[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68274-68283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26878]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. FD 36284]


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

AGENCY: 
    Lead: Surface Transportation Board (Board).
    Cooperating: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs; State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office; 
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Department 
of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Forest Service (U.S. Forest Service).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Final Scope of Study for the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

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

SUMMARY: The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (Coalition) intends 
to seek Board approval to construct and operate an approximately 85-
mile rail line between the Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah and an 
existing rail line near Kyune, Utah. On June 19, 2019, the Board's 
Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) issued a Notice of Intent to 
Prepare an EIS and a Notice of Availability of the Draft Scope of Study 
(Draft Scope), pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
OEA requested comments on the Draft Scope from federal, state, and 
local agencies; tribes; other interested stakeholders; and the public 
during the public scoping period and held six public meetings in the 
project area. After review and consideration of all comments received, 
this notice sets forth the Final Scope of Study (Final Scope) of the 
EIS. The Final Scope reflects additions and changes to the Draft Scope 
as a result of comments received during the scoping comment period. The 
Final Scope also summarizes and addresses the principal environmental 
concerns raised by the comments on the Draft Scope and explains if and 
how these issues will be addressed in the EIS.

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 1-855-826-7596. 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

[[Page 68275]]

environmental review process and the 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 
85-mile rail line between two terminus points in the Uinta Basin near 
Myton, Utah, and Leland Bench, Utah, and the interstate rail network. 
The Coalition anticipates that shippers would use the proposed rail 
line to transport crude oil, and potentially, 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. Depending on future market 
conditions, the Coalition estimates that between 3.68 and 9.98 trains 
could move along the proposed rail line per day, on average, including 
loaded and unloaded trains.
    The Coalition is proposing to construct a route that would extend 
generally southwest from terminus points in the Uinta Basin to a 
connection with an existing rail line owned by Union Pacific Railroad 
Company (UP) near Kyune, Utah (the Whitmore Park Alternative). That 
route would generally parallel U.S. Route 191 through Indian Canyon and 
would be located within Utah, Carbon, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties in 
Utah. In addition to the Whitmore Park Alternative, the EIS will also 
consider two additional alternatives that OEA believes would be 
reasonable and feasible to construct and operate and that would meet 
the purpose and need of the proposed project. Those alternatives are 
the Indian Canyon Alternative and the Wells Draw Alternative, both of 
which would have the same terminus points as the Whitmore Park 
Alternative but would follow different alignments. A fourth potential 
alternative--the Craig Route--was considered early in the NEPA process 
but was eliminated after new information collected during the scoping 
process indicated that the Craig Route would not meet the project's 
purpose and need and would result in disproportionately significant 
environmental impacts. The EIS will compare the environmental impacts 
of the three reasonable and feasible alternatives to the No-Action 
Alternative, which would occur if the Board were to deny the 
Coalition's request for construction and operation authority. 
Additional information regarding the proposed rail line, including 
detailed descriptions of the Whitmore Park, Indian Canyon, and Wells 
Draw routes, are set forth in the Final Scope below.

Possible Resource Management Plan Amendments

    In compliance with NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976, as amended, BLM is participating as a cooperating agency 
on this EIS with the Board because construction of the proposed rail 
line would require an issuance of a right-of-way permit across BLM-
managed lands. The three build alternatives may cross BLM-administered 
lands for which a rail right-of-way would not currently be in 
conformance with the applicable Resource Management Plans (RMPs). 
Therefore, BLM may need to consider amending one or more RMPs to permit 
the rail line right-of-way. If so, BLM intends to use the EIS to 
support decision-making regarding the issuance of a right-of-way and to 
consider amending the current Price RMP (2008), Vernal RMP (2008), and 
Salt Lake Pony Express RMP (1990), depending on which, if any, route is 
ultimately approved by the Board. Plan amendments 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. The BLM Authorized officer may consider plan 
amendments for any proposal or action that does not conform to the 
current plan. As part of BLM's planning process a 30-day protest period 
is required following the publication of the Final EIS for any 
amendment decisions to BLM RMPs. Additional information regarding the 
plan amendment process can be found in the BLM Land Use Planning 
Handbook (https://www.blm.gov/policy/handbooks).

Possible Forest Land Management Plan Amendment

    In compliance with NEPA and the U.S. Forest Service's 2012 Planning 
Rule, Ashley National Forest is also participating as a cooperating 
agency on this EIS with the Board. Because the Indian Canyon 
Alternative and the Whitmore Park Alternative 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 on 
whether to permit the rail right-of-way may also include determining 
whether to amend the Ashley Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 
(Ashley Forest Plan). The Forest Service will use the EIS to inform its 
decision on the necessary approvals and, if needed, the Ashley Forest 
Plan amendment. In the event that the Forest Service decides to amend 
the Ashley Forest Plan, the Forest Service has given notice that the 
scope is expected to be limited to the proposed rail line only, and the 
scale of the amendment is the project area that occurs on NFS lands. 
The Forest Service has also given notice that the substantive 
requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) are 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.

Environmental Review Process

Purpose and Need

    The proposed project involves a request from the Coalition for 
Board authority to construct and operate a common carrier rail line as 
part of the interstate rail network. The proposed rail line is not a 
federal government-proposed or sponsored project. Accordingly, the 
project's purpose and need is informed by both the governing statute of 
the lead federal agency and the goals of the applicant. Under the 
Board's enabling statute--the Interstate Commerce Act as amended by the 
ICC Termination Act--construction and operation of new rail lines 
require prior authorization by the Board under 49 U.S.C 10901(c), which 
is a permissive authorization standard. It directs the Board to grant 
construction proposals ``unless'' the Board finds the proposal 
``inconsistent with the public convenience and necessity.'' Thus, there 
is a statutory presumption that rail construction projects are in the 
public interest unless shown otherwise.
    The Coalition has stated that 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. Currently, all freight moving 
into and out of the basin is transported by trucks on the area's 
limited road network, which includes

[[Page 68276]]

one north-south two-lane highway (U.S. Highway 191) and one east-west 
two-lane highway (U.S. Highway 40). According to the Coalition, the 
proposed rail line would provide customers in the Uinta Basin with 
multi-modal options for the movement of freight to and from the Uinta 
Basin; promote a safe and efficient system of freight transportation in 
and out of the Uinta Basin; further the development of a sound rail 
transportation system with effective competition among differing modes 
of transportation; and foster sound economic conditions in 
transportation and effective competition and coordination between 
differing modes of transportation.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The proposed rail line would extend from two termini in the Uinta 
Basin near Myton and Leland Bench to a connection to an existing UP 
rail line near Kyune. 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. Construction of the proposed 
rail line would require significant regrading and cut-and-fill to 
traverse the rugged topography of the project area; creation of new 
access roads for construction and right-of-way maintenance; 
construction of several railroad tunnels; and placement of new 
crossings at roads, streams, trails, and utility corridors. Maps of the 
Coalition's proposed route and reasonable and feasible alternative 
routes are available on the Board-sponsored project website at 
www.uintabasinrailwayeis.com.
    The volume of rail traffic on the proposed rail line during 
operations would depend on future demand for products from the Uinta 
Basin, especially crude oil. Depending on future oil market conditions, 
the Coalition estimates that between 3.68 and 9.92 crude oil trains and 
between zero and 0.6 fracking trains would move along the proposed rail 
line per day, on average, including loaded and unloaded trains, for a 
total of between 3.68 and 9.98 trains per day, on average. The 
Coalition does not anticipate that volumes of other products moving 
into or out the Uinta Basin would be sufficient to require additional 
dedicated manifest trains. The Coalition expects that crude oil unit 
trains would have, on average, 110 rails cars per train, regardless of 
whether the train was loaded or empty. The destinations of outbound oil 
trains would depend on future market conditions, including future 
global demand for crude oil, but OEA anticipates that the majority of 
rail traffic on the proposed rail line would terminate at refineries on 
the Gulf Coast.
    Alternatives To Be carried forward in the EIS:
    The EIS will analyze and compare the potential impacts of 
construction and operation of the proposed rail line for all reasonable 
alternative routes and the No-Action alternative (denial of 
construction and operation authority). Following consultation with the 
cooperating agencies; other appropriate federal, state, and local 
agencies; tribes; other affected stakeholders; the public; and the 
Coalition, as the project applicant, OEA has determined that the 
reasonable alternatives that will be analyzed in detail in the EIS are:
     Indian Canyon Alternative. This 80-mile route would 
connect an existing UP rail line owned by UP near Kyune, Utah, to 
terminus points in the Uinta Basin near Myton, Utah and Leland Bench, 
Utah. 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 2 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 Alternative 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.
     Whitmore Park Alternative. Based on information obtained 
through the scoping process (including data collection, technical 
evaluations, and public outreach) the Coalition developed the Whitmore 
Park Alternative as another alternative for further consideration in 
the EIS. The Whitmore Park Alternative would overlap for much of its 
length with the Indian Canyon Alternative but would deviate in certain 
areas to resolve issues with the Indian Creek Alternative identified 
through scoping. Specifically, the Whitmore Park Alternative would 
avoid impacts to residences in the Mini-Ranches area in Duchesne, Utah 
and to some other properties along the proposed rail line; would permit 
an improved crossing over U.S. Route 191; would allow the proposed rail 
line to avoid a slide area, which could improve the stability of the 
railway and reduce maintenance issues; and could potentially reduce 
impacts to greater sage-grouse leks in the Emma Park area of the Carbon 
Sage-Grouse Management Area, relative to the Indian Canyon Alternative. 
At this time, the Coalition has identified the Whitmore Park 
Alternative as the Coalition's preferred alternative.
     Wells Draw Alternative. This alternative would be 
approximately 105 miles long and would connect the existing UP rail 
line near Kyune, Utah to two terminus points in the Uinta Basin near 
Myton Bench, Utah and Leland Bench, Utah. The lines from those two 
terminus points would meet at a junction approximately 6.5 miles south 
of South Myton Bench. From that junction, the Wells Draw Alternative 
would run southward, generally following Wells Draw toward 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 Kyune.
    Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study:
    The three reasonable and feasible alternative alternatives 
described above were identified through several separate evaluations of 
potential routes for a rail line between the Uinta Basin and the 
interstate rail network. Because the Uinta Basin is surrounded by steep 
topography, the range of potential reasonable and feasible alternatives 
is greatly limited by engineering constraints, as well as by the costs 
of constructing a rail line through rugged and mountainous terrain. In 
a 2014 feasibility study, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) 
initially identified 26 conceptual routes for a rail line to serve the 
Uinta Basin but eliminated 18 of those routes because they would 
require ruling grades that would be inconsistent with the safe and 
efficient operation of a rail line. In 2019, the Coalition reevaluated 
the 26 routes identified by UDOT and three additional routes that were 
not considered in the UDOT study. Among the 29 routes that the 
Coalition considered, 18 were eliminated because they would exceed the 
engineering standards that the Coalition set for safe

[[Page 68277]]

and efficient operation and three were eliminated because they would 
result in disproportionately significant environmental impacts. Of the 
remaining eight routes, five were eliminated after further analysis 
because they would not be technically or economically feasible to 
construct and operate.
    Prior to the beginning of the scoping process, OEA reviewed the 
available information, including information submitted by the 
Coalition, and identified three routes as potential reasonable and 
feasible alternatives and requested public comments on those potential 
alternatives. In addition to the Indian Canyon Alternative and Wells 
Draw Alternative, OEA also initially considered the Craig Route, which 
would extend eastward approximately 185 miles from terminus points near 
Myton, Utah and Leland Bench, Utah to an existing rail line near Axial, 
Colorado. Based on comments received during scoping and OEA's 
independent review, OEA has now determined that the Craig Route is not 
a reasonable and feasible alternative because it would not meet the 
project's purpose and need and would result in disproportionate 
environmental impacts relative to the other routes that OEA has 
considered.
    OEA received a number of comments during scoping, raising concerns 
regarding potential environmental impacts of the Craig Route, as well 
as the reasonableness and feasibility of that proposed alternative. On 
September 4, 2019, the Coalition submitted a comment letter to OEA 
explaining that the Coalition no longer believes the Craig Route would 
meet the project's purpose and need. First, the Coalition stated that 
two major segments of the Craig Route are currently private rail lines 
and the Coalition would need to obtain the right to operate over those 
private lines in order to construct and operate the Craig Route.\1\ 
Second, the Coalition noted that if the Craig Route were constructed, 
shippers in the Uinta Basin would gain access only to a rail line owned 
and operated by UP, whereas both the Indian Canyon Alternative and the 
Wells Draw Alternative would give shippers access to both UP and BNSF 
Railway Company lines. According to the Coalition, the lack of access 
to two existing carriers on the Craig Route would result in higher 
rates for shippers and could affect the Coalition's ability to attract 
shippers and obtain financing. Third, the Coalition stated that the 
economic feasibility of the Craig Route could be affected by the high 
maintenance and operating costs on the UP Craig Subdivision, to which 
the Craig Route would connect. According to the Coalition, there is 
little current rail traffic on that UP rail line. Because trains from 
the proposed rail line would be the primary source of rail traffic on 
the UP Craig Subdivision, the Coalition could be forced to either 
purchase that UP line or incur substantial costs to ensure that it is 
adequately maintained. Finally, the Coalition noted the comments from 
federal, state, and local agencies discussed below regarding the 
disproportionate potential impact of the Craig Route to wildlife and 
other resources relative to the other proposed build alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Private rail lines are not part of the interstate rail 
network, and therefore, are not subject to the Board's jurisdiction, 
including the railroads' common carrier obligation to provide rail 
service on reasonable request. See 49 U.S.C. 11101(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Colorado State Office of the BLM (Colorado BLM) 
identified several potentially significant environmental impacts to 
specific resources that lead to the conclusion to dismiss the Craig 
Route from detailed analysis. Colorado BLM explained that the Craig 
Route would be inconsistent with BLM management decisions and would 
require an amendment to BLM resource management plans in order to 
permit a right-of-way. Colorado BLM identified potential significant 
environmental impacts to important greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed 
grouse habitat, including several greater sage-grouse leks; important 
winter habitat for big game species, including pronghorn, mule deer, 
and elk; and habitat for the black footed ferret in the Wolf Creek 
Management Area. Other issues raised by Colorado BLM regarding the 
Craig Route include potential visual impacts and impacts to several 
threatened and endangered plant species known to occur in the project 
area. Because of its concerns concerning impacts, the Colorado BLM 
asked that OEA eliminate the Craig Route from further analysis.
    The National Parks Service (NPS) submitted comments identifying 
potential environmental impacts--including increased air pollution, 
noise, and altered daytime viewsheds and dark night sky views--of the 
Craig Route on Dinosaur National Monument (DNM) that would be caused by 
the Craig Route's close proximity (within five miles) to the DNM. By 
comparison, the Indian Canyon Alternative and the Wells Draw 
Alternative would avoid these impacts because both routes would be more 
than 30 miles away from the DMN.
    Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) submitted comments raising 
concerns about the Craig Route due to the project area's extremely high 
value for numerous wildlife species and the potential of the proposed 
route to adversely affect those species. CPW identified eight 
properties in which CPW maintains an interest that would be bisected by 
the Craig Route, potentially resulting in the fragmentation of wildlife 
habitat or affecting public use of the properties. CPW noted that the 
Craig Route would cross numerous tributary streams of the White River 
and the Yampa River, which serve as spawning areas for federally and 
state listed threatened and endangered fish species. In addition, CPW 
commented that the Craig Route would cross crucial winter range areas 
and migration routes for mule deer and elk and also raised concerns 
regarding potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, sharp-tailed 
grouse, raptors, and blackfooted ferrets. Finally, CPW identified 
several proposed projects in the vicinity of the Craig Route that could 
potentially result in significant cumulative impacts to biological 
resources when considered in conjunction with the proposed rail line if 
the Craig Route is carried forward, including the Transwest Express 
Transmission Line, Energy Gateway South Transmission Line, Tri-State's 
Colowyo coal mine expansion, federal oil and gas leasing projects, and 
proposals for sand and gravel mining.
    The comments of the commissioners of Moffat County, Colorado 
(Moffat County) did not ask OEA to eliminate the Craig Route, but 
raised several issues unique to the Craig Route that would need to be 
addressed if that route were carried forward in the EIS. Among these 
issues are the lack of the Craig Route's connection to an existing 
common carrier rail line in Colorado, which would require the Coalition 
to acquire rights to operate over private rail line in order to 
implement the proposed project if the Craig Route were approved. 
Moffatt County also pointed to potential bottleneck issues related to 
adding new rail traffic to parts of the proposed route that could make 
the Craig Route infeasible. Moffat County further noted the existence 
of several wildlife conservation easements along the Craig Route 
corridor and cited potential rail crossings that would need to 
intersect public roads and landowner concerns.
    Based on careful consideration of the comments, and the results of 
its own environmental analysis conducted to date, OEA has concluded, 
based on the totality of the circumstances, that the Craig Route would 
not be a reasonable and feasible alternative for the proposed Uinta 
Basin Railway and that the route

[[Page 68278]]

will not be carried forward for detailed analysis as an alternative in 
the EIS. Because of the substantially longer length relative to the 
other proposed alternatives and its location, construction and 
operation of the approximately 185-mile Craig Route would have 
disproportionate impacts on wildlife, the DNM, and other environmental 
resources. Based on OEA's analysis of available data, the Craig Route 
would require a greater number of water body crossings than the other 
proposed alternatives, would affect a greater area of wetlands, would 
likely require greater volumes of water during construction, and would 
have a greater potential to impact cultural resources, such as 
undiscovered archeological sites. The Craig Route is also the only one 
of the three initially proposed alternatives that would cross the Green 
River, which contains designated critical habitat for federally listed 
endangered fish species that are endemic to the Colorado River basin.
    In summary, out of a total of 30 conceptual routes that have been 
considered to date, OEA has concluded that only three--the Whitmore 
Park Alternative, the Indian Canyon Alternative, and the Wells Draw 
Alternative--would meet the project's purpose and need and would be 
reasonable and feasible to construct and operate. Those three routes, 
as well as the No-Action Alternative, will be carried forward in the 
EIS.
    Public participation, agency consultation and government-to-
government consultation:
    As part of the environmental review process to date, OEA has 
conducted broad outreach to inform the public, federally recognized 
tribes, and agencies about the proposed action and to facilitate 
participation in the NEPA process. OEA consulted with, and will 
continue to consult with, federal, state, and local agencies; tribes; 
affected communities; and all interested parties to gather and 
disseminate information about the proposed action. As part of that 
process, OEA has initiated government-to-government consultation with 
federally recognized tribal governments to seek, discuss, and consider 
the views of the tribes regarding the proposed action and alternatives.
    Defining the project area:
    In most rail construction and operation proposals, the railroad 
applicant defines the potential market areas to and from where it 
intends to transport goods. OEA is then able to assess potential 
environmental impacts within a defined geographic area. In this case, 
the destinations and origins of the trains that would travel on the 
proposed rail line would depend on future market conditions, including 
future global demand for crude oil. As part of its analysis in the EIS, 
OEA will use available information to identify potential markets for 
crude oil produced in the Uinta Basin and potential routes that trains 
could take to reach those destinations, to the extent feasible. As 
appropriate under the Board's environmental regulations, OEA will 
analyze potential environmental impacts on existing rail lines that 
would experience an increase in rail traffic as a result of the 
construction and operation of the proposed rail line. OEA will define 
an appropriate project area in the EIS that will inform the public, 
enable all interested parties to participate in the environmental 
review process, and disclose the potential impacts of the Coalition's 
proposal to the Board so that it can take the requisite hard look at 
the environmental effects before making a fully informed decision.
    Summary of scoping comments:
     Analysis of Safety. Commenters requested that the EIS 
analyze the potential for a decrease in traffic accidents and releases 
of hazardous materials due to fewer tanker trucks and other trucks on 
roadways, as a result of the addition of a rail transportation option. 
Commenters also expressed concern regarding the risk of train 
derailment, hazardous material release, and train collisions with 
vehicles at road crossings. Commenters questioned the feasibility of 
installing active warning devices at road crossings due of lack of 
electricity along proposed routes. Additionally, commenters expressed 
concern regarding rail/road grade crossing safety in winter conditions; 
expressed concern that the railway would limit accessibility for 
residents and emergency vehicles; and questioned plans and financial 
responsibility for responding to hazardous material releases. The Final 
Scope reflects that the EIS will consider these issues, as appropriate.
     Analysis of Transportation Systems. Commenters suggested 
that the proposed rail line could either decrease wear on highways by 
reducing long-haul trucking traffic or increase wear on highways by 
increasing local trucking traffic. Commenters expressed concern about 
the impact of railroad operations on local traffic, including wait 
times at crossings, and the impact of the railroad on planned road 
improvement and upgrade projects. Commenters also questioned the cost 
of trucking versus transportation by rail. The Draft Scope has been 
revised to clarify that the EIS will evaluate these issues, as 
appropriate.
     Analysis of Land Use.
    [cir] BLM-Administered Lands: Commenters requested that the EIS 
evaluate Special Designation Areas, Lands with Wilderness 
Characteristics, wildland fires, range, and wild and scenic rivers. 
Commenters also requested that the EIS evaluate potential resource 
conflicts with travel management designations, rights-of-way, Special 
Recreation Management Areas, federal surface estate and mineral leases, 
and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). The Draft Scope 
has been revised to reflect that the EIS will consider these issues.
    [cir] Forest Service Administered Lands: Commenters expressed 
concern with potential adverse impacts that the proposed rail line 
would have on Ashley National Forest and conformance with inventoried 
roadless areas. The Draft Scope has been revised to reflect that the 
EIS will evaluate these issues.
    [cir] Agricultural Lands. Several commenters requested that the EIS 
evaluate potential impacts on farm and pasture operations, access to 
pastures for livestock, impacts on cattle (barriers to livestock 
movement and potential collisions), and impacts on irrigation systems. 
The Draft Scope has been revised to reflect that the EIS will evaluate 
these issues.
    [cir] General Land Use: Commenters expressed concern about the 
potential adverse impacts on property values, and potential conflicts 
with other approved rights-of-way, and existing and future oil and gas 
operations and infrastructure. The Final Scope indicates that the EIS 
will evaluate the compatibility of the proposed rail line with existing 
land uses, as appropriate. The EIS will not consider the impact of the 
proposed rail line on private property values because such an analysis 
would be beyond the scope of the environmental review process under 
NEPA.
     Analysis of Parks and Recreation. Commenters expressed 
concern about the potential negative impacts on recreation in the area 
due to the construction and operation of the proposed rail line, 
including destruction of wilderness areas used for recreation and the 
impacts noise, air pollution, and degradation of the visual 
surroundings have on the desire to recreate in the area. The Final 
Scope reflects that the EIS will consider these issues, as appropriate.
     Analysis of Biological Resources.
    [cir] Fish. Commenters expressed concern related to the effects 
stream

[[Page 68279]]

crossing structures (e.g., culverts) on fish passage and the effects of 
hazardous materials (e.g., spills) on aquatic habitat. The Final Scope 
reflects that the EIS will evaluate these potential impacts.
    [cir] Wildlife. Commenters expressed concern with habitat 
destruction and fragmentation, disruption of wildlife movement and 
migration, wildlife displacement, noise and vibration effects, light 
effects, removal of wildlife access to food and water (e.g., springs) 
sources, spills of hazardous materials, and wildlife mortality from 
train collisions. Commenters also expressed concern with potential 
impacts on riparian habitat and associated wildlife, as well as big 
game, greater-sage grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, raptors, and 
migratory birds. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider 
these potential impacts, as appropriate.
    [cir] Vegetation. Commenters expressed concern with reclamation and 
potential impacts on plants and vegetation communities from the 
establishment and spread of invasive, exotic, and noxious weeds during 
and after construction. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will 
evaluate these potential impacts.
    [cir] Threatened and Endangered Species and other Sensitive 
Species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and 
BLM expressed concern with threatened and endangered species and other 
sensitive species under their management. The Center for Biological 
Diversity also expressed concern with known occurrences and 
observations of sensitive species as indicated by Utah Natural Heritage 
Program information. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will 
consider potential impacts on these species, as appropriate.
     Analysis of Water Resources.
    [cir] Surface Water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
recommended an analysis of the proposed rail line's impact on waters of 
the United States, riparian habitat, stream morphology and surface 
water and groundwater movement and flow, and construction stormwater. 
Commenters also expressed concern with hazardous material spills on 
surface waters and potential effects on Clean Water Act Section 303(d) 
listed impaired waterbodies, as well as potential stream relocations 
and stream impacts at rail line crossings. The Colorado Department of 
Public Health and Environment expressed concern with potential impacts 
on Yampa River and Colorado River systems. Some commenters expressed 
concern regarding the effects on irrigation systems, including the 
Uinta Basin Irrigation Company's main piped canal and open canal. The 
Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider these potential 
impacts, as appropriate.
    [cir] Groundwater. Commenters expressed concern regarding 
groundwater and springs from construction activities (e.g., blasting) 
that could affect the geologic layers that hold these waters, 
particularly to landowners with water rights for private wells and 
springs. Commenters also expressed concern with impacts of hazardous 
material spills on groundwater, alterations of groundwater movement and 
flow, and impacts on freshwater springs on private and public lands, 
including the effect of rail tunnels that may be below springs. The 
Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider these potential 
impacts, as appropriate.
    [cir] Wetlands and Floodplains. Commenters expressed concern with 
wetland impacts and compliance with statutes, permits, and executive 
orders pertaining to wetlands. Commenters also expressed concern with 
the proposed rail line's potential impact on floodplains; the potential 
for flash floods, including along the Indian Canyon route and drainages 
off the north slope of Nine Mile Canyon; the potential for rail car 
spills in the floodplain; and maintenance/drainage issues related to 
culvert and bridge blockage during storms that could cause washouts. 
The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider these potential 
impacts, as appropriate.
     Analysis of Geology and Soils and Paleontological 
Resources. Commenters expressed concern with soil and geologic 
instability during construction (including during blasting) and 
operations (vibrations), and resultant landslides and rockfalls that 
might occur and potentially derail trains; tunnel instability; soil 
erosion, subsidence, and compaction; and flammable and explosive 
subsurface hydrocarbon gases (e.g., methane) that may be encountered 
during construction and operations. A commenter requested that the 
geology and soils analysis include review of paleontological and 
mineral resources, noting that the Coalition's preferred route and each 
alternative traverse BLM Potential Fossil Yield Class (PFYC) 4 and 5 
areas. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider these 
potential impacts, as appropriate.
     Analysis of Air Quality. Commenters expressed concern that 
the existing poor air quality, especially during weather inversions in 
winter, and the associated health-related impacts (such as asthma), 
would be made worse by a rail line and increased oil and gas 
production, and that this needs to be analyzed in the EIS. Commenters 
stated that air emissions related to the proposed rail line, including 
emissions of greenhouse gases, should be estimated as part of the EIS 
analysis and that such estimates should include consideration of 
potential changes in truck traffic. Commenters also stated that the 
analysis should consider air quality information in the Ashley Forest 
Plan, include evaluation of applicability of the Clean Air Act's 
General Conformity Regulations and Transportation Conformity 
Regulations and regional air quality impacts, such as acid deposition 
and criteria pollutant concentrations in Class I (e.g., Mount Zirkel 
Wilderness Area) and sensitive Class II (e.g., Dinosaur National 
Monument and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area) areas. Commenters 
requested that the air quality analysis include impacts on air quality 
from new and increased refining capacity at the destinations where 
refining would take place. The Final Scope makes clear that these 
issues will be addressed in the EIS, as appropriate.
     Analysis of Noise and Vibration. Commenters raised 
concerns about noise impacts during construction and operation of the 
proposed rail line, including potential effects on livestock and 
wildlife, as well as quality of life and private property values. 
Commenters also expressed concern about potential vibration impacts, 
including rattling windows, rock fall, and damage to springs and 
irrigation pipelines. One commenter requested that, along with 
considering sound volume and A-weighted decibels (dBA), the noise and 
vibration impact analysis in the EIS provide a multi-octave analysis of 
both tonal and low frequency noise components. The Final Scope explains 
that the EIS will consider these issues, as appropriate, except for the 
requested multi-octave analysis, which is not required for evaluation 
of potential noise impacts and would be inconsistent with the Board's 
established approach for assessing those impacts.
     Analysis of Energy Resources. Comments on energy resources 
were related to the potential for the rail line to increase oil and gas 
production in the basin. That issue is encompassed in the Final Scope 
and will be addressed in the EIS, as appropriate.
     Analysis of Socioeconomics. Many comments involved job 
creation and commenters expressed opinions about the extent of 
temporary versus long-term job creation, the potential for the rail

[[Page 68280]]

line to displace trucking jobs, and the potential benefits of long-term 
job creation for communities. Commenters had conflicting opinions about 
the market sectors that would likely benefit from construction of the 
proposed rail line and whether rail construction and operation would 
result in adverse or beneficial social effects. Commenters stated that 
the proposed rail line would increase revenue generation on state lands 
for public education and result in increased tax revenue and royalty 
payments. Commenters also expressed concern about the impact that an 
influx of temporary workers would have on local communities and the 
potential for the workforce to exceed the capacity of hotels, housing, 
and other infrastructure; affect housing prices; and displace low-
income tenants. Commenters specifically requested that the EIS include 
a cost-benefit analysis; an analysis of the economic benefits of more 
efficient transportation by rail; an analysis of the opportunity costs 
of the No-Action Alternative; and an analysis of impacts on ranchers. A 
cooperating agency requested that the EIS consider effects on nonmarket 
social values outside of defined communities, including impacts on 
opportunities for quiet recreation and sense of place. The Draft Scope 
has been revised to reflect that the EIS will analyze direct and 
indirect economic impacts, direct and indirect impacts on jobs, social 
impacts, impacts on communities, and impacts on nonmarket social 
values, as appropriate. The EIS will not include a cost-benefit 
analysis of the proposed rail line because such an analysis would be 
beyond the scope of the environmental review process under NEPA.
     Analysis of Cultural and Historic Resources. Commenters 
expressed concern regarding potential adverse impacts on historic sites 
and buildings, historic rock art, and petroglyphs. The Final Scope 
reflects that the EIS will consider these potential impacts, as 
appropriate.
     Analysis of Aesthetics and Visual Resources.
    [cir] Scenic Landscapes. Commenters expressed concern regarding 
potential impacts on scenic landscapes, scenic byways, and lands with 
wilderness characteristics from construction and operation of the 
proposed rail line. Concerns were also expressed regarding light 
pollution. The Final Scope indicates that the EIS will evaluate these 
issues, as appropriate.
    [cir] Visual Resource Management (VRM). The Nine Mile Canyon 
Coalition requested that the EIS use the BLM Visual Resource Inventory 
instead of BLM VRM for the baseline of the analysis. The Final Scope 
indicates that the EIS will reference applicable rating systems for 
assessing potential impacts on visual resources on federal lands.
     Analysis of Environmental Justice. One commenter 
recommended that OEA follow the methods outlined in the Environmental 
Justice Interagency Working Group's Promising Practices for 
Environmental Justice Methodologies in NEPA Reviews. A cooperating 
agency also provided agency-specific guidance on the methodology for 
identifying low-income, minority, and tribal populations. One commenter 
stated that the environmental justice analysis should consider impacts 
from noise, vibration, dust, and other air emissions, as well as 
impacts of the new rail line on traffic, emergency response times, and 
neighborhood connectivity. Some commenters requested that the scope of 
the environmental justice analysis include an assessment of downline 
environmental justice impacts along routes that would accommodate 
additional rail activity generated by the proposed rail line. The EIS 
will include an analysis of environmental justice impacts that is 
tiered to other resource analyses in the EIS and will consider whether 
analysis of downline impacts is warranted based on the projected number 
of train trips, where appropriate.

Final Scope of Study for the EIS

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 their 
potential environmental impacts, as appropriate.

Impact Categories

    The EIS will analyze potential direct, indirect, and cumulative 
impacts \2\ for the Coalition's proposed construction and operation of 
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 United States, 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. 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 impacts, indirect impacts, and cumulative 
impacts associated with each reasonable and feasible alternative and 
the No-Action Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
adversely or beneficially affect public safety in the project area, the 
EIS will:
    a. Analyze the potential for a change in vehicle accident frequency 
and resulting hazardous material release frequency related to the 
operation of the proposed rail line.
    b. Analyze the potential for increased probability of train 
accidents and hazardous material release.
    c. Evaluate the potential for impacts on public safety due to 
operation-related wildfires and disruption and delays to the movement 
of emergency vehicles.
    d. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on safety, as appropriate.

2. Transportation Systems

    Because construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
affect transportation systems, the EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential impacts, including vehicle traffic and 
delay at at-grade rail/road crossings, resulting from each alternative 
on the existing transportation network in the project area.
    b. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
adverse project impacts on transportation systems, as appropriate.

3. Land Use

    Because construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
affect land use, the EIS will:
    a. Assess potential impacts of the proposed rail line on public 
lands, including lands administered by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service. 
For example, the EIS will analyze potential impacts on Special 
Designation Areas; Lands with Wilderness Characteristics; wildland 
fires; range (grazing allotments); and, designated or eligible wild and 
scenic rivers. The EIS will evaluate potential resource conflicts with 
travel management designations, rights-of-way, Special Recreation 
Management Areas, federal surface estate and mineral leases, and ACECs.

[[Page 68281]]

    b. Evaluate potential impacts of the proposed rail line on 
inventoried roadless areas within Ashley National Forest.
    c. Analyze potential BLM and U.S. Forest Service land use plan 
amendments that may be required to permit the rail right-of-way on 
public lands.
    d. Evaluate potential impacts of each alternative on existing land 
use patterns in the project area and identify those land uses that 
could be affected by construction and operation of the proposed rail 
line.
    e. Analyze the direct and indirect impacts on farming and ranching 
practices and access, existing residences, and existing energy 
infrastructure (oil and gas). The EIS will analyze potential barriers 
to livestock movement, livestock collisions, and impacts on irrigation 
systems.
    f. Analyze the potential direct and indirect impacts associated 
with each alternative on land uses identified in the project area. 
Potential impacts may include incompatibility with existing land use, 
conversion of land to railroad use, and, where readily available data 
exists, compatibility with conservation easements and other 
encumbrances on privately owned land.
    g. Evaluate the potential for increased wildfire risk from 
construction and operation of the proposed rail line.
    h. To the extent readily available data exists, the EIS will 
qualitatively describe Indian Trust Assets that may be affected by the 
proposed rail line, including surface and subsurface mineral rights, 
irrigable farmland, and local access, including access to allotted 
lands that may be isolated by the proposed rail line.
    i. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
impacts on land use, as appropriate.

4. Parks and Recreation

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
adversely or beneficially affect parks and recreational areas, the EIS 
will:
    a. Evaluate existing conditions and the potential impacts of each 
alternative on parks, recreational trails, Special Recreation 
Management Areas, and other recreational opportunities provided in the 
project area. Analyze the potential direct and indirect impacts on 
recreation areas and recreational opportunities from construction and 
operation of the proposed rail line.
    b. Evaluate the compatibility of each alternative with area 
management plans and local ordinances guiding recreational activities 
in the study area.
    c. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on recreational opportunities, as appropriate.

5. Biological Resources

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
adversely or beneficially affect biological resources, the EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the existing biological resources in the project area, 
including vegetative communities, wildlife, fish, and federal and state 
threatened or endangered species and other federal agency-managed 
sensitive species, and analyze the potential impacts on these resources 
resulting from the construction and operation of each alternative. For 
example, the EIS will include analyses on habitat removal and 
fragmentation (including riparian habitat); wildlife movement and 
migration disruptions, displacement, impedance of access to food and 
water sources; and mortality from collisions with trains. The EIS will 
also analyze potential impacts on federally and state-listed threatened 
and endangered species, other sensitive species managed by the Forest 
Service and BLM, and state sensitive species (i.e., those species 
identified by the Utah Natural Heritage Data).
    b. Specifically evaluate potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, 
greater sage-grouse habitat (including Priority Habitat Management 
Areas), and greater sage-grouse leks in the Carbon Sage-Grouse 
Management Area, one of eleven Sage-Grouse Management Areas in Utah.
    c. Evaluate wildfire risk due to train operations (e.g., sparks) 
and potential effects of wildfire on vegetation, habitat, and wildlife.
    d. Evaluate the permanent and temporary impacts on vegetation 
communities from the proposed rail construction and operations and 
impacts from the potential introduction and spread of invasive and 
noxious weeds during and after construction.
    e. Evaluate potential impacts from the proposed rail construction 
and operation on the aquatic habitat environment and fish, including 
the potential effects of stream-crossing structures (i.e., culverts and 
bridges) on fish passage.
    f. Evaluate impacts of contaminants and hazardous materials (e.g., 
from possible oil spills) on the aquatic/terrestrial environments and 
aquatic/terrestrial wildlife for each of the alternatives, as 
appropriate.
    g. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate 
for potential impacts on biological resources, as appropriate.

6. Water Resources

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line 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, springs, and aquifers, and analyze the potential impacts on 
these resources resulting from the construction and operation of each 
alternative.
    b. Describe existing floodplains in the project area and evaluate 
potential floodplain and flood flow impacts from construction and 
operation of each alternative.
    c. Describe existing wetlands in the project area and evaluate 
potential impacts from construction and operation of each alternative, 
including permanent wetland fill, wetland alterations (e.g., wetland 
vegetation clearing), and altered wetland functions.
    d. Consider the potential impacts on groundwater and surface water 
quality, including 303(d) listed impaired surface waters, from rail 
construction and operation of each alternative.
    e. Evaluate the potential impacts on water quantity from 
construction and operation of the proposed rail line, including use of 
surface water and groundwater, reductions in groundwater recharge, and 
impacts on irrigation systems, springs, and water rights.
    f. Evaluate potential alterations of stream morphology and surface 
water and groundwater movement and flow from the presence of culverts, 
bridges, and rail embankments for each alternative.
    g. Describe the permitting requirements for the various 
alternatives regarding wetlands, stream and river crossings, water 
quality, floodplains, and erosion control.
    h. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate 
for potential project impacts on water resources, as appropriate.

7. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
adversely or beneficially affect geology, soils, and paleontological 
resources, the EIS will:
    a. Describe the geology, soils, and seismic conditions found in the 
project area, including landslide risk, soil erodibility, and seismic 
risk and analyze the potential impacts on these resources resulting 
from each alternative.

[[Page 68282]]

    b. Evaluate potential impacts on the geologic and soil conditions 
(i.e., stability) and potential for landslides during construction and 
operation of each alternatives.
    c. Evaluate soil erosion, subsidence, and compaction impacts from 
construction and operation of each alternative.
    d. Evaluate the potential for encountering flammable and explosive 
subsurface gases (e.g., methane) during construction and operations, 
particularly during tunnel construction and operations through tunnels.
    e. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on geology and soils, as appropriate.
    f. Describe existing paleontological localities and geologic units 
in the study areas of each alternative.
    g. Evaluate the likelihood of rail construction impacts on 
scientifically significant paleontological resources.
    h. Analyze the potential impact on paleontological resources in 
each alternative route right-of-way by identifying geologic units and 
the density of paleontological resources present within or near each 
alternative route right-of-way and propose mitigation for 
paleontological resources, as appropriate.

8. Air Quality

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
adversely or beneficially affect air quality, the EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the air emissions and air quality impacts from the 
potential operation of trains and project-related changes in truck 
traffic on the proposed rail line, 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 mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on air quality, as appropriate.

9. Noise and Vibration

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line 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 each alternative.
    b. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts of new rail 
line operations resulting from each alternative.
    c. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on sensitive noise receptors, as appropriate.

10. Energy Resources

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
adversely or beneficially affect energy resources, the EIS will:
    a. Describe and evaluate the potential impact of the proposed rail 
line on the distribution of energy resources in the project area 
resulting from each alternative, including petroleum and gas pipelines 
and overhead electric transmission lines, as appropriate.
    b. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on energy resources, as appropriate.

11. Socioeconomics

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
result in adverse or beneficial socioeconomic impacts, the EIS will:
    a. Analyze direct economic impacts of construction resulting from 
increased demand for labor and construction expenditures.
    b. Analyze potential indirect economic impacts, such as induced job 
creation and economic growth, impacts on state and county revenue 
generation, and economic impacts on ranchers.
    c. Analyze the effects of a potential influx of construction 
workers on the project area and the potential increase in demand for 
local services interrelated with natural or physical environmental 
effects.
    d. Analyze temporary and permanent socioeconomic impacts related to 
the disruption or division of communities.
    e. Consider effects on nonmarket social values outside of defined 
communities, including impacts on opportunities for quiet recreation 
and a diminished sense of place, and impacts on other noneconomic 
social values.
    f. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project-related adverse impacts on social and economic resources, as 
appropriate.

12. Cultural and Historic Resources

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
adversely or beneficially affect cultural and historic resources, the 
EIS will:
    a. Identify historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or 
districts eligible for listing in or listed in the National Register of 
Historic Places (National Register) within the Area of Potential 
Effects (APE) for each alternative 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 in the National Register within the APE 
for 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, built-
environment historic properties, archaeological historic properties, 
and cultural and historic resources, as appropriate.

13. Aesthetics and Visual Resources

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line would have 
adverse or beneficial aesthetic impacts, the EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed rail line on any 
areas identified or determined to be of high visual quality.
    b. Establish candidate key observation points (KOPs) using the 
viewshed analysis and sensitive viewing points that would have views of 
the alternatives, document prominent visual features (i.e., landforms, 
vegetation, rivers) associated with each candidate KOP and that may be 
affected by the alternatives, and record global positioning system 
(GPS) coordinates of the documentation photographs. Candidate KOPs will 
be evaluated against available design plans, factoring agency concerns 
and sensitive visual receptors, to determine which of the candidate 
KOPs should be selected for simulating.
    c. Evaluate simulations by employing the BLM contrast rating 
system.
    d. Evaluate changes to the existing visual character and quality of 
views, scenic vistas and scenic byways, and light and glare.
    e. Analyze visual impacts associated with the proposed rail line 
and conformance with Forest Service and BLM visual resource 
classifications. Assess potential impacts on visual resources on 
federal lands by referencing the applicable rating systems, for example 
Forest Service Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) and BLM VRM system.
    f. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed rail line on any 
waterways considered for or designated as wild and scenic.
    g. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on aesthetics and visual resources, as appropriate.

14. Environmental Justice

    If construction and operation of the proposed rail line would 
adversely or

[[Page 68283]]

beneficially affect low-income or minority populations, the EIS will:
    a. Evaluate the potential impacts resulting from each alternative 
on minority and low-income populations.
    b. Determine if those effects are borne disproportionately by low-
income or minority populations.
    c. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
disproportionate project impacts on low-income or minority populations, 
as appropriate.

15. Cumulative Impacts

    a. Identify and evaluate the cumulative impacts of the relevant 
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that make up 
the cumulative condition for each resource.
    b. Determine the incremental contribution of the proposed rail line 
to the cumulative impacts for each resource. The cumulative impacts 
discussion will only include direct or indirect impacts found to result 
from one or more alternatives.
    c. Identify reasonable, feasible options for avoiding or mitigating 
the alternatives' considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Director, Office of Environmental 
Analysis.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2019-26878 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4915-01-P