[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11980-11992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5930]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33407]
Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation; Construction
Into the Powder River Basin 1
AGENCIES:
Lead: Surface Transportation Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This case was formerly entitled Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern
Railroad Corporation--Construction and Operation--in Campbell,
Converse, Niobrara, and Weston Counties, WY, Custer, Fall River,
Jackson, and Pennington Counties, SD, and Blue Earth, Nicollet, and
Steele Counties, MN. By decision served May 7, 1998, the Surface
Transportation Board shortened the title for the sake of simplicity.
As discussed below, the environmental review of this project will
also include the section of the line DM&E proposes to rebuild as
part of this project. Environmental review of the rebuild portion of
the line would include the counties of Winona, Olmsted, Dodge,
Steele, Waseca, Blue Earth, Brown, Redwood, Lincoln, and Lyon in
Minnesota; Brookings, Kingsbury, Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes,
Stanley, Haakon, Jackson, Pennington, and Fall River in South
Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperating:
U.S.D.A. Forest Service.
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final scope of study for the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); Request for
[[Page 11981]]
comments on (1) the modified proposed action, referred to as
Alternative C, and (2) the City of Rochester, Minnesota's south bypass
proposal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 20, 1998, the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad
Corporation (DM&E) filed an application with the Surface Transportation
Board (Board) for authority to construct and operate new rail line
facilities in east-central Wyoming, southwest South Dakota, and south-
central Minnesota. The project involves construction of new rail line
totaling 280.9 miles. Additionally, DM&E proposes to rebuild 597.8
miles of existing rail line along its current system to standards
acceptable for operation of unit coal trains. Because the construction
and operation of this project has the potential to result in
significant environmental impact, the Board's Section of Environmental
Analysis (SEA) determined that the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate. SEA held 3 agency and 12 public
scoping workshops in 14 cities as part of the EIS scoping process, as
discussed in the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS, Request for
Comments on the Proposed EIS Scope, and Notice of Scoping Meetings
published by the Board on March 27, 1998. Because of public interest in
the project, workshops in Newcastle, Wyoming and Winona, Minnesota, not
originally scheduled, were added to provide additional opportunities
for public participation in the scoping process. Comment forms and the
draft scope of study (draft scope) were provided to workshop attendees.
On August 7, 1998, the Board published a Revised Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS, indicating that the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S.D.I.
Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would
be participating as cooperating agencies. The scoping comment period,
originally scheduled to conclude on July 10, 1998, was extended until
September 8, 1998. However, comments filed after September 8, 1998 have
been accepted and considered in this final scope of study (final scope)
of the EIS. Changes made to the draft scope are detailed in the
Response to Comments section of this notice.
In addition to issuing the final scope of the EIS, the Board and
the cooperating agencies are providing a 30 day comment period for
interested parties to submit comments on two new proposed alternatives:
(1) the Modified Proposed Action, referred to as Alternative C, and (2)
the City of Rochester, Minnesota's South Bypass Proposal. Both these
new alternatives are discussed in detail below, along with information
on how to submit written comments. This 30 day comment period is in
addition to the comment period that will be provided on all aspects of
the Draft EIS (DEIS) when that document is made available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Victoria Rutson, SEA Project Manager, Powder River Basin Expansion
Project, toll free at 1-877-404-3044.
Mr. Steve Thornhill of Burns & McDonnell, SEA's third party contractor,
at (816) 822-3851.
Ms. Wendy Schmitzer, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, (307) 358-4690.
Mr. Bill Carson, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, (307) 746-4453.
Mr. Jerry Folkers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (402) 221-4173.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The proposed action, referred to as the Powder River Basin
Expansion Project, would involve the construction and operation of
280.9 miles of new rail line and the rebuilding of 597.8 miles of
existing rail line by DM&E, as described in the February 20, 1998
application for construction and operation authority for the project
filed by DM&E and in the March 27, 1998 Notice of Intent to Prepare an
EIS published in the Federal Register by the Board.
The Powder River Basin Expansion Project, as set forth by DM&E in
its application filed with the Board, would involve the construction
and operation of new rail facilities designed to provide access for a
third rail carrier to serve the Powder River Basin's coal mines for
transport of coal eastward and increase the operational efficiency of
DM&E. New rail construction would include approximately 262.03 miles of
rail line extending off DM&E's existing system near Wasta, South
Dakota, extending generally southwesterly to Edgemont, South Dakota,
and then westerly into Wyoming to connect with existing coal mines
2 located south of Gillette, Wyoming. This portion of the
new construction would traverse portions of Custer, Fall River, and
Pennington Counties, South Dakota and Campbell, Converse, Niobrara, and
Weston Counties, Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Caballo, Belle Ayr, Caballo Rojo, Cordero, Coal Creek,
Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Rochelle, North Antelope,
Rochelle, and Antelope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New rail construction would also include an approximate 13.31 mile
line segment at Mankato, Minnesota, within Blue Earth and Nicollet
Counties. DM&E currently operates over trackage on both sides of
Mankato, accessed by trackage rights on rail line owned and operated by
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). The proposed Mankato construction
would provide DM&E direct access between its existing lines and avoid
operational conflicts with UP.
The final proposed segment of new rail construction would involve a
connection between the existing rail systems of DM&E and I&M Rail Link.
The connection would include construction and operation of
approximately 2.94 miles of new rail line near Owatonna, Steele County,
Minnesota. The connection would allow interchange of rail traffic
between the two carriers.
In order to transport coal over the existing system, DM&E proposes
to rebuild approximately 597.8 miles of rail line along its existing
system. The majority of this, approximately 584.95 miles, would be
along DM&E's mainline between Wasta, South Dakota, and Winona,
Minnesota. This rebuild would cross Winona, Olmsted, Dodge, Waseca,
Brown, Redwood, Lincoln, and Lyons Counties, as well as Steele, Blue
Earth, and Nicollet Counties in Minnesota, and Brookings, Kingsbury,
Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes, Stanley, Haakon, and Jackson Counties in
South Dakota. An additional approximate 12.85 miles of existing rail
line between Oral and Smithwick, in Fall River County, South Dakota,
would also be rebuilt. Rail line rebuilding would include rail and tie
replacement, additional sidings, signals, grade crossing improvements,
and other systems.
DM&E plans to transport coal as its principal commodity. However,
shippers desiring rail access could ship other commodities in addition
to coal over DM&E's rail line. Existing shippers along the existing
DM&E system would continue to receive rail service.
Environmental Review Process
The Board is the lead agency, pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.5(c). SEA is
responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4335, and related
environmental statutes. SEA will supervise the preparation of the EIS.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), the U.S.
Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are cooperating agencies, pursuant to 40
CFR 1501.6. If the cooperating agencies find the EIS adequate, they
will base their respective decisions on it. The EIS should include all
of the information necessary for decisions by the Board,
[[Page 11982]]
USFS, BLM, and COE (collectively, the agencies).
On December 10, 1998, the Board found that DM&E had satisfied the
transportation-related requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901. In issuing its
decision, the Board stated that it had considered only the
transportation aspects of DM&E's proposed project. Environmental
aspects would be considered after the completion of the environmental
review process. Therefore, the Board emphasized, no final decision
would be issued until all statutory requirements--both transportation
and environmental--were satisfied. Construction cannot begin until the
cooperating agencies have issued their decisions and the Board has
issued its final decision.
The NEPA environmental review process is intended to assist the
agencies and the public to identify and assess the potential
environmental consequences of a proposed action before a decision on
the proposed action is made. The agencies have developed and made
available a draft scope of the EIS and provided a period for submission
of written comments on it. At this time, the agencies are issuing this
final scope of the EIS. In addition, the agencies are requesting
comments on two new proposed alternatives: (1) the Modified Proposed
Action, referred to as Alternative C, and (2) the City of Rochester's
South Bypass Proposal. This comment period is in addition to the
comment period that will be provided on all aspects of the DEIS when
that document is made available.
Specifically, DM&E has developed a Modified Proposed Action,
referred to as Alternative C. This proposal includes an alternative
alignment in Wyoming and South Dakota for the mainline extension
developed by DM&E in response to environmental issues and concerns
raised by agencies, local landowners, and other interested parties. The
Board and the cooperating agencies are seeking views of all commenters
in order to ensure public input in the assessment of potential
environmental impacts of this alternative.
Also, the City of Rochester has submitted a South Bypass Proposal
to construct a rail line that would route rail traffic south around
that city. The Board and the cooperating agencies are seeking
additional information to assist in determining whether the bypass
proposal is a reasonable and feasible alternative designed to meet the
purpose and need of the applicant's proposed action. The Board and the
cooperating agencies will consider the comments in determining whether
Rochester's South Bypass Proposal is a reasonable and feasible
alternative and will set forth their conclusions in the DEIS.
As stated, the agencies will prepare a DEIS for the proposed
project. The DEIS will address those environmental issues and concerns
identified during the scoping process and detailed in the scope of
study. It will also contain a reasonable range of alternatives to the
proposed action and recommended environmental mitigation measures.
The DEIS will be made available upon its completion for public
review and comment. A Final EIS (FEIS) will then be prepared reflecting
the agencies' further analysis and the comments on the DEIS. In
reaching their future decisions in this case, the Board and each
cooperating agency will take into account the full environmental
record, including the DEIS, the FEIS, and all public and agency
comments received.
Consistent with its jurisdiction under the ICC Termination Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995), the Board would
normally only conduct an environmental analysis of the new construction
and the increase in operations over DM&E's existing system. However, in
this instance, the EIS analysis will also address construction related
impacts associated with the rebuilding of DM&E's existing mainline from
the point of connection with the new construction segments between
Wasta, South Dakota and Winona, Minnesota. Because the COE, which as
discussed above is a cooperating agency, requires such analysis,
construction related impacts along the rail line to be rebuilt,
including sidings and yard facilities, will be analyzed in this EIS to
the extent necessary to satisfy the COE's permitting requirements under
the Clean Water Act.
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Based on analysis conducted to date and comments received during
the scoping process, the agencies have determined that the reasonable
and feasible alternatives 3 that will be discussed in the
EIS are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under NEPA, an applicant's goals are important in defining
the range of feasible alternatives. NEPA does not require discussion
of an alternative that is not reasonably related to the purpose of
the proposal considered by the agencies. Citizens Against
Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Here, the
proposed project is intended to facilitate the delivery of coal from
the Powder River Basin of Wyoming eastward by DM&E. During scoping,
numerous comments were received suggesting that the EIS evaluate
alternative energy sources, such as nuclear, hydroelectric and wind,
as an alternative to burning of coal. These alternatives, while
offering legitimate means of generating energy, do not advance the
applicant's goals of efficiently transporting coal and upgrading its
current rail system, and therefore, will not be evaluated in the
EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. South Dakota/Wyoming New Rail Line Extension
(1) The ``No Action Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative A.
This alternative to include the no build alternative as well as the no
action on federal lands alternative.
(2) The ``Proposed Action,'' referred to as Alternative B. This
alternative includes DM&E's preferred alternative as identified in its
application to the Board, but modified in response to operational
constraints discovered near Wall, South Dakota.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DM&E noted in its application that modifications to the
existing system near Wall would likely be required as part of the
proposed project. However, no modifications were specifically
indicated at the time DM&E filed its application with the Board. As
a result of more detailed engineering, DM&E has since determined
that grade and curve considerations at this location would be
prohibitive for the operation of unit coal trains and has proposed a
modified plan to eliminate these problems. This new construction
along new rail line right-of-way would be utilized by Alternatives
B, C, or D. The new alignment would branch from DM&E's existing
system approximately 3 miles south of Wasta, just north of where the
proposed new construction would begin. It would curve eastward,
cross the Cheyenne River, turn northward to near Interstate 90. It
would generally parallel I-90, approximately 0.5 mile to the south.
Approximately 5 miles west of Wall the alignment would extend away
from I-90, then turn northeasterly, crossing I-90 approximately 1.5
miles west of Wall. After crossing I-90, the alignment would curve
to the east, joining with the existing system approximately 0.25
mile north of Wall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The ``Modified Proposed Action,'' referred to as Alternative C.
This alternative would include an alternative alignment in Wyoming and
South Dakota for the mainline extension developed by DM&E in response
to environmental issues and concerns raised by agencies, local
landowners, and other interested parties. Alternative C is designed to
minimize potential environmental impacts. This alignment was not
developed until after DM&E filed its application with the Board and
after scoping workshops had been held. Therefore, this alignment has
not yet been presented publicly on a broad scale for review and
comment.5 To facilitate public review and comment regarding
this alternative, the agencies will provide an additional 30 day
comment period. A general description of the alignment for this
alternative, together with a map, is set forth below (see ``Description
of Alternative C, the
[[Page 11983]]
Modified Proposed Action''). Copies of maps of this alignment may be
obtained through written request to the Board or by contacting the
toll-free environmental hotline at 1-877-404-3044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The applicant conducted numerous site visits and public
meetings during the development of this alternative, including
meeting with landowners potentially affected by this alignment and
Federal and state agencies to discuss adjustments and ways to
minimize impacts on environmental resources and individual
landowners. Thus, some individuals, including potentially affected
landowners, are already aware of the Alternative C alignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The ``existing transportation corridors alternative,'' referred
to as Alternative D. This alternative includes:
Utilization of the existing DM&E line westward to Rapid
City, then southward to Crawford, Nebraska, then northward parallel to
the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) line
to Donkey Creek Junction, then south to the joint BNSF/UP line (Joint
Line), following the Joint Line into the Powder River Basin and
connecting to the mines, referred to as Alternative D1. This
alternative would involve utilization and rebuilding of existing DM&E
rail line and new construction immediately adjacent to the existing
BNSF and Joint Lines.
Utilization of the existing DM&E line westward to Rapid
City, then southward to Crawford, Nebraska, construction of new line
westward to Crandall, Wyoming along a previously abandoned UP rail line
right-of-way, then northward parallel to the existing into the Powder
River Basin and accessing the mines, referred to as Alternative D2.
This alternative would involve utilization and rebuilding of existing
DM&E rail line and new construction between Crawford and Crandell and
immediately adjacent to the existing Joint Line.
Utilization of the existing DM&E line westward to Rapid
City, then southward to Crawford, Nebraska, then northward parallel to
the existing BNSF line to near Newcastle, Wyoming, turning westward to
parallel State Highway 450 to the Joint Line, then following the Joint
Line north and south to access the mines, referred to as Alternative
D3. This alternative would involve utilization and rebuilding of
existing DM&E rail line and new construction parallel to the BNSF line
northward from Crawford, new construction westward along State Highway
450, and new construction along the existing Joint Line to access the
mines.
Construction of new rail line extending from DM&E's
existing line near Wasta, South Dakota south and west to Edgemont,
South Dakota 6 and then northward parallel to the existing
BNSF line to near Newcastle, Wyoming, turning westward to parallel
State Highway 450 to the Joint Line, then following the Joint Line
north and south to access the mines, referred to as Alternative D4.
This alternative would involve new construction along new rail line
right-of-way between Wasta and Edgemont, new construction parallel to
the BNSF line northward from Edgemont, new construction westward along
State Highway 450, and new construction along the existing Joint Line
to access the mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The new construction portion of this alterative would
involve the portions of both Alternative B and C between their
points of diversion from DM&E's existing line near Wasta to where
they would begin to parallel the existing BNSF line northwest of
Edgemont.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilization of the existing DM&E line westward to Alto,
South Dakota, approximately 10 miles east of Pierre, South Dakota, then
southward to the former Milwaukee Road rail line right-of-way (now
Dakota Southern Rail owned and operated by the State of South Dakota)
near Draper, South Dakota, then westward utilizing the State-owned rail
line right-of-way and grade to the point this railbed intersects DM&E's
prosed new construction alignment approximately 2 miles south of State
Highway 44 in Pennington County, South Dakota, then following the
alignment proposed for the new construction into the Powder River
Basin, referred to as Alternative D5. This alternative would involve
approximately 40 miles of new construction, including a new rail bridge
over the Missouri River, and the rebuilding of approximately 100 miles
of former rail line on the existing State-owned right-of-way. This
alternative would eliminate the need for approximately 30 miles of new
construction south of Wasta and around Wall, South Dakota and the
rebuilding of approximately 100 miles of existing DM&E rail line
between Pierre and Wasta.
B. Rail Line Construction on New Right-of-Way Along DM&E's Existing
Rail System
UP Bypass at Mankato, Minnesota
(1) The ``No Action Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative M1.
(2) The ``Proposed Action,'' or ``Southern Alternative,'' referred
to as Alternative M2. This alternative would include the alternative
identified by DM&E as the preferred alternative in its application to
the Board and involves construction of new rail line in a loop south of
Mankato to connect DM&E trackage on the west and east sides of Mankato.
(3) The ``Existing Rail Corridor Alternative,'' or the ``Middle
Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative M3. This alternative would
include construction of a new rail line connecting the ends of DM&E's
existing system on either side of Mankato generally along and within an
existing rail corridor through Mankato. This corridor is currently only
occupied by UP and contains the UP line DM&E must currently operate
over, via trackage right, for access between its existing rail lines
east and west of Mankato.
(4) The ``Northern Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative M4.
This alternative would include an alignment connecting the two portions
of DM&E's existing system through construction of new rail line in a
loop north of Mankato and North Mankato.
C. I&M Connection at Owatonna, Minnesota
(1) The ``No Action Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative O1.
(2) The ``Proposed Action,'' referred to as Alternative O2. This
alternative would include the alternative identified by DM&E as the
preferred alternative in its application to the Board and involves
construction of a connecting rail line to allow interchange of rail
traffic between DM&E and I&M Rail Link.
(3) The alternative alignment, referred to as Alternative O3. This
alternative would include another alignment to the construction
alternative proposed by DM&E in its application to the Board. It
involves construction of a connecting rail line to allow interchange of
rail traffic between DM&E and I&M Rail link approximately one mile west
of Alternative O2.
In addition to the alternatives discussed above, the EIS will
evaluate other subsequently identified alternatives determined
reasonable and feasible in light of the purpose and need for the
proposed action. This may include the City of Rochester's South Bypass
Proposal.
Public Participation
Scoping workshops were attended by over 1,000 people. Over 600
scoping comment forms and well over 1,000 letters raising environmental
issues were received.
As part of the environmental review process to date, the agencies
have conducted broad public outreach activities to inform the public
about DM&E's proposal and to facilitate public participation. The
agencies have consulted and will continue to consult with Federal,
state, and local agencies, American Indian Tribal governments, affected
communities, landowners, and all interested parties to gather and
disseminate information about the proposal. In addition, comments
continue to be accepted on all aspects of the environmental review
process
[[Page 11984]]
and potential environmental impacts. Moreover, the agencies are
specifically requesting comments in this final scope on the Modified
Proposed Action, referred to as Alternative C, and the City of
Rochester's South Bypass Proposal.
The agencies continue to encourage extensive public participation
in the EIS process. Comments have been received and will continue to be
accepted throughout the environmental process. To further assist in
obtaining information about the environmental review process, the
agencies have provided a toll-free environmental hotline (1-877-404-
3044).
Response to Comments
The agencies reviewed and considered all comments received in their
preparation of this final scope of the EIS. The final scope reflects
changes made as a result of comments received addressing environmental
issues and concerns, as well as comments on the draft scope, previously
distributed at public scoping workshops and published in the Federal
Register. Other changes in the final scope were made for clarification
or as a result of additional analysis. Additions and modifications
reflected in the final scope include:
Analysis of construction impacts resulting from the
rebuilding of the applicant's existing system, including sidings and
yard facilities (with alternative locations). Over 70 written and
numerous oral comments requesting that this analysis be conducted were
received. The rebuilding of DM&E's existing line, and the construction
of sidings and yard facilities on DM&E's existing right-of-way, would
not normally be included in an EIS prepared by the Board. However, as
discussed above, because one of the cooperating agencies--the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE)--requires such analysis, construction related
impacts along the rail line to be rebuilt will be analyzed in this EIS
to the extent necessary to satisfy the COE's permitting requirements
under the Clean Water Act.
Sidings and yard facilities (with alternative locations)
for the new construction. The draft scope did not explicitly note that
these facilities would be addressed in the EIS. As a point of
clarification, sidings, yards, and other new rail facilities along the
new construction portion of the project will be included in the EIS
analysis.
Analysis of air quality impacts related to fugitive coal
dust. Over 350 written and numerous oral comments were received
concerning the potential impacts of fugitive coal dust as it applies to
both air quality and fire hazard. In response, the agencies have added
the analysis of these potential impacts from coal dust to the final EIS
scope.
Analysis of downline impacts. The draft scope indicated
that the EIS would address the potential environmental impacts
associated with increased levels of rail traffic above the Board's
thresholds, which would include DM&E's existing mainline between Wasta,
South Dakota, eastward to its termination at Goodview, Minnesota.
Because of the proximity of the communities of Goodview and Winona,
Minnesota, the reasonably foreseeable potential impact of the project
on them due to their location at the terminus of DM&E's system, and the
numerous requests to include them in the analysis, the EIS will be
expanded to include an appropriate analysis of those portions of the UP
and Canadian Pacific (CP) lines potentially impacted by this project
within the communities of Goodview and Winona, Minnesota.
Analysis of increases in barge traffic. In its
application, DM&E indicated a portion of the coal transported by the
proposed project could be available for delivery by barge to utilities
along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and within its identified core
market area. Subsequently, during scoping, several written and oral
comments asked that the impacts of increased barge traffic on the
Mississippi River, specifically the Upper Mississippi River National
Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), as a result of DM&E's proposal, be
addressed in the EIS.
Based on more information from the applicant concerning potential
impacts to barge traffic from DM&E's anticipated rail operations, it
appears that barge loading facilities currently available could not
accommodate unit coal trains of the type DM&E would be operating.
Additionally, DM&E has no estimates of the reasonably foreseeable
amount of coal to be transported by barge, as this would depend on
market demand from a specific segment of its identified core market.
Any projections of potential coal volumes to be transported by barge,
therefore, are speculative at this time. In addition, such projections
are dependent on the development of facilities capable of loading
barges from unit coal trains.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Should a barge facility be developed, it would likely
require an environmental review under NEPA. Such a review would
likely require evaluation of the impacts of increased barge traffic
on the river, including impacts to the Refuge, resulting from the
development and operation of such a facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there is a high level of uncertainty about both the future
development of a barge loading facility and the amount of coal that
DM&E would transload to barge, any related impact to the Mississippi
River generally and the Refuge specifically does not meet the
``reasonably foreseeable'' standard set by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) for impacts analysis. See 40 CFR 1508.8; Forty Questions
No. 18. Increases in barge traffic as a result of DM&E's proposal,
therefore, will not be evaluated in this EIS.
Vehicular traffic levels for evaluation. The air quality
and transportation systems sections of the draft scope indicated grade
crossings with vehicular traffic levels of 5,000 vehicles per day or
more would be included in these analyses. In prior cases, this level of
traffic has been considered by the lead agency, the Board, to be a
conservative and appropriate baseline. Over 300 written and numerous
oral comments were received pertaining to vehicular delay and access,
particularly as they apply to the issues of air quality and
transportation. A few commenters requested reduction in the traffic
levels for evaluation in the EIS. The Board, in consultation with its
cooperating agencies, has determined that a grade crossing traffic
volume of 5,000 vehicles per day is appropriate for EIS evaluation.
However, in response to concerns that have been raised, the Board will
expand its analysis of impacts at grade crossings to specific crossings
of less than 5,000 vehicles per day if unique circumstances discovered
during the course of the environmental review process make it
appropriate to include the crossings.
Safety analysis. Based on comments received, the agencies
have determined the EIS analysis will include the potential safety
impacts of the project on affected facilities, such as the Federal
Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota.
Analysis of vibration. Over 200 written and numerous oral
comments were received expressing concern for the potential impacts
resulting from train induced vibration. In response to these comments
the agencies have revised the final scope of the EIS to include an
analysis of the potential impacts of vibration, including impacts to
structures, sensitive equipment, and alarm systems.
Analysis of aesthetics. The analysis of aesthetics in the
EIS will include the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line
construction on areas determined to be of high visual quality, as
discussed in the draft scope. Based
[[Page 11985]]
on comments received, the agencies clarify that the following criteria
will be considered in evaluating areas of high visual quality:
perception of isolation, feeling of vastness, and the wide open nature
of the area.
Quality of life issues. Several written and numerous oral
comments were received regarding various potential quality of life
impacts, including division of communities, isolation of residences,
access to destinations, annoyance from increased noise and vibration,
and traffic delays. The final scope has been clarified to include those
quality of life issues involving division of communities, isolation of
residences, access to destinations and similar concerns in the
socioeconomic section. Annoyance from increased noise and vibration
will be addressed in the noise section and annoyance from traffic
delays will be covered within the transportation systems section.
Distinction between public verses private lands. The
agencies have clarified the land use section of the final scope to
define the evaluation of existing land use patterns to include
identification of private and public lands and the potential project
impacts related to both.
Potential impacts to utilities. The agencies have added to
the land use evaluation of the final scope of the EIS an evaluation of
potential project impacts on utilities, including pipelines, electrical
lines, telephone lines, and any others in the vicinity of the project.
Evaluation of mineral resources. The geology and soils
section of the final scope of the EIS has been expanded to include an
evaluation of the potential impacts of the project on mineral resources
within the project area.
Placement of paleontological resources evaluation. The
draft scope included the evaluation of potential project impacts to
paleontological resources within the cultural resources section. Based
on comments received during scoping, the agencies have moved the
discussion of paleontological resources to the geology and soils
section of the final scope.
Additional Comment Period on the ``Modified Proposed Action,'' Referred
to as Alternative C and City of Rochester's South Bypass Proposal
As stated above, in this final scope the agencies are providing an
opportunity for all interested parties to submit their views during a
30 day comment period on the potential environmental impacts of the
``Modified Proposed Action,'' referred to as Alternative C. This
comment period is in addition to the further comment period that will
be provided on all aspects of the DEIS when it is issued. With regard
to the City of Rochester's South Bypass Proposal, the agencies will
consider the additional information submitted during the 30 day comment
period to make a final determination of whether the South Bypass
Proposal is a reasonable and feasible alternative designed to meet the
purpose and need of the applicant's proposed action. The agencies have
provided a general description of both the Modified Proposed
Alternative, known as Alternative C, and the City of Rochester's South
Bypass Proposal below:
Description of Modified Proposed Action,'' Referred to as Alternative C
Alternative C, the Modified Proposed Action, would diverge from
DM&E's existing system approximately three miles south of Wasta, South
Dakota. It would generally follow the Cheyenne River along the
sideslope of the floodplain on the west side of the river. It would
cross State Highway 44 approximately 2 miles west of where the highway
crosses the Cheyenne River and continue southward along Spring Creek
for approximately 10 miles. Alternative C would cross Spring Creek
where the creek bends to the west, with the rail line alternative
extending in a generally westward direction for approximately 12 miles
before turning southward. It would extend southward for approximately
16 miles, crossing the Cheyenne River just south of the Custer-Fall
River County Line. Alternative C would continue southward for 5 miles,
then curve westward to join with DM&E's existing line just north of
Smithwick, South Dakota. It would utilize this existing rail line for
approximately four miles, then branch from the existing line, extending
westward for approximately 28 miles, then curve northward, passing
approximately 2 miles east of Edgemont, South Dakota. Approximately 2
miles north of Edgemont, Alternative C would parallel the existing BNSF
for approximately 13 miles before crossing over the BNSF line and
extending westward into Wyoming, following the Cheyenne River for
approximately 11 miles. After crossing U.S. Highway 85, Alternative C
would extend in a generally northwest direction, crossing Black Thunder
Creek approximately 4 miles south of where State Highway 450 crosses
Black Thunder Creek. Alternative C would extend westward, generally
parallel to and south of State Highway 450, along Little Thunder Creek.
Approximately 4 miles east of the Jacob's Ranch Coal Mine, Alternative
C would split and one branch would extend north along the east side of
the region's coal mines, converging with the existing joint rail line
in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr and Caballo Rojo mines. The southern
branch would extend southward, also along the east side of the areas
coal mines, accessing the North Antelope, Rochelle, and Antelope Coal
Mines.
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
[[Page 11986]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MR99.016
BILLING CODE 4915-00-C
[[Page 11987]]
City of Rochester's South Bypass Proposal
On January 6, 1999, the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the City)
requested that SEA consider a south bypass corridor as an alternative
to DM&E's proposed plan to rehabilitate its existing rail line and
operate additional rail traffic, primarily coal trains, through
Rochester. As part of its submission, the City has attached an
engineering report commissioned jointly by the City and Olmsted
County.\8\ The report, entitled Mitigation of Safety and Environmental
Issues Associated with The Dakota Minnesota & Eastern Railroad's
Proposed Expansion Through the City of Rochester and Olmsted County,
Minnesota, contains information on the southern bypass route and
proposed mitigation for the existing DM&E rail corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The report was prepared by the engineering firms of Toltz,
Duvall, Anderson and Associates of St. Paul, Minnesota and its
subconsultant, Black and Veatch located in Overland, Kansas. A copy
has been placed in the environmental record in this case. We urge
interested parties or members of the public to review the report
itself. We explain below how to obtain a copy of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Proposed South Bypass
The report states that its intent is to ``assess the impacts the
additional train traffic would have on the communities and the
environment within the county and, if appropriate, recommend
reasonable, effective, and practical alternatives for mitigation of
these impacts.'' Report p. 2. To that end, the report states that after
assessing the increased potential for train/vehicle collisions at grade
crossings if DM&E's proposal were to be approved, several options for
mitigating these potential safety impacts were considered, including
construction of a depressed trainway, construction of a tunnel beneath
the City, construction of a north bypass, and construction of a south
bypass. According to the report, the trench, tunnel, and north bypass
options were found not to be viable so the report focused on a south
bypass and an existing corridor improvement option.\9\ Report p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The report notes, however, that the City is continuing to
gather data on the feasibility of the tunnel option. See p. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report describes the south bypass as follows: the route would
be 34.1 miles long and would diverge south from DM&E's mail track in
Dodge County at milepost 61.1, approximately .8 miles west of the
Olmsted County line west of Byron, Minnesota. The route then would
travel due south approximately 9.5 miles through portions of Salem and
Rock Dell Township. The line would then travel generally eastward
through High Forrest, Marion, Pleasant Grove, and Eyota Townships. The
line would reconnect with DM&E's existing system at milepost 37.5,
approximately 8.2 miles west of the east Olmsted County line.
According to the report, the south bypass would require acquisition
of approximately 887 acres for a 200-foot wide new right-of-way. Twelve
households would be located within 500 feet of the rail centerline.
Fifty-one households would be within 1200 feet of the centerline. The
bypass would cross forty-two intermittent creeks or waterways, none of
which are major according to the report's engineers. Thirty-eight
roadways (seventeen of which are paved and eighteen of which have
average daily traffic counts less than 100 vehicles) would be crossed.
The report also sets forth details of design criteria, including
curves and profile grades, track specifications, embankment and side
slopes, bridges, highway crossings and signals, fencing, cut and fill
requirements, wetlands, and endangered species. Report pp. 7-13. In
addition, the report includes an estimated cost of $115,334,000 for
acquisition and construction of the south bypass. Report p. 12.
The report concludes that the south bypass would effectively
mitigate adverse impacts to the City and Olmsted County by avoiding
population areas. In addition, the report states that the bypass would
present operational advantages to DM&E, such as improved curvature, a
wider right-of-way, and increased opportunities for future development
and additional trackage. Report p. 14. The report notes that the south
bypass route would not require DM&E to abandon service to its existing
customers, and that light local rail traffic could continue over DM&E's
present line through the City. Report p. 15.
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
[[Page 11988]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MR99.017
BILLING CODE 4915-00-C
[[Page 11989]]
City of Rochester's Proposed Mitigation of DM&E's Existing Corridor
The report also proposes a number of improvements to DM&E's
existing corridor through the City \10\ designed to mitigate potential
environmental impacts if DM&E's proposal were to be approved.\11\ The
improvements include replacing all of the main track with 136-lb
continuously welded rail, replacing all poor or marginal timber cross
ties, replacing all turnouts along the main track, installing power
switch machines and switch heaters at all heavily used locations,
replacing all timber trestle bridges, replacing or strengthening all of
the steel bridges to support heavier axle loads, cleaning and
installing additional rock ballast and re-profiling the existing line,
cleaning drainage ditches and repairing culverts and marginal
embankments, and replacing all at grade crossing surfaces following
reconstruction of the track.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The report defines the corridor as DM&E's 31.0 mile long
main track traveling east-west through Olmsted County and .8 miles
located in Dodge County. Report p. 15.
\11\ The DEIS will assess potential environmental impacts that
would result from rebuilding DM&E's existing line and operating a
maximum of 37 trains, including 34 unit coal trains over the rebuilt
line. The DEIS will assess proposals for mitigation of impacts and
independently develop recommended mitigation measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report goes on to recommend additional work to reduce potential
safety, environmental, congestion, and quality of life problems.
Moreover, the report recommends construction of eleven separated grade
crossings, closure of seven grade crossings, and protection with train
activated flashing light signal and automatic gate arms at the
seventeen remaining crossings. Other recommended mitigation includes
sound barrier walls, fencing, and pedestrian crossings. The report
includes an estimated cost of $119,300,000 for the recommended
mitigation of DM&E's existing corridor. Report p. 21.
Public Participation and Request for Comments
Pursuant to NEPA, the EIS must explore and evaluate a reasonable
range of alternatives designed to meet the purpose and need of the
proposal. If alternatives have been eliminated from detailed study, the
EIS must briefly discuss why these alternatives have been discarded.
See 40 CFR 1502.14(a); Forty Questions No. 1(a). CEQ's guidance states
that ``[r]easonable alternatives include those that are practical or
feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using
commonsense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the
applicant.'' Forty Questions No. 2a.
The City's submission contains sufficient information for the
Board, in consultation with its cooperating agencies, to make a
preliminary determination that the south bypass may be a feasible
alternative routing. However, we do not yet have the benefit of the
applicant's views, nor those of the affected members of the public or
other interested parties as to the feasibility of the south bypass, or
whether it would simply shift to different communities and populations
the potential environmental consequences of the applicant's proposed
route. To ensure that the agencies have as much information as possible
on the south bypass in preparing the DEIS, SEA has decided to provide
an opportunity for interested parties and members of the public to
submit comments on the feasibility of the City's proposal prior to the
issuance of the DEIS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Detailed information, including maps, of Rochester's
proposed south bypass and mitigation of DM&E's existing corridor may
be obtained from: The Rochester-Olmsted County Department of
Planning, 2122 Campus Drive, SE, Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 285-
8232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as discussed above, the agencies are seeking comments
on the potential environmental impacts of the ``Modified Proposed
Action,'' referred to as Alternative C.
Comments on Alternative C and on the City's proposal can be
submitted to the Surface Transportation Board within 30 days of
publication of the final scope and request for comments in the Federal
Register. Comments should be sent to: Office of the Secretary, Case
Control Unit, STB Finance Docket No. 33407, Surface Transportation
Board, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20423-0001.
To ensure proper handling of your comments, you must mark your
submission: Attention: Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of
Environmental Analysis, Environmental Filing.
The DEIS will include an appropriate discussion of the south bypass
and recommended mitigation and a determination as to whether the bypass
would be a reasonable and feasible alternative. The public then will
have the opportunity to review and comment on these conclusions
regarding the south bypass during the comment period on the DEIS. The
DEIS will contain information on the agencies' conclusions regarding
the City of Rochester's South Bypass Proposal. An opportunity for
further comment will be provided at that time.
Agency Actions
Based on CEQ's and each agencies' regulations implementing NEPA,
the draft scope, oral and written comments received, and all other
information available to date, the agencies have prepared this final
scope of the EIS. This final scope of the EIS will be distributed to
all Parties of Record, interested parties and American Indian Tribal
governments, and appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies.
Based on the agencies' environmental analysis, review of all
information available to-date, and consultations with appropriate
American Indian Tribal governments and agencies, the agencies will
prepare the DEIS. The DEIS will address relevant environmental
concerns, as generally described in this final scope of the EIS and
recommend appropriate environmental mitigation. The agencies will
afford an opportunity for public comments on the DEIS. Once comments
have been received and assessed, the agencies will issue the FEIS,
which will respond to comments and, if appropriate, set forth
additional analysis and information. Following the close of the
environmental record, the Board and each of the cooperating agencies
will then issue final decisions on the proposed action.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Analysis in the EIS will address, as appropriate, the potential
environmental impacts of proposed activities associated with the
construction and operation of DM&E's new rail facilities, as well as
construction and operation activities associated with the rebuilding of
DM&E's existing mainline. The scope of the analysis will include the
following activities:
1. Proposed construction of new rail mainline extension to access
coal mines south of Gillette, Wyoming.
2. Proposed construction of new rail mainline to bypass DM&E's
existing trackage rights on UP in Mankato, Minnesota.
3. Proposed construction of new rail line connection between DM&E
and I&M Rail Link south of Owatonna, Minnesota.
4. Proposed upgrade along DM&E's existing track from the point of
connection with new construction between Wasta, South Dakota and
Winona, Minnesota.
Impact Categories
The EIS will address potential impacts from the proposed
construction and operation of new rail facilities on the human and
natural environment.
[[Page 11990]]
Impact areas addressed will include the categories of land use,
biological resources, water resources, geology and soils, air quality,
noise, energy resources, socioeconomics as they relate to physical
changes in the environment, safety, transportation systems, cultural
and historic resources, recreation, aesthetics, environmental justice,
and cumulative effects. The EIS will include a discussion of each of
these categories as they currently exist in the project area and
address the potential impacts from the proposed project on each
category as described below.
The EIS analysis will also address construction and operation
related impacts associated with the rebuilding of DM&E's existing
mainline from the point of connection with the new construction
segments between Wasta, South Dakota and Winona, Minnesota. Such
action, being confined within existing rail right-of-way and on
existing rail property, would not normally be included in an EIS
prepared by the Board. Only the potential impacts associated with rail
traffic increases on DM&E's existing system resultant from the
construction and operation of the proposed project would be evaluated.
However, because the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, a cooperating
agency, requires such analysis to satisfy its permitting requirements
under the Clean Water Act and comments requesting such analysis be
conducted were received, analysis of construction related impacts along
the rail line to be rebuilt will be included in this EIS. In addition
to the analysis of potential project impacts related to operational
increases in rail traffic (noise, air quality, transportation, safety),
the construction related impacts to land use, biological resources,
water resources, geology and soils, air quality, noise, socioeconomics,
safety, hazardous materials, transportation systems, cultural and
historic resources, environmental justice, and cumulative effects will
be analyzed as discussed below.
1. Land Use
The EIS will:
A. Describe existing land use patterns, management, and ownership
(private and public) within the project area for new rail line
construction and along the existing rail line to be rebuilt and
identify those land uses and the amounts of each potentially impacted
by new rail line construction and rail line rebuild.
B. Describe the potential impacts associated with the proposed
construction and operation of new rail line and existing rail line to
be rebuilt to cropland, pastureland, rangeland, grassland, woodland,
developed land, school endowment land, BLM lands,13 Forest
Service lands, state lands, utilities, and any other land uses
identified within the project area. Such potential impacts may include
but not be limited to impacts to farming/ranching activities,
introduction of noxious weeds, fire hazard, incompatibility with
existing land uses, relocation of residences or businesses, and
conversion of land to railroad uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This term includes those lands for which the BLM
administers the land and/or the mineral estate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to land use, as appropriate.
2. Biological Resources
The EIS will:
A. Describe the existing biological resources within the project
area for new rail line construction and along the existing rail line to
be rebuilt, including vegetative communities, wildlife and fisheries,
federally threatened or endangered species, and any sensitive
vegetation and wildlife identified and the potential impacts to these
resources resultant from construction and operation of new rail line
and the existing rail line to be rebuilt.
B. Describe the wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, and national or
state parks, forests, or grasslands within the project area for new
construction and along the existing rail line to be rebuilt and the
potential impacts to these resources resultant from construction and
operation of new rail line and existing rail line to be rebuilt.
C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to biological resources, as appropriate.
3. Water Resources
The EIS will:
A. Describe the existing surface and groundwater resources within
the project area for new rail line construction and along the existing
rail line to be rebuilt, including lakes, rivers, streams, stock ponds,
wetlands, aquifers, wells, and floodplains and the potential impacts on
these resources resultant from construction and operation of new rail
line and the existing rail line to be rebuilt.
B. Describe the existing uses of water resources in the project
area for irrigation, livestock, residential, and municipal water
supply.
C. Describe the permitting requirements for the proposed new rail
line construction and existing rail line rebuild in regard to wetlands,
stream crossings, water quality, and erosion control.
D. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to water resources and users, as appropriate.
4. Geology and Soils
The EIS will:
A. Describe the geology, soils, and mineral resources found within
the project area for new rail line construction and along the existing
rail line to be rebuilt, including unique or problematic geologic
formations or soils, prime farmland soils, and recoverable mineral
resources.
B. Describe measures employed to avoid or construct through unique
or problematic geologic formations or soils.
C. Describe the impacts of new rail line and existing rail line
rebuild construction activities on prime farmland soils.
D. Describe the potential impacts to mineral resources within the
project area for new construction and along the existing rail line to
be rebuilt.
E. Describe the potential general impacts to paleontological
resources in the project area for new construction and along the
existing rail line to be rebuilt due to new rail line construction and
existing rail line rebuild activities, if necessary and required.
F. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to geology, soils, mineral resources, and
paleontological resources, as appropriate.
5. Air Quality
The EIS will:
A. Discuss the existing air quality in the project area for the new
construction, along the existing rail line to be rebuilt, and those
portions of the UP and CP rail systems within Goodview and Winona,
Minnesota.
B. Evaluate rail air emissions on new rail line, the existing rail
line to be rebuilt, and those portions of the UP and CP rail systems
within Goodview and Winona, Minnesota that exceed the Board's
environmental thresholds in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5)(I), in an air quality
attainment or maintenance area as designated under the Clean Air Act.
The threshold anticipated to apply to this project is eight trains per
day on any segment of new rail line.
C. Evaluate rail air emissions on new rail line, the existing rail
line to be rebuilt, and those portions of the UP and CP rail systems
within Goodview and Winona, Minnesota, if a Class I or non-attainment
area as designated under the Clean Air Act is affected. The
[[Page 11991]]
threshold for Class I and non-attainment areas anticipated to apply to
this project is 3 trains per day or more.
D. Evaluate the potential air quality impacts associated with the
increased availability and utilization of Powder River Basin coal.
E. Discuss the net increase in emissions from increased railroad
operations associated with the proposed operations over new rail line,
the existing DM&E system and other rail systems as appropriate,
including those portions of the UP and CP systems within Goodview and
Winona, Minnesota.
F. Discuss the potential air emissions increases from vehicle
delays at new and existing grade rail crossings where the rail crossing
is projected to experience an increase in rail traffic over the
threshold described above for attainment, maintenance, Class I, and
non-attainment areas and that have an average daily vehicle traffic
level of over 5,000. Emissions from vehicle delays at new and existing
grade rail crossings and idling diesel engines and coal dust will be
factored into the emissions estimates for the affected area, as
appropriate.
G. Describe the potential air quality impacts of emissions from
idling diesel locomotives and coal dust produced during train
operation.
H. Describe the potential air quality impacts resulting during new
rail line and existing rail line rebuild construction activities.
I. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to air quality, as appropriate.
6. Noise
The EIS will:
A. Describe existing noise receptors and conditions in the project
area for new rail line construction, along the existing rail line to be
rebuilt, and the portions of the UP and CP rail lines within Goodview
and Winona, Minnesota.
B. Describe the potential noise impacts during new and existing
rail line construction and rebuilding.
C. Describe potential noise impacts of new and rebuilt existing
rail line operation for those areas that exceed the Board's
environmental threshold of eight or more trains per day as a result of
the proposed project along the proposed new construction, the existing
rail line to be rebuilt, and along the portions of the UP and CP rail
lines within Goodview and Winona, Minnesota.
D. Describe the potential impacts of the new and rebuilt existing
rail line operation due to vibration, both noise and ground-borne along
the proposed new construction, the existing rail line to be rebuilt,
and along the portions of the UP and CP rail lines within Goodview and
Winona, Minnesota.
E. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to noise and vibration receptors, as
appropriate.
7. Energy Resources
The EIS will:
A. Describe the transport of energy resources and recyclable
commodities on the existing DM&E system.
B. Describe the potential environmental impact of the new rail line
and rebuilt existing rail line on the transportation of energy
resources and recyclable commodities.
C. Describe the environmental impacts of operation of the new rail
line and rebuilt existing rail line on utilization of the nations
energy resources.
D. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to the transportation of energy resources and
recyclable commodities, as appropriate.
8. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
A. Describe the socioeconomic conditions within the area of new
construction alternatives and along the existing line to be rebuilt.
B. Address socioeconomic issues shown to be related to changes in
the physical environment as a result of the proposed action, including
quality of life issues such as division of communities, isolation of
residences, access to destinations and similar concerns.
C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to socioeconomics, as appropriate.
9. Safety
The EIS will:
A. Describe rail/highway grade crossing safety factors at new grade
crossings, as appropriate.
B. Describe rail/highway grade crossing safety factors at existing
grade crossings along the portion of DM&E's system to be rebuilt and
those portions of the UP and CP systems within Goodview and Winona,
Minnesota.
C. Describe the potential for increased probability of train
accidents, derailments, and train/vehicular accidents at new and
existing grade crossings, as appropriate.
D. Describe the potential for disruption and delays to the movement
of emergency vehicles across the new rail line, existing rail line to
be rebuilt, and those portions of the UP and CP systems within Goodview
and Winona, Minnesota due to new rail line construction and operation.
E. Describe the changes at existing grade crossings implemented to
increase safety at existing grade crossings due to increased rail
operations on the DM&E system. Such changes would include signalization
upgrades and conversion of grade crossings to grade separated
crossings.
F. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to safety, as appropriate.
10. Hazardous Materials
The EIS will:
A. Describe any known hazardous materials sites along the preferred
and alternative construction alignments and the existing rail line to
be rebuilt.
B. Describe the transport of any hazardous materials over the
existing DM&E system and those portions of the UP and CP rail systems
within Goodview and Winona, Minnesota.
C. Describe the potential impacts to hazardous materials sites
along the preferred and alternative alignments.
D. Describe the potential impacts to the transport of any hazardous
materials over the existing DM&E system, new rail line proposed for
construction, and those portions of the UP and CP rail systems within
Goodview and Winona, Minnesota.
E. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to hazardous materials and the transport of any
hazardous materials, as appropriate.
11. Transportation Systems
The EIS will:
A. Describe the potential effects of new rail line construction and
operation on the existing transportation network in the project area
including:
(1) Impact to the existing DM&E system operations
(2) Impacts to other rail carriers' operations
(3) Vehicular delays at new grade crossings for those crossings
having average daily vehicle traffic of 5,000 or more and
(4) Vehicular delays at existing grade crossings that are part of
the portion of the existing system proposed to be rebuilt for those
crossings having average daily vehicle traffic of 5,000 or more.
(5) Vehicular delays at existing grade crossings along those
portions of the UP and CP rail systems within Goodview and Winona,
Minnesota for those
[[Page 11992]]
crossings having average daily vehicle traffic of 5,000 or more.
(6) Vehicular delays at existing and new grade crossings having
average daily traffic of less than 5,000 vehicles but have unique
circumstances that make such evaluation appropriate.
B. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to transportation systems, as appropriate.
12. Cultural and Historic Resources
The EIS will:
A. Describe the potential impacts to historic structures or
districts previously recorded and determined potentially eligible,
eligible, or listed on the National Register of Historic Places within
or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for the preferred and
alternative construction alignments and the existing rail line to be
rebuilt.
B. Describe the potential impacts to archaeological sites
previously recorded and either listed as unevaluated or determined
potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on the National Register of
Historic Places within the right-of-way for the preferred and
alternative construction alignments and the existing rail line to be
rebuilt.
C. Describe the potential impacts to historic structures or
districts identified by ground survey and determined potentially
eligible or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places within or immediately adjacent to the existing rail line to be
rebuilt.
D. Describe the potential impacts to traditional cultural
properties and religious use areas, sacred sites, cultural landscapes,
and collection areas for religious and ceremonial plants.
E. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to cultural and historic resources, as
appropriate.
13. Recreation
The EIS will:
A. Describe the existing recreational opportunities and activities
present and undertaken in the project area for the new construction and
along the existing rail line to be rebuilt.
B. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line
construction and operation on the recreational opportunities and
activities in the project area for the new construction and along the
existing rail line to be rebuilt.
C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to recreation, as appropriate.
14. Aesthetics
The EIS will:
A. Describe any areas identified or determined to be of high visual
quality (components of which may include the wide open nature of the
area, the perception of isolation, and feeling of vastness), wilderness
areas, or waterways designated as wild and scenic within the project
area for the new construction and along the existing rail line to be
rebuilt.
B. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line
construction and existing rail line rebuild on any areas identified or
determined to be of high visual quality.
C. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line
construction and existing rail line rebuild on any designated
wilderness areas.
D. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line
construction and existing rail line rebuild on any waterways considered
for or designated as wild and scenic.
E. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to aesthetics, as appropriate.
15. Environmental Justice
The EIS will:
A. Describe the demographics in the project area and the immediate
vicinity of the proposed new construction and along the existing rail
line to be rebuilt, as appropriate, including communities potentially
impacted by the construction and operation of the proposed new rail
line and existing rail line to be rebuilt.
B. Evaluate whether new rail line and existing rail line
construction, rebuild, or operation activities would have a
disproportionately high adverse impact on any minority or low-income
groups.
C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
adverse project impacts to minority or low-income groups, as
appropriate.
16. Cumulative Effects
The EIS will discuss cumulative effects of the construction and
operation of the new rail line and DM&E's existing system.
By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of Environmental
Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-5930 Filed 3-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
