Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc.-Rail Construction and Operation-in Custer, Powder River and Rosebud Counties, MT, 64592-64595 [2012-25944]
Download as PDF
64592
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Notices
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, MT
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement;
Notice of Availability of the Draft Scope
of Study for the Environmental Impact
Statement; Notice of Scoping Meetings;
and Request for Comments on Draft
Scope.
ACTION:
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 intends to
construct and operate an approximately
80-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. 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.). The purpose of this
Notice of Intent is to notify
stakeholders—including members of the
public; Tribes; federal, state, and local
agencies; environmental groups; and
potential shippers—interested in or
potentially affected by the proposed
project of the decision to prepare an EIS.
OEA will hold public scoping meetings
as part of the NEPA process. Oral and
written comments submitted during
scoping will assist OEA in defining the
range of actions, alternatives, and
impacts to be considered in the EIS. To
begin the scoping process, OEA has
developed a Draft Scope of Study for the
EIS for review and comment. Public
meeting dates and locations, along with
the Draft Scope of Study, are provided
below.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
Background
In 1986, the Board’s predecessor
agency, the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC) gave approval to
TRRC to build and operate an 89-mile
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Oct 19, 2012
Jkt 229001
rail line between Miles City, Montana,
and two termini located near Ashland,
Montana, a proceeding known as
Tongue River I.1 The purpose of the line
was to serve 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.2 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.3
The ICC/Board’s environmental staff,
now OEA, prepared EISs in all three
proceedings.
Petitions for review of the last two
decisions, 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.4 The court’s
decision requires 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 made
the resulting mitigation conditions
applicable to the entire line in its
Tongue River III decision. TRRC then
informed the Board that it no longer
intended to build the Tongue River II
and Tongue River III portions of the
railroad.
On June 18, 2012, the Board issued a
decision dismissing the Tongue River II
and Tongue River III proceedings and
reopening Tongue River I.5 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
1 Tongue River R.R.—Rail Construction 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).
2 Tongue River R.R.—Rail Construction and
Operation—Ashland to Decker, Mont. (Tongue
River II), 1 S.T.B. 809 (1996), pet. for reconsid.
denied (STB served Dec. 31, 1996).
3 Tongue River R.R.—Rail Construction 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).
4 See N. Plains Res. Council v. STB, 668 F.3d
1067 (9th Cir. 2011).
5 Tongue River R.R.—Rail Constr. & Operation—
In Custer, Powder River & Rosebud Cntys., Mont.,
FD 30186 et al. (STB served June 18, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 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.6
TRRC filed its revised application on
October 16, 2012. This Notice of Intent
initiates the new EIS process and
scoping for this case.
Dates and locations: The public
scoping meetings will be held at the
following locations on the dates listed:
• November 12, 2012, 2–4 p.m. & 6–
8 p.m. at the Charging Horse Casino,
Bingo Hall, 1⁄2 Mile E Lame Deer
Highway 212, Lame Deer, MT 59043.
• November 13, 2012, 2–4 p.m. & 6–
8 p.m. at the Rosebud County Library,
201 North 9th Avenue, Forsyth, MT
59327.
• November 14, 2012, 2–4 p.m. & 6–
8 p.m. at the St. Labre Indian School
Auditorium, 1000 Tongue River Road,
Ashland, MT 59003.
• November 15, 2012, 2–4 p.m. & 6–
8 p.m. at the Elks Lodge #537, 619
Pleasant Street, Miles City, MT 59301.
The scoping meetings will be held in
an open house format for the first hour
with the second hour comprised of a
brief presentation by OEA followed by
public comments. The meeting locations
comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
et seq.). Persons that need special
accommodations should telephone
OEA’s toll-free number for the project at
1–866–622–4355.
Interested parties are invited to
submit written comments on the Draft
Scope of Study, potential alternative
routes for the proposed rail line, and
other environmental issues and
concerns by December 6, 2012, to assure
full consideration during the scoping
process. OEA will issue a Final Scope
of Study after the close of the scoping
comment period.
Summary of the Board’s
Environmental Review Process: The
NEPA process is intended to assist the
Board and the public in identifying and
assessing the potential environmental
6 Id.
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
at 9–10.
22OCN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Notices
consequences 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. The first stage of the EIS
process is scoping. Scoping is an open
process for determining the scope of
environmental issues to be addressed in
the EIS. As part of the scoping process,
OEA has developed, and has made
available for public comment in this
notice, a Draft Scope of Study for the
EIS. Scoping meetings will be held in
the project area to provide further
opportunities for public involvement
and input during the scoping process.
In addition to comments on the Draft
Scope of Study, interested parties are
also encouraged to comment on
potential routes for the proposed
project. TRRC’s application included an
approximately 80-mile alignment
similar to the one permitted in 1986 in
Tongue River I. TRRC has made what it
calls ‘‘minor curve adjustments’’ to this
alignment, which include moving the
rail centerline slightly further from the
Miles City Fish Hatchery and
straightening the rail line in the Otter
Creek area.7 OEA is interested in
scoping comments on potential
alternatives to TRRC’s proposed
alignment, including, at a minimum,
those analyzed in the EIS in Tongue
River I. Those alternatives included:
• Tongue River Road Alternative—
This route would depart Miles City
along the 1986 proposed route, and
continue along that route to a point just
north of Pumpkin Creek. There it
crosses the Tongue River, turns south
and continues along the east side of the
river to join the proposed route about 10
miles north of Ashland.
• Moon Creek Alternative—This route
would leave Miles City, following the
old Milwaukee Road alignment to the
west, crossing the Yellowstone River
and following the north bank for about
8 miles. Here, the route would again
cross the Yellowstone and follow the
east side of Moon Creek to the divide
separating the Tongue and Yellowstone
River drainages. From there, the route
would descend to the Tongue River
Valley floor and join the proposed route
about 14 miles south of Miles City. This
route would cross the western edge of
the Fort Keogh United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agriculture Research Service (ARS)
rangeland beef cattle research facility.
• Colstrip Alternative—This route
would leave the existing Cow Creek
branch of BNSF at Colstrip, crossing
Cow Creek and Rosebud Creek as it
7 TRRC
Application at 3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Oct 19, 2012
Jkt 229001
heads south and east, following the
Greenleaf Creek valley to the Rosebud
Creek/Tongue River divide. From there
it descends into the Tongue River valley
and joins the proposed route at the
Tongue River crossing north of Ashland.
At the conclusion of the scoping and
comment period, OEA will issue a Final
Scope of Study for the EIS.
After issuing the Final Scope of
Study, OEA will prepare a Draft EIS for
the project. The Draft EIS will address
the environmental issues and concerns
identified during the scoping process
and assess and compare potential
alternatives. It will also contain OEA’s
preliminary recommendations for
environmental mitigation measures. The
Draft EIS will be made available upon
its completion for review and comment
by the public, government agencies, and
other interested parties. OEA will
prepare a Final EIS that considers
comments on the Draft EIS. In reaching
its decision in this case, the Board will
take into account the Draft EIS, the Final
EIS, and all environmental comments
that are received.
OEA has invited several agencies to
participate in this EIS process as
cooperating agencies on the basis of
their special expertise or jurisdiction by
law. These agencies include: The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); the
Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau
of Land Management (BLM); USDA; and
the Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation (MT
DNRC). OEA is also initiating
government-to-government consultation
with potentially affected tribes,
including the Northern Cheyenne, the
Crow, and several bands of the Great
Sioux Nation.
Filing Environmental Comments:
Scoping comments submitted by mail
should be addressed to: Ken Blodgett,
Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001, Attention: Environmental filing,
Docket No. FD 30186.
Scoping comments may also be filed
electronically on the Board’s Web site,
https://www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on
the ‘‘E–FILING’’ link.
Please refer to Docket No. FD 30186
in all correspondence, including efilings, addressed to the Board.
Scoping Comments are due by
December 06, 2012.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64593
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339. The Web site for the
Board is www.stb.dot.gov. Project
specific information on the Board’s Web
site may be found by placing your
cursor on the ‘‘Environmental Matters’’
button, then clicking on the ‘‘Key
Cases’’ button in the drop down menu.
For further information about the
Board’s environmental review process
and this EIS, you may also visit a Boardsponsored project Web site at www.
tonguerivereis.com.
Draft Scope of Study for the EIS
Purpose and Need
As described in TRRC’s application,
the principal purpose of the
construction and operation of TRRC’s
proposed rail line is to transport low
sulfur, sub-bituminous coal from the
proposed mine sites in Rosebud and
Powder River Counties, Montana,
including the proposed mines in the
Otter Creek area.8
The proposed transaction involves an
application by TRRC for a license or
approval from the Board. The proposed
transaction is not a Federal governmentproposed 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.
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.’’
Proposed Action and Alternatives
The proposed rail line would extend
from Miles City, Montana, to Ashland/
Otter Creek, Montana. It would consist
of a single track constructed of
continuous-welded rail. Other major
elements of the proposed project would
include a 200-foot-wide right-of-way;
crossings of local roads, streams, trails,
and utility corridors; two passing
sidings one near Milepost 27 and the
other near Milepost 46; and ancillary
facilities, including six set-out racks
between 500 and 4000 feet in length to
provide for temporary storage of cars
requiring repair and for storage of
maintenance equipment.9
The anticipated train traffic between
Miles City and Ashland on the proposed
rail line would consist of 26 round trips
per week, or 3.7 loaded unit coal trains
daily on average, with 7.4 trains per day
total (empty and loaded).10 The EIS will
analyze and compare the potential
impacts of (1) construction and
8 Id.
9 Id.
at 13.
Exhibit D at 2.
10 Id.
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
64594
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Notices
operation of the proposed rail line, (2)
all reasonable and feasible alternative
routes, and (3) the no-action alternative
(denial of the application).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Proposed New Construction and
Operation
Analysis in the EIS will address the
proposed activities associated with the
construction and operation of new rail
facilities and their potential
environmental impacts, as appropriate.
Impact Categories
The EIS will analyze potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts 11 for
TRRC’s proposed construction and
operation and each reasonable and
feasible alternative on the human and
natural environment, or in the case of
the no-action alternative, the lack of
these activities. Impact areas addressed
will include the categories of
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 as they relate
to physical changes in the environment,
cultural and historic resources,
aesthetics and environmental justice.
Other categories of impacts may also be
included as a result of comments
received during the scoping process or
on the Draft EIS. The EIS will include
a discussion of each of these categories
as they currently exist in the project
area and will address the potential
direct, indirect impacts, and cumulative
impacts of TRRC’s proposed route and
each reasonable and feasible alternative
on each category as described below:
1. Transportation Systems
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the potential impacts
resulting from TRRC’s proposed route
and each alternative on the existing
transportation network in the project
area.
b. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts to transportation systems, as
appropriate.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
2. Safety
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing road/rail grade
crossing safety and analyze the potential
11 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Oct 19, 2012
Jkt 229001
for an increase in accidents related to
the proposed new rail operations, as
appropriate.
b. Describe existing rail operations
and analyze the potential for increased
probability of train accidents, as
appropriate.
c. Evaluate the potential for
disruption and delays to the movement
of emergency vehicles.
d. Propose mitigative 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 proposed route and each
alternative on existing land use patterns
within the project area and identify
those land uses that would be
potentially impacted by the proposed
new rail line construction.
b. Analyze the potential impacts
associated with each alternative to land
uses identified within the project area.
Such potential impacts may include
incompatibility with existing land use
and conversion of land to railroad use.
c. Propose mitigative 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 TRRC’s
proposed route and each alternative,
and their operation, on recreational
trails, and other recreational
opportunities provided in the project
area.
b. Propose mitigative 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, and analyze the potential
impacts to these resources resulting
from each alternative.
b. Describe any wildlife sanctuaries,
refuges, national or state parks, forests,
or grasslands, and evaluate the potential
impacts to these resources resulting
from TRRC’s proposed route and each
alternative.
c. Propose mitigative measures to
avoid, minimize, or compensate for
potential impacts to biological
resources, as appropriate.
6. Water Resources
The EIS will:
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 TRRC’s proposed route and each
alternative.
b. Describe the permitting
requirements for the various alternatives
with regard to wetlands, stream and
river crossings, water quality,
floodplains, and erosion control.
c. Propose mitigative 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
proposed route and each alternative.
b. Describe the permitting
requirements for the various alternatives
with regard to navigation.
c. Propose mitigative 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
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 TRRC’s
proposed route and each alternative.
b. Evaluate potential measures
employed to avoid or construct through
unique or problematic geologic
formations or soils.
c. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts to geology and soils, as
appropriate.
9. Air Quality
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the air emissions from the
potential operation of trains on the
TRRC rail line, including potential
greenhouse gas emissions and coal dust,
as appropriate.
b. Evaluate the potential air quality
impacts resulting from new rail line
construction activities.
c. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts to air quality, as appropriate.
10. Noise and Vibration
The EIS will:
a. Describe the potential noise and
vibration impacts during new rail line
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Notices
construction resulting from TRRC’s
proposed route and each alternative.
b. Describe the potential noise and
vibration impacts of new rail line
operation resulting from each
alternative.
c. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts to sensitive noise receptors, as
appropriate.
11. Energy Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe and evaluate the potential
impact of the proposed new rail line on
the distribution of energy resources in
the project area resulting from TRRC’s
proposed route and each alternative,
including petroleum and gas pipelines
and overhead electric transmission
lines.
b. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts to energy resources, as
appropriate.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
12. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
a. Analyze the effects of a potential
influx of construction workers to the
project area and the potential increase
in demand for local services interrelated
with natural or physical environmental
effects.
b. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential projectrelated adverse impacts to social and
economic resources, as appropriate.
13. Cultural and Historic Resources
The EIS will:
a. Identify historic building,
structures, sites, objects or districts,
eligible for listing on or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places
within the area of potential effects for
TRRC’s proposed route and each
alternative (built-environment historic
properties) and analyze potential project
impacts to them.
b. Identify properties of traditional
religious and cultural importance to
Indian Tribes (TCPs) and prehistoric or
historic archaeological sites evaluated as
potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on
the National Register of Historic Places
(archaeological historic properties)
within the area of potential effects for
TRRC’s proposed route and each
alternative, and analyze potential
project impacts to them.
c. Propose measures to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate potentially
adverse project impacts to TCPs and
built-environment, archaeological
historic properties, and cultural and
historic resources, as appropriate.
14. Aesthetics
The EIS will:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Oct 19, 2012
Jkt 229001
a. Describe the potential impacts of
the proposed new rail line construction
on any areas identified or determined to
be of high visual quality.
b. Describe the potential impacts of
the proposed new rail line construction
on any waterways considered for or
designated as wild and scenic.
c. Propose mitigative 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 TRRC’s proposed route
and each alternative on local and
regional minority and low-income
populations.
b. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts on environmental justice
populations, as appropriate.
Decided: October 17, 2012.
By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Director,
Office of Environmental Analysis.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2012–25944 Filed 10–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
National Credit Union Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Information
Collection; Comment Request
Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC);
and National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
AGENCIES:
The OCC FDIC, and NCUA
(collectively, the ‘‘Agencies’’), as part of
continuing efforts to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, invite the
general public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on a new information
collection. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a
respondent is not required to respond
to, an information collection unless it
displays a currently valid control
number issued by the Office of
Management and Budget. The Agencies
are soliciting comment concerning a
proposed collection method entitled
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64595
‘‘Interagency Appraisal Complaint
Form.’’
DATES: Comments must be received by
December 21, 2012.
ADDRESSES: OCC: Communications
Division, Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, Public Information Room,
Mailstop 2–3, Attention: 1557–NEW,
250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20219. In addition, comments may be
sent by fax to (202) 874–5274, or by
electronic mail to
regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. You may
inspect and photocopy the comments at
the OCC, 250 E Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20219. You may make an
appointment to inspect the comments
by calling (202) 874–4700.
Additionally, you should send a copy
of your comments to OCC Desk Officer,
1557–NEW, by mail to U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, 725, 17th
Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC
20503, or by fax to (202) 395–6974.
FDIC: You may submit comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/
federal/notices.html.
• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive
Secretary, Attention: Comments/Legal
ESS, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivered/Courier: The guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street
Building (located on F Street), on
business days between 7:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.
• Email: comments@FDIC.gov.
Instructions: Comments submitted
must include ‘‘FDIC’’ and ‘‘Interagency
Appraisal Complaint Form.’’ Comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/
laws/federal/notices.html, including
any personal information provided.
NCUA: Interested parties are invited
to submit written comments to both the
NCUA PRA Contact and OMB Reviewer
listed here:
• NCUA PRA Contact: Tracy Crews,
National Credit Union Administration,
1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia
22314–3428, Fax No. 703–837–2861, or
Email: OCIOmail@ncua.gov; and
• OMB Contact: Office of
Management and Budget; ATTN: Desk
Officer for NCUA; Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC
20503
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You
may request additional information or a
copy of the collection from:
OCC: Johnny Vilela or Mary H.
Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202)
E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM
22OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64592-64595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25944]
[[Page 64592]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, MT
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement;
Notice of Availability of the Draft Scope of Study for the
Environmental Impact Statement; Notice of Scoping Meetings; and Request
for Comments on Draft Scope.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
intends to construct and operate an approximately 80-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. 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.). The purpose of
this Notice of Intent is to notify stakeholders--including members of
the public; Tribes; federal, state, and local agencies; environmental
groups; and potential shippers--interested in or potentially affected
by the proposed project of the decision to prepare an EIS. OEA will
hold public scoping meetings as part of the NEPA process. Oral and
written comments submitted during scoping will assist OEA in defining
the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the
EIS. To begin the scoping process, OEA has developed a Draft Scope of
Study for the EIS for review and comment. Public meeting dates and
locations, along with the Draft Scope of Study, are provided below.
Background
In 1986, the Board's predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC) gave approval to TRRC 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.\1\ The purpose
of the line was to serve 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.\2\ 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.\3\ The ICC/Board's
environmental staff, now OEA, prepared EISs in all three proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tongue River R.R.--Rail Construction 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).
\2\ Tongue River R.R.--Rail Construction and Operation--Ashland
to Decker, Mont. (Tongue River II), 1 S.T.B. 809 (1996), pet. for
reconsid. denied (STB served Dec. 31, 1996).
\3\ Tongue River R.R.--Rail Construction 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 the last two decisions, 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.\4\ The court's decision requires 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 made the resulting mitigation conditions
applicable to the entire line in its Tongue River III decision. TRRC
then informed the Board that it no longer intended to build the Tongue
River II and Tongue River III portions of the railroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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.\5\ 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 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Tongue River R.R.--Rail Constr. & Operation--In Custer,
Powder River & Rosebud Cntys., Mont., FD 30186 et al. (STB served
June 18, 2012).
\6\ Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRRC filed its revised application on October 16, 2012. This Notice
of Intent initiates the new EIS process and scoping for this case.
Dates and locations: The public scoping meetings will be held at
the following locations on the dates listed:
November 12, 2012, 2-4 p.m. & 6-8 p.m. at the Charging
Horse Casino, Bingo Hall, \1/2\ Mile E Lame Deer Highway 212, Lame
Deer, MT 59043.
November 13, 2012, 2-4 p.m. & 6-8 p.m. at the Rosebud
County Library, 201 North 9th Avenue, Forsyth, MT 59327.
November 14, 2012, 2-4 p.m. & 6-8 p.m. at the St. Labre
Indian School Auditorium, 1000 Tongue River Road, Ashland, MT 59003.
November 15, 2012, 2-4 p.m. & 6-8 p.m. at the Elks Lodge
537, 619 Pleasant Street, Miles City, MT 59301.
The scoping meetings will be held in an open house format for the
first hour with the second hour comprised of a brief presentation by
OEA followed by public comments. The meeting locations comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
Persons that need special accommodations should telephone OEA's toll-
free number for the project at 1-866-622-4355.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on the
Draft Scope of Study, potential alternative routes for the proposed
rail line, and other environmental issues and concerns by December 6,
2012, to assure full consideration during the scoping process. OEA will
issue a Final Scope of Study after the close of the scoping comment
period.
Summary of the Board's Environmental Review Process: The NEPA
process is intended to assist the Board and the public in identifying
and assessing the potential environmental
[[Page 64593]]
consequences 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. The first stage of the
EIS process is scoping. Scoping is an open process for determining the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. As part of
the scoping process, OEA has developed, and has made available for
public comment in this notice, a Draft Scope of Study for the EIS.
Scoping meetings will be held in the project area to provide further
opportunities for public involvement and input during the scoping
process.
In addition to comments on the Draft Scope of Study, interested
parties are also encouraged to comment on potential routes for the
proposed project. TRRC's application included an approximately 80-mile
alignment similar to the one permitted in 1986 in Tongue River I. TRRC
has made what it calls ``minor curve adjustments'' to this alignment,
which include moving the rail centerline slightly further from the
Miles City Fish Hatchery and straightening the rail line in the Otter
Creek area.\7\ OEA is interested in scoping comments on potential
alternatives to TRRC's proposed alignment, including, at a minimum,
those analyzed in the EIS in Tongue River I. Those alternatives
included:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ TRRC Application at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tongue River Road Alternative--This route would depart
Miles City along the 1986 proposed route, and continue along that route
to a point just north of Pumpkin Creek. There it crosses the Tongue
River, turns south and continues along the east side of the river to
join the proposed route about 10 miles north of Ashland.
Moon Creek Alternative--This route would leave Miles City,
following the old Milwaukee Road alignment to the west, crossing the
Yellowstone River and following the north bank for about 8 miles. Here,
the route would again cross the Yellowstone and follow the east side of
Moon Creek to the divide separating the Tongue and Yellowstone River
drainages. From there, the route would descend to the Tongue River
Valley floor and join the proposed route about 14 miles south of Miles
City. This route would cross the western edge of the Fort Keogh United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agriculture Research Service
(ARS) rangeland beef cattle research facility.
Colstrip Alternative--This route would leave the existing
Cow Creek branch of BNSF at Colstrip, crossing 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 descends into
the Tongue River valley and joins the proposed route at the Tongue
River crossing north of Ashland.
At the conclusion of the scoping and comment period, OEA will issue
a Final Scope of Study for the EIS.
After issuing the Final Scope of Study, OEA will prepare a Draft
EIS for the project. The Draft EIS will address the environmental
issues and concerns identified during the scoping process and assess
and compare potential alternatives. It will also contain OEA's
preliminary recommendations for environmental mitigation measures. The
Draft EIS will be made available upon its completion for review and
comment by the public, government agencies, and other interested
parties. OEA will prepare a Final EIS that considers comments on the
Draft EIS. In reaching its decision in this case, the Board will take
into account the Draft EIS, the Final EIS, and all environmental
comments that are received.
OEA has invited several agencies to participate in this EIS process
as cooperating agencies on the basis of their special expertise or
jurisdiction by law. These agencies include: The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps); the Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land
Management (BLM); USDA; and the Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation (MT DNRC). OEA is also initiating government-to-
government consultation with potentially affected tribes, including the
Northern Cheyenne, the Crow, and several bands of the Great Sioux
Nation.
Filing Environmental Comments: Scoping comments submitted by mail
should be addressed to: Ken Blodgett, Surface Transportation Board, 395
E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, Attention: Environmental
filing, Docket No. FD 30186.
Scoping comments may also be filed electronically on the Board's
Web site, https://www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on the ``E-FILING'' link.
Please refer to Docket No. FD 30186 in all correspondence,
including e-filings, addressed to the Board.
Scoping Comments are due by December 06, 2012.
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. The Web
site for the Board is www.stb.dot.gov. Project specific information on
the Board's Web site may be found by placing your cursor on the
``Environmental Matters'' button, then clicking on the ``Key Cases''
button in the drop down menu. For further information about the Board's
environmental review process and this EIS, you may also visit a Board-
sponsored project Web site at www.tonguerivereis.com.
Draft Scope of Study for the EIS
Purpose and Need
As described in TRRC's application, the principal purpose of the
construction and operation of TRRC's proposed rail line is to transport
low sulfur, sub-bituminous coal from the proposed mine sites in Rosebud
and Powder River Counties, Montana, including the proposed mines in the
Otter Creek area.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed transaction involves an application by TRRC for a
license or approval from the Board. The proposed transaction 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. 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.''
Proposed Action and Alternatives
The proposed rail line would extend from Miles City, Montana, to
Ashland/Otter Creek, Montana. It would consist of a single track
constructed of continuous-welded rail. Other major elements of the
proposed project would include a 200-foot-wide right-of-way; crossings
of local roads, streams, trails, and utility corridors; two passing
sidings one near Milepost 27 and the other near Milepost 46; and
ancillary facilities, including six set-out racks between 500 and 4000
feet in length to provide for temporary storage of cars requiring
repair and for storage of maintenance equipment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anticipated train traffic between Miles City and Ashland on the
proposed rail line would consist of 26 round trips per week, or 3.7
loaded unit coal trains daily on average, with 7.4 trains per day total
(empty and loaded).\10\ The EIS will analyze and compare the potential
impacts of (1) construction and
[[Page 64594]]
operation of the proposed rail line, (2) all reasonable and feasible
alternative routes, and (3) the no-action alternative (denial of the
application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. Exhibit D at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Impact Analysis
Proposed New Construction and Operation
Analysis in the EIS will address the proposed activities associated
with the construction and operation of new rail facilities and their
potential environmental impacts, as appropriate.
Impact Categories
The EIS will analyze potential direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts \11\ for TRRC's proposed construction and operation and each
reasonable and feasible alternative on the human and natural
environment, or in the case of the no-action alternative, the lack of
these activities. Impact areas addressed will include the categories of
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 as they relate to physical changes in the
environment, cultural and historic resources, aesthetics and
environmental justice. Other categories of impacts may also be included
as a result of comments received during the scoping process or on the
Draft EIS. The EIS will include a discussion of each of these
categories as they currently exist in the project area and will address
the potential direct, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts of
TRRC's proposed route and each reasonable and feasible alternative on
each category as described below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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 proposed
route and each alternative on the existing transportation network in
the project area.
b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to transportation systems, as appropriate.
2. Safety
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing 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 existing rail operations and analyze the potential for
increased probability of train accidents, as appropriate.
c. Evaluate the potential for disruption and delays to the movement
of emergency vehicles.
d. Propose mitigative 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 proposed route and each
alternative on existing land use patterns within the project area and
identify those land uses that would be potentially impacted by the
proposed new rail line construction.
b. Analyze the potential impacts associated with each alternative
to land uses identified within the project area. Such potential impacts
may include incompatibility with existing land use and conversion of
land to railroad use.
c. Propose mitigative 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 TRRC's
proposed route and each alternative, and their operation, on
recreational trails, and other recreational opportunities provided in
the project area.
b. Propose mitigative 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, and analyze the
potential impacts to these resources resulting from each alternative.
b. Describe any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, national or state
parks, forests, or grasslands, and evaluate the potential impacts to
these resources resulting from TRRC's proposed route and each
alternative.
c. Propose mitigative 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 TRRC's proposed route and each alternative.
b. Describe the permitting requirements for the various
alternatives with regard to wetlands, stream and river crossings, water
quality, floodplains, and erosion control.
c. Propose mitigative 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
proposed route and each alternative.
b. Describe the permitting requirements for the various
alternatives with regard to navigation.
c. Propose mitigative 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 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 TRRC's proposed route and
each alternative.
b. Evaluate potential measures employed to avoid or construct
through unique or problematic geologic formations or soils.
c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to geology and soils, as appropriate.
9. Air Quality
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the air emissions from the potential operation of
trains on the TRRC rail line, including potential greenhouse gas
emissions and coal dust, as appropriate.
b. Evaluate the potential air quality impacts resulting from new
rail line construction activities.
c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to air quality, as appropriate.
10. Noise and Vibration
The EIS will:
a. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts during new
rail line
[[Page 64595]]
construction resulting from TRRC's proposed route and each alternative.
b. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts of new rail
line operation resulting from each alternative.
c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to sensitive noise receptors, as appropriate.
11. Energy Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe and evaluate the potential impact of the proposed new
rail line on the distribution of energy resources in the project area
resulting from TRRC's proposed route and each alternative, including
petroleum and gas pipelines and overhead electric transmission lines.
b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to energy resources, as appropriate.
12. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
a. Analyze the effects of a potential influx of construction
workers to the project area and the potential increase in demand for
local services interrelated with natural or physical environmental
effects.
b. Propose mitigative 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 building, structures, sites, objects or
districts, eligible for listing on or listed on the National Register
of Historic Places within the area of potential effects for TRRC's
proposed route and each alternative (built-environment historic
properties) and analyze potential project impacts to them.
b. Identify properties of traditional religious and cultural
importance to Indian Tribes (TCPs) and prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites evaluated as potentially eligible, eligible, or
listed on the National Register of Historic Places (archaeological
historic properties) within the area of potential effects for TRRC's
proposed route and each alternative, and analyze potential project
impacts to them.
c. Propose measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potentially
adverse project impacts to TCPs and built-environment, archaeological
historic properties, and cultural and historic resources, as
appropriate.
14. Aesthetics
The EIS will:
a. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line
construction on any areas identified or determined to be of high visual
quality.
b. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line
construction on any waterways considered for or designated as wild and
scenic.
c. Propose mitigative 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 TRRC's proposed
route and each alternative on local and regional minority and low-
income populations.
b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on environmental justice populations, as appropriate.
Decided: October 17, 2012.
By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Director, Office of Environmental
Analysis.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2012-25944 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P