[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19407-19408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9860]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33407]
Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation Construction
Into The Powder River Basin
AGENCIES: Lead: Surface Transportation Board.
Cooperating:
U.S.D.A. Forest Service.
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
ACTION: Notice to the parties providing an extension of time to submit
comments on alternatives and reply comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 10, 1999, the Final Scope of Study for the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and Request for Comments on 1) the Modified
Proposed Action, referred to as Alternative C, and 2) the City of
Rochester, Minnesota's South Bypass Proposal was issued in this
proceeding. The Final Scope provided a 30 day comment period for
interested parties to submit comments on the two new proposed
alternatives listed above, while making it clear that the 30 day
comment period, which was due to expire on April 10, 1999, was in
addition to, not a substitute for, the comment period that will be
provided on all aspects of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) when that document is made available.
The Board and cooperating agencies have received requests to extend
the April 10, 1999 comment date. Some of the requests seek an extension
in which to comment on a number of potential environmental impacts and
others seek additional time to permit development of bypass alternative
proposals.
As discussed below, we will provide a limited additional comment
period for interested communities to develop bypass proposals. As we
stated in the Final Scope, we are mindful of our obligations under the
National Environmental Policy Act, 16 U.S.C. 4321-4335 (NEPA) to
explore and evaluate in the EIS a reasonable range of alternatives
designed to meet the purpose and need of the applicant's proposal.
Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir.
1991). At the same time, we are aware that we cannot let the
environmental review process indefinitely delay the Board's final
decision on this matter.
In the Final Scope, we made a preliminary determination, based on
the City of Rochester's engineering study and cost estimates, that the
City had met an initial burden of showing that its
[[Page 19408]]
proposed south bypass may be a feasible routing alternative.
Accordingly, we requested comments from the railroad and other
concerned parties on whether the south bypass proposal was feasible, or
would simply shift the potential environmental consequences of the
applicant's proposal to different communities and populations. Having
provided this opportunity in Rochester, we believe that we should
afford other interested communities the same opportunity to submit
specific bypass designs.
Therefore, we will extend the comment period established in the
Final Scope for an additional 60 days, or until June 10, 1999, to
provide time for any other interested community to submit a bypass
proposal. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad or any interested party
or person who may be affected by a proposed bypass would then have 30
days, or until July 12, 1999, to respond. In addition, parties may use
the additional time to submit comments on other alternatives described
in the Final Scope.
We note that the information we receive from any community
regarding a bypass must be detailed enough for us to determine whether
a specific bypass proposal constitutes a reasonable and feasible
alternative to the applicant's proposal or merely relocates the
potential environmental consequences of the applicant's proposed
action. To that end, any bypass proposal submitted by a community must,
at a minimum, contain the following information: detailed maps showing
where the route would be located; quantified impacts to wetlands; cut
and fill requirements to permit design and operation of a railroad;
roads that would be crossed and their average daily traffic levels;
proximity of the bypass any sensitive structures (for example, schools,
libraries, hospitals, residences, retirement communities, and nursing
homes); and impacts to landowners and farmlands.
Also, in considering bypass proposals that may be submitted to the
Board and determining whether they constitute reasonable, feasible
alternatives, we will take into account the applicant's goal to create
a more efficient route by which to transport coal. A circuitous route
that bypasses numerous communities could add so many additional miles
that it would be unlikely to allow applicant to achieve its goal of
providing efficient rail transportation. However, before arriving at a
final decision on the range of alternatives to be addressed in the
DEIS, we will carefully consider any specific bypass proposal and all
responses to such a proposal.
Finally, we must balance our responsibility to analyze a reasonable
range of alternatives with the need to move the environmental review
process forward without undue delay. To allow us to issue the DEIS in a
timely manner, we will not grant further extensions of time.
The requests for additional time to provide comments on potential
environmental impacts will be denied. As the Board and its cooperating
agencies stated in the Final Scope, we are in the process of preparing
a DEIS analyzing all potential environmental effects discovered during
the course of the environmental review process, including concerns
identified during scoping. The DEIS will be made available upon its
completion for public review and comment. Accordingly, there is no need
to provide an additional comment period on potential environmental
impacts at this point.
Bypass proposals and comments on alternatives described in the
Final Scope must be submitted to the Board by June 10, 1999. Replies or
responses must be submitted by July 12, 1999. 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, DC
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.
By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of Environmental
Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-9860 Filed 4-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
