APPLICATION HAS STILL NOT BEEN FILED sae Vicki Rutson to: Coburn, David 10/15/2012 04:16 PM Bce: Evelyn Kitay, Kenneth Blodgett David, my apologies for contacting you while you're enjoying the Nile, but we still haven't received TRRC's: application. | spoke briefly with Cynthia Taub after we received no phone call when the application did not arrive last week. Cynthia Said that the owners’ have the application and that there is no way that Steptoe can tell when itwill be filed. Meanwhile, we are very busy preparing documents and organizing scoping meetings. Much ofthis substantial work seems to be now moot. ''m wondering ifthe owners realize that because the application was not filed last week, we must now push back issuance of the Notice of Intent, the dates of the scoping meetings, and the close of the Comment period on the scope. Our timeline is tight given thatthe holidays are almost upon us. | simply «will not cut short the publics notice of the scoping meetings and I will not schedule meetings directly before or after Thanksgiving and Christmas. AAs Im sure you know that's not fair to the public. So... we either get the application by cob Thursday, October 26th or I can't see any other alternative than to push scoping meetings into January. Again, sorry to send this to you during your well-earned vacation, but the whole framework for scoping depends the filing of the application. ~ Vicki Victoria Rutson Director, Office of Environmental Analysis Surface Transportation Board (202) 2455 (phone) (202) 245) (fax)Re: Response to Your 6/13/2014 Email “) Catherine Nadals ‘0: Mike Scott (0707/2014 02:52 PM HE Mike, Sure, no problem. And thanks for the questions! -cathy Catherine Nadals Environmental Protection Specialist Office of Environmental Analysis Surface Transportation Board Washington, DC 20423 (202) 245 “Hike Scott [NNN ésierraclub.org> wrots To: Catherine.Nadals@stb.dot.gov From: Mike Scott [UMNNNEEE—EN sierraclub.org> Date: 07/07/2014 11:43AM Subject: Re: Response to Your 6/13/2014 Hmail No worries, I through a lot of questions at you. I look forward to going through this, thanks again. Mike om Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:33 AM, weote: > Hi Mike, > I have provided responses to the questions you asked in your 6/13/2014 > enail. For clarity, I have inserted answers directly into the text you > provided, as shown below > Sorry for taking so long to provide you with @ full response > Please contact me if you have any questions via email or phone > (202-2455 . > -cathy > > Howdy all- Your Question: I don't think I ever got added to the liet on the LO6 process. I've been keeping up with everything with forwarded emails, but could you make sure to add me? I'd appreciate it. OFA Answer: We have added you to our ListYour Question: Also, I understand there was a memo that was circulated earlier regarding the justification for why a programmatic agreement was necessary. Could someone forward that to me as well? OBA Answer: Sent to you on 6/16/2014. Your Question: I wanted to bring a few things related to a couple of my comments on the last call. I asked if landowners had been interviewed prior to any of the survey and site identification work. In reviewing what mects the "reasonable and good faith" identification standard in section 106, the regulations (36 CFR 800.4) state that agencies do the following: Seek information from others who may have knowledge of historic properties in the same area. In 36 CRF 800.4(b) (1) the regulations indicate that a reasonable and good faith effort may consist of or include " background research, consultation, oral history interviews....." I bring this up because as you are well aware, many of the landowners along this route can date their connection to the area back to the lat 19th century. It seems to me that this would have been a vital step to do prior to attempting to identifying sites in this difficult country with little existing historical documentation. Could you guys indicate to me why this was not done and whether or not there are plans for it to be done in the future, prior to permitting, site reports, or to NEPA draft documents? OFA Answer: As you know, the ACHP regulations allow agencies to use a phased approach to satisfy their responsibilities under Section 106 [36 CFR § 800.4(b) (2)]. This alternative method for complying with Section 106 allows an agency to execute a programmatic agreement (PA) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b} (1) (ii) that will govern its Section 106 compliance. The Board is using a phased approach for the Tongue River Railroad Construction project and is in the process of drafting a PA that, when executed, will govern the future measures that would be implemented in the event the Board licenses an alternative. when identifying historic properties, an agency may use one or more of the several tools and methods listed in 36 CFR 800.4 (b) (1), which, “4#8230;may include background research, consultation and oral history interviews, sample field investigations, and field surveya#8230;6#8221; We have already done extensive field work and background research to assist us in the selection of an alternative and may complete additional identification efforts, which could include oral interviews, for any build alternative licensed by the Board, as part of the Boarda#8217;s compliance with Section 106, and as discussed in the PA, Your Question: I'd also like to note that the Sierra Club is very concerned about the lack of work on access roads that will be utilized in the construction of this project. In reviewing the 106 process on other projects, its become clear that sometimes there can be more access roads than anything else. The construction of a 40 mile railroad in broken, rough country can potentially result in the need for more road than rail. Could you clarify for me why access roads are not being considered at this point? When it was mentioned on a previous call, I got the impression from TRR's attorney that they just didn't have the money to figure this aspect of it out. It seems to me that if this project were crossing federal land, there would be no question as to the inclusion of access roads in the 106 and NEPA analysis. In any case, I'd deeply appreciate some attention to this question. OBA Answer: Our understanding was that the access roads would likely all> be within the ROW, but we are checking with the RR. > Thanks for your work and responsiveness. I understand it may take a few > days to answer some of these issues. > > Take care and enjoy the weekend. I've included a few other parties to the > process who I think share some of these concerns on this email. > > Mike > Environmental Protection Specialist Office of Environmental Analysis Surface Transportation Board Washington, DC 20423 (202) 245-0 5 > > > catherine Nadals > Mike Scott Senior Organizing Representative 2401 Montana Ave, Suite 4 Billings MT 59101 GR ec sactue.crsPage | of 1 <>, Today's Call &_) Cobum, Davia “9 to: "Vicki Rutson (RutsonV @stb.dot gov), catherine nadals@stb.dot.gov, Starzak, Richard @icfi.com), Summerville, Alan 05/08/2013 11:33 AM Ce: "Runyan, Joshua" Hide Details From: "Coburn, David" To: "Vicki Rutson (RutsonV @stb.dot.gov)" , “catherine nadals@sth dot.gov" , "Starzak, Richard (@icfi.com)" @icfi.com>, "Summerville, Alan” @icfi.com> Ce: "Runyan, Joshua" 1 Attachment a) ‘Working Group Mods! Work Plan doc This will confirm that you should have received a calendar invite to a call at 2 pm Eastern today to discuss the attached tribal work plan used in another project. The call-in number is 888 439-7610 and the access code is 2024298063#. David David H. Coburn Partner DCobum@steptoe.com Steptoe +1202 429 8083 direct Steptoe & Johnson LLP. +1 202 262 7306 mobile 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NV +1 202 261 0565 fax Washington, DC 20036 wanv.steptoe, com ‘This message and any attached documents contain information trom the law frm Stoptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential andlor privilnged Ifyou are not he intended recipient, please do not read, copy, cistroute, or use tis information If you have received this, transmission in err, please noly the sender immediately by eply e-mail and then delete ths message file:///C:/Users/rutsonv/A ppData/Local/Temp//notes09E971/~web3323 htm. 1/15/2015Cultural Working Group for Work Plan / Scope for Additional Cultural Survey Compiled by in collaboration with and the following tribes:1.0 Introduction ‘The Project consists of the construction of approximately [ada project déseziption /location)) |A Working Group was assembled to discuss how the cultural and religious sites survey associated with the Project might best be completed. ‘The purpose of the Working Group is specifically to implement the terms of the draft programmatic agreement (Pa). This Working Group, consisting of representatives from the consulting tribes identified in the PA, Applicant, and Consultant, met to discuss conducting the additional survey work contemplated by the draft PA circulated by the Agency. ‘This document presents the agreement reached by the Working Group as to how to move forward with conducting and completing the cultural survey under the terms of that draft PA. ‘This document has been developed by the Consultant and comments from all attendees of the Working Group ‘meeting have been incorporated. Following draft review by all Working Group participants, this document will be provided to the responsible agencies per the applicable PA stipulations. 2.0 Goals The goals of the Working Group are key to effective collaboration for the tasks ahead. ‘These shared goals include: Establish a forum for open and honest discussion Acknowledge frustrations and challenges of the past, but focus on a positive and meaningful path forward * Reach working solutions regarding survey methodology, reportn + Explore logistical issues involved in the upcoming survey .d avoidance planning 3.0 Background The area of potential effects (APE) for properties of religious and cultural significance for Indian tribes was determined to be the [add description of APE}, ‘A survey for properties of religious or cultural significance to Indian tribes was previously completed for properties of religious and cultural significance, Additional areas of the APE remain to be surveyed under the terms of the PA. An archaeological survey was conducted by ‘The report documents the existence of potential ‘cultural sites that will be surveyed dusing the pending cultural survey. ‘The following table summarizes how the pipeline corridor breaks down into four categories relevant 10 the ccultural survey. [insert calenidae] 4.0 Schedule for Work Plan Development ‘The following schedule will be implemented for development, review, and final submittal of this work plan and scope of work.(inert Galendae] 5.0 Working Group Participants and Responsibilities 5.1 Working Group Participants ‘The Working Group is made up of representatives from the Applicant, Consultant, and the following tribes: © lise tribes) 5.2 Working Group Participant Responsibilities All participants in the Work Group share responsibilty for working collaboratively in order to make this effort a success. ‘The goals of the Working Group, and of the survey at issue, will not be realized unless the parties involved work together to carry out the responsibilities described below. Tri 5. Working Group Representatives - Attendees of the Working Group meeting will seeve as tribal working group representatives (reps). The Working Group reps have three primary areas of responsibility = Work Plan '* Review and comment on this work plan according to the schedule above ‘© Identify field representative(s) from respective tribe © Survey '* Notify Consultant of the number of Field Representatives by __, 2013 ‘© Provide Consultant names of individual Field Representatives by —_ 2013 Direct respective field representatives regarding your tribe’s needs in field Work with Consultant to address any logistical challenges that may pertain to your representative(s) # Review dai * Reporting * Collaborate on avoidance discussions as appropriate © Review documents produced by Working Group ly status logs and respond to Consultant if any questions or Tribal Field Representatives - The tribes listed above have indicated an interest in participating in the survey. Each tribe may send one representative. Exceptions can be made to allow for a second representative to accommodate some tribe's specifie THPO policies. Tribal Ficld Representative responsibilities include: Meet at designated times and places Identify potential cultural sites Direet Consultant field representative in GIS recording of potential cultural sites Conduct additional field documentation per each respective THPO’s instructions Notify Consultant field representative of any absences from defined schedule5.2.3 Consultant - The Consultant, on behalf of Applicant, will provide two to three representatives to facilitate and make all necessary arrangements for the Following: "Transportation © Lodging "Health & Safety "Access & landowner boundaries "Navigation * GIS data collection and processing, "Reporting 5.24 Applicant - Applicant will manage the work of the Consultant and will facilitate the following: = Landowner access permissions = Agreements berween tribal field reps and Applicant related to compensation, terms & conditions, ete. (details to follow) = Compensation = Avoidance measures 5.3 PA Participant Responsibilities 5.3.1 Applicant Legal Counsel - Communicate Working Group activities to PA signatories SHPO - Provide direction regarding state site form documentation and confidentiality concerns of Working Group and other items as specified in PA 5.3.3. Agency - As specified in PA 534 ACHP - As specified in PA bal Council and Elders Revisiting Sites - Tribal Council members and Elders will have an opportunity to revisit the survey area during the latter part of the field study. Applicant & Consultant will coordinate these revisits in order to minimize disruption to the survey and to address safety concerns regarding access and landowner permissions: * Consultant will coordinate access and navigation with Applicant: sultant will provide transportation between the tribes’ hotel and field ‘© Consultant will provide 5-days notice for the window of opportunity to revisit the survey area ‘* Consultane will identify the corridor boundaries and site locations sibes agree not to trespass beyond the corridor boundaries The Consultant representative who transports Tribal Council representatives and/or Eldess to site(s) will show appropriate respect and remain apact from tribal conversations and activites, unless specifically invited to participate o answer ‘questions. 6.0 Cultural Survey Methods and Logistics‘This section discusses specifics related directly to the survey work. See below for discussion on revisiting the previously surveyed unbroken grasslands, 6.1 Survey Goals ‘The following goals will inform all survey activities: G11 Provide GIS data to Applicant that identifies cultural sites within the 300-ft corridor so that Applicant can make every effort to avoid all cultural sites, 6.1.2. Provide the opportunity for consulting Indian tribes to document the cultural sites within the 300-ft corridor per each THPO’s own procedures and methods of documentation. 6.1.3 Complete the survey within the schedule outlined in this document. 6.14 Provide an opportunity for tribal government representatives and/or elders to visit key sites, if requested, 64.5 Collaborate with SHPO to facilitate future protection of sites in the corridor while keeping dels regarding these sites confidential. 6.2 Survey Area ‘The cultural survey will take place in the unbroken grasslands not previously the four previously identified sites outside of the unbroken grasslands. -yed and will also include 6.3 Pre: Id Meeting The purpose of the pre-field meeting is to orient all survey participants to the background of the project. It is anticipated that the meeting will be held from 7-9 AM on ‘The location is to be determined, Topies for discussion include: 1. Introduetions 4. Health and Safety 2, Project Background 5. Confidentiality 3. Expectations 6. Land Access / Trespassing 6A Navigating the Cortidor 64.1 ‘The Consultant will produce and provide field maps for use in navigating the 300 ft corridor. 64.2 One Consultant cepresentative will stake out the survey area limits ahead of field exews based ‘on the GPS data provided by Applicant (i.e. edges of the 300 ft corridor and unbroken grassland parcels) 6.4.3. When survey is finished within each parcel the boundary stakes will be removed. te Delineation65.1 Tribes will identify sites within the 300-f¢ corridor and place pin flags around boundaries of sites within the corridor. 65.2 Boundary delineation should not include buffer zones. Avoidance buffers will be addressed through the PA process. 653 A106 representative will enter site data into GPS units as directed by tribes through pin flag boundaries and discussion. 6.34 Only the portion of the site within the 300-ft corridor will be recorded. A note will be made in the GPS data if the site extends outside of the 300-f¢ corridor. 65.3 Tribes can record elements of the site outside of the corridor boundaries that may be visible from within the corridor. However, there can be no trespassing outside of the survey boundary. 6.6 Field Data Collection 646.1 Data points will be collected by GPS for avoidance analysis. These data include: © GIS category (point linear, polygon) © Who collected the data (typically a Consultant rep) © Tribe/s that identified the feature © Date © Comments (eg., note if site extends outside corridor) 6.6.2 Additional documentation can be done by tsibal representat instructions. 's pet tribal policies and. 6.63 Daily Status Report — A Consultant representative will il out a daly report at the end of cach day and email the repost to the Working Group. 6.7 Confidentiality “The Working Group understands the sensitivity of the information that may be collected as a result of the additional survey work. For this reason, and to addgess tribal concerns regarding the sensitivity of the information, a confidentiality statement will be prepared for Working Group participants which will be intended to safeguard the information in accordance with the terms ofa final PA. ‘The confidentiality statement will be available for the Working Group to review prior to field survey. All participants in the survey will be expected to sign the confidentiality agreement. 6.8 Transportation Field staff are responsible to make their own arrangements to get to the project hotel. Vans will be provided and driven by Consultant representatives between the field and hotel each day 6.9 LodgingArrangements will be made for one room per survey participant. ‘The hotel will be located in Deuals will follow shorty. 6.10 Health & Safety 6.11 Access & Landowner Permissions The Consultant will coordinate with Applicant regarding landowner permission and access issues. All survey participants will follow the Consultant representatives’ direction related to all aspects of access and landowner permission. .\ project Health & Safety Plan will follow shortly with further details. 7.0 Revisiting Previously Surveyed Areas Applicant, theough the Consultant, agrees to facilitate a 2-day walkover by THPOs and/or tribal government representatives and/or elders of the portions of the corridor previously surveyed. 7.1 Goal TThe goal is to observe the sites and conduct religious observances. 7.2 Participants ‘The following tribes have expressed an interest in visiting (or revisiting) the arcas previously surveyed: (ist tribes] 7.3 Logistics ‘The Consultant will coordinate field logistics as stated above. 8.0 Field Schedule ‘The field schedule is subject to change based on field conditions and is based on the following goals and assumptions: ©The first session will be up to [insert] days long, There will be a finsert]-day break after the frst session. Ifthe survey work is not complete after the first session, work will recommence on [insert] * Flexibility wil be needed to accommodate delays due to extreme weather conditions. ‘The Consultant will prepare a Health & Safety Plan to address extreme weather conditions. © Work days begin at finsert] AM meeting in the hotel lobbyAll fieldwork must be concluded by the end of fiase#i] to accommodate the broader project scheduling needs and PA stipulations. ‘A field close-out meeting is proposed to summarize the survey, adclress any final issues, and address avoidance needs, as appropriate. The date will be determined at the conclusion of the first session. 9.0 Tribal Compensation Each tribe will be allowed maximum of [iawésl] representatives to participate in the survey work addressed in this Work Plan/Scope of Work. The tribal representatives are entitled to the compensation described below for the following activities: Survey associated with unsurveyed areas + Survey associated with four previously surveyed cultural sites Compensation includes: Field Representative (© Sfinsert]/day — for each field day which assumes 9-10 hour days and no overtime © Sfinsert)/day per diem — for each field and travel day © S[insest]/mile — for mileage between home and the hotel for up to two field sessions © Travel days - tribal representatives will receive cash to cover per diem and mileage expenses and lodging will be provided the night of the travel day to the field. ‘Tribal Council, Elders, and other participants (© Tribes will make their own lodging arrangements (© Any expenses incurred are the responsibilty of the tribe 10.0 Avoidance Measures 10.1 Draft PA ‘The draft PA identifies the following avoidance measures: [St HICASareS] 10.2 Process ‘The following process will be implemented 0 facilitate Applicant’s avoidance responsibilities: 10.2.1 Dataflow Known project data are gathered from Applicant and packaged for field use. * The GPS data will include access permission, location of previously identified sites, boundaries of the survey corridor, and location of the proposed pipeline within the corsidor. * During field work, the GPS units will collect the locations of any identified cultural sites. * Each evening, the GPS data of any identified cultural sites will be transferred via a secure FIP site,‘+ Each morning the GPS data will be processed and converted to GIS data. ‘The data will be verified against the daily field status report to ensure all sites have been appropriately collected. * Processed GIS data will be forwarded to Applicant to begin addressing avoidance options. ‘+ Applicant will convey to Consultant if there is a desire to revisit or discuss specific sites based upon Applicant’ review of the GIS data 10.2.2 Working Group Review * Depending how the survey progeesses and the avoidance measures developed, a 2. Group meeting may be scheduled 1-2 weeks following conclusion of fieldwork 11.0 Reporting 11.1 Overview There has been discussion among the Working Group and SHPO about appropriate data to include on the state site forms, the issue of confidentiality for files that have public access at the SHPO offices, and the level of detail needed for the survey report. ‘The Working Group acknowledged that SHPO is a central location. for researchers who seek background information on sites prior to development, ‘Therefore, itis in the THPOs’ interests that sufficient information is recorded to provide a ‘lag’ that a site exists but confidentiality about the specific details on each site is critical. 11.2'The Report The need for confidentially combined with the desire to identify the existence of cultural sites has informed the following outline of the cultueal site’s report content: * Executive Summary * Introduction © Methods # Results Summary © Present GIS data in table form © Summary of the number of cultural sites found within the project area © Sources for additional sites details (THPOs) ‘One map will be included that shows the project location. For reasons of confidentiality the report will not include maps showing the specific locations of sites. Information will be summarized. 11.3 SHPO Forms In order to enter the sites identified in this survey into the SHPO database, sites will need to be documented using the SHPO site form. This form may be filled out in order to limit the amount of information made available on these sacred sites. ‘The Consultant will generate a SHPO form for each site identified by the tribes. Detaled information on cach site will be maintained at each THPO office but not at the SHPO. ‘The SHPO accepts thatthe first pageof each site form will only identify each cultural site by the fields to be determined. Specific site type will not be detailed in the form or report put on file at the SHPO. SHPO will store site forms associated with this project with other confidential files. Access to these forms will be restricted to SHPO. 11.4 Responsibilities ‘The Consultant will deaft the report and ite Forms For review by the Working Group prior to submittal to PA signatories. 11.5 Reporting Schedule [insert calendar)RE: Tongue River RR Coburn, David to: Vicki,Rutson@stb.dot.gov 7121/2014 05:40 PM ‘This message has been replied to. That's fine Charlene and Najah seemed to be on board with the idea that National Register assessments don't need to be done at this stage relative to what was found on the surveys of the alternatives. Instead, such assessments can be reserved for any chesen route, as the PA would no doubt contemplate the Native Americans want to offer their views on the sites that were located, we think that is fine, but Charlene was clear that OBA can provide a time frame for them to do so that comports with OBA's and the Applicant's needs and plans. Obviously, we cannot agree to open ended situation in which there is no fixed time frame for them to offer the information that they have relative to the sites seen on the surveys that were completed last year or this year. Cost and timing concerns also are legitimate to take into account in that regard. ks to the PA, I was surprised by Najah's reference to a "Process PA" -- something we have never heard of. Of course the Section 106 rules provide for the process. Obviously, there was a failure of communication on that point, but Charlene I am confident understands the type of PA chat OEA and other agencies use in matters of this sort and hopefully she will be at your meeting tomorrow. I would like a chance to discuss this further with you. Jordan Tannenbaum can hopefully join us on the call tomorrow. Please let me know what times work best. Thanks, Vicki. David Original Message- Vicki .Rutson@stb.dot gov [mailto:Vicki.Rutson@stb.dot . gov] : Monday, July 21, 2014 5:27 PM : Coburn, David Subject: RE: Tongue River RR I'11 be meeting with ACHP at 10:30 tomorrow. How about if I call you in the afternoon tomorrow? Victoria Rutson Director, Office of Environmental Analysis Surface Transportation Board (202) 2454 (phone) (202) 245+ (fax) "Coburn, David" "Vicki. Rutsonestb.dot.gov" 07/21/2014 05:24 PM Subject RE: Tongue River RR OK -- I wanted to report to you about our meeting with ACHP. Would tomorow am work? I'm available except between 10 and 11. David original message- Vicki.Rutson@stb.dot gov [mailto:Vicki-Rutson@stb.dot.gov] Monday, July 21, 2014 5:21 PMTo: Coburn, David Subject: Re: Tongue River RR David, I'm sorry. I just saw your email. I'm available tomorrow at 5. Would’ that work?’ r've got to leave here sharpish this evening. Victoria Rutsen Director, Office of Environmental Analysis Surface Transportation Board (202) 2454 (phone) (202) 248+ (fax) From: "Coburn, David" To: "Vicki Rutson (RutsonVestb.dot gov)" Date: 07/21/2014 04:40 PM Subject Tongue River RR Vicki - Are you available to speak in about 30 minutes or later? David pavid #, coburn Partner DCoburn@steptoe.com Steptoe 41 202 429 4063 Steptoe & Johnson LLP direct 1330 Connecticut Avenue, Wit +1 202 262 7306 Washington, DC 20036 mobile www. steptoe. com 41 202 261 0565 fax ‘This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.Tongue River Surveys ‘9, Starzak, Richard [NUNN @icf.com), Coburn, David to “Sut ville, Alan’ 06/10/2013 10:57 AM (Co “eaterine.nadals@stb dot gov" Taub, Cyt” 1 attachment >) 3) winmall dat Richard, Alan = I can't be on the call today (my colleague Cynthia Taub will be), but T understand from Cathy that several surveys are planned that will involve Native American participation. Can you please advise what payments faze proposed to be made to the Native American participants? 1 think it is appropriate that my client be advised of this and approve it before any offers of payment are made. Thanks. David David H. Coburn Partner Dcoburn@steptoe.com Steptoe 41 202 429 8063 direct 41 202 262 7306 mobile +1 202 261 0865 fax Steptoe 4 Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 ui. steptoe com This message and any attached documents contain information fron the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use © information, If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.Page | of 5 RE: Tongue River Section 106 Monthly Conference Call: Monday, March 11th Starzak, Richard _ tent hudak@bnsf.com, jennifer.sheetz@bnsf.com, 03/08/2013 11:21 AM Ce: “rutsonv@stb.dot.gov", "Gosselind@stb.dot. gov", "blodgettk@stb.dot.gov", “huntt@stb.dot gov", "Summerville, Alan", "Mulligan, Sarah’, "Reynolds, Alisa", "Davis, Colleen", "Robinson, Mark", "Catherine Nadals@stb.dot gov" Hide Details From: "Starzak, Richard” "David _Coburn@stb.dot.gov" , "Matthew. Jones@BNSF.com” , *Scott.castleberry@bnsf.com" , "Barbara. Ranf@bnsf.com” file:///C:/Users/nadalse/AnnDatalT acal/Tomn/1 fnntacEAR AO! wah 720 be, "mission@imt.net” , (W:1/C/Usersinadalsc/AnpData/T ocal/Temn/t /natachIFNF AO) 1iahS720 brnPage 3 of 5 "trent.hudak@bnsf.com” , , " Ce: "rutsonv@stb.dot.gov" , "Gosselind@stb.dot. gov" , "blodgettk @stb.dot. gov" , “huntw@stb.dot.gov" , "Summerville, Alan” @icfi.com>, "Mulligan, Sarah" @icfi com>, "Reynolds, Al @icfi.com>, "Davis, Colleen @icfi.com>, "Robinson, Marl @iefi.com>, "Catherine Nadals@stb.dot.gov" «Catherine Nadals@stb.dot.gov> History: This message has been replied to, 3 Attachments ‘Seeton_106 Prcliinary Drafl Methodology 3-6-2013.doex Auachment A Bibliography 3-6-2013 docx Attachment_B_Property_Types_3-6-2013 docx. Hi everyone, One of the action items from the February 11 call was to prepare a preliminary draft methodology for identifying and evaluating historic properties. Please see the attached work-in-progress draft files and they will also be added to the Outlook calendar invite for Monday's call at 1PM Eastern. We look forward to your comments, questions, and information on Monday and going forward as we step through the Section 106 process. Have a great weekend Rick RICHARD STARZAK | Senior Architectural Historien/Technical Director |i direct | 0 | ificom ICF INTERNATIONAL | 601 West 5" Street, Suite 900, Los Angoles, CA 90071 | lll mobile Note new address and direct line. ‘Connect with us on social media. From: Catherine Nadals@stb.dot.gov [mailt:Catherine Nadals@stb.dot.gov] ‘Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:57 AM re fille///C:/Users/nadalse/ApnData/T acal/Temin’ I /natecsQROF AO/wohS72@ he senatePage 4 of S j, David_Coburn@stb.dot.gov; Matthew.Jones@BNSF.com; ry @bnsf,com; Barbara,Ranf@bnsf.com; mission im. net lilly lilly lll thudak@bnsf.com; Jennifer sheetz@bnsf.com; rutsonv@stb.dot.gov; Gosselind@stb.dot.gov; blodgettk@stb.dot.gov; huntt@stb.dot. gov; Starzak, Richard; ‘Summerville, Alan Subject: Tongue River Section 106 Monthly Conference Call: Monday, March 11th 3 g e 2 Dear Consulting Party, ‘We will be holding our next Seetion 106 monthly conference call for the Tongue River Railroad Construction Project Monday, March 11, at | PM EST. We will shoot for a one-hour call, but I will Stay on the line beyond 2 PM if needed (other STB staff may drop off the eall at 2 PM), This is to censure that participants do not feel rushed and have time to fully address specific issues of concern. ‘Our proposed agenda for the call is shown below. Please let me know if there are any other topics that you believe should be included. Proposed Agenda: 1. Hello and Introductions 2. Project Updates since last eall 3. Progress on Action Items since last call a, Draft Preliminary Methodology bb, Records Search Results ¢. River and Stream crossings files///C-/L[sersinadalse/AnmPatall qcal/Parin!1 inatnnPNE AA) hems 1 conesd. Project Web Site Section 106 page 5, First Section 106 Consulting Party Meeting (April 16-18, Lame Deer) 6. Summarize Action Items Please use the following call-in number and password for the call: ‘Toll-free number: 1-877-423-6338, Participant Passcode: 364456 Best regards, cathy Catherine Nadals Environmental Protection Specialist Office of Environmental Analysis Surface Transportation Board Washington, DC 20423 (202) 245) JL neal’ Tarn! nntosiiBNE AOS, wiahS 70 bra Page $ of SInternal Review Version March 5, 2013 Surface Transportation Board Office of Environmental Analysis Draft Preliminary Methodology for the Identification of Historic Properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Tongue River Railroad Company’s Proposed Rail Construction and Operation Custer, Powder River, Rosebud, and Big Horn Counties, Montana Docket No. FD 30186 Page 1Internal Review Version March 5, 2013, Introduction ‘The following preliminary draft methodology for identifying historic properties is organized according to the steps and requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), described at 36 CFR Part 800 -= Protection of Historie Properties. All identification work shall be conducted by archaeologists, historians, and architectural historians who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61). Tribal elders and cultural resources experts would be involved in the identification effort when a Tribe attaches religious and cultural significance to cultural features and places that may be affected by the undertaking. The Surface Transportation Board (Board) received a revised application from the Tongue River Railroad Company (TRRC) on October 16, 2012 for the construction and operation of an approximately 80-mile rail line from Miles City, Montana, to two ending points, one near the site of the previously planned Montco mine near Ashland, Montana, and the other at the proposed Otter Creek mine east of Ashland, Montana, On December 17, 2012, TRRC modified the scope of the proposed project in a supplementary application, which supersedes the October 16, 2012 revised application, As discussed in the supplemental application, TRRC’s preferred routing for the proposed line would be the Colstrip Altemative between Colstrip, Montana, and Ashland/Otter Creek, Montana, the southern portion of which was previously approved by the Boards predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) on March 27, 1986. 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 Step 1: Initiate Section 106 process (§ 800.3) ‘Time frame: November 2012 - February 2013 §800.3(a) Establish undertaking. the agency official shall determine whether the proposed Federal action is an undertaking as defined in § 800, 16(y) and, if so, whether it is a type of activity that has s on historic properties. potenti ‘The Board is the Federal agency responsible for granting authority for the construction and operation of the proposed rail line by TRC, and the Board’s potential licensing is a Section 106 undertaking. Construction of a rail line has the potential to directly affect historic properties and ‘operation of a rail line has the potential to indirectly affect historic properties. One of the potential alternative routes for the rail line is close to the Northem Cheyenne Indian Reservation, but would not enter the reservation. Poge 2Internal Review Version March 5, 2013 § 800.3(b) Coordinate with other reviews. The ageney official should coordinate the steps of the section 106 process, as appropriate, ith the overall planning schedule for the undertaking and with any reviews required under other authorities such as [National Environmental Poliey Act (NEPA), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulation] ‘The Board’s Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) is coordinating the Section 106 process with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that OEA is preparing under NEPA, and other laws and authorities. OEA sent letters initiating Section 106 during the scoping process for the EIS to the Montana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, twenty other federally recognized tribes with ancestral ties to the Tongue River Valley, and nine other potential consulting parties including Federal and state agencies, TRC, and historic preservation organizations. | | § 800.3(c) Identify the appropriate SHPO and/or THPO. As part of its initial planning, the agency official shall determi propriate SHPO or SHPOs to be involved in the section 106 process, The agency official shall also determine whether the undertaking may occur on or affect historie properties on any tribal lands and, if so, whether a THPO has assumed the duties of the SHPO. The agency official shall then initiaie consultation with the appropriate officer|s} ‘The undertaking is located entirely within the State of Montana, therefore the Montana SHPO is the only SHPO involved in the Section 106 process. OFA sent a letter to SHPO initiating Section 106 consultation on October 22. 2012. ‘The undertaking is not located on any tribal lands; therefore, no Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) has assumed the duties of the SHPO. $800.3(c) Plan to involve the public. In consultation with the SHPO"T in seekin 800.2 ‘0, the agency official shall plan for involving the public ection 106 process. The agency official shall identify the appropriate points for public input and for notifying the public of proposed actions, consistent with § OEA’s EIS process includes an extensive public outreach effort. Thus far it has included a series of scoping meetings held in multiple locations in the project vieinity from November 12-16, 2012. ‘These EIS scoping meetings allowed for public comments on many environmental topics, including cultural resources and historic properties. The project website, available to the general public at www.tonguerivereis.com, is updated regularly, and a page devoted entirely 0 Section Page 3Internal Review Version March 5, 2013 106 is being added to the project website. Other opportu ill occur as to involve the publi a result of the research and ficld investigations planned to identify historic properties, $ 800.3(f) Identify other consulting parties, in consultation with the [SHPO]. the ageney official shall identif n vite them to participate as such in the Section 1106 process. The yy other parties entitled to agency official may invite others to participate as consulting parties as the Section 106 process moves forward, [Including:} local governments applicants Indian Tribes, Consider all written requests [See also the list of consulting party ies in §800.2¢c)] In December 2012 and January 2013, OFA sent leiters regarding the Section 106 process for this, undertaking to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, twenty other federally recognized tribes with ancestral ties to the Tongue River Valley. and nine other potential consulting parties. OEA’s third party consultant, ICF International, made follow-up calls to make sure the letters were received. Each letter contained a simple post card that could be retumed by the recipient to OBA. This postcard provided room for comments and allowed the recipient to indicate the method by which their agency, tribe, or group chose to consult. These options were presented as follows: We have no interests associated with TRRC’s proposed rail line and further consultation with our organization is not required. _____ We want to continue to receive project information by mail and participate in the public involvement process. ____. We have an interest in TRRC’s proposed rail line and want to participate as a “Consulting Party” in the Section 106 of the NHPA process. EA is continuing to compile responses from the invited consulting parties, and will remain open to consider other parties who have a demonstrated interest in or concern about historic properties that may be affected by the proposed undertaking as the Section 106 process moves forward, OEA has scheduled monthly Section 106 calls, occurring the 2" Monday of each month, beginning on February 11, 2013. Page 4Internal Review Version March 5, 2013 list of consulting parties and points of contact invited to participate in the Section 106 include the following: 800.2(a) Other Federal Agencies Douglas Melton, Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management Shannon L. Johnson, Billings Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Erica Jones, Realty Specialist, Agricultural Research Service, U.S, Department of Agriculture Christine Whitacre, Program Manager, Heritage Partnerships Program, National Park Service 800.2(c)(1) Montana SHPO Mark Baumler, Ph.D., SHPO Stan Wilmoth, Ph.D., State Archaeologist 800.2(C)2) Indian Tribes Conrad Fisher, THPO, Northern Cheyenne Tribe Burton Pretty On Top, THPO, Director, Cultural Department, The Crow Tribe of Indians Clair S. Green, Cultural Resource Manager, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Wilmer Mesteth, THPO, Oglala Sioux Tribe Waste’Win Young, THPO, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Steve Vance, THPO, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Lana M. Gravatt, THPO, Yankton Sioux Tribe Dianne Desrosiers, THPO, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate James B, “JB” Weston, THPO, Flandreau Santee Sioux Russell Eagle Bear, THPO, Rosebud Sioux Tribe of Indians Rick Thomas, THPO, Santee Sioux Nation (Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska) Lynette Gray, THPO, Planning & Development, Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes Darlene Conrad, THPO, Norther Arapaho Tribe Wanda Wells, THPO, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Leonard Wabasha, Cultural Committee, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux. Curley (Darrell) Youpee, Ft. Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes Elgin Crows Breast, THPO, Three Affiliated Tribes: Mandan, Hidatsa &Arikara Nation Anthony Morse, THPO, Lower Sioux Indian Community Marlow LaBatte, THPO, Upper Sioux Community John Murray, THO, The Blackfeet Nation Wilfred Ferris, THPO, Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation 800.2(c)(3) Representatives of local governments Lisa Axline, Right-of-Way Specialist, Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation Connie Muggli, Historie Preservation Officer, Miles City Historic Preservation Office {800.2(¢(4) Applicants for Federal assistance, permits, licenses and other approvals David Coburn, Steptoe & Johnson, representing TRRC Barbara Ranf, Director, Government A\Tairs, BNSF Railway 800.2(c)(S) Additional consulting parties National Trust for Historic Preservation PagesInternal Review Version March 5, 2013 Betsy Merritt, Deputy General Counsel, Amy Cole, Regional Attorney/Sr. Program Officer ‘The Montana Preservation Alliance was added as a consulting party as a result of the first monthly. Section 106 call. The contacts are Chere Jiusto and Jim Jenks. Step 2: Identification of Historic Properties (§800.4) Time Frame: November 2012 — November 2013 Publication of draft EIS § 800.4(a) Determine scope of identification efforts. In consultation with the [SHPO], the agency official shall (1) Determine and document the area of potential effects, as defined in § 800.16(d): The Area of Potential Effects (APE) will be based on the most current engineering available and will be documented on maps using GIS. The study area for the records search will extend one mile out from both sides of the centerline of each route alternative. The APE will include alternatives that the EIS will consider as part of the final scope. ‘The SHPO will be consulted on the APE, and the following initial assumptions could change afier consultation with the SHPO, The APE should be based on sensitivity levels for three types of potential historic properties: 1. For archaeological sites and objects that may be directly affected by railroad construction, the direct APE is assumed to be limited to 300 feet on both sides of the center line of the proposed alignment, for a total width of 600 feet. 2. For historic buildings, structures and objects that may be directly affected by railroad construction and indirectly affected by railroad operations, the indirect APE will be limited to the railroad right-of-way (ROW) with a 1,500-foot buffer on both sides of the center line of the proposed alignment, as well as temporary construetion easements, plus any properties near the ROW that may be sensitive to the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements resulting from railroad operations. 3. For traditional cultural properties (TCPs), historic districts, and rural historic landscapes whose significant characteristics could be adversely affected by the introduction of a railroad into their setting, the APE could extend much further than 1,500 feet to include the entire historic property. After the Final Scope of Study is issued, OEA will determine whether Wolf Mountain Battlefield National Historic Landmark (NHL) or Rosebud Battlefield NHL are in the APE and whether specific consultation procedures and requirements are necessary under Section 110 of the NHPA. Page 6Internal Review Version March 5, 2013 § 800.4(a) Determine scope of identification effort (continued). In consultation with the [SHPO], the ageney official shall: (2) Review existing information on historic properties within the area of potential effects, ineludin ag possible historic properties not yet ic any data cone Existing information on historic properties within the study area within one-mile of each alternative will be reviewed, including: ‘+ Inventories of National Register properties maintained by the National Park Service * Previous OEA Tongue River Railroad surveys for proposed actions ‘+ Records and inventories currently on file at the Montana SHPO ‘* GIS data on historic properties maintained by the BLM © Historic contexts prepared by or on behalf of BLM + Historie contexts prepared by or on behalf of United States Forest Service ‘+ Studies being prepared by the USDA Agricultural Research Station * Historic contexts and data maintained by the Montana Preservation Alliance + Records of the Miles City Historie Preservation Office ‘* Historie maps showing historic battlefields, trails, ranches, and homesteads References included in the Bibliography in Attachment A § 800.4(a) Determine scope of idemification efforts (continued). In consultation with the [SHPO}, the ageney official shall: (3) Seek information, as appropriate, from consulting parties, and other individu organizations likely to have knowled Is and ze of, or concerns with, historic properties in the area, lating to the undertaking’s potential effects on historic pro and identify issues re OEA will seek information from local property owners, local historians, amateur archaeologists, museums, historical societies, ind preservation organizations on resources that may be historic properties. Consulting patties will be asked for recommendations of groups and individuals who may have such information. OEA will host monthly conference calls to provide the consulting parties with project updates, solicit comments and information, and join in a discussion about Section 106 activities. ‘© The monthly meetings will be held on the 2" Monday of each month. © The first meeting was held on February 11, 2013 Page 7Internal Review Version March 5, 2013 800.4(a) Determine scope of identification efforts (continued). 4) Gather information from any identifying properties, including those located off tribal lands, which may be of religious and cultural significance to them and may be eligible for the National Re an Indian tribe...may be reluctant to divulge specitic in ndian tribe...dentified pursuant to § 800.3(1) to assist in zing that ormation r he location, ure, and activities associated with such sites. The agency o! should address concerns bout confidentiality pursuant to § 800.11(c). OEA will hold in-person meetings with tribes to discuss information about TCPs, archaeological sites, and other issues. * On November 16, 2012, a meeting was held with the Northern Cheyenne THPO, where OEA and consulting staff reviewed maps and had preliminary discussions about historic properties. ‘+ The first in-person meeting that will involve multiple Tribes is tentatively scheduled within the period of April 15-19, 2013 OEA has invited the tribes to participate in the monthly conference calls. * The monthly meetings will be held on the 2"! Monday of each month. + The first meeting was held on February 11,2013. OEA will contact the tribes to obtain information on archaeological sites, objects and TCPs, and to learn if any tribes have developed a model to predict the areas of sensitivity for encountering sites, artifacts, and TCPs. THPOs, tribal cultural resources experts, and elders, as appropriate, will be invited to join in field work where property access is granted and where TCPs or important archaeological sites may be located. Sensitive information shalll be held in the strictest confidence, shared only with the SHPO and relevant landowners and shall not be made available to other non-tribal parties or the publi 800.4(b) Identify historic properties. Based on the information gathered under paragraph (a) of this, \with the [SHPO] and any Indian tribe...that might attach reli properties within the area of pote necessary to identify historic properties within the area of potential effects. (1) Level of effort. The ag i out appropriate identification efforts, which may include back setion, and in consultation jous and cultural significance to effects, the ag ney official shall take the steps ney of ill make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry ground research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and field survey Initial letters to property owners to obtain access for field surveys by archaeologists, historians, architectural historians, and tribal representatives were sent out on February 8, 2013. The field survey methodology is dependent on the extent of property access granted. For example, if very Page 8Internal Review Version March 5, 2013 little access is granted, the field survey effort should include pedestrian transect surveys by archaeologists for the entire direct APE on accessible property. Ifa large number of property owners grant access, however, it would be prudent to develop a predictive model that focuses the survey effort on those areas most likely to contain significant archaeological sites. In consultation with the SHPO and Tribes, a work plan and scope will be developed for cultural resources surveys and TCP surveys. If SHPO approves development of a model for the undertaking, it will supplement work already begun by the SHPO and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Such a model could identify areas of high or moderate sensitivity for the presence of significant archaeological sites and artifacts. OEA proposes that in areas where there is property access, these high and moderate sensitivity areas be surveyed in their entirety for archaeological resources. Depending on consultation with the SHPO and the Tribes, it is proposed that a 10 percent sample of areas predicted to be low sensitivity be surveyed to field check the model Such a model could also be used to compare alternatives for their potential effect on historic properties at an equivalent level of detail, even if some altematives have much less accessi property than others. Attachment B includes some background context about the property types that may be present in the APE, and a summary table that estimates which property type would be affected by each alternative. Archaeological surveys: OEA proposes to conduct field surveys sometime between May and August 2013 on accessible property in the direct APE for all alternatives out to 300 feet on both sides of the centerline. Field teams for surveys will consist of qualified professional archaeologists and tribal archaeologists. Historic/architectural surveys: As a result of the November 2012 consultation with the SHPO, BLM, United States Forest Service and the USDA, OEA learned that the Agricultural Research Station, numerous historic homesteads, and historic ranches along the Tongue River, are being considered under historic contexts that others are developing. OEA will need to evaluate those types of properties for National Register eligibility. Qualified architectural histo historians will conduet field visit ns or on accessible property of the indirect APE (approximately 1,500 feet from both sides of the centerline). These will be done independently of the archaeological surveys, but in the same time-frame, sometime between May and August 2013. TCP surveys: In the same time frame, May - August 2013, but independent from the archaeological surveys, OEA and ICF Tribal consultation expert and/or an ethnographer, will work with the Northern Cheyenne and other tribes to identify TCPs. The approach to identifying TCPs will be suggested by the tribes, and it is expected to be more direct site-specific than the systematic alternative alignment surveys described above. Page 9Internal Review Version March 5, 2013 800.4(b)(2) Phased identification and evaluation Where alternatives under consideration consist of corridors or ased process to conduct access to properties is restricted, the agency official may use a p identification and evaluation efforts. Where access on properties is restricted, or where archaeological sites require more extensive testing, the identification and evaluation efforts may not be completed during the EIS process. If the Tongue River Railroad project is licensed, the identification and evaluation efforts may be completed when property access becomes granted for the selected alternative. A Section 106 Programmatic Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement would be developed among the SHPO, tribe(s) and appropriate consulting parties, which would stipulate the efforts needed to complete the identification and evaluation effort for the selected alternative, and to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects on those historie properties identified. 800.4(c) Evaluate historic significance. (1) Apply National Register criteria. In consultation with the SHPO. ..and any Indian tribe...that attaches religious and cultural significance to identified properties and guided by the Secretary's Standards and Guidelines for Evaluation, the age shall apply the National Register criteria (36 CFR part 63) to properties identifi effects that have not been previously evaluated for National Register eligibility od within the area of potential ‘The properties identified in the field will be recorded on State of Montana cultural resources formation system forms and historic property site forms by archaeologists, architectural historians, and historians who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61). ‘The National Register criteria for eligibility will be applied, and EA will make determinations of eligibility. A Cultural Resource Inventory Report prepared according to SHPO guidelines at http://mhs.mt.gov/shpo/archaeology/consultingwith.asp will be submitted to the SHPO for review and concurrence and to other appropriate consulting parties for review and comment. OEA will take all comments into consideration. Page 10Internal Review Version March 5, 2013 Step 3: Assessment of adverse effects (§ 800.5) § 800.5 Assessment of adverse effects. (2) Apply criteria of adverse effect. In consultation with the SHPO. ..and any Indian tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to identified historic properties, the ageney official shall apply the criteria of adverse eff potential effets, The agency official shall consider any views concerning such effects which have been provided by consulting parties and the public. within the area of to historic properties For properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register, the Section 106 Criteria for Adverse Effect will be applied and submitted to SHPO for review and concurrence and to other appropriate consulting parties for review and comment. Step 4: Resolution of adverse effects (§ 800.6) If adverse effects on identified historic properties would occur by construction and operation of the selected alternative, they will be avoided, minimized or mitigated in the EIS through continuing consultation, notification of the ACHP and through a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement. Page 11Attachment A: Tongue River Research Resources I. PRELIMINARY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bureau of Land Management Miles City Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Class | Overview of Paleontological & Cultural Resources in Eastern Montana, Volume |. Prepared by Aaberg Cultural Resource Consulting Service. March 2006. The subject lands for this survey include all lands (federal, state, private, Native American) within the Miles City Field Office planning unit, and cultural and paleontological resources were investigated. It includes a general chronology and thematic trends for historic sites, as well as general statistical review. Over 7,000 cultural/paleontological resource management reports ‘were found listed in the state database, and the literature research carried out during the project focused on post-1988 material with an emphasis on reports associated with BLM sponsored projects or projects that encompassed BLM lands. This multivolume work summarizes and synthesizes these numerous documents. North Powder River Basin, Southeast Montana Cultural Landscaple-Scale Overview of the High Potential Coal Bed Natural Gas Development Area. Renewable Technologies, Incorporated. Date: unknown, This document presents the findings of a cultural landscape-scale overview for a portion of the Powder River Basin which is slated for intensive coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development. It includes a Class | inventory and a cultural landscape inventory. Miles City Miles City, Montana Walking Tour. Originated by Miles City Arts, Culture & Historic Preservation Commission and printed with the help of a grant from Montana Historic preservation Office. http://mhs.mt.gov/shpo/community/miles%20city/MilesCity.htm This pamphlet contains a short history of Miles City and detailed descriptions of historic. buildings in the downtown area MDOT Montana Department of Transportation. Tongue River Road Corridor Planning Study Report: http://www. mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/tongueriver/ This links to the report and Appendices A-C. $-332 is classified as a rural major collector on the Secondary Highway System. It serves as a north-south corridor between Miles City and Ashland that roughly parallels the Tongue River. The purpose of the study was to determine financially feasible improvement options to address safety and geometrical concerns with the transportation corridor. Draft-March 5, 2013 Attachment A: Page 1Montana Preservation Alliance and Montana Historical Society Juisto, Chere and Christine W. Brown. Hand Raised: The Barns of Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Historical Society Press. 2011. Montana Preservation Alliance. Cultural Landscape of the Upper Tongue River Valley in Rosebud County, ‘Montana. July 2007 This report is an overview and site assessment of the cultural landscape of the Tongue River Valley, its historic themes and cultural resource site types. The goal of the project is to demonstrate the national, state and local significance of the layers of prehistory and history located in the Tongue River Valley. Montana State Library & Archives ‘Montana Memory Project. Montana's Digital Library and Archives. Montana State Library. ‘The Montana Memory Project provides access to digital collections and items relating to Montana's cultural heritage and government. Many of these items are digitized copies of historic material and some are contemporary. Gaw, William 8., Civil Engineer and County Surveyor of Custer County. Mop of Southeastern Montana. 1884. ‘The map plots the location of ranches in southeastern Montana United States Army. Map of Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. 1859-60, rev. 1876. ‘The map plots troop movements and battlesites along the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. A new edition was published in 1876. National Park Service ‘National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. U.S. Department of the interior, National Park Service. 1999. This bulletin offers guidance to Federal agencies, SHPOs, CLGs, preservation professionals, and others interested in the successful preparation of nominations to the NRHP and requests for determinations of eligibility for rural historic landscapes. The bulletin responds to the many questions that have risen out of efforts to apply the NR criteria to rural properties possessing significant land areas. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. USS. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1998. This bulletin is intended to be an aid in determining whether properties thought or alleged to have traditional cultural significance are eligible for inclusion in the NR. It is meant to assist Draft-March 5, 2013 Attachment A: Page 2Federal agencies, SHPOs, CLGs, preservation professionals, and others interested in the successful preparation of nominations to the NRHP and requests for determinations of eligibility for traditional cultural properties. itis responsive to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), which requires the NPS to evaluate its policies and procedures with the aim of protecting the religious freedoms of Native Americans. The bulletin gives special attention to properties of traditional cultural significance to Native American groups, and to discussing the place of religion in the attribution of such significance. Northern Cheyenne We, the Northern Cheyenne People: Our Land, Our History, Our Culture. Chief Dull Knife College, Lame Deer, Montana, 2008. This book was produced by Chief Dull Knife College was written to strengthen the subject areas presented in Tom Weist’s A History of the Cheyenne People, including women, spirituality, energy issues, educational issues, and veterans of the armed forces. Northern Cheyenne writers are researchers contributed to the book. The book strives for realism “so as not to perpetuate the romanticized notion of Northern Cheyenne people.” US Forest Service Historic Context: Homesteads in Tongue River Valley (need to obtain). Draft-March 5, 2013 Attachment A: Page 3Il. RECORD SEARCH REQUEST The following documents have been requested from the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as of February 20, 2013, Additional documents may be requested as appropriate. 1 10. 11 2. The Impact of Coal Development on the Cultural Resources in Southeastern Montana (1977) a, CRABS Doc No. Rb 6 9300 Tongue River Railroad Co. Geotechnical Investigations ~ Backhoe Test a, CRABS Doc No. CR 2.21087 b. Agency Doc No, MT~027- 98-39 Class ill Cultural Resource Inventory of the Pumpkin Creek Land Exchange Tract CF-6, Custer ‘County, Montana (2006) a. CRABS Doc No. 22 2.28906 b. Agency Doc No. MT-020-06-529 Pumpkin Creek Land Exchange Class Ill Cultural Resource Inventory for the Conservation Fund in, Custer County, Montana. 4 Vols. (2006) ‘a, CRABS Doc No. CR 2.289905 b. Agency Doc No, MT-020-05-373A Tongue River North Road Project No. 244 a. CRABS Doc No. RB 3.9267 Results of a Cultural Resource Inventory for Improvements to the Range Telephone Cooperative’s Ashland, Birney, and Hysham Exchanges in Rosebud County Montana a. CRABS Doc No. RB 6 23958 b. Agency Doc No. BLM MT-020-01-275, ‘An Archaeological Survey for a proposed road realignment project north of Ashland (Archaeological report no, A850502) a. CRABS Doc No. RB 3.9268 Cultural Resource Inventory Colstrip ~ Ashland j69 KV Transmission Line ‘a. CRABS Doc No. RB 6 9333 Results of a Class Ill Cultural Resource Inventory of Bureau of Land management Administered Lands Within Montana: Miles City District, Schedule C (2000) a. CRABS Doc No. CR 2 32962 b. Agency Doc No. MT-020-98-55 ‘Ashland ~ East Class Il Cultural Resource Survey results in Rosebud and Powder River Counties, Montana: Volume I: Management Report and Volume Il: Resource Descriptions (2005) ‘a. CRABS Doc No. PR 4 27949 b. Agency Doc No. NH 37-3 (24) 63 Control #4338 Otter Creek Coal Monitor Wells: A Class Il Cultural Resource Inventory of 40 Well Locations in Powder River County, Montana (2011) a. CRABS Doc No. PR 6 32955 Results of a Class Ill Cultural Resource Inventory of BLM-Administered lands within Montana Miles City District, Schedule C (2000) Draft-March 5, 2013 Attachment A: Page 413. 14, 15, 16. 17. 18, 19. 20. ‘a, CRABS Doc No. CR 2 32962 b. Agency Doc No. MT-020-98-55 Tobin and Fort Howes Complex Fire Restoration Cultural Resource Inventory, Ashland District, Montana (2001) @. CRABS Doc No. 22 1 25839 Cultural Inventory of the Civilian Conservation Corps Constructed Roads on the Ashland District of the Custer National Forest , Powder River County and Rosebud County, Montana (200) a. CRABS Doc No. RB 6 9310 Class il Cultural Resource Inventory Otter and Hanging Woman Creeks, Southeastern Montana (Vol |, and i) (1880) ‘a. CRABS Doc No. PR 2.8162 Phase | and Il Investigations, Inventory and Historic Preservation Plan at the Fort Keogh Range and Livestock Research Station, Miles City, Montana. (1992) a, CRABS Doc No. CR 6 15164 ‘A Cultural Resource Survey of a proposed fish ladder at T &Y diversion dam in Custer County, Montana (2003) a. CRABS Doc No. CR 6 25404 Tongue River Basin Project Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Program, Tongue and Yellowstone Diversion Dam and Headworks: A cultural resource inventory and evaluation (1998) ‘a. CRABS Doc No. CR 6 22000 Miles City Veterans Affairs Medical Center Cultural Resource Inventory, Miles City Montana (2002) a. CRABS Doc No. CR 6 24459 Cultural Resources Survey, Montana Dept. of Highways Project M 8004(1), Miles City (1980) a. CRABS Doc No. CR 4 2299 Draft-March 5, 2013 Attachment A: Page 5Attachment B: Background History & Property Types I. BRIEF SUMMARY OF TRIBAL AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY From a historic, archeological, and tribal perspective, the Tongue River Valley is a complex area. Ancestral Ties Human habitation in the Tongue River Valley dates back as far as 10,500 years. The people of the Bighorn-Powder River Basin region, which includes the Tongue River Valley, conducted a semi-nomadic life, moving seasonally by following the buffalo. Generally speaking, they lived in small family groups, banding together with others to hunt buffalo, which was a labor intensive activity. After 1500, feeling the pressure of European exploration and settlement in Canada, on the East Coast, and expanding into the Midwest, indigenous peoples native to those regions began to move south and west. Thus only the Northern Cheyenne and the Crow have reservations in the Tongue River Valley, although many other tribes have ties to valley. The Northern Cheyenne (Tsitsistas) are among those groups who moved into the Tongue River Valley area in recent history. tis believed that, prior to European contact, they were settled in the Minnesota area. The Cheyenne appear to have reached the Black Hills (in southwestern South Dakota) by the 1780s and continued to move west. By the early 1800s, the Northern Cheyenne had split into two groups, with one remaining in Eastern Montana.’ Prior to the westward move from the Great Lakes region, the Cheyenne had been primarily agrarian, but once settied in the West they adopted lifeways centered on buffalo hunting, After the defeat of the Indians in the Great Sioux Wars, the Northern Cheyenne were relegated to Indian Territory in Oklahoma, (See below for more detail on the Great Sioux Wars.) Unsuited to life in Indian Territory, a band of Northern Cheyenne escaped from the reservation and made their way back north, (See below for more detail on the Northern Cheyenne Exodus.) Eventually, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation was established in the Tongue River Valley The Crow (Apsaalooke) separated from the Hidatsa in North Dakota by the 1600s and moved west, up the Yellowstone River Valley. (Some scholars date this split and the beginnings of the Crow’s western movement to the 1400s.) Thus, their tenure in the region pre-dates that of the Northern Cheyenne. Like the Cheyenne, the Crow were originally an agricultural people, adapting to buffalo hunting after migration. The Crow Reservation is directly adjacent and due west of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Although Sioux reservations are chiefly found in South Dakota, the Great Sioux Nation is a large and diverse group that includes Lakota and Dakota speaking people. Many Sioux were settled in the * The other group travelled south, settling in Oklahoma. Draft-March 6, 2013 Attachment B: Page 1‘Wisconsin and Minnesota areas at the time of contact with Euro-American people. A series of conflicts with the Euro-American settlers in that region pushed them west, into North and South Dakota. Although largely based in the Dakotas after being driven west, their seasonal range extended from the Missouri River on the east to the Big Horn Mountains on the west. As such, they have ties to the ‘Tongue River Valley linked to their regular/seasonal movement through the area, Many other tribes have ties to the Tongue River Valley area. The Three Affiliated Tribes, the Hidatsa (Gros Ventre), Mandan, and Arikara, are indigenous to Montana and have ancestral connections to the Tongue River Valley as being withi their seasonal migration territory, The Assiniboine are 3 Sioux people thought to have been originally based in Saskatchewan. They have strong social ties to the Affiliated Tribes, and likely ranged through the Tongue River Valley. The Eastern Shoshone are indigenous to Montana, Wyoming, and Northern Colorado, After 1750, due to intra-tribal conflict with tribes moving into the area, the Shoshone moved south and west. Like the Cheyenne, the Arapaho are believed to have moved west from the Minnesota/North Dakota area after contact, Although primarily based in the Colorado, as a hunting people they ranged through southern Montana The proximity of these tribes created complex social relations. Cooperative relations based on trade were sometimes contemporaneous with combative competition over territory and resources. The area, therefore, contains sites associated with intra-tribal contfli creat Sioux War The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty among the United States and Lakota (Sioux) and Cheyenne leaders established a portion of Lakota territory, including the Black Hills, as the Great Sioux Reservation.* By the early 1870s, pressure from settlers was so intense that the U.S. government was unable to keep them out of the Sioux reservation. By 1874, news of the discovery of gold in the Black Hills led to an influx of prospectors, in direct violation of the Laramie Treaty which the United States Army was unable to rebuff. Diplomatic efforts were unsuccessful in persuading the U.S. government to honor its commitments under the Laramie treaty or in persuading the Indians to renegotiate terms. By fall of 1875, the United States had decided a military solution was necessary. In March 1876, armed hostilities commenced with the Battle of Powder River. Many of the tribes represented at the June 2011 and January 2012 consultation meetings with STB were involved in the Great Sioux War. As such, they have deep interest in the battle sites. There are many sites in the area associated with the Great Sioux War, including Fort Keogh (near Mies City), the Battle of the Rosebud, Battle of Wolf Mountain, and lesser battles at Clear Creek, Spring Creek, and Ash Creek. These sites, however, are unlikely to be located within the Section 106 APE for direct/indirect effects Records searches and surveys will reveal whether other Great Sioux War sites may be within the current APE. * The Big Horn Mountains are located in northern Wyoming and southern Montana. As a range, they trend northwest/southeast from the Rocky Mountains. The headwaters of the Tongue River (along with the Powder and Little Bighorn Rivers) are found in the Big Horn Mountains ‘The earlier 1851 Laramie treaty established traditional territorial claims among the tribes and guaranteed safe passage along the Oregon Trail for settlers in exchange for a financial consideration Draft-March 6, 2013 Attachment 8: Page 2Northern Cheyenne Exodus The Northern Cheyenne view the Tongue River Valley not only as an ancestral homeland, but a place of refuge. The conclusion of the Great Sioux War effectively relegated Indians to various reservations throughout the west. The Northern Cheyenne were dispatched to Indian Territory in western Okishoma.* This proved disastrous for the Northern Cheyenne. Not only did many perish on the journey south, the surviving Northern Cheyenne, after many generations on the northern plains, were unsuited to life in Oklahoma, Unaccustomed to the hot climate, unable to effectively hunt and stricken by disease, a group of approximately 300 Northern Cheyenne escaped Indian Territory in September of 1878, bound for their homeland in the north. Led by Chiefs Little Wolf and Morning Star (Dull Knife), the Cheyenne were pursued by thousands of the U.S. Army troops. Although they evaded capture for months, many died or were killed in the escape attempt. Northern Cheyenne Reservation Captured Cheyenne were held at Forts Robinson and Keogh for a time. Others were tried for killings that occurred in Kansas during the escape. After their release, Northern Cheyenne settled throughout the Tongue River Valley, claiming homesteads on both sides of the river. In 1884, the United States, established the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation and moved the Northern Cheyenne onto the reservation. In 1900, land transferred from the adjacent Crow Reservation expanded the Northern Cheyenne Reservation to its current size. Early Euro-American Settlement During the decades following the Great Sioux War, a period of Euro-American settlement began. The Tongue River Valley was the location of claims under a variety of land settlement acts including the 1862 Homestead Act. Starting in the 1880s, ranches were established in the Tongue River Valley. Ranching activities included cattle grazing and serving as a resting place for cattle being moved from points west to railheads south and, ultimately, markets east. Over the next 40+ years, cattle ranching dominated the economy. After the passage of the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909, farmers attempted to settle homesteads in the Tongue River Valley but largely failed due to the small size of the parcels and harsh conditions that proved inhospitable to farming. Thus, the Tongue River Valley is the site of rural historic landscapes, ranches, and homesteads. Horse Raising and Dude Ranching During the teens, the demand for horses to support World War | created a strong market for horse- raising. (The Northern Cheyenne also raised horses.) After that demand fell off and a devastating drought in 1920 killed large numbers of cattle, economic hard times gripped the Tongue River Valley. ‘The 1920s and 1930s saw the rise of dude ranching as form of economic development. Thus, some ranches have buildings constructed to support that use, e.g. bunkhouses and tent cabins. “The Southern Cheyenne reservation, which is shared with the Arapaho, i til located in “indian Territory" in western Oklahoma, Draft-March 6, 2013 Attachment B: Page 3Il. Preliminary Historic Property Types A property type is a grouping of properties defined by common physical and associative attributes and tie historic context to specific historic properties so that National Register eligibility can be assessed. The property types and properties listed below are preliminary, and others may be identified: * Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) including sacred plants, sacred water sources, vision quest sites, ceremonial sites * Petroglyphs and pictographs (rock art) * Archeological artifacts from pre- story: sites in the area can include (not necessarily within the APE): cave shelters, buffalo kills and traps, tipi ring clusters, large ceremonial rings, fasting sites, tool making stations ‘+ Archeological artifacts from proto-history, ie. Euro-American trade goods ‘Sites associated with early Euro-American exploration (e.g. Sir St. George Gore) ‘Sites associated with the fur trade ‘Sites associated with railroad surveys (e.g. 1873 survey accompanied by Stanley and Custer) ‘+ Sites associated with tribal villages (e.g. 1876 Gibbon located a large Sioux village on the TR) ‘+ Aboriginal trails + Battlefields and Cavalry forts and outposts, including sites of both intra-tribal and Euro- American conflict; Fort Keogh ‘+ Wolf Mountains Battlefield National Historic Landmark (may be outside APE) ‘+ Rural landscapes (including fences, ditches, and other ways the land was shaped by humans) ‘Agricultural Research Station—National Register eligible © Historic ranches ‘+ Historic homesteads + Bones Brothers Ranch-National Register listed (may be outside APE) * Historie Schools * Transportation corridor (culverts, roads, bridges) * Sites and/or grading associated with the North/South Railroad, e.g. grading occurred from Ashland to Birney in 1923-4 but no tracks ever laid (may be outside APE) Draft-March 6, 2013 Attachment B: Page 4