[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 65 (Thursday, April 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18323-18330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6939]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34658]


Alaska Railroad Corporation--Petition for Exemption--To Construct 
and Operate a Rail Line Between North Pole, Alaska and Delta Junction 
in Alaska

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

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

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

SUMMARY: On July 6, 2007, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) 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 
from the vicinity of North Pole to Delta Junction, Alaska. The project 
would involve the construction and operation of approximately 80 miles 
of new main line track. Figure 1 shows ARRC's existing track and the 
proposed rail line extension from North Pole to Delta Junction (All 
figures are available for viewing on the Board's Web site at 
www.stb.dot.gov by going to ``Environmental Matters,'' then selecting 
``Key Cases'' in the dropdown; and then when the next page appears, 
clicking ``Alaska Railroad--Northern Rail Extension''). Because the 
construction and operation of this project has the potential to result 
in significant environmental impacts, the Board's Section on 
Environmental Analysis (SEA) has determined that the preparation of 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)(2), SEA published in the 
Federal Register and mailed to the public on November 1, 2005, the 
Notice of Availability of Draft Scope of Study for the EIS, Notice of 
Scoping Meetings, and Request for Comments. SEA also prepared and 
distributed to the public a fact sheet that introduced ARRC's Northern 
Rail Extension, announced SEA's intent to prepare an EIS, requested 
comments, and gave notice of three public scoping meetings to over 400 
citizens, elected officials, Federal, state, and local agencies, tribal 
organizations, and other potentially interested organizations received 
this information. SEA held three public scoping meetings in North Pole, 
Delta Junction, and Anchorage, Alaska on December 6, 7, and 8, 2005, 
respectively.
    The scoping comment period concluded January 13, 2006. The U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District (USACE); U.S. Coast Guard, 
Seventeenth Coast Guard District (USCG); Bureau of Land Management, 
Alaska State Office (BLM); U.S. Department of Defense, Alaskan Command 
(ALCOM); U.S. Department of Defense, 354th Fighter Wing, Eielson Air 
Force Base (354th); Federal Transit Administration, Region 10 (FTA); 
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); and Alaska Department of Natural 
Resources (ADNR) requested and were granted cooperating agency status 
in preparation of the EIS. After review and consideration of all 
comments received, this notice sets forth the final scope of the EIS. 
The final scope reflects any changes to the draft scope as a result of 
the comments, summarizes and addresses the principal environmental 
concerns raised by the comments, and

[[Page 18324]]

briefly discusses pertinent issues concerning this project that further 
clarify the final scope.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    David Navecky, Section of Environmental Analysis, Surface 
Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, 
202-245-0294, or call SEA's toll-free number for the project at 1-800-
359-5142. 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.
    Christy Everett, Regulatory Branch, Fairbanks Field Office, U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers--Alaska District, 2175 University Avenue, Suite 
201E, Fairbanks, AK 99709-4777, 907-474-2166.
    James Helfinstine, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, 
P.O. Box 25517, Juneau, AK 99802-5517, 907-463-2268.
    Gary Foreman, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks District Office, 
1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709, 907-474-2339.
    Chris Pike, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, ALCOM/J4, 10471 20th Street, 
Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-2100, 907-552-7013.
    Jeff Putnam, P.E., Deputy Base Civil Engineer, 354 CES/CEVP, 2310 
Central Avenue, Suite 100, Eielson AFB, AK 99702-2299, 907-377-5213.
    Linda Gehrke, Federal Transit Administration, Region 10, Jackson 
Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174-1002, 206-220-
4463.
    John Winkle, Passenger Programs Division, Federal Railroad 
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590, 202-
493-6067.
    Donald Perrin, Large Project Coordinator, Office of Project 
Management and Permitting, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 550 
W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1160, Anchorage, AK 99501-1000, 907-269-7476.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Background: ARRC operates and maintains a 29-mile-long branch, 
referred to as the Eielson Branch, that runs from ARRC's railyard 
facilities in Fairbanks and then south and east through the community 
of North Pole, Alaska to Eielson Air Force Base. The proposed action, 
referred to as the Northern Rail Extension, would involve the 
construction and operation of a new rail line from a point on the 
existing Eielson Branch in the vicinity of North Pole to Delta 
Junction, Alaska, a distance of approximately 80 miles. Figure 1 shows 
ARRC's existing track and the proposed rail line extension from North 
Pole to Delta Junction. The purpose of the project is to develop a safe 
and reliable all-weather rail connection to support anticipated freight 
and passenger needs between Fairbanks and Delta Junction.
    Major elements of the project would include:
     Approximately 80 miles of new railroad track;
     Crossings of the Tanana River, Little Delta River, Delta 
Creek, Delta River, and depending on the selected alternative, the 
Salcha River and Little Salcha River (along with many other small 
stream crossings);
     Rock revetments and/or levees in and along the Tanana 
River to direct river flow under the proposed Tanana River bridge;
     Grade-separated crossings of the Richardson and Alaska 
highways depending on the selected alternative;
     Pipeline and utility crossings, including at least one 
crossing of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS);
     Sidings and facilities for passenger, freight, and 
maintenance operations; and
     Ancillary railroad support facilities including, but not 
limited to: communications towers and facilities, power lines, signals, 
and access roads.
    ARRC plans to support both commercial and passenger rail service 
needs with the proposed project. Anticipated commercial freight 
includes agricultural goods, mining products, and petrochemicals. The 
proposed project could also provide improved access to the military 
training areas on the west side of the Tanana River.
    Environmental Review Process: The Board is the lead agency, 
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, and for 
completing the environmental review process. The NEPA review process is 
intended to assist SEA, the cooperating agencies and the public in 
identifying and assessing the potential environmental consequences of a 
proposed action and the reasonable alternative before a decision is 
made.
    ICF International is serving as an independent third-party 
contractor to assist SEA in the environmental review process. SEA is 
directing and supervising the preparation of the EIS. The USACE, FTA, 
USCG, BLM, 354th, FRA, ALCOM, and ADNR are cooperating agencies, 
pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6.
    The Federal agency actions considered in this EIS will include 
decisions, permits, approvals and funding related to the proposed 
action. The Board will decide whether or not to grant authority to ARRC 
to construct and operate the rail line pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901 and 
10502. The USACE will decide whether or not to issue permits pursuant 
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376, as amended) 
and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 
403). The USCG will decide whether or not to issue authority to 
construct bridges over navigable waters of the United States pursuant 
to the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 1651-1659). 
The BLM will decide whether or not to issue a right-of-way grant for 
BLM-administered lands under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1737). ALCOM will decide whether or 
not to concur with alignments on military lands including the Tanana 
Flats and Donnelly training areas. The 354th will decide whether or not 
to concur with alignments on or in proximity to Eielson AFB, which is 
home to the 354th Fighter Wing. FTA may provide funding for portions of 
the project's construction and/or operation. FRA is currently 
administering grant funding to ARRC for preliminary engineering and 
environmental analysis of the Northern Rail Extension. The EIS should 
include all of the information necessary for the decisions by the Board 
and the cooperating agencies.
    SEA and the cooperating agencies are preparing a Draft EIS (DEIS) 
for the proposed action. The DEIS will address those environmental 
issues and concerns identified during the scoping process and detailed 
in this final scope. It will also discuss a reasonable range of 
alternatives to the proposed action, including a no-action alternative, 
and recommend environmental mitigation measures, as appropriate.
    The DEIS will be made available upon its completion for public 
review and comment. A Final EIS (FEIS) will then be prepared reflecting 
further analysis by SEA and the cooperating agencies and the public and 
agency comments on the DEIS. In reaching their decisions on this case, 
the Board and the cooperating agencies will take into account the full 
environmental record, including the DEIS, the FEIS, and all public and 
agency comments received.
    Proposed Action and Alternatives: The NEPA regulations require 
Federal agencies to consider a reasonable range of feasible 
alternatives to the proposed action. The President's Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ), which

[[Page 18325]]

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 this EIS, SEA and the cooperating 
agencies are considering a full range of alternatives that meet the 
purpose and need of the project, as well as the no-action alternative. 
Some alternatives have been dismissed from further analysis because 
they have been determined to be infeasible or because SEA and the 
cooperating agencies consider them to be environmentally inferior to 
other alternatives under consideration. The EIS will include a brief 
discussion of the reasons for eliminating certain alternatives from 
detailed analysis. The reasonable and feasible alternatives included 
for detailed analysis and alternatives dismissed from detailed analysis 
are discussed in more detail below.

A. Alternatives

    The Proposed Action and Alternatives include common segments, 
alternative segments, and connector segments. Common segments are 
portions of the rail line with a single route option. Alternative 
segments provide multiple route options. Connector segments are short 
pieces of a rail alignment that connect alternative segments. There are 
two common segments--north and south common segments--with a combined 
length of 13.1 miles. Between these common segments are five sets of 
alternative segments with two or three segments each. Figure 2 shows 
the proposed routes, and divides the project into six areas. The six 
areas are shown in more detail in Figures 3-8.
    ARRC filed its preferred alternative with the Board on July 6, 
2007. All common segments are part of the preferred alternative 
identified by ARRC. Alternative segments and connector segments that 
were filed as ARRC's preference are identified in the sections below.
North Common Segment
    The North Common Segment starts at the east end of the Chena River 
Overflow Bridge off of the Eielson Branch and extends 2.7 miles 
southeast to meet the Eielson Alternative Segments. The segment runs 
roughly parallel to the Richardson Highway, crosses the Eielson Farm 
Road, and is on the east side of the Tanana River (see Figure 3).
Eielson Alternative Segments
    SEA is considering three alternative segments through the Eielson 
area that start about one half mile southeast of the Eielson Farm Road. 
Each alternative segment has at least one shared segment section. The 
alternative segments pass between the fence line of Eielson Air Force 
Base on the east and the Eielson Farm Community on the west. They 
connect with the Salcha Alternative Segments (see Figure 3).
    Eielson Alternative Segment 1 takes the most westerly route, closer 
to the farm community and farthest from the Richardson Highway. The 
segment crosses through some farm community property while staying to 
the west along Piledriver Slough. The segment crosses a few roads 
before hugging the Tanana River for approximately the last 3 miles of 
the alternative segment. This alternative segment is 10.3 miles long.
    Eielson Alternative Segment 2 follows the same route as the Eielson 
Alternative Segment 1 for approximately 5.7 miles, at which point 
Eielson Alternative Segment 2 bears more to the southeast, crosses 
Piledriver Slough, and follows a route closer to the Richardson 
Highway. The last 2.2 miles of Eielson Alternative Segment 2 share the 
same route as Eielson Alternative Segment 3. This alternative segment 
is 10.0 miles long.
    Eielson Alternative Segment 3 takes the most easterly route, 
remaining closer to the Richardson Highway and located largely within 
Eielson Air Force Base property, but outside the base fence line. The 
segment would cross Piledriver Slough approximately one half mile into 
its route and then stay east of the slough for approximately 4.2 miles 
before crossing Twentythreemile Slough, a tributary of Piledriver 
Slough. This alternative segment is 10.1 miles long. This is ARRC's 
preferred alternative segment.
Salcha Alternative Segments
    SEA is considering two alternative segments for the Salcha section, 
each starting approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the intersection of 
the Old Richardson Highway and Bradbury Drive. The segments cross the 
Tanana River at different places and meet four connector segments (see 
Figure 4).
    Salcha Alternative Segment 1 crosses the Tanana River just west of 
the intersection of the Bradbury Drive and Ruger Trail. After crossing 
the river, the alternative segment runs through the Tanana Flats 
Training Area on the west side of the river. The segment is 11.8 miles 
long and would require a dual-modal bridge ranging from 2,400 to 3,500 
feet in length to cross the Tanana River. This is ARRC's preferred 
alternative segment.
    Salcha Alternative Segment 2 remains on the east side of the Tanana 
River for most of its 13.8-mile route. For approximately the first 9 
miles, the route parallels the Tanana River and Richardson Highway. The 
river then curves west while the route maintains a southerly direction. 
In approximately the last 3 miles, the segment crosses the river at 
Flag Hill, where it connects with one of the Central Alternative 
Segments. The Tanana River crossing would require a dual-modal bridge 
span ranging from 1,300 to 2,800 feet in length. This alternative 
segment would require relocation of portions of the Richardson Highway 
and Salcha Elementary School. Approximately two miles of the highway 
would need to be relocated further into the river bluff and the rail 
line would assume the location of the highway by the river. In addition 
to the Tanana River main channel crossing, the alternative segment 
would cross some Tanana River side channels, the Little Salcha River, 
and the Salcha River.
Connector Segments
    The connector segments are short pieces of rail alignment between 
0.9 and 4.4 miles long that connect alternative segments that do not 
have a common start and end points. There are five connector segments 
on the west side of the Tanana River that connect the Central 
Alternative Segments to the Salcha and Donnelly alternative segments 
(see Figure 5). Connector Segments B and E are part of the ARRC's 
preferred route.
Central Alternative Segments
    SEA is considering two alternative segments between the Salcha and 
Donnelly alternative segments. Both Central Alternative Segments run 
parallel to the west bank of the Tanana River in a southeasterly 
direction (see Figure 5).
    Central Alternative Segment 1 connects to the Salcha Alternative 
Segments via Connector Segment A from Salcha Alternative Segment 1 or 
Connector Segment C from Salcha Alternative Segment 2 and is further 
from the Tanana River than Central Alternative Segment 2. The 
alternative segment is 5.1 miles long and out of the Tanana River 
floodplain. Central Alternative Segment 1 does not connect to Donnelly 
Alternative Segment 2 due to terrain considerations.
    The Central Alternative Segment 2 connects to the Salcha 
Alternative Segments via Connector Segment B from

[[Page 18326]]

Salcha Alternative Segment 1 or Connector Segment D from Salcha 
Alternative Segment 2. The alternative segment is within the floodplain 
of the Tanana River and has several clearwater stream crossings. The 
Central Alternative Segment is 3.6 miles long and is the Applicant's 
preferred alternative. The alternative segment connects directly to 
Donnelly Alternative Segment 2 and to Donnelly Alternative Segment 1 
via Connector Segment E.
Donnelly Alternative Segments
    SEA is considering two alternative segments for the Donnelly area 
(see Figure 6). Both run on the southwestern side of the Tanana River 
and end approximately 4 miles east of Delta Creek, where they meet the 
South Common Segment. The alternative segments both cross Delta Creek 
and the Little Delta River but run through distinct terrains with 
different elevation profiles.
    Donnelly Alternative Segment 1 takes the southern route, farther 
from the Tanana River and through the northeastern corner of the 
Donnelly Training Area. This segment is 25.8 miles long and crosses 
steep grades. The route would cross the Delta Creek paleochannel, an 
ancient water channel that appears to no longer be active but could 
become active during periods of high flow. This is ARRC's preferred 
alternative segment.
    Donnelly Alternative Segment 2 runs closer to the Tanana River than 
Donnelly Alternative Segment 1. This segment is 26.2 miles long and 
crosses milder grades than Donnelly Alternative Segment 1, but faces 
more difficult geotechnical considerations than the other Donnelly 
alternative.
South Common Segment
    This segment would connect the two Donnelly Alternative Segments to 
the Delta Alternative Segments described below. The segment begins 
approximately four miles east of Delta Creek and runs roughly parallel 
to the Tanana River until the river curves southerly, just north of 
Delta Junction. The segment is 10.5 miles long (see Figure 7).
Delta Alternative Segments
    SEA is considering two alternative segments for the Delta area. 
Each of these segments crosses the Delta River: One north and one south 
of Delta Junction. The alternative segments meet at the end of the 
alignment about 3 miles west of the Tanana River, adjacent to the 
Alaska Highway (see Figure 8).

B. Alternatives Excluded From Detailed Analysis

    Based on the process described under Proposed Action and 
Alternatives, ARRC developed the initial sets of alignments and 
provided them to SEA for consideration as alternatives. Since 2005, 
ARRC presented SEA with several versions of the alignments. Examples of 
these versions are shown in Figures 9 and 10. The latest alignment 
versions and the Applicant's preferred alignments were identified to 
SEA in two key sources; ARRC's Preferred Route Alternative Report 
published in March 2007 and ARRC's filing of its preferred route with 
the Board on July 6, 2007. SEA identified alignments and segments 
proposed to be carried forward for more detailed study, and others 
proposed to be eliminated from further consideration. The Proposed 
Action and Alternatives Section describes the alternative segments that 
have been retained by SEA for detailed analysis. The following 
discussion describes several alignments and alternatives for segments 
that were initially considered but eliminated from detailed study in 
the Salcha, Donnelly, and Delta segments of the alignment. For each of 
the alternatives that were eliminated, a brief discussion of the 
alternative and the reasons for elimination is provided.
Eielson Area Alignments
Alignments Proposed by ARRC
    During SEA's EIS scoping comment period, ARRC initially presented 
three alignments (formerly called N1, N2, and N3) that crossed the 
Eielson Farm Community. Members of that community strongly opposed the 
N1 and N2 alignments, which were closer to the Tanana River, because of 
private property impacts (see Figure 11).
    The N1 alignment, as initially proposed by ARRC in November 2005, 
crossed the Tanana River from the Eielson Farm Community into the 
Tanana Flats Training Area. The alignment then continued south through 
the training area on the western side of the Tanana River. During 
scoping, ALCOM expressed concern about the amount of encroachment this 
alignment would have on the training area. Other comments raised strong 
concerns about the alignment passing through a prime moose calving 
area. After the scoping comment period, ARRC developed two other 
feasible and reasonable alignments, now Eielson Alternative Segments 1 
and 2, and dropped the N1 alignment through Tanana Flats Training Area.
    Because there were few design differences through the Eielson Farm 
Community among the Eielson alignments proposed by ARRC in 2005, ARRC 
dropped the first half of the N1 and N2 alignments, the two alignments 
with greater private property intrusion. ARRC instead retained one 
(formerly called N3 and Eielson West) of the three alignments presented 
in November 2005 and after the scoping comment period offered a new 
alignment (formerly called Eielson East) located to the east of the 
Eielson Farm Community, closer to the Eielson Air Force Base fenced 
boundary. In the interim between the end of the scoping comment period 
and ARRC's Preferred Route Alternative Report, ARRC developed a 
crossover alignment between Eielson East and West.
    SEA agreed with dropping the N1 and N2 alignments through the 
Eielson Farm Community and decided to retain the Eielson East and West 
alignments, renamed as Eielson 1 and 2, including the crossover 
alignment, for detailed analysis in this EIS as the Eielson Alternative 
Segments.
Alignments Proposed in Scoping Comments
    In response to scoping comments that were received by SEA and 
posted on the Board's Web site, ARRC considered alignments that crossed 
the Tanana River shortly before or after the Chena River overflow; 
therefore bypassing the Eielson Farm Community. These alignments, 
however, would create further intrusion into the Tanana Flats Training 
Area and also affect important moose habitat. Therefore, ARRC did not 
propose these alignments to SEA in ARRC Preferred Route Alternative 
Report in March 2007.
    Comments also recommended an alignment that crossed the Richardson 
Highway at Milepost 0. The recommended alignment would either continue 
through Eielson Air Force Base using an existing track or go around the 
Air Force Base to the east. According to ARRC, during its the initial 
corridor analysis, ARRC considered using the additional section of the 
existing Eielson Branch line, but determined that using the line was 
not reasonable or practicable because of the current grade crossing of 
the Richardson Highway and topography. Because of security and 
operational concerns, ARRC anticipated that the 354th Fighter Wing 
would consider use of the existing track through Eielson Air Force Base 
for through-movement of trains as highly undesirable. Land use and 
other conditions around the east side of Eielson Air Force Base are 
unfavorable for an alignment due to potential private property impacts, 
concerns over existing

[[Page 18327]]

land use, and steep topography. For these reasons, ARRC determined that 
alignments east of the Richardson Highway from the start of the project 
at Milepost 0 to the south end of the Air Force Base runway are not 
practicable or feasible.
    Comments also recommended an alignment through Eielson Air Force 
Base along the east side of the Richardson Highway. Such an alignment 
would avoid Piledriver Slough and private property in the Eielson Farm 
Community. ARRC reviewed the feasibility of alignments in this area. 
Based on information obtained from the military, ARRC determined that 
alignments east of the highway in proximity to the Air Force Base were 
infeasible due to encroachment on the operating and runway/taxi areas.
Salcha Area Alignments
Alignments Proposed by ARRC
    Before SEA's EIS scoping period began, ARRC proposed four 
alignments through the Salcha area including two on the western side of 
the Tanana River south of ARRC's proposed Salcha Crossing. These 
alignments paralleled each other until merging in the Flag Hill area. 
One alignment (formerly called the N5 and subsequently the Salcha West 
alignment) closely followed the bank of the Tanana River; therefore, 
intruding less into the Tanana Flats Training Area than the N1 
alignment while having potentially higher impacts on fish habitat and 
higher construction costs. The second alignment (formerly called N1) 
encroached more on military property, but avoided the Tanana River bank 
and some of the fishery concerns. Because of the greater potential 
conflict with military use, ARRC retained the route closer to the 
Tanana River for further examination and dropped alignment N1. The 
alignment closer to the Tanana River was retained by SEA for detailed 
analysis and is now called the Salcha Alternative Segment 1 (see Figure 
12).
    Two alignments were also proposed by ARRC on the east side of the 
Tanana River. One Salcha area alignment (formerly known as the N3 and 
subsequently the Salcha East alignment), retained in ARRC's March 2007 
Preferred Route Alternative Report, traveled east of the Richardson 
Highway and south of the Eielson Air Force Base. Although the alignment 
met the purpose and need, this alignment was not retained by SEA as an 
alternative for detailed analysis because it would affect a 
significantly greater wetland acreage than the two Salcha Alternative 
Segments that are being retained for detailed study. The N3 or Salcha 
East alignment would affect a total of approximately 304 acres of 
wetlands, compared to 103 acres for the Salcha Central alignment, and 
53 acres for the Salcha West alignment. This segment would also more 
directly affect cultural resources such as remains of the historic 
Salchaket Village. SEA retained the other alignment (formerly known as 
the N2 and subsequently the Salcha Central alignment) on the east side 
of the Tanana River for detailed analysis, and is now called Salcha 
Alternative Segment 2.
Alignments Proposed in Scoping Comments
    The east bank of the Tanana River, particularly through Salcha, 
remains transient and unstable as the river continues to migrate east. 
The Richardson Highway, along Salcha Bluff, is located on a narrow 
shelf between the steep bluff and the main channel of the Tanana River. 
In response to scoping comments, ARRC considered an alignment that 
would cross the eastern-most main channel to a pair of islands. This 
alignment would continue south of the bluff and traverse the islands 
before crossing back to the east bank of the Tanana River. However, 
after further examination of the river hydraulics, the stability of the 
islands in this area, and long-term serviceability, ARRC proposed to 
drop this alignment. SEA did not retain this alignment as an 
alternative in the DEIS.
Richardson Highway
    Comments received during SEA's EIS scoping period recommended a 
rail alternative that paralleled the Richardson Highway all the way to 
Delta Junction. ARRC, upon request from SEA, considered an alignment 
following the Richardson Highway, but determined such an alignment was 
not reasonable or feasible. The hilly topography on the east side of 
the Tanana River is considerably less favorable for rail line 
construction south of Flag Hill. There are also a large number of 
private land holdings along the highway, requiring potentially 
significant mitigation for continued vehicle access and potentially 
causing large impacts to private property. SEA did not retain this 
alignment as an alternative in the DEIS.
Blair Lakes Spur
    Before the start of scoping in 2005, ARRC proposed a spur to the 
Blair Lakes Range and/or other facilities to support military 
operations including sidings, off-load facilities, and end-of-track 
facilities. However, the spur would only be constructed if requested by 
the military. At this time, the spur has not been requested and the 
military has indicated to SEA that such a spur may interfere with 
training activities at the Blair Lakes Range. Therefore, the Blair 
Lakes Spur will not be analyzed in the DEIS (see Figure 10).
Tanana Area Alignments
    All Tanana area alignments have been retained for detailed analysis 
in the DEIS. These alignments have been renamed as the Central 
Alternative Segments (see Figure 13).
Donnelly Area Alignments
    During SEA's scoping process, ARRC presented two alignments to SEA 
through the Donnelly area. One alignment (formerly named S2/Donnelly 
East alignment) hugged the west side of the Tanana River while the 
second alignment (formerly named S1/Donnelly Central alignment) 
followed the Tanana River initially before heading further south and 
west near the Little Delta River (see Figures 14 and 15). In response 
to comments from agencies, ARRC shifted an early version of S2/Donnelly 
East further inland from the Tanana River due to fish habitat concerns. 
In ARRC's March 2007 Preferred Route Alternative Report both of these 
alignments were retained, but ARRC included a third alignment called 
the Donnelly West alignment, which was developed by ARRC after the 
scoping period.
    Although ARRC had shifted the alignment to minimize potential 
impacts, SEA decided to not retain the Donnelly East alignment for 
detailed analysis in the DEIS. In addition to affecting a substantial 
amount of wetlands (approximately 363 acres), it would create adverse 
impacts through the displacement of summer homes and vacation cabins 
that the other two alignments avoid. The Donnelly East alignment would 
also cross sensitive wildlife habitat contained in clear backwater 
channels and springs that serve as prime spawning and rearing habitat 
for salmon. ARRC has also indicated that this alignment would traverse 
steep hills with potential icing problems as well as areas that exhibit 
groundwater upwelling and quicksand-type conditions. SEA retained 
Donnelly Alternative Segments 1 and 2 for detailed analysis in this 
DEIS.
Delta Area Alignments
    During scoping, ARRC presented two alignments (formerly named S1 
and S2 and Delta Central and South, respectively) in the Delta Junction 
area that crossed the Delta River from the

[[Page 18328]]

Donnelly alignments and continued to the rail terminus on the south 
side of Delta Junction (see Figure 16). In the interim between scoping 
and the March 2007 Preferred Route Alternative Analysis Report, ARRC 
developed a third alignment (formerly named the S5/Delta North 
alignment) that crossed the Delta River north of Delta Junction and 
continued south along the east side of the Richardson Highway to the 
rail terminus.
    SEA decided not to retain the Delta Central alignment for detailed 
analysis because it would involve greater adverse impacts to 
residential and commercial property in Delta Junction than the other 
alignments. In addition, the Delta Central alignment would involve 
adverse impacts to a larger amount of wetlands (approximately 83 acres) 
than the two alternative segments being retained for detailed analysis 
(36 acres for the Delta North Segment and 58 acres for the Delta South 
segment). SEA retained Delta Alternative Segments 1 and 2 for detailed 
analysis in the DEIS.
Alignment Along the Alaska Range
    In their October 2006 review of the range of reasonable 
alternatives, USACE recommended that the EIS include analysis of an 
alternative along the foothills of the Alaska Range to the military 
training areas on the west side of the Tanana River and that the EIS 
evaluate transportation alternatives other than rail. SEA eliminated 
further analysis of these recommended alternatives because they did not 
meet one of the purposes of the proposed Northern Rail Extension; 
specifically to provide passenger train service between Fairbanks and 
Delta Junction and to provide common carrier rail service to Delta 
Junction.

Public Participation

    As part of the environmental review process to date, SEA has 
conducted broad public outreach activities to inform the public about 
the Proposed Action and to facilitate public participation. SEA 
consulted with and will continue to consult with Federal, state, and 
local agencies, affected communities, and all interested parties to 
gather and disseminate information about the proposal. SEA and the 
cooperating agencies have also developed and implemented a Government-
to-Government Consultation and Coordination Plan to seek, discuss, and 
consider the views of Federally recognized Tribal Governments regarding 
the Proposed Action and Alternatives.

Response to Comments

    SEA and the cooperating agencies reviewed and considered the 
comments received on the draft scope (26 comments with approximately 
180 signatures) in preparation of this final scope of the EIS. The 
final scope reflects any changes to the draft scope as a result of 
comments. Other changes in the final scope were made for clarification 
or as a result of additional analysis. Additions and modifications 
reflected in the final scope include:
     Analysis of impacts on fisheries and fish habitat. Federal 
and state agencies provided comments on the potential impacts on fish 
and fish habitat. As a point of clarification, the EIS will consider 
all project effects on fish resources including: impacts from road 
placement, grade cuts and fills, changes in permafrost levels, types 
and locations of crossings and the accommodation of ice formation. The 
EIS will also evaluate impacts to aquatic resources in terms of aerial 
acreage or linear extent to be affected and the functions these 
resources perform.
     Analysis of impacts on birds. Comments stated concerns 
about the potential impacts on birds. As a point of clarification, the 
analysis in the EIS will consider the locations of raptor nests near 
proposed alignments. These nests were identified from surveys over 
three nesting seasons. The EIS will address the bird species generally 
present in the project area.
     Analysis of impacts on moose. Comments stated that moose 
strikes by trains are among the greatest wildlife concerns. To clarify, 
the EIS will address moose habitat, calving and concentration areas and 
travel corridors, and proposed protocols for monitoring and reporting 
moose strikes. The EIS will consider data from observations conducted 
during the winters of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, and will identify 
potential mitigation measures, as appropriate.
     Analysis of wildlife and habitat. Comments recommend that 
the EIS consider the impacts of the proposed project on other wildlife 
such as bison and high quality plant communities such as freshwater 
fens and open-water oxbows. Federal agencies also requested that the 
EIS consider impacts from the spread of invasive species and the 
disruption of aquatic habitat by the placement of the rail line. The 
EIS will consider these impacts.
     Analysis of water resources. Comments requested that the 
EIS evaluate the potential project interactions between permafrost and 
surface water and groundwater and the effects of the project on rivers 
and ice formation. Other comments listed concerns regarding the 
potential project impacts on floodplains. Comments requested that the 
EIS include a discussion of best management practices applied to 
minimize impacts of the Proposed Action on water resources. The EIS 
will contain a floodplain analysis and will evaluate the potential 
impacts to surface water and ground water.
     Analysis of navigation. Comments requested that the EIS 
identify existing navigable waterways within the project area and 
analyze the potential impacts on navigability resulting from each 
alternative; describe the permitting requirements for the various 
alternatives with regards to navigation; and propose mitigation 
measures to minimize or eliminate potential impacts to navigation, as 
appropriate. The EIS will address navigation, as requested.
     Analysis of rail safety. Comments stated concerns over 
rail and highway safety such as hazardous materials transport and at-
grade crossings. The EIS will examine the potential safety impacts that 
could result from the proposed action.
     Analysis of recreation and access. Comments requested that 
the EIS address the potential impacts on recreation areas, access to 
these areas, and safety. Analysis of these issues will be included in 
the EIS.
     Effects from expanded use of military training areas. 
Comments requested that the EIS evaluate the impacts of expanded use of 
the Tanana Flats and Donnelly training areas. Consultations with the 
military regarding future training plans indicate that the Proposed 
Action would not increase or shift training activities in these areas 
in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the project area for most 
analyses regarding the training areas will be limited to the rail line 
and immediate vicinity.
     Analysis of an Alaska-Canada rail link and Alaska-Canada 
natural gas pipeline as reasonably foreseeable future actions. Although 
the Alaska-Canada rail link has been proposed in the past, there are no 
formalized plans to construct, operate or fund a railroad to Canada. 
Therefore, SEA and the cooperating agencies do not consider this 
reasonably foreseeable. However, if an Alaska-Canada rail link becomes 
reasonably foreseeable during the process of preparing the EIS, SEA and 
the cooperating agencies will include it in the analysis of impacts. 
The State has accepted a proposal from TransCanada Pipeline Corporation 
to construct a natural gas pipeline along the TAPS,

[[Page 18329]]

pending approval by the legislature and a public review period. SEA 
will monitor the State review process and whether TransCanada files an 
application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before 
determining that it is reasonably foreseeable.
    Under CEQ's guidelines, the analysis of environmental effects 
resulting from a proposed action requires the separation of actions and 
effects that are reasonably foreseeable as opposed to results that are 
remote and speculative. Typically, the Board analyzes potential rail 
operations for a period of three to five years into the future 
depending on an applicant's projections. Projects for rail operations 
beyond these time frames are generally not reasonably foreseeable. 
Beyond three to five years, for example, fluctuations in the economy 
and demand for infrastructure projects become speculative. The time 
frame for the analysis of potential effects of other projects or 
actions will likely vary by resource area depending on the availability 
of reliable information and the current and predicted health of the 
resource.
     Analysis of alternatives that do not meet the ARRC's 
stated purpose and need. 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 
proposal considered by the agencies. Here, the proposed project is 
intended to provide freight and passenger rail service from Fairbanks 
to the region south of North Pole, Alaska. Comments were received 
suggesting that the EIS evaluate transportation alternatives such as 
improvements to the Richardson Highway, as an alternative to rail 
construction. This alternative, while it may improve transportation 
access to Delta Junction, does not advance the applicant's goals of 
expanding reliable rail service in interior Alaska, and therefore will 
not be evaluated as a separate alternative in the EIS.
     Analysis of ARRC's proposed Eielson Branch Realignment 
Project (now the Fort Wainwright Realignment Project) and the Northern 
Rail Extension under one NEPA document. The comment stated that the 
projects are connected and suggested that one NEPA document could more 
efficiently analyze both projects. However, the Eielson Branch 
realignment would be constructed regardless of whether the Northern 
Rail Extension is built and the NEPA process for the realignment is on 
a different schedule. Therefore, both projects are best analyzed 
separately.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Proposed New Construction

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

Impact Categories

    The EIS will analyze potential direct and indirect impacts from 
construction and operation of new rail facilities on the human and 
natural environment for each alternative, or in the case of the no-
action, the potential direct and indirect impacts of these activities 
not occurring. Impact areas addressed will include the categories of 
land use, biological resources, water resources including wetlands and 
other waters of the US, navigation, geology and soils, air quality, 
noise, energy resources, socioeconomics as they relate to physical 
changes in the environment, safety, highway-rail grade crossing delay, 
cultural and historic resources, subsistence, 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 direct and indirect impacts of each alternative 
on each category as described below:
    1. Safety.
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe existing road/rail grade crossing safety and analyze 
the potential for an increase in accidents related to the new rail 
operations, as appropriate.
    b. Describe existing rail operations and analyze the potential for 
increased probability of train accidents, as appropriate.
    c. Evaluate the potential for disruption and delays to the movement 
of emergency vehicles due to new rail line construction and operation 
for each alternative.
    d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to safety, as appropriate.
    2. Land Use.
    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate potential impacts of each alternative on existing land 
use patterns within the project area and identify those land uses that 
would be potentially impacted by new rail line construction.
    b. Analyze the potential impacts associated with each alternative 
to land uses identified within the project area. Such potential impacts 
may include incompatibility with existing land uses and conversion of 
land to railroad uses.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
impacts to land use, as appropriate.
    3. Recreation (as part of the land use discussion and a separate 
Section 4(f) to meet the requirements of the Federal Railroad 
Administration and Federal Transit Administration).
    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate existing conditions and the potential impacts of the 
alternatives, including the various new rail line construction 
alignments and their operation, on recreational opportunities in the 
project area.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on recreational opportunities, as appropriate.
    c. Identify resources including parks, wildlife refuges, and sites 
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and evaluate 
unavoidable impacts to them for the 4(f) evaluation, in accordance with 
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as 
amended.
    4. Biological Resources.
    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the existing biological resources within the project 
area, including vegetative communities, wildlife and fisheries, 
wetlands, and Federal and state threatened or endangered species and 
the potential impacts to these resources resulting from each 
alternative.
    b. Describe any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, national or state 
parks, forests, or grasslands and evaluate the potential impacts to 
these resources resulting from each alternative.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate 
for potential impacts to biological resources, as appropriate.
    5. Water Resources.
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the existing surface water and groundwater resources 
within the project area, including lakes, rivers, streams, stock ponds, 
wetlands, and floodplains and analyze the potential impacts on these 
resources resulting from each alternative.
    b. Describe the permitting requirements for the various 
alternatives with regard to wetlands, stream and river crossings, water 
quality, floodplains, and erosion control.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate 
for potential project impacts to water resources, as appropriate.
    6. Navigation.
    The EIS will:
    a. Identify existing navigable waterways within the project area 
and analyze the potential impacts on navigability resulting from each 
alternative.

[[Page 18330]]

    b. Describe the permitting requirements for the various 
alternatives with regards to navigation.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
impacts to navigation, as appropriate.
    7. Geology and Soils.
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the geology, soils, permafrost and seismic conditions 
found within the project area, including unique or problematic geologic 
formations or soils, prime farmland, prime and unique soils, and hydric 
soils and analyze the potential impacts on these resources resulting 
from the various alternatives for construction and operation of a new 
rail line.
    b. Evaluate potential measures employed to avoid or construct 
through unique or problematic geologic formations, soils, or 
permafrost.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to geology and soils, as appropriate.
    8. Air Quality.
    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate air emissions from rail operations, if the alternative 
would affect a Class I or non-attainment or maintenance area as 
designated under the Clean Air Act.
    b. Describe the potential air quality impacts resulting from new 
rail line construction activities.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to air quality, as appropriate.
    9. Noise and Vibration.
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts during new 
rail line construction.
    b. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts of rail line 
operations over new and existing rail lines.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to sensitive noise receptors, as appropriate.
    10. Energy Resources.
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe and evaluate the potential impact of the new rail line 
on the distribution of energy resources in the project area for each 
alternative, including petroleum and gas pipelines and overhead 
electric transmission lines.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to energy resources, as appropriate.
    11. Socioeconomics.
    The EIS will:
    a. Analyze the effects of a potential influx of construction 
workers and the potential increase in demand for local services 
interrelated with natural or physical environmental effects.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project adverse impacts to social and economic resources, as 
appropriate.
    12. Transportation Systems.
    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential impacts of each alternative, including 
new rail line construction and operation, on the existing 
transportation network in the project area, including vehicular delays 
at grade crossings.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to transportation systems, as appropriate.
    13. Cultural and Historic Resources.
    The EIS will:
    a. Analyze the potential impacts to historic structures or 
districts previously recorded and determined potentially eligible, 
eligible, or listed on the National Register of Historic Places within 
or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for the proposed rail 
alignments.
    b. Evaluate the potential impacts of each alternative to 
archaeological sites previously recorded and either listed as 
unevaluated or determined potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on 
the National Register of Historic Places within the right-of-way for 
the alternative rail alignments and the no-action alternative.
    c. Analyze the potential impacts to historic structures or 
districts or archaeological sites identified by ground survey and 
determined potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on the National 
Register of Historic Places within or immediately adjacent to the 
right-of-way for the alternative rail alignments.
    d. Evaluate the potential general impacts to paleontological 
resources in the project area due to project construction, if necessary 
and required.
    e. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to cultural and historic resources, as appropriate.
    14. Subsistence.
    The EIS will:
    a. Analyze the potential impacts of the alternatives, including the 
alternate alignments for new rail line construction and operation, on 
subsistence activities in the project area.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on subsistence activities, as appropriate.
    15. Aesthetics.
    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential impacts of each alternative, including 
construction and operation of the rail lines, on visual resources and 
other aesthetic values within the project area.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on aesthetics, as appropriate.
    16. Environmental Justice.
    The EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential impacts of each alternative, including 
construction and operation of the rail lines, on local and regional 
minority populations and low-income populations.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on environmental justice issues, as appropriate.

Cumulative Impacts

    The EIS will analyze cumulative impacts for the alternatives for 
the proposed construction and operation of new rail facilities on the 
human and natural environment, or in the case of the no-action, of the 
lack of these activities. SEA will analyze the potential additive 
effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to the effects on 
applicable resources of relevant past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable projects or actions in the area of the proposed action. SEA 
will determine appropriate time and geographic boundaries for 
applicable resource-specific analyses in order to focus the cumulative 
impacts analysis on truly meaningful effects. Resources addressed may 
include the categories of land use, biological resources, water 
resources including wetlands and other waters of the U.S., navigation, 
geology and soils, air quality, noise, energy resources, socioeconomics 
as they relate to physical changes in the environment, rail safety, 
transportation systems, cultural and historic resources, subsistence, 
recreation, aesthetics, and environmental justice. The EIS will review 
all relevant past, concurrent, and reasonably foreseeable actions that 
could result in collectively significant impacts to each of the 
categories of impacts listed above, and to any other categories of 
impacts that may be addressed as a result of comments received during 
the scoping process or the DEIS comment period.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental 
Analysis.
Anne K. Quinlan,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-6939 Filed 4-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P