[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