This bill authorizes mining of federal coal reserves under Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988 in Musselshell County, Montana, by tying that activity to a previously approved mining-plan amendment known as the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification (Amendment 3). It confines the authorization to specific legal parcels totaling roughly 800 acres and instructs the Secretary of the Interior to approve the Amendment 3 modification “without modification or delay.”
The change matters because it converts an earlier Interior concurrence into a statutory command for mining on defined federal land, sets a tight 30‑day clock for agency action, and removes agency discretion to alter the plan for the listed parcels. For operators, local officials, and federal managers, the bill replaces additional administrative negotiation with a clear, lease‑specific congressional authorization—and with it, legal and implementation risks that flow from directing agency approvals by statute.
At a Glance
What It Does
Defines the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification as Amendment 3 (approved November 18, 2020) and authorizes mining of federal coal under Lease MTM 97988 on the listed parcels in eastern Montana consistent with that Amendment. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to approve the Amendment to the extent necessary to mine those parcels within 30 days of enactment, without modification or delay.
Who It Affects
The lessee/operator of Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988, local Musselshell County stakeholders, the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Land Management staff who administer federal coal leases, and downstream coal purchasers and contractors tied to Bull Mountains Mine No. 1.
Why It Matters
Rather than leave implementation to Interior, Congress binds the agency to a preexisting plan amendment for specific federal land, eliminating further agency changes and accelerating project authorization. That approach is a narrow, lease‑specific example of Congress using statute to resolve a discrete land‑use dispute.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by identifying the precise mining‑plan amendment it relies on: Amendment 3 to the Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Mining Plan Modification for Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988, which the Department of the Interior’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management concurred with on November 18, 2020. By statute, that document becomes the controlling description for how the listed federal coal reserves may be mined.
It then authorizes mining of the federal coal reserves covered by Lease MTM 97988 located on three specific legal parcels in T. 6 N., R. 27 E., Montana Principal Meridian—together about 800 acres. The authorization is narrow: it applies only to the federal coal reserves leased under MTM 97988 and only on the parcels the bill describes.Critically, the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to approve the Amendment 3 modification “to the extent necessary” to permit mining of those parcels and to do so within 30 days of enactment, ‘‘without modification or delay.’’ That language removes the Secretary’s discretion to change the plan for those lands and imposes a strict clock for formal approval.
Practically, the statute converts an earlier agency concurrence into a binding approval for the specified mining activity and forces Interior to complete whatever administrative act the statute contemplates within a short deadline.Because the authorization is both explicit and geographically limited, its effect is procedural and project‑specific: it unlocks mining on defined leased federal land under an identified plan amendment rather than creating a broad new policy for federal mining. The bill’s mechanics leave open implementation questions—how Interior will document its “approval” within 30 days, how other permit requirements or mitigation obligations will be handled for the authorized acreage, and how the “to the extent necessary” phrase will be interpreted in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies only to Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988 and the federal coal reserves covered by that lease.
It identifies Amendment 3 (Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Mining Plan Modification) as the operative plan modification and notes the Interior concurrence dated November 18, 2020.
The statutory authorization is limited to roughly 800 acres specified by legal description (NE 1/4 of sec. 8; SW 1/4 of sec. 10; W 1/2 SE 1/4 of sec. 22, T.6N.
R.27E.
Musselshell County, Montana).
The Secretary of the Interior must approve the plan modification “to the extent necessary” for those parcels within 30 days of enactment and must do so “without modification or delay.”, The bill authorizes mining only ‘in accordance with’ the named plan modification—Congress ties project authorization to a specific, pre‑existing agency document rather than to a new regulatory process.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Defines the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification
This subsection adopts a single documentary reference: Amendment 3 for Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 (the Mining Plan Modification for Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988), including the Interior concurrence memorandum dated November 18, 2020. By statutory definition the bill fixes the operative plan text that governs the authorization that follows; anyone implementing the statute must look to that specific amendment as the controlling plan.
Authorizes mining of leased federal coal on the listed parcels
This clause authorizes extraction of the federal coal reserves leased under MTM 97988 ‘‘in accordance with’’ the identified plan modification. The authorization is not a general open‑season for mining on nearby lands—its reach is the leased federal reserves and only insofar as the named amendment provides. Implementers will need to reconcile plan requirements with other statutory obligations that remain in effect for federal leases.
Directs Interior to approve the plan modification within 30 days, without change
This is the bill’s operational command: within 30 days of enactment, the Secretary must approve the Amendment 3 modification ‘‘to the extent necessary’’ to mine the described land and must do so ‘‘without modification or delay.’’ The phrase removes a layer of agency discretion and imposes a hard timeline, raising practical questions about the form and content of Interior’s approval and how it will be recorded and implemented administratively.
Specifies the exact federal land the authorization covers
The bill lists three parcel descriptions in Musselshell County, Montana, totaling about 800 acres and ties the authorization strictly to those legal subdivisions. Limiting the authorization by precise legal description narrows the bill’s scope and creates a clear trigger for who may proceed under the statutory authorization—the lessee of MTM 97988 on those parcels.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- The lessee/operator of Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988 — gains a statutory authorization to extract coal on the listed parcels and a fast‑track approval that reduces remaining administrative uncertainty for those acres.
- Local contractors and service providers in Musselshell County — stand to receive near‑term business from mining operations (construction, haulage, fuel and equipment services) if the project proceeds.
- Regional coal purchasers and utilities with existing contracts — benefit from a clearer near‑term supply pathway if the mine produces coal for sale under current commercial arrangements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of the Interior and BLM staff — lose discretion to modify the identified plan for the affected parcels and face a 30‑day deadline to formalize approval, compressing administrative workload and legal review timelines.
- Nearby communities and environmental stakeholders — carry the risk of localized environmental and land‑use impacts tied to mining activity and may have reduced procedural avenues to seek further administrative adjustments for those specific parcels.
- Federal taxpayers — could bear financial liabilities tied to reclamation, enforcement, or litigation costs if statutory direction leads to disputes over compliance, mitigation duties, or interpretation of the approval instruction.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expediting a defined economic activity by statutorily locking in an existing agency plan (and thereby reducing delay and uncertainty) versus preserving administrative discretion and layered environmental and permitting scrutiny; the bill solves one problem—agency hesitation or delay—while potentially creating friction in administrative implementation and legal exposure.
The bill resolves a narrow land‑use impasse by converting a prior Interior concurrence into a statutory command for mining on three delineated parcels; that fix comes with tradeoffs. By requiring approval ‘‘without modification or delay,’’ the statute removes the Secretary’s ability to alter the plan for the listed acres, but it does not explicitly address how preexisting permit conditions, mitigation measures, or other non‑plan regulatory approvals are to be handled.
That ambiguity creates implementation risk: Interior must still reconcile the statutory approval with any remaining permitting, reclamation, or monitoring requirements under other laws and existing lease terms.
The 30‑day deadline pressures agency processes and raises predictable legal questions. A compressed timeline can increase the chance of litigation over the form of the approval or its sufficiency, the meaning of ‘‘to the extent necessary,’’ or whether subsequent administrative acts remain subject to judicial review.
The provision is also narrowly tailored to a particular lease and amendment, so while legally efficient for this project, it establishes a precedent for Congress to resolve site‑specific disputes by statute—an approach that other stakeholders may find attractive or troubling depending on the circumstances.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.