[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 94 (Friday, May 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26923-26934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Finance Docket No. 34075]


Six County Association of Governments--Construction and Operation 
Exemption--Rail Line between Levan and Salina, UT

AGENCIES: Lead: Surface Transportation Board. Cooperating: U.S.D.I. 
Bureau of Land Management, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of final scope of analysis for the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

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

SUMMARY: On July 30, 2001, the Six County Association of Governments 
(SCAOG), a regional association representing Juab, Millard, Sevier, 
Sanpete, Piute, and Wayne Counties in central Utah, filed a Petition 
for Exemption with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) pursuant to 
49 U.S.C. 10502 for authority to construct and operate a new rail line 
between Levan and Salina, Utah. The Proposed Action, also referred to 
as the Central Utah Rail Project (CURP), would involve about 43 miles 
of new rail line and related facilities to serve shippers in central 
Utah, particularly the coal operations of the Southern Utah Fuels 
Company (SUFCO). Because constructing and operating this Proposed 
Action appears to have some potential to cause significant 
environmental impacts, the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis 
(SEA) has determined that preparing an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) is appropriate.
    To help determine the scope of the EIS, and as required by the 
Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1105.10(a), SEA published the Notice of 
Intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on September 30, 2003, 
and served it on interested members of the public. On October 22 and 
23, 2003, SEA held public scoping meetings in Salina and Gunnison, 
Utah, as part of the EIS scoping process as discussed in the Notice of 
Scoping Meetings and Request for Comments published by the Board on 
October 20, 2003.
    Based on input received during the scoping process, SEA developed a 
Draft Scope for the EIS. On December 24, 2003, SEA published the Notice 
of Availability of Draft Scope for the EIS and Request for Comments in 
the Federal Register and made it available to the public. The scoping 
comment period concluded on January 26, 2004. After reviewing and 
considering all comments received, this notice sets forth the Final 
Scope of the EIS.
    The Final Scope, which can be found at the end of this document, 
incorporates the provisions from the Draft Scope as appropriate, and 
includes changes made to the Draft Scope as a result of the comments. 
The Final Scope also summarizes and addresses the principal 
environmental concerns raised by the comments.
    During the scoping comment period, SEA invited the U.S. Department 
of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to participate as a 
cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS because the Proposed 
Action could affect lands administered by BLM. In a letter to the Board 
dated January 21, 2004, BLM accepted SEA's invitation to participate as 
a cooperating agency on this Proposed Action. Future references in this 
document to SEA include BLM.
    In addition to issuing the Final Scope of the EIS, SEA is providing 
a 30-day comment period for interested parties to submit comments on a 
new proposed alternative. The new proposed alternative will be referred 
to as Alternative C. Citizens attending scoping meetings on October 22 
and 23, 2003, proposed Alternative C as a modification to applicant's 
proposed alignment. SEA is seeking public comment on Alternative C in 
order to ensure public input in the assessment of the potential 
feasibility of this proposed alternative. Alternative C is discussed in 
detail in the supplementary information provided below. SEA will 
prepare a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the Proposed Action. The 30-day comment 
period on Alternative C is in addition to the comment period that will 
be provided on all aspects of the DEIS when that document is made 
available to the public.
    Filing Environmental Comments on Alternative C: Interested persons 
and agencies are invited to comment on Alternative C. Written comments 
are due on June 14, 2004. A signed original and one copy of comments 
should be submitted to Surface Transportation Board, Case Control Unit, 
STB Finance Docket No. 34075, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-
001. Mark in the lower left corner of the envelope: Attention: Phillis 
Johnson-Ball, Environmental Filing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ms. Phillis Johnson-Ball, SEA Project 
Manager, Section of Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. Ms. Johnson-Ball 
may also be reached at (202) 565-1530 (Hearing Impaired 1-800-877-8339) 
or e-mail: [email protected]. The Web site for the Surface 
Transportation Board is www.stb.dot.gov.
    Ms. Nancy DeMille, BLM Project Manager, Realty Specialist, 
Richfield Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 150 East 900 North, 
Richfield, UT 84701. Ms. DeMille may also be reached at (435) 896-1515 
or e-mail: [email protected].
    The Final Scope is available for review at the following locations: 
Salina Public Library, 90 W. Main Street, Salina, UT 84654-1353, 
Gunnison Public Library, 38 W. Center Street, Gunnison, UT 84634.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Proposed Action, known as the CURP, would involve about 43 
miles of new rail line and related facilities to serve shippers in 
central Utah, particularly the coal operations of the SUFCO. SCAOG 
would operate on average one to two loaded trains per day comprising 
100 to 110 rail cars each, totaling approximately 42,000 to 44,000 
loaded rail cars per year. SCAOG plans to transport coal as its 
principal commodity. Depending on the success of marketing the new rail 
service, other miscellaneous commodities could be transported. None of 
these commodities are expected to be hazardous.
    The purpose of the Proposed Action, as set forth by SCAOG in its 
petition filed with Board, is to access a number of industries, 
primarily coal mines owned by SUFCO located 30 miles east of Salina. 
Due to an absence of rail access, these industries currently move all 
goods by truck. SCAOG believes that the Proposed Action would reduce 
the number of coal trucks using portions of five highways: I-70, SR-50, 
I-15, SR-28 and SR-10. Most segments of these roads currently carry 750 
trucks per day, with 1500 trucks passing through downtown Salina each 
day at a rate of

[[Page 26924]]

one truck per minute. SCAOG states that reducing the number of trucks 
on these roads would decrease roadway congestion, increase the quality 
of life through towns such as Salina, Centerfield, Gunnison and 
Fayette, and reduce wear and tear on state roads and interstates.
    By decision served October 26, 2001, the Board issued a decision 
finding that, from a transportation perspective, the proposed 
construction and operation meet the standards in 49 U.S.C. 10502 for an 
exemption from the formal application procedures of 49 U.S.C. 10901. 
The Board will issue a final decision after completion of the 
environmental review process, as to whether the exemption authority 
should be allowed to go into effect.

Environmental Review Process

    The Board is the lead agency for this EIS process, pursuant to 40 
CFR 1501.5. 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 is the office within the Board 
responsible for conducting the environmental review process.
    The NEPA environmental review process is intended to assist the 
Board, the BLM and the public in identifying and assessing the 
potential environmental consequences of a Proposed Action and 
Alternatives before a decision on the Proposed Action is taken. The 
NEPA regulations require the Board and the BLM to consider a reasonable 
range of reasonable and feasible alternatives to the Proposed Action. 
The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees 
the implementation of NEPA, has stated in Forty Most Asked Questions 
Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations that 
``[R]easonable alternatives include those that are practical or 
feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common 
sense * * *''
    In the DEIS, SEA is considering a full range of alternatives that 
meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action, as well as the No-
Action Alternative. Some alternatives have been dismissed from further 
analysis because they have been determined to be infeasible or not 
reasonable. The DEIS will include a brief discussion of the reasons for 
eliminating certain alternatives from detailed analysis and will 
contain an appropriate discussion of Alternative C.
    In addition, the DEIS will address those environmental issues and 
concerns identified during the scoping process and detailed in the 
Draft Scope served December 24, 2003, and this Final Scope. The DEIS 
will also contain recommended environmental mitigation measures, as 
appropriate. After the DEIS is complete, SEA will make it available for 
public review and comment. SEA will then prepare a Final EIS (FEIS) 
that reflects SEA's further analysis, as appropriate, and the comments 
on the DEIS.
    BLM as a cooperating agency pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 will 
participate during all phases of the DEIS and FEIS development and 
intends to adopt the EIS for BLM's decision-making purposes, as it 
pertains to the described public lands. Upon filing of an official 
right-of-way application with the BLM regarding the potentially 
impacted public lands, the application would be processed in accordance 
with BLM policies, procedures and guidelines, which would include an 
internal interdisciplinary team review for approval and adoption of the 
EIS analysis of the pertinent environmental resource issues, analysis, 
monitoring and mitigation (if appropriate). BLM's participation as a 
cooperating agency is expected to streamline the environmental review 
process associated with obtaining right-of-way on BLM lands.
    In reaching its final future decisions on this case, the Board will 
take into account the full environmental record, including the DEIS, 
the FEIS, and all public and agency comments received.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    Based on analysis conducted to date and comments received during 
the scoping process, SEA has determined that the reasonable and 
feasible alternatives \1\ that will be discussed in the EIS are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The ``No-Action Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative A. 
This alternative is the no build alternative, in which case there would 
be no new rail line construction and no application to BLM involving 
federal lands.
    (2) Alternatives B and B1. These alternatives include constructing 
and operating the SCAOG preferred alternative as identified in its 
petition (Alternative B) to the Board and Alternative B1, a 
modification to Alternative B developed during scoping. Alternative B 
and Alternative B1 are shown in Figure 1, attached, as well as on a 
large-scale map available for viewing at the Salina Public Library, and 
the Gunnison Public Library (addresses listed above).
    (3) As noted above, another alternative, referred to as Alternative 
C, was identified during the public scoping process by local 
landowners. According to local landowners, Alternative C was developed 
to minimize potential impacts to landowners' property. Because 
Alternative C was not considered in the Draft Scope, SEA is seeking 
additional information from the public to assist in determining whether 
Alternative C is a reasonable and feasible alternative that would meet 
the purpose and need of the petitioner's Proposed Action, and therefore 
should be analyzed in detail in the DEIS. A general description of the 
alignment is set forth below. Alternative C is also shown on Figure 1, 
attached, and on a large-scale map available for viewing at the Salina 
Public Library, and the Gunnison Public Library (addresses listed 
above). Based on the comments and its own independent investigation SEA 
will determine whether Alternative C is a reasonable and feasible 
alternative and will set forth its position in the DEIS.

Alternative A--No-Action Alternative

    Consistent with the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 
1502.14(d)), the EIS will consider the No-Action Alternative. Under the 
No-Action Alternative, no new rail line or terminal facilities would be 
constructed. No new train operations through the Sevier Valley would be 
conducted, and rail operations on the UPRR line would not change. 
Trucks would continue to move coal from central Utah via the highways 
in the Sevier Valley. There would also be no application to BLM 
involving federal land.

Alternative B--Applicant's Proposed Action

    Alternative B would involve construction of approximately 43 miles 
of new rail line. Alternative B would be generally north-south and 
would pass to the east of Chicken Creek Reservoir and through the Juab 
Plain, a valley between mountains to the east and west. Alternative B 
begins with a connection with Union Pacific Railway's mainline near 
Levan, Utah. The connection at UPRR would be a wye between the Juab and 
Sharp Sidings. The alignment would move southward and east of an 
irrigation pond called Chicken Creek Reservoir. The line would 
generally follow a path near an existing power transmission line that 
moves through the center of an area known as the Juab

[[Page 26925]]

Plain. The Plain consists of the valley between two foothill and 
mountainous areas on the east and west. The alignment would run 
parallel with the eastern boundary of Yuba Reservoir, a man-made 
irrigation facility.
    The alignment continues along the eastern shore area until it 
reaches the middle of Yuba where the reservoir significantly narrows at 
a point south of Yuba State Park. There the alignment would cross Yuba 
Lake. This crossing would be adjacent to a location where a high-
voltage transmission line currently crosses the reservoir.
    From this point, the alignment would continue southward along the 
western marshy boundary of Yuba. Where the alignment leaves the 
southern end of Yuba, it would continued southward along the western 
side of the Sevier Valley near points where the foothills intersect 
with irrigated farmlands. The alignment would continue southward on the 
valley's western side, passing on the west side of the town of Redmond 
and roughly paralleling the existing high-voltage transmission line. 
After passing Redmond, the alignment would move eastward towards the 
center of the valley. The line would cross State Highway 50 on the west 
side of Salina City and continues southward crossing State Highway 118 
(Old Highway 89) and the Sevier River. The alignment would move along 
the western side of some hills near the Salina industrial park and 
would terminate just before reaching Interstate 70 in an area known as 
Lost Creek, near Salina, Utah.

Alternative B1

    Alternative B1 would also involve construction of approximately 43 
miles of new rail line. Alternative B1 would follow the same alignment 
as Alternative B to a point north of the Redmond salt mines, where it 
would be located to the south-southwest of Alternative B. Alternative 
B1 would roughly run parallel to the Paiute Canal on the east side of 
the canal until a point just north of Route 50 where it would gradually 
curve eastward, crossing Route 50 and terminating at the proposed 
loading facility near the Salina industrial park.

Alternative C

    Alternative C, the alternative suggested by landowners during the 
public scoping process, which may or may not be deemed a reasonable and 
feasible alternative would follow the same alignment as Alternatives B 
and B1 until a point about 4.5 miles north of the county line between 
Sanpete and Sevier Counties. Alternative C would diverge from the other 
alignments and run south on the west side of the Piute Canal about 0.5 
to 1.0 mile west of Alternative B1. It would remain east of the 
existing high-voltage transmission line. Alternative C would then 
continue south, essentially parallel to and west of Alternative B1 and 
the Piute Canal, and would cross the Sanpete/Sevier County border. It 
would reconverge with Alternative B1 about 0.5 mile north of where 
Alternate B crosses Route 50, about 3 miles west of Salina.
    An option proposed with Alternative C would be to locate the coal-
loading facility on the north side of Route 50 near its intersection 
with State Route 256.

Participation

Public Participation

    As discussed above, SEA served a Notice of Intent in the Federal 
Register on September 30, 2003, announcing the start of the scoping 
process and the dates and times of public meetings. Additional methods 
used to notify the public of the scoping meetings included the 
following:
    SEA placed paid legal advertisements in the following newspapers:
     The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News (statewide 
circulation) on October 16, 2003.
     Sanpete Messenger (Manti) on October 16, 2003.
     The Pyramid (Mt. Pleasant) on October 16, 2003.
     The Richfield Reaper (Richfield) on October 16, 2003.
     Salina Sun and Gunnison Valley News (Gunnison) on October 
15, 2003.
     The Times-News (Nephi) on October 15, 2003.
    SEA prepared a media release and sent it out to the media on 
October 20, 2003. SEA distributed about 70 newsletters to individuals 
on the SEA's environmental mailing list on October 14, 2003. Several 
media outlets ran stories about the Proposed Action before and after 
the public meetings. The dates and publications of those articles are 
listed below:
     October 8, 2003--The Richfield Reaper (Richfield).
     October 8, 2003--Gunnison Valley News and Salina Sun 
(Gunnison).
     October 8, 2003--The Times-News (Nephi).
     October 29, 2003--Gunnison Valley News and Salina Sun 
(Gunnison).
     October 29, 2003--The Richfield Reaper (Richfield).
     November 5, 2003--The Richfield Reaper (Richfield).
    In October 2003, SEA held two open-house-format public scoping 
meetings. Below are the dates and locations of the public scoping open 
houses:
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
    North Sevier High School, Salina, Utah.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
    Gunnison City Hall, Gunnison, Utah.
    Thirty-six individual comments were received at the two meetings 
and there were a total of 107 signatures on the attendance sheets. 
Following the meetings, an additional 34 written comments were 
received.

Agency Participation

    Before the beginning of the public scoping period, SEA began 
inviting appropriate agencies with interests in the corridor to 
participate in the environmental review process. Their comments helped 
SEA determine what level of study was environmentally warranted for the 
proposed rail line. The agencies were asked to help identify potential 
environmental issues and concerns in the corridor. An agency scoping 
meeting was held on May 21, 2003, to solicit additional agency comments 
regarding the Proposed Action.
    Letters of notification for the meeting were mailed on April 1, 
2003, to about 44 agencies. These letters invited the agencies to 
attend the agency scoping meeting and provide comments on the Proposed 
Action. Project representatives made follow-up phone calls to the 
invitees on April 24 through April 25, 2003, and again on May 15, 2003, 
to ensure that the agencies received notice of the May 21, 2003, 
meeting. There were 29 attendees at this meeting representing 19 
agencies.
    These agencies were also invited to submit comments during SEA's 
public scoping period. A letter with project information, a request for 
their comments, and an invitation to the public scoping meetings was 
mailed to these agencies on October 14, 2003.
    The comments collected from the agencies both before and during the 
public scoping period were used to help identify issues that need 
further review in the EIS process. A total of 37 agency comments were 
received before and during the public scoping period.

Native American Consultation

    SEA initiated and followed a Tribal Consultation Plan involving 
federally recognized Native American tribes. The federally recognized 
Native American tribes represented in Utah were included in all public 
and agency scoping efforts. Additional outreach attempts were made to 
involve the tribes in the EIS process.
    Utah is home to seven federally recognized Native American tribes: 
the

[[Page 26926]]

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation; the Navajo Nation; the 
Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation of Utah (Washakie); the Skull 
Valley band of Goshute of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe of the Unitah and 
Ouray Reservation; the Utah Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain 
Reservation and the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (consisting of the 
Cedar City, Kanosh, Koosharen, Indian Peaks and Shivkits bands). Other 
federally recognized tribes have an ancestral connection to the State 
of Utah and have been considered in the consultation process. Below is 
a detailed list of coordination efforts used to involve the tribes in 
the EIS process.
     Tribal contacts were mailed letters of invitation to 
attend the agency scoping meeting on May 21, 2003.
     Invitations were mailed on May 7, 2003.
     Project representatives invited the tribes to attend a 
drive-through of potential rail corridor alignments on May 20, 2003.
     Phone calls were made to the tribal points-of-contact the 
week of May 12, 2003, inviting them to the drive-through and reminding 
them about the agency scoping meeting.
     Follow-up letters and a tour itinerary were sent to the 
tribes on May 14, 2003.
     The tribes were sent individual letters as well as project 
newsletters inviting them to the public scoping meetings and requesting 
their input on identifying sensitive environmental and cultural areas 
in the Central Utah Rail corridor.
     Letters were sent on October 8, 2003.
     Newsletters were sent on October 14, 2003.
     Follow-up phone calls to the tribes were made on October 
14, 2003, to make sure the tribes were aware of the public scoping 
meetings and again requesting their comments regarding the project.
     A letter and maps were sent on request to the Skull Valley 
Band of Goshute Indians on January 7, 2004.
     Follow-up calls were made to the Skull Valley Band of 
Goshute Indians between January 8 and January 14, 2004.
    In short, as part of the environmental review process to date, SEA 
has conducted broad public outreach activities to inform the public, 
agencies and federally recognized Native American tribes about the 
Proposed Action and alternatives and to facilitate public 
participation. SEA has and will continue to consult with federal, 
state, and local agencies, affected communities, federally recognized 
Native American Tribes and all interested parties to gather and 
disseminate information about the proposal.

Response to Comments

    SEA reviewed and considered approximately 113 comments detailing 
622 individual issues to prepare this Final Scope for the EIS. The 
Final Scope incorporates provisions of the Draft Scope with changes 
made as a result of these comments and SEA's further analysis. The 
discussion below summarizes and addresses the principal environmental 
concerns raised by the comments and presents additional discussion to 
further clarify the Final Scope.
    The Draft Scope included the following impact categories: Land Use, 
Biological Resources, Water Resources, Geology and Soils, Air Quality, 
Noise, Energy Resources, Socioeconomics, Safety, Transportation 
Systems, Cultural and Historical Resources, Recreation, Aesthetics, 
Environmental Justice, and Cumulative Impacts. This Final Scope 
includes additional and more detailed information on these 
environmental issue areas based on agency and public comments.

1. Rail Operations and Safety

    Comments regarding safety near the rail line and at crossings for 
people and animals. Several landowners expressed a concern regarding 
safety near the proposed new rail line. Other landowners pointed to 
alleged safety impacts to homes in close proximity to the rails, 
children living near the rails, livestock/rail collisions grazing near 
the rails, wildlife crossings and potential bus/rail conflict. The 
comments stressed the need for appropriate safety measures near 
proposed crossings. Several comments requested fencing along the rail 
line to prevent livestock from being hit on the tracks. Comments 
supported grade separation at all rail crossings. Utah Department of 
Natural Resource (UDNR) stated that the EIS should include reference to 
the Yuba Lake State Park entrance road.
    Response. The EIS will assess potential safety impacts at at-grade 
crossings and the area near the proposed new line, including any 
crossings of the entrance road to Yuba Lake State Park. The EIS will 
consider mitigation measures (where appropriate) to minimize or 
eliminate project impacts.
    Comments on daily train operations. Comments indicated a need for 
more information about the operation of the proposed rail line, 
specifically hours of operations and frequency of trains. BLM also 
questioned the status of contract assurances for transported goods, 
licensing requirements for the rail line, construction and maintenance 
requirements for the rail line, and impacts to existing utility rights-
of-way.
    Response. The EIS will address rail operations including hours of 
operation, frequency of trains, and any potential safety impacts 
related to construction and operation of the proposed rail line. The 
EIS will also describe the Federal Railroad Administration's regulatory 
framework for rail safety. The EIS will explain the Board's licensing 
authority as it applies to the introduction of new rail service.
    Comments regarding hazardous materials transportation safety and 
water contamination. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality, the 
town of Redmond, and one landowner stated that cargo spills could 
contaminate local water supplies. Comments from The United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that the EIS present 
information comparing the risk of spills and releases of the No-Action 
Alternative (transporting the coal by truck) and the feasible build 
alternatives.
    Response. At this time, no hazardous materials are proposed to be 
transported over the new line. The EIS will discuss the safety risks of 
transport of the coal by truck and by rail, including the potential for 
cargo spills.

2. Land Use

    General comments regarding land use. Comments questioned the 
potential impacts that the proposed rail line could have on public 
lands and grazing allotments. BLM comments stated that the EIS should 
address consistency with federal, state, local, and tribal land use 
plans.
    Response. The EIS will describe existing land use patterns within 
the project area and identify those uses that would be affected by the 
proposed rail line construction and operation. Additionally, the EIS 
will describe potential impacts to farming, ranching and public lands. 
A discussion of the Proposed Action's and alternatives consistency with 
federal, state, local, and tribal land use plans will be included in 
the EIS. The EIS will reflect the input of BLM, a cooperating agency, 
and consultations with other agencies and organizations. The EIS will 
use the best available information to analyze any potential impacts in 
the area affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives.
    Comments regarding farmland and property values. The majority of 
comments regarding land use stated that the proposed rail line would 
adversely affect existing farmland and property

[[Page 26927]]

values. Landowners noted the potential adverse impacts to individual 
family farms, particularly impacts to irrigation and access on divided 
properties. Some commenters proposed private rail crossings as 
mitigation for loss of access and steel piping as mitigation for 
irrigation impacts.
    Response. The EIS will analyze the potential effects on properties 
divided by the Proposed Action and any potential impacts on irrigation 
and mitigation (where appropriate). The social and economic effects 
that are reasonably foreseeable and that may result from the Proposed 
Action and alternatives will be analyzed.

3. Biological Resources

    Comments regarding large game animals. Some comments support the 
proposed rail line due to the potential reduction in the number of 
animals killed by trucks on the highway. Other comments express concern 
for large game animals being killed by trains. Because the potential 
alignments cross large-game winter habitat along the routes, UDNR 
requested that wildlife surveys should be completed through the 
corridor.
    Response. The EIS will identify wildlife corridors in the project 
area and describe potential impacts to large game that may be affected 
by operation of the proposed rail line and alternatives.
    Comments regarding best management practices. Comments supported 
the use of best management practices to protect fish and wildlife in 
the corridor.
    Response. The EIS will use the best available information to 
analyze impacts on fish and wildlife in the corridors including best 
management practices. The EIS will consider and evaluate the existing 
plant and animal communities and aquatic resources within the project 
area and the potential impacts on biological and aquatic resources from 
construction and operation of the Proposed Action and alternatives.
    Comments regarding threatened and endangered species. Comments 
identified several threatened, endangered, and sensitive species in the 
corridor as well as several conservation species. The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service noted that the peregrine falcon is no longer on the 
Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List. Comments requested 
coordination with the applicable biological resource agencies. 
Additional comments from landowners raised concerns about the impacts 
that construction would have on the neighboring ecosystems.
    Response. SEA will coordinate with applicable biological resource 
agencies while preparing the EIS. The EIS will describe existing 
biological resources within the project area, including vegetative 
communities, wildlife and fisheries, federal and state threatened or 
endangered species, and the potential impacts on those resources. The 
EIS will address the impacts of the Proposed Action on these resources, 
including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation (where appropriate), 
depending on the potential effects identified in the EIS.
    Comments regarding the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Redmond 
Wildlife Management Area. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 
(UDWR) stated that the EIS should address impacts to the Redmond 
Wildlife Management Area (WMA), which is protected under the Redmond 
Wetlands Conservation Easement. In addition, the UDNR stressed the 
importance of considering in the EIS impacts to wetland and upland 
habitats, wildlife species that rely on the WMA, public access to the 
WMA, and the source of water for the wetlands in the WMA. UDNR's 
comments also indicated that the EIS should reference Yuba Lake State 
Park.
    Response. The EIS will consider potential impacts to the Redmond 
WMA and the Yuba Lake State Park and evaluate potential impacts to 
wetlands, plant and animal communities, scenic resources and 
recreational uses. The EIS will address the impacts of the Proposed 
Action and alternatives on these resources, including avoidance, 
minimization, and mitigation (where appropriate), depending on the 
potential effects identified in the EIS.
    Comments regarding invasive species. BLM requested that the EIS 
address invasive and non-native species.
    Response. The EIS will address the potential for the spread of 
invasive and non-native species as a result of the Proposed Action and 
alternatives.

4. Water Resources

    Comments regarding interruption in water services and drainage. 
Landowners stated that the proposed rail line would cut irrigation 
canals and pipelines and interrupt the flow of irrigation water to 
crops and livestock. Comments requested that measures be taken to avoid 
existing canals and ditches. Other comments proposed relocating 
affected culverts, ditches, and wells as mitigation for the potential 
impacts of the Proposed Action. EPA and landowners also stated that the 
rail line would block underground field drains, sprinkler system ponds, 
water diversion systems, and culinary water supplies for homes and 
animals. BLM requested that the EIS address water uses, water 
availability, and water rights.
    Response. The EIS will address potential impacts to existing 
surface water and groundwater resources, the uses of those waters, and 
the availability and water rights associated with those waters. Water 
resources will include lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, floodplains, 
irrigation canals, pipelines, ditches, culverts, field drains, 
sprinkler system ponds, water diversion systems, groundwater wells, and 
culinary water supplies. The EIS will consider mitigation, as 
appropriate.
    Comments regarding wetland areas. Comments identified wetlands 
areas near Chicken Creek Reservoir and Yuba Lake. Comments also 
stressed concerns about disrupting wetlands along the proposed rail 
corridor. Other comments advise that Alternative B (the Proposed 
Action) would cross the western point of the Redmond Wetlands 
Conservation Area easement, and urge the Board to avoid this easement 
if possible. EPA asked that the EIS include an analysis of wetland 
impacts sufficient to meet the requirements of the section 404 (b)(1) 
Guidelines found in 40 CFR part 230. EPA requested a copy of the 
wetland determination, and raised concerns about potential impacts to 
water quality from either highway or rail line petrochemical spills is 
another area of concern expressed by EPA. In this regard, EPA requested 
that comparative information be developed on the risk of petroleum 
product spills, coal spills, and construction sediment sediment under 
the No-Action Alternative, where the rail hauls that would result if 
this project where approved and implemented would be compared to the 
exiting truck hauls.
    Response. The EIS will include a discussion of the potential 
impacts to wetlands and wetland conservation areas. The approximate 
acreage of impact will be calculated. The EIS will provide the 
approximate area of impact to wetlands along each feasible alignment. A 
wetlands analysis under the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404(b)(1) is 
part of a permitting process that involves the petitioner and the 
United States Corps of Engineers (USACE). The EIS will include a 
discussion of the CWA section 404 permitting process. The USACE will 
make the jurisdictional determination regarding wetlands. The EIS will 
include the results of the determination, if available. The EIS will 
discuss the safety risks of the transport of the coal by truck and by 
rail, including the potential for cargo spills. Information regarding 
environmental impacts

[[Page 26928]]

associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives, including the No-
Action Alternative will be presented in comparative format.
    Comments regarding water quality and vibration impacts. Landowners 
raised concerns about rail vibrations adversely affecting groundwater 
by suspending sediment in the water and reducing the quality of 
domestic and irrigation water supplies. UDWR identified the Yuba Lake 
as a Class 3 warm-water fishery and asked what impacts vibration from 
the proposed rail line would have on the lake's water quality.
    Response. The EIS will consider the existing groundwater resources 
within the project area and the potential impacts on these resources 
from construction and operation, including vibration, associated with 
the Proposed Action and alternatives. The EIS will address potential 
impacts to the water quality of Yuba Lake.
    Comments regarding source protection zones. The City of Redmond and 
local landowners stated that the proposed rail line would cross the 
drinking water source protection zones for their culinary water supply.
    Response. The EIS will describe potential impacts to drinking water 
source protection zones.

5. Geology and Soils

    General topographical, geological, and soil comments. Comments 
requested a geological survey and a soils survey near the Proposed 
Action. Additional comments identified landslides, rock falls, and 
problem soils as geological hazards along the route. A few comments 
questioned if blowing dust from the coal could result in soil 
sterilization. One comment indicated that the topography associated 
with Alignment C could result in higher costs than constructing and 
operating the B Alternative, but that ways should be considered to pass 
that cost on to the users of the proposed rail line. UDNR stated that 
the EIS should address paleontological and mineral resources.
    Response. The EIS will describe the geology and soils in the 
project area, including unique formations, problematic/hazardous 
geology or soils, prime or unique farmland soils, hydric soils, mineral 
resources, and the potential impacts on these resources resulting from 
the project and all feasible build alternatives. The EIS will address 
potential impacts to cultural resources and will describe the results 
of archeological surveys conducted as part of consultations with the 
Utah State Historic Preservation Office.

6. Air Quality

    Comments stated that the rail line would reduce air pollution by 
reducing the number of coal trucks on the roads. Other comments stated 
that the location of the proposed coal loadout near the new industrial 
park would contaminate the air in Salina. One comment said that there 
was already a high incidence of lung disease and cancer in the area due 
to the coal dust from the truck loadout in Salina.
    EPA suggests that the EIS document current air quality conditions, 
using suitable data sets from ambient air monitoring programs. EPA also 
suggested that the EIS consider the potential cumulative impacts of 
this project on coal mining and other energy development in the area.
    Morever, EPA indicated that the EIS should include a comprehensive 
air quality evaluation of effects on pollutants with regulatory 
standards and pollutants for which regulatory standards have not been 
set. EPA also requested that the EIS address all of EPA's categories of 
emissions and consider other air quality related values such as 
visibility, ozone, and particulate deposition in Class 1 areas. EPA 
suggested that the EIS compare the decrease in emissions from reducing 
truck traffic in the Sevier Valley of Utah with the expected increase 
in emissions that could arise from increased rail traffic. The 
potential for increased commercial rail transport along the proposed 
rail line for commodities other than coal was also mentioned by EPA as 
an issue area that could warrant consideration in the EIS.
    Response. The Board's environmental rules, 49 CFR part 1105, 
establish the threshold that SEA uses to determine if a detailed air 
quality evaluation of the proposed construction and operation is 
required. The Board typically analyzes air impacts where there is an 
increase of at least eight trains per day, an increase in rail traffic 
of at least 100 percent (measured in gross ton miles annually), or an 
increase in rail yard activity of at least 100 percent (measured by 
carload activity). The Proposed Action is located in an attainment 
area. The Proposed Action anticipates one or two trains per day, and 
would not trigger the Board's environmental thresholds requiring air 
quality impacts analysis.
    Available information obtained in consultation with SCAOG suggests 
that the economic feasibility of the Proposed Action is based on coal 
shipments from the SUFCO Mine. Based on representations by SUFCO, the 
volume of coal produced by the mine and subsequently shipped by train 
or truck should remain stable for at least 25 years (the life of the 
mine reserves). Thus, the available information does not suggest that 
any appreciable increased production at the SUFCO mine is likely if the 
proposed new rail line is completed. Morever, the amount of any 
increase that there could be is speculative. Although production at the 
SUFCO mine is unlikely to increase, the area does have sizeable coal 
reserves. For example, the Emery Mine is projected to reopen this year. 
Other mines in proximity to the proposed rail line could also seek 
permits to open and begin production. The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and 
Mining has advised SEA that there has been a few inquiries about 
possible start up of other mines in the area, but there are no pending 
applications.
    Non-coal businesses could also use the proposed railroad. The 
proposed line could provide existing and future non-coal businesses 
that would benefit from using rail transportation with the opportunity 
for new marketing opportunities, which currently appear to be 
constrained by the trucking cost to reach a rail loading point.
    In short, the potential for increased coal movements and non-coal 
movements exists, if the proposed new rail line is approved and becomes 
operational. However, the extent of the potential for increased coal 
production and the likelihood of new or existing non-coal businesses 
using the line is speculative and not reasonably foreseeable at this 
time. For that reason and because the proposed line is in an attainment 
areas, will handle only one or two trains a day, and will decrease 
emissions in the Sevier Valley from reduced truck traffic, a 
comprehensive air quality analysis would be inappropriate and will not 
be undertaken.

7. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts Associated With Coal Mining

    EPA suggested that the EIS address indirect and cumulative impacts 
of the proposed rail line on coal mining, including the possibility 
that the SUFCO mine or other mines would expand or be altered. EPA 
advises that the scope of an EIS should address the requirements of 40 
CFR 1508.25. EPA suggests that the Board contact the Office of Surface 
Mining and Utah's Division of Oil, Gas and Mining to discuss the 
relationship between this proposed action and the ongoing coal mining 
that this proposed rail line would serve.
    Response. SEA contacted the Utah Energy Office and Utah Division of 
Oil, Gas and Mining as suggested by EPA.

[[Page 26929]]

Both offices advised that the only mine in operation near the proposed 
line that would likely ship coal, at this time, is SUFCO. Given SUFCO's 
production projections for coal movements (2003 production was 
7,125,797 short tons and 2004 projection is 7,400,000 short tons), the 
indirect and cumulative impacts of the project on coal mining are 
likely to be very small. Based on information available to SEA at this 
time, SEA does not believe that the proposed new rail line would 
significantly impact coal mining in the area or the state. Morever, 
available information suggests that any potential expansion or altering 
of coal production related to the proposed line is entirely speculative 
at this time.

8. Vibrations

    Comments on impacts due to vibrations. Landowners expressed 
concerns that vibrations from trains would damage homes and personal 
property near the rail lines. Additional comments from landowners 
stated that vibrations would damage existing water wells and affect 
water quality by stirring sediments into the water. EPA pointed out 
that the change in ground vibration due to the passing trains could 
affect nearby residents if there are any residences adjacent to the 
proposed rail line.
    Response. The EIS will discuss operational and construction-induced 
vibration. The EIS will address potential impacts to homes and water 
wells from vibrations resulting from train operations.

9. Noise

    Comments regarding noise impacts. Comments stated that the Proposed 
Action would disrupt the quiet of the farming communities near the 
alignment. Additional concerns were raised about the effects that the 
noise from the Proposed Action would have on livestock due to higher 
background noise. UDWR stated that Yuba Lake State Park Painted Rocks 
Campground and Day-Use Beach should be included in the EIS as a 
sensitive receptor. BLM asked that impacts of noise on recreation and 
wildlife are potential issues that should be addressed. EPA recommended 
that the EIS describe the potential 55 dBA Ldn noise contour 
since there is potential in that contour for sensitive individuals to 
be affected through sleep interference or sleep depredation.
    Response. Typically, SEA's approach is to analyze noise impacts 
that would meet or exceed the Board's thresholds (an increase in train 
traffic of at least eight trains per day or an increase in rail traffic 
of a least 100 percent measured in gross ton miles annually (see 49 CFR 
1105.7e(6)) for environmental analysis as a result of the Proposed 
Action. Here, the petitioner maintains that it would operate on average 
one to two loaded trains per day. Thus, the thresholds for noise 
analysis are not met in this case. However, in response to concerns 
raised by EPA and other commenters, the EIS will briefly discuss 
existing noise levels and describe the potential noise impacts from 
constructing and operating the proposed new rail line on sensitive 
receptors (houses, schools, campgrounds, and parks) where the noise 
increase could exceed 3 dBA Ldn or where noise levels would 
increase to a noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or greater. The 
Board's regulations use an incremental increase in noise levels of 
three decibels Ldn or more, or an increase to a noise level 
of 65 Ldn or greater as noise impact analysis thresholds. 
Sixty-five Ldn is the standard consistently used by the 
Board in all of its environmental review analysis. SEA does not find 
that there is sufficient evidence to depart from its general practices 
in this case.

10. Energy Resources

    General comments regarding energy. Comments regarding energy stated 
that local businesses would use less diesel fuel if they could replace 
trucks with rail service. BLM's comments noted that the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) could be a valuable resource for mineral and energy 
information.
    Response. The EIS will describe the potential impacts of the 
proposed new rail line on the distribution of energy resources in the 
project area, including petroleum, gas pipelines and overhead electric 
transmission lines.
    Comments regarding mineral resources. BLM requested that the EIS 
address mineral resources, including mineral rights, mining claims, and 
known sources of saleable, leasable, and locatable minerals.
    Response. The EIS will address mineral resources under Geology and 
Soils.

11. Socioeconomics

    Comments regarding socioeconomic impacts to businesses. Comments 
stated that the proposed rail line would improve the area's economy by 
helping existing businesses remain competitive and by offering new 
businesses an incentive to locate in the area. Some landowners stated 
that the rail line would affect local farming operations and requested 
mitigation for those impacts. Other landowners stated that changes in 
the livestock environment could reduce the quality of the beef, which 
would translate into a loss of income. Comments expressed concern that 
Alternative B would result in higher costs to farmers for farm 
improvements due to vibrations and the impacts of the trains.
    Response. The EIS will examine economic and social effects that are 
reasonably foreseeable and that may result from the Proposed Action and 
alternatives. As part of the EIS socioeconomic analysis, the EIS will 
analyze economic impacts, including effects on income associated with 
the Proposed Action and alternatives.
    Comments regarding socioeconomic impacts due to property 
acquisitions. One landowner stated that the proposed rail line would 
cut through a proposed subdivision and the landowner requested that the 
alignment be modified to minimize this impact. Other comments asked to 
modify the alignment to bypass individual properties. Several property 
owners requested more information about individual property impacts and 
proposed mitigation for those impacts.
    Response. The EIS will describe the potential environmental impacts 
on residences, residential areas, and communities in the project area. 
Mitigation measures (where appropriate) will be proposed to minimize or 
eliminate impacts associated with significant effects on the natural or 
physical environment.
    Comments regarding loss of jobs. Two comments stated that the 
number of trucking jobs in the area could be reduced if fewer trucks 
are required to haul coal as a result of this proposal.
    Response. The EIS will discuss the potential economic impacts of 
the Proposed Action and alternatives including effects on jobs and 
employment in the project area.

12. Cultural and Historical Resources

    General comments regarding cultural resources. Comments stated that 
there are several cultural and archeological sites in the area and 
requested consultation with the local Native American tribal 
organizations. Several tribal contacts requested copies of the Cultural 
Resource Survey has been prepared for the area. UDNR, BLM, and the Utah 
State Historic Preservation Office expressed concern regarding the 
impacts the Proposed Action would have on cultural resources in the 
area.
    Response. The EIS will examine the potential impacts on cultural 
resources and will describe the result of archaeological surveys 
conducted in the project area as part of consultations with the Utah 
State Historic Preservation

[[Page 26930]]

Officer. SEA will continue to consult with federally recognized Native 
American tribal organizations.

13. Recreation

    Comments regarding Painted Rocks Campground and Yuba Lake. Comments 
expressed concerns about impacts to the Painted Rocks Campground and 
Recreation Area. Alternative B would cross the reservoir at Painted 
Rocks. Comments expressed concern regarding the potential impacts that 
the proposed rail line could have on recreation facilities and boat 
navigational hazards because Alternative B crosses the entrance to the 
campground. Comments expressed concern about restricting public access 
and emergency response access to public facilities. UDNR stated that 
the EIS should discuss Yuba Lake and potential impacts to water related 
recreationalists and their ability to freely traverse the lake.
    Response. The EIS will describe the potential impacts of the 
proposed project and alternatives on recreation opportunities in the 
project area.
    Comments regarding off highway vehicles (OHVs). BLM commented that 
there may be a need to discuss impacts to OHV-based recreation and 
Special Recreation Management Areas.
    Response. The EIS will address potential impacts to OHV-based 
recreation and Special Recreation Management Areas.

14. Aesthetics

    Comments requested that the EIS describe conformance with BLM 
Visual Resource Management class objectives.
    Response. The EIS will include a discussion of conformance with BLM 
VRM class objectives.

15. Environmental Justice

    General comment regarding environmental justice. A landowner stated 
that the Proposed Action would be 100 feet from a residence with two 
autistic children. This landowner requested that an environmental 
justice analysis be undertaken. EPA asked that the EIS identify any 
minority or low income communities along the proposed rail corridor.
    Response. The EIS will address potential impacts of the Proposed 
Action on environmental justice communities. The most recent Census 
Bureau data that is available at the time the EIS is prepared will be 
used. The EIS also will describe the environmental justice outreach 
efforts undertaken during the scoping process and throughout the 
preparation of the document. The Web site for the Surface 
Transportation Board is www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: April 28, 2004.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental 
Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P

[[Page 26931]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14MY04.461

BILLING CODE 4915-01-C

[[Page 26932]]

Notice of Availability of Draft Scope of Analysis for the Environmental 
Impact Statement

Decided: April 28, 2004.

SUMMARY: On July 30, 2001, the Six County Association of Governments 
(SCAOG), a regional association representing Juab, Millard, Sevier, 
Sanpete, Piute, and Wayne counties in central Utah, filed a Petition 
for Exemption with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) pursuant to 
49 U.S.C. 10502 for authority for construction and operation of a 
proposed new rail line between Levan and Salina, Utah. The project 
would involve approximately 43 miles of new rail line and ancillary 
facilities to serve shippers in central Utah, particularly Southern 
Utah Fuels Company (SUFCO) coal operations. Because the construction 
and operation of this project has the potential to result in 
significant environmental impacts, the Board's Section of Environmental 
Analysis (SEA) has determined that the preparation of an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate. SEA held public scoping meetings 
as part of the EIS process, as discussed in the Notice of Scoping 
Meetings and Request for Comments published by the Board on October 20, 
2003. As part of the scoping process, SEA has developed a draft Scope 
of Analysis for the EIS. SEA has made available for public comment the 
draft Scope of Analysis contained in this notice. SEA will issue a 
final Scope of Analysis shortly after the close of the comment period. 
Written comments on the Scope of Study are due January 26, 20004.
    Filing Environmental Comments: Interested persons and agencies are 
invited to participate in the EIS scoping process. A signed original 
and 10 copies of comments should be submitted to: Surface 
Transportation Board, Case Control Unit, STB Finance Docket No. 34075, 
1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001 with the following 
designation written in the lower left-hand corner of the envelope: 
Attention: Phillis Johnson-Ball, Environmental Project Manager, 
Environmental Filing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Phillis Johnson-Ball, Section of 
Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. The Web site for the Surface 
Transportation Board is www.stb.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Draft Scope of Analysis for the EIS

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The Proposed Action, known as the Central Utah Rail project, 
involves the construction and operation of approximately 43 miles of 
new rail line connecting the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) 
line near Levan, Utah, to a proposed coal transfer terminal facility 
near Salina, Utah. Implementation of the proposed project would restore 
rail service to the Sevier Valley, providing a more direct connection 
to rail service for the coal industry (primarily SUFCO), provide rail 
service to other shippers in the Sevier Valley, and reduce the number 
of trucks on highways in the Sevier Valley.
    The reasonable and feasible alternatives that will be evaluated in 
the EIS are (1) construction and operation of the proposed project, (2) 
the no-action alternative, and (3) alternative alignments identified 
during the scoping process.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Proposed New Construction

    Analysis in the EIS will address the proposed activities associated 
with the construction and operation of new rail facilities and their 
potential environmental impacts, as appropriate.

Impact Categories

    The EIS will address potential impacts from the proposed 
construction and operation of new rail facilities on the human and 
natural environment. 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, and 
environmental justice. 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. Land Use
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe existing land use patterns within the project area and 
identify those uses that would be potentially impacted by proposed rail 
line construction.
    b. Describe the potential impacts associated with the proposed new 
rail line construction on land uses identified in the project area. 
Such impacts may include impacts on farming and ranching activities, 
incompatibility with existing land uses, and conversion of land to 
railroad uses.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on land use, as appropriate.
    d. Reflect the input of BLM, a cooperating agency, and 
consultations with other agencies and organizations.
    e. Use the best available information to analyze any potential 
impacts in the project area.
2. Biological Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe 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 
on those resources resulting from construction and operation of 
proposed rail facilities.
    b. Describe any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, and national or 
state parks, forests, or grasslands within the project area and 
potential impacts on these resources resulting from construction and 
operation of the proposed rail line and ancillary facilities.
    c. Identify wildlife corridors in the project area and describe 
potential impacts to large game that may be affected by construction 
and operation of the proposed new rail line.
    d. Use best management practices to protect fish and wildlife in 
the corridor.
    e. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on biological resources, as appropriate.
3. Water Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the existing surface and groundwater resources within 
the project area, including lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, wetlands, 
and floodplains, and the potential impacts on these resources resulting 
from construction and operation of the proposed rail line and ancillary 
facilities.
    b. Describe the permitting requirements for the proposed new rail 
line construction regarding wetlands, stream and river crossings, water 
quality, and erosion and sedimentation control.
    c. Describe the existing private water wells located within the 
project area and potential impacts, if any, to water quality due to 
vibration from haul trains.
    d. Describe current access to irrigation water within the project 
area and potential impacts due to alignment location.
    e. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project

[[Page 26933]]

impacts on water resources, as appropriate.
4. Geology and Soils
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the geology and soils within the project area, 
including unique formations, problematic/hazardous geology or soils, 
prime or unique farmland soils, hydric soils, and the potential impacts 
on these resources resulting from the construction and operation of the 
proposed rail line.
    b. Address any potential impacts associated with fugitive dust on 
soils.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on geological resources and/or soils, as appropriate.
5. Air Quality
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the attainment status of the project area, including 
proximity to any Class I or non-attainment area as designated under the 
Clean Air Act. Estimates of air emissions related to the construction 
and operation of the proposed new rail line will be prepared.
    b. Reflect the fact that the potential for increased coal movements 
and non-coal movements exists; but that the potential for increased 
coal production and the likelihood of new or existing non-coal business 
is speculative and not reasonably foreseeable at this time.
    c. Discuss and evaluate the potential air emissions changes from 
diversion of existing truck emissions to rail.
    d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
air quality impacts related to the construction and operation of the 
proposed rail line.
6. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts
    a. The EIS will address the cumulative impacts on the environment 
that may result from the Proposed Action when added to other past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what 
agency or individuals undertake such actions.
    b. Reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts also will be addressed.
7. Noise
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential noise impacts of the proposed new rail 
line construction and operation for those sensitive receptors (houses, 
schools, etc.) where the increase may exceed 3 dbA Ldn or exceed a 
total of 65 dbA Ldn.
    b. Discuss existing noise levels.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on noise receptors, as appropriate.
8. Energy Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential impact of the proposed new rail line on 
the distribution of energy resources in the project area, including 
petroleum and gas pipelines and overhead electric transmission lines.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on energy resources, as appropriate.
9. Socioeconomics
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential environmental impacts on residences, 
residential areas, and communities within the project area as a result 
of new rail line construction and operation activities.
    b. Discuss economic impacts, including impacts on income associated 
with the proposed project.
    c. Describe the potential environmental impacts on commercial and 
industrial activities and development in the project area as a result 
of new rail line construction and operation activities.
    d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on socioeconomic resources, as appropriate.
10. Safety
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe new at-grade rail crossings that would result from 
construction of the rail line and the potential for an increase in 
accidents related to the new rail line operations, as appropriate.
    b. Describe rail operations and the potential for increased 
probability of train accidents, as appropriate.
    c. Describe safety factors, as appropriate, for rail/pipeline 
crossings, if any exist in the project area.
    d. Describe existing trucking operations for coal hauling and the 
potential for accidents from those operations.
    e. Describe the potential for disruption and delays to the movement 
of emergency vehicles due to new rail line construction and operations.
    f. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on safety, as appropriate.
11. Transportation Systems
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential impacts of new rail line construction and 
operation on the existing transportation network in the project area, 
including vehicular delays at at-grade road/rail crossings.
    b. Describe potential impacts on navigation associated with the 
construction and operation of any proposed bridges.
    c. Describe effects of current coal trucking operations on the 
existing road network and communities.
    d. Describe current access to recreation locations within the 
project area and potential impacts from rail line construction and 
operation.
    e. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on transportation systems, as appropriate.
12. Cultural and Historic Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential impacts on historic structures or 
districts previously recorded and determined potentially eligible, 
eligible, or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 
that are within or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for the 
proposed and alternative rail alignments.
    b. Describe the potential impacts on archaeological sites 
previously recorded and either listed as unevaluated or determined 
potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on the NRHP that are within 
or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for the proposed and 
alternative rail alignments.
    c. Describe the potential impacts on historic structures or 
districts determined to be potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on 
the NRHP that are within the right-of-way for the proposed and 
alternative rail alignments.
    d. Describe the likelihood for unrecorded, buried archaeological 
sites to exist within the right-of-way for the proposed and alternative 
rail alignments, the potential that the sites are eligible for listing 
on the NRHP, and the potential impact of the rail construction on the 
sites.
    e. Describe the potential general impacts on paleontological 
resources in the project area due to project construction, if 
necessary.
    f. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on cultural and historic resources, as appropriate.
13. Recreation
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe potential impacts of the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation on recreational opportunities provided in 
the project area.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on recreation resources, as appropriate.
14. Aesthetics
    The EIS will:

[[Page 26934]]

    a. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation on any areas determined to be of high visual 
quality.
    b. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation on any waterways designated or considered 
for designation as wild and scenic.
    c. Discuss conformance with BLM Visual Resource Management class 
objectives. d.Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate 
potential project impacts on aesthetics, as appropriate.
15. Environmental Justice
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe demographics in the project area and the immediate 
vicinity of the proposed new construction, including communities 
potentially impacted by the construction and operation of the proposed 
new rail line.
    b. Evaluate whether proposed new rail line construction or 
operation would have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on 
minority or low-income groups.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on environmental justice communities, as appropriate.
    d. Discuss any potential indirect and cumulative impacts of the 
proposed new rail line on coal mining in Utah.
    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental 
Analysis.

    Dated:
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04-10970 Filed 5-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P