[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