[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 89 (Friday, May 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25657-25669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10441]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34284]


Southwest Gulf Railroad Company--Construction and Operation 
Exemption--Medina County, TX

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the final scope of study for the 
Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On February 27, 2003, Southwest Gulf Railroad Company (SGR) 
filed a petition with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) pursuant 
to 49 U.S.C. 10502 for authority to construct and operate a new rail 
line in Medina County, Texas. The proposed project would involve the 
construction and operation of approximately seven miles of new rail 
line. Because the effects of the proposed project on the quality of the 
human environment are likely to be highly controversial, the Board's 
Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) has determined that the 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate. 
SEA issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS; Notice of Initiation 
of the Scoping

[[Page 25658]]

Process; Notice of Availability of Draft Scope of Study for the 
Environmental Impact Statement and Request for Comments on January 28, 
2004. Comments were requested by February 26, 2004. However, comments 
that were received after February 26, 2004 have been accepted and 
considered in the Final Scope of study (Final Scope) of the EIS. 
Changes made to the Draft Scope of study (Draft Scope) are detailed in 
the Response to Comments section of this notice. The Final Scope, which 
is included at the end of this notice, adopts the Draft Scope and 
reflects any changes to the Draft Scope as a result of the comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rini Ghosh, Section of 
Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, or 512-419-5941 (the project 
information line). Assistance for the hearing impaired is available 
through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. 
The Web site for the Surface Transportation Board is www.stb.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: By petition filed on February 
27, 2003, SGR sought an exemption from the Board under 49 U.S.C. 10502 
from the formal application procedures of 49 U.S.C. 10901 for authority 
to construct and operate an approximately seven mile line of railroad 
in Medina County, TX. The proposed rail line would connect a proposed 
Vulcan Construction Materials, LP (VCM) quarry and the Del Rio 
subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) at milepost 250, 
near Dunlay, Texas.\1\ SGR would use the new rail line to transport 
limestone from the proposed quarry to the UP rail line, for shipment to 
markets in the Houston area, as well as other markets in the Southeast, 
Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. Although the 
primary purpose of the proposed construction is to provide rail service 
to the quarry site, SGR would hold itself out as a common carrier and 
provide service to other industries that might locate in the area in 
the future. In a decision served on May 19, 2003, the Board issued a 
decision finding that, from a transportation perspective, the proposed 
construction met the standards of 49 U.S.C. 10502. The Board will issue 
a final decision as to whether the exemption authority should be 
allowed to go into effect after completion of the environmental review 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ VCM is a subsidiary of Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), 
which is affiliated through common ownership with SGR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Environmental Review Process: The National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) is intended to assist the Board and the public in identifying 
and assessing the potential environmental consequences of a proposed 
action before a decision on the proposed action is made. SEA is the 
office within the Board responsible for carrying out the Board's 
responsibilities under NEPA and related environmental laws, such as the 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
    SEA has begun the environmental review of SGR's proposal by 
consulting with appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies, as well 
as SGR, and conducting technical surveys and analyses. SEA issued a 
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment report on October 10, 2003 to 
the then-identified consulting parties, pursuant to Section 106 of 
NHPA, for review and comment. The Texas Historical Commission, the 
consulting parties, and other individuals submitted comment letters in 
response to the report; many of the comments addressed environmental 
concerns not related to cultural resources. SEA also solicited written 
comments from the public during an informational Open House held in 
Hondo, Texas on June 12, 2003. Approximately 200 people attended the 
Open House and over 100 comment letters were received in response to 
the Open House. Based on the nature and content of the numerous public 
and agency comments received, SEA determined that the effects of the 
proposed project on the quality of the human environment are likely to 
be highly controversial, and that, thus, preparation of an EIS is 
appropriate.
    The first stage of the EIS process is scoping. Scoping is an open 
process for determining the scope of environmental issues to be 
addressed in the EIS. SEA developed the Draft Scope, incorporating the 
issues and concerns raised in the comment letters SEA had then 
received, and issued the Draft Scope for public review and comment. SEA 
received approximately 100 comment letters in response to the Draft 
Scope. Although some of the comment letters expressed support for the 
proposed project, the majority of the comment letters expressed strong 
opposition to the proposed project and identified numerous concerns and 
questions. SEA has taken these comment letters into consideration in 
preparing the Final Scope.
    SEA is currently preparing a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the project. The 
DEIS will address those environmental issues and concerns identified 
during the scoping process. It will also contain SEA's preliminary 
recommendations for environmental mitigation measures. Upon its 
completion, the DEIS will be made available for public and agency 
review and comment for at least 45 days. A public meeting will also be 
held during the comment period for the DEIS. The details of the public 
meeting, including the specific format, location, and date, will be 
available in the DEIS. SEA will then prepare a Final EIS (FEIS) that 
addresses the comments on the DEIS from the public and agencies. Then, 
in reaching its final decision in this case, the Board will take into 
account the DEIS, the FEIS, and all environmental comments that are 
received.

Response to Comments

    The discussion below summarizes and addresses the principal 
environmental concerns raised by the comments, and presents additional 
discussion to further clarify the Final Scope, which is included at the 
end of this notice.
    Many of the comment letters were written on behalf of an 
organization or a family and many of the comment letters raised the 
same or similar issues. Thus, SEA has used the plural term 
``commenters'' to refer to all persons submitting comments, including 
individuals.

A. Proposed Action and Alternatives

    In the Draft Scope, SEA described the proposed action as the 
construction and operation of a single-track rail line to connect VCM's 
proposed quarry and UP's Del Rio subdivision line. SGR would use the 
rail line to transport limestone from the proposed quarry to the UP 
rail line, for shipment to markets in the Houston area, as well as 
other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley 
regions of Texas. Although the primary purpose of the proposed rail 
line construction would be to provide rail service to the quarry site, 
SGR would hold itself out as a common carrier and provide service to 
other industries that might locate in the area in the future. SEA 
stated in the Draft Scope that the reasonable and feasible alternatives 
that would be evaluated in the EIS were (1) construction and operation 
of the proposed project along SGR's proposed alignment (including a 
rail loading facility, consisting of a loading loop or a series of 
parallel tracks, that would be constructed and operated on the quarry 
property and is not subject to the Board's jurisdiction), (2) three 
alternative routes that have been

[[Page 25659]]

developed to date, as well as other alternatives that might be 
identified during the scoping process, and (3) the no-action or no-
build alternative (which would involve transportation of the limestone 
by truck from the proposed quarry to the UP rail line, instead of by 
rail). SEA received numerous comments requesting that the environmental 
review be expanded to include other actions and other alternatives, 
which have been summarized below.
Comments Regarding VCM's Proposed Quarry
     Commenters stated that VCM's proposed quarry and SGR's 
proposed rail line are connected actions that should be examined 
together in the EIS.
     Commenters requested that the EIS examine alternatives to 
the quarry, as well as conduct an analysis of all potential direct 
impacts from quarry development and operations.
     Commenters requested that the EIS include analysis of the 
following different phases of the quarry: Phase 1 (which is pre-rail, 
though it will ultimately use the rail and deliver rock to the rail 
from the crushing unit); Phase 2 (rail connection and first expansion 
of the quarry); and full build-out (quarry operations at maximum 
production capacity).
     Commenters stated that because development and operation 
of the proposed quarry would take place regardless of whether the 
proposed rail line were constructed and operated, the quarry and the 
rail line were not connected actions, and the EIS should only consider 
the quarry as part of the cumulative impacts analysis.
     Commenters requested that the EIS include detailed 
information on how the quarry will be designed, including the exact 
equipment to be used and all operations that will be conducted.
    Response: SEA is continuing to gather information to determine the 
proper level of analysis for VCM's proposed quarry, based on 
established Board precedent, NEPA regulations, and court decisions, and 
appreciates the information that has been provided in the comment 
letters. Other agencies also will play a role in how the quarry is 
developed. The quarry would not require any Federal permits that would 
necessitate NEPA review; however, the quarry would require an air 
emissions permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
(TCEQ) for stack and fugitive air pollution emissions, a water 
discharge permit from TCEQ for stormwater and process wastewater 
discharges, and be required to comply with the provisions of the 
Edwards Aquifer Rule at Title 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 213. 
Operations at the quarry would also be required to comply with 
appropriate Federal, state, and local regulations. The DEIS will 
include an appropriate discussion and analysis of VCM's proposed 
quarry, which will be made available for public review and comment.
Range of Alternatives
     Commenters requested that the EIS study the rail line 
route that was used to facilitate the construction of the Medina Dam in 
the early 1900s as a possible alternative rail route. Commenters stated 
that this rail line began at Dunlay, Texas, near the origin of the 
proposed route and Alternative 3. According to commenters, the route 
traversed north over level terrain and avoided the major part of Quihi 
Creek and its floodplain, passing near the proposed quarry site. 
Commenters suggested that this route could be advantageous because it 
would avoid the main portion of the Quihi Creek floodplain and its 
artesian creek beds, the floodplains of Cherry and Elm Creek, the 
historic areas of Quihi, the Texas Heritage Lands, and the major areas 
of buried artifacts. Commenters stated that the route would cross fewer 
roads and the crossings of FM 2676 and County Road 4516 could be 
located at safer points. Although the route would be longer and would 
involve more property owners, according to commenters, some of the 
property owners along the route are known to favor the quarry and would 
be expected to support this route. Commenters requested that the route 
be evaluated assuming that a grade-separated crossing would be 
constructed across U.S. Highway 90, and that the cost of constructing 
this route should be compared to the costs of constructing the proposed 
route.
     Commenters suggested that moving the rail line a little 
further in either direction or to a completely different location could 
cause much less damage and destruction.
     Commenters stated that the EIS should consider an 
alternative route that would bypass Cherry Creek, Elm Creek and the 
lower portion of Quihi Creek and accompanying floodplains.
     Commenters requested that the EIS include at a minimum an 
analysis of the following: Proposed route; Alternative 1; Alternative 
2; Alternative 3; a trucking-only alternative; and a no-action 
alternative of no quarry, no rail line and no trucks.
     Commenters suggested that the EIS include the alternative 
of using trucks to transport 15 percent of the limestone and rail to 
transport 85 percent of the limestone.
     Commenters expressed opposition to the trucking-only 
alternative, noting the possible adverse environmental effects of this 
alternative.
     Commenters stated that alternatives should not be excluded 
from further consideration because a grade-separated crossing or other 
mitigation could be required.
     Commenters stated that perhaps a quarry site could be 
found that would not impact the major regional water supply and would 
have a shorter distance to a rail line.
     Commenters requested that all alternatives be equally 
addressed and compared in the EIS and that reasonable and viable 
alternatives be analyzed in the same manner as the proposed action.
     Commenters questioned the financial relationship between 
the quarry and the mitigation or exclusion of certain alternatives.
    Response: The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) guidance and 
regulations for implementing NEPA set forth an agency's 
responsibilities for analyzing alternatives to the proposed action in 
the environmental review process. An agency must evaluate all 
reasonable alternatives and the no-action alternative, and briefly 
discuss reasons for eliminating any unreasonable alternatives from 
further consideration. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii). The reasonable 
alternatives considered in detail, including the proposed action, 
should be analyzed in enough depth for reviewers to evaluate their 
comparative merits.\2\ The goals of an action delimit the universe of 
the action's reasonable alternatives.\3\ The objectives must not be 
defined so narrowly that all alternatives are effectively foreclosed, 
nor should they be defined so broadly that an ``infinite number'' of 
alternatives might further the goals and the project would ``collapse 
under the weight'' of the resulting EIS analysis.\4\ An alternative 
that does not effectuate the project's purposes is, by definition, 
unreasonable, and the agency need not evaluate it in detail.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 40 CFR 1502.14.
    \3\ Citizens Against Burlington v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 195 
(D.C. Cir. 1990).
    \4\ Id. at 196. See also Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 
CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 
(1981), Question 1.
    \5\ Ringsred v. Dole, 828 F.2d 1300, 1304 (8th Cir. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SEA appreciates the comments received regarding possible additional 
alternatives to the proposed project. As required by NEPA, the DEIS 
will

[[Page 25660]]

include appropriate analysis of all reasonable alternatives, and the 
no-action alternative, and discuss reasons for eliminating any 
unreasonable alternatives from detailed study. SEA is currently 
gathering information regarding the old rail route that led to the 
Medina Dam and will include an appropriate discussion of this 
alternative in the DEIS. SEA has also requested more information from 
SGR regarding the feasibility of the trucking-only alternative, as 
discussed below. SEA will assess the potential environmental impacts of 
this alternative, as appropriate, in the DEIS.
Feasibility of Truck Transportation
     Commenters questioned the feasibility of using truck 
transportation as an alternative to rail transportation.
    Response: SGR has submitted information stating that if the rail 
line were not built, VCM would use trucks to transport the limestone 
from the quarry to the UP rail line. SEA has requested additional 
information from SGR regarding the feasibility of using trucks as an 
alternative to rail. SEA will discuss this issue in the DEIS.

B. Purpose and Need

     Commenters questioned the purpose and need for SGR's 
proposed rail line.
     Commenters requested that SEA obtain information regarding 
the financial dependence of the rail line on the quarry and the 
profitability of rail versus truck transport, as well as information on 
when the quarry may need rail transport to be profitable.
     Commenters questioned the economic feasibility of 
developing and operating the quarry without the rail line.
    Response: SGR has stated that the primary purpose of rail line 
construction and operation would be to transport limestone from VCM's 
quarry to the UP rail line, for shipment to markets in the Houston 
area, as well as other markets in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio 
Grande Valley regions of Texas. SGR would also hold itself out as a 
common carrier and provide service to other industries that might 
locate in the area in the future. According to SGR, if the proposed 
rail line were not built, VCM would use trucks to transport the 
limestone to the UP rail line, which would require the construction of 
a remote truck-to-rail loading facility near the UP rail line, and the 
number of truck trips that would be required to transport the limestone 
would far exceed the number of train trips. As stated above, SEA has 
requested additional information from SGR regarding the feasibility of 
using truck transportation as an alternative to rail transportation. 
SEA will discuss this issue in the DEIS. SEA does not believe that a 
detailed cost-benefit analysis of rail versus truck transport (if 
feasible) would be appropriate. CEQ regulations state that in an EIS 
``the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives 
need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should 
not be when there are important qualitative considerations.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 40 CFR 1502.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Transportation and Traffic Safety

Grade Crossings
     Commenters expressed concern about at-grade rail crossings 
of roadways and requested that a grade-separated crossing be built for 
the crossings of FM 2676 and County Road 4516, suggesting that the EIS 
include a study by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) 
regarding a grade-separated crossing of FM 2676. Commenters stated that 
FM 2676 and County Road 4516 are heavily traveled and County Road 4516 
has been studied for state highway status; FM 2676 is the only road 
Quihi, Texas residents can use to reach Hondo, and FM 2676 and County 
Road 4516 are the only roads these residents can use to reach San 
Antonio. Commenters stated that County Road 4516 has curves and hills 
and an at-grade rail line crossing of this road would be dangerous, 
because of the low visibility, proximity to Cherry Creek, and the 
unstable condition of the roadbed.
     Commenters stated that alternative routes for the roads 
that would be crossed are miles out of the way.
     Commenters requested that the effects of rail operations 
on transportation and traffic safety be studied with projections made 
for the next 50 years, taking into consideration population growth 
patterns and the additional traffic generated by the quarry and 
resulting industrialization.
     Commenters expressed concern about traffic delays for 
emergency vehicles, school buses, and regular traffic, and requested 
that the EIS include a study of traffic delays and stopping distance 
times for trains.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study the risks of rail-
related accidents both with and without grade separations.
     Commenters stated that since no accident data exists for 
the new crossings, the EIS cannot use the familiar Federal Railroad 
Administration model that it has used in the past and will need to find 
some other way of conducting an analysis of risk of accidents.
     Commenters requested that the EIS use the most recent road 
traffic data available from TxDOT to analyze road traffic and grade 
crossing impacts and field verify the data to make sure that it is up 
to date and accurate.
     Commenters stated that SGR should have to pay for the 
costs of the crossings, not local taxpayers.
     Commenters requested that the EIS consider the costs of 
replacing grade-level crossings with grade-separated crossings, if the 
crossings are initially constructed at-grade and then later changed.
     Commenters stated that at-grade rail crossings would not 
cause traffic hazards, due to the low level of traffic on the roadways, 
and accidents from derailment would be unlikely.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the DEIS will assess the 
potential impacts of the proposed new rail line construction and 
operation on the existing transportation network in the project area, 
including vehicular delays at grade crossings; describe the potential 
for train derailments or accidents from proposed rail operations; and 
propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project 
impacts to transportation and traffic safety, as appropriate. SEA 
appreciates the suggestions and concerns raised in the comment letters 
and will take these comments into consideration, as appropriate, in the 
environmental review of transportation and traffic safety issues in the 
EIS. Although SEA has been in consultation with TxDOT and will provide 
TxDOT a copy of the DEIS for review and comment, SEA cannot require 
TxDOT to undertake a study of a grade-separated crossing of FM 2676.
Analysis of Truck Traffic
    Commenters requested that the EIS examine air, noise, and traffic 
congestion from the trucking-only alternative, as well as traffic 
safety concerns and roadway maintenance.
     Commenters suggested that a divided highway be built along 
the rail line going directly to U.S. Highway 90, and that VCM should be 
required to absorb the costs of any roadway upgrades, instead of local 
taxpayers.
     Commenters stated that the EIS assess the impacts from the 
increased traffic on area roadways that would occur regardless of 
whether the rail line were built (truck traffic from the quarry to 
local markets and traffic from quarry employee cars.)
    Response: As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather information

[[Page 25661]]

regarding the feasibility of the trucking-only alternative and the 
appropriate level of analysis of the quarry. SEA will assess potential 
impacts from the trucking-only alternative and other quarry-generated 
traffic, as appropriate, in the EIS.
Pipeline Crossings
     Commenters requested that the EIS examine impacts of the 
proposed rail line crossing gas and oil pipelines.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the DEIS will describe 
potential pipeline safety issues at rail/pipeline crossings as 
appropriate, and propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate 
potential project impacts to such crossings, as appropriate.
Other Issues
     Commenters requested that the EIS include information on 
whether rail cars would be parked or pre-positioned along the rail line 
and whether hazardous materials would be stored along the line.
     Commenters stated that fire routes would be needed.
     Commenters requested information on whether and where rail 
traffic would be switched when it reaches the UP rail line.
     Commenters stated that the analysis of rail traffic must 
include the level of traffic that would occur at full build-out 
(maximum production capacity) of the quarry.
    Response: SEA appreciates these comments and will take these 
requests into consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental 
review of transportation and traffic safety issues.

D. Public Health and Worker Health and Safety

     Commenters requested that the dust-related impacts of the 
rail line construction and operation and quarry development and 
operation be examined to understand how people with lung diseases would 
be affected.
     Commenters stated that sources of food would be 
contaminated by dust from trains and trucks.
     Commenters stated that workers should be careful, since 
hunting activities are prevalent in the area.
     Commenters stated that cement could be manufactured at the 
quarry in the future, which could lead to health hazards, since there 
is a possible link between cement factories and Creutzfeldt-Jakob 
disease.
     Commenters stated that appropriate safety measures would 
include posting warning signs for construction hazards, fencing the 
right-of-way of the rail line, maintaining flashing lights and barrier-
arms at grade crossings, and proper maintenance of the tracks and 
trains.
     Commenters requested information about possible spills of 
chemicals, diesel fuels, or any other hazardous materials being 
transported.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe 
potential public health impacts from the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation, describe potential impacts to worker health 
and safety from the proposed new rail line construction and operation, 
and propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to public health and worker health and safety, as 
appropriate. As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather information 
to determine the appropriate level of analysis of the quarry. SEA 
appreciates the suggestions and concerns raised in the comment letters 
and will take these comments into consideration, as appropriate, in the 
environmental review of public health and worker health and safety 
impacts.

E. Water Resources

Impacts to Groundwater
     The Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) submitted comments 
requesting that Impact Category 3.a. in the Draft Scope be changed to 
read as follows: ``Describe the existing groundwater resources within 
the project area, such as aquifers and springs, and the potential 
impacts on these resources resulting from construction and operation of 
the proposed new rail line. Locate all water wells in the project area 
and identify the aquifer in which they are completed.''
     Commenters stated that rail operations could contaminate 
the Edwards Aquifer and disturb natural water runoff. Commenters 
requested that the EIS examine the effect of the rail line on 
underground water supplies, including wells, the Leona Gravel aquifer 
and the Edwards Aquifer.
     Commenters stated that the EIS should study potential 
impacts from quarry development and operation to the Edwards Aquifer 
and compliance with the Edwards Aquifer Protection Plan.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study the present 
condition of the wells that are within two miles of the proposed quarry 
for documentation should the wells be damaged, as well as consider 
having an independent third party monitor wells for nitrate 
contamination and study VCM's policies regarding removing pollutants 
from wells.
     Commenters requested that the EIS include monitoring the 
quality and flow of all existing water wells within two miles of the 
quarry perimeter and that VCM install permanent water monitoring 
stations around the quarry for periodic testing by unbiased certified 
water quality testing laboratories, which would be paid for by VCM.
     Commenters questioned whether test wells should be 
required to detect any contamination or damage to the Edwards Aquifer 
or the Leona Gravel Aquifer and suggested that seismographs be 
installed in the area for several miles.
     Commenters requested that the EIS examine impacts to 
springs in the area, including the main spring that supplies water to 
Quihi Creek from County Road 4512.
     Commenters said that impacts to agricultural water 
pipelines should be examined, as well as impacts to water tanks.
     Commenters stated that dust from rail operations would 
pollute waterways and shallow water wells.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study impacts to water 
quality from quarry blasting and mining activities and impacts to water 
quality from chemicals used at the quarry.
     Commenters stated that the EIS should study the lowering 
of the water table due to quarry excavation.
     Commenters requested information regarding the exact 
location of the fuel storage area to determine whether it is on the 
Edwards Aquifer recharge zone.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe the 
existing groundwater resources within the project area, such as 
aquifers and springs, and the potential impacts on these resources 
resulting from construction and operation of the proposed new rail 
line. As indicated above, SEA is continuing to gather information to 
determine the appropriate level of analysis of the quarry. SEA 
appreciates the suggestions and concerns raised in the comment letters 
and will take these comments into consideration, as appropriate, in the 
environmental review of groundwater resources. SEA will also provide 
the EAA with a copy of the DEIS for review and comment.
Creek Crossings and Flooding Concerns
     Commenters stated that the area is prone to flash flooding 
events and residents are greatly concerned about impacts from the rail 
line on flooding.
     Commenters expressed concern about the type of rail 
crossings at creeks. Commenters indicated that crossings would be 
likely to create flooding

[[Page 25662]]

hazards and could lead to the destruction of homes, historic resources, 
and other facilities and establishments.
     Commenters requested that a full flood analysis be 
performed for all rail routes.
     Commenters stated that analysis of potential flood impacts 
should be an integral part of the elimination of alternatives from 
consideration, and such analysis should include detailed modeling. Such 
modeling should include a basin model (defining the watershed with all 
of its paramenters), a design rainfall (the statistical level of 
rainfall over a given time span), a runoff output, a water surface 
elevation, and floodplain analysis. The most up-to-date methodology 
should be used and commenters recommended employing certain specific 
methodology that is currently being used throughout Texas. Reliance on 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps would not be 
sufficient, since these maps have not been updated since 1980 and 
modeling technology would likely lead to different results.
     Commenters requested that the crossing of Quihi Creek be 
elevated to prevent water from being impounded, and to prevent flooding 
impacts to County Road 365, nearby homes and historic structures. 
Commenters stated that residents are trapped in their homes two or 
three times per year due to the flooding of Quihi Creek, and the rail 
crossing of the creek would increase these flooding problems.
     Commenters requested that the EIS compare the use of 
trestles to the use of wide span bridges with respect to flooding and 
other surface water issues.
     Commenters questioned how many trestle bridges SGR could 
afford to build.
     Commenters expressed concern that the wooden trestles, 
pilings, cross ties and piers to be used in the rail line construction 
would be treated with creosote or pressure-treated arsenic based 
chemicals, which would introduce toxic chemicals into the soil and 
water.
     Commenters expressed concern that railroad berms would 
cause flooding hazards.
     Commenters stated that the EIS should include all relevant 
flood data, including data collected by the EAA, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps), and FEMA.
     Commenters stated that the rail line would cause increased 
water flow, which would lead to erosion problems.
     Commenters requested information on the conditions of 
roadways after flooding, and the amount of time and money needed to 
restore roadways to pre-flood conditions.
     Commenters requested that the EIS conduct detailed 
analysis of flooding impacts from quarry development and operations and 
disclose where there would be alterations of and additions to runoff 
flows. Commenters questioned what the buffer plan would be for the 
streams in each quarry development phase, whether any streams would be 
filled at the quarry, and how drainage would be handled from the 
excavated areas of the quarry. Commenters requested that detailed flood 
modeling be done to determine the flooding impact of increased runoff 
entering the streams from the quarry and whether the construction of a 
detention pond at the quarry site to decrease peak flood flows would be 
a necessary or appropriate mitigation tool.
     Commenters stated that the area is generally dry and 
flooding in the area is rare.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe the 
existing surface water resources within the project area, including 
watersheds, streams, rivers, and creeks, and the potential impacts on 
these resources resulting from construction and operation of the 
proposed rail line; describe the existing regulatory requirements that 
exist to protect stream and river crossings (including floodplains) in 
the event the proposed line is constructed and operated, water quality, 
and erosion control; and propose mitigative measures to minimize or 
eliminate potential project impacts to water resources, as appropriate. 
As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather information to determine 
the appropriate level of analysis of the quarry. SEA appreciates the 
suggestions and concerns raised in the comment letters and will take 
these comments into consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental 
review of surface water resources (including creek crossings and 
flooding concerns). SEA has consulted with EAA, the Corps, and FEMA and 
will provide these agencies a copy of the DEIS for review and comment.
Wetlands and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Permits
     The Corps stated that a Corps permit pursuant to Section 
404 of the Clean Water Act could be required for the proposed rail line 
construction. The Corps provided specific information regarding 
permitting requirements and procedures, and requested that impacts to 
streams, wetlands, and other waters of the United States be minimized.
     Commenters stated that the EIS should include a map of 
both jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional wetlands in the area of each 
alternative and indicate the volume and area of and map the stream 
fills necessary for bridge construction. Commenters suggested that the 
entire wetlands delineation be included as an appendix to the EIS.
    Response: The location and nature of the creek crossings will 
determine whether a Section 404 Corps permit would be required. Thus, a 
determination by the Corps regarding permitting requirements would 
likely be made after completion of the environmental review process and 
only if the Board's final decision approves SGR's proposal to construct 
and operate the rail line along a route where the Section 404 
permitting requirements would be triggered. However, SEA will provide 
the Corps a copy of the DEIS for review and comment.
    As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe existing 
wetlands in the project area and potential impacts on these resources 
resulting from construction and operation of the proposed new rail 
line; describe the permitting requirements that are appropriate for the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation regarding wetlands, 
stream and river crossings (including floodplains), water quality, and 
erosion control; and propose mitigative measures to minimize or 
eliminate potential project impacts to water resources, as appropriate. 
As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather information to determine 
the appropriate level of analysis of the quarry. SEA appreciates the 
comments received and will take them into consideration, as 
appropriate, in the environmental review of wetlands and other water 
resources.

F. Biological Resources

     The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submitted 
comments stating that the proposed rail line may impact two endangered 
species, the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and the 
black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus). FWS requested information 
including habitat assessment and survey results to determine the 
presence of these species in the rail loading area on the proposed 
quarry site.
     Commenters expressed concern about impacts to cattle and 
wildlife. Commenters expressed concern about impacts to songbirds that 
nest in the area. Commenters stated the rail line would destroy blue 
bonnets, wine cups, agaritas, and cactus, and affect rabbits, racoons, 
squirrels, quail, doves, deer, bass, floridas, shad, and catfish.

[[Page 25663]]

     Commenters requested that the EIS include a detailed 
assessment of the actual types of plants and animals that are present 
in the project area, based on field surveys that focus on streambeds, 
riparian areas, and bridge construction areas.
     Commenters stated that the EIS should study how the rail 
line would change water flow patterns and impact fish, birds, bobcats, 
deer, crayfish, and other animals that depend on streams in the area.
     Commenters stated that SEA should undertake a Biological 
Assessment (BA) of both the quarry and the rail line, pursuant to the 
requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and that 
the phased approach that Vulcan has developed to conduct field surveys 
of the quarry area violates the ESA.
     Commenters stated that SEA does not need to undertake a BA 
of the quarry.
     Commenters stated that three years of focused counting of 
endangered species along the rail line alternatives be conducted to 
prepare a sufficient BA. The BA should be included in the EIS for 
public review and comment.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study the migration of 
birds to and from Mexico and how the quarry and the rail line would 
comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study impacts to 
nocturnal animals from the quarry operations.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study impacts from the 
quarry to bats, wild turkeys, and sources of food.
    Response: SEA has consulted with FWS regarding its recommendations 
and the provisions of the ESA, and FWS has indicated that if the EIS 
includes the information specified at 50 CFR 402.12(f), a separate BA 
need not be prepared. SEA will ensure that the appropriate information 
is included in the DEIS for FWS'' review and comment and review and 
comment by the public. As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will 
describe existing biological resources within the project area, 
including vegetative communities, wildlife and fisheries, and the 
Federal and state threatened or endangered species, and the potential 
impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation, and propose mitigative measures to minimize 
or eliminate potential project impacts to biological resources, as 
appropriate. As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather information 
to determine the appropriate level of analysis of the quarry. SEA 
appreciates the suggestions and concerns raised in the comment letters 
and will take these comments into consideration, as appropriate, in the 
environmental review of biological resources.

G. Air Quality Impacts

     Commenters expressed concern about air pollution from rail 
operations.
     Commenters stated that transporting the limestone by rail 
would affect air quality less than transporting the limestone by 
trucks.
     Commenters suggested that the EIS assess air quality 
impacts from the quarry development and operation and the rail line 
construction and operation by modeling Particulate Matter 10 and 
Particulate Matter 2.5 and determining how far from the quarry site and 
rail line any impacts would occur. The EIS should also include 
calculations of the atmospheric particle formation that may occur from 
reactions with volatile organic compounds from the quarry development 
and operation and the rail line construction and operation. The 
information should be presented graphically and all assumptions used in 
the model should be disclosed. The EIS should also include an analysis 
of particulate emissions from uncovered rail cars.
     Commenters requested that VCM be required to provide dust 
abatement equipment at each dust emitting location and a minimum of 
eight air quality monitoring stations be installed around the proposed 
quarry perimeter for continuous air monitoring for a three year period 
prior to operating the quarry.
     Commenters requested that one air quality monitoring 
station be installed for each mile of rail line for continuous air 
monitoring for a three year period prior to operating the quarry.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study impacts on 
machinery from quarry-generated dust.
    Response: As stated in the draft scope, the EIS will describe 
potential air quality impacts resulting from the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation and propose mitigative measures to minimize 
or eliminate potential project impacts to air quality, as appropriate. 
As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather information to determine 
the appropriate level of analysis of the quarry. SEA appreciates the 
suggestions and concerns raised in the comment letters and will take 
these comments into consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental 
review of air quality impacts.

H. Geology and Soils

     Commenters requested that the EIS conduct a survey of 
geologic and soil features in the area and consult with agencies with 
jurisdiction over the Edwards Aquifer to obtain an inventory of these 
features; the inventory should be presented in map form in the EIS.
     Commenters requested that the EIS include an evaluation of 
karst topography in the area as well as an analysis of construction and 
operation impacts to geology and soils. The EIS should be provided to 
agencies with jurisdiction over the Edwards Aquifer for review and 
concurrence.
     Commenters requested that the geologic impacts of water 
withdrawal from the quarry be examined.
     Commenters requested information on the depth of mining 
activities at the quarry in relation to the depth of the Edwards 
Aquifer.
     Commenters said the EIS should study the loss of top soil 
due to the rail line crossing creeks and flood zones.
     Commenters stated that soil erosion could be prevented by 
planting native grasses and shrubs.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe the 
native soils and geology of the proposed project area; describe the 
existing karst features of the project area, if any, and the potential 
impacts to karst features from the proposed new rail line construction 
and operation; and propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate 
potential project impacts on soils and geology and to karst features, 
as appropriate. As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather 
information to determine the appropriate level of analysis of the 
quarry. SEA appreciates the suggestions and concerns raised in the 
comment letters and will take these comments into consideration, as 
appropriate, in the environmental review of geology and soils. SEA has 
consulted with and received comments from the EAA and will provide the 
EAA with a copy of the DEIS for review and comment.

I. Land Use

     Commenters expressed concern that the rail line would 
divide private property and ranches, including ranches that have been 
recognized as Texas Family Land Heritage properties, and adversely 
affect the operation of these ranches.
     Commenters stated that the rail line would divide farmland 
and destroy established soil erosion control systems, as well as divide 
hay fields and cattle pastures.
     Commenters suggested that SEA contact all of the 
landowners along each

[[Page 25664]]

rail route to determine where ranching, agriculture and hunting 
activities currently occur, where residences are located, and the 
distance of the residences from the rail line alternatives and quarry 
site. Each category of land use should be analyzed separately.
     Commenters questioned the use of condemnation authority or 
eminent domain to acquire land for the rail line and asked why Medina 
County should be required to support a project that is designed to meet 
the needs of distant places.
     Commenters requested information regarding impacts to 
vegetable farms.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study how weeds and 
vegetation would be controlled along railroad tracks and assess the use 
of pesticides.
     Commenters requested that the EIS consider how to prevent 
and control flash fires along the rail line during times of dry 
vegetation.
     Commenters requested that the EIS include a study of what 
will happen to the land on the quarry site after it has been mined.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study the destruction of 
homesteads from the quarry.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe 
existing land use patterns within the project area and identify those 
land uses that would be potentially impacted by the proposed new rail 
line construction and operation; describe the potential impacts 
associated with the proposed new rail line construction and operation 
to land uses identified within the project area; and propose mitigative 
measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts to land 
use, as appropriate. As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather 
information to determine the appropriate level of analysis of the 
quarry. SEA appreciates the suggestions and concerns raised in the 
comment letters and will take these comments into consideration, as 
appropriate, in the environmental review of land use impacts.

J. Environmental Justice

     Commenters questioned the need for an environmental 
justice study and requested that the EIS consider the concerns of the 
majority of residents in the area.
     Commenters requested that a detailed environmental justice 
analysis be conducted for each alternative. According to commenters, 
Census 2000 data indicates that Medina County is 45.5 percent Hispanic.
    Response: Executive Order No. 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations,'' sets forth recommendations to Federal agencies for 
conducting environmental justice analyses. As stated in the Draft 
Scope, the EIS will describe the demographics of the communities 
potentially impacted by the construction and operation of the proposed 
new rail line; evaluate whether new rail line construction or operation 
would have a disproportionately high adverse impact on any minority or 
low-income group; and propose mitigative measures to minimize or 
eliminate potential project impacts on environmental justice 
communities of concern, as appropriate. As stated above, SEA is 
continuing to gather information to determine the appropriate level of 
analysis of the quarry. SEA appreciates the comments and will take 
these comments into consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental 
review of environmental justice issues.

K. Noise

     Commenters expressed concern about noise pollution from 
rail operations, particularly train whistles at crossings.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study the noise impacts 
of the rail interchange of the SGR rail line and the UP rail line at 
Dunlay, Texas.
     Commenters expressed concern about noise impacts to 
wildlife and cattle, as well as noise impacts to local churches.
     Commenters suggested that the following methodology be 
used for noise analysis: apply the nighttime weighting penalty if 
operations will occur at night; take background measurements on land 
crossed by rail alternatives and outside of the ``buffer area'' 
properties; locate all noise receptors; do computer modeling of noise 
from both the quarry and the rail line, accounting for all sources of 
rail construction, all sources of quarry construction and excavation, 
and all sources of noise at the quarry; disclose the results of the 
modeling as the cumulative noise impact, presenting all results 
graphically in the EIS and disclosing all modeling assumptions in the 
EIS; and discuss the rationale behind all mitigation measures or lack 
of mitigation measures.
     Commenters recommended that SGR be required to use the 
newly developed ``Quiet Tracks'' to reduce noise from train operations.
     Commenters requested that noise monitoring stations be 
installed around the proposed quarry perimeter for continuous 
monitoring for a three year period prior to operating the quarry or 
rail line.
     Commenters suggested that trucks should use noiseless 
``solar like'' technology for signaling when they are moving and 
loading materials.
     Commenters stated that train operations would not affect 
schools, churches, parks or hospitals.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe the 
existing noise environment of the project area and potential noise 
impacts from the proposed new rail line construction and operation, and 
propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project 
impacts to noise receptors, as appropriate. As stated above, SEA is 
continuing to gather information to determine the appropriate level of 
analysis of the quarry. SEA appreciates the suggestions and concerns 
raised in the comment letters and will take these comments into 
consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental review of noise 
impacts.

L. Vibration

     Commenters requested that the EIS assess vibration impacts 
from train operations to wells, pipelines, water lines, springs, and 
old homes, as well as vibration impacts to sleep patterns and the gates 
at Medina Lake. Commenters requested that vibration impacts to the 
Medina Lake canals be studied.
     Commenters requested information about whether full trains 
or empty trains cause more vibrations, how far out vibration impacts 
would travel and whether vibrations would increase with added rail 
cars.
     Commenters expressed concern about vibration impacts to 
wildlife.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study vibration impacts 
from quarry blasting activities to nearby wells, septic tanks, open 
tanks of water for livestock, the Medina Dam (fault lines run from the 
quarry site to the dam), and historic structures.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe the 
potential vibration impacts from the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation and propose mitigative measures to minimize 
or eliminate potential project impacts from vibration, as appropriate. 
As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather information to determine 
the appropriate level of analysis of the quarry. SEA appreciates the 
suggestions and concerns raised in the comment letters and will take 
these comments into consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental 
review of vibration impacts.

[[Page 25665]]

M. Recreation and Visual Resources

     Commenters requested that the EIS study impacts to the 
aesthetics of cultural resources.
     Commenters requested that the EIS study impacts to 
aesthetics from additional industry that may locate along the rail line 
and impacts to aesthetics from the quarry development and operation.
     Commenters stated that visitors desiring a nice drive in 
the county would be adversely impacted.
     Commenters stated that County Road 365 was originally the 
Upper Quihi Road and connected the homes of early Quihi settlers. A 
train crossing over County Road 365 would divide this historic district 
and would adversely affect the aesthetics of the area.
     Commenters stated that the quarry and the proposed rail 
line would affect stargazing activities. In particular, train 
operations over Alternative 1 would impact the activities of Trinity 
University Astronomy and Physics students.
     Commenters stated that quarry activities would cause light 
pollution.
     Commenters stated that the Quihi dance hall would be 
adversely affected, as well as fishing, swimming, family gatherings and 
hunting activities.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe 
existing recreation and visual resources in the proposed project area 
and potential impacts to recreation and visual resources from 
construction and operation of the proposed new rail line, and propose 
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts 
to recreation and visual resources, as appropriate. As stated above, 
SEA is continuing to gather information to determine the appropriate 
level of analysis of the quarry. SEA appreciates the suggestions and 
concerns raised in the comment letters and will take these comments 
into consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental review of 
recreation and visual resources.

N. Cultural Resources

     Commenters expressed interest in preserving cultural 
resources in the area and stated that numerous historic homes would be 
near the proposed rail line.
     Commenters requested that the areas of potential effect be 
defined for both rail construction and rail operation and impacts to 
cultural resources be thoroughly assessed, including flooding hazards, 
vibration from bridge construction, noise impacts, and aesthetic 
impacts.
     Commenters suggested that the option of creating buffer 
zones by the purchase of additional lands be explored.
     Commenters stated that County Road 4516 is a historic road 
and impacts to this road from a rail line crossing must be studied.
     Commenters requested that the EIS identify and document 
all the cultural, historic, and prehistoric sites in the area, as well 
as make recommendations to protect and preserve any sites that may be 
impacted by the rail line or the quarry.
     Commenters stated that approximately 60 historic homes and 
sites are in the area, and expressed concern about flooding impacts to 
these homes as well as impacts from blasting at the quarry.
     Commenters said the area may be eligible to become a 
Federal Historic District and stressed the importance of the 
preservation of the cultural resources of the area, including 
archeological sites.
     Commenters stated that two prehistoric tribal sites are in 
the area and more such sites could exist in the area as well.
     Commenters stated that the Schuele-Saathoff home that is 
listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is also a Texas 
State Historical Landmark would be impacted by train vibrations.
     Commenters stated that the proposed route would destroy 
portions of an old rock wall and the remaining wall would then be 
damaged by train vibrations.
     Commenters expressed concern that historic structures and 
homes would be adversely impacted by long term, low frequency ground 
vibration from rail operations.
     Commenters stated that First Lady Laura Bush recently 
recognized the Castroville, Texas area as a rich historical area.
     Commenters stated that cultural resources must be studied 
in detail by archeologists and historians who should conduct surface 
surveys, examine test excavations, and work with a geomorphologist, due 
to the unusual drainage of Quihi Creek.
     Commenters stated that two state archeological sites have 
the potential to be impacted by Alternative 3.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe the 
cultural resources environment in the area of the proposed project and 
potential impacts to cultural resources from the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation; describe the ongoing NHPA Section 106 
process for the proposed project; and propose mitigative measures to 
minimize or eliminate potential project impacts to cultural resources, 
as appropriate. As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather 
information to determine the appropriate level of analysis of the 
quarry. SEA is also developing a Draft Programmatic Agreement (PA), 
pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b), to govern part of the Section 106 
process. Moreover, SEA has identified several tribes that may have 
interests in the project area and is formally inviting them to 
participate in the environmental review process and become official 
Section 106 consulting parties. The Draft PA will be made available for 
Section 106 consulting party and public review and comment in draft 
form as part of the DEIS. SEA appreciates the suggestions and concerns 
raised in the comment letters and will take these comments into 
consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental review of cultural 
resources.

O. Socioeconomics

     Commenters expressed concern about impacts from the quarry 
and the rail line to property values, impacts to hunting activities, 
and impacts to planned subdivisions.
     Commenters stated that there would be impacts to 
businesses that need quiet, rural settings to operate, such as sheep 
and goat embryo transplants.
     Commenters stated that the EIS should provide specific 
information regarding tax revenues, jobs and economics. This 
information should include whether any equipment would be owned or 
leased, whether any equipment would be subcontracted, and how the 
quarry and the rail would be taxed.
     Commenters requested that the EIS examine long term 
development impacts. According to commenters, the proposed rail line 
would physically divide Medina County and would directly influence the 
long-term growth of the county.
     Commenters requested that the EIS examine how residents 
would be protected or compensated for loss of health, quality of life, 
and livelihood from proposed quarry operations, and suggested that the 
EIS assess the costs from quarry operations to residents.
     Commenters requested that impacts to the Medina Oaks 
subdivision and Rocky Creek subdivision be studied.
     Commenters suggested that a fund be created to settle 
claims of loss due to quarry operations and a procedure be devised to 
adjudicate claims of loss due to quarry operations.

[[Page 25666]]

     Commenters expressed support for the economic development 
that would result from the quarry and the rail line, and stated that 
schools would benefit from the tax revenue generated by the quarry.
     Commenters stated that the quarry would bring more jobs to 
the county.
     Commenters stated that the rail line would increase 
property values because the availability of commercial transportation 
would make agricultural land more marketable.
    Response: As stated in the Draft Scope, the EIS will describe the 
demographic characteristics of the project area and the current sources 
of income; describe the potential environmental impacts to employment 
and the local economy as a result of the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation; and propose mitigative measures to minimize 
or eliminate potential project adverse impacts to socioeconomic 
resources, as appropriate. As stated above, SEA is continuing to gather 
information to determine the appropriate level of analysis of the 
quarry. SEA appreciates the suggestions and concerns raised in the 
comment letters and will take these comments into consideration, as 
appropriate, in the environmental review of socioeconomic impacts.

P. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts

     Commenters requested that the EIS include a study of the 
cumulative effects of new industries that could be brought into the 
area by the quarry and the rail line, with a full cost/benefit study.
     Commenters requested that SEA's analysis of cumulative 
effects be conducted in the following manner: first identify the types 
of resources that could experience cumulative environmental impacts; 
then, for each resource, conduct an analysis of the additive effects of 
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions to the no-
action alternative (no quarry and no rail line) and to all possible 
combinations of action alternatives for the rail line and the quarry by 
adding their direct effects (using full build-out levels (maximum 
production capacity) of quarry and rail line operations).
     Commenters stated that presenting the cumulative impacts 
analysis in a matrix or table format would not be sufficient.
     Commenters stated that cumulative flood impacts may be 
significant and should be evaluated in as detailed a manner as direct 
flood impacts.
     Commenters stated that the cumulative vibration impacts 
from blasting at the quarry and train operations should be assessed.
     Commenters suggested that the EIS include a study of 
cumulative noise impacts from the following sources: rail shipments 
from expanded quarrying; added common carrier customers; and population 
expansion. The study should take into consideration winter north winds, 
prevailing southeast winds and temperature changes. Specific sources of 
noise include explosions from quarry operations, whistles, bells, 
warning signals, quarry loaders, trucks, conveyors, and crushers.
     Commenters requested that the cumulative impacts of 
industrialization along the rail line be studied and assessed for all 
categories of land use, including residential, hunting, ranching, and 
agriculture, as well as the combined impacts from the quarry and rail 
line on all land use categories. Commenters requested that the EIS make 
a determination of whether there would be a cumulatively negative 
effect to land values, and indicate precisely where any negative 
impacts would occur.
     Commenters requested that downstream air quality impacts 
of transporting limestone to distant cities be taken into 
consideration, particularly impacts to the Houston area, which has a 
nonattainment plan provision for railroads.
     Commenters requested that the EIS include a study of the 
capacity of UP rail lines to transport limestone into the already 
crowded rail traffic in the Houston/Galveston area.
     Commenters requested information on the final destination 
of the trains carrying the aggregate (rail yard or transloading 
facility or other). Commenters also requested that the EIS assess the 
road traffic impacts of the increased rail traffic in Houston, when 
combined with other reasonably foreseeable future actions.
     Commenters expressed concern over possible future uses of 
the rail line by other types of industries, such as chemical plants.
     Commenters stated that SEA should not undertake an 
analysis of the impacts on the national rail system resulting from 
traffic originating on SGR's rail line, since such analysis would be 
speculative and require guesswork.
    Response: Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment 
which result from the incremental impact of the proposed action when 
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 
such actions. 40 CFR 1508.7. In the Draft Scope, SEA stated that the 
EIS will address any identified potential cumulative impacts of the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation, as appropriate. As 
stated above, SEA is continuing to gather information to determine the 
appropriate level of analysis of the quarry, which, at a minimum, will 
be addressed as a cumulative impact. SEA appreciates the suggestions 
and concerns raised in the comment letters and will take these comments 
into consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental review of 
cumulative impacts.
    Indirect impacts are impacts that are caused by the proposed action 
and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 
reasonably foreseeable. 40 CFR 1508.8(b). In the Draft Scope, SEA 
stated that the EIS will address any identified potential indirect 
impacts of the proposed new rail line construction and operation, as 
appropriate. SEA appreciates the suggestions and concerns regarding 
potential indirect effects raised in the comment letters and will take 
these comments into consideration, as appropriate, in the environmental 
review of indirect impacts.

Q. Other Issues

Public Involvement
     Commenters stated that a meeting or a canvas of the area 
should be held to better accumulate public concerns.
     Commenters requested that the public be allowed to review 
and comment on the DEIS for a period of 60 days.
     Commenters requested that a public hearing with oral 
testimony be held no sooner than 45 days after the issuance of the 
DEIS. Commenters stated that the public hearing not be held between 
Thanksgiving and Christmas or on the Our Lady of Guadaloupe feast day. 
Commenters suggested holding the hearing on a Monday or Tuesday with an 
afternoon and evening session so that there would be no need for pre-
registration. Commenters suggested holding the public hearing at the 
Bethany Lutheran Church Hall in Quihi, Texas or in a location in Hondo, 
Texas.
     Commenters stated that written communication is not 
adequate.
    Response: SEA believes that the public has been provided with 
adequate opportunity to participate in the scoping process. SEA 
conducted an Open House in Hondo, Texas on June 12, 2003, and received 
over 100 comment letters in response to the Open House. SEA also 
received additional comment letters from the public regarding specific 
areas of concern. Based on the nature and extent of the numerous 
comment letters received, SEA determined that the effects of the 
proposed project on the

[[Page 25667]]

quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial, 
and that, thus, preparation of an EIS is appropriate. SEA then issued a 
Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (NOI) and Draft Scope for public 
review and comment.
    SEA mailed the NOI and Draft Scope to over 200 parties, including 
Federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, elected officials, local 
organizations, and interested members of the public. The NOI described 
the EIS process and opportunities for public involvement. The Draft 
Scope incorporated the issues and concerns raised in the comment 
letters SEA had received thus far. SEA has received approximately 100 
comment letters in response to the Draft Scope, which raise specific 
issues and concerns, as discussed in this notice.
    SEA is currently preparing a DEIS for the project. The DEIS will 
address those environmental issues and concerns identified during the 
scoping process. It will also contain SEA's preliminary recommendations 
for environmental mitigation measures. Upon its completion, the DEIS 
will be made available for public and agency review and comment for at 
least 45 days. A public meeting will also be held during the comment 
period for the DEIS. The details of the public meeting, including the 
specific format, location, and date, will be available in the DEIS. SEA 
will then prepare a Final EIS (FEIS) that addresses the comments on the 
DEIS from the public and agencies. Then, in reaching its final decision 
in this case deciding whether to allow the exemption to become 
effective, the Board will take into account the DEIS, the FEIS, and all 
environmental comments that are received. In short, throughout the 
Board's process, there has and will continue to be ample opportunity 
for public participation and public comment.
Maps
     Commenters stated that detailed maps are needed for all 
potential rail routes.
     Commenters requested that the exact location of the 
proposed rail route and alternatives be released to the public at this 
time in Geographic Information System format.
     Commenters requested that the potential rail routes be 
staked and flagged in the field to assist public review of the routes.
    Response: SEA appreciates the suggestions of the commenters and 
will take these comments into consideration, as appropriate, when 
preparing maps of the proposed project area. Appropriate maps will be 
included in the DEIS for public review and comment. SEA believes that 
requesting private landowners to maintain stakes and flags of the 
various rail routes on their properties would be unduly burdensome for 
these landowners and is not necessary for the environmental review 
process.
Other
     Commenters requested that the DEIS clearly present all 
methodology used to reach conclusions.
     Commenters stated that information should not be hidden 
from the administrative record and decisions regarding matters of 
agency discretion should be referenced and documented in the DEIS.
     Commenters stated that no analysis or information should 
appear in the FEIS that the public has not had a chance to comment on 
in a DEIS or a Supplemental EIS.
    Response: SEA will ensure that all appropriate information for this 
proceeding is made available to the public, either as part of the EIS 
or separately as part of the administrative record. Environmental 
correspondence and other documents regarding this proceeding are 
already (and will continue to be) publicly available on the Board's Web 
site at www.stb.dot.gov. The EIS also will be available on the Board's 
Web site.

Final Scope of Study for the EIS: Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The proposed project would involve the construction and operation 
of a single-track rail line to connect VCM's proposed quarry and UP's 
Del Rio subdivision line. The proposed rail line would extend about 
seven miles from the quarry site to approximately milepost 250 of the 
UP line, at a point near Dunlay, Texas. SGR would use the new rail line 
to transport limestone from the proposed quarry to the UP rail line, 
for shipment to markets in the Houston area, as well as other markets 
in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley regions of Texas. 
Although the primary purpose of the proposed construction is to provide 
rail service to the quarry site, SGR would hold itself out as a common 
carrier and provide service to other industries that might locate in 
the area in the future. SEA is continuing to gather information to 
determine the appropriate level of analysis of the quarry.
    The alternatives that will be evaluated in detail in the EIS are 
(1) construction and operation of the proposed project along SGR's 
proposed alignment (including a rail loading facility, consisting of a 
loading loop or a series of parallel tracks, that would be constructed 
and operated on the quarry property and is not subject to the Board's 
jurisdiction), (2) three alternative rail routes, and (3) the no-action 
alternative. Other alternatives that may be evaluated in detail in the 
EIS, if SEA determines that they are reasonable and feasible, are (1) 
the old rail route leading to the Medina Dam, (2) the trucking-only 
alternative, and (3) any other alternatives SEA may identify in its 
appropriate analysis of the quarry. Depending on the appropriate level 
of analysis of the quarry, the no-action alternative may include the 
analysis of transportation of the limestone by truck from the proposed 
quarry to the UP rail line (if feasible).

Environmental Impact Analysis

Proposed New Construction

    Analysis in the EIS will address the proposed activities associated 
with the construction and operation of the proposed new rail line and 
their potential environmental impacts, as appropriate. Because SEA has 
not yet determined the appropriate level of analysis of the quarry, SEA 
will not discuss the specifics of the environmental review of the 
quarry development and operation in this document. However, the EIS 
will include an appropriate discussion of the quarry.

Impact Categories

    The EIS will address potential impacts from the proposed 
construction and operation of the new rail line on the human and 
natural environment. Impact areas addressed will include the effects of 
the proposal on transportation and traffic safety, public health and 
worker health and safety, water resources, biological resources, air 
quality, geology and soils (including any karst features), land use, 
environmental justice, noise, vibration, recreation and visual 
resources, cultural resources and socioeconomics. The EIS will include 
a discussion of each of these categories as they currently exist in the 
project area and will address the potential impacts from the proposed 
project on each category, as described below:
1. Transportation and Traffic Safety
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation on the existing transportation network in 
the project area, including vehicular delays at grade crossings.
    b. Describe the potential for train derailments or accidents from 
proposed rail operations.

[[Page 25668]]

    c. Describe potential pipeline safety issues at rail/pipeline 
crossings, as appropriate.
    d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to transportation and traffic safety, as appropriate.
2. Public Health and Worker Health and Safety
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe potential public health impacts from the proposed new 
rail line construction and operation.
    b. Describe potential impacts to worker health and safety from the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to public health and worker health and safety, as 
appropriate.
3. Water Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the existing groundwater resources within the project 
area, such as aquifers and springs, and the potential impacts on these 
resources resulting from construction and operation of the proposed new 
rail line.
    b. Describe the existing surface water resources within the project 
area, including watersheds, streams, rivers, and creeks, and the 
potential impacts on these resources resulting from construction and 
operation of the proposed new rail line.
    c. Describe existing wetlands in the project area and the potential 
impacts on these resources resulting from construction and operation of 
the proposed new rail line.
    d. Describe the permitting requirements that are appropriate for 
the proposed new rail line construction and operation regarding 
wetlands, stream and river crossings (including floodplains), water 
quality, and erosion control.
    e. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to water resources, as appropriate.
4. Biological Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the existing biological resources within the project 
area, including vegetative communities, wildlife and fisheries, and 
Federal and state threatened or endangered species and the potential 
impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to biological resources, as appropriate.
5. Air Quality Impacts
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential air quality impacts resulting from the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to air quality, as appropriate.
6. Geology and Soils
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the native soils and geology of the proposed project 
area.
    b. Describe the existing karst features of the project area, if 
any, and the potential impacts to karst features from the proposed new 
rail line construction and operation.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on soils and geology and to karst features, as 
appropriate.
7. Land Use
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe existing land use patterns within the project area and 
identify those land uses that would be potentially impacted by the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation.
    b. Describe the potential impacts associated with the proposed new 
rail line construction and operation to land uses identified within the 
project area.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to land use, as appropriate.
8. Environmental Justice
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the demographics of the communities potentially 
impacted by the construction and operation of the proposed new rail 
line.
    b. Evaluate whether new rail line construction or operation would 
have a disproportionately high adverse impact on any minority or low-
income group.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on environmental justice communities of concern, as 
appropriate.
9. Noise
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the existing noise environment of the project area and 
potential noise impacts from the proposed new rail line construction 
and operation.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to noise receptors, as appropriate.
10. Vibration
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential vibration impacts from the proposed new 
rail line construction and operation.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts from vibration, as appropriate.
11. Recreation and Visual Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe existing recreation and visual resources in the 
proposed project area and potential impacts to recreation and visual 
resources from construction and operation of the proposed new rail 
line.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to recreation and visual resources, as appropriate.
12. Cultural Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the cultural resources environment in the area of the 
proposed project and potential impacts to cultural resources from the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation.
    b. Describe the ongoing NHPA section 106 process for the proposed 
project, and propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate 
potential project impacts to cultural resources, as appropriate.
13. Socioeconomics
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the demographic characteristics of the project area and 
the current sources of income.
    b. Describe the potential environmental impacts to employment and 
the local economy as a result of the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project adverse impacts to socioeconomic resources, as appropriate.
14. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts
    The EIS will:
    a. Address any identified potential cumulative impacts of the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation, as appropriate. 
Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment which result from 
the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, 
and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 
(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions.
    b. Address any identified potential indirect impacts of the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation, as appropriate. 
Indirect impacts are impacts that are caused by the action and are 
later in time or farther removed

[[Page 25669]]

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

    Decided: April 30, 2004.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental 
Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-10441 Filed 5-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P