[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50829-50833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21550]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Finance Docket No. 30186 (Sub-No. 3)]


Tongue River Railroad Co.--Construction and Operation--Western 
Alignment

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Amended Final Scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On April 27, 1998, the Tongue River Railroad Company (TRRC) 
filed an application with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) 
under U.S.C. 10901 and 49 CFR 1150.1 through 1150.10 seeking authority 
to construct and operate a 17.3-mile line of railroad in Rosebud and 
Big Horn Counties, Montana, known as the ``Western Alignment.'' The 
line that is the subject of this application is an alternative routing 
for the portion of the 41-mile Ashland to Decker, Montana rail line 
that was approved by the Board on November 8, 1996 in Finance Docket 
No. 30186 (Sub-No. 2), referred to as the ``Four Mile Creek 
Alternative.'' On July 10, 1998, the Board's Section of Environmental 
Analysis (SEA) served a Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to evaluate and consider the 
potential environmental impacts that might result from the construction 
and operation of the Western Alignment, and requested comments on the 
scope of the SEIS. SEA served its final scope of the SEIS on February 
3, 1999. On March 2, 2000, before SEA completed its Draft SEIS, TRRC 
requested that SEA suspend its environmental work. On December 19, 
2002, TRRC advised SEA that it was now in a position to move forward 
and asked SEA to resume its environmental review of the application. On 
January 17, 2003, TRRC filed a request with the Board seeking to update 
its previously submitted evidence on the transportation merits. The 
Board served its decision allowing TRRC to file its supplemental 
evidence on the transportation merits on March 11, 2003. On March 26, 
2003, SEA served an amended Notice of Intent to prepare a SEIS and 
requested comments on the adequacy of the final scope of the SEIS dated 
February 3, 1999. SEA has reviewed and considered all eight of the 
comments received in preparing the amended final scope of the SEIS, 
which is discussed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Blodgett, (202) 565-1554. 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Action and Background

    This proceeding involves an alternate route (the Western Alignment) 
to the route the Board previously approved (the Four Mile Creek 
Alternative) for the southernmost 17.3-mile portion of the Ashland to 
Decker, Montana line in Tongue River II.
    In 1983, TRRC sought approval from the Interstate Commerce 
Commission (ICC, the Board's predecessor agency) to construct and 
operate 89 miles of railroad between Miles City, Montana, and two 
termini located near Ashland, Montana, subsequently referred to as 
Tongue River I. In a decision served May 9, 1986, the ICC approved 
Tongue River I. TRRC then sought, in Tongue River II, approval to 
construct a contiguous 41-mile line from Ashland to Decker, Montana. 
The Board approved Tongue River II, via the Four Mile Creek 
Alternative, in November 1996.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitions for review of Tongue River II are pending in the 
Ninth Circuit. Those cases are being held in abeyance until this 
case is decided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ICC/Board's environmental staff, now the Section of 
Environmental Analysis (SEA), prepared Environmental Impact Statements 
(EISs) for both Tongue River I and Tongue River II. TRRC has reported 
to the Board that it has conducted various preconstruction activities 
on both segments, but actual construction has not yet begun.
    On April 27, 1998, TRRC filed an application with the Board in 
Finance Docket No. 30186 (Sub-No. 3) seeking authority to construct and 
operate the Western Alignment subsequently referred to as Tongue River 
III. In Tongue River I and Tongue River II, the Board determined that 
the public convenience and necessity required or permitted TRRC's 
proposed rail line construction and operation, in accordance with 
former 49 U.S.C. 10901, and the Board does not intend to reopen the 
transportation merits of the authority granted in these proceedings. 
The action proposed to be taken in Tongue River III necessitates SEA's 
review of associated potential environmental impacts and a subsequent 
decision by the Board as to whether the proposed Western Alignment 
satisfies the criteria of 49 U.S.C. 10901, as amended in the ICC 
Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Pub. L. 104-88 109 stat. 803 (1995). In ICCTA, Congress 
abolished the ICC and transferred its rail regulatory functions and 
proceedings to the Board. Section 10901(c), as amended by ICCTA, now 
provides that the Board shall authorize the construction and 
operation of a proposed new rail line ``unless the Board finds that 
such activities are inconsistent with the public convenience and 
necessity.'' Thus, there is now a presumption that a rail 
construction proposal will be approved.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 50830]]

Environmental Review Process and Course of Proceedings in Tongue River 
III

    After the application in Tongue River III was filed, SEA and three 
cooperating agencies \3\ began the environmental review process. On 
July 10, 1998, SEA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a SEIS to 
consider the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Western 
Alignment routing. The NOI also sought comments from the public on the 
scope of the SEIS. SEA received 34 comments from Federal, state, and 
local agencies, as well as TRRC, individual property owners, and 
community representatives. SEA published its final scope of the SEIS on 
February 3, 1999. That notice specified that the SEIS would evaluate 
the Western Alignment in full, as well as refinements to the alignments 
previously considered in Tongue River I and Tongue River II, where 
there have been significantly changed circumstances indicating that 
what was done before is no longer adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As dicussed in more detail below, the cooperating agencies 
are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); the U.S. Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and the Montana 
Department of Natural Resources (MT DNRC). Future references to 
``SEA'' encompass the efforts of the cooperating agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 2, 2000, before SEA completed its Draft SEIS, TRRC 
requested that SEA suspend its environmental work. Almost three years 
later, on December 19, 2002, TRRC advised SEA that it was now in a 
position to move forward and asked SEA to resume its environmental 
review of Tongue River III. Shortly thereafter, on January 17, 2003, 
TRRC filed a request with the Board seeking to update its previously 
submitted evidence on the transportation aspects of the Tongue River 
III application. On March 11, 2003, the Board authorized TRRC to file 
the updated evidence. In its supplemental evidence filed on May 1, 
2003, TRRC updated the record in the following five areas: (1) Transfer 
of the Otter Creek Tracts 1, 2, and 3 to the State of Montana; (2) 
tonnage forecasts, financial forecasts, and estimated construction 
costs; (3) TRRC's business structure, proposed financial structure, and 
plan for raising the funds required for construction; (4) supporting 
statements from Montana officials; and (5) the effects of the Board's 
recent approval of the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad's 
proposed construction of a new rail line to serve the southern Powder 
River Basin in Wyoming. See Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad 
Corporation Construction into the Powder River Basin, STB Finance 
Docket No. 33407 (STB served Jan. 30, 2002), appeal filed, Mid States 
Coalition for Progress, et al., v. Surface Transportation Board, No. 
02-1359 et al. (8th Cir. Filed Feb 7, 2002). In addition, TRRC provided 
insight into its relationship with The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 
Railway Company, with which the proposed line connects. The Draft SEIS 
will reflect the updated information that TRRC has submitted. The Board 
served a decision on July 7, 2003, establishing a procedural schedule 
for replies.
    With respect to the environmental review process, on March 26, 
2003, SEA served an amended NOI that announced that the environmental 
review of the Tongue River III application would now go forward. The 
amended NOI solicited comments from the public on the scope of the SEIS 
and asked whether the public had any new information to include in the 
SEIS. SEA received eight comments from Federal, state, and local 
agencies, individual property owners, and community representatives. A 
brief summary of the main points raised in the comment letters is 
provided below.
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, commented on a 
variety of issues including the identification and discussion of water 
bodies with impaired uses; cumulative effects including coal bed 
methane development; potential air quality impacts on the Class I 
Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation; required consultation with tribal 
governments and the need to assess all impacts on tribal trust lands; 
wetlands and riparian areas; and address pollution prevention, 
preferably at the source. Finally, EPA stated that the SEIS should 
include an effective strategy for public involvement of minority and 
low-income populations.
    The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) commented that all 
state plant and animal species of concern should be discussed in the 
SEIS, in particular the bald eagle, snapping turtle, spiny softshell, 
woolly twinpod, Barr's milkvetch and nuttall desert-parsley. The MNHP 
also recommended that SEA contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
for a current listing of threatened and endangered plant and animal 
species.
    The Northern Plains Resource Council (NPRC) commented on the need 
for a discussion of cumulative effects, including coal bed methane well 
development. NPRC also indicated that there is a need to assess 
potentially impaired water bodies, including the total maximum daily 
load (TMDL) designations currently being developed and assigned for the 
Tongue River area by the State of Montana. NPRC asked that the SEIS 
discuss any new species of concern that have been identified since 
1999, and indicated that the Board should consider if there is any 
public convenience and necessity that justifies construction and 
operation of the project. Finally, NPRC suggested that a new NEPA 
document should be prepared that covers the entire 130-mile line 
between Miles City and Decker.
    The Montana Environmental Information Center noted that wildlife 
inventories that were not performed for Tongue River II should be 
completed at this time. In addition, it requested that the SEIS assess 
the entire line for potential impacts to increased elk populations; 
discuss coal bed methane development and its ability to alter the 
character of the physical environment; and address when and if 
construction will actually occur. Furthermore, it indicated that SEA 
should conduct its own analysis of the economic merits of the proposal 
and that Tongue River III should not be examined as a supplement to the 
previous EISs, but that the entire 130-mile route from Miles City to 
Decker should be reexamined.
    Terry Punt and Jeanie Alderson of the Bones Brothers Ranch 
commented that the purpose and need for the railroad line needs to be 
reassessed in light of the following factors: Tongue River I was 
proposed to serve the Montco mine, but this mine lost its permit in the 
1990s; the recently-approved Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern (DM&E) rail 
line is meeting the current transportation need of the region and 
recent layoffs indicate a slower coal market; and Otter Creek coal is 
high in sodium and is not profitable. These commenters also echoed the 
need for coal bed methane well development to be taken into account.
    Mark Fix commented that the impacts from the coal bed methane 
project are overwhelming and, with the proposed Tongue River railroad, 
would result in unacceptable environmental conditions. Mr. Fix also 
suggests that there is a need for a new NEPA document that covers the 
entire Tongue River railroad route as one project.
    Beth Kaeding commented that the impacts of connected actions, 
including the coal bed methane development in Wyoming and Montana, new 
power plants in Wyoming, expanded coal mining in Wyoming, and proposed 
power plants in Montana need to be

[[Page 50831]]

considered cumulatively. Ms. Kaeding also commented that inventories 
for wildlife, fish, and plant species should be prepared from field 
studies. Ms. Kaeding expressed concerns about a variety of issues, 
including the amount of earth that would need to be moved for this 
project and the potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation; the 
amount of water required for the proposed construction and potential 
impacts to streams and the water table; and the amount of earth that 
will be exposed to the introduction of noxious weeds. Additional 
concerns include fire hazards from rail operations, death of livestock 
on the rail lines, noise, economic viability of the applicant, impacts 
to residents and land use in the event of a future abandonment, and 
impacts on the character of the region.
    The State of Arkansas, Technical Review Committee, submitted form 
letters indicating that it does not have any comments on the proposed 
final scope of work for the SEIS.
    SEA has prepared this amended final scope for the SEIS based on a 
careful review of all the comments to the amended NOI, consultations 
with appropriate Federal and state agencies, and review of the 
environmental documents and studies previously prepared in Tongue River 
I and Tongue River II. With one exception, the final scope has been 
amended, where necessary, to encompass all of the points raised in the 
comment letters. Regarding the request expressed by several commenters 
that a new NEPA document should be prepared which addresses the entire 
130-mile line from Miles City to Decker, the Board does not believe it 
is necessary or appropriate to reopen and reconsider in their entirety 
the authority granted in Tongue River I and Tongue River II, both of 
which have long since become administratively final. Rather in the 
SEIS, SEA will evaluate the Western Alignment in full, as well as 
refinements to the alignments previously considered in Tongue River I 
and Tongue River II, where there have been significantly changed 
circumstances indicating that what was done before is no longer 
adequate.
    The amended scope of this SEIS has been developed in consultation 
with the three cooperating agencies discussed above. The cooperating 
agencies have decision-making authority over Tongue River III, 
independent of the Board, and are the three principal agencies from 
whom TRRC must obtain separate approvals. To help these agencies 
fulfill their regulatory responsibilities and functions, and to avoid 
duplicative environmental analysis, SEA will include in the SEIS 
environmental review of certain issues specifically requested by the 
cooperating agencies.
    After completing their independent environmental analysis of the 
Western Alignment and those portions of Tongue River I and Tongue River 
II that need to be updated, SEA and the cooperating agencies will serve 
a Draft SEIS on all the names on the Board's service list for this 
proceeding and on appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies, and 
will publish notice of this document in the Federal Register. The 
public will be invited to review and comment on all aspects of the 
Draft SEIS. SEA and the cooperating agencies will then carefully 
consider all the timely comments received on the Draft SEIS, conduct 
any further environmental review that may be necessary, and will then 
prepare and issue a Final SEIS. A notice of the Final SEIS will also be 
published in the Federal Register. The Board will then take into 
account the Draft SEIS, the Final SEIS, and all comments received in 
issuing its final written decision in Tongue River III.

Final Amended Scope for the SEIS

    The amended scope of the SEIS for the construction and operation of 
the Western Alignment will involve a detailed environmental analysis of 
the proposed new routing. The SEIS will discuss alternatives to the 
proposed new routing and will compare the potential effects of the 
Western Alignment to the Four Mile Creek Alternative approved in Tongue 
River II. SEA's analysis will include discussion of the following 
topics: biological and aquatic resources, land use, cultural resources, 
water quality, socioeconomics, environmental justice, transportation 
and safety, soils and geology, air quality, aesthetics, noise and 
vibration effects, recreation, and cumulative effects. Impacts on 
Native Americans, including sites of importance to them, will also be 
addressed.
    The Draft SEIS will also incorporate the supplemental evidence 
submitted by TRRC on May 1, 2003, where it relates to the project 
description, the project's purpose and need, and/or the potential 
environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed 
rail line.

Format of the SEIS

    The Draft SEIS will be organized into three separate sections. The 
first section will evaluate the potential impacts associated with the 
proposed Western Alignment in Tongue River III. The second section will 
provide the updated analysis relating to Tongue River I and Tongue 
River II, as discussed above. A third section will discuss cumulative 
effects associated with the construction and operation of the entire 
line from Miles City to Decker, Montana from both the Four Mile Creek 
Alternative and the Western Alignment. At their request, and to assist 
the cooperating agencies in their permitting processes, SEA will 
provide appendices that address further environmental issues needed by 
the individual cooperating agencies.

Assumptions

    [sbull] To avoid duplication, the SEIS will refer to, utilize, and 
incorporate by reference the environmental analyses prepared for Tongue 
River I and Tongue River II, as appropriate.
    [sbull] The SEIS will evaluate the impacts of the proposed Western 
Alignment in Tongue River III, and will compare those impacts to the 
impacts related to the Four Mile Creek Alternative approved in Tongue 
River II; the Four Mile Creek Alternative is the No-Build Alternative 
in Tongue River III because it has already been approved.

Section I

Tongue River III

Potential Environmental Impacts Associated With the Construction and 
Operation of the Western Alignment

1. Transportation and Safety
    The SEIS will:
    A. Evaluate the safety aspects of proposed crossings of the County 
Road at Four Mile Creek (proposed as a grade separated crossing), and 
where the Western Alignment would connect with the approved Tongue 
River II route at the north end (proposed as an at-grade crossing).
    B. Assess the potential for hazardous materials transport through 
the corridor, and the potential for the movement of more trains and 
coal than was envisioned in the July 17, 1992 Draft or Final EIS for 
Tongue River II.
    C. Assess the potential for train derailments and grade crossing 
accidents.
    D. Assess the safety, operational, and maintenance advantages 
submitted by TRRC regarding the Western Alignment as compared to the 
Four Mile Creek Alternative, including TRRC's improved overall grade, 
shorter travel distance, reduced long-term operating and maintenance 
costs, and reduced need for helper engines.
    E. Assess the opportunities for access by local property owners.
    F. Evaluate concerns regarding fire prevention and suppression.
    G. Discuss the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement between

[[Page 50832]]

the Montana Department of Transportation and TRRC that relate to 
potential environmental impacts and the implementation of mitigation 
measures.
    H. Develop any appropriate mitigation.
2. Land Use
    The SEIS will:
    A. Evaluate impacts to property owners along the Western Alignment 
in terms of property acquisition, agricultural productivity, and 
recreational activities.
    B. Evaluate the impact to parcels with a future potential for 
mechanical irrigation.
    C. Evaluate indirect or secondary impacts to land uses such as 
homes located upstream from creek and river crossings.
    D. Evaluate the impact of sidings as well as the rail line itself.
    E. Develop appropriate mitigation to address issues such as 
fencing, weed protection, cattle passes, and compensation for livestock 
killed by trains.
3. Biological and Aquatic Resources
    The SEIS will:
    A. Establish a baseline for diversity of species for the Tongue 
River Region. The SEIS will map existing habitats using aerial 
photography and will describe the existing resources in the Tongue 
River Valley, including vegetative communities, wildlife and wildlife 
movement (especially pronghorn, elk, and deer migration, and also the 
impact to the movement of smaller species such as turtles and other 
amphibians), fisheries, and Federally threatened or endangered species. 
Wildlife inventories will be verified through field surveys when and if 
acquisition of the project right-of-way is completed.
    B. Include a Biological Assessment of species, updating information 
from Tongue River II as appropriate. Specifically, the assessment will 
investigate species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 
the species list recently provided for this project.
    C. Include a delineation of all prairie dog colonies to assist in 
determining the presence of the Black-Footed Ferret.
    D. Include a survey of sensitive plant species, including the 
woolly twinpod, Barr's milkvetch, and nuttall desert-parsley.
    E. Include wetland analysis for all wetlands, riparian areas, and 
waters of the U.S., including creek and river crossings.
    F. Develop appropriate mitigation to address potential impacts to 
livestock and to wildlife migration along the project corridor.
    G. Develop appropriate mitigation to ensure adequate protection 
from the introduction and spread of noxious weeds.
    H. Develop an appropriate mitigation plan for all wetlands and 
waters of the United States.
    I. Develop appropriate mitigation plans for erosion control, 
riverbank stabilization, and the reclamation and replanting of cut/fill 
slopes.
4. Soils and Geology
    The SEIS will:
    A. Evaluate the potential for soil erosion during construction and 
long-term operation.
    B. Evaluate soil composition and the need for blasting.
    C. Evaluate the effect of blasting on the Tongue River Reservoir 
dam, and require a mitigation blasting plan if such activity is found 
to be necessary.
    D. Evaluate the effect of topography changes on runoff and 
flooding.
    E. Evaluate proposed engineering of bridges and culverts.
    F. Develop any appropriate mitigation.
5. Water Quality
    The SEIS will:
    A. Include a hydrological analysis of the Tongue River and the 
potential impact of the construction and operation of Tongue River III 
upon it.
    B. Evaluate the specific potential of erosion from cut/fill slopes 
to degrade the current water quality of the Tongue River and tributary 
streams, specifically as it relates to Total Maximum Daily Loads 
(TMDLs) established for these water bodies.
    C. Develop any appropriate mitigation.
6. Cultural Resources
    The SEIS will:
    A. Evaluate potential impacts to cultural and paleontological 
resources.
    B. Include the final terms of the Programmatic Agreement between 
the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation, BLM, MT DNRC, the Corps, the Board, and TRRC. 
The Programmatic Agreement will provide a means for identifying and 
addressing impacts on cultural resources, including Native American 
resources.
    C. Discuss the results of consultation with Native American tribal 
governments, specifically the Northern Cheyenne and the Crow, taking 
into consideration the following regulatory provisions and directives: 
The National Historic Preservation Act (as amended in 1992); The 
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (as amended in 1993); The 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (enacted in 1993); The Sacred Sites 
Executive Order (released in 1996).
    D. Provide the results of consultation with representatives from 
the Northern Cheyenne and Crow tribes to solicit information about 
known properties, burials, or traditional use areas on or adjacent to 
Tongue River III.
    E. Discuss the eligibility of the Spring Creek Archeological 
District for the National Register of Historic Places, and potential 
impacts to this resource resulting from construction and operation of 
Tongue River III.
7. Energy
    The SEIS will evaluate potential impacts to energy resources, and 
develop any appropriate mitigation.
8. Air Quality
    The SEIS will:
    A. Evaluate construction-period dust emissions from project 
construction.
    B. Evaluate the effect of dust emissions from the long-term 
operation of the railroad on local recreation areas, farms, and homes.
    C. Evaluate particulate emission from locomotive operation, and 
potential air quality impacts on the Class I Northern Cheyenne Indian 
Reservation.
    D. Develop any appropriate mitigation.
9. Noise and Vibration Effects
    The SEIS will:
    A. Evaluate the project's effect on local property owners, 
residences, and ranch operations.
    B. Evaluate the project's effect on local recreational activities.
    C. Evaluate the project's effect on livestock and wildlife.
    D. If blasting is necessary for construction, evaluate the effect 
of such blasting and vibration for the project on the Tongue River 
Reservoir dam.
    E. Develop any appropriate mitigation.
10. Socioeconomics
    The SEIS will:
    A. Using Census 2000 data, evaluate potential impacts of Tongue 
River III on local social and economic patterns derived from physical 
changes. More detailed analysis of socioeconomics can be addressed by 
the cooperating agencies in their own review process. This could 
include, as appropriate, potential impacts of the project on local 
population changes in terms of short-term and long-term employment; 
impacts of new students generated as a

[[Page 50833]]

result of construction workers moving into the region; increase in 
Taxable Value for each of the alternatives; any additional analysis 
conducted by BLM.
    B. Develop any appropriate mitigation.
11. Recreation
    The SEIS will evaluate impacts to the Tongue River State Recreation 
Area, and develop any appropriate mitigation.
12. Aesthetics
    The SEIS will:
    A. Evaluate the visibility of the project from the Tongue River 
State Recreation Area.
    B. Evaluate the visibility of the project from county roads in the 
area.
    C. Evaluate the visibility of the project and resulting impacts to 
aesthetics to local residents, Native Americans, hunters, recreational 
users, sightseers, etc.
    D. Develop any appropriate mitigation.
13. Environmental Justice
    The SEIS will include analysis as required of potential 
environmental justice effects from construction and operation of the 
Western Alignment, particularly focused on impacts to Native Americans, 
including the Northern Cheyenne, and develop any appropriate 
mitigation. Pursuant to guidance provided by the Council on 
Environmental Quality, the preparation of the SEIS will include public 
outreach to ensure appropriate coordination with affected low-income 
and minority populations. The public outreach will ensure that affected 
communities have adequate opportunities for public participation and 
comment on the Draft SEIS.

Section II

Tongue River I and Tongue River II

Tongue River I

    Tongue River I is TRRC's original application for construction and 
operation of 89 miles of railroad between Miles City, Montana, and two 
termini in Ashland, Montana, which was approved by the Board's 
predecessor agency in 1986.
    The SEIS will:
    A. Include a wetland analysis for all wetlands and waters of the 
U.S. including creek and river crossings because there was no 
requirement that one be done when the EIS in Tongue River I was 
prepared.
    B. Update Biological Assessment information based on consultation 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    C. In consultation with the Montana State Historic Preservation 
Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, BLM, MT DNRC, 
the Corps, and TRRC, finalize and implement an appropriate Programmatic 
Agreement which will apply to the entire line from Miles City to 
Decker, Montana.
    D. As requested by MT DNRC, the Northern Cheyenne, and the Northern 
Plains Resource Council, provide a limited additional analysis of water 
quality to include a discussion of the designation of Otter Creek, and 
the upper and lower Tongue River as impaired water bodies by the state 
of Montana.
    E. Evaluate effects on BLM property in the areas of wildlife 
habitat; vegetation; riparian/wetlands; livestock grazing; soil, water, 
and air; cultural resources; recreation; socioeconomic; access; 
wilderness; and, environmental justice.
    F. Include an analysis of potential impacts to the sturgeon chub, 
and the sicklefin chub, and include mitigation to avoid construction 
during spawning/ incubation periods.
    G. Include additional analysis related to the proposed changes in 
the alignment that may result in potential impacts to the Miles City 
Fish Hatchery. The analysis will also consider changes to the hatchery, 
specifically the increase in the number of hatchery ponds and the 
initiation of a new recovery program for the pallid sturgeon.

Tongue River II

    TRRC sought in Tongue River II to extend the rail line approved in 
Tongue River I another 41 miles from Ashland to Decker, Montana. In 
1996, the Board approved Tongue River II via the Four Mile Creek 
Alternative.
    The SEIS will:
    A. Based on consultation with the Corps, update the existing 
wetland delineation and functional analysis information for all creek 
and river crossings to the extent necessary in connection with the 
Corps' permitting process.
    B. Based on consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
update biological assessment information to the extent deemed 
necessary.
    C. In consultation with the Montana State Historic Preservation 
Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, BLM, MT DNRC, 
the Corps, and TRRC finalize an appropriate Programmatic Agreement, 
which will apply to the entire line from Miles City to Decker, Montana.
    D. As requested by the MT DNRC, the Northern Cheyenne, and the 
Northern Plains Resource Council, provide a limited analysis of water 
quality to include a discussion of the designation of Hanging Woman 
Creek, and the upper and lower Tongue River as impaired water bodies by 
the state of Montana.
    E. Include additional analysis, as required, of potential 
environmental justice effects from construction and operation of Tongue 
River II on Tongue River III and the Four Mile Creek Alternative, 
particularly focused on impacts to Native Americans, including the 
Northern Cheyenne.

Section III

Cumulative Effects

    Cumulative effects of the construction and operation of the entire 
line from Miles City to Decker, MT will be discussed in the SEIS. This 
cumulative impacts discussion will update the previous information 
contained in Tongue River I and Tongue River II to include Custer 
Forest timber sales projections, as well as a discussion of reasonably 
foreseeable developments, including BLM's recently approved management 
plan relating to the development of coal bed methane wells, as well as 
expanded coal mine development in Wyoming, new power plants 
construction in Wyoming and Montana, and the recently approved Dakota, 
Minnesota and Eastern rail line. In addition, more general information 
will be provided regarding future coal mine development in the Ashland, 
MT area and the air quality effects of the use of low sulfur coal in 
power production. Impacts to Native Americans will also be addressed.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental 
Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-21550 Filed 8-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P