[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28611-28616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12836]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. FD 36284]


Seven County Infrastructure Coalition--Rail Construction & 
Operation--in Utah, Carbon, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties, Utah

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS), availability of the draft scope of study for the EIS, scoping 
meetings, and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (Coalition) plans to 
file a request with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) for 
authority to construct and operate an approximately 80-mile rail line 
between two terminus points in the Uinta Basin near Myton, Utah, and 
Leland Bench, Utah, and the interstate rail network. The construction 
and operation of the proposed rail line has the potential to result in 
significant environmental impacts; therefore, the Board's Office of 
Environmental Analysis (OEA) has determined that the preparation of an 
EIS is appropriate pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA), as amended. The purpose of this notice is to inform 
stakeholders--including members of the public; tribes; federal, state, 
and local agencies; environmental groups; and potential shippers--
interested in or potentially affected by the proposed project. OEA will 
hold public scoping meetings as part of the NEPA process. Comments 
submitted during scoping will assist OEA in defining the range of 
alternatives and potential impacts to be considered in the EIS. OEA has 
developed a Draft Scope of Study for the EIS for stakeholder review and 
comment. Public meeting dates and locations, along with the Draft Scope 
of Study, are provided below.

DATES: Comments on the Draft Scope of Study for the EIS are due by 
August 3, 2019. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting 
dates.

ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting 
addresses. Scoping comments submitted by mail should be addressed to 
Joshua Wayland, Surface Transportation Board, c/o 9300 Lee Highway, 
Fairfax, VA 22031, Attention: Environmental filing, Docket No. FD 
36284. Scoping comments may also be filed electronically on the Board's 
website, https://www.stb.gov, by clicking on the ``E-FILING'' link or 
on the Board-sponsored project website at www.uintabasinrailwayeis.com. 
Please refer to Docket No. FD 36284 in all correspondence, including e-
filings, addressed to the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Wayland, Office of 
Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20423, or call the OEA's toll-free number for the 
project at 855-826-7596. Assistance for the hearing impaired is 
available through the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-
8339. The website for the Board is https://www.stb.gov. For further 
information about the Board's environmental review process and the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), you may also visit the Board-
sponsored project website at www.uintabasinrailwayeis.com.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Coalition proposes to construct and operate an approximately 
80-mile rail line between two terminus points in the Uinta Basin near 
Myton, Utah, and

[[Page 28612]]

Leland Bench, Utah, and the interstate rail network. The Coalition 
anticipates that shippers would use the proposed rail line to transport 
crude oil, gilsonite, coal, and other mineral and agricultural products 
out of the Uinta Basin to markets across the United States. The 
proposed rail line could also be used to move products and commodities, 
such as fracturing sand, proppant, steel, and machinery, to markets in 
the Uinta Basin. Based on current market conditions, the Coalition 
estimates that approximately 7 trains would move along the proposed 
rail line per day, on average, including loaded and unloaded trains, or 
3.5 trains per day in each direction. Because the construction and 
operation of the proposed rail line could result in significant 
environmental impacts, OEA is hereby notifying interested 
stakeholders--including federal, state, and local agencies; tribes; 
environmental groups; potential shippers; and the public--that OEA 
intends to prepare an EIS to analyze the Coalition's proposal, pursuant 
to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
    The Coalition's preferred route would extend generally southwest 
from terminus points near Myton, Utah, and Leland Bench, Utah, to a 
connection with an existing rail line owned by Union Pacific Railroad 
Company (UP) near Kyune, Utah. It would generally parallel U.S. Route 
191 through Indian Canyon and would be located within Utah, Carbon, 
Duchesne, and Uintah Counties in Utah (Indian Canyon Route). The 
Coalition has also identified two potential alternatives to the Indian 
Canyon Route that the Coalition believes would be economically and 
technically feasible. One of those proposed alternatives would connect 
the terminus points near Myton and Leland Bench to the UP rail line 
near Kyune by following Wells Draw and Argyle Canyon, crossing Utah, 
Carbon, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties in Utah (Wells Draw Route). The 
other proposed alternative would extend eastward from the terminus 
points near Myton and Leland Bench to a connection with a UP rail line 
near Craig, Colorado, and would cross Uintah and Duchesne Counties in 
Utah, as well as Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties in Colorado (Craig 
Route). Additional information regarding the proposed project, 
including detailed descriptions of the Indian Canyon, Wells Draw, and 
Craig Routes, are set forth in the Draft Scope of Study below.
    In compliance with NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Little 
Snake, White River, Vernal, Price, and Salt Lake Field Offices intend 
to participate as a cooperating agency on this EIS with the Board. 
Construction and operation of the Indian Canyon Route or the Wells Draw 
Route would require an issuance of a right-of-way across BLM-managed 
lands and could require amendments to the Vernal, Price, and Salt Lake 
Field Offices Resource Management Plans (RMPs). Construction and 
operation of the Craig Route would also require issuance of a right-of-
way across BLM-managed lands and could require amendments to the Little 
Snake and White River RMPs. Therefore, if the Indian Canyon, Wells 
Draw, and Craig Routes are carried forward for analysis in the EIS, the 
EIS will include analysis of the potential RMP amendments.
    In compliance with NEPA and the U.S. Forest Service's (Forest 
Service's) 2012 Planning Rule, the Forest Service's Ashley National 
Forest also intends to participate as a cooperating agency on this EIS 
with the Board. Because the Indian Canyon Route would cross National 
Forest System (NFS) lands, Forest Service approval for permitting the 
rail line right-of-way may be required. The Forest Service decision may 
also include amending the Ashley Forest Land and Resource Management 
Plan (Ashley Forest Plan). Therefore, the EIS will include analysis of 
that potential plan amendment.

Environmental Review Process

    This notice initiates the public scoping period for the EIS. To 
begin the scoping process, OEA has developed a Draft Scope of Study 
that OEA is making available for public review and comment. Oral and 
written comments submitted during scoping will assist OEA in 
identifying other agencies with an interest or expertise in the project 
and defining the range of alternatives and potential impacts on the 
human and natural environment to be considered in the EIS. Public 
meeting dates and locations, as well as instructions for submitting 
written comments are provided below.
    To date, OEA has invited several agencies to participate in this 
EIS process as cooperating agencies on the basis of their special 
expertise or jurisdiction by law. These agencies are the BLM, the 
Forest Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, and the State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office. 
OEA is also initiating government-to-government consultation with the 
following potentially affected tribes.

 Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah
 Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
 Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming
 Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and 
Utah
 Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation 
of Montana
 Hopi Tribe of Arizona
 Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah
 Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, Utah
 Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh 
Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of 
Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)
 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho
 Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians
 White Mesa/Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Utah and Colorado
    Additional cooperating agencies and interested tribes may be 
identified during the scoping process.

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on the 
Draft Scope of Study, potential alternative routes for the proposed 
rail line, and other environmental issues and concerns during the 45-
day public comment period, which ends on August 3, 2019, to assure full 
consideration during the scoping process. OEA will issue a Final Scope 
of Study after the close of the scoping comment period. After issuing 
the Final Scope of Study, OEA will prepare a Draft EIS for the project. 
The Draft EIS will address the environmental issues and concerns 
identified during the scoping process and assess and compare potential 
alternatives. It will also contain OEA's preliminary recommendations 
for environmental mitigation measures. The Draft EIS will be made 
available upon its completion for review and comment by the public, 
government agencies, and other interested parties. OEA will prepare a 
Final EIS that considers comments on the Draft EIS. In reaching its 
decision in this case, the Board will take into account the Draft EIS, 
the Final EIS, and all environmental comments that are received.

Public Scoping Meetings

    OEA will hold six public scoping meetings in communities in the 
project area during the public comment period. The public scoping 
meetings will be held at the following locations on the dates listed.
     Monday July 15, 2019, 3-5 p.m. at the Ute Tribal 
Auditorium, 910 South 7500 East, Fort Duchesne, Utah.

[[Page 28613]]

     Tuesday July 16, 2019, 5-7 p.m. at the Moffat County 
Fairgrounds Pavilion, 640 E Victory Way, Craig, Colorado.
     Wednesday July 17, 2019, 5-7 p.m. at the Carbon County 
Event Center, 450 S Fairgrounds Road, Price, Utah.
     Thursday July 18, 2019, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. at the Grace Event 
Center, 1024 W Highway 40, Roosevelt, Utah.
     Thursday July 18, 2019, 5-7 p.m. at the Uintah Conference 
Center, 313 East 200 South, Vernal, Utah.
     Friday July 19, 2019, 10 a.m.-12 p.m. at Radisson Hotel 
Salt Lake City Downtown, 215 West South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah.
    The scoping meetings will be held in an open house format for the 
first half hour, followed by a brief presentation by OEA and an 
opportunity to provide public comments. A court reporter will be 
present to record the oral comments made during the meeting. We ask 
that public demonstrations--either in support of or opposed to the 
proposals--including signage, posters, and demonstrations, occur 
outside the meeting room. The meeting locations comply with the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). 
Persons that need special accommodations should telephone OEA's toll-
free number for the project at 855-826-7596.

Possible Resource Management Plan Amendments

    The proposed rail line could potentially cross BLM-administered 
lands for which a rail right-of-way may not currently be in conformance 
with the applicable RMPs. Therefore, the BLM may need to consider 
amending one or more RMPs to permit the rail line right-of-way. If so, 
the BLM intends to use the EIS to support decision-making regarding the 
issuance of a right-of-way and to consider amending the current Little 
Snake RMP (2011), White River RMP (1997), Price RMP (2008), Vernal RMP 
(2008), and the Salt Lake Pony Express RMP (1990), which may be 
necessary for railroad construction and operation, depending on which, 
if any, alternative route is ultimately approved by the Board. Plan 
amendments (see 43 CFR 1610.5-5) change one or more of the terms, 
conditions, or decisions of an approved land use plan. These decisions 
may include those relating to desired outcomes; measures to achieve 
desired outcomes, including resource restrictions; or land tenure 
decisions. Plan amendments are required to consider any proposal or 
action that does not conform to the current plan. BLM will hold a 
protest period following the publication of the Final EIS if the 
authorized alternative would require amendments to BLM RMPs. Additional 
information regarding the plan amendment process can be found in the 
BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook (https://www.blm.gov/policy/handbooks).

Possible Forest Land Management Plan Amendment

    The proposed rail line could potentially cross NFS lands 
administered by the Ashley National Forest in Utah. Depending on which 
alternative is selected and the final engineering of that alternative, 
Forest Service approval for permitting the rail line right-of-way and 
associated construction and operation on NFS lands may be required. The 
Forest Service decision may also include amending the Ashley Forest 
Plan to ensure that approval of permitting the rail line right-of-way 
would be consistent with the Ashley Forest Plan. The Forest Service 
will use the EIS to inform the decision on the necessary approvals and, 
if needed, the Ashley Forest Plan amendment. In the event that the 
Forest Service determines that it intends to amend the Ashley Forest 
Plan, the Forest Service hereby gives notice that the scope is expected 
to be limited to the project only, and the scale of the amendment is 
the project area that occurs on NFS lands. The Forest Service also 
hereby gives notice that the substantive requirements of the 2012 
Planning Rule (36 CFR part 219) likely to be directly related and, 
therefore, applicable to the Ashley Forest Plan amendments are 36 CFR 
219.8(b)(1) and (2) (specifically scenic character), regarding social 
and economic sustainability, and 36 CFR 219.10(a)(1) (specifically 
scenery) and (3) (specifically transportation), regarding integrated 
resource management for multiple use. The Forest Service responsible 
official is the Ashley Forest Supervisor.

Draft Scope of Study for the EIS

Purpose and Need

    As described by the Coalition, the purpose of the proposed rail 
line is to provide common-carrier rail service connecting the Uinta 
Basin in northeastern Utah to the interstate common-carrier rail 
network using a route that would allow the Coalition to attract 
shippers with a cost-effective rail alternative to trucking. Because 
the Uinta Basin is surrounded by high mountains and plateaus, the area 
has limited transportation options at present. Currently, all freight 
moving into and out of the basin is transported by trucks on the area's 
limited road network, which includes one north-south two-lane highway 
(U.S. Highway 191) and one east-west two-lane highway (U.S. Highway 
40). The proposed project would provide a new, cost-effective surface 
transportation option for shippers seeking to transport products and 
commodities into and out of the Uinta Basin.
    The proposed transaction involves a request from the Coalition for 
Board authority to construct and operate the proposed rail line. The 
proposed transaction is not a federal government-proposed or sponsored 
project. Thus, the project's purpose and need should be informed by 
both the private applicant's goals and the agency's enabling statute--
the Interstate Commerce Act as amended by the ICC Termination Act, 
Public Law 104-188, 109 Stat. 803 (1996), which provides that the Board 
must approve a construction application unless it finds that the 
construction is ``inconsistent with the public convenience and 
necessity.''

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The proposed rail line would extend from a connection with an 
existing UP rail line near Kyune, Utah to two termini within the Uinta 
Basin near Myton, Utah and Leland Bench, Utah. It would consist of a 
single track constructed of continuous-welded rail and would require a 
right-of-way approximately 100 feet wide along much of its length, 
although the right-of-way could be substantially wider in some 
locations. The proposed project would include significant regrading and 
cut-and-fill to traverse the rugged topography of the project area; new 
access roads for construction and right-of-way maintenance; several 
railroad tunnels; and crossings of local roads, streams, trails, and 
utility corridors.
    Based on current market conditions, the Coalition estimates that 
approximately 7 trains would move along the proposed rail line per day, 
on average, including loaded and unloaded trains, or 3.5 trains per day 
in each direction. Rail traffic entering the Uinta Basin would likely 
move such products and commodities as fracturing sand, proppant, 
tubular steel, and oil industry machinery from the Midwest, Texas, the 
Southeast, and ports on the Pacific and Gulf coasts. Outbound trains 
would likely carry crude oil, gilsonite, coal, and other mineral and 
agricultural products to markets across the United States.
    The EIS will analyze and compare the potential impacts of (1) 
construction and operation of the proposed rail line, (2) all 
reasonable and feasible

[[Page 28614]]

alternative routes, and (3) the no-action alternative (denial of 
construction and operation authority). Information provided by the 
Coalition includes three proposed routes, as described below.
     Indian Canyon Route. This 80-mile route would connect an 
existing UP rail line owned by UP near Kyune, Utah to a terminus points 
in the Uinta Basin near Myton and Leland Bench. Starting at Leland 
Bench, approximately 9.5 miles south of Fort Duchesne, Utah, this route 
would proceed westward, past the South Myton Bench area, until 
intersecting Indian Canyon approximately two miles south of Duchesne, 
Utah. After entering Indian Canyon, the route would turn southwest and 
follow Indian Creek upstream toward its headwaters below Indian Creek 
Pass, paralleling U.S. Highway 191 for approximately 21 miles. The 
Indian Canyon Route would use a summit tunnel to pass through the West 
Tavaputs Plateau and, after emerging from the tunnel, would descend the 
Roan Cliffs to reach Emma Park, an open grassy area at the base of the 
Roan Cliffs. The route would then run westward through Emma Park and 
connect to the UP Provo Subdivision near the railroad timetable station 
at Kyune. At this time, the Coalition has identified the Indian Canyon 
Route as its preferred alternative.
     Craig Route. This route would be approximately 185 miles 
long and would connect an existing UP rail line near Axial, Colorado to 
two terminus points in the Uinta Basin near Myton and Leland Bench. The 
lines from those two terminus points would meet at a junction 
approximately four miles north of Leland Bench. From the junction, the 
Craig Route would proceed generally northward for approximately seven 
miles, then turn and proceed generally eastward, crossing the Green 
River approximately five miles south of Jensen, Utah. The route would 
then proceed southeasterly, entering Colorado approximately three miles 
northwest of Dinosaur, Colorado and would connect to the Deseret Power 
Railroad (DPR) south of Dinosaur. The Craig Route would utilize 
approximately 13 miles of the DPR to proceed eastward and would depart 
the DPR approximately two miles west of the Deserado Mine. It would 
then proceed generally eastward to connect to the UP Craig Subdivision 
near the railroad timetable station at Axial.
     Wells Draw Route. This route would be approximately 105 
miles long and would connect an existing UP rail line near Kyune to two 
terminus points in the Uinta Basin near Myton Bench and Leland Bench. 
The lines from those two terminus points would meet at a junction 
approximately 6.5 miles south of South Myton Bench. From the junction, 
the Wells Draw Route would run southward, generally following Wells 
Draw towards its headwaters. After reaching the headwaters of Wells 
Draw, the route would turn westward and enter Argyle Canyon. It would 
remain on the north wall of Argyle Canyon for approximately 25 miles, 
eventually reaching the floor of the canyon near the headwaters of 
Argyle Creek. The route would then enter a summit tunnel through the 
West Tavaputs Plateau and, after emerging from the tunnel, would 
descend the Roan Cliffs to reach Emma Park. The route would run 
westward through Emma Park and connect to the UP Provo Subdivision near 
the railroad timetable station at Kyune.
    Currently, the Coalition's preferred route is the Indian Canyon 
Route. Maps of that proposed route and the proposed alternatives 
described above are available on the Board-sponsored project website at 
www.uintabasinrailwayeis.com. OEA is interested in scoping comments on 
potential alternatives to the Coalition's proposed routes and will 
determine the final set of alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS 
during the scoping process.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Proposed New Construction and Operation

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

Impact Categories

    The EIS will analyze potential direct, indirect, and cumulative 
impacts \1\ for the Coalition's proposed construction and operation and 
each reasonable and feasible alternative on the human and natural 
environment, or in the case of the no-action alternative, the lack of 
these activities. Impact areas addressed will include the categories of 
safety, transportation systems, land use, parks and recreation, 
biological resources, water resources including wetlands and other 
waters of the U.S., geology and soils, air quality, noise, energy 
resources, socioeconomics as they relate to physical changes in the 
environment, cultural and historic resources, aesthetics, and 
environmental justice. Other categories of impact areas may also be 
included as a result of comments received during the scoping process or 
on the Draft EIS. The EIS will include a discussion of each impact area 
assessed as it currently exists in the project area and will address 
the potential direct, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts of the 
Coalition's preferred route and each reasonable and feasible 
alternative on each impact area as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NEPA requires the Board to consider direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impacts. Direct and indirect impacts are both caused by 
the action. 40 CFR 1508.8(a) and (b). A cumulative impact is the 
``incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 
what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 
actions.'' 40 CFR 1508.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Safety
    If the proposed project would adversely or beneficially affect 
public safety, the EIS will:
    a. Analyze the potential for an increase in accidents related to 
the proposed new rail operations, as appropriate.
    b. 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.
    d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on safety, as appropriate.
2. Transportation Systems
    Because the proposed project would affect transportation systems, 
the EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential impacts resulting from the Coalition's 
proposed route and each alternative on the existing transportation 
network in the project area.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
adverse project impacts on transportation systems, as appropriate.
3. Land Use
    Because the proposed project would affect land use, the EIS will:
    a. Assess potential impacts of the proposed project on public 
lands, including lands administered by the BLM and Forest Service.
    b. Analyze potential plan amendments that may be required to permit 
the rail right-of-way on public lands.
    c. Evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project to the 
roadless character of Ashley National Forest.
    d. Evaluate potential impacts of the Coalition's preferred route 
and each alternative on existing land use patterns within the project 
area and identify those land uses that would be potentially impacted by 
the proposed new rail line construction.

[[Page 28615]]

    e. Analyze the potential impacts associated with each alternative 
on land uses identified within the project area. Such potential impacts 
may include incompatibility with existing land use and conversion of 
land to railroad use.
    f. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
impacts on land use, as appropriate.
4. Parks and Recreation
    If the proposed project would adversely or beneficially affect 
parks and recreational areas, the EIS will:
    a. Evaluate existing conditions and the potential impacts of the 
Coalition's preferred route and each alternative, and their operation, 
on parks, recreational trails, and other recreational opportunities 
provided in the project area.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on recreational opportunities, as appropriate.
5. Biological Resources
    If the proposed project would adversely or beneficially affect 
biological resources, the EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the existing biological resources within the project 
area, including vegetative communities, wildlife, fisheries, and 
federal and state threatened or endangered species, and analyze the 
potential impacts on these resources resulting from each alternative.
    b. Describe any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, national or state 
parks, forests, or grasslands, and evaluate the potential impacts on 
these resources resulting from the Coalition's preferred route and each 
alternative.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate 
for potential impacts on biological resources, as appropriate.
6. Water Resources
    If the proposed project would adversely or beneficially affect 
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 the Coalition's preferred route and 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 on water resources, as appropriate.
7. Geology and Soils
    If the proposed project would adversely or beneficially affect 
geology and soils, the EIS will:
    a. Describe the geology, soils, and seismic conditions found within 
the project area, including unique or problematic geologic formations 
or soils, prime farmland, and hydric soils, and analyze the potential 
impacts on these resources resulting from the Coalition's proposed 
route and each alternative.
    b. Evaluate potential measures employed to avoid or construct 
through unique or problematic geologic formations or soils.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on geology and soils, as appropriate.
8. Air Quality
    If the proposed project would adversely or beneficially affect air 
quality, the EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the air emissions from the potential operation of 
trains on the Uinta Basin Railway, including potential greenhouse gas 
emissions, as appropriate.
    b. Evaluate the potential emissions from the freighted product, as 
appropriate.
    c. Evaluate the potential air quality impacts resulting from new 
rail line construction activities.
    d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on air quality, as appropriate.
9. Noise and Vibration
    If the proposed project would result in noise and vibration 
impacts, the EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts during new 
rail line construction resulting from the Coalition's preferred route 
and each alternative.
    b. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts of new rail 
line operation resulting from each alternative.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on sensitive noise receptors, as appropriate.
10. Energy Resources
    If the proposed project would adversely or beneficially affect 
energy resources, the EIS will:
    a. Describe and evaluate the potential impact of the proposed 
project on the distribution of energy resources in the project area 
resulting from the Coalition's preferred route and each alternative, 
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.
    c.
11. Socioeconomics
    If the proposed project would result in adverse or beneficial 
socioeconomic impacts, the EIS will:
    a. Analyze the effects of a potential influx of construction 
workers to the project area 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-related adverse impacts on social and economic resources, as 
appropriate.
12. Cultural and Historic Resources
    If the proposed project would adversely or beneficially affect 
cultural and historic resources, the EIS will:
    a. Identify historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or 
districts eligible for listing on or listed on the National Register of 
Historic Places within the area of potential effects for the 
Coalition's preferred route and each alternative (built-environment 
historic properties) and analyze potential project impacts on them.
    b. Identify properties of traditional religious and cultural 
importance to Indian tribes (Traditional Cultural Properties) and 
prehistoric or historic archaeological sites evaluated as potentially 
eligible, eligible, or listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places (archaeological historic properties) within the area of 
potential effects for the Coalition's preferred route and each 
alternative, and analyze potential project impacts on them.
    c. Propose measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potentially 
adverse project impacts on Traditional Cultural Properties and built-
environment historic properties, archaeological historic properties, 
and cultural and historic resources, as appropriate.
13. Aesthetics
    If the proposed project would have adverse or beneficial aesthetic 
impacts, the EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed project on any 
areas identified or determined to be of high visual quality.
    b. Analyze visual impacts associated with the project and 
conformance with Forest Service and BLM visual resource 
classifications.

[[Page 28616]]

    c. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed project on any 
waterways considered for or designated as wild and scenic.
    d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on aesthetics, as appropriate.
14. Environmental Justice
    If the proposed project would adversely or beneficially affect 
environmental justice communities, the EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential impacts resulting from the Coalition's 
preferred route and each alternative on local and regional minority and 
low-income populations.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on environmental justice populations, as appropriate.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Director, Office of Environmental 
Analysis.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2019-12836 Filed 6-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P