[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17752-17763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06625]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 30186]


Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc.--Rail Construction and 
Operation--In Custer, Powder River and Rosebud Counties, Mont.

AGENCY: Lead: Surface Transportation Board; Cooperating: U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 
(acting as lead agency for other Montana State agencies).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Final Scope of Study for the 
Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: On October 16, 2012, Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc. 
(TRRC) filed a revised application with the Surface Transportation 
Board (Board) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901 in Docket No. FD 30186. TRRC 
intended to construct and operate \1\ an approximately 83-mile rail 
line between Miles City, Montana, and two ending points, one near the 
site of the previously planned Montco Mine near Ashland, Montana, and 
another at the proposed Otter Creek Mine in the Otter Creek area east 
of Ashland, Montana. On November 1, 2012, the Board issued a decision 
requesting additional information from TRRC. On December 17, 2012, TRRC 
filed a supplemental application that supersedes the October 16, 2012 
application. As discussed in the supplemental application, TRRC 
modified its proposal by identifying its preferred routing for the 
proposed line as the Colstrip Alterative between Colstrip, Montana, and 
Ashland/Otter Creek, Montana. On January 8, 2013, the Board issued a 
decision accepting TRRC's supplemental application and later denied a 
request to reconsider that decision and reject the supplemental 
application in a decision served on February 26, 2013. The purpose of 
the proposed line is to transport low sulfur, sub-bituminous coal from 
proposed mine sites in Rosebud and Powder River Counties, Montana. 
Because the construction and operation of this project has the 
potential to result in significant environmental impacts, the Board's 
Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) has determined that the 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ TRRC has stated that the proposed line would be constructed 
by TRRC and would be operated by BNSF Railway Company (BNSF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help determine the scope of the EIS, and as required by the 
Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1105.10(a)(2), OEA published in the 
Federal Register on October 22, 2012, a Notice of Intent to Prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement, Notice of Availability of the Draft 
Scope of Study, Notice of Scoping Meetings, and Request for Comments. 
OEA also prepared and distributed to the public a postcard that 
introduced TRRC's proposed rail line, announced OEA's intent to prepare 
an EIS, and gave notice of scoping meetings to residents of Powder 
River, Custer, and Rosebud Counties. In addition, OEA sent letters to 
elected officials, federal, state, and local agencies, tribal 
organizations, and other potentially interested organizations providing 
similar information. OEA held ten public scoping meetings in Lame Deer, 
Forsyth, Ashland, and Miles City, Montana, on November 12, 13, 14, 15, 
and 16, 2012. On November 30, 2012, OEA extended the scoping comment 
period from December 6, 2012 to January 11, 2013 in response to a 
number of requests for an extension and because the Board's November 1, 
2012 decision had required TRRC to file additional information by 
December 17, 2012.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the 
Montana Department of Natural Resources Conservation (DNRC), acting as 
lead agency for other Montana State agencies, are participating as 
cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. OEA is also 
consulting with tribes and other agencies, including the Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and 
the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
    After review and consideration of all comments received, this 
notice sets forth the Final Scope of the EIS. The Final Scope reflects 
additions and changes to the Draft Scope as a result of comments 
received during the scoping comment period. The Final Scope also 
summarizes and addresses the principal environmental concerns raised by 
the comments on the Draft Scope and explains if and how these issues 
will be addressed in the EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Blodgett, Office of Environmental 
Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20423, or call OEA's toll-free number for the project at 1-866-622-
4355. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. For further 
information about the Board's environmental review process and this 
EIS, please visit the Board's Web site at www.stb.dot.gov or the Board-
sponsored project Web site at www.tonguerivereis.com.
    Background: In 1986, the Board's predecessor agency, the Interstate 
Commerce Commission (ICC), gave approval to TRRC's predecessor to build 
and operate an 89-mile rail line between Miles City, Montana, and two 
termini located near Ashland, Montana, a proceeding known as Tongue 
River I.\2\ The purpose of the line was to serve proposed new coal 
mines in the Ashland area. In 1996, the Board authorized TRRC to build 
a contiguous 41-mile rail line from Ashland to Decker, Montana, in 
Tongue River II.\3\ In 2007, the Board authorized TRRC to build and 
operate the Western Alignment, a 17.3-mile alternate route for a 
portion of the route already approved in Tongue River II in a 
proceeding known as Tongue River III.\4\ The ICC/Board's environmental 
staff, now OEA, prepared EISs in all three proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Tongue River R.R.--Rail Constr. and Operation--In Custer, 
Powder River and Rosebud Cntys., Mont. (Tongue River I), FD 30186 
(ICC served Sept. 4, 1985), modified (ICC served May 9, 1986), pet. 
for judicial review dismissed, N. Plains Res. Council v. ICC, 817 
F.2d 758 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 976 (1987).
    \3\ Tongue River R.R.--Rail Constr. and Operation--Ashland to 
Decker, Mont. (Tongue River II), 1 S.T.B. 809 (1996), pet. for 
reconsid. denied (STB served Dec. 31, 1996).
    \4\ Tongue River R.R.--Rail Constr. and Operation--Ashland to 
Decker, Mont. (Tongue River III), FD 30186 (Sub-No. 3) (STB served 
Oct. 9, 2007), pet. for reconsid. denied (STB served Mar. 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitions for review of Tongue River II and Tongue River III were 
filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and, 
in 2011, the court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part, 
those decisions for additional environmental review.\5\

[[Page 17753]]

Although the Tongue River I proceeding was not before the court, the 
Board determined that the court's decision required the Board to 
revisit the environmental analysis for Tongue River I because the Board 
had conducted a cumulative impacts analysis for the entire line in 
Tongue River III and had made the resulting mitigation conditions 
applicable to the entire line in its Tongue River III decision. TRRC 
subsequently informed the Board that it no longer intended to build the 
Tongue River II and Tongue River III portions of the railroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See N. Plains Res. Council v. STB, 668 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 18, 2012, the Board issued a decision dismissing the Tongue 
River II and Tongue River III proceedings and reopening Tongue River 
I.\6\ As explained in more detail in that decision (which is available 
on the Board's Web site at www.stb.dot.gov), the Board required TRRC to 
file a revised application that presents the railroad's current plans 
to build a rail line between Miles City and Ashland, Montana. In 
addition, the Board decided to conduct a new environmental review 
rather than a supplemental environmental review based on the three 
prior environmental reviews that began in the 1980s. The Board found 
that a new EIS (including a new scoping process) is appropriate given 
the passage of time since Tongue River I was decided, the railroad's 
failure to begin construction of any part of this proposed railroad and 
other changes that have taken place, the nature of the court's partial 
remand, and the fact that most of the Board's more recent environmental 
analysis pertains to Tongue River II or Tongue River III, neither of 
which the railroad still proposes to build. The Board also stated that 
a new EIS will encourage and facilitate public participation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Tongue River R.R.--Rail Constr. & Operation--In Custer, 
Powder River & Rosebud Cntys., Mont., FD 30186 et al. (STB served 
June 18, 2012).
    \7\ Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its revised application filed on October 16, 2012, TRRC proposed 
to go forward with the Tongue River I project, although in modified 
form.\8\ After reviewing the submission, the Board, in a decision 
served on November 1, 2012, clarified that the Board's review in this 
proceeding would include not only the new environmental review of the 
entire construction project, but also an examination of the 
transportation merits supporting the entire Tongue River I line.\9\ The 
November 1, 2012 decision also directed TRRC to supplement the revised 
application to provide a sufficient record for the Board's review, 
including additional evidence and argument in support of the 
transportation merits. Finally, the decision established a new 
procedural schedule for filings on the transportation merits 
appropriate for this proceeding and required that TRRC publish notices 
consistent with that decision. On December 17, 2012, TRRC filed a 
supplemental application intended to supersede the October 16, 2012 
filing. TRRC explained that, in its October 16, 2012 application, it 
had proposed the construction of a line between Miles City, Montana, 
and Ashland/Otter Creek, Montana, following a line similar to that 
approved by the ICC in Tongue River I in 1986. However, TRRC identified 
a different routing, known as the Colstrip Alignment, as its preferred 
alignment in its December 17, 2012 supplemental application.\10\ The 
supplemental application was accepted by the Board in a decision issued 
on January 8, 2013. On January 7, 2013, Northern Plains Resource 
Council and Rocker Six Cattle Company filed a petition to reconsider 
that decision and reject TRRC's supplemental application, which the 
Board denied on February 26, 2013. The Board also extended the 
procedural schedule for filing comments on the transportation merits. 
Under the Board's revised schedule, comments on the transportation 
merits of the supplemental application will be due by April 2, 2013, 
and a reply by TRRC will be due by May 16, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Although the decision granting Tongue River I authorized the 
construction of an 89-mile line, TRRC described the line in its 
October 16, 2012 filing as being approximately 83 miles in length, 
based on refinements that would straighten and shorten the 
alignment.
    \9\ The Board's review of construction applications is governed 
by 49 U.S.C. 10901, its regulations at 49 CFR 1150.1-1150.10, and 
the requirements of NEPA and related environmental laws.
    \10\ The ICC had examined a variation on the Colstrip Alignment 
as a potential route in Tongue River I. The Colstrip Alignment was 
also identified as a potential alternative alignment at the scoping 
meetings held by the Board in November 2012 in the project area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Environmental Review Process: The NEPA process is intended to 
assist the Board and the public in identifying and assessing the 
potential environmental impacts of a proposed action before a decision 
on the proposed action is made. OEA is responsible for ensuring that 
the Board complies with NEPA and related environmental statutes.
    ICF International, OEA's independent third-party contractor, is 
assisting in the environmental review process, pursuant to 49 CFR 
1105.10(d). OEA is directing and supervising the preparation of the 
EIS. The Corps, BLM, USDA, and Montana DNRC, acting as lead agency for 
other Montana State agencies, are cooperating agencies, pursuant to 40 
CFR 1501.6. The Board will decide whether or not to grant authority to 
TRRC to construct and operate the proposed rail line pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 10901. The Corps will decide whether or not to issue permits 
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376, as 
amended) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 
U.S.C. 403). BLM will decide whether or not to issue a right-of-way 
(ROW) grant for BLM-administered lands under Title V of the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1737). Portions of 
some of the alternatives under consideration would cross the USDA 
Livestock and Range Research Laboratory (LARRL) located near Miles 
City, Montana. The crossing of LARRL land would require an easement 
from USDA. Montana DNRC, acting as lead agency for other Montana State 
agencies, will ensure the State's environmental concerns are addressed 
in a manner consistent with the Montana Environmental Policy Act 
(MEPA). In addition, portions of some of the alternatives being 
considered would cross state lands and require an easement from the 
State of Montana. The EIS will include the information necessary for 
the Board, the Corps, BLM, USDA and Montana DNRC to make their final 
decisions under the authorities discussed above. OEA is also working 
closely with tribes and other agencies, including the Northern Cheyenne 
Tribe, USEPA, and MDEQ, the state agency responsible for preparing 
documentation for the proposed Otter Creek Mine, pursuant to MEPA.
    As part of the NEPA review, OEA is gathering and analyzing 
environmental information and data that will be used to compare the 
potential environmental effects of possible rail alignments and the 
``no action'' alternative in the EIS. This includes conducting aerial 
and on-the-ground environmental surveys. To complete this survey work, 
OEA must first get permission from landowners to access properties 
located along each of the alternatives under consideration. OEA has 
already begun this process of requesting access by sending letters to 
landowners and hopes to receive positive responses from landowners. If 
OEA is unable to secure property access from landowners, OEA's ability 
to gather information by on-the-ground surveys may be limited.
    After issuance of this Final Scope, OEA and the cooperating 
agencies will prepare a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the proposed line. The 
DEIS will identify

[[Page 17754]]

the potential environmental impacts from the proposed rail line and 
alternatives, and address those environmental issues identified during 
the scoping process and detailed in this Final Scope. It will also 
discuss a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action, 
including a no-action alternative, and recommend environmental 
mitigation measures, as appropriate.
    The DEIS will be made available upon its completion for public 
review and comment and review and comment by other agencies. A Final 
EIS (FEIS) will then be prepared that will respond to the public and 
other agency comments received on the DEIS and include further analysis 
by OEA and the cooperating agencies, if needed. In reaching their final 
decisions in this case, the Board and the cooperating agencies will 
take into account the full environmental record, including the DEIS, 
the FEIS, and all public and agency comments received.
    Purpose and Need: TRRC has stated that the principal purpose of the 
construction and operation of the proposed rail line is to transport 
low sulfur, sub-bituminous coal from mine sites developed in Rosebud 
and Powder River Counties, Montana, including proposed mines in the 
Otter Creek area.\11\ In its December 17, 2012 supplemental application 
and in response to an information request from OEA,\12\ TRRC has stated 
that U.S. domestic electric utilities, specifically those in Montana 
and possibly the Midwest, represent the prime demand potential for 
Otter Creek coal. In addition, TRRC states that additional coal 
tonnages could be transported to export markets, which TRRC identifies 
as markets in Asia and Europe, through U.S. ports along the Atlantic, 
Pacific, Great Lakes or Gulf Coasts. Because, TRRC reasons, the 
construction and operation of the proposed rail line is several years 
in the future and the coal market is highly volatile, it is impossible 
for TRRC to define its target markets with greater specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ TRRC supplemental application at 6.
    \12\ OEA's information request and TRRC's response are available 
both on the Board's Web site, www.stb.dot.gov, and on the Board-
sponsored project Web site, www.tonguerivereis.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed project involves an application by TRRC for a license 
or approval from the Board. The proposed project is not a federal 
government-proposed or sponsored project. Thus, the project's purpose 
and need should be informed by both the private applicant's goals and 
the agency's enabling statute here, 49 U.S.C. 10901.\13\ Section 10901 
provides that the Board must approve a construction application unless 
it finds that the construction is ``inconsistent with the public 
convenience and necessity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Alaska Survival v. STB, 705 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th 
Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Action and Alternatives: NEPA regulations require federal 
agencies to consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the 
proposed action. The President's Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ), which oversees the implementation of NEPA, has stated in Forty 
Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act 
Regulations that ``[R]easonable alternatives include those that are 
practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and 
using common sense * * *.'' \14\ In this EIS, OEA will consider a full 
range of feasible alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the 
project, as well as the no-action alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National 
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981), Question 
2a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Major elements of the proposed project would include a single track 
constructed of continuous-welded rail; a 200-foot-wide ROW; one passing 
siding with 8,500 foot clear length; and three set-out tracks between 
500 feet and 4,000 feet in length to provide for temporary storage of 
cars requiring repair and for storage and clearing of maintenance 
equipment. TRRC anticipates that train traffic on the proposed rail 
line would consist of 26 round trips per week, or 3.7 loaded 150 car 
unit coal trains daily on average, with 7.4 trains per day total (empty 
and loaded).\15\ The proposed rail line would carry approximately 20 
million tons of coal annually. The EIS will analyze and compare the 
potential impacts of (1) Construction and operation of the proposed 
rail line, (2) a reasonable range of feasible alternative routes, and 
(3) the no-action alternative (denial of the application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ TRRC supplemental application, Exhibit D at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatives To Be Carried Forward In The EIS: Based on analysis 
conducted to date, OEA has determined that the reasonable and feasible 
alternatives that will be analyzed in detail in the EIS are:
    Tongue River Alternative--This alternative (TRRC's original 
preferred alignment) would follow the Tongue River between Miles City, 
Montana, and two terminus points south of Ashland, Montana, see Final 
Scope Figures 1 and 2 (all figures are available for viewing on the 
Board's Web site at www.stb.dot.gov and on the Board-sponsored project 
Web site at www.tonguerivereis.com). It would begin at the existing 
BNSF rail line between the Miles City Fish Hatchery and Spotted Eagle 
Lake, proceeding south along the west side of the Tongue River and 
crossing through the LARRL. Approximately 10 miles north of Ashland, 
Montana, this alternative would cross the Tongue River and continue 
south. After crossing Otter Creek approximately 3 miles southeast of 
Ashland, it would branch into two spurs. One spur would follow the 
Tongue River Valley approximately 7 miles south to Terminus Point 1 
near the site of the previously planned Montco Mine Terminus 1). The 
other spur would follow the Otter Creek approximately 5 miles south to 
Terminus Point 2 at the proposed Otter Creek Mine (Otter Creek Spur).
    Colstrip Alternative--This alternative would extend from the 
existing BNSF line, known as the Colstrip Subdivision, at Colstrip, 
Montana towards Ashland, see Final Scope Figures 1 and 2. TRRC would 
upgrade the existing BNSF line to current main line standards. The 
Colstrip Subdivision connects with the Forsyth Subdivision at Nichols 
Wye, approximately 6 miles west of Forsyth and approximately 50 miles 
west of Miles City. This alternative would cross Cow Creek and Rosebud 
Creek as it heads south and east, following the Greenleaf Creek Valley 
to the Rosebud Creek/Tongue River divide. From there it would descend 
into the Tongue River Valley and join the Tongue River Alternative at 
the Tongue River crossing north of Ashland. This alternative is TRRC's 
preferred alignment based on its supplemental application.
    Tongue River Road Alternative--This alternative would depart Miles 
City along the Tongue River Alternative route, and continue along that 
alternative to a point just north of Pumpkin Creek, see Final Scope 
Figures 1 and 2. There it would cross the Tongue River, turn south and 
continue along the east side of the river to rejoin the Tongue River 
Alternative about 10 miles north of Ashland.
    Moon Creek Alternative--This alternative would start at the BNSF 
main line approximately 8 miles southwest of Miles City, and run south 
and southeast along the east side of Moon Creek to the divide 
separating the Tongue River and Yellowstone River drainages, see Final 
Scope Figures 1 and 2. From there, the alternative would descend to the 
Tongue River Valley floor and join the Tongue River Alternative about 
14 miles south of Miles City. This alternative would cross the LARRL 
through its far southwest corner.

[[Page 17755]]

    Other Alternatives Under Consideration: The following additional 
alternatives and variations were identified and developed during the 
preparation of this Final Scope as a result of comments received from 
the public during the scoping comment period and an additional review 
of the project area for potential alternatives conducted by OEA.\16\ 
OEA is considering whether or not to carry these alternatives forward 
for more detailed analysis in the EIS. If any of the following 
alternatives are eliminated from detailed study, the DEIS will explain 
the reasons why they were eliminated in accordance with 40 CFR 
1502.14(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ OEA has also revisited other alternatives that were 
eliminated from detailed study in the Tongue River I EIS and has 
determined that the issues raised at that time, such as challenging 
grade or large amounts of cut and fill, are still valid. Moreover, 
OEA received no comments during the scoping comment period 
requesting that the Board reconsider any of the alternatives 
previously eliminated in the Tongue River I EIS. Therefore, these 
alternatives will continue to be treated as not reasonable and 
feasible, and they will not receive any detailed analysis in this 
EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, TRRC has stated that it no longer intends to build 
the portions of the rail line approved in Tongue River II and Tongue 
River III. However, because the Board has approved a route from 
Ashland, Montana to Decker, Montana in the past, and several commenters 
suggested that we consider routes going south from Ashland during 
scoping, OEA will examine the two southern alignments described below 
to determine whether or not to carry these alternatives forward for 
more detailed analysis in the EIS.
    Decker 1 Alternative--Several scoping comments suggested that OEA 
consider routes going south from the Ashland, Montana area to the 
Decker, Montana area in this EIS. This alternative would depart from 
Terminus Point 2 at the proposed Otter Creek Mine, and follow the Otter 
Creek approximately 5 miles north along the same route used for the 
Otter Creek Spur and then travel southwest generally paralleling the 
Tongue River through Terminus Point 1, see Final Scope Figures 1 and 3. 
It would run along the eastern side of the Tongue River and pass 
through the Wolf Mountains Battlefield National Historic Landmark. From 
there it would cross to the west side of the Tongue River and continue 
to its connection with the BNSF rail line via the Spring Creek Railroad 
Spur near Decker, Montana. This alternative is identical to the 
alignment from Ashland to Decker including the Western Alignment that 
was approved in Tongue River III.
    Decker 2 Alternative--In addition to the Decker 1 Alternative, a 
new alternative heading south from Ashland to Decker, not considered in 
previous Tongue River proceedings, was developed in an effort to 
consider a southern route that would avoid the Wolf Mountains 
Battlefield National Historic Landmark (as shown on existing maps). 
This alternative would be almost identical to the Decker 1 Alternative. 
However, it would cross from the east to the west side of the Tongue 
River just north of Birney. It would pass west of the Wolf Mountains 
Battlefield National Historic Landmark and, with the exception of a 
short segment approximately 3 miles north of the Tongue River Dam, this 
alternative would continue on the west side of the Tongue River for the 
remainder of its course, see Final Scope Figures 1 and 3.
    Alternative Variations: Alternative variations are short sections 
of rail alignments that could be used to replace segments of the 
alternatives discussed in the previous section. Two potential 
alternative variations that will be considered in the EIS have been 
developed to date.
    Ashland East Variation--The Ashland East Variation was developed in 
response to a scoping comment from the Northern Cheyenne Tribe 
requesting an alternative as far as possible from the eastern 
Reservation boundary and the Tongue River, see Final Scope Figures 1 
and 4. It could be used to replace segments of the Tongue River 
Alternative, Tongue River Road Alternative, Moon Creek Alternative, 
and/or the Colstrip Alternative. Starting at its northern end, this 
variation would connect to the Colstrip Alternative where it begins to 
curve to the south, at a location just east of its crossing with the 
Tongue River Road. The Ashland East Variation would connect to the 
Tongue River Alternative approximately 0.8 miles east of the 
intersection of Greenleaf Road and Tongue River Road. From there, the 
Ashland East Variation would continue east for approximately 3 miles 
before curving to the south. This variation would generally parallel 
the Tongue River, but would be offset to the east at distances ranging 
from approximately 2 miles to 4 miles. To lower the grade for the Otter 
Creek crossing, it would include a gradual westward bulge which would 
be located approximately 2 miles from Ashland at its closest point. The 
variation would pass approximately 2 miles east of Ashland before 
connecting to the Otter Creek Spur, and either Terminus 1 Variation or 
Terminus 1 through a wye track approximately 2.5 miles northwest of 
Terminus Point 2.
    Terminus 1 Variation--The Terminus 1 Variation was designed in 
response to scoping comments from the Northern Cheyenne Tribe 
requesting an alternative as far as possible from the eastern 
Reservation boundary and the Tongue River, see Final Scope Figures 1 
and 4. This variation would start at a point approximately 1.8 miles 
southeast of the proposed Terminus Point 1. From there, it would travel 
northeast, largely paralleling the spur leading to Terminus Point 1 
before joining with the Ashland East Variation. The Terminus 1 
Variation connects to the Ashland East Variation and from there could 
connect to any of the northern alternatives (i.e., Tongue River, 
Colstrip, Tongue River Road and Moon Creek alternatives) and could also 
connect to the southern alternatives (i.e., Decker 1 and 2 
alternatives).
    Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study: Based 
on analysis conducted to date, OEA has determined that the following 
two alternatives are not reasonable and feasible and will not be 
carried forward for detailed analysis in the EIS.
    212 to 59 to Gillette Alternative--This route was developed in 
response to a scoping comment requesting that an alternative be 
considered that would transport the coal east by rail along Highway 
212, before turning south at Highway 59 and connecting to the existing 
rail line near Gillette, Wyoming. The total length of this alternative 
is approximately 138 miles. OEA has determined that this is not a 
reasonable and feasible alternative based on the challenges that would 
be posed by the undulating terrain and the costs and environmental 
impacts that would be associated with the significantly longer length 
of the route.
    Otter Creek Alternative--This route was developed in response to a 
scoping comment requesting that an alternative be considered that would 
follow the Otter Creek south and connect with the existing BNSF 
mainline somewhere between Sheridan and Gillette, Wyoming. The route 
would run south up the Otter Creek drainage through Custer National 
Forest to the Montana-Wyoming border, at which point it would turn to 
the southwest and continue for approximately 30 miles before reaching 
the existing BNSF mainline near the town of Clearmont, Wyoming. OEA has 
determined that this is not a reasonable and feasible alternative based 
on the excessive changes in elevation and the steep grade along the 
route.
    Public Participation, Agency Consultation and Government-to-
Government Consultation: As part of the

[[Page 17756]]

environmental review process to date, OEA has conducted broad outreach 
to inform the public, federally recognized tribes, and agencies about 
the proposed action and to facilitate participation in the NEPA 
process. OEA consulted with, and will continue to consult with federal, 
state, and local agencies, tribes, affected communities and all 
interested parties to gather and disseminate information about the 
proposal. As part of that process, OEA has initiated government-to-
government consultation with federally-recognized Tribal Governments to 
seek, discuss, and consider the views of the tribes regarding the 
proposed action and alternatives. In addition, OEA intends to hold 
meetings in the vicinity of the project area to address potential 
project impacts to cultural resources during the EIS process.
    Defining the Project Area: A challenging issue presented by TRRC's 
proposal is how to define the project area. The vast majority of 
scoping comments addressing the destination of the coal presumed that 
coal carried on TRRC's proposed line would eventually be carried to 
ports proposed for development in the Pacific Northwest, and then onto 
electric utilities in Asia. According to TRRC, some coal may be used 
for electricity generation within Montana, it may move some coal to the 
Midwest, and it may export some coal to Asia and to Europe via ports 
widely spread throughout the country. The coal market, TRRC asserts, is 
so volatile that more accurate predictions are impossible.
    In most rail construction and operation proposals, the applicant-
railroad defines the potential market areas that it intends to 
transport goods to and from. OEA then is able to assess potential 
environmental impacts within a defined geographic area. Here, the 
potential geographic area is vast. Commenters from Washington State are 
concerned about impacts from increased coal train traffic, including 
the potential addition of TRRC coal trains, within their state. 
Commenters from Oregon, including Senator Ron Wyden and the Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality, have similar concerns that their 
state would suffer adverse impacts from potential increased coal train 
traffic, specifically through the Columbia River Gorge. Government 
officials and residents of Billings and Missoula, Montana are concerned 
with the potential for congestion and pollution that additional train 
traffic associated with the TRRC proposal could bring to their 
communities.
    In preparing the EIS, OEA will use modeling and other available 
information to project economically reasonable and feasible 
transportation movements. OEA will define a project area in the EIS 
that will inform the public, enable all interested parties to 
participate in the environmental review process, and disclose the 
potential impacts of TRRC's proposal to the Board so that it can take 
the requisite hard look at the environmental effects before making a 
fully informed decision in this case.
    Summary of Scoping Comments: OEA received more than 2,500 comments 
on the Draft Scope, of which most of the comments were form letters 
that contained the same general content as other letters already 
received. Of the remaining public comments, more than 500 were written 
comments, and approximately 150 were oral comments delivered during the 
public scoping meetings. Comments were submitted by federal, state, and 
local agencies, tribes, interested groups, elected officials, and 
individual citizens. In preparing this Final Scope, OEA considered all 
of the comments received. The Final Scope of Study reflects changes to 
the Draft Scope as a result of these comments. Additional changes from 
the Draft to the Final Scope were made for clarification or because of 
additional analysis conducted by OEA. In developing additions and 
modifications to the Final Scope, OEA has summarized and considered the 
comments by first dividing them into two broad categories: procedural 
issues and environmental resource issues.

Procedural Issues

     Reopening the Scoping Process. Commenters requested that 
the Board issue a new Notice of Intent and reopen the public scoping 
period as a result of the changes that were made to TRRC's preferred 
alternative in its December 17, 2012 supplemental application. Because 
TRRC's new preferred alignment, the Colstrip Alternative, was 
specifically identified as a potential alternative in the Draft Scope 
of Study and OEA held scoping meetings in Forsyth, Montana, near the 
Colstrip alternative's connection with the BNSF Forsyth Subdivision 
main line, OEA has determined that the scoping process provided 
sufficient notice of this potential alternative and the ability of the 
public to provide input on it and will not reopen the scoping period. 
Moreover, OEA had previously extended the comment period on the Draft 
Scope from December 6, 2012 to January 11, 2013.
     Programmatic EIS. Several commenters suggested that OEA 
prepare a programmatic EIS that evaluates allegedly related proposals, 
e.g., the proposed coal terminals in Washington State and Oregon. CEQ 
guidance suggests the preparation of a programmatic EIS when an agency 
evaluates broad policies, plans, or programs. Here, however, the 
decision before the Board is whether or not to grant TRRC authority to 
construct and operate a proposed rail line pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901. 
The Board does not have jurisdiction over the alleged related proposals 
and thus, has not been asked to approve any such proposals. Moreover, 
where there is no programmatic plan proposed for the extraction of 
resources in a region, a programmatic EIS is not required.\17\ 
Therefore, a project-specific EIS is the appropriate approach. OEA 
will, however, examine any actions in the project area that may impact 
the same environmental resources as the proposed project as part of its 
cumulative impacts analysis in the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 408-415 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Public Information. Commenters requested more detailed 
maps than those distributed during scoping. All available maps to date 
can be found on the Board-sponsored project Web site at 
www.tonguerivereis.com, including the Final Scope Figures referenced in 
this document. Additional maps may be generated during the preparation 
of the EIS. Any new or updated maps will be presented to the public in 
the DEIS and/or FEIS.
     Cooperating Agencies. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe 
requested information during scoping about cooperating agency status 
and about obtaining funding to facilitate its participation in the NEPA 
process. A cooperating agency is defined as any federal or state agency 
or tribe that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect 
to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project. 40 CFR 
1501.6. As defined by the CEQ regulations, ``special expertise'' means 
statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related program 
experience. 40 CFR 1508.26. In addition, ``when the effects are on a 
reservation, an Indian Tribe, may by agreement with the lead agency 
become a cooperating agency.'' 40 CFR 1501.5.
    As previously noted, OEA has invited 4 agencies to be cooperating 
agencies that have decision-making authority independent of the Board, 
are agencies from which TRRC must obtain separate approvals or permits, 
and/or the proposed line would cross that agency's land. The purpose of 
having these agencies serve as cooperating agencies is

[[Page 17757]]

to help these agencies fulfill their regulatory responsibilities and 
functions and to avoid duplicative environmental analysis.
    OEA understands the importance of working closely with the Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe throughout every step of the EIS process. The Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe has explained to OEA that the tribe is responsible for 
ensuring that the air quality and water quality on the Northern 
Cheyenne Reservation comply with the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. 
Moreover, OEA has already initiated consultation with the Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe through the EIS process. OEA has concluded, however, 
that because neither the applicant's preferred alignment nor any of the 
alternatives summarized above cross the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, 
and because the Northern Cheyenne Tribe does not need to issue a 
license or a permit for the proposed rail line; the Northern Cheyenne 
Tribe does not meet the definition stated above of a cooperating 
agency. OEA also lacks the ability to provide any funding to the 
Northern Cheyenne Tribe or any other tribe to facilitate their 
participation. Nevertheless, OEA has and will continue to consult with 
the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and other tribes. OEA is committed to 
working closely with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and other tribes, will 
continue to keep the tribes informed and involved, and will continue to 
seek input from the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and other tribes throughout 
the EIS process.
     Government-to-Government Consultation. Commenters 
requested that OEA engage affected tribes in government-to-government 
consultation. For example, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe requested that 
the EIS evaluate water rights associated with the Indian Homestead Act. 
USEPA requested that OEA engage in meaningful government-to-government 
consultation with the Northern Cheyenne, the Crow, and several bands of 
the Sioux Nation. Another commenter recommended that OEA conduct 
substantial, on-going, in-person consultation with affected federally-
recognized tribes and that planning for the DEIS should be conducted in 
consultative partnership with affiliated tribes, to guarantee essential 
tribal involvement throughout the EIS process. OEA has contacted the 
Northern Cheyenne, the Crow, and bands of the Sioux Nation to determine 
which tribes would like to engage in government-to-government 
consultation with the Board. OEA expects that government-to-government 
consultation with interested tribes will help to identify and evaluate 
potential effects from the TRRC proposal to tribal lands, rights, 
resources, religious or cultural sites, and subsistence activities.
     The Board's Procedures and Jurisdiction. Commenters raised 
concerns regarding the Board's jurisdiction and the merits of the 
public need for the proposed project.
    [cir] Public Convenience and Necessity. Commenters questioned 
whether the proposed action would meet the ``public convenience and 
necessity'' standard in 49 U.S.C. 10901 when the purpose and need of 
the project is only to serve a privately-owned coal mine. Additionally, 
commenters felt that the proposed action would not serve the public 
interest, especially if the coal is exported to foreign markets.
    The Board's review of the TRRC proposal consists of two processes--
consideration of (1) the transportation merits under 49 U.S.C. 10901 of 
the Interstate Commerce Act, and (2) the environmental impacts under 
NEPA and related environmental laws. The comments concerning the 
``public convenience and necessity'' and public interest regarding the 
proposal relate to the transportation merits review by the Board. Under 
49 U.S.C. 10901(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act, the Board must 
approve a proposal to construct or operate a rail line unless it finds 
that such activities are inconsistent with the ``public convenience and 
necessity.'' The statute does not define ``public convenience and 
necessity'' but historically, the Board has evaluated whether there is 
a public demand or need for the proposed service; whether the applicant 
is financially able to undertake the construction and provide rail 
service; and whether the proposal is in the public interest and will 
not unduly harm existing services. The interests of shippers are 
accorded substantial importance in assessing the public interest. 
Safety and environmental concerns are also considered and weighed 
against transportation concerns in evaluating the public interest. When 
the environmental review here is completed and the Board decides 
whether to authorize the proposed line, it will consider arguments 
raised by commenters that the TRRC proposal is inconsistent with ``the 
public convenience and necessity.''
    [cir] Eminent Domain. Commenters expressed concern over just 
compensation if the proposed rail line were to traverse their land and 
the railroad's ability to use eminent domain to acquire land. In Board-
approved rail construction cases, it is the railroad's responsibility 
to acquire land it needs to implement the approved project under state 
law. If the railroad needs to acquire property associated with a Board-
approved line by using condemnation (also known as eminent domain) it 
must do so in accordance with the State of Montana's railroad 
condemnation law. The Board plays no role in any eminent domain 
proceedings and does not approve or disapprove any condemnation of 
private property under state law.
     Proposed Action. Commenters suggested that if the Colstrip 
Alternative was determined to be infeasible in the previous Tongue 
River I EIS, it would not be feasible today. But while the Tongue River 
I EIS determined that the Colstrip Alternative had a higher grade 
against load compared to other alternatives considered (0.85 percent 
versus 0.2 percent), the Tongue River I EIS did not determine, at that 
time, that the Colstrip Alternative was infeasible; rather it was not 
selected as the preferred alternative because it was a longer route to 
TRRC's then-identified target markets in the Midwest.
    Many commenters raised concerns about the portion of the proposed 
line from Ashland to the previously planned Montco Mine (i.e., Terminus 
1). Commenters suggested that the development of the Montco Mine is not 
reasonably foreseeable because there is currently no surface mine 
permit pending. As part of its analysis in the EIS, OEA will consider 
this issue.
     Purpose and Need. Commenters suggested that TRRC's 
information regarding the purpose and need for the proposed action is 
based on speculation regarding coal mine feasibility and global and 
domestic coal markets. Commenters remarked that domestic demand for 
coal has decreased in favor of natural gas and the most logical 
destination for the Otter Creek Coal would be to foreign markets. As 
discussed above, TRRC has indicated a possibility for some portion of 
the Otter Creek coal to find markets overseas, including markets in 
Asia and Europe, through ports along the Atlantic, Pacific, Great 
Lakes, and Gulf Coasts, as well as to coal-fired power plants in the 
United States. OEA will conduct an analysis to determine if TRRC's 
projections are reasonable, given the available information, and will 
present the results of its analysis in the EIS.

Environmental Resource Issues

     Analysis of Transportation Systems. Commenters requested 
that the EIS analyze the potential transportation routes for coal 
export from coal transported on the proposed line. Commenters requested 
that road traffic

[[Page 17758]]

delays be considered at road/rail grade crossings as a result of 
increased transaction-related rail traffic. Commenters also requested 
that the EIS evaluate rail line congestion. For the Colstrip 
Alternative, commenters requested that the EIS consider potential 
impacts to area roads and public access roads. In addition, commenters 
requested that the EIS evaluate the ability of the proposed rail line 
to carry additional resource commodities, such as timber and grain. 
Commenters requested that the EIS analyze impacts associated with the 
proposed paving and possible expansion of Tongue River Road.
    USEPA commented that the EIS should include analysis of potential 
impacts of increased transaction-related rail traffic on existing rail 
lines and the impacts of more frequent coal trains on communities in 
Montana and beyond. USEPA also requested that the EIS provide details 
on TRRC's projected daily peak and average train traffic.
    The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that the EIS 
will evaluate the potential downline rail traffic congestion as well as 
road traffic congestion at road/rail grade crossings resulting from 
increased transaction-related rail line traffic. The EIS will describe 
the existing road/rail grade crossing delay and analyze the potential 
for an increase in delay related to the proposed rail operations. The 
EIS will evaluate the potential paving and expansion of Tongue River 
Road as a cumulative impact. The EIS will consider whether the other 
issues raised by commenters should be addressed in the EIS, and if so, 
analyze them as appropriate.
     Analysis of Safety Impacts. Commenters requested that the 
EIS examine potential safety issues, including accidents at grade 
crossings, fires, livestock loss, and train derailment. Commenters also 
requested that the EIS examine the potential delay of emergency service 
vehicles at grade crossings due to the increase in train traffic and 
potential collisions with trucks transporting hazardous materials. 
Additionally, commenters requested that the EIS analyze public safety 
impacts from coal train traffic on the proposed line as well as an 
increase in coal train traffic on existing rail lines that may move 
coal from the Otter Creek area. The EIS will evaluate potential impacts 
of TRRC's preferred route and each alternative on road/rail grade 
crossing safety and analyze the potential for an increase in accidents 
related to the proposed new rail operations. The EIS will also describe 
projected rail operations and analyze the potential for increased 
probability of accidents, including derailments due to the proposed 
action. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that the 
EIS will evaluate the potential for disruption and delays to emergency 
vehicles and evaluate the potential for fires and livestock loss. The 
EIS will consider whether the other issues raised by commenters should 
be addressed in the EIS, and if so, analyze them as appropriate.
     Analysis of Land Use.
    [cir] Agricultural Lands. Several commenters requested that the EIS 
evaluate the potential impacts to agricultural lands, including 
ranchlands, access to water and grazing pastures for livestock, impacts 
to cattle crossings, access to irrigation systems, and access to roads. 
The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that the EIS will 
evaluate impacts to these agricultural lands.
    [cir] Potential Section 4(f) properties. The Montana Department of 
Transportation requested that the EIS identify and evaluate potential 
impacts to resources protected under the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (USDOT) regulation known as ``Section 4(f).'' Section 
4(f) provides that USDOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from 
publicly owned parks, recreational areas, refuges, or historical sites 
except under certain conditions. The Board is an independent agency 
organizationally housed within USDOT. Its governing statute is the 
Interstate Commerce Act and not the Department of Transportation Act, 
49 U.S.C. 1653(f) (1970). Therefore, the Board is not subject to 
Section 4(f) requirements. However, the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) is a USDOT agency subject to the Section 4(f) requirements. An 
underpass at Interstate 94 would need to be built for the Tongue River 
Road, Tongue River, and Moon Creek Alternatives (should the Board 
approve one of these alternatives), which would require approval from 
FHWA in coordination with the Montana Department of Transportation. 
Therefore, the Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that 
the EIS will analyze potential impacts to Section 4(f) properties that 
may be located near Interstate 94 along the Tongue River Road, Tongue 
River, and Moon Creek Alternatives.
     Analysis of Recreation. Commenters requested that the EIS 
evaluate potential impacts to recreational activities, including 
hunting, fishing, and canoeing. Commenters requested that the EIS also 
evaluate impacts to Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) 
Conservation Easements and Block Management properties. Additionally, 
many commenters were concerned about impacts to recreation areas near 
Miles City resulting from increased train operations. The Draft Scope 
of Study has been revised to reflect that the EIS will evaluate these 
issues.
     Analysis of Biological Resources.
    [cir] Fisheries. Commenters requested that the EIS analyze the 
potential impacts to the Miles City Fish Hatchery, the Tongue River 
dam, and the Tongue and Yellowstone River ditches. The Final Scope 
reflects that the EIS will evaluate impacts to the Miles City Fish 
Hatchery, the Tongue River dam and the Tongue and Yellow River ditches, 
as appropriate.
    [cir] Birds. Commenters requested that potential impacts to birds 
be analyzed in the EIS. Specifically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS) requested that ground and aerial surveys be conducted 
along the different alternatives' right-of-ways in compliance with the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 
Additionally, one commenter requested the EIS examine potential impacts 
to burrowing owls, short-eared owls, mountain plovers, and ferruginous 
hawks. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that the 
EIS will include appropriate aerial and ground surveys along the 
alternatives in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the 
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.\18\ The EIS will consider whether 
the other issues raised by commenters should be addressed in the EIS, 
and if so, analyze them as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As discussed above, OEA's ability to conduct these surveys 
depends on landowner permission to access properties located along 
the alternatives under consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Wildlife. Commenters requested that the EIS analyze potential 
impacts of the proposed action to wildlife migration corridors and 
breeding grounds along with impacts to wildlife as a result of 
wildlife-train collisions along the proposed rail line and 
alternatives. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that 
the EIS will analyze impacts to wildlife migration corridors and 
breeding grounds, along with impacts to wildlife as a result of 
wildlife-train collisions along the proposed rail line and 
alternatives.
    [cir] Vegetation. USFWS requested the development and 
implementation of a comprehensive restoration plan to address 
temporarily disturbed areas, in particular the native grassland,

[[Page 17759]]

sagebrush-steppe, and riparian areas. Commenters also requested that a 
detailed vegetative habitat mapping survey be conducted. These requests 
will be considered in the EIS, as appropriate.
    [cir] Threatened and Endangered Species. USFWS requested that the 
EIS evaluate potential impacts to the Black-footed Ferret, Pallid 
Sturgeon, Interior Least Tern, Whooping Crane, Greater Sage-Grouse 
(candidate species), and Sprague's Pipit (candidate species). 
Additionally, USFWS requested that a biological assessment be 
conducted. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that 
the EIS will evaluate impacts to the Black-footed ferret, Pallid 
Sturgeon, Interior Least Tern, Whooping Crane, Greater Sage-Grouse 
(candidate species), and Sprague's Pipit (candidate species) and 
include a biological assessment for threatened and endangered species.
    [cir] Noxious Weeds. Commenters raised concerns associated with the 
spread of noxious weeds resulting from the construction and operation 
of the proposed rail line. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to 
reflect that the EIS will analyze potential impacts from the spread of 
noxious weeds.
     Analysis of Water Resources.
    [cir] Groundwater and Surface Water. USEPA requested that the EIS 
analyze potential impacts to water quantity such as changes in stream 
flow, additional uses of surface or groundwater, groundwater 
depletions, and reductions in groundwater recharge. MFWP requested that 
the proposed action maintain the connectivity of prairie streams and 
rivers to minimize impacts to the area fisheries and study the 
potential alterations to stream and bank morphology as well as 
potential sediment impacts from erosion and cut and fill operations. 
Commenters also requested that the EIS examine where the water needed 
for construction and operation would be sourced and what impact the 
proposed action would have on water access for area ranchers and 
farmers. One commenter requested that the EIS evaluate impacts 
resulting from pollution runoff into any streams listed under Clean 
Water Act Section 303d in the project area. The Draft Scope of Study 
has been revised to reflect that the EIS will evaluate these issues.
    [cir] Floodplains. One commenter requested that the EIS include a 
flood analysis of the construction impacts from the proposed rail line 
and alternatives on Miles City. Commenters requested that the EIS 
evaluate potential impacts to irrigation structures along the Tongue 
River. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that the 
EIS will evaluate potential floodplain impacts from the proposed rail 
line and alternatives on Miles City and that the EIS will evaluate 
potential impacts to irrigation structures along the Tongue River.
    [cir] Stream Morphology. USEPA suggested that the EIS include an 
analysis of potential impacts to the stream morphology of the Tongue 
River and Otter Creek, existing and proposed artificial bank 
stabilization structures, agricultural practices adjacent to the water 
bodies, constrictions placed on the river channel and floodplain, 
fluvial geomorphology, bank stabilization and floodplains, and bank 
destabilization. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect 
that the EIS will assess potential impacts to geomorphology of the 
Tongue River and Otter Creek. The EIS will consider whether the other 
issues raised by commenters should be addressed in the EIS, and if so, 
analyze them as appropriate.
    [cir] Water Quality. USEPA requested that the EIS utilize existing 
models to review reasonably foreseeable water quality impacts in the 
U.S. from coal combustion; summarize existing water quality conditions; 
evaluate the potential water quality impacts from the proposed rail 
line and alternatives and potential area mines; and include information 
about water quality standards, potential discharge from the proposed 
railroad and potential area mines, and impaired water bodies in the 
State of Montana and the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. The Draft Scope 
of Study has been revised to reflect that the EIS will consider USEPA 
guidance documents concerning non-point source pollution and the USEPA 
Water Quality Assessment for the Tongue River and will include 
information concerning State of Montana and Northern Cheyenne Tribe 
water quality standards. The EIS will consider whether the other issues 
raised by USEPA should be addressed in the EIS, and if so, analyze them 
as appropriate.
    [cir] Wetlands. The Corps recommended that a Draft 404(b)(1) 
analysis be performed and included as part of the EIS. USEPA requested 
that the EIS include an analysis of the potential impacts to wetlands 
and riparian habitats. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to 
reflect that the EIS will include an analysis of the potential impacts 
to wetlands and riparian habitats and include information to support a 
Draft 404(b)(1) analysis.
     Analysis of Navigation. Commenters requested that the EIS 
evaluate the impacts of the construction and operation of the railroad 
on navigability of water bodies. The EIS will include an analysis of 
potential impacts to navigation.
     Analysis of Geology and Soils. Several commenters 
requested an analysis of alluvial valley floors, soil erosion, prime 
farmland, and reclamation activities. One commenter expressed concern 
about atmospheric deposition of rail traffic emissions on soil, 
including accumulation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and 
heavy metals. The EIS will evaluate potential mine reclamation 
activities as cumulative impacts. The Draft Scope of Study has been 
revised to reflect that the EIS will evaluate the potential atmospheric 
deposition of rail traffic emissions on soil including the possible 
accumulation of PAH and heavy metals from the proposed line.
     Analysis of Air Quality and Visibility.
    [cir] Emissions Analysis. USEPA recommended that the EIS utilize 
existing models to review reasonably foreseeable air quality impacts in 
the U.S. from combustion of the coal transported by the proposed line. 
USEPA also recommended that the EIS discuss practices in use at coal 
mines in the Powder River Basin for reducing NOX emissions 
from blasting activities, utilize far-field and potentially also near-
field air quality modeling to assess potential impacts to Class I areas 
and visibility because of the proximity to the Northern Cheyenne Class 
I airshed, as well as the proposed railroad and mines' potential 
contributions to cumulative impacts on air quality-related values 
(AQRVs), resources that may be adversely affected by a change in air 
quality, such as visibility in Class I areas and sensitive Class II 
areas based upon cumulative impact air quality modeling previously 
conducted by BLM. USEPA recommended that the EIS analyze potential 
visibility degradation and incremental consumption under EPA's 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program from 
the proposed project and cumulative emissions because of the proximity 
of the project to sensitive receptor areas and because of previously-
modeled air quality impacts. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised 
to reflect that the EIS will examine potential impacts from the 
proposed line and any coal mines that the proposed line might serve on 
visibility degradation and impacts to the Northern Cheyenne Class I 
airshed and Class II sensitive areas, evaluate incremental consumption 
under EPA's PSD permitting program for cumulative emissions from the 
mines and other activities in the project area and include relevant 
information from BLM's

[[Page 17760]]

Resource Management Plan air quality study.
    One commenter requested that the EIS determine the impacts of 
million tons of coal being shipped to China and burned with limited or 
no pollution control devices. While the Board has noted that Supreme 
Court precedent suggests that an analysis of impacts related to 
activities over which the Board has no authority to regulate and are 
not proximately caused by the Board's decision is not required under 
NEPA,\19\ the Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that the 
EIS will include an appropriate air quality analysis of the combustion 
of the coal transported by the proposed TRRC line. The EIS will also 
evaluate the air quality impacts from mining activities at the coal 
mines that would produce coal to be carried on the proposed TRRC line 
as cumulative impacts. The EIS will consider whether the other issues 
raised by commenters should be addressed in the EIS, and if so, analyze 
them as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Tongue River R.R. Co., Inc.--Constr. And Operation--Western 
Alignment, FD 30186 (Sub-No. 3) at 10 n.21 (STB served June 15, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Agency Consultation. USEPA recommended that the EIS include 
design measures for the coal mines that are likely to be imposed by the 
State of Montana into the analysis and identify these measures as 
permit-related conditions in the baseline emission inventory. USEPA 
recommended that OEA consult with BLM and Montana State agencies on the 
project's air quality analysis, the results of the analysis, 
identification of available mitigation measures, and any necessary 
permitting, as appropriate. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised 
to reflect that the EIS will consider Montana State emission controls 
required on permitted sources in the baseline cumulative impacts 
analysis. BLM and Montana State agencies are cooperating agencies, and 
OEA will consult with them on these issues.
    [cir] Diesel Emissions. Several commenters requested that the EIS 
analyze an increase in air pollution and associated human health 
effects from the proposed action. Commenters requested that the EIS 
analyze potential public health impacts, including impacts associated 
with diesel emissions from locomotives and increased coal train traffic 
from the mine sites to the destination facilities. USEPA requested that 
the EIS evaluate the potential human health impacts to potentially 
affected communities along existing rail lines that may move coal from 
the Otter Creek area, including potential impacts associated with 
diesel exhaust. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect 
that the EIS will include an appropriate evaluation of the effects on 
human health from locomotive diesel emissions.
    [cir] Climate Change. Several commenters requested that the EIS 
analyze the potential contributions to climate change resulting from 
the proposed action. Additionally, commenters requested that the EIS 
analyze potential air quality impacts, including climate change, 
resulting from the proposed coal export terminals in the Pacific 
Northwest. USEPA recommended performing a life cycle greenhouse gas 
(GHG) emissions analysis. While the Board has noted that Supreme Court 
precedent suggests that an analysis of impacts related to activities 
over which the Board has no authority to regulate and are not 
proximately caused by the Board's decision is not required under 
NEPA,\20\ the Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect that the 
EIS will include a life-cycle analysis of potential GHG emissions. The 
EIS will consider whether the other issues raised by commenters should 
be addressed in the EIS, and if so, analyze them as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Coal Dust. Numerous commenters addressed the potential 
impacts of coal dust to air quality, human health, and visibility. 
Specifically, one commenter requested that the EIS include an analysis 
of the potential impacts to the Class I airshed of the Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe. Commenters requested that the EIS evaluate the 
potential impacts of coal dust emitted from railcars traveling on the 
proposed line with and without the use of dust control techniques, 
including chemical surfactants, and analyze the chemical composition of 
these surfactants. Commenters also requested that the EIS analyze the 
potential effects of toxic pollutants, including heavy metals, such as 
cadmium, resulting from the emission of coal dust along the proposed 
line. These commenters suggested that the EIS include a study of the 
potential human health effects from coal dust on communities along the 
proposed line, and around coal stock piles in various weather 
conditions. USEPA requested that the EIS analyze potential increases in 
coal dust that would be associated with transaction-related traffic 
along the proposed line and additional rail traffic along existing 
lines that may move coal from the Otter Creek area. MFWP commented on 
potential effects of coal dust to the Miles City Fish Hatchery. The 
Draft Scope of Study has been revised to clarify that the EIS will 
include an appropriate evaluation of impacts from coal dust, including 
any human health impacts.
     Analysis of Noise and Vibration. Several commenters 
requested that the EIS analyze potential impacts to people and 
structures along the proposed line and alternatives from potential 
ground vibrations. Commenters specifically requested a comprehensive 
vibration study on the Miles City Fish Hatchery. Several commenters 
requested that the EIS analyze the potential impacts of sound and 
infrasound (sound below the level of human hearing) from transaction-
related rail traffic. One commenter was concerned about the effects of 
vibration on structures such as bridges, retaining walls, homes, ranch 
structures, pipelines, and irrigation systems, particularly those areas 
with underlying clay soils. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised 
to reflect that the EIS will evaluate potential impacts to the Miles 
City Fish Hatchery, as appropriate. The EIS will consider whether the 
other issues raised by commenters should be addressed in the EIS, and 
if so, analyze them as appropriate.
     Analysis of Energy Resources. Commenters requested that 
the EIS analyze potential impacts to existing and future utility lines 
underground and overhead and the impact of the construction and 
operation of the proposed line and Otter Creek Mine's energy needs on 
the local energy grid. Commenters suggested that the EIS discuss the 
current and future coal market and the potential switch to natural gas 
and wind power; analyze whether Asia could be a major destination for 
Powder River Basin coal; and analyze if China is planning to use 
inexpensive coal imported from the U.S. as a bridge fuel until it can 
develop renewable energy. Commenters requested that the EIS evaluate 
potential impacts from the proposed Young's Creek Mine in Wyoming and 
possible expansion of the Decker Mines. The Draft Scope of Study has 
been revised to reflect that the EIS will analyze the potential impact 
of the proposed action on energy markets and the effect of energy 
markets on the proposed action, as appropriate. The EIS will consider 
whether the other issues raised by commenters should be addressed in 
the EIS, and if so, analyze them as appropriate.
     Analysis of Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. 
Commenters requested that the EIS analyze any disproportionate adverse 
impacts on

[[Page 17761]]

low-income residents of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, as well as 
the Amish Community in the project area. Specifically, commenters 
requested that the EIS analyze potential impacts to the Northern 
Cheyenne Reservation's poverty rates, incomes, crime rates, 
transportation and safety issues, social services, and healthcare. 
Several commenters requested that the EIS analyze the socioeconomic 
impacts from an influx of workers in the project area, including demand 
for local services. Numerous commenters requested that the EIS 
determine the economic costs to agricultural and tourism operations in 
the project area. Additionally, several commenters requested that the 
EIS evaluate the possibility of potential job creation or job loss, 
especially in mining and law enforcement and as a result of potential 
coal displacement at the Western Energy mine in Colstrip, Montana. One 
commenter requested that the EIS analyze potential impacts to the Town 
of Colstrip due to the change in TRRC's preferred alternative. Numerous 
commenters requested that the EIS evaluate potential for losses in 
property values for landowners along the different alternatives. USEPA 
requested that the EIS include a discussion of potential environmental 
justice impacts in the air, water, socioeconomics, and traffic 
analyses, particularly associating specific resource impacts to 
specific communities, including the Northern Cheyenne and the Crow 
reservations. The EIS will include an appropriate evaluation of 
socioeconomic and environmental justice issues.
     Analysis of Cultural and Historic Resources. The Northern 
Cheyenne and other commenters requested that the EIS evaluate the 
effects of the proposed action on sites and resources of religious and 
cultural significance to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. USEPA commented 
that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe considers the Tongue River and the 
Tongue River Valley to be places of cultural and spiritual 
significance. One commenter encouraged OEA to join the December 5, 
2012, Interagency Coordination and Collaboration for the Protection of 
Indian Sacred Sites Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by the 
Departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture and Energy and the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. That MOU outlines a multi-
point approach to improve the protection of and tribal access to tribal 
sacred sites across the country. The commenter recommended that OEA 
conduct substantial, on-going, in-person consultation with affected 
federally recognized tribes and that new cultural resource surveys 
should be conducted in consultative partnership with affiliated tribes. 
The commenter also requested that the EIS include a Visual Impact Study 
to assess the potential indirect impacts to tribal and other cultural 
resources, a cultural resource survey, landscape-level archeological, 
historical and architectural surveys (including those for historic 
ranches), an ethnographic study, and an archeological survey within the 
Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project in consultation with the 
tribes, stakeholders, property-owners and relevant local, state, and 
federal agencies. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised to reflect 
that the EIS will include an analysis of indirect and visual effects on 
cultural and historic resources. The EIS will consider whether the 
other issues raised by commenters should be addressed in the EIS, and 
if so, analyze them as appropriate.
     Analysis of Aesthetics. Commenters requested that the EIS 
include a Visual Impact Study to accurately gauge impacts to cultural 
resources, and to specifically consider impacts to the Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe and Reservation. Commenters requested that the EIS 
evaluate the potential impacts from industrialization of an 
agricultural area. One commenter suggested using the BLM Visual 
Resource Management Manual. The Draft Scope of Study has been revised 
to reflect that the EIS will evaluate these issues.
     Analysis of Cumulative Impacts. Commenters requested that 
the EIS analyze the potential cumulative impacts from the proposed 
Otter Creek Mine, coal bed methane and oil and gas development, exports 
of Powder River Basin coal to Asian coal markets, and the paving of 
Tongue River Road. Commenters also requested that any potential 
discharge from existing mines and effects of discharges from existing 
mines or runoff into the Tongue River and its tributaries be analyzed 
for its potential impacts to water quality including increases in 
salinity and sodic water content. USEPA requested that the EIS include 
information about the timing and duration of potential mining 
activities at the proposed Otter Creek Mine and the previously planned 
Montco Mine, as well as the estimated mine acreage that will be 
disturbed at any one time. The EIS will evaluate the cumulative and 
incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to other past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area, 
including an appropriate analysis of the actions raised by commenters 
on the Draft Scope.

Final Scope of Study for the EIS

Environmental Impacts Analysis

Proposed New Construction and Operation
    The EIS will address activities associated with the construction 
and operation of the proposed rail line and its potential environmental 
impacts, as appropriate.
Impact Categories
    The EIS will analyze potential direct, indirect, and cumulative 
impacts \21\ of the proposed construction and operation of the TRRC 
rail line and each reasonable and feasible alternative on the human and 
natural environment, as well as the no-action alternative. Impact areas 
addressed will include the following: Transportation systems, safety, 
land use, recreation, biological resources, water resources (including 
wetlands and other waters of the U.S.), navigation, geology and soils, 
air quality, noise, energy resources, socioeconomics, cultural and 
historic resources, aesthetics (including visual resources) and 
environmental justice. The EIS will include a discussion of each of 
these impact areas and will address the potential direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action under each 
reasonable and feasible alternative and the no-action alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ NEPA requires the Board to consider direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impacts. Direct and indirect impacts are both caused by 
the action. 40 CFR 1508.8(a)-(b). A cumulative impact is 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 CFR 1508.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Transportation Systems

    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential impacts resulting from TRRC's preferred 
route and each alternative \22\ on the existing rail and road network. 
This will include analyzing potential impacts for downline rail traffic 
congestion, as well as road traffic congestion at road/rail grade 
crossings resulting from increased transaction-related traffic, as 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The term ``alternative'' in this Final Scope refers to 
reasonable and feasible alternatives and the no-action alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Describe the existing road/rail grade crossing delay and analyze 
the potential for an increase in delay related to the proposed rail 
operations, as appropriate.

[[Page 17762]]

    c. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to transportation systems, as appropriate.

2. Safety

    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate potential impacts of TRRC's preferred route and each 
alternative on road/rail grade crossing safety and analyze the 
potential for an increase in accidents related to the proposed new rail 
operations, as appropriate.
    b. Describe projected rail operations and analyze the potential for 
increased probability of train accidents including derailments, as 
appropriate.
    c. Evaluate the potential for disruption and delays to the movement 
of emergency vehicles.
    d. Evaluate the potential for fires and livestock loss as a result 
of TRRC's preferred route and each alternative, as appropriate.
    e. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to safety, as appropriate.

3. Land Use

    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate potential impacts of TRRC's preferred route and each 
alternative on existing land use patterns within the project area and 
identify those land uses, including agricultural, that would be 
potentially affected by the proposed new rail line.
    b. Analyze the potential impacts associated with each alternative 
to land uses identified within the project area, for example, impacts 
to ranching and other agricultural usage such as access to water and 
grazing pastures for livestock, impacts to cattle crossings, access to 
roads, and access to irrigation systems. Such potential impacts may 
include incompatibility with existing land use and conversion of land 
to railroad use.
    c. Identify and evaluate potential impacts to resources protected 
under the USDOT Section 4(f) regulation that may be located near 
Interstate 94 along the Tongue River Road, Tongue River and Moon Creek 
Alternatives.
    d. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
impacts to land use, as appropriate.

4. Recreation

    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate existing conditions and the potential impacts of the 
construction of TRRC's preferred route and each alternative, and their 
operation, on recreational trails, MFWP Conservation Easements and 
Block Management properties, recreation areas near Miles City, and 
other recreational opportunities in the project area.
    b. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on recreational opportunities, as appropriate.

5. Biological Resources

    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the existing biological resources within the project 
area, including vegetative communities, wildlife, fisheries, wetlands, 
and federal and state threatened or endangered species (including 
candidate species), and analyze the potential impacts to these 
resources resulting from TRRC's preferred route and each alternative. 
For example, the EIS will include appropriate aerial and ground surveys 
along TRRC's preferred route and each alternative in compliance with 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 
Act and a biological assessment for threatened and endangered species. 
The EIS will evaluate impacts to the Black-footed Ferret, Pallid 
Sturgeon, Interior Least Tern, Whooping Crane, Greater Sage-Grouse 
(candidate species), and Sprague's Pipit (candidate species). The EIS 
will also evaluate potential impacts to the Miles City Fish Hatchery, 
the Tongue River Dam, and the Tongue and Yellowstone River ditches, as 
appropriate. The EIS will analyze the impacts of the proposed action 
and alternatives on wildlife migration corridors and breeding grounds 
along with impacts to wildlife as a result of wildlife-train collisions 
along TRRC's preferred route and each alternative.
    b. Evaluate the potential for the spread of noxious weeds resulting 
from TRRC's preferred route and each alternative.
    c. Identify and describe any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or 
rearing facilities; national or state parks, forests, or grasslands; 
critical, unique, or high-value habitats that support threatened or 
endangered species; and riparian habitats; and evaluate the potential 
impacts to these resources resulting from TRRC's preferred route and 
each alternative.
    d. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate 
for potential impacts to biological resources, as appropriate.

6. Water Resources

    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the existing surface water and groundwater resources 
within the project area, including lakes, rivers, streams, stock ponds, 
wetlands, and floodplains, and analyze the potential impacts on these 
resources resulting from the construction and operation of TRRC's 
preferred route and each alternative.
    b. Evaluate potential floodplain impacts from the proposed rail 
line and alternatives on Miles City.
    c. Evaluate potential impacts to irrigation structures along the 
Tongue River.
    d. Consider USEPA guidance documents concerning non-point source 
pollution.
    e. Consider the USEPA Water Quality Assessment for the Tongue 
River.
    f. Consider and include information concerning State of Montana and 
Northern Cheyenne Tribe water quality standards.
    g. Assess potential impacts of the project to geomorphology of the 
Tongue River and Otter Creek.
    h. Evaluate potential impacts to water quantity such as changes in 
stream flow, additional uses of surface or groundwater, groundwater 
depletions, and reductions in groundwater recharge; describe the 
connectivity of prairie streams and rivers and study the potential 
alterations to stream and bank morphology as well as potential sediment 
impacts from erosion and cut and fill operations; examine the sources 
for the water needed for the proposed construction and operations and 
what impact the proposed action will have on water access for area 
ranchers and farmers; and evaluate impacts resulting from pollution 
runoff into any 303d listed streams in the project area.
    i. Describe the permitting requirements for the railroad's 
preferred route and each alternative with regard to wetlands, stream 
and river crossings, water quality, floodplains, and erosion control. 
Include an analysis of the potential impacts to wetlands and riparian 
habitats and include information to support a Draft 404(b)(1) analysis.
    j. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate 
for potential project impacts to water resources, as appropriate.

7. Navigation

    The EIS will:
    a. Identify existing navigable waterways within the project area 
and analyze the potential impacts on navigability resulting from TRRC's 
preferred route and each alternative.
    b. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
impacts to navigation, as appropriate.

8. Geology and Soils

    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the geology, soils and seismic conditions found within 
the

[[Page 17763]]

project area, including unique or problematic geologic formations or 
soils, prime farmland, and hydric soils, and analyze the potential 
impacts on these resources resulting from construction and operation of 
TRRC's preferred route and each alternative.
    b. Evaluate potential measures that could be employed to avoid or 
to construct through unique or problematic geologic formations or 
soils.
    c. Evaluate the potential atmospheric deposition of rail traffic 
emissions on soil, including the possible accumulation of Polycyclic 
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and heavy metals from the proposed line.
    d. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to geology and soils, as appropriate.

9. Air Quality

    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential air quality impacts resulting from the 
proposed new rail line and the proposed operations, as well as 
combustion of the coal proposed to be transported on the TRRC line, as 
appropriate.
    b. Evaluate the air emissions associated with the proposed action, 
including coal dust and diesel emissions from locomotives and the 
potential associated human health effects, as appropriate.
    c. Include a life-cycle analysis of potential GHG emissions.
    d. Include relevant information from BLM's Resource Management Plan 
air quality study and other relevant cumulative impact studies, as 
appropriate.
    e. Examine potential impacts of the proposed line and any coal 
mines that the proposed line might serve on visibility degradation and 
impacts to the Northern Cheyenne Class I airshed and sensitive Class II 
areas.
    f. Evaluate incremental consumption under EPA's Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program for cumulative 
emissions from the mines and other activities in the project area, as 
appropriate.
    g. Consider Montana State emission controls required on permitted 
sources in the baseline cumulative impacts analysis.
    h. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project-related impacts to air quality, as appropriate.

10. Noise and Vibration

    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts during rail 
line construction resulting from TRRC's preferred route and each 
alternative.
    b. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts of new rail 
line operation resulting from TRRC's preferred route and each 
alternative.
    c. Evaluate the potential noise and vibration impacts to the Mile 
City Fish Hatchery, as appropriate.
    d. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to sensitive noise and vibration receptors, as 
appropriate.

11. Energy Resources

    The EIS will:
    a. Describe and evaluate the potential impact of the proposed line 
on the distribution of energy resources resulting from TRRC's preferred 
route and each alternative, including petroleum and gas pipelines and 
overhead electric transmission lines.
    b. Describe and evaluate potential impacts of the proposed action 
on energy markets and the effect of energy markets on the proposed 
action.
    c. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to energy resources, as appropriate.

12. Socioeconomics

    The EIS will:
    a. Analyze the socioeconomic effects of the proposed action, 
including effects of a potential influx of construction workers to the 
project area as a result of the proposed action and the potential 
increase in demand for local services.
    b. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project-related adverse impacts to social and economic resources, as 
appropriate.

13. Cultural and Historic Resources

    The EIS will:
    a. Identify historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or 
districts eligible for listing on or listed on the National Register of 
Historic Places (NRHP) within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for 
TRRC's preferred route and each alternative and analyze potential 
project-related impacts to them.
    b. In consultation with federally-recognized tribes participating 
in the Section 106 process, identify properties of traditional 
religious and cultural importance to tribes and prehistoric or historic 
archaeological sites evaluated as potentially eligible, eligible, or 
listed on the NRHP (archaeological historic properties) within the APE 
for TRRC's preferred route and each alternative, and analyze potential 
project-related impacts to them, including indirect visual effects.
    c. Propose measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potentially 
adverse project-related impacts to Traditional Cultural Properties 
(TCPs) and built-environment (e.g., buildings), archaeological historic 
properties, and cultural and historic resources, as appropriate.

14. Aesthetics

    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential visual impacts of the proposed rail line 
in the project area, including visual impacts to cultural resources, 
the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, and agricultural areas.
    b. Evaluate the need to use the BLM Visual Resource Management 
Manual.
    c. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on aesthetics, as appropriate.

15. Environmental Justice

    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential impacts resulting from construction and 
operation of TRRC's preferred route and each alternative on minority 
and low-income populations.
    b. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on environmental justice populations, as appropriate.

16. Cumulative Impacts

    The EIS will evaluate the cumulative and incremental impacts of the 
proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable future actions in the project area, as appropriate.

    Decided: March 19, 2013.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Director, Office of Environmental 
Analysis.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2013-06625 Filed 3-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P