year for indirect emissions. Thus, TVA underreported the proposed expansion's emissions by 1,335,295 metric tons of CO2e per year.23
The federal district court in Montana previously invalidated a BLM NEPA review for two resource management plans that improperly relied only on the 100-year GWP of methane while ignoring calls to also report the 20-year GWP. Western Org. of Res. Councils v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., CV16-21-GF-BMM, 2018 WL 1475470, at *15 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2018). As the court explained, NEPA requires federal agencies to ensure the "scientific integrity" of their analyses (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24), and obliges agencies to consider "both short- and long-term effects." Id. (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(a)). Thus, BLM's use of the 100 year GWP for methane "when other more appropriate time horizons remained available,
22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Understanding Global Warming Potentials," https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials (last visited May 26, 2020) (attached as Exhibit 2). 23 (1,662,232 ­ 447,653) + (169,392-48,676)
(Direct CO2e difference) + (Indirect CO2e difference)
16 | P a g e

qualifies as arbitrary and capricious." Id. The same is true for TVA here: TVA cannot continue to misrepresent the climate impact of the project by relying on an outdated 100-year GWP of 25 that both ignores the much larger 20-year GWP available for methane and utilizes an old figure (25) for the 100 year GWP when more recent EPA science shows that figure should be 36. To resolve this issue, TVA should recirculate an SDEIS that utilizes the most recent science to disclose CO2e for the project with regard to both short and long term impacts of methane, using 36 as the 100 year GWP and 87 as the 20 year GWP per EPA and more recent IPCC updates.
F. TVA Failed to Adequately Consider the Cumulative Climate Impacts of the Project.
NEPA regulations mandate that agencies, in taking a "hard look" at environmental consequences, consider not only direct and indirect project impacts but also cumulative impacts, meaning the "impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. Here, TVA failed to adequately consider the combined climate impact of Sugar Camp Mine's proposed action by not including prior mining at Sugar Camp or reasonably foreseeable future mining of TVA reserves at the mine and elsewhere in the Illinois Basin.
TVA's cumulative climate assessment consists of one sentence:
Cumulative Effects Cumulatively, the emissions of GHGs from future mining associated with the overall 37,972-acre SBR No. 6 mine expansion, including the TVA-owned coal associated with the Proposed Action, would total about 660 million metric tons of CO2e.
DEIS at 3-37.
TVA has failed to include any past mining at Sugar Camp ­ of TVA or other reserves ­ and failed to include reasonably foreseeable future mining for other mine expansions. Instead, TVA limited the analysis to a single expansion of 37,972 acre-expansion in what it calls "SBR No. 6," without any discussion of the more than 1 billion tons of coal that TVA owns in the Illinois Basin and whether it is reasonably foreseeable that those reserves will be developed at Sugar Camp or by a different mine. DEIS App. A at 2 ("TVA owns coal reserves underlying approximately 65,000 acres of land containing approximately 1.35 billion tons of Illinois No. 5 and No. 6 coal seams.") TVA must take this broader view in order to adequately disclose the climate impacts of the proposed Sugar Camp mine expansion when combined with prior Sugar Camp and TVA mining and the foreseeable future mining and burning of the 1.35 billion tons of TVA-owned coal in Illinois.
17 | P a g e

III. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons explained above, we request that TVA reject the proposed Sugar Camp expansion in favor of the No Action alternative. At a minimum, the many significant gaps in TVA's analysis, once corrected, should be recirculated in a supplemental DEIS and made available for public review and comment. Sincerely,
Nathaniel Shoaff Senior Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612
18 | P a g e

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1

Home / Environment / Environmental Stewardship / Environmental Reviews
Environmental Reviews
TVA conducts environmental reviews in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposed projects on the human and natural environment before final decisions are made. These environmental reviews under NEPA typically also include assessments that facilitate compliance with other environmental review requirements such as those under the National Historic Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Programs, Plans and Policies Power Generation ­ Coal and Gas Power Generation ­ Nuclear Power Generation ­ Solar and Other Renewables Economic Development Land, Facilities and Permitting River System Operations Transmission Natural Resources Management
Open for Public Comment

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois
Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Hamilton counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expansions of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The State of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by TVA.
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 2018, TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operations to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of bleeder shafts and associated surface infrastructure.
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a finding of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known as the Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA is soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).
Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques during a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area. Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal.
Submitting Comments
The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection.

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

1/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitted or postmarked no later than May 27, 2020. NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email to ensure timely review and consideration.
Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent 2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb) 2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb) Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) 2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb) 2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb) 2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb) 2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb) 2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb) 2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb) 2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)
Contact
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from: Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
Programs, Plans and Policies

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1

Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois

Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Hamilton counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expansions of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The State of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by TVA.
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 2018, TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operations to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of bleeder shafts and associated surface infrastructure.
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a finding of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known as the Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA is soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

2/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques during a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area. Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal. Submitting Comments The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection. Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitted or postmarked no later than May 27, 2020. NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email to ensure timely review and consideration.
Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent 2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb) 2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb) Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) 2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb) 2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb) 2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb) 2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb) 2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb) 2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb) 2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)
Contact
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from: Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
Power Generation ­ Coal and Gas

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois
Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Hamilton counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expansions of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The State of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by TVA.
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 2018, TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operations to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of bleeder shafts and associated surface infrastructure.
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a finding of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known as the Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

3/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA is soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).
Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques during a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area. Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal.
Submitting Comments
The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection.
Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitted or postmarked no later than May 27, 2020.
NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email to ensure timely review and consideration.
Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent
2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb)
2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb)
Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA)
2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb)
2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb)
2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb)
2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)
Contact
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from:
Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
Power Generation ­ Nuclear
Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois
Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Hamilton counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expansions of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The State of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by TVA.
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 2018, TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operations to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of bleeder shafts and associated surface infrastructure.

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

4/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a finding of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known as the Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA is soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).
Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques during a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area. Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal.
Submitting Comments
The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection.
Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitted or postmarked no later than May 27, 2020.
NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email to ensure timely review and consideration.
Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent
2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb)
2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb)
Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA)
2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb)
2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb)
2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb)
2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)
Contact
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from:
Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
Power Generation ­ Solar and Other Renewables
Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

5/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Hamilton counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expansions of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The State of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by TVA.
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 2018, TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operations to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of bleeder shafts and associated surface infrastructure.
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a finding of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known as the Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA is soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).
Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques during a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area. Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal.
Submitting Comments
The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection.
Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitted or postmarked no later than May 27, 2020.
NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email to ensure timely review and consideration.
Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent
2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb)
2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb)
Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA)
2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb)
2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb)
2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb)
2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)
Contact
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from:
Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

6/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Economic Development

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1

Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois

Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Hamilton counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expansions of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The State of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by TVA.
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 2018, TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operations to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of bleeder shafts and associated surface infrastructure.
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a finding of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known as the Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA is soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).

Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques during a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area. Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal.

Submitting Comments

The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection.

Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitted or postmarked no later than May 27, 2020.

NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email to ensure timely review and consideration.

Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent

2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb)

2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb)

Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA)

2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb)

2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb)

2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)

2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb)

2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)

2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb)

2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)

Contact

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

7/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from:
Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
Land, Facilities and Permitting

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1

Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois

Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Hamilton counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expansions of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The State of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by TVA.
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 2018, TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operations to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of bleeder shafts and associated surface infrastructure.
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a finding of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known as the Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA is soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).

Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques during a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area. Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal.

Submitting Comments

The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection.

Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitted or postmarked no later than May 27, 2020.

NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email to ensure timely review and consideration.

Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent

2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb)

2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb)

Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA)

2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb)

2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb)

2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

8/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb)
2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb)
2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)
Contact
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from:
Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
River System Operations

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1

Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois

Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Hamilton counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expansions of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The State of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by TVA.
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 2018, TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operations to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of bleeder shafts and associated surface infrastructure.
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a finding of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known as th Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA is soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).

Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques during a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal.

Submitting Comments

The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection.

Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitted or postmarked no later than May 27, 2020.

NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email to ensure timely review and consideration.

Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent

2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb)

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

9/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb)
Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA)
2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb)
2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb)
2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb)
2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)
Contact
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from:
Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
Transmission
Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois
Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Hamilt counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expansion of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The Sta of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by TVA
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 2018, TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operation to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of bleede shafts and associated surface infrastructure.
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a findin of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known as Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA is soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approximate 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).
Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques dur a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project a Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal.
Submitting Comments
The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection.
Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitted postmarked no later than May 27, 2020.

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

10/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email to ensure timely review and consideration.
Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent
2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb)
2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb)
Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA)
2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb)
2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb)
2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb)
2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb)
2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)
Contact
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from:
Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
Natural Resources Management
Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois
Since 2011, TVA has conducted several environmental reviews of proposals to mine TVA-owned coal reserves underlying areas of Franklin and Ham counties, Illinois by Sugar Camp Energy LLC, with whom TVA has executed a lease to mine its coal reserves. TVA's reviews have considered expans of underground mining operations of the Sugar Camp Energy Mine No. 1 (Illinois Mine Permit No. 382) into areas of TVA-owned coal reserves. The of Illinois must approve operations and expansions of Mine No. 1; mining of TVA-owned coal reserves by Sugar Camp Energy requires approval by T
In 2011, TVA approved Sugar Camp Energy's plan for Mine No. 1 to mine coal from approximately 2,600-acres of TVA holdings in Hamilton County, Illinois. In 2013, TVA approved a mine expansion to allow Sugar Camp Energy to mine additional coal reserves underlying an 880.3-acre area. In 201 TVA approved another mine expansion into the Viking District #2 area, encompassing almost 2,250 acres in Franklin and Hamilton counties. Operat to extract TVA-owned coal reserves are conducted primarily underground, although the 2013 and 2018 expansions required the construction of blee shafts and associated surface infrastructure.
On May 9, 2019, TVA completed a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to review an additional expansion of Mine No. 1 and issued a fin of no significant impact. The expanded mining operations would extract approximately 85 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves within an area known Viking District #3. There would be no surface disturbance resulting from this expansion. The SEA supplements the analysis completed by TVA in November 2018 that addresses mining of the adjacent Viking District #2 area. The expansions for Viking Districts #2 and #3 were included in the approval granted by the State of Illinois in November 2017 to expand Sugar Camp Mine No. 1.
On August 12, 2019, TVA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the propose Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision 6). TVA will consider whether to approve the company's application to mine approximately 12,12 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves in Illinois, as part of the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 expansion.
TVA has identified two alternatives for consideration in the EIS: TVA's approval of Sugar Camp's application to mine 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coa reserves within the expansion area (36,972 acres) of Sugar Camp Mine No. 1, as approved by the State of Illinois; and the No Action Alternative. TVA soliciting comments on whether there are other alternatives that should be assessed in the EIS.
Under the proposal, surface and underground disturbance would occur. Surface activities to support the underground mining would be limited to the construction of bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities to operate the bleeder shafts to support the extraction of TVA-owned coal. The exact location of these surface activities is unknown at this time, but they would occur within the project area. Other activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would be located outside of the project area and include operation of the coal preparation plant (approxima 3.5 miles southwest of Macedonia, Illinois).

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

11/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Underground mining would be performed using two techniques. Coal would be extracted using room and pillar and continuous mining techniques d a development period, followed by longwall mining and associated planned subsidence. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project Sugar Camp would utilize its existing Mine No. 1 facilities to process and ship extracted coal. Submitting Comments The draft EIS is available for public review and comment through May 27, 2020. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will becom part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection. Comments may be submitted online, via email to esmith14@tva.gov or by mail to the contact below. To be considered, comments must be submitte postmarked no later than May 27, 2020. NOTE: Due to current federal requirements for TVA employees working remotely, TVA recommends the public submit comments online or by email ensure timely review and consideration.
Related Documents:
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Mine No. 1 - Boundary Revision 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Sugar Camp Federal Register Notice of Intent 2019 Supplemental Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.9mb) 2019 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0mb) Sugar Camp Viking 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) 2018 Final Environmental Assessment ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 5.6mb) 2018 Finding of No Significant Impact ­ Viking District #2 (PDF, 0.1mb) 2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb) 2013 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (PDF, 5.8mb) 2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (PDF, 0.1mb) 2011 Environmental Assessment (PDF, 1.8mb) 2011 Appendices (PDF, 4.7mb)
Contact
More information on this environmental review can be obtained from: Elizabeth Smith NEPA Specialist esmith14@tva.gov 865-632-3053 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902
Bat Conservation and Compliance
TVA's bat strategy defines how we document and track our actions towards conserving bats. As part of the strategy, TVA completed an Endangered Species Act (ESA) programmatic consultation in 2018. This report describes TVA activities which could potentially impact endangered or threatene bats in the TVA Region (gray bat, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat and Virginia big-eared bat). The consultation is effective for 20 years and ensu that TVA remains in compliance with the ESA. Programmatic Biological Assessment for Evaluation of the Impacts of TVA's Routine Actions on Federally Listed Bats USFWS Concurrence on Activities that are Not Likely to Adversely Affect Federally-listed Bats USFWS Biological Opinion on TVA's Programmatic Strategy for Routine Actions that May Affect Endangered or Threatened Bats Amendment to USFWS Biological Opinion

Doing Business with TVA Employees and Retirees Inspector General Safety TVA Kids TVA Police TVA STEM Accessibility Information Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Freedom of Information Act
https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

12/13

5/21/2020

Mine Plan Approval for Illinois Coal Mineral Rights Lease, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1
Information Quality Legal Notices No Fear Act Data TVA Privacy Policy
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube LinkedIn Flickr
Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 865-632-2101 tvainfo@tva.com

https://www.tva.com/Environment/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Reviews/Mine-Plan-Approval-for-Illinois-Coal-Mineral-Rights-Lease-Sugar-Camp-Mine-No-1

13/13

5/27/2020

Understanding Global Warming Potentials | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

An official website of the United States government.
We've made some changes to EPA.gov. If the information you are looking for is not here, you may be able to find it on the EPA Web Archive or the January 19, 2017 Web Snapshot.

Close

Understanding Global Warming Potentials

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the Earth by absorbing energy and slowing the rate at which the energy escapes to space; they act like a blanket insulating the Earth. Different GHGs can have different effects on the Earth's warming. Two key ways in which these gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory), and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.
CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years. Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28­36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265­298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

1/4

5/27/2020

Understanding Global Warming Potentials | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA
hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do GWPs change over time?
EPA and other organizations will update the GWP values they use occasionally. This change can be due to updated scientific estimates of the energy absorption or lifetime of the gases or to changing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs that result in a change in the energy absorption of 1 additional ton of a gas relative to another.
Why are GWPs presented as ranges?
In the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), multiple methods of calculating GWPs were presented based on how to account for the influence of future warming on the carbon cycle. For this Web page, we are presenting the range of the lowest to the highest values listed by the IPCC.
What GWP estimates does EPA use for GHG emissions accounting, such as the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program?

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

2/4

5/27/2020

Understanding Global Warming Potentials | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA
The EPA considers the GWP estimates presented in the most recent IPCC scientific assessment to reflect the state of the science. In science communications, the EPA will refer to the most recent GWPs. The GWPs listed above are from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2014.
The EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) complies with international GHG reporting standards under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). UNFCCC guidelines now require the use of the GWP values for the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007. The Inventory also presents emissions by mass, so that CO2 equivalents can be calculated using any GWPs, and emission totals using more recent IPCC values are presented in the annexes of the Inventory report for informational purposes.
Data collected by EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is used in the Inventory, so the Reporting Program generally uses GWP values from the AR4. The Reporting Program collects data about some industrial gases that do not have GWPs listed in the AR4; for these gases, the Reporting Program uses GWP values from other sources, such as the Fifth Assessment Report.
EPA's CH4 reduction voluntary programs also use CH4 GWPs from the AR4 report for calculating CH4 emissions reductions through energy recovery projects, for consistency with the national emissions presented in the Inventory.
Are there alternatives to the 100-year GWP for comparing GHGs?

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

3/4

5/27/2020

Understanding Global Warming Potentials | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA
The United States primarily uses the 100-year GWP as a measure of the relative impact of different GHGs. However, the scientific community has developed a number of other metrics that could be used for comparing one GHG to another. These metrics may differ based on timeframe, the climate endpoint measured, or the method of calculation.
For example, the 20-year GWP is sometimes used as an alternative to the 100-year GWP. Just like the 100-year GWP is based on the energy absorbed by a gas over 100 years, the 20-year GWP is based on the energy absorbed over 20 years. This 20-year GWP prioritizes gases with shorter lifetimes, because it does not consider impacts that happen more than 20 years after the emissions occur. Because all GWPs are calculated relative to CO2, GWPs based on a shorter timeframe will be larger for gases with lifetimes shorter than that of CO2, and smaller for gases with lifetimes longer than CO2. For example, for CH4, which has a short lifetime, the 100-year GWP of 28­36 is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84­87. For CF4, with a lifetime of 50,000 years, the 100-year GWP of 6630­7350 is larger than the 20-year GWP of 4880­4950.
Another alternate metric is the Global Temperature Potential (GTP). While the GWP is a measure of the heat absorbed over a given time period due to emissions of a gas, the GTP is a measure of the temperature change at the end of that time period (again, relative to CO2).The calculation of the GTP is more complicated than that for the GWP, as it requires modeling how much the climate system responds to increased concentrations of GHGs (the climate sensitivity) and how quickly the system responds (based in part on how the ocean absorbs heat).

LAST UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 14, 2017

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

4/4

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
May 27, 2020
REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:
Mail Code RM-19J
Elizabeth Smith Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B-K Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Sugar Camp Energy LLC Mine Expansion (Revision No. 6), Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois -CEQ #20200081
Dear Ms. Smith:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) published by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for the Sugar Camp Mine Expansion ­ Revision No. 6 in Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois. This letter provides EPA's review of the Draft EIS and supporting materials, pursuant to our authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
TVA is considering whether to allow Sugar Camp Mine LLC to mine approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal reserves, as part of the full Sugar Camp Mine. The full proposed expansion is 36,972 acres and has been approved under the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Underground Coal Mine Permit No. 382, Revision 6. There are two alternatives: the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternative. Because the remainder of the project area is privately held, the No Action Alternative includes mining and environmental impacts beyond the TVA-owned coal reserves that would occur regardless of TVA's decision.
Surface and underground disturbances would occur under both the No Action and Action Alternatives. Surface activities include construction of five (5) bleeder ventilation shafts, a new refuse disposal area, and other associated infrastructure. Underground mining would be performed using both room-and-pillar mining and longwall mining and would include planned subsidence under portions of the project area. The project proponent would use existing coal transfer and processing facilities.
EPA provided comments to TVA on the EIS scoping materials on September 12, 2019. Our comments focused on purpose and need, alternatives, cumulative impacts, and scope, as well as potential impacts to aquatic resources and air quality. Our scoping comments largely remain unaddressed in the Draft EIS, particularly regarding the sufficiency of information provided

under the cumulative impacts analysis. Notably, we had recommended that the cumulative impacts analysis describe the environmental impacts of the historic and current Sugar Camp Mine operations, the impacts of the entire proposed expansion, including mining of coal not controlled by TVA, and any reasonably foreseeable future expansion plans. Our detailed comments are enclosed.
EPA requested to be a Cooperating Agency in our scoping letter. TVA did not ask EPA to review preliminary documentation or provide other substantive input. EPA's status as a Cooperating Agency does not mean we support the project, nor does that status change our independent review and comment authorities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our comments to better protect human health and the environment. We are happy to answer any questions or to further discuss our comments -please contact me or Elizabeth Poole of my staff at poole.elizabeth@epa.gov or 312-353-2087 to arrange a call or meeting.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by KENNETH
KENNETH WESTLAKE WESTLAKE Date: 2020.05.27 20:23:53 -05'00' Kenneth A. Westlake Deputy Director, Tribal and Multi-Media Programs Office Office of the Regional Administrator

Enclosure (1): Detailed Comments

cc:

Keith McMullen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District

Tyson Zobrist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District

Matt Mangan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bradley Hayes, Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Ray Pilapil, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Darin LeCrone, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

EPA's Detailed Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sugar Camp Mine Expansion (No. 6), Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois CEQ #20200081
Background Documentation
We reviewed the following documents, in addition to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to inform our comments:
x Illinois Department of Natural Resources (Illinois DNR) Underground Mining Permit Number 382 (Revision 6);
x Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) Construction Permit 18050018; x Illinois EPA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.
IL0078565.
Alternatives Analysis
The Draft EIS states: "Shifting the shadow area to the north, west, south, while possible, offers no environmental or economical advantage over the current plan" (page 2-11). This important statement should refer to supporting information.
Recommendation: We recommend the Final EIS provide information to support this statement (for example, a table that identifies the proposed impacts to each resource within a shadow area to the north, west, and south). This could be summarized in the Final EIS and incorporated by reference, assuming the citation is specific and publicly available (i.e., referencing a specific page or section of a document available on a website).
Under the Action Alternative, the coal mined at the site will be processed, stored, and transported at an existing coal preparation plant. While the Draft EIS states that the Action Alternative would not result in any new surface facilities, it is unclear whether physical or operational changes to the plant would be necessary, particularly given the increase in mine output.
Recommendations: TVA should describe any physical or operational changes to the process equipment at the coal preparation plant (including any modifications to existing conveyors or construction of new conveyors). TVA should consult with Illinois EPA to determine if the coal processing plant changes should be evaluated for applicability of Clean Air Act (CAA) permitting requirements, including all federal requirements for New Source Performance Standards ­ specifically 40 CFR 60, Subpart Y. Any modifications to CAA permitting requirements should be disclosed in the Final EIS.
The Draft EIS states that siting decisions for the bleeder shaft facilities will be made in the future and that site-specific impacts are unknown (page 1-5). It also states that the bleeder shaft facilities will "continue to be sited to avoid floodplains and Waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable" (page 3-83) and would likely be located in agricultural lands; but does not identify other circumstances to be considered.
Recommendation: EPA encourages TVA and the applicant to include more detail in the Final EIS about the siting considerations for the bleeder ventilation shafts; this could include a narrowed list of potential locations. We recommend TVA and the applicant commit to site

the bleeder ventilation shafts away from communities, schools, or other potentially sensitive receptors, in addition to avoiding jurisdictional waters, where practicable. The Draft EIS includes information about whether potentially vulnerable receptors, such as schools, hospitals, and/or pockets of low-income populations1, are located within the project area; such populations may be more susceptible to adverse air quality as a result of emissions from the bleeder shaft.
East Refuse Area
The East Refuse Disposal Area falls under the No Action alternative but would also be used to store refuse from the preparation of TVA-owned coal. The Draft EIS does not include important relevant information regarding the East Refuse Area.
Recommendations: We recommend the Final EIS include the following information regarding the East Refuse Area. This information could be summarized in the Final EIS and incorporated by reference, assuming citation is specific and publicly available (i.e., referencing a specific page or section of a document available on a website): x The composition of the low permeability liner and explain how leachate in the East
Refuse Area and settling ponds will be managed; x The composition of the waste rock and water being discharged from the East Refuse Area
and settling ponds; we recommend water quality monitoring to ensure compliance with water quality standards, both for during operation and post-closure. x How the mine closure plan will affect this component of the mine complex.
Air Quality
Under the Action Alternative, the Draft EIS indicates that there will be construction and operation of 5 bleeder shaft facilities totaling 27 acres and the East Refuse Disposal Area totaling 525 acres. Any facility that has the potential to emit air pollution may be required to obtain a CAA permit before construction and operation at the site.
Recommendations: We recommend the following be considered and reflected in the Final EIS. x Prior to beginning actual construction of the five bleeder shaft facilities, the applicant
should consult with Illinois EPA to determine whether a CAA permit is required and whether any permit conditions would be required. x While methane will be vented from the mine through the bleeder shafts, there should be additional consideration given to possible particulate matter and hazardous air pollutant emissions from these facilities. x The fugitive coal dust emissions control plan may need to be updated.
Due to the increased throughput of the Coal Preparation Plant under the Action Alternative, there may be increased use of process equipment (crushers and conveyors), which may require
1 On page 3-75, the Draft EIS discusses low-income populations; however, there is no map provided, so we are unable to assess the proximity the mine facilities to the identified census tracts. See recommendation regarding an additional map under Documentation.

revisions to construction and operating permits for this facility, specifically Construction Permit Number 18050018.
Recommendation: The Final EIS should state the impact that the increased throughput will have on the existing Coal Preparation Plant. The analysis should include whether any existing permit or new permit (construction or operating) would need to be modified or issued. Prior to processing the additional coal at the Coal Preparation Plant, the applicant should consult with Illinois EPA to determine if any permitting actions must be undertaken to address this increased throughput.
The Draft EIS states that between 2014 and 2018, between 53% and 77% of the coal produced by the mine was shipped to power plants located in the United States, including Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky, and that the rest was likely exported. This information was used to calculate the transportation emissions associated with mining.
Recommendation: The transportation emissions and consumption should be updated and recalculated to reflect current conditions such as changing transportation patterns associated with the changing market for coal, reflecting shutdowns of coal-fired power plants in the United States and a higher percentage of domestic coal production being shipped abroad.
Water Quality
Based on our review of compliance data and the NPDES permit, the Sugar Camp Mine has had effluent exceedances for the past 4 quarters. In 2019, the facility reported discharges at only 5 of the 15 separate outfalls. In the past 4 quarters, it appears that the facility reported exceedances at all 5 of the discharging outfalls.
For all outfalls in 2019, there were 5,696 individual effluent data points. Of those, 3,589 were flagged as "No Discharge." This is separate from the flag used for systems which are labeled "Not Constructed". This leaves 682 reported discharge data points in 2019; in other words, discharges are reported during only 12% of the possible reporting times.
In 2019, for Outfall 013 only, there were 448 average and maximum effluent limitations data points. Of those data points, the facility reported 75 discharge data points which were not flagged as "No Discharge." All of those discharge events occurred in the monitoring periods ending March, June, September, and December 2019. The effluent exceedances occurred during the monitoring periods ending June and September 2019. This means that Outfall 013 only discharged approximately 16% of the time, and that ½ time when discharges occurred, the effluent was out of compliance with the permit limits during the reporting periods in 2019.
Recommendation: The Final EIS should verify that the existing onsite treatment systems are capable of treating the increased volume of wastewater from the expansion, and that monitoring is being conducted on the schedule required by the NPDES permit. Any changes to the treatment system should be detailed in the Final EIS.
Aquatic Resources

This section reiterates unaddressed comments on aquatic resources provided by EPA in the September 12, 2019 scoping letter. The NEPA process is meant to support informed decision making by federal agencies that reduces or eliminates environmental harms, Overall, the sections in the Draft EIS pertaining to aquatic resources do not include enough detail about the location of existing resources, the quality of those resources, the proposed impacts to those resources, and cumulative impacts to the watershed to meet this purpose. Specific comments follow.
Clean Water Act Section 404
The Draft EIS indicates that this project will involve the filling of jurisdictional waters requiring authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Pursuant to the CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines2, only the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative can be permitted. The identification of the environmentally preferred alternative in a NEPA EIS should ideally satisfy the alternatives analysis requirements of Section 404 of the CWA. Mitigation described in an EIS to replace unavoidable losses of aquatic habitat can then form the basis for mitigation requirements of Section 404 permits.
Recommendation: Consistent with comments during scoping, we recommend the Final EIS provide relevant site-specific detailed information on the alternatives analysis and mitigation to facilitate a compliance determination under Section 404 of the CWA.
It is our understanding that there has been no recent coordination or consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District Regulatory office (St. Louis Corps) regarding the impacts to jurisdictional waters for the proposed project. However, in the past, all CWA Section 404 permits for the Sugar Camp mine were issued by the St. Louis District Regulatory Field Office. Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS lists the US Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District Newburgh Regulatory Field Office as a recipient of the Draft EIS.
Recommendation: We recommend a copy of the Final EIS be provided to the appropriate Corps District for review and comment. We also recommend TVA engage with the St. Louis Corps, to discuss what information could be provided in the Final EIS to meet CWA Section 404 permit requirements.
Aquatic Life
The Draft EIS broadly states that each of the streams and ponds within the project area support aquatic life. It lacks sufficient detail to support evaluating the extent of impact to aquatic life or the biological environment and the extent to which impacts may need to be mitigated. The area has not been assessed; and there is no reference to any local data, studies, or statewide assessments that may include this type of information. The Draft EIS concludes: "Overall, no significant cumulative effects to biological resources would occur in association with the overall 37,972-acre SBR [Significant Boundary Revision] No. 6 mine expansion or the existing 2,420acre surface effects area due to avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, per IDNR-OMM permit requirements and in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, as applicable" (page 3-84).
2 https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/cwa-section-404b1-guidelines-40-cfr-230

Recommendations: We recommend the Final EIS include additional information on the presence of aquatic life in impacted watersheds, including but not limited to analysis and reference to existing state and watershed ecological assessments. Onsite physical and biological assessments of resources proposed to be impacted will be required for a CWA Section 404 permit application. Conducting such assessment would also provide information to evaluate impacts to streams, wetlands, and biological resources on the site under NEPA.
Impacts to Aquatic Resources from Subsidence
Cumulative impacts to aquatic resources could occur in the 33,033-acre subsidence area associated with the overall 37,972-acre proposed expansion area. The Draft EIS indicates that planned subsidence of a maximum of five and a half feet would occur over 10,549 acres of land within the Shadow Area once the coal has been removed through longwall mining methods (page 2-9). The Draft EIS states "Longwall mining results in predictable and uniform subsidence patterns" (page 2-11). Based on information provided in Draft EIS, Section 3.2.2.1, the project has the potential to minimally impact approximately 390 acres of wetland and 317,749 linear feet of streams by subsidence in the Shadow Area. These surface waters may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA. The Draft EIS does not contain a detailed map indicating the subsidence area in relation to the location of streams and wetlands within the project footprint. Figure 1-2 shows the "limit of predicted subsidence" but only higher order streams are included on this map. Further, the discussion on how aquatic resources will be assessed and mitigated for, if impacted, lacks detail and spoken about in a general manner.
Recommendations: We recommend the Final EIS include the following, related to impacts aquatic resources from subsidence: x A map indicating potential subsidence locations that more clearly details anticipated
impacts to aquatic resources. x A discussion on how post-construction impacts to aquatic resources in these areas will be
addressed, given the potential quantity of resources impacted (i.e. proposed design requirements). x A comprehensive summary of aquatic resource impacts within the Shadow Area given the potential impacts proposed. The wetland resources summarized in this section only include National Wetland Inventory data, which is not a comprehensive assessment of wetland resources that may occur within the area. Further, the stream resources summarized in this section are based on the National Hydrography Dataset which doesn't include ephemeral stream or all intermittent streams that may occur within the area. This can only be determined through more detailed desktop review and field assessments. x Additional detail on the baseline condition and quality of the aquatic resources that would be directly impacted, both in the surface effects area and the shadow/subsidence area, using appropriate assessment methods. Discussion on the severity of impacts to surface waters by subsidence is warranted as well as proposed methods for their restoration. x A discussion on the potential minimization and mitigation requirements under CWA Section 404 for the areas proposed to be impacted by subsidence. Overall, the Draft EIS mentions that impacts to aquatic resources would be offset through required minimization and mitigation efforts under CWA Section 404 and other state permit authorities; however, the document provides little detail on how minimization (e.g. alternative design configurations, decreased project footprint, etc.) will be achieved and what specific

mitigation efforts would be undertaken (e.g. best management practices, restoring streams and wetlands, enhancements to existing aquatic resources within the watershed, etc.).
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts section of the Draft EIS lacks sufficient detail to describe the affected environment and determine the environmental consequences of cumulative effects. The Draft EIS concludes that overall, no significant cumulative effects to resources will occur in association with the mine project due to "avoidance, minimization, and mitigation per IDNROMM permit requirements." This phrase is repeated several times throughout the Cumulative Impacts Section in reference to different resources. However, specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are not identified.
Recommendations: The Final EIS should incorporate the referenced IDNR permit requirements that address the deficiencies stated above; this could be accomplished by citing an accessible document (i.e., referencing a specific page or section of a document available on a website). We recommend the cumulative impacts analysis specifically address the following in the Final EIS, with appropriate supporting information: x The current health of each resource, including past actions/trends, whether public or
private, led to this condition and the current trends and projected future health of the resource. x Any future coal projects that are reasonably foreseeable and the anticipated potential environmental impacts of these projects on each resource (e.g. a resource trends and potential effects analysis). This should include the portion of the proposed Sugar Camp Energy Mine expansion covering non-TVA coal resources. x Any future non-coal projects and developments, whether public or private, that are reasonably foreseeable and the potential environmental impacts of these projects. x How the combined effects of past actions, other present actions, reasonably foreseeable future actions, and the proposed project will affect the health of each resource, including supportive documentation or analysis.
The scope and boundary of the cumulative impacts analysis is not well defined. For example, the Draft EIS states "With respect to the cumulative impact analysis for other resource areas, the geographic area of analysis includes the UCM Permit No. 382 surface effects area, the SBR No. 6 shadow area, and the vicinity, as relevant to the particular resource" (page 3-83). It is unclear what the "vicinity" boundaries are in relation to the cumulative impacts area. The affected environment has not been adequately assessed (i.e. the quality of the resources in comparison to other resources within the watershed).
Recommendation: `Vicinity' should be clearly defined. The Final EIS should clarify the boundaries selected and that an explanation is provided for why those boundaries were selected for each the scope of each resources' cumulative impact analysis.
Documentation
EPA sent scoping comments on September 12, 2019. The Draft EIS states that TVA also received scoping comments from the Sierra Club and one private citizen (page 1-7). Consultation

with USFWS and IDNR is summarized (page 1-11). The Draft EIS does not include copies of scoping comment letters or other correspondence from the scoping period. It also does not indicate how specific scoping comments were addressed.
Recommendations: The Final EIS should include correspondence and consultation records from the public and agencies during both the scoping and Draft EIS comment periods. We also recommend TVA identify the specific locations within the document where agency or public comments were addressed or information in the Final EIS was modified from the Draft EIS. If a comment was not addressed, an explanation of why it was not addressed should be provided.
There are a few additional areas where the Final EIS would be strengthened by further information:
Recommendations: x Figure 1-1 (page 1-3) should show the boundary of the overall 37,972-acre SBR No. 6
expansion area; x Section 3.12 (Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice) should include a map of mine
facilities in relation to low-income populations, which are identified via Table 3-10. This information is necessary as part of assessing proximity and potential susceptibility of these populations. x Clarify what regulatory requirement the "Floodplains No Practicable Alternatives analysis" (page 2-16) addresses. It is unclear if this is a reference to an analysis under CWA Section 404 or some other state or federal program.

Appendix D ­ Correspondence / Permits
Appendix D ­ Correspondence / Permits

Alliance Consulting, Inc.
Engineers · Constructors · Scientists
February 4, 2019
Project No.: B19-003-1413
Mr. James Plumley FORESIGHT ENERGY, LLC 16824 Liberty School Road Marion, IL 62959
Wetland and Stream Inventory Report East Refuse Disposal Area Franklin County, Illinois Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Macedonia, Illinois
Dear Mr. Plumley:
This letter has been prepared to transmit a Wetland and Stream Inventory Report of the project area in association with the proposed East Refuse Disposal Area in Franklin County, Illinois.
The area for this proposed project falls under a previously permitted area (Permit No. 382, Sugar Camp Mine No. 1) that has already been submitted and approved. Several impacts from the refuse area have already been mitigated in the original permit as well. Alliance Consulting, Inc. (Alliance) is pleased to submit the following Wetland and Stream Inventory Report on behalf of our client, Sugar Camp Energy, LLC (Sugar Camp), as a portion of the Joint Application for Section 404/401 CWA Permit and Nationwide Permit 27.
The stream and wetland determinations on the western portion of the proposed project area were conducted in 2005-2007. The stream determination work on the western area was completed in 2007 by Alliance at Sugar Camp's request to be utilized during the permitting process. The initial wetland determinations were conducted in 2005-2007 by HDR/Cochran and Wilken, Inc. (HDR/CWI) of Springfield, Illinois at Sugar Camp's request to be utilized in the permitting process as well. The original Request for Jurisdictional Determination completed by Alliance can be found in Appendix A of this document. A detailed report on the initial wetland determination work can be found in Appendix B of this document. Alliance and HDR/CWI prepared their respective reports in general accordance with the Corps of Engineers Guidance for Stream and Wetland Delineations. A second stream and wetland determination was conducted in 2011/2012 on the eastern portion of the proposed project area. The second Jurisdictional Determination was completed in 2012 by EcoSource, Inc. of Georgetown, Kentucky at Sugar Camp's request to be used during the permitting process. A detailed report on the stream and wetland determination work can be found in Appendix C of this Joint Application. EcoSource prepared this report in general accordance with the Corps of Engineers Guidance for Stream and Wetland Delineations.
124 Philpott Lane  Raleigh County Airport Industrial Park  Beaver, WV 25813-9502  TELE: (304) 255-0491  FAX (304) 255-4232

Mr. James Plumley FORESIGHT ENERGY, LLC February 4, 2019 Page 2
The original Request for Jurisdictional Determination (Appendix A), Wetlands Assessment Report (Appendix B) and the second Jurisdictional Determination (Appendix C) are enclosed in this document. The other portions of this report have been updated to only contain the pertinent information for the proposed area (Appendices D-F). The scope of this project is only for a portion of the original permit area and, therefore, attention should be focused on the proposed area for the purposes of this application. The project, as proposed, would impact two of the wetland areas that were delineated by HDR/CWI in the original report (Areas 1 & 2). The project, as proposed, would also impact several of the wetland areas that were delineated by EcoSource in the second report (Areas A-1, A-2, B, C, D, and OWA). It should be noted that Wetland Area 2 from the original report and Wetland Areas B, C, D, and OWA from the second report are in the same location and could be considered the same area. The project, as proposed, would impact several of the stream channels that were delineated by Alliance in the original report (Stream channels: E, G, G4A, G9A, G9B, and G4-G12). The project, as proposed, would also impact several of the channels that were delineated by EcoSource in the second report (Stream Channels: SR1-SR6 and SR15). This proposed area includes approximately 523.70 acres, which, if approved, will have a coal refuse disposal area constructed on it for the purpose of refuse storage.
If you have any questions or require clarification, please do not hesitate to call.
Respectfully submitted,
ALLIANCE CONSULTING, INC.
Daniel E. Brady Staff Scientist
Braden A. Hoffman Project Manager

APPENDIX A
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION LETTER REPORT (ALLIANCE, 2008)

APPENDIX B
WETLANDS ASSESSMENT REPORT (HDR/CWI, 2007)

Sugar Camp Mine #1 ­ Wetlands Delineation Report

Introduction

1

Project Location

1

National Wetlands Inventory and USGS Topographic Information

2

Aerial Photography

2

County and State Soil Surveys

3

Wetlands Assessment

4

Methodology

4

Hydrophytic Vegetation

4

Wetland Hydrology

4

Hydric Soils

5

Global Positioning System (GPS) Survey

5

Wetland Observation Areas

5

Conclusions

10

Summary of Qualifications

11

References

12

Figures Figure 1 ­ General Location of Project Study Area Figure 2 ­ National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map within the Project Study Area Figure 3 ­ Soil Survey Map of the Project Study Area Figure 4 ­ USGS Topographic Map on Project Study Area Figure 5 ­ Wetland Areas within Project Study Area
Tables Table 1 - Mapped Soil Types within the Project Study Area Table 2 - Summary of Wetlands within the Project Study Area
Appendices Appendix 1 ­ Listing of Hydric Soils within Franklin County Appendix 2 ­ Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix 3 - Photographs of the Wetlands Assessment Observation Areas Appendix 4 - Summary of Qualifications for Wetland Delineators

1

Sugar Camp Mine #1

Wetland Delineation Report

APPENDIX C
JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS DETERMINATIONS (ECOSOURCE, 2012)

Sugar Camp Energy LLC
DNR No. 382, Revision 4 Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetland Determinations
Submitted to CBC Engineers & Associates Ltd.
Lexington, Kentucky
February 2012

EcoSource, Inc.

104 Boston Square, Georgetown, Kentucky 40324 Telephone (502) 868-5200

APPENDIX F
NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY REPORT (GENERATED 2019)

United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for
Franklin County, Illinois
East Refuse Area

January 25, 2019

Mr. Scott K. Fowler

1

United States Department of the Interior

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Southern Illinois Sub-Office (ES) 8588 Route 148
Marion, Illinois 62959

FWS/SISO

August 4, 2017

Mr. Scott K. Fowler Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Mines and Minerals Land Reclamation Division One Natural Resources Way Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271
Dear Mr. Fowler:
Thank you for your letter dated April 12, 2017, requesting review of significant revision No. 6 to permit 382 by Sugar Camp Energy, LLC (No. 1 Mine), for surface coal mining and reclamation operations in Hamilton and Franklin Counties, Illinois. The revision will add 37,971.9 acres of shadow area to existing permit No. 382. These comments are provided under the authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (40 Stat. 755, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and, the National Environmental Policy Act (83 Stat. 852, as amended P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Threatened and Endangered Species
To facilitate compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Federal agencies are required to obtain from the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) information concerning any species, listed or proposed to be listed, that have ranges which include the project area. As the State of Illinois has been delegated the responsibility of issuing mining permits by the Office of Surface Mining, we are providing the following list of threatened and endangered species to assist in your evaluation of the proposed permit. The list for the proposed permit area includes the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), endangered piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). There is no designated critical habitat in the project area at this time.
Information provided in the permit application indicates that there is no surface disturbance proposed in this revision and therefore no impacts to listed species are anticipated. Based on the information provided in the permit application, the Service concurs that the proposed permit actions are not likely to adversely affect any federally listed species. Although no surface

Mr. Scott K. Fowler

2

disturbance is proposed in this revision, post-subsidence mitigation may be necessary to restore pre-existing drainage patterns which could result in impacts to forested riparian areas.
· The Service recommends that any tree clearing be minimized or avoided if possible to reduce impacts to potential habitat for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat. If tree clearing is necessary, it should not occur during the April 1 thru October 14 time frame. Also, any forested areas impacted by post-subsidence mitigation should be restored.
Fish and Wildlife Resources
Although no surface disturbance is proposed in this revision, post-subsidence mitigation may be necessary to restore pre-existing drainage patterns which could result in impacts to streams and wetlands. Activities in the project area that would alter these streams or wetlands may require a Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
· The Service recommends that impacts to streams and wetlands be avoided or impacts minimized to the greatest extent possible. If a permit is required than an appropriate mitigation plan should be developed and coordinated with the Service.
Migratory Birds
Although the bald eagle has been removed from the threatened and endangered species list, it continues to be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The Service developed the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide landowners, land managers, and others with information and recommendations regarding how to minimize potential project impacts to bald eagles, particularly where such impacts may constitute "disturbance," which is prohibited by the BGEPA. A copy of the guidelines is available at:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/pdf/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf
· The Service is unaware of any bald eagle nests in the permit area; however, if a bald eagle nest is found in the permit area or vicinity of the permit area then our office should be contacted and the guidelines implemented.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed surface mining permit and provide information concerning threatened and endangered species. If you have any questions, please contact me at (618) 997-3344, ext. 345.

Sincerely,
/s/ Matthew T. Mangan
Matthew T. Mangan Fish and Wildlife Biologist

Alliance LI Consulting, Inc.
Engineers · Constructors · Scientists
February 26, 2015
Project No. B12-603-1413
Mr. Matthew Mangan U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Marion Field Office 8588 Route 148 Marion, IL 62959
Comprehensive Bat Survey Demonstration Sugar Camp Mine No.1 and North Refuse Disposal Facility,
Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Illinois Sugar Camp Energy, LLC Macedonia, Illinois
Dear Mr. Mangan:
On behalf of our client, Sugar Camp Energy, LLC (Sugar Camp), this letter has been prepared to present the results of five years of endangered bat species surveys and monitoring within the Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 project area, one year of endangered bat species surveys and monitoring within the North Refuse Disposal Facility, and one year of acoustic survey within the North Refuse Disposal Facility. The various surveys were conducted in association with the proposed construction of each project or with monitoring plans established for the project. Alliance Consulting, Inc. (Alliance) conducted the surveys and presented the results each year accordingly. This document has been prepared as a comprehensive summary of Indiana bats, captured or detected, for all of the surveys conducted for Sugar Camp Energy, LLC, from 20102014.
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of these surveys was to determine the presence/absence of endangered bat species within and adjacent to the proposed Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 Shadow Area and the North Refuse Disposal Facility and annual monitoring of the identified colony as required by your office, based upon the 2010 protection and enhancement plan approved by your office, mist net surveys and telemetry tracking were required. This document also represents Alliance's findings during a voluntary acoustic and mist net survey within the North Refuse Disposal Facility project area, which was conducted at twice the minimal level of recommended effort. This survey was conducted to determine the usage of the North Refuse Area by Indiana bats since it is within known habitat (2.5 miles of maternity roost).
2.0 INTRODUCTION
124 Philpott Lane · Raleigh County Airport Industrial Park · Beaver, WV 25813-9502 · TELE: (304) 255-0491 · FAX: (304) 255-4232

Alliance Consulting, Inc.
Engineers x Constructors x Scientists
A SUMMER SURVEY FOR THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED INDIANA BAT (MYOTIS SODALIS)
AND THE THREATENED NORTHERN LONGEARED BAT (MYOTIS SEPTENTRIONALIS)
VIKING SHADOW AREA 1 PERMIT NO. 382/NPDES IEPA LOG NO. 1357-07
NEAR MACEDONIA, FRANKLIN AND HAMILTON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS

Prepared for:
SUGAR CAMP ENERGY, LLC JOHNSTON CITY, ILLINOIS

ALLIANCE PROJECT NO. B17-112-1413 SEPTEMBER 2017

Beckley, WV
Raleigh County Airport Industrial Park 124 Philpott Lane
Beaver, WV 25813-9502 Telephone: (304) 255-0491
Fax: (304) 255-4232

Canonsburg, PA
3 Four Coins Drive, Ste. 100 Canonsburg, PA 15317
Telephone: (724) 745-3630 Fax: (724) 745-3631

Alllance L 7
C1 on 11lting, Inc.
Er1gi11u n · . Co11strnctors . Sci,mrists

A SUMMER SURVEY FQ,R THE FEDER.i\LLY ENDANGERED I . o ,J~tlNi\ BAT (My;OTIS S ,ODALLS;)
AND THE 'THRE..tlT:E ~ED, OR'THERN LQ,NGE.ARED BA'T ( vy;oTJS'.SEPTENTR'JONALIS)
SUGAR cAi,w EAST REF SE DISPOSAL AREA
PERlVUT NO. 3,82. NE~t\.R :A1IACEDONIA,, FR.A.NKLIN COUNTY, ILLINOIS

.Pr1?pared fo r:
SUGAR CAJ\1IP E ERGY LLC JOHNSTON CITY, ILLINOIS

ALLIAl CE PROJEC T_ 0 Bl9-003-1413 OCTOBER 2019

Charleston \\ '
928 C.-os:s Lane5 Drhre, Suit,e,3 00
C:h:u-le;sfon, '-'n 25313
Tele,p!oone,: {681 ,21'7-1090 Fu: ,(6:8,1) 21 -20!112

Berkley, '\\r'
ble-~ C oDllty _c\irpo:rt Industrial Pairk I U Philpott Lan.e
Besant:, Wll 258,13~9502 T11!11.'t:pllone: (3 04) 255~0<1.IH
Fu: (311 ,2 55-4232

Cauousbnrg PA
3 Four Coins Drin, Slee 1'00 C monsbm1I, PA.1531?
T,1!11.'t:p1Loille<: (-724) 4.5-,36J0, Fu: (71,4) 45-l63Jl

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Ms. Rachel Leibowitz Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Preservation Services Division Illinois Historic Preservation Agency 1 Old State Capitol Plaza Springfield, Illinois 62701-1507
Dear Ms. Leibowitz:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA), INITATION OF CONSULTATION, SUGAR CAMP MINE NO.1 EXPANSION PROJECT (IDNR PERMIT NO. 382 REVISION 6)
Sugar Camp Energy, LLC (Sugar Camp) proposes to expand mining operations of its Mine No. 1 in Franklin and Hamilton Counties in southern Illinois. The proposed expansion (approximately 37,972 acres) includes approximately 12,125 acres of TVA-owned coal (Figure 1). Planned subsidence is included in Sugar Camp's proposed mining plan. Subsidence would only occur under a portion of the project area (Figure 1:Permit No 382 Revision 6 Shadow Area). Surface activities to support the underground mining of TVA-owned coal would include construction of approximately five bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities needed to operate the bleeder shafts. The exact location and nature of these surface activities is unknown at this time but they would occur within the project area shown in purple in Figure 1. . TVA has determined the area of potential effects (APE) as the footprint of the project area (12,125) as well as the five bleeder shafts and installation of associated utilities needed to operate the bleeder shafts where physical effects could occur, as well as areas within a half-mile radius of the project within which the project would be visible, where visual effects on above-ground resources could occur.
Per the Programmatic Agreement between the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, "shadow areas in which there will be no surface disturbance" are a class of exempt activities which are "considered to have no effect on historic properties" (Enclosed).TVA agrees with the Programmatic Agreement finding that no archaeological resources will be affected within the shadow area where no surface disturbance is propose, although TVA will take into account any potential effects to architectural historic properties that may be effected by the subsidence.
By this letter, TVA is initiating consultation regarding the proposed undertaking. Due to the size and scope of the project TVA proposes to proceed under phases as provided under 36 CFR §
800.4(b)(2) and § 800.5(c)(1). Once the locations of the bleeder shafts and associated infrastructure are identified, TVA will conduct a Phase I Cultural Resources survey of the APE
and provide to your office for consultation.

Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 800.3(f)(2), TVA is consulting with federally recognized Indian tribes regarding historic properties within the proposed project's APE that may be of religious and cultural significance and are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Please contact Michaelyn Harle by telephone (865) 632-2248 or by email, mharle@tva.gov with your comments.
Sincerely,
Clinton E. Jones Manager Cultural Compliance
INTERNAL COPIES NOT TO BE INCLUDED WITH OUTGOING LETTER:
Michael C. Easley, BR 2C-C Patricia B. Ezzell, WT 7C-K Travis A. Giles, BR 2C-C Michaelyn S. Harle, WT 11C-K Susan R. Jacks, WT 11C-K Paul J. Pearman, BR 2C-C M. Susan Smelley, BR 2C-C Elizabeth Smith, WT 11C-K Rebecca C. Tolene, WT 7B-K ECM, WT CA-K

Figure 1. Location of the proposed project area and shadow area.

From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Smith, Elizabeth
RichardsonSeacat, Harriet
FW: Sugar Camp P382 REV 6
Wednesday, August 19, 2020 3:44:26 PM
image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

See responses below for SHPO Consultation for Sugar Camp...
Due to COVID-19 safety precautions enacted by TVA, I am currently teleworking.
Should you need to speak with me directly, my mobile phone # is listed below.
Elizabeth R. Smith
NEPA Specialist
NEPA Programs Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902
865-632-3053 (w) 865-250-9138 (m) esmith14@tva.gov

From: Harle, Michaelyn S <mharle@tva.gov> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 12:57:43 PM To: Smith, Elizabeth <esmith14@tva.gov> Subject: FW: Sugar Camp P382 REV 6
We didn't get a response they forwarded it on to IDNR, we got this response.

Due to COVID-19 safety precautions enacted by TVA, I am currently teleworking.
My mobile phone is listed below and you can call or txt until further notice.
Michaelyn Harle, Ph.D Archaeologist Cultural Compliance

400 W. Summit Hill Drive WT 11A-K Knoxville, TN 37902
865-632-2248 (w)
717-756-3196 (m) mharle@tva.gov
NOTICE: This electronic message transmission contains information that may be TVA SENSITIVE, TVA RESTRICTED, or TVA CONFIDENTIAL. Any misuse or unauthorized disclosure can result in both civil and criminal penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the original message.
From: Cobb, Dawn <Dawn.Cobb@illinois.gov> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 4:45 PM To: Harle, Michaelyn S <mharle@tva.gov> Subject: Sugar Camp P382 REV 6
TVA External Message. Please use caution when opening.
Michaelyn, I am the archaeologist for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and replaced Hal Hassen a few years ago as Cultural Resources Manager. The IL SHPO archaeologist recently shared with me the November 7, 2019, TVA consultation letter regarding Sugar Camp No. 1 Mine Revision 6 in Hamilton and Franklin Counties. Would you please copy me on the final determination for this project as I review all mine-related projects for the IDNR? The Office of Mines & Minerals (OMM) staff submit bleeder shafts, etc. and other Incidental Boundary Revisions and new permits to my office for review. I then coordinate with the SHPO on survey results. It appears in this instance that the TVA will conduct Phase I surveys of the APE and consult directly with the IL SHPO, per the 11-7-2019 letter. Once I receive the results of your consultation with SHPO I will notify OMM. Thank you in advance-
Dawn E. Cobb
Archaeologist Office of Realty & Capital Planning Illinois Department of Natural Resources 217/785-4992
State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged or attorney work product, may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff communication, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender

immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure.

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
3410 P St. NW, Miami, OK 74354  P.O. Box 1326, Miami, OK 74355 Ph: (918) 541-1300  Fax: (918) 542-7260 www.miamination.com
Via email: mmshuler@tva.gov
December 13, 2019
Marianne Shuler Senior Specialist, Archaeologist and Tribal Liaison Cultural Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902
Re: Sugar Camp Mine No. 1 Expansion Project ­ Comments of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
Dear Ms. Shuler:
Aya, kikwehsitoole ­ I show you respect. My name is Diane Hunter, and I am the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Federally Recognized Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. In this capacity, I am the Miami Tribe's point of contact for all Section 106 issues.
The Miami Tribe offers no objection to the above-mentioned project at this time, as we are not currently aware of existing documentation directly linking a specific Miami cultural or historic site to the project site. However, as this project is within the aboriginal homelands of the Miami Tribe, if any human remains or Native American cultural items falling under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) or archaeological evidence is discovered during any phase of this project, the Miami Tribe requests immediate consultation with the entity of jurisdiction for the location of discovery. In such a case, please contact me at 918-541-8966 or by email at dhunter@miamination.com to initiate consultation.
The Miami Tribe accepts the invitation to serve as a consulting party to the proposed project. In my capacity as Tribal Historic Preservation Officer I am the point of contact for consultation.
Respectfully,
Diane Hunter Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

tva.com