[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