Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation; Construction Into the Powder River Basin SUP1/SUP

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33407]

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation; Construction

Into the Powder River Basin 1

AGENCIES:

Lead: Surface Transportation Board.

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

\1\ This case was formerly entitled Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern

Railroad Corporation--Construction and Operation--in Campbell,

Converse, Niobrara, and Weston Counties, WY, Custer, Fall River,

Jackson, and Pennington Counties, SD, and Blue Earth, Nicollet, and

Steele Counties, MN. By decision served May 7, 1998, the Surface

Transportation Board shortened the title for the sake of simplicity.

As discussed below, the environmental review of this project will

also include the section of the line DM&E proposes to rebuild as

part of this project. Environmental review of the rebuild portion of

the line would include the counties of Winona, Olmsted, Dodge,

Steele, Waseca, Blue Earth, Brown, Redwood, Lincoln, and Lyon in

Minnesota; Brookings, Kingsbury, Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes,

Stanley, Haakon, Jackson, Pennington, and Fall River in South

Dakota.

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

Cooperating:

U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ACTION: Notice of availability of final scope of study for the

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); Request for

[[Page 11981]]

comments on (1) the modified proposed action, referred to as

Alternative C, and (2) the City of Rochester, Minnesota's south bypass

proposal.

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

SUMMARY: On February 20, 1998, the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad

Corporation (DM&E) filed an application with the Surface Transportation

Board (Board) for authority to construct and operate new rail line

facilities in east-central Wyoming, southwest South Dakota, and south-

central Minnesota. The project involves construction of new rail line

totaling 280.9 miles. Additionally, DM&E proposes to rebuild 597.8

miles of existing rail line along its current system to standards

acceptable for operation of unit coal trains. Because the construction

and operation of this project has the potential to result in

significant environmental impact, the Board's Section of Environmental

Analysis (SEA) determined that the preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate. SEA held 3 agency and 12 public

scoping workshops in 14 cities as part of the EIS scoping process, as

discussed in the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS, Request for

Comments on the Proposed EIS Scope, and Notice of Scoping Meetings

published by the Board on March 27, 1998. Because of public interest in

the project, workshops in Newcastle, Wyoming and Winona, Minnesota, not

originally scheduled, were added to provide additional opportunities

for public participation in the scoping process. Comment forms and the

draft scope of study (draft scope) were provided to workshop attendees.

On August 7, 1998, the Board published a Revised Notice of Intent to

Prepare an EIS, indicating that the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S.D.I.

Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would

be participating as cooperating agencies. The scoping comment period,

originally scheduled to conclude on July 10, 1998, was extended until

September 8, 1998. However, comments filed after September 8, 1998 have

been accepted and considered in this final scope of study (final scope)

of the EIS. Changes made to the draft scope are detailed in the

Response to Comments section of this notice.

In addition to issuing the final scope of the EIS, the Board and

the cooperating agencies are providing a 30 day comment period for

interested parties to submit comments on two new proposed alternatives:

(1) the Modified Proposed Action, referred to as Alternative C, and (2)

the City of Rochester, Minnesota's South Bypass Proposal. Both these

new alternatives are discussed in detail below, along with information

on how to submit written comments. This 30 day comment period is in

addition to the comment period that will be provided on all aspects of

the Draft EIS (DEIS) when that document is made available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Victoria Rutson, SEA Project Manager, Powder River Basin Expansion

Project, toll free at 1-877-404-3044.

Mr. Steve Thornhill of Burns & McDonnell, SEA's third party contractor,

at (816) 822-3851.

Ms. Wendy Schmitzer, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, (307) 358-4690.

Mr. Bill Carson, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, (307) 746-4453.

Mr. Jerry Folkers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (402) 221-4173.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The proposed action, referred to as the Powder River Basin

Expansion Project, would involve the construction and operation of

280.9 miles of new rail line and the rebuilding of 597.8 miles of

existing rail line by DM&E, as described in the February 20, 1998

application for construction and operation authority for the project

filed by DM&E and in the March 27, 1998 Notice of Intent to Prepare an

EIS published in the Federal Register by the Board.

The Powder River Basin Expansion Project, as set forth by DM&E in

its application filed with the Board, would involve the construction

and operation of new rail facilities designed to provide access for a

third rail carrier to serve the Powder River Basin's coal mines for

transport of coal eastward and increase the operational efficiency of

DM&E. New rail construction would include approximately 262.03 miles of

rail line extending off DM&E's existing system near Wasta, South

Dakota, extending generally southwesterly to Edgemont, South Dakota,

and then westerly into Wyoming to connect with existing coal mines

2 located south of Gillette, Wyoming. This portion of the

new construction would traverse portions of Custer, Fall River, and

Pennington Counties, South Dakota and Campbell, Converse, Niobrara, and

Weston Counties, Wyoming.

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

\2\ Caballo, Belle Ayr, Caballo Rojo, Cordero, Coal Creek,

Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Rochelle, North Antelope,

Rochelle, and Antelope.

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

New rail construction would also include an approximate 13.31 mile

line segment at Mankato, Minnesota, within Blue Earth and Nicollet

Counties. DM&E currently operates over trackage on both sides of

Mankato, accessed by trackage rights on rail line owned and operated by

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). The proposed Mankato construction

would provide DM&E direct access between its existing lines and avoid

operational conflicts with UP.

The final proposed segment of new rail construction would involve a

connection between the existing rail systems of DM&E and I&M Rail Link.

The connection would include construction and operation of

approximately 2.94 miles of new rail line near Owatonna, Steele County,

Minnesota. The connection would allow interchange of rail traffic

between the two carriers.

In order to transport coal over the existing system, DM&E proposes

to rebuild approximately 597.8 miles of rail line along its existing

system. The majority of this, approximately 584.95 miles, would be

along DM&E's mainline between Wasta, South Dakota, and Winona,

Minnesota. This rebuild would cross Winona, Olmsted, Dodge, Waseca,

Brown, Redwood, Lincoln, and Lyons Counties, as well as Steele, Blue

Earth, and Nicollet Counties in Minnesota, and Brookings, Kingsbury,

Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes, Stanley, Haakon, and Jackson Counties in

South Dakota. An additional approximate 12.85 miles of existing rail

line between Oral and Smithwick, in Fall River County, South Dakota,

would also be rebuilt. Rail line rebuilding would include rail and tie

replacement, additional sidings, signals, grade crossing improvements,

and other systems.

DM&E plans to transport coal as its principal commodity. However,

shippers desiring rail access could ship other commodities in addition

to coal over DM&E's rail line. Existing shippers along the existing

DM&E system would continue to receive rail service.

Environmental Review Process

The Board is the lead agency, pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.5(c). SEA is

responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4335, and related

environmental statutes. SEA will supervise the preparation of the EIS.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), the U.S.

Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are cooperating agencies, pursuant to 40

CFR 1501.6. If the cooperating agencies find the EIS adequate, they

will base their respective decisions on it. The EIS should include all

of the information necessary for decisions by the Board,

[[Page 11982]]

USFS, BLM, and COE (collectively, the agencies).

On December 10, 1998, the Board found that DM&E had satisfied the

transportation-related requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901. In issuing its

decision, the Board stated that it had considered only the

transportation aspects of DM&E's proposed project. Environmental

aspects would be considered after the completion of the environmental

review process. Therefore, the Board emphasized, no final decision

would be issued until all statutory requirements--both transportation

and environmental--were satisfied. Construction cannot begin until the

cooperating agencies have issued their decisions and the Board has

issued its final decision.

The NEPA environmental review process is intended to assist the

agencies and the public to identify and assess the potential

environmental consequences of a proposed action before a decision on

the proposed action is made. The agencies have developed and made

available a draft scope of the EIS and provided a period for submission

of written comments on it. At this time, the agencies are issuing this

final scope of the EIS. In addition, the agencies are requesting

comments on two new proposed alternatives: (1) the Modified Proposed

Action, referred to as Alternative C, and (2) the City of Rochester's

South Bypass Proposal. This comment period is in addition to the

comment period that will be provided on all aspects of the DEIS when

that document is made available.

Specifically, DM&E has developed a Modified Proposed Action,

referred to as Alternative C. This proposal includes an alternative

alignment in Wyoming and South Dakota for the mainline extension

developed by DM&E in response to environmental issues and concerns

raised by agencies, local landowners, and other interested parties. The

Board and the cooperating agencies are seeking views of all commenters

in order to ensure public input in the assessment of potential

environmental impacts of this alternative.

Also, the City of Rochester has submitted a South Bypass Proposal

to construct a rail line that would route rail traffic south around

that city. The Board and the cooperating agencies are seeking

additional information to assist in determining whether the bypass

proposal is a reasonable and feasible alternative designed to meet the

purpose and need of the applicant's proposed action. The Board and the

cooperating agencies will consider the comments in determining whether

Rochester's South Bypass Proposal is a reasonable and feasible

alternative and will set forth their conclusions in the DEIS.

As stated, the agencies will prepare a DEIS for the proposed

project. The DEIS will address those environmental issues and concerns

identified during the scoping process and detailed in the scope of

study. It will also contain a reasonable range of alternatives to the

proposed action and recommended environmental mitigation measures.

The DEIS will be made available upon its completion for public

review and comment. A Final EIS (FEIS) will then be prepared reflecting

the agencies' further analysis and the comments on the DEIS. In

reaching their future decisions in this case, the Board and each

cooperating agency will take into account the full environmental

record, including the DEIS, the FEIS, and all public and agency

comments received.

Consistent with its jurisdiction under the ICC Termination Act of

1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995), the Board would

normally only conduct an environmental analysis of the new construction

and the increase in operations over DM&E's existing system. However, in

this instance, the EIS analysis will also address construction related

impacts associated with the rebuilding of DM&E's existing mainline from

the point of connection with the new construction segments between

Wasta, South Dakota and Winona, Minnesota. Because the COE, which as

discussed above is a cooperating agency, requires such analysis,

construction related impacts along the rail line to be rebuilt,

including sidings and yard facilities, will be analyzed in this EIS to

the extent necessary to satisfy the COE's permitting requirements under

the Clean Water Act.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Based on analysis conducted to date and comments received during

the scoping process, the agencies have determined that the reasonable

and feasible alternatives 3 that will be discussed in the

EIS are:

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

\3\ Under NEPA, an applicant's goals are important in defining

the range of feasible alternatives. NEPA does not require discussion

of an alternative that is not reasonably related to the purpose of

the proposal considered by the agencies. Citizens Against

Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Here, the

proposed project is intended to facilitate the delivery of coal from

the Powder River Basin of Wyoming eastward by DM&E. During scoping,

numerous comments were received suggesting that the EIS evaluate

alternative energy sources, such as nuclear, hydroelectric and wind,

as an alternative to burning of coal. These alternatives, while

offering legitimate means of generating energy, do not advance the

applicant's goals of efficiently transporting coal and upgrading its

current rail system, and therefore, will not be evaluated in the

EIS.

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

A. South Dakota/Wyoming New Rail Line Extension

(1) The ``No Action Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative A.

This alternative to include the no build alternative as well as the no

action on federal lands alternative.

(2) The ``Proposed Action,'' referred to as Alternative B. This

alternative includes DM&E's preferred alternative as identified in its

application to the Board, but modified in response to operational

constraints discovered near Wall, South Dakota.4

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

\4\ DM&E noted in its application that modifications to the

existing system near Wall would likely be required as part of the

proposed project. However, no modifications were specifically

indicated at the time DM&E filed its application with the Board. As

a result of more detailed engineering, DM&E has since determined

that grade and curve considerations at this location would be

prohibitive for the operation of unit coal trains and has proposed a

modified plan to eliminate these problems. This new construction

along new rail line right-of-way would be utilized by Alternatives

B, C, or D. The new alignment would branch from DM&E's existing

system approximately 3 miles south of Wasta, just north of where the

proposed new construction would begin. It would curve eastward,

cross the Cheyenne River, turn northward to near Interstate 90. It

would generally parallel I-90, approximately 0.5 mile to the south.

Approximately 5 miles west of Wall the alignment would extend away

from I-90, then turn northeasterly, crossing I-90 approximately 1.5

miles west of Wall. After crossing I-90, the alignment would curve

to the east, joining with the existing system approximately 0.25

mile north of Wall.

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

(3) The ``Modified Proposed Action,'' referred to as Alternative C.

This alternative would include an alternative alignment in Wyoming and

South Dakota for the mainline extension developed by DM&E in response

to environmental issues and concerns raised by agencies, local

landowners, and other interested parties. Alternative C is designed to

minimize potential environmental impacts. This alignment was not

developed until after DM&E filed its application with the Board and

after scoping workshops had been held. Therefore, this alignment has

not yet been presented publicly on a broad scale for review and

comment.5 To facilitate public review and comment regarding

this alternative, the agencies will provide an additional 30 day

comment period. A general description of the alignment for this

alternative, together with a map, is set forth below (see ``Description

of Alternative C, the

[[Page 11983]]

Modified Proposed Action''). Copies of maps of this alignment may be

obtained through written request to the Board or by contacting the

toll-free environmental hotline at 1-877-404-3044.

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

\5\ The applicant conducted numerous site visits and public

meetings during the development of this alternative, including

meeting with landowners potentially affected by this alignment and

Federal and state agencies to discuss adjustments and ways to

minimize impacts on environmental resources and individual

landowners. Thus, some individuals, including potentially affected

landowners, are already aware of the Alternative C alignment.

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

(4) The ``existing transportation corridors alternative,'' referred

to as Alternative D. This alternative includes:

Utilization of the existing DM&E line westward to Rapid

City, then southward to Crawford, Nebraska, then northward parallel to

the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) line

to Donkey Creek Junction, then south to the joint BNSF/UP line (Joint

Line), following the Joint Line into the Powder River Basin and

connecting to the mines, referred to as Alternative D1. This

alternative would involve utilization and rebuilding of existing DM&E

rail line and new construction immediately adjacent to the existing

BNSF and Joint Lines.

Utilization of the existing DM&E line westward to Rapid

City, then southward to Crawford, Nebraska, construction of new line

westward to Crandall, Wyoming along a previously abandoned UP rail line

right-of-way, then northward parallel to the existing into the Powder

River Basin and accessing the mines, referred to as Alternative D2.

This alternative would involve utilization and rebuilding of existing

DM&E rail line and new construction between Crawford and Crandell and

immediately adjacent to the existing Joint Line.

Utilization of the existing DM&E line westward to Rapid

City, then southward to Crawford, Nebraska, then northward parallel to

the existing BNSF line to near Newcastle, Wyoming, turning westward to

parallel State Highway 450 to the Joint Line, then following the Joint

Line north and south to access the mines, referred to as Alternative

D3. This alternative would involve utilization and rebuilding of

existing DM&E rail line and new construction parallel to the BNSF line

northward from Crawford, new construction westward along State Highway

450, and new construction along the existing Joint Line to access the

mines.

Construction of new rail line extending from DM&E's

existing line near Wasta, South Dakota south and west to Edgemont,

South Dakota 6 and then northward parallel to the existing

BNSF line to near Newcastle, Wyoming, turning westward to parallel

State Highway 450 to the Joint Line, then following the Joint Line

north and south to access the mines, referred to as Alternative D4.

This alternative would involve new construction along new rail line

right-of-way between Wasta and Edgemont, new construction parallel to

the BNSF line northward from Edgemont, new construction westward along

State Highway 450, and new construction along the existing Joint Line

to access the mines.

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

\6\ The new construction portion of this alterative would

involve the portions of both Alternative B and C between their

points of diversion from DM&E's existing line near Wasta to where

they would begin to parallel the existing BNSF line northwest of

Edgemont.

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

Utilization of the existing DM&E line westward to Alto,

South Dakota, approximately 10 miles east of Pierre, South Dakota, then

southward to the former Milwaukee Road rail line right-of-way (now

Dakota Southern Rail owned and operated by the State of South Dakota)

near Draper, South Dakota, then westward utilizing the State-owned rail

line right-of-way and grade to the point this railbed intersects DM&E's

prosed new construction alignment approximately 2 miles south of State

Highway 44 in Pennington County, South Dakota, then following the

alignment proposed for the new construction into the Powder River

Basin, referred to as Alternative D5. This alternative would involve

approximately 40 miles of new construction, including a new rail bridge

over the Missouri River, and the rebuilding of approximately 100 miles

of former rail line on the existing State-owned right-of-way. This

alternative would eliminate the need for approximately 30 miles of new

construction south of Wasta and around Wall, South Dakota and the

rebuilding of approximately 100 miles of existing DM&E rail line

between Pierre and Wasta.

B. Rail Line Construction on New Right-of-Way Along DM&E's Existing

Rail System

UP Bypass at Mankato, Minnesota

(1) The ``No Action Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative M1.

(2) The ``Proposed Action,'' or ``Southern Alternative,'' referred

to as Alternative M2. This alternative would include the alternative

identified by DM&E as the preferred alternative in its application to

the Board and involves construction of new rail line in a loop south of

Mankato to connect DM&E trackage on the west and east sides of Mankato.

(3) The ``Existing Rail Corridor Alternative,'' or the ``Middle

Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative M3. This alternative would

include construction of a new rail line connecting the ends of DM&E's

existing system on either side of Mankato generally along and within an

existing rail corridor through Mankato. This corridor is currently only

occupied by UP and contains the UP line DM&E must currently operate

over, via trackage right, for access between its existing rail lines

east and west of Mankato.

(4) The ``Northern Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative M4.

This alternative would include an alignment connecting the two portions

of DM&E's existing system through construction of new rail line in a

loop north of Mankato and North Mankato.

C. I&M Connection at Owatonna, Minnesota

(1) The ``No Action Alternative,'' referred to as Alternative O1.

(2) The ``Proposed Action,'' referred to as Alternative O2. This

alternative would include the alternative identified by DM&E as the

preferred alternative in its application to the Board and involves

construction of a connecting rail line to allow interchange of rail

traffic between DM&E and I&M Rail Link.

(3) The alternative alignment, referred to as Alternative O3. This

alternative would include another alignment to the construction

alternative proposed by DM&E in its application to the Board. It

involves construction of a connecting rail line to allow interchange of

rail traffic between DM&E and I&M Rail link approximately one mile west

of Alternative O2.

In addition to the alternatives discussed above, the EIS will

evaluate other subsequently identified alternatives determined

reasonable and feasible in light of the purpose and need for the

proposed action. This may include the City of Rochester's South Bypass

Proposal.

Public Participation

Scoping workshops were attended by over 1,000 people. Over 600

scoping comment forms and well over 1,000 letters raising environmental

issues were received.

As part of the environmental review process to date, the agencies

have conducted broad public outreach activities to inform the public

about DM&E's proposal and to facilitate public participation. The

agencies have consulted and will continue to consult with Federal,

state, and local agencies, American Indian Tribal governments, affected

communities, landowners, and all interested parties to gather and

disseminate information about the proposal. In addition, comments

continue to be accepted on all aspects of the environmental review

process

[[Page 11984]]

and potential environmental impacts. Moreover, the agencies are

specifically requesting comments in this final scope on the Modified

Proposed Action, referred to as Alternative C, and the City of

Rochester's South Bypass Proposal.

The agencies continue to encourage extensive public participation

in the EIS process. Comments have been received and will continue to be

accepted throughout the environmental process. To further assist in

obtaining information about the environmental review process, the

agencies have provided a toll-free environmental hotline (1-877-404-

3044).

Response to Comments

The agencies reviewed and considered all comments received in their

preparation of this final scope of the EIS. The final scope reflects

changes made as a result of comments received addressing environmental

issues and concerns, as well as comments on the draft scope, previously

distributed at public scoping workshops and published in the Federal

Register. Other changes in the final scope were made for clarification

or as a result of additional analysis. Additions and modifications

reflected in the final scope include:

Analysis of construction impacts resulting from the

rebuilding of the applicant's existing system, including sidings and

yard facilities (with alternative locations). Over 70 written and

numerous oral comments requesting that this analysis be conducted were

received. The rebuilding of DM&E's existing line, and the construction

of sidings and yard facilities on DM&E's existing right-of-way, would

not normally be included in an EIS prepared by the Board. However, as

discussed above, because one of the cooperating agencies--the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (COE)--requires such analysis, construction related

impacts along the rail line to be rebuilt will be analyzed in this EIS

to the extent necessary to satisfy the COE's permitting requirements

under the Clean Water Act.

Sidings and yard facilities (with alternative locations)

for the new construction. The draft scope did not explicitly note that

these facilities would be addressed in the EIS. As a point of

clarification, sidings, yards, and other new rail facilities along the

new construction portion of the project will be included in the EIS

analysis.

Analysis of air quality impacts related to fugitive coal

dust. Over 350 written and numerous oral comments were received

concerning the potential impacts of fugitive coal dust as it applies to

both air quality and fire hazard. In response, the agencies have added

the analysis of these potential impacts from coal dust to the final EIS

scope.

Analysis of downline impacts. The draft scope indicated

that the EIS would address the potential environmental impacts

associated with increased levels of rail traffic above the Board's

thresholds, which would include DM&E's existing mainline between Wasta,

South Dakota, eastward to its termination at Goodview, Minnesota.

Because of the proximity of the communities of Goodview and Winona,

Minnesota, the reasonably foreseeable potential impact of the project

on them due to their location at the terminus of DM&E's system, and the

numerous requests to include them in the analysis, the EIS will be

expanded to include an appropriate analysis of those portions of the UP

and Canadian Pacific (CP) lines potentially impacted by this project

within the communities of Goodview and Winona, Minnesota.

Analysis of increases in barge traffic. In its

application, DM&E indicated a portion of the coal transported by the

proposed project could be available for delivery by barge to utilities

along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and within its identified core

market area. Subsequently, during scoping, several written and oral

comments asked that the impacts of increased barge traffic on the

Mississippi River, specifically the Upper Mississippi River National

Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), as a result of DM&E's proposal, be

addressed in the EIS.

Based on more information from the applicant concerning potential

impacts to barge traffic from DM&E's anticipated rail operations, it

appears that barge loading facilities currently available could not

accommodate unit coal trains of the type DM&E would be operating.

Additionally, DM&E has no estimates of the reasonably foreseeable

amount of coal to be transported by barge, as this would depend on

market demand from a specific segment of its identified core market.

Any projections of potential coal volumes to be transported by barge,

therefore, are speculative at this time. In addition, such projections

are dependent on the development of facilities capable of loading

barges from unit coal trains.7

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

\7\ Should a barge facility be developed, it would likely

require an environmental review under NEPA. Such a review would

likely require evaluation of the impacts of increased barge traffic

on the river, including impacts to the Refuge, resulting from the

development and operation of such a facility.

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

Because there is a high level of uncertainty about both the future

development of a barge loading facility and the amount of coal that

DM&E would transload to barge, any related impact to the Mississippi

River generally and the Refuge specifically does not meet the

``reasonably foreseeable'' standard set by the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) for impacts analysis. See 40 CFR 1508.8; Forty Questions

No. 18. Increases in barge traffic as a result of DM&E's proposal,

therefore, will not be evaluated in this EIS.

Vehicular traffic levels for evaluation. The air quality

and transportation systems sections of the draft scope indicated grade

crossings with vehicular traffic levels of 5,000 vehicles per day or

more would be included in these analyses. In prior cases, this level of

traffic has been considered by the lead agency, the Board, to be a

conservative and appropriate baseline. Over 300 written and numerous

oral comments were received pertaining to vehicular delay and access,

particularly as they apply to the issues of air quality and

transportation. A few commenters requested reduction in the traffic

levels for evaluation in the EIS. The Board, in consultation with its

cooperating agencies, has determined that a grade crossing traffic

volume of 5,000 vehicles per day is appropriate for EIS evaluation.

However, in response to concerns that have been raised, the Board will

expand its analysis of impacts at grade crossings to specific crossings

of less than 5,000 vehicles per day if unique circumstances discovered

during the course of the environmental review process make it

appropriate to include the crossings.

Safety analysis. Based on comments received, the agencies

have determined the EIS analysis will include the potential safety

impacts of the project on affected facilities, such as the Federal

Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota.

Analysis of vibration. Over 200 written and numerous oral

comments were received expressing concern for the potential impacts

resulting from train induced vibration. In response to these comments

the agencies have revised the final scope of the EIS to include an

analysis of the potential impacts of vibration, including impacts to

structures, sensitive equipment, and alarm systems.

Analysis of aesthetics. The analysis of aesthetics in the

EIS will include the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line

construction on areas determined to be of high visual quality, as

discussed in the draft scope. Based

[[Page 11985]]

on comments received, the agencies clarify that the following criteria

will be considered in evaluating areas of high visual quality:

perception of isolation, feeling of vastness, and the wide open nature

of the area.

Quality of life issues. Several written and numerous oral

comments were received regarding various potential quality of life

impacts, including division of communities, isolation of residences,

access to destinations, annoyance from increased noise and vibration,

and traffic delays. The final scope has been clarified to include those

quality of life issues involving division of communities, isolation of

residences, access to destinations and similar concerns in the

socioeconomic section. Annoyance from increased noise and vibration

will be addressed in the noise section and annoyance from traffic

delays will be covered within the transportation systems section.

Distinction between public verses private lands. The

agencies have clarified the land use section of the final scope to

define the evaluation of existing land use patterns to include

identification of private and public lands and the potential project

impacts related to both.

Potential impacts to utilities. The agencies have added to

the land use evaluation of the final scope of the EIS an evaluation of

potential project impacts on utilities, including pipelines, electrical

lines, telephone lines, and any others in the vicinity of the project.

Evaluation of mineral resources. The geology and soils

section of the final scope of the EIS has been expanded to include an

evaluation of the potential impacts of the project on mineral resources

within the project area.

Placement of paleontological resources evaluation. The

draft scope included the evaluation of potential project impacts to

paleontological resources within the cultural resources section. Based

on comments received during scoping, the agencies have moved the

discussion of paleontological resources to the geology and soils

section of the final scope.

Additional Comment Period on the ``Modified Proposed Action,'' Referred

to as Alternative C and City of Rochester's South Bypass Proposal

As stated above, in this final scope the agencies are providing an

opportunity for all interested parties to submit their views during a

30 day comment period on the potential environmental impacts of the

``Modified Proposed Action,'' referred to as Alternative C. This

comment period is in addition to the further comment period that will

be provided on all aspects of the DEIS when it is issued. With regard

to the City of Rochester's South Bypass Proposal, the agencies will

consider the additional information submitted during the 30 day comment

period to make a final determination of whether the South Bypass

Proposal is a reasonable and feasible alternative designed to meet the

purpose and need of the applicant's proposed action. The agencies have

provided a general description of both the Modified Proposed

Alternative, known as Alternative C, and the City of Rochester's South

Bypass Proposal below:

Description of Modified Proposed Action,'' Referred to as Alternative C

Alternative C, the Modified Proposed Action, would diverge from

DM&E's existing system approximately three miles south of Wasta, South

Dakota. It would generally follow the Cheyenne River along the

sideslope of the floodplain on the west side of the river. It would

cross State Highway 44 approximately 2 miles west of where the highway

crosses the Cheyenne River and continue southward along Spring Creek

for approximately 10 miles. Alternative C would cross Spring Creek

where the creek bends to the west, with the rail line alternative

extending in a generally westward direction for approximately 12 miles

before turning southward. It would extend southward for approximately

16 miles, crossing the Cheyenne River just south of the Custer-Fall

River County Line. Alternative C would continue southward for 5 miles,

then curve westward to join with DM&E's existing line just north of

Smithwick, South Dakota. It would utilize this existing rail line for

approximately four miles, then branch from the existing line, extending

westward for approximately 28 miles, then curve northward, passing

approximately 2 miles east of Edgemont, South Dakota. Approximately 2

miles north of Edgemont, Alternative C would parallel the existing BNSF

for approximately 13 miles before crossing over the BNSF line and

extending westward into Wyoming, following the Cheyenne River for

approximately 11 miles. After crossing U.S. Highway 85, Alternative C

would extend in a generally northwest direction, crossing Black Thunder

Creek approximately 4 miles south of where State Highway 450 crosses

Black Thunder Creek. Alternative C would extend westward, generally

parallel to and south of State Highway 450, along Little Thunder Creek.

Approximately 4 miles east of the Jacob's Ranch Coal Mine, Alternative

C would split and one branch would extend north along the east side of

the region's coal mines, converging with the existing joint rail line

in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr and Caballo Rojo mines. The southern

branch would extend southward, also along the east side of the areas

coal mines, accessing the North Antelope, Rochelle, and Antelope Coal

Mines.

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P

[[Page 11986]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MR99.016

BILLING CODE 4915-00-C

[[Page 11987]]

City of Rochester's South Bypass Proposal

On January 6, 1999, the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the City)

requested that SEA consider a south bypass corridor as an alternative

to DM&E's proposed plan to rehabilitate its existing rail line and

operate additional rail traffic, primarily coal trains, through

Rochester. As part of its submission, the City has attached an

engineering report commissioned jointly by the City and Olmsted

County.\8\ The report, entitled Mitigation of Safety and Environmental

Issues Associated with The Dakota Minnesota & Eastern Railroad's

Proposed Expansion Through the City of Rochester and Olmsted County,

Minnesota, contains information on the southern bypass route and

proposed mitigation for the existing DM&E rail corridor.

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

\8\ The report was prepared by the engineering firms of Toltz,

Duvall, Anderson and Associates of St. Paul, Minnesota and its

subconsultant, Black and Veatch located in Overland, Kansas. A copy

has been placed in the environmental record in this case. We urge

interested parties or members of the public to review the report

itself. We explain below how to obtain a copy of the report.

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

Description of Proposed South Bypass

The report states that its intent is to ``assess the impacts the

additional train traffic would have on the communities and the

environment within the county and, if appropriate, recommend

reasonable, effective, and practical alternatives for mitigation of

these impacts.'' Report p. 2. To that end, the report states that after

assessing the increased potential for train/vehicle collisions at grade

crossings if DM&E's proposal were to be approved, several options for

mitigating these potential safety impacts were considered, including

construction of a depressed trainway, construction of a tunnel beneath

the City, construction of a north bypass, and construction of a south

bypass. According to the report, the trench, tunnel, and north bypass

options were found not to be viable so the report focused on a south

bypass and an existing corridor improvement option.\9\ Report p. 6.

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

\9\ The report notes, however, that the City is continuing to

gather data on the feasibility of the tunnel option. See p. 6

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

The report describes the south bypass as follows: the route would

be 34.1 miles long and would diverge south from DM&E's mail track in

Dodge County at milepost 61.1, approximately .8 miles west of the

Olmsted County line west of Byron, Minnesota. The route then would

travel due south approximately 9.5 miles through portions of Salem and

Rock Dell Township. The line would then travel generally eastward

through High Forrest, Marion, Pleasant Grove, and Eyota Townships. The

line would reconnect with DM&E's existing system at milepost 37.5,

approximately 8.2 miles west of the east Olmsted County line.

According to the report, the south bypass would require acquisition

of approximately 887 acres for a 200-foot wide new right-of-way. Twelve

households would be located within 500 feet of the rail centerline.

Fifty-one households would be within 1200 feet of the centerline. The

bypass would cross forty-two intermittent creeks or waterways, none of

which are major according to the report's engineers. Thirty-eight

roadways (seventeen of which are paved and eighteen of which have

average daily traffic counts less than 100 vehicles) would be crossed.

The report also sets forth details of design criteria, including

curves and profile grades, track specifications, embankment and side

slopes, bridges, highway crossings and signals, fencing, cut and fill

requirements, wetlands, and endangered species. Report pp. 7-13. In

addition, the report includes an estimated cost of $115,334,000 for

acquisition and construction of the south bypass. Report p. 12.

The report concludes that the south bypass would effectively

mitigate adverse impacts to the City and Olmsted County by avoiding

population areas. In addition, the report states that the bypass would

present operational advantages to DM&E, such as improved curvature, a

wider right-of-way, and increased opportunities for future development

and additional trackage. Report p. 14. The report notes that the south

bypass route would not require DM&E to abandon service to its existing

customers, and that light local rail traffic could continue over DM&E's

present line through the City. Report p. 15.

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P

[[Page 11988]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MR99.017

BILLING CODE 4915-00-C

[[Page 11989]]

City of Rochester's Proposed Mitigation of DM&E's Existing Corridor

The report also proposes a number of improvements to DM&E's

existing corridor through the City \10\ designed to mitigate potential

environmental impacts if DM&E's proposal were to be approved.\11\ The

improvements include replacing all of the main track with 136-lb

continuously welded rail, replacing all poor or marginal timber cross

ties, replacing all turnouts along the main track, installing power

switch machines and switch heaters at all heavily used locations,

replacing all timber trestle bridges, replacing or strengthening all of

the steel bridges to support heavier axle loads, cleaning and

installing additional rock ballast and re-profiling the existing line,

cleaning drainage ditches and repairing culverts and marginal

embankments, and replacing all at grade crossing surfaces following

reconstruction of the track.

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

\10\ The report defines the corridor as DM&E's 31.0 mile long

main track traveling east-west through Olmsted County and .8 miles

located in Dodge County. Report p. 15.

\11\ The DEIS will assess potential environmental impacts that

would result from rebuilding DM&E's existing line and operating a

maximum of 37 trains, including 34 unit coal trains over the rebuilt

line. The DEIS will assess proposals for mitigation of impacts and

independently develop recommended mitigation measures.

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

The report goes on to recommend additional work to reduce potential

safety, environmental, congestion, and quality of life problems.

Moreover, the report recommends construction of eleven separated grade

crossings, closure of seven grade crossings, and protection with train

activated flashing light signal and automatic gate arms at the

seventeen remaining crossings. Other recommended mitigation includes

sound barrier walls, fencing, and pedestrian crossings. The report

includes an estimated cost of $119,300,000 for the recommended

mitigation of DM&E's existing corridor. Report p. 21.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

Pursuant to NEPA, the EIS must explore and evaluate a reasonable

range of alternatives designed to meet the purpose and need of the

proposal. If alternatives have been eliminated from detailed study, the

EIS must briefly discuss why these alternatives have been discarded.

See 40 CFR 1502.14(a); Forty Questions No. 1(a). CEQ's guidance states

that ``[r]easonable alternatives include those that are practical or

feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using

commonsense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the

applicant.'' Forty Questions No. 2a.

The City's submission contains sufficient information for the

Board, in consultation with its cooperating agencies, to make a

preliminary determination that the south bypass may be a feasible

alternative routing. However, we do not yet have the benefit of the

applicant's views, nor those of the affected members of the public or

other interested parties as to the feasibility of the south bypass, or

whether it would simply shift to different communities and populations

the potential environmental consequences of the applicant's proposed

route. To ensure that the agencies have as much information as possible

on the south bypass in preparing the DEIS, SEA has decided to provide

an opportunity for interested parties and members of the public to

submit comments on the feasibility of the City's proposal prior to the

issuance of the DEIS.\12\

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

\12\ Detailed information, including maps, of Rochester's

proposed south bypass and mitigation of DM&E's existing corridor may

be obtained from: The Rochester-Olmsted County Department of

Planning, 2122 Campus Drive, SE, Rochester, MN 55904, (507) 285-

8232.

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

In addition, as discussed above, the agencies are seeking comments

on the potential environmental impacts of the ``Modified Proposed

Action,'' referred to as Alternative C.

Comments on Alternative C and on the City's proposal can be

submitted to the Surface Transportation Board within 30 days of

publication of the final scope and request for comments in the Federal

Register. Comments should be sent to: Office of the Secretary, Case

Control Unit, STB Finance Docket No. 33407, Surface Transportation

Board, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20423-0001.

To ensure proper handling of your comments, you must mark your

submission: Attention: Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of

Environmental Analysis, Environmental Filing.

The DEIS will include an appropriate discussion of the south bypass

and recommended mitigation and a determination as to whether the bypass

would be a reasonable and feasible alternative. The public then will

have the opportunity to review and comment on these conclusions

regarding the south bypass during the comment period on the DEIS. The

DEIS will contain information on the agencies' conclusions regarding

the City of Rochester's South Bypass Proposal. An opportunity for

further comment will be provided at that time.

Agency Actions

Based on CEQ's and each agencies' regulations implementing NEPA,

the draft scope, oral and written comments received, and all other

information available to date, the agencies have prepared this final

scope of the EIS. This final scope of the EIS will be distributed to

all Parties of Record, interested parties and American Indian Tribal

governments, and appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies.

Based on the agencies' environmental analysis, review of all

information available to-date, and consultations with appropriate

American Indian Tribal governments and agencies, the agencies will

prepare the DEIS. The DEIS will address relevant environmental

concerns, as generally described in this final scope of the EIS and

recommend appropriate environmental mitigation. The agencies will

afford an opportunity for public comments on the DEIS. Once comments

have been received and assessed, the agencies will issue the FEIS,

which will respond to comments and, if appropriate, set forth

additional analysis and information. Following the close of the

environmental record, the Board and each of the cooperating agencies

will then issue final decisions on the proposed action.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Analysis in the EIS will address, as appropriate, the potential

environmental impacts of proposed activities associated with the

construction and operation of DM&E's new rail facilities, as well as

construction and operation activities associated with the rebuilding of

DM&E's existing mainline. The scope of the analysis will include the

following activities:

1. Proposed construction of new rail mainline extension to access

coal mines south of Gillette, Wyoming.

2. Proposed construction of new rail mainline to bypass DM&E's

existing trackage rights on UP in Mankato, Minnesota.

3. Proposed construction of new rail line connection between DM&E

and I&M Rail Link south of Owatonna, Minnesota.

4. Proposed upgrade along DM&E's existing track from the point of

connection with new construction between Wasta, South Dakota and

Winona, Minnesota.

Impact Categories

The EIS will address potential impacts from the proposed

construction and operation of new rail facilities on the human and

natural environment.

[[Page 11990]]

Impact areas addressed will include the categories of land use,

biological resources, water resources, geology and soils, air quality,

noise, energy resources, socioeconomics as they relate to physical

changes in the environment, safety, transportation systems, cultural

and historic resources, recreation, aesthetics, environmental justice,

and cumulative effects. The EIS will include a discussion of each of

these categories as they currently exist in the project area and

address the potential impacts from the proposed project on each

category as described below.

The EIS analysis will also address construction and operation

related impacts associated with the rebuilding of DM&E's existing

mainline from the point of connection with the new construction

segments between Wasta, South Dakota and Winona, Minnesota. Such

action, being confined within existing rail right-of-way and on

existing rail property, would not normally be included in an EIS

prepared by the Board. Only the potential impacts associated with rail

traffic increases on DM&E's existing system resultant from the

construction and operation of the proposed project would be evaluated.

However, because the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, a cooperating

agency, requires such analysis to satisfy its permitting requirements

under the Clean Water Act and comments requesting such analysis be

conducted were received, analysis of construction related impacts along

the rail line to be rebuilt will be included in this EIS. In addition

to the analysis of potential project impacts related to operational

increases in rail traffic (noise, air quality, transportation, safety),

the construction related impacts to land use, biological resources,

water resources, geology and soils, air quality, noise, socioeconomics,

safety, hazardous materials, transportation systems, cultural and

historic resources, environmental justice, and cumulative effects will

be analyzed as discussed below.

1. Land Use

The EIS will:

A. Describe existing land use patterns, management, and ownership

(private and public) within the project area for new rail line

construction and along the existing rail line to be rebuilt and

identify those land uses and the amounts of each potentially impacted

by new rail line construction and rail line rebuild.

B. Describe the potential impacts associated with the proposed

construction and operation of new rail line and existing rail line to

be rebuilt to cropland, pastureland, rangeland, grassland, woodland,

developed land, school endowment land, BLM lands,13 Forest

Service lands, state lands, utilities, and any other land uses

identified within the project area. Such potential impacts may include

but not be limited to impacts to farming/ranching activities,

introduction of noxious weeds, fire hazard, incompatibility with

existing land uses, relocation of residences or businesses, and

conversion of land to railroad uses.

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

\13\ This term includes those lands for which the BLM

administers the land and/or the mineral estate.

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

C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to land use, as appropriate.

2. Biological Resources

The EIS will:

A. Describe the existing biological resources within the project

area for new rail line construction and along the existing rail line to

be rebuilt, including vegetative communities, wildlife and fisheries,

federally threatened or endangered species, and any sensitive

vegetation and wildlife identified and the potential impacts to these

resources resultant from construction and operation of new rail line

and the existing rail line to be rebuilt.

B. Describe the wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, and national or

state parks, forests, or grasslands within the project area for new

construction and along the existing rail line to be rebuilt and the

potential impacts to these resources resultant from construction and

operation of new rail line and existing rail line to be rebuilt.

C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to biological resources, as appropriate.

3. Water Resources

The EIS will:

A. Describe the existing surface and groundwater resources within

the project area for new rail line construction and along the existing

rail line to be rebuilt, including lakes, rivers, streams, stock ponds,

wetlands, aquifers, wells, and floodplains and the potential impacts on

these resources resultant from construction and operation of new rail

line and the existing rail line to be rebuilt.

B. Describe the existing uses of water resources in the project

area for irrigation, livestock, residential, and municipal water

supply.

C. Describe the permitting requirements for the proposed new rail

line construction and existing rail line rebuild in regard to wetlands,

stream crossings, water quality, and erosion control.

D. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to water resources and users, as appropriate.

4. Geology and Soils

The EIS will:

A. Describe the geology, soils, and mineral resources found within

the project area for new rail line construction and along the existing

rail line to be rebuilt, including unique or problematic geologic

formations or soils, prime farmland soils, and recoverable mineral

resources.

B. Describe measures employed to avoid or construct through unique

or problematic geologic formations or soils.

C. Describe the impacts of new rail line and existing rail line

rebuild construction activities on prime farmland soils.

D. Describe the potential impacts to mineral resources within the

project area for new construction and along the existing rail line to

be rebuilt.

E. Describe the potential general impacts to paleontological

resources in the project area for new construction and along the

existing rail line to be rebuilt due to new rail line construction and

existing rail line rebuild activities, if necessary and required.

F. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to geology, soils, mineral resources, and

paleontological resources, as appropriate.

5. Air Quality

The EIS will:

A. Discuss the existing air quality in the project area for the new

construction, along the existing rail line to be rebuilt, and those

portions of the UP and CP rail systems within Goodview and Winona,

Minnesota.

B. Evaluate rail air emissions on new rail line, the existing rail

line to be rebuilt, and those portions of the UP and CP rail systems

within Goodview and Winona, Minnesota that exceed the Board's

environmental thresholds in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5)(I), in an air quality

attainment or maintenance area as designated under the Clean Air Act.

The threshold anticipated to apply to this project is eight trains per

day on any segment of new rail line.

C. Evaluate rail air emissions on new rail line, the existing rail

line to be rebuilt, and those portions of the UP and CP rail systems

within Goodview and Winona, Minnesota, if a Class I or non-attainment

area as designated under the Clean Air Act is affected. The

[[Page 11991]]

threshold for Class I and non-attainment areas anticipated to apply to

this project is 3 trains per day or more.

D. Evaluate the potential air quality impacts associated with the

increased availability and utilization of Powder River Basin coal.

E. Discuss the net increase in emissions from increased railroad

operations associated with the proposed operations over new rail line,

the existing DM&E system and other rail systems as appropriate,

including those portions of the UP and CP systems within Goodview and

Winona, Minnesota.

F. Discuss the potential air emissions increases from vehicle

delays at new and existing grade rail crossings where the rail crossing

is projected to experience an increase in rail traffic over the

threshold described above for attainment, maintenance, Class I, and

non-attainment areas and that have an average daily vehicle traffic

level of over 5,000. Emissions from vehicle delays at new and existing

grade rail crossings and idling diesel engines and coal dust will be

factored into the emissions estimates for the affected area, as

appropriate.

G. Describe the potential air quality impacts of emissions from

idling diesel locomotives and coal dust produced during train

operation.

H. Describe the potential air quality impacts resulting during new

rail line and existing rail line rebuild construction activities.

I. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to air quality, as appropriate.

6. Noise

The EIS will:

A. Describe existing noise receptors and conditions in the project

area for new rail line construction, along the existing rail line to be

rebuilt, and the portions of the UP and CP rail lines within Goodview

and Winona, Minnesota.

B. Describe the potential noise impacts during new and existing

rail line construction and rebuilding.

C. Describe potential noise impacts of new and rebuilt existing

rail line operation for those areas that exceed the Board's

environmental threshold of eight or more trains per day as a result of

the proposed project along the proposed new construction, the existing

rail line to be rebuilt, and along the portions of the UP and CP rail

lines within Goodview and Winona, Minnesota.

D. Describe the potential impacts of the new and rebuilt existing

rail line operation due to vibration, both noise and ground-borne along

the proposed new construction, the existing rail line to be rebuilt,

and along the portions of the UP and CP rail lines within Goodview and

Winona, Minnesota.

E. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to noise and vibration receptors, as

appropriate.

7. Energy Resources

The EIS will:

A. Describe the transport of energy resources and recyclable

commodities on the existing DM&E system.

B. Describe the potential environmental impact of the new rail line

and rebuilt existing rail line on the transportation of energy

resources and recyclable commodities.

C. Describe the environmental impacts of operation of the new rail

line and rebuilt existing rail line on utilization of the nations

energy resources.

D. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to the transportation of energy resources and

recyclable commodities, as appropriate.

8. Socioeconomics

The EIS will:

A. Describe the socioeconomic conditions within the area of new

construction alternatives and along the existing line to be rebuilt.

B. Address socioeconomic issues shown to be related to changes in

the physical environment as a result of the proposed action, including

quality of life issues such as division of communities, isolation of

residences, access to destinations and similar concerns.

C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to socioeconomics, as appropriate.

9. Safety

The EIS will:

A. Describe rail/highway grade crossing safety factors at new grade

crossings, as appropriate.

B. Describe rail/highway grade crossing safety factors at existing

grade crossings along the portion of DM&E's system to be rebuilt and

those portions of the UP and CP systems within Goodview and Winona,

Minnesota.

C. Describe the potential for increased probability of train

accidents, derailments, and train/vehicular accidents at new and

existing grade crossings, as appropriate.

D. Describe the potential for disruption and delays to the movement

of emergency vehicles across the new rail line, existing rail line to

be rebuilt, and those portions of the UP and CP systems within Goodview

and Winona, Minnesota due to new rail line construction and operation.

E. Describe the changes at existing grade crossings implemented to

increase safety at existing grade crossings due to increased rail

operations on the DM&E system. Such changes would include signalization

upgrades and conversion of grade crossings to grade separated

crossings.

F. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to safety, as appropriate.

10. Hazardous Materials

The EIS will:

A. Describe any known hazardous materials sites along the preferred

and alternative construction alignments and the existing rail line to

be rebuilt.

B. Describe the transport of any hazardous materials over the

existing DM&E system and those portions of the UP and CP rail systems

within Goodview and Winona, Minnesota.

C. Describe the potential impacts to hazardous materials sites

along the preferred and alternative alignments.

D. Describe the potential impacts to the transport of any hazardous

materials over the existing DM&E system, new rail line proposed for

construction, and those portions of the UP and CP rail systems within

Goodview and Winona, Minnesota.

E. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to hazardous materials and the transport of any

hazardous materials, as appropriate.

11. Transportation Systems

The EIS will:

A. Describe the potential effects of new rail line construction and

operation on the existing transportation network in the project area

including:

(1) Impact to the existing DM&E system operations

(2) Impacts to other rail carriers' operations

(3) Vehicular delays at new grade crossings for those crossings

having average daily vehicle traffic of 5,000 or more and

(4) Vehicular delays at existing grade crossings that are part of

the portion of the existing system proposed to be rebuilt for those

crossings having average daily vehicle traffic of 5,000 or more.

(5) Vehicular delays at existing grade crossings along those

portions of the UP and CP rail systems within Goodview and Winona,

Minnesota for those

[[Page 11992]]

crossings having average daily vehicle traffic of 5,000 or more.

(6) Vehicular delays at existing and new grade crossings having

average daily traffic of less than 5,000 vehicles but have unique

circumstances that make such evaluation appropriate.

B. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to transportation systems, as appropriate.

12. Cultural and Historic Resources

The EIS will:

A. Describe the potential impacts to historic structures or

districts previously recorded and determined potentially eligible,

eligible, or listed on the National Register of Historic Places within

or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for the preferred and

alternative construction alignments and the existing rail line to be

rebuilt.

B. Describe the potential impacts to archaeological sites

previously recorded and either listed as unevaluated or determined

potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on the National Register of

Historic Places within the right-of-way for the preferred and

alternative construction alignments and the existing rail line to be

rebuilt.

C. Describe the potential impacts to historic structures or

districts identified by ground survey and determined potentially

eligible or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic

Places within or immediately adjacent to the existing rail line to be

rebuilt.

D. Describe the potential impacts to traditional cultural

properties and religious use areas, sacred sites, cultural landscapes,

and collection areas for religious and ceremonial plants.

E. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to cultural and historic resources, as

appropriate.

13. Recreation

The EIS will:

A. Describe the existing recreational opportunities and activities

present and undertaken in the project area for the new construction and

along the existing rail line to be rebuilt.

B. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line

construction and operation on the recreational opportunities and

activities in the project area for the new construction and along the

existing rail line to be rebuilt.

C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to recreation, as appropriate.

14. Aesthetics

The EIS will:

A. Describe any areas identified or determined to be of high visual

quality (components of which may include the wide open nature of the

area, the perception of isolation, and feeling of vastness), wilderness

areas, or waterways designated as wild and scenic within the project

area for the new construction and along the existing rail line to be

rebuilt.

B. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line

construction and existing rail line rebuild on any areas identified or

determined to be of high visual quality.

C. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line

construction and existing rail line rebuild on any designated

wilderness areas.

D. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line

construction and existing rail line rebuild on any waterways considered

for or designated as wild and scenic.

E. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to aesthetics, as appropriate.

15. Environmental Justice

The EIS will:

A. Describe the demographics in the project area and the immediate

vicinity of the proposed new construction and along the existing rail

line to be rebuilt, as appropriate, including communities potentially

impacted by the construction and operation of the proposed new rail

line and existing rail line to be rebuilt.

B. Evaluate whether new rail line and existing rail line

construction, rebuild, or operation activities would have a

disproportionately high adverse impact on any minority or low-income

groups.

C. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential

adverse project impacts to minority or low-income groups, as

appropriate.

16. Cumulative Effects

The EIS will discuss cumulative effects of the construction and

operation of the new rail line and DM&E's existing system.

By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of Environmental

Analysis.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 99-5930 Filed 3-9-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P