SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE I

PREFACE

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),

the Minnesota Department of Transportation

(MnDOT), and the Olmsted County

Regional Railroad Authority (OCRRA) have

initiated the environmental review process

for the Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger

Rail Corridor (Zip Rail). Federal funding will

be pursued for this project from the FRA. As

a result the FRA, as the lead federal agency

for this project, is required to undertake

environmental review in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

As the local public agency sponsoring the

project, MnDOT, as the Responsible

Governmental Unit (RGU), and OCRRA

must also comply with the requirements of

the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act

(MEPA). The FRA, MnDOT, and OCRRA

have determined that the Zip Rail project

may have significant environmental impacts.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

This booklet summarizes the regulations

that guide the environmental analysis

process and the characteristics of a “tiered”

environmental review process. As the state

and local public agencies sponsoring the

project, MnDOT and OCRRA must comply

with both the federal and state

environmental review requirements.

TIERED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS

The Federal Railroad Administration uses a

tiered EIS process for its NEPA studies. The

level of detail proposed for assessing

potential impacts reflects that this project is

anticipated as Tier 1 of a two-tier

environmental review process.

In the Tier 1 EIS, the technical analysis is

less detailed and considers impacts to the

corridor as a whole and evaluation of

impacts at a qualitative level. A Tier 1 EIS

addresses questions related to the type of

service being proposed, including cities and

stations served, route alternatives, service

levels, type of operations, ridership

projections and major infrastructure

components. Environmental analysis is

completed at a higher level, but detailed site

information is conducted at the Tier 2

environmental level, when the alignment

and related service information has been

determined and more specific project

boundaries can be developed to determine

effects.

The tiered environmental review process

used by the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA) reflects that the scale and scope of

most rail projects are typically very large. As

a result, it is more practical to conduct a

two-step environmental review with step 1

(Tier 1) staying at a higher level and step 2

(Tier 2) focused on a more refined

assessment.

Given FRA’s tiered approach, the

environmental information provided in this

Scoping Booklet is less detailed than a

typical scoping booklet, but appropriate for a

corridor level study as would be conducted

with the Tier 1 EIS. This Scoping Booklet is

the first step in the Tier 1 EIS process.

This Scoping Booklet provides information

about the formal “Scoping” process required

under both federal and state environmental

review. Within this booklet you will find a

description of the Scoping process,

information on the scope and contents of

the Tier 1 EIS, and information on how you

can get involved in the Scoping process.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE II

You will have the opportunity to review the

Scoping information and offer your

comments in person, at one of three

meetings, or in writing during the public

comment period via email, U.S. mail, or

voicemail.

Website: www.goziprail.org

Email comments to: info@goziprail.org

Voicemail: 651-366-3195

U.S. Mail:

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Passenger Rail Office

ATTN: Zip Rail

395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 470

St. Paul, MN 55155

The 30-day comment period on this Scoping Booklet will begin on July 7, 2014 and will

remain open through August 6, 2014.

Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)

The state’s environmental review program is based on MEPA, which

established a formal process for investigating the environmental

impacts of major projects that are anticipated to require an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This Scoping Booklet

addresses the requirements of the state environmental review process

as administered by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.

Summary of Minnesota and Federal Environmental Review Regulations

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

The Act establishes national environmental policy and goals for the

protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment and

provides a process for implementing these goals within the federal

agencies. All federal agencies are required to prepare detailed

statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to

projects significantly affecting the environment.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE III

Formal public scoping meetings are scheduled for the following dates and locations

*

*

*

*

Open House #1:

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

5:00 to 7:00 PM

Heintz Center

Commons Area

Rochester Community and Technical College

1926 College View Road East

Rochester, MN

Open House #2:

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

5:00 to 7:00 PM

Inver Grove Community Center

Community Room 2

8055 Barbara Ave.

Inver Grove Heights, MN

Open House #3:

Thursday, July 31, 2014

5:00 to 7:00 PM

Kenyon-Wanamingo High School

Commons Area and Auditorium

400 6th St.

 Kenyon, MN

To request an ASL or foreign language interpreter for the public meetings call 651-366-4720.

To request other reasonable accommodations for the public meetings call 651-366-4718.

Or email requests to ADArequest.dot@state.mn.us.

Please submit request at least seven days prior to the public meeting.

To request a document in an alternative format call 651-366-4718 or email your request to

ADArequest.dot@state.mn.us.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................................................ i

Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................ i

Tiered Environmental Documents ............................................................................................. i

What is the Zip Rail Project? .......................................................................................................1

What is Scoping? ........................................................................................................................1

What is the Purpose of this Scoping Booklet? .............................................................................4

Why Should We Consider Building This Project? What Benefits Could it Provide?

(Purpose and Need) ....................................................................................................................4

Purpose Statement ..................................................................................................................4

Need Elements ........................................................................................................................4

Project Background .................................................................................................................5

What Alternatives Have Been Studied?.......................................................................................6

Alternatives Screening Process ...............................................................................................8

Screening Criteria ................................................................................................................8

Level 1 Screening ................................................................................................................8

Level 2 Screening ................................................................................................................9

Corridors for Further Study in the Tier 1 EIS ......................................................................12

Service Development Plan .................................................................................................13

Social, Economic, and Environmental (SEE) Issues..................................................................15

Environmental Issues Identification .......................................................................................15

How Can I Participate in the Zip Rail Scoping process? ............................................................20

Public Outreach Program ......................................................................................................20

Next Steps .............................................................................................................................21

Why is an Environmental Impact Statement Necessary? ..........................................................21

How Long will the Process Take? .............................................................................................21

How Will my Comments be Used? ............................................................................................22
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE V

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................2

Figure 2 Project Corridor Study Area ..........................................................................................3

Figure 3 Universe of Alternatives ................................................................................................7

Figure 4 Alternatives to be advanced into the Tier 1 EIS (East) ................................................10

Figure 5 Alternatives to be advanced into the Tier 1 EIS (West) ...............................................11

Figure 6 MEPA and NEPA Environmental Review Process Sequencing ...................................22

TABLES

Table 1 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................5
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 1

WHAT IS THE ZIP RAIL PROJECT?

The Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail

Corridor Project (Zip Rail) is a proposed

high-speed passenger rail connection

between Rochester, Minnesota and the

Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area

(Twin Cities). The project is located in the

counties of Dakota, Dodge, Goodhue,

Hennepin, Olmsted, Ramsey and Rice.

Proposed termini include downtown

Rochester at the south end of the

approximate 100-mile corridor, with

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

(MSP) and/or St. Paul Union Depot at the

north end of the corridor. At the north end

of the corridor, Zip Rail would also connect

to the existing light rail transit at MSP (Metro

Blue Line) and/or the existing light rail

transit at Union Depot (Metro Green Line).

Zip Rail is planned as express train between

Rochester and the Twin Cities. As part of

the evaluation process, an intermediate

station is under consideration in southern

Dakota County. No other intermediate

stops are under consideration at this time.

With no existing direct rail connection

between Rochester and the Twin Cities, the

proposed corridors would predominately

include new or “greenfield” rail right-of-way

and new rail construction, located to the

maximum extent practicable along existing

public or railway right-of-way. Travelling at

speeds of 150+ mph, these corridors would

be sealed, with no at-grade crossings.

Travel times between Rochester and the

Twin Cities would be approximately 45-50

minutes.

The Zip Rail study area is highlighted in

Figures 1 and 2.

WHAT IS SCOPING?

Scoping is the process of determining the

content of the Tier 1 EIS. As the first step in

the Scoping process, interested members of

the public, including individuals and groups,

as well as representatives of affected Native

American tribes and local, state, and federal

governmental agencies, are invited to

participate in the evaluation of the Zip Rail

environmental impacts.

The purpose of Scoping is to confirm the

purpose and need for the project, identify

appropriate alternatives that could address

project needs, focus on potentially

significant issues that should be studied in

the Tier 1 EIS, and eliminate issues that are

not significant and/or have been addressed

by prior studies.

Public participation in the Scoping process

for the project is encouraged. Three public

meetings will be held to allow for members

of the public to learn about the project and

voice their opinions about issues that should

be considered during Scoping.

At the Scoping meetings it would be most

helpful to hear your thoughts or concerns

about the project’s purpose and need, the

range of alternatives to be evaluated, the

evaluation methods to be used, and the

potential impacts of the alternatives

considered.

Your comments may also propose

alternatives that may better meet the

project’s purpose and need with fewer

adverse environmental impacts.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 2

Figure 1. Project Location
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 3

Figure 2. Project Corridor Study Area
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 4

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS

SCOPING BOOKLET?

The purpose of this Scoping Booklet is to

inform the public and regulatory agencies

about the proposal to implement HighSpeed Passenger Rail service (“Zip Rail”)

between Rochester and the Twin Cities, and

provide information on how individuals and

organizations are able to comment on the

process, the alternatives being considered,

and the analysis completed to date.

The Zip Rail study area includes an

approximately 100-mile corridor between

Rochester and the Twin Cities and is being

examined for potential high speed rail

service. The study area includes Dakota,

Dodge, Goodhue, Hennepin, Olmsted,

Ramsey and Rice counties and various

termini, or end points, in the Twin Cities and

Rochester area. There is no continuous

existing railroad connection between the

Twin Cities and Rochester, so many of the

potential corridors would create new or

“greenfield” transportation routes.

Within this booklet are an overview of the

purpose and need for the Zip Rail project, a

description of the potential alternatives, the

environmental issues being considered, the

next steps in the study, and details on how

you can comment on and participate in the

ongoing planning process.

WHY SHOULD WE CONSIDER

BUILDING THIS PROJECT? WHAT

BENEFITS COULD IT PROVIDE?

(PURPOSE AND NEED)

PURPOSE STATEMENT

The purpose of the project is to study

potential reliable and safe passenger rail

transportation alternatives that would meet

forecasted population and economic growth

mobility demands in the Southeast

Minnesota corridor between Rochester and

the Twin Cities area. The system would

connect the Twin Cities and Rochester by

providing a convenient and cost effective

transportation alternative. The project is

being developed to:

• Provide intercity passenger rail service

linking the regional economic center of

Rochester and the Twin Cities

Metropolitan Area economic hub

• Provide travel options for the growing

population and accessibility to

population centers

• Improve safety, convenience and travel

time

• Complement the plans of the Midwest

Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) and

Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide

Freight and Passenger Rail Plan

NEED ELEMENTS

The project need for expanded

transportation options in this corridor is

based on the following elements:

• Increase in population and employment

in Rochester, the Twin Cities and

Southeast Minnesota

• Anticipated travel demand to

accommodate growth in economic

generators and attractions such as the

Mayo Clinic and University of Minnesota

as well as services and industries that

will support those facilities
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 5

• Limited direct and convenient

transportation connectivity opportunities

for the corridor between Rochester and

the Twin Cities

The development of world-class and

internationally recognized medical facilities

in Rochester, along with its agribusiness

and high-tech industrial base, make the city

a significant economic engine in the north

central United States. The Twin Cities, also

a base of high-tech industry, and the main

transportation hub in the north central

states, marks the importance of the

economic connection between these cities.

Transportation connections between these

cities are primarily based on the private

automobile with few commercial

transportation options. The Mayo Clinic in

Rochester draws patients and their

companions from around the nation and the

world, and constitutes a primary need for

transportation options not based on the

private automobile. The project needs to

meet existing and future transportation

connectivity demands of the corridor

between Rochester and the Twin Cities in a

manner that is competitive with other modes

of transportation. As the population,

employment, and number of visitors grow

along the corridor, especially in the Twin

Cities and Rochester, the number of people

travelling between these locations will

increase, creating increased demand on

existing transportation. The existing

roadway system in the corridor is

anticipated to experience capacity needs

resulting from current and future economic

growth; a rail option would provide a means

to address those needs into the future.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Over the last two decades, several previous

studies have been conducted with respect

to the feasibility of the Zip Rail project.

Please see Table 1 below for further

information on these studies. The complete

studies are available for reference at

www.goziprail.org.

Table 1. Previous Studies

Study Year Findings

Evaluated the potential for high speed rail between the

Tri-State High Speed Rail Study 1991 Twin Cities and Chicago, through Rochester and

Wisconsin.

Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility

Study 2000

Alternatives between the Twin Cities, Rochester and

Winona had the best benefit/cost ratio of those studied

and should be implemented following the incremental

upgrading of the existing Amtrak route.

Rochester Rail Link Feasibility Study 2003

A high-speed rail link would provide an effective

transportation connection between Rochester and the

Twin Cities to help link these cities to the rest of the

Midwest.

Tri-State III High Speed Rail Study:

Minnesota Segment Assessment 2009

Supported Twin Cities to Chicago service through

Rochester on a new alignment as compared to the

“River Route” identified in MWRRI.

Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide

Freight and Passenger Rail Plan 2010

The Rochester–Twin Cities Rail Corridor was identified

in the plan as a Priority 1 corridor in the recommended

Minnesota and Regional passenger rail system.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 6

WHAT ALTERNATIVES HAVE

BEEN STUDIED?

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

After the purpose and need was

established, the next step in the Zip Rail

study process was to define the full range

(“Universe”) of alternatives. This step

addresses the question, “what alternatives

might address the problem?” Based on the

review of previous studies, field reviews

performed by the project team, and

stakeholder input, a universe of alternatives

was developed (see Figure 3). Previous

planning studies and the purpose and need

also helped to identify the five locations that

would be considered as termini, or end

points, for the service:

• Minneapolis-St. Paul International

Airport (MSP)

• Target Field Station in Minneapolis

• Union Depot in St. Paul

• Downtown Rochester

• Rochester International Airport (RST)

Figure 3 below shows the 45 individual

segments in the universe of alternatives.

When combined into full end-point to endpoint alternatives, the segments produced

more than 1,200 separate alternatives. To

facilitate the initial evaluation and screening,

the project area was divided into north and

south segments, with the boundary at

Coates, Minnesota.

South of Coates, alternatives under

consideration included potential corridors in

the vicinity of US 52 on the east and a

corridor running west from Rochester and

then north in the vicinity of MN 56. North of

Coates, the alternative segments include

one grouping that extends northwest toward

MSP and another grouping extending north

toward the Union Depot.

As part of the evaluation process, a NoBuild alternative is included and carried

through the alternatives evaluation. The NoBuild alternative reflects existing conditions,

and includes all currently planned and

programmed improvements in the project

area over the next 20 years. The No-Build

alternative would be a base of comparison

to the potential Build alternatives.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 7

Figure 3. Universe of Alternatives
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 8

ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS

SCREENING CRITERIA

The project team developed a specific set of

criteria for evaluating each of the alternative

segments and recommending which should

advance for further consideration. The first

step was to determine whether each

alternative met the purpose and need for

the project. Alternatives that did not meet

the purpose and need were discarded.

After this, the alternatives were screened

through a two-step evaluation process.

Level 1 evaluation criteria were based on

general project performance and impacts for

all identified segment alternatives. In Level

2, more detailed performance criteria and

impact data were applied to full end-to-end

(Twin Cities to Rochester) corridor

alternatives. For purposes of this multi-step

screening process and for the

environmental analysis the following

definitions and parameters were

established:

• Corridor – Each alternative is

considered within the context of a study

corridor. The corridors are one mile wide

(1⁄2 mile either side of a conceptual

centerline). This width allows for

flexibility as the design proceeds and

provides opportunities to minimize

impacts to existing land uses and

environmental resources.

• Alignment – An alignment is the actual

location of the right-of-way footprint that

would be secured to construct the highspeed rail line. Specific alignments

would not be identified until later in the

environmental process (Tier 2 NEPA

phase).

• Right-of-Way – As noted above, the

specific right-of-way footprint for each

alternative would not be identified until

later in the environmental process (Tier

2 NEPA phase). It is assumed that an

approximately 200-foot right-of-way

envelope would be evaluated for the

selected alternative in the Tier 2 NEPA

phase.

It is important to emphasize that the

alternatives development and evaluation

process during the Tier 1 phase is set at a

high level of analysis. This allows for

consideration of a large number of

alternatives while keeping the analysis

manageable. Enough information is

gathered to facilitate informed decision

making while setting the stage for more

detailed analysis during the Tier 2 NEPA

process.

LEVEL 1 SCREENING

Level 1 screening evaluated the alternative

segments using the following criteria:

• Redundancy: Locations where there are

multiple options that reflect the same

relative service area were identified.

• Preliminary Travel Time: Rough

estimates were developed for the

proposed service using approximations

of average speeds over major route

segments. Travel time estimates would

be refined as part of the Service

Development Plan process (described in

greater detail later in this section).

• Impacts to the Built Environment:

Potential impacts to adjacent land uses

were evaluated in both urban and rural

settings in order to avoid and minimize

impacts.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 9

• Impacts to the Natural Environment:

Known critical environmental resources

were identified including lakes, rivers,

parks and other critical areas. The

number of potential water crossings was

also quantified.

In addition to the reduction in alternatives

from Level 1 screening, the study team

collected input from cities, counties and

other stakeholders within the study area.

The list of alternatives recommended for

further study was refined to reflect local

planning efforts regarding both

transportation and land use. Matching all of

the individual segments together produced

a total of 15 end-to-end alternatives for

evaluation as part of Level 2. In each case,

these alignments lie within a one mile wide

corridor, with the anticipation that any future

alignment would likely have a right-of-way of

approximately 200 feet. At this level of

study, however, broader corridors are

examined to allow for flexibility and

minimizing impacts.

LEVEL 2 SCREENING

With the reduced number of alternatives for

Level 2 consideration, more detailed

evaluation was possible. Criteria applied in

Level 2 included:

• Travel Time: Travel time estimates for

each alternative were refined from the

work completed as part of the Level 1

screening. The estimates were

developed based on assumptions

including route length, travel speed,

curve radii, and other route-specific

information.

• Top Speed: Alternatives were evaluated

using the same route specific information

studied in the Travel Time criteria.

Calculations were developed for each

alternative to determine its potential top

speed.

• Consistency with Local Planning:

Alternatives were evaluated based on

their consistency with local planning

efforts regarding both transportation and

land use.

• Connectivity: Alternatives were

evaluated to assess their connectivity to

other passenger rail and multimodal

passenger service.

• Ridership Projections: High-level

projections for annual riders were

developed using factors such as travel

time, connectivity to other intercity

passenger rail, and reliability and

frequency of service (i.e., more train

sets/round trips).

• Potential freight rail conflicts:

Alternative corridors were evaluated

based on the difficulty of implementation

and anticipated costs that would be

expected for a host railroad to

accommodate high-speed passenger

rail service on their property.

• Social, Economic and Environmental

(SEE) Factors: A more formalized

consideration of key SEE factors was

included in Level 2. Examples include

high level estimates of impacts to

wetlands, parklands, and residential

neighborhoods (both right-of-way and

noise concerns). The assessment was

consistent with state and federal

environmental requirements and is the

foundation for more detailed analysis in

the Tier 1 EIS.

The result of the Level 2 evaluation was the

identification of eight potential corridors that

are recommended to be carried forward for

scoping and potentially into the environmental

process (see Figures 4 and 5).
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 10

Figure 4: Alternatives to be advanced into the Tier 1 EIS (East)

.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 11

Figure 5: Alternatives to be advanced into the Tier 1 EIS (West)
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 12

CORRIDORS FOR FURTHER STUDY IN THE

TIER 1 EIS

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the remaining

alternatives that are proposed to be carried

forward for further study in the Tier 1 EIS.

As shown in the figures, the various endpoint to end-point alternatives have

common segments. To facilitate the

description, the study area has been divided

into north and south segments.

NORTHERN SEGMENT - COATES TO

TERMINALS IN THE TWIN CITIES (MSP

AND/OR UNION DEPOT)

Extending north from Coates, which

represents the area where all the

alternatives combine to a single corridor, the

alternatives eventually split with two options

extending northwest toward MSP and two

options continuing north to Union Depot.

MSP OPTIONS:

These alternatives extend northwest from

the Coates area along County Road 71

through Rosemount and Inver Grove

Heights, transitioning to a corridor parallel to

the existing Canadian Pacific Railway (CP)

in Eagan and Minnesota Highway (MN) 149,

then northwest to the I-494 corridor. From

this point there are two options; one is to

continue across the Minnesota River Valley

with a new bridge on or adjacent to I-494 to

provide a direct connection to MSP. The

other alternative includes a station in the

area of Pilot Knob Road and I-494. From

the station, passengers could transfer to a

shuttle to connect to MSP or continue on

the train northeast to the Union Depot, using

the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) alignment

and entering Union Depot from the west. A

variation to this option would be high-speed

rail service to both MSP and the Union

Depot which would preclude the need for a

transfer station near Pilot Knob Road.

UNION DEPOT OPTIONS:

North from Coates, the Union Depot options

extend along the west side of the Pine Bend

Refinery and then run parallel to the UP rail

corridor through Inver Grove Heights. The

options continue north on the UP rail

corridor to the vicinity of I-494. Near I-494

the options split with one crossing the

Mississippi River on a new bridge and

joining the CP corridor on the east side of

the river. From there, the alignment would

either share track or construct a new track

through the existing rail corridor and rail

yard, and enter Union Depot from the east.

The second option for connecting to Union

Depot continues along the west side of the

Mississippi River on the UP rail corridor and

crosses the river in the vicinity of the Robert

Street Bridge in Downtown St. Paul.

SOUTHERN SEGMENT - COATES TO

DOWNTOWN ROCHESTER

South of Coates there are two primary

options, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. The

first extends southeast roughly paralleling

US Highway (US) 52, and the second

extends south in the general proximity of the

MN 56 corridor before turning east along the

US 14 corridor into Rochester.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 13

EASTERN CORRIDOR (US 52):

Though paralleling US 52, this is primarily a

greenfield corridor. Following the US 52

right-of-way was determined to be

impractical because of the curves and hills

prevalent along the highway corridor, the

limited available right-of-way, and the

numerous intersecting roads including

several interchanges. As a result, the

proposed corridor extends west of US 52, at

times adjacent to the existing highway and

elsewhere several miles to the west. The

corridor was defined with a focus on

minimizing impacts to existing land uses

and environmental features, while

maximizing the ability to attain and maintain

true high-speed rail operations (150+ mph).

Between Pine Island and Oronoco the

corridor is adjacent US 52. Immediately

south of Oronoco the corridor departs the

US 52 corridor extending southwest to

follow a corridor near US 14 into Rochester.

WESTERN CORRIDOR (MN 56):

This corridor continues south from Hampton

roughly paralleling MN 56. This is a

greenfield corridor that travels in close

proximity to MN 56 mostly along an

abandoned rail right-of-way. The proposed

corridor would extend along the east side of

the communities of Randolph, Kenyon, and

West Concord prior to reaching Dodge

Center where the corridor turns east and

follows the US 14 corridor into Rochester.

The corridor was also defined with a focus

on minimizing impacts to existing land uses

and environmental features, while

maximizing the ability to attain and maintain

true high-speed rail operations (150+ mph).

CORRIDOR TERMINALS:

As illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 the

proposed terminal stations are downtown

Rochester on the south end and MSP

and/or Union Depot in the Twin Cities. The

Rochester International Airport and Target

Field Station have been removed from

consideration as primary terminals for this

study. Preliminary ridership forecasting

indicated relatively light demand to and from

the Rochester International Airport as a

primary terminal. A rail link between

downtown Rochester and the Rochester

International Airport could be considered in

the future as part of any Zip Rail extension

planning.

The Target Field Station was removed from

consideration because it is being addressed

as a high-speed rail terminal as part of the

Twin Cities to Milwaukee/Chicago High

Speed Rail Study. Depending on the results

of that process, access from the Zip Rail

corridor to the Target Field Station would be

provided through Union Depot via a highspeed rail link or the Metro Green Line.

Access from MSP to the Target Field

Station is provided via the Metro Blue Line.

A link to Target Field Station could be

considered in the future as part of any Zip

Rail extension planning.

SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

At the outset of passenger rail projects,

questions are always asked about where

the train will stop, how long will it take to get

there and how many trains will there be per

day. All of these questions will be

addressed in the Service Development plan

(SDP).
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 14

The SDP will be a detailed implementation

plan for the proposed Zip Rail project. It will

provide a platform to develop new service to

meet the growing travel needs of the public.

The SDP will evaluate the business case for

the project and will inform the alternatives

analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. The SDP for this

project will be developed based on the

preferred alternative(s) identified in the Tier

I NEPA document (except where the NoBuild alternative is preferred).

The SDP will incorporate and reflect the

business case for investment in the corridor

supported by technical information relative

to impact evaluations, public input, cost

estimates, and financial capacity analysis.

This report would be prepared using the

conceptual engineering and the selection of

a preferred alternative(s) as identified in the

Tier 1 NEPA document.

Specifically, the SDP would include more

detailed information in the following areas:

• Operations Modeling: Passenger rail

operating plans will address line

capacity, train movements, equipment

cycles and servicing, train storage

facilities, station facilities and crew

requirements. This effort is necessary to

help determine how many train sets will

be needed, when they will run and how

they will pass each other along the

route. Service planning starts with the

recognition that the proposed service

provided must match the market

demand.

Ridership forecasting would be used to

evaluate alternative schedules, service

frequencies, travel times, and reliability.

The SDP would incorporate planning

and modeling efforts, as required,

tailored to the local conditions.

• Station & Access Analysis: One of the

major decisions for a passenger rail

project is where to locate stations. This

part of the SDP addresses that issue.

Station locations, conditions, and

opportunities in passenger rail service

would be evaluated. This would include

a site analysis, and consideration of

available amenities and importantly,

intermodal connections.

• Demand & Revenue Forecasts: This

part of the SDP is performed to

determine how much revenue can be

generated by the project either by

passenger fares, advertising or other

private resources. This will help

determine how much tickets will cost

among other considerations.

• Operational Financial Performance:

Operational financial performance is

analyzed to determine whether farebox

revenue and other revenue would be

sufficient to offset operations and

maintenance costs. The goal for the

project is to avoid operating subsidies

from state and local funding sources.

• Conceptual Engineering & Capital

Programming: The project team will

work with OCRRA, MNDOT, Amtrak and

other railroads to develop capital costs

estimates for proposed major

investments, and their implementation.

This information is used to guide later

project planning to grow and develop

the proposed service.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 15

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND

ENVIRONMENTAL (SEE) ISSUES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFICATION

Information for completing the

environmental issues identification was

gathered through a variety of sources

including literature reviews, field

investigations, and GIS data analysis.

Regulatory agencies and local governments

provided important input through

participation in Technical Advisory

Committee (TAC) meetings and the agency

coordination meetings held in 2013 and

earlier in 2014. Additionally, public

information meetings in the summer of 2013

were held to present preliminary information

and provide an opportunity for the public to

provide input regarding key issues and

potential impacts related to the project.

Information gathered in these meetings

contributed to the development and

evaluation of the alternatives.

This section provides an overview of the

environmental subject areas included in this

Tier 1 EIS Scoping Booklet. The level of

detail is limited at this stage, with further

assessment to be conducted during the Tier

1 EIS process.

LAND USE

The project study area is defined by a broad

range of land use types from the Twin Cities

to Rochester. The northern segment of the

study area extends through a mix of urban

and suburban land use settings including

residential, commercial, light industrial, and

parks/open spaces. Land uses gradually

become less dense when traveling south

from the Twin Cities suburbs. From

southern Dakota County to the northwest

portion of Olmsted County, land use is

predominantly rural agricultural and open

space with smaller cities spaced five to ten

miles apart. The southern end of the study

area extends into the Rochester

metropolitan area with mixed residential

densities, commercial, office, and light

industrial land uses.

The proposed alternatives were defined

using existing and/or historical

transportation corridors to the extent

practicable in an effort to minimize impacts

to residential and agricultural land uses. In

many cases, to meet the service objectives

of providing a high-speed rail service and to

manage capital costs, greenfield corridors

have been defined.

In general, the western alternatives south of

Coates extend through a slightly greater

proportion of rural agricultural land uses as

compared to the eastern alternatives.

However, given the current level of

definition, there are no differentiating land

use-related features distinguishing the

range of alternatives. The Tier 1 EIS would

more closely address potential land use

impacts by quantifying the amount of

agricultural land and residential land use

that each alternative traverses, and would

consider impacts related to severing of farm

fields, and noise and access impacts.

GEOLOGY/SOILS

The study area includes a broad range of

geological and soil conditions that could

affect construction of rail lines. The areas of

greatest concern include those areas

susceptible to erosion, areas where there is

a presence of karst topography, and areas

subject to groundwater flow along the
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 16

Decorah Edge. The Decorah Edge is a

unique geologic feature comprised of shale

rock that extends northwest to southeast

through Goodhue and Olmsted counties.

The Decorah Edge in combination with the

karst topography that extends west from the

Decorah Edge represent the greatest areas

of concern related to erosion, groundwater

flow and groundwater recharge. These karst

topography issues are most prominent in

the southern portion of the study area.

These specific locations would be identified

in the Tier 1 EIS and the degree to which

each alternative extends through these

locations would be quantified. The following

web link provides additional information

regarding karst topography and the Decorah

Edge:

http://www.forestry.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/

@cfans/@forestry/documents/asset/cfans_asset_262

714.pdf

WATER RESOURCES

The study area contains a variety of water

resources including but not limited to:

• Mississippi River

• Minnesota River

• Vermillion River

• Lake Byllesby

• Cannon River

• Zumbro River

Both southern corridors require new

crossings of the Vermillion, Cannon, and

Zumbro rivers in rural areas. At the north

end of the corridor, potential crossings of

the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers may be

required. These crossings may be new

bridges, rehabilitated existing bridges, or

expansion of existing river crossing bridges.

The Tier 1 EIS would quantify the number of

water crossings required for each

alternative and identify other potential water

resource impact issues such as whether

any resource has special designation (i.e.

wild and scenic) which may limit the

feasibility of introducing a new crossing.

The study area also includes a broad range

of wetland resources including lakes, rivers,

streams, and different wetland types. The

majority of potentially affected wetlands are

concentrated along the river and lake

basins. Conversely, many of the agricultural

areas have been tiled therefore wetlands

are somewhat limited. Based on the onemile wide corridors defined to date, there

are no substantial differences in wetland

impacts among the remaining alternatives.

Wetland analysis would be further refined in

the Tier 1 EIS.

CONTAMINATION/HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

The project study area does not contain

disproportionate concentrations of known

hazardous material sites. Review of existing

databases would be conducted in the Tier 1

EIS to better determine the potential for

issues throughout the entire study area.

FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANT COMMUNITIES

The greatest concentration of fish and

wildlife communities occurs in the rural open

spaces and rivers and lakes throughout the

study area. Documented rare, threatened,

and endangered species and habitat in the

MnDNR Natural Heritage Program (NHP)

database, as well as records from the

regional non-game wildlife specialist and the

County distribution of Minnesota’s

Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered,
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 17

Proposed, and Candidate Species would be

compiled and presented in the Tier 1 EIS.

HISTORIC PROPERTIES

There are several prominent historic

properties in the study area. In the Twin

Cities area, the corridors are near Fort

Snelling, the historic village of Mendota and

the Union Depot in St. Paul, and other

properties. Farther south in the corridor,

there are properties in rural areas including

farmsteads, and individual properties in

communities that would be identified.

One major historic property is the Nansen

Agricultural Historic District in Goodhue

County’s Sogn Valley, near MN 56 and

County Highways 14 and 49. The Nansen

District contains 30 farms representative of

Norwegian immigrant settlement in the

nineteenth century and is one of the few

rural historic districts in Minnesota.

In accordance with both state and federal

provisions, the Tier 1 EIS would focus on

identifying the known cultural resources

listed on or eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places, including

architectural and archaeological resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898 requires the

assessment of impacts from a proposed

project on minority and low-income

populations. The Tier 1 EIS will identify if

any minority and/or low-income populations

are present in the project area based on

current population data (2010 census and

county data). Information to complete the

initial assessment will include demographic

data and the ongoing public involvement

program. The Tier 2 environmental process

will complete the Environmental Justice

assessment by evaluating whether

disproportionate project impacts may occur

to these populations.

VISUAL

The land uses in the study area consist of a

range of urban, suburban, and rural

characteristics. The level of visual setting

change introduced by any alternative would

also be influenced by whether the

alternative follows an existing rail corridor,

highway alignment, or is a greenfield. In

general, residential and park land uses are

considered most visually sensitive. The

amount of these land use types adjacent to

each alternative would be quantified in the

Tier 1 EIS.

AIR QUALITY

The scope of this proposed project does not

indicate that negative air quality impacts

from transportation-related emissions would

likely be expected. In addition, this project is

considered to have low potential to result in

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) effects,

that is, none of the proposed alternatives

are expected to result in meaningful

differences in MSAT emissions.

NOISE AND VIBRATION

Each of the project alternatives has the

potential to introduce noise and vibration

issues. The level of impact is dependent on

train technology, frequency, speed, and the

location of sensitive receptors. As noted in

the Land Use section, the study includes

both suburban and rural land uses that are

especially sensitive to noise and vibration

issues. For the Tier 1 EIS, noise and
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 18

•

•

•

•

•

vibration contours would be defined to

determine how many sensitive land uses

(i.e. residences) are potentially impacted by

each alternative.

TRANSPORTATION

Because this study is focused on provision

of high-speed rail, it is necessary to

incorporate information developed as part of

the Service Development Plan discussed

previously. The SDP provides information

on ridership, service frequencies, travel

times, station and facilities planning,

revenue analysis and capital, operating and

maintenance costs. This information is the

business case for the project, and would

provide supporting information for analyzing

the environmental impacts in each corridor

in the Tier 1 EIS.

The preliminary rail corridor alternatives for

this study were identified by maximizing use

of existing and historical railroad and

highway transportation corridors to the

extent practicable in order to reduce

impacts to the overall transportation system.

However, given the scope of the proposed

project alternatives it is anticipated there

would be some impacts associated with

changes in vehicular traffic volumes or

traffic congestion.

Depending on the alternative, there would

also be changes in roadway access

including potential to sever existing local

roads. However, it is expected that higher

level roadways, including state and county

roads, would not be affected. Ongoing

coordination would occur with the cities and

counties along the corridors to recognize

current and future roadway plans that could

work in conjunction with rail planning.

Portions of the proposed rail corridors may

also fall within the state’s airport

coordination areas that have been identified

for each airport in the state. When

alignments are closer to airports, they may

fall within the Federal Aviation

Administration’s (FAA) Runway Protection

Zones (RPZ), requiring additional evaluation

by FAA.

The Zip Rail project has identified the need

for ongoing coordination in the Tier 1 EIS

with the following airports:

Minneapolis-St. Paul International

 St. Paul Downtown

 South St. Paul

Dodge Center

 Stanton

CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Given the scope of the proposed project

there likely are other reasonably

foreseeable projects that would be

implemented prior to or after construction of

the Zip Rail project. As part of the Tier 1 EIS

process, these projects would be identified

and the nature of the cumulative potential

effects would be documented.

OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

As noted in the Land Use section, where

practical, the alternatives were developed to

maximize use of existing public and/or

transportation related corridors to reduce

right-of-way acquisition and impacts to

study area land uses. However, given the

size of the study area and scope of the
SCOPING

BOOKLETPAGE 19

proposed alternatives some right-of-way

acquisition and potential relocation of

commercial businesses and/or residential

properties would likely be required. The

analysis in the Tier 1 EIS would be based

on alternative corridors that are one-mile

wide. These broader corridors allow for

greater flexibility in avoiding or reducing

impacts as the process and details

advance. Using these one-mile wide

corridors, a right-of-way assessment would

be conducted as part of the Tier 1 EIS. PARK AND RECREATIONAL PROPERTIES

The study area includes numerous park and

recreational properties ranging from federal

and state level resources to local parks.

Some of the most prominent resources in

the study area include: •••••••••

The Mississippi River (Corridor Critical

Area)

The Minnesota River National Wildlife

Refuge

Fort Snelling State Park

Vermillion Highlands Research

Recreation and Wildlife Management

Area (WMA)

Lake Byllesby Regional Park

Cannon Valley State Trail

 Warsaw WMA

Douglas State Trail

Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood

State Forest

The Tier 1 EIS would verify the location of

all known resources in order to avoid, or

minimize any impact to the park and

recreational properties.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 20

HOW AN ARTICIPATE IN THE

ZIP RAIL SCOPING PROCESS?

C I P

SCOPING MEETINGS

Scoping meetings are planned to provide

opportunities for the public to learn more

about the project, ask questions, and

provide input. Meetings will be held at three

different locations:

Open House #1:

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

5:00 to 7:00 PM

Heintz Center

Commons Area

Rochester Community and

Technical College

1926 College View Road East

Rochester, MN

Open House #2:

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

5:00 to 7:00 PM

Inver Grove Community Center

Community Room 2

8055 Barbara Ave.

Inver Grove Heights, MN

Open House #3:

Thursday, July 31, 2014

5:00 to 7:00 PM

Kenyon-Wanamingo High School

Commons Area and Auditorium

400 6th St.

 Kenyon, MN

The 30-day comment period on this

Scoping Booklet and Draft Scoping

Decision Document will begin on July 7,

2014 and will remain open through

August 6, 2014.

The Scoping Meeting Notice will be

published in local newspapers and in the

EQB Monitor.

Those attending the public scoping

meetings will be able to view project

materials, listen to an informational

presentation, discuss issues with Zip Rail

team members, and present any comments

they may have in verbal and/or written form.

Stenographers will also be available to

record individuals’ comments separately.

PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM

The Zip Rail program seeks to provide the

public and agencies with accurate

information about the project and its

progress, using convenient and varied

methods to provide that information and

engage stakeholders and the public to help

define the issues to be evaluated in the

program. This will enable the project team

to develop, screen and select alternatives in

a manner that reflects public priorities for

improved service. Every effort will be made

to accommodate persons with disabilities

and non-English speakers in the public

involvement process and to accurately

document public comments and responses

in accordance with state and federal

requirements.

Numerous outreach meetings and

presentations with public boards and other

stakeholders were held from March 2014

through June 2014 to provide information

and updates and receive feedback and

comments prior to development of this

Scoping Booklet.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 21

These meetings and presentations included

the following organizations:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Zip Rail Technical Advisory Committee

(TAC)

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Metropolitan Council Transportation

Committee

Metropolitan Airports Commission Staff

MnDOT Aeronautics

Rochester-Olmsted Council of

Governments (ROCOG)

Dakota County Regional Railroad

Authority

Dodge County Board of Commissioners

Goodhue County Board of

Commissioners

Hennepin County Regional Railroad

Authority

Olmsted County Regional Railroad

Authority

Ramsey County Regional Railroad

Authority

Rochester City Council Committee of

the Whole

UMore Park Development, LLC/

University of Minnesota

Flint Hills Resources/Pine Bend

Refinery

Canadian Pacific Railway (CP)

Union Pacific Railroad (UP)

CONDAC – Dakota County

NEXT STEPS

The Draft Scoping Decision Document

(DSDD) is provided as an appendix to this

Scoping Booklet and is available at

www.goziprail.org. At the conclusion of the

30-day scoping review period, a Final

Scoping Decision Document will be

prepared and posted on the Zip Rail

website, (www.goziprail.org). The report will

summarize the overall results of the scoping

process, including comments received, and

identify the alternatives that would be

studied in the Tier 1 EIS.

WHY IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT NECESSARY?

HOW LONG WILL THE PROCESS

TAKE?

Due to anticipated federal funding for the

Zip Rail project, and the fact that the project

may have significant environmental impacts,

the FRA is required to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). MnDOT and OCRRA will also

conduct this review in compliance with the

Minnesota Environmental Policy Act

(MEPA) and Minnesota Rules Chapter

4410.

The Tier 1 EIS process occurs in three

stages – Scoping, Draft Tier 1 EIS and Final

Tier 1 EIS – and culminates in a federal

Record of Decision under NEPA and a state

Determination of Adequacy under MEPA.

Each of the three stages includes

publication of a document for public

comment and narrows the number of

alternatives, with the Final Tier 1 EIS

identifying one or more Preferred

Alternatives for the project.

This Tier 1 process will be completed in

2015. The Tier 2 environmental process

may require an additional 36-42 months to

fully evaluate the project impacts.
SCOPING BOOKLET PAGE 22

Figure 6. MEPA and NEPA Environmental Review Process Sequencing

HOW WILL MY COMMENTS BE

USED?

WILL THEY MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Your comments can make a difference.

Comments received during the Scoping

period will be used to finalize the Zip Rail

purpose and need, refine the proposed

alternatives, and identify environmental

topic areas to be analyzed in the Tier 1 EIS

and their method of analysis. You can find

out how all comments were addressed by

reviewing the Final Scoping Decision

Document, which will provide a summary of

the Scoping process, comments received,

and response to comments that will be

published after the Scoping public comment

period ends.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER SCOPING IS

COMPLETED?

CAN I STILL BE INVOLVED?

The Scoping process is the beginning of the

environmental review process. Although the

formal Scoping period ends on August 6,

2014, opportunities for involvement in the

Tier 1 EIS will continue. Additional

community meetings will be scheduled

during the preparation of the Draft Tier 1

EIS and materials will be posted to the

project website for community review and

comments.

Following publication of the Draft Tier 1 EIS

another series of formal public meetings will

be conducted to receive your comments on

the findings of the Draft Tier 1 EIS and the

recommendation for the preferred

alternative(s).
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

July 2014

APPENDIX A

DRAFT Scoping Decision Document
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page i

July 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................................1

Project Description ......................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................3

Project Cost, Funding, Source, and Schedule .............................................................................7

Responsible Governmental Unit and Project Manager ................................................................7

Alternatives to be Studied in the Tier 1 EIS .................................................................................7

Issues to be Addressed in the Tier 1 EIS ..................................................................................12

Public and Agency Involvement ................................................................................................19

Permits and Approvals ..............................................................................................................21

FIGURES

Figure 1 MEPA and NEPA Environmental Review Process Sequencing .....................................2

Figure 2 Project Location ............................................................................................................5

Figure 3 Project Corridor Study area ...........................................................................................6

Figure 4 Alternatives to be advanced into the Tier 1 EIS (east) .................................................10

Figure 5 Alternatives to be advanced into the Tier 1 EIS (west) ................................................11

TABLES

Table 1 Preliminary List of Permits and Approvals ....................................................................21
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page ii

July 2014

This page intentionally left blank.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 1

July 2014

INTRODUCTION

This Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD) has been prepared as part of the state

environmental review process (Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, MEPA) to fulfill

requirements of Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.2000. The DSDD is distributed to federal, state,

and local agencies and the public to provide an opportunity for review and comment prior to the

preparation of a Scoping Decision Document (SDD). A 30-day comment period will begin when

the availability notice for the DSDD is published in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board

(EQB) Monitor. A series of three Scoping Meetings will be held during the 30-day comment

period (as required by Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.2100 Subpart 3), which will provide an

opportunity for the public to comment on the DSDD. A final scoping decision will be made by the

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) under MEPA, after the public scoping

meeting and at the end of the 30-day comment period.

The 30-day comment period on the Scoping Booklet and Draft Scoping Decision Document will

begin on July 7, 2014 and will remain open through August 6, 2014.

Federal funding will be pursued for this project from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).

As a result the FRA, as the lead federal agency for this project, is required to undertake

environmental review in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

As the local public agency sponsoring the project, MnDOT, as the Responsible Governmental

Unit (RGU), and Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority (OCRRA) must also comply with the

requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The FRA, MnDOT, and

OCRRA have determined that the Zip Rail project may have significant environmental impacts.

The Federal Railroad Administration uses a tiered EIS process for its NEPA studies. The level

of detail proposed for assessing potential impacts reflects that this project is anticipated as Tier

1 of a two-tier environmental review process.

In the Tier 1 EIS, the technical analysis is less detailed and considers impacts to the corridor as

a whole and evaluation of impacts at a qualitative level. A Tier 1 EIS addresses questions

related to the type of service being proposed, including cities and stations served, route

alternatives, service levels, and types of operations, ridership projections and major

infrastructure components. Environmental analysis is completed at a higher level, but detailed

site information is conducted at the Tier 2 environmental level, when the alignment and related

service information has been determined and more specific project boundaries can be

developed to determine effects.

Figure 1 below illustrates the various steps and sequencing of the combined MEPA and NEPA

processes.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 2

July 2014

Figure 1. MEPA and NEPA Environmental Review Process Sequencing

The tiered environmental review process used by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

reflects that the scale and scope of most rail projects are typically very large. As a result, it is

more practical to conduct a two-step environmental review with step 1 (Tier 1) staying at a

higher level and step 2 (Tier 2) focused on a more refined assessment.

Given FRA’s tiered approach, the application of MEPA differs somewhat from the more

commonly applied procedures of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) led transportation

projects. With a federal tiered EIS process, the environmental review typically associated with a

State Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) occurs during the federal Tier 1

phase. Likewise, the level of review synonymous with the State EIS occurs during the federal

Tier 2 NEPA phase. Following completion of the scoping process, a Tier 1 EIS will be prepared

in accordance with the findings of the Final Scoping Decision Document.

This Draft Scoping Decision Document describes the purpose of and need for the proposed

action; the process followed in the development and evaluation of alignment alternatives; the

potential social, economic, and environmental impacts and discussion of the methodology that

will be used to address each issue in the Tier 1 EIS.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Project (Zip Rail) is a proposed high-speed

passenger rail connection between Rochester, Minnesota and the Minneapolis/St. Paul

Metropolitan Area (Twin Cities). The project is located in the counties of Dakota, Dodge,

Goodhue, Hennepin, Olmsted, Ramsey and Rice.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 3

July 2014

Proposed termini include downtown Rochester at the south end of the approximate 100-mile

corridor, with Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and/or St. Paul Union Depot at

the north end of the corridor. At the north end of the corridor, Zip Rail would also connect to the

existing light rail transit at MSP (Metro Blue Line) and/or the existing light rail transit at Union

Depot (Metro Green Line).

Zip Rail is planned as express train between Rochester and the Twin Cities. As part of the

evaluation process, an intermediate station is under consideration in southern Dakota County.

No other intermediate stops are under consideration at this time.

With no existing direct rail connection between Rochester and the Twin Cities, the proposed

corridors would predominately include new or “greenfield” rail right-of-way and new rail

construction, located to the maximum extent practicable along existing public or railway right-ofway. With trains travelling at speeds of 150+ mph, these corridors would be sealed, with no atgrade crossings. Travel times between Rochester and the Twin Cities would be approximately

45-50 minutes. The Zip Rail study area is highlighted in Figures 2 and 3.

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the project is to study potential reliable and safe passenger rail transportation

alternatives that would meet forecasted population and economic growth mobility demands in

the Southeast Minnesota corridor between Rochester and the Twin Cities area. The system

would connect the Twin Cities and Rochester by providing a convenient and cost effective

transportation alternative. The project is being developed to:

•

•

•

•

Provide intercity passenger rail service linking the regional economic center of Rochester

and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area economic hub

Provide travel options for the growing population and accessibility to population centers

Improve safety, convenience and time of travel

Complement the plans of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) and Minnesota

Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan

The project need for expanded transportation options in this corridor is based on the following

elements:

•

•

•

Increase in population and employment in Rochester, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, and

Southeast Minnesota

Anticipated travel demand to accommodate growth in economic generators and attractions

such as the Mayo Clinic and University of Minnesota as well as services and industries that

will support those facilities

Limited direct and convenient transportation connectivity opportunities for the corridor

between Rochester and the Twin Cities
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 4

July 2014

The development of world-class and internationally recognized medical facilities in Rochester,

along with its agribusiness and high-tech industrial base, make the city a significant economic

engine in the north central United States. The Twin Cities, also a base of high-tech industry, and

the main transportation hub in the north central states, marks the importance of the economic

connection between these cities. Transportation connections between these cities are primarily

based on the private automobile with few commercial transportation options. The Mayo Clinic in

Rochester draws patients and their companions from around the nation and the world, and

constitutes a primary need for transportation options not based on the private automobile.

The project needs to meet existing and future transportation connectivity demands of the

corridor between Rochester and the Twin Cities in a manner that is competitive with other

modes of transportation. As the population, employment, and number of visitors grow along the

corridor, especially in the Twin Cities and Rochester, the number of people travelling between

these locations will increase, creating increased demand on existing transportation. The existing

roadway system in the corridor is anticipated to experience capacity needs resulting from

current and future economic growth; a rail option would provide a means to address those

needs into the future.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 5

July 2014

Figure 2. Project Location
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 6

July 2014

Figure 3. Project Corridor Study Area
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 7

July 2014

PROJECT COST, FUNDING SOURCE, AND SCHEDULE

Specific cost estimates have not been performed for the various alternatives recommended for

further study. More detailed cost estimating efforts will be performed for the preferred

alternative(s) selected as a result of the Tier 1 environmental efforts.

The current phase of project study has been funded by the Minnesota Department of

Transportation (MnDOT) and the Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority (OCRRA).

Funding for future phases of project work has not yet been secured. It is anticipated that the

project will ultimately include funding from local, state, federal and private sources.

The Tier 1 environmental document is scheduled for completion in 2015. Subsequent phases of

project work have not yet been scheduled. The future schedule of work will depend on funds

identified and secured for the individual phases of work.

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT AND PROJECT MANAGER

MnDOT is the project proposer and Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) under Minnesota

Rules Chapter 4410.0500 for the purposes of this Draft Scoping Decision Document, and for the

Tier 1 EIS, with respect to State environmental review requirements.

MnDOT Project Manager:

Praveena Pidaparthi, AICP

Planning Director – Passenger Rail Office

Minnesota Department of Transportation

395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 470

St. Paul, MN 55155

ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED IN THE TIER 1 EIS

The Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Scoping Booklet described

a universe of alternatives that were initially identified for study. Based on the alternatives

screening process discussed in the Scoping Booklet, the over 1,200 potential alternative

combinations were screened to 8 Build Alternatives proposed to be studied in the Tier 1 EIS, as

described below and illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. A final decision regarding the number of

alternatives to be studied will be made based on input received from the public, agencies and

others during the scoping public comment period.

In addition, the No-Build Alternative will be carried through the Tier 1 EIS process. The NoBuild Alternative reflects existing conditions, and includes all currently planned and programmed

improvements in the project area over the next 20 years. The No-Build Alternative would be a

base of comparison to the potential Build Alternatives.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 8

July 2014

As shown in Figures 4 and 5, the various end-point to end-point alternatives have common

segments. To facilitate the description, the study area has been divided into north and south

segments.

NORTHERN SEGMENT - COATES TO TWIN CITIES TERMINALS: MSP AND/OR UNION DEPOT

Extending north from Coates, which represents the area where all the alternatives combine to a

single corridor, the alternatives eventually split with two options extending northwest toward

MSP and two options continuing north to Union Depot.

MSP Options

These alternatives extend northwest along County Road 71 through Rosemount and Inver

Grove Heights, transitioning to a corridor parallel to the existing Canadian Pacific Railway (CP)

in Eagan and Minnesota Highway 149, then northwest to the I-494 corridor. From this point

there are two options; one is to continue across the Minnesota River Valley with a new bridge

on or adjacent to I-494 to provide a direct connection to MSP. The other alternative includes a

station in the area Pilot Knob Road and I-494. From the station, passengers could transfer to a

shuttle to connect to MSP or continue on the train northeast to the Union Depot, using the Union

Pacific Railroad (UP) alignment and entering Union Depot from the west. A variation to this

option would be high-speed rail service to both MSP and the Union Depot which would preclude

the need for a transfer station near Pilot Knob Road.

Union Depot Options

Continuing north from Coates, the Union Depot options extend along the west side of the Pine

Bend Refinery and connect with the UP rail corridor through Inver Grove Heights. The options

continue north on the UP rail corridor to the vicinity of I-494. Near I-494 the options split with

one crossing the Mississippi River on a new bridge and joining the CP rail corridor on the east

side of the river. From there, the alignment would either share track or construct a new track

through the existing rail corridor and rail yard, and enter Union Depot from the east. The second

option for connecting to Union Depot continues along the west side of the Mississippi River on

the UP rail corridor and crosses the river in the vicinity of the Robert Street Bridge in Downtown

St. Paul.

SOUTHERN SEGMENT - COATES TO DOWNTOWN ROCHESTER

South of Coates there are two primary options, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. The first extends

southeast roughly paralleling US 52, and the second extends south in the general proximity of

the MN 56 corridor before turning east along the US 14 corridor into Rochester.

Eastern Corridor (US 52)

Though paralleling US 52, this is primarily a greenfield corridor. Locating the service adjacent to,

or within the US 52 right-of-way is not feasible because of curves and hills prevalent along the

highway corridor, the limited available right-of-way, and the numerous intersecting roads

including several interchanges. As a result, the proposed corridor extends west of US 52, at
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 9

July 2014

times adjacent to the existing highway and elsewhere several miles to the west. The corridor

was defined with a focus on minimizing impacts to existing land uses and environmental

features, while maximizing the ability to attain and maintain true high-speed rail operations

(150+ mph).

Between Pine Island and Oronoco the corridor is generally adjacent to US 52. Immediately

south of Oronoco the corridor departs the US 52 corridor extending southwest to follow a

corridor near US 14 into Rochester.

Western Corridor (MN 56)

This corridor continues south from Hampton roughly paralleling MN 56. This is a greenfield

corridor that travels in close proximity to MN 56 mostly along an abandoned rail right-of-way.

The proposed corridor would extend along the east side of the communities of Randolph,

Kenyon, and West Concord prior to reaching Dodge Center where the corridor turns east and

follows the US 14 corridor into Rochester. The corridor was also defined with a focus on

minimizing impacts to existing land uses and environmental features, while maximizing the

ability to attain and maintain true high-speed rail operations (150+ mph).

Corridor Terminals

As illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 the proposed terminal stations are downtown Rochester on the

south end and MSP and/or Union Depot in the Twin Cities. The Rochester International Airport

and Target Field Station candidate terminals have been removed from consideration as part of

this study process. Preliminary ridership forecasting indicated relatively light demand to and

from the Rochester International Airport. A rail link between downtown Rochester and the

Rochester International Airport could be considered in the future as part of any Zip Rail

extension planning.

The Target Field Station was removed from consideration because it is being addressed as a

high-speed rail terminal as part of the Twin Cities to Milwaukee/Chicago High Speed Rail Study.

Depending on the results of that process, access from the Zip Rail corridor to the Target Field

Station would be provided through Union Depot via a high-speed rail link or the Metro Green

Line. Access from MSP to the Target Field Station is provided via the Metro Blue Line. A link to

Target Field Station could be considered in the future as part of any Zip Rail extension planning.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 10

July 2014

Figure 4: Alternatives to be advanced into the Tier 1 – EIS (East)
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 11

July 2014

Figure 5: Alternatives to be advanced into the Tier 1 – EIS (West)
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 12

July 2014

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE TIER 1 EIS

Information for completing the environmental issues identification was gathered through a

variety of sources including literature reviews, field investigations, and GIS data analysis.

Regulatory agencies and local governments provided important input through participation in

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings and the agency coordination meetings held in

2013 and earlier in 2014. Additionally, public information meetings in the summer of 2013 were

held to present preliminary information and provide an opportunity for the public to provide input

regarding key issues and potential impacts related to the project. Information gathered in these

meetings contributed to the development and evaluation of the alternatives.

This section provides an overview of the environmental subject areas to be addressed in the

Tier 1 EIS. The level of detail is limited at this stage, with further assessment conducted during

the Tier 1 EIS process.

Based on information gathered during the scoping process the range of environmental issues

typically addressed in accordance with MEPA guidelines were categorized into three areas

based on the potential for significant impacts:

•

•

•

Issues Requiring More Detailed Analysis in the Tier 1 EIS

Issues Requiring Less Detailed Analysis in the Tier 1 EIS

Issues Not Requiring Further Analysis in the Tier 1 EIS

ISSUES REQUIRING MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS IN THE TIER 1 EIS

There are a number of issues that are expected to influence the selection of the preferred

alternative. These issues will receive a greater level of attention and coordination with the public

and appropriate agencies as part of the Tier 1 EIS.

Land Use

The Tier 1 EIS will examine the compatibility of the project alternatives with the existing land

uses and with future land use plans in the areas through which the proposed alternatives

extend. Social and community impacts are possible both from the physical impacts of the

project as well as changes in access and circulation given the need to close some roads or

provide for grade-separated access where roadway and rail alignments may intersect.

Community Character/Cohesion

The project alternatives introduce some potential for adverse impacts to communities along the

study corridors, especially residential land uses. Specific issues that will be addressed in other

sections of the Tier 1 EIS include noise and vibration, transportation system/access changes,

and right-of-way impacts. This section will identify the specific location of residential

neighborhoods, their proximity to the project alternatives, and the probability for adverse effects

on those sensitive land uses.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 13

July 2014

Community Facilities/Public Services

The Tier 1 EIS will identify key community facilities adjacent to or in proximity to the various

alternatives. These facilities include city halls, fire stations, hospitals, libraries, churches,

community centers, and other institutional uses. The focus of this section will be to assess the

potential for adverse effects associated with changes in access to these facilities as well as

potential noise and vibration concerns.

Geology/Soils

The study area includes a broad range of geological and soil conditions that could affect

construction of rail lines. The areas of greatest concern include those areas susceptible to

erosion, areas where there is a presence of karst topography, and areas subject to

consideration of groundwater flow along the Decorah Edge. The Decorah Edge is a unique

geologic feature comprised of shale rock that extends northwest to southeast through Goodhue

and Olmsted counties. The Decorah Edge in combination with the karst topography represent

the greatest areas of concern related to erosion, groundwater flow and groundwater recharge.

Karst topography issues are most prominent in the southern portion of the study area. These

specific locations would be identified in the Tier 1 EIS and the degree to which each alternative

extends through these locations would be quantified.

Water Quality/Stormwater

This section of the Tier 1 EIS will build from the analysis completed for the Geology/Soils

assessment by identifying areas where erosion is of greatest concern. In addition, areas where

providing storm water ponding could be particularly difficult given unique geological or soil

conditions will be identified. These will include locations where karst topography is present.

Coordination with applicable water resource agencies including area watersheds and the

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will be initiated.

Water Resources

Wetlands in the project study area are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, the

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR), and local agencies administering the

Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. An impact assessment of all project alternatives will be

conducted.

The assessment will focus on wetlands identified by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). The

wetland impact assessment will be based on calculation of the area of wetland within the

conceptual impact limits of each alternative. This will be performed using NWI mapping overlaid

on corridors.

Fish, Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species

Documented rare, threatened, and endangered species and habitat in the MnDNR Natural

Heritage Program (NHP) database, records from the regional non-game wildlife specialist, and

the County distribution of Minnesota’s Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and

Candidate Species list will be reviewed for each project alternative. The information will be georeferenced with the proposed alternatives and the number of resources within each alternative’s

impact area will be quantified.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 14

July 2014

Natural communities in the project study area will be classified based on GIS data and mapping.

Project alternatives will be compared according to potential habitat loss and fragmentation of

forested areas or sensitive vegetation like natural prairie land.

Visual/Aesthetics

The land uses in the study area consist of a range of urban, suburban, and rural characteristics.

A qualitative visual assessment will be conducted using land use adjacent to each alternative as

a proxy for relative visual sensitivity. For example, residential and park land uses will be

considered the most visually sensitive. The assessment will identify and quantify the total

amount of sensitive adjacent land uses (in miles) that are within the sightline of the proposed

alternatives.

Cultural Resources

The Tier 1 EIS analysis will focus on identifying known cultural resources listed on or eligible for

listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including architectural and archaeological

resources. This information will be used to establish the relative potential of each alternative

encountering historical and/or archaeological resources. Further analysis under Section 106 of

the National Historic Preservation Act would be carried out in the Tier 2 environmental process.

Noise/Vibration

The project alternatives have the potential to introduce noise and vibration issues. The level of

impact is dependent on train technology, frequency, speed, and the location of sensitive

receptors. For the Tier 1 EIS, noise and vibration contours will be defined for each alternative

and applied to GIS mapping to determine how many sensitive locations are within the

established noise contour boundaries. The noise contours will be based on the applicable

federal and state noise criteria.

Transportation

Highways: A transportation system impact assessment will be completed to determine what

roadway crossings will be maintained and whether they will be at-grade or grade-separated

crossings. The assessment will include quantifying changes in access and connectivity in the

transportation network.

Freight Railroads: Several project alternatives parallel active freight rail lines, especially in the

north end of the project study area. This section will identify the specific locations where some

levels of co-location with freight railroads are assumed. The ownership, operating

characteristics (right-of-way, daily trains, operating speeds), coordination to date with the

owners, and assumed modifications necessary to make co-location feasible will be identified.

Aviation: Several alternatives include a connection to MSP. The Tier 1 EIS will identify issues

associated with providing rail service to MSP such as accounting for runway protection zones

(RPZ’s), trade-offs between at-grade and tunnel operations, and other special provisions.

Coordination has already been initiated with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and it

is anticipated that a substantial amount of additional coordination will be required to determine
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 15

July 2014

the feasibility of a direct MSP connection. Many of these issues will require rail design details

that will not be generated until the Tier 2 NEPA phase. Therefore it is anticipated that the Tier 1

EIS will document the status of ongoing coordination with MAC and any decisions that are

generated from the continuing coordination.

Coordination will also be conducted with the St. Paul Downtown, South St. Paul, Dodge Center

and Stanton airports, due to proximity with proposed corridors.

Pedestrian/Bicyclist Movements: The proposed project could have adverse impacts on

pedestrian and bicycle movements such as the Douglas State Trail. The EIS will identify major

facilities and describe anticipated effects of the proposed improvements on those facilities.

Transit: The proposed project is expected to have both beneficial and adverse impacts on

transit services. Beneficial effects include expanded transit services and options. Adverse

impacts may include minor disruption in transit services during construction. The transit

assessment will identify any substantial differences in potential transit service impacts between

the proposed alternatives.

Right-of-Way and Relocation

Given the size of the study area and scope of the proposed alternatives some right-of-way

acquisition and potential relocation of commercial businesses and/or residential properties

would likely be required. The analysis in the Tier 1 EIS would be based on alternative corridors

that are one-mile wide. These broader corridors allow for greater flexibility in avoiding or

reducing impacts as the process and details advance. Using these one-mile wide corridors, a

right-of-way and relocation assessment will be conducted as part of the Tier 1 EIS.

The following information regarding households and businesses will be discussed for each

alternative retained in the Tier 1 EIS.

•

•

An estimate of the number of households to be displaced including an estimated value of

properties to be acquired;

An estimate of the number and type of businesses to be displaced;

The Tier 1 EIS will also contain a statement that (1) the Acquisition and Relocation Program will

be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and (2) relocation resources are available to all

residential and business entities without discrimination.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires the assessment of impacts from a proposed project on minority

and low-income populations. The Tier 1 EIS will identify if any minority and/or low-income

populations are present in the project area based on current population data (2010 census and

county data). Information to complete the initial assessment will include demographic data and

the ongoing public involvement program. The Tier 2 environmental process will complete the
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 16

July 2014

Environmental Justice assessment by evaluating whether disproportionate project impacts may

occur to these populations.

Park and Recreational Properties (Section 4(f)/6(f))

The project alternatives could potentially impact various park and recreational resources in the

study area. Some of the resources include the Fort Snelling State Park, the Minnesota River

National Wildlife Refuge, the Mississippi National River Recreation Area, and the Douglas State

Trail. Development and evaluation of alternatives will be performed consistent with the

requirements of federal Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) with the intent to avoid any conversion of

these properties to transportation use. The Tier 1 EIS will verify the location of all resources and

estimate the level of impact. The formalized Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) processes would occur

during the Tier 2 environmental process, if necessary.

Floodplains

Floodplains in the study area correlate to the various river and stream crossings, including the

Minnesota, Mississippi, Vermillion, Cannon, and Zumbro (North Fork, Middle Fork, and South

Branch Middle Fork) rivers. The 100 year floodplain for each resource will be identified and the

amount each alternative extends through the respective floodplains will be quantified to estimate

the potential floodplain impact. The more comprehensive Floodplain Assessment required to

address Federal and State regulations will be prepared in the Tier 2 environmental

documentation.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Cannon River is designated as a State Wild and Scenic River. MnDNR staff will be

contacted to determine whether there are differences in the significance of potential impacts

related to where each alternative crosses the river.

Prime and Unique Farmlands

The study area contains soils identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

as being prime farmlands and unique. Soils of statewide significance are also located in the

study area. County soil surveys will be consulted in conjunction with NRCS data to determine

the amount of prime and unique farmlands potentially impacted by each alternative.

Critical Areas

The Mississippi River from the northwestern Twin Cities to the St. Croix River confluence near

Hastings is a designated Critical Area. The Tier 1 EIS will identify those alternatives that parallel

or cross the Mississippi River and therefore introduce the potential for impacts to this

designated Critical Area.

Contamination/Hazardous Materials

Available data resources will be researched to identify known contamination sites. The

information will be geo-referenced with the proposed alternatives and the number of sites within

each alternative’s impact area will be quantified.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 17

July 2014

ISSUES REQUIRING LESS DETAILED ANALYSIS IN THE TIER 1 EIS

There are several environmental issues that are of lesser concern given the nature of the

undertaking and the study area. The Tier 1 EIS will address these issues however major

impacts are not anticipated.

Air Quality

The scope of this proposed project does not indicate that negative air quality impacts from

transportation-related emissions would likely be expected. This project is considered to have

low potential to result in Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) effects, that is, none of the proposed

alternatives are expected to result in meaningful differences in MSAT emissions.

Cumulative Potential Effects

Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Indirect effects are caused by the proposed action

and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable, such as

induced changes in land use patterns, population or growth rate changes, and related effects on

natural resources. Given the study corridors in the Tier 1 EIS are one-mile wide, it is not feasible

to accurately account for and assess the relationship with other foreseeable projects. As a

result, the assessment will focus on identifying the locations where reasonably foreseeable

projects are anticipate to occur. The final determination of cumulative and indirect effects will be

conducted in the Tier 2 NEPA process when the preferred alternative is identified and a more

specific alignment is defined.

Economics/Business Impacts

Many of the potential positive effects of the proposed alternatives are related to station areas.

Adverse effects are associated with potential right-of-way impacts and changes to access.

Given the limited level of detail associated with the Tier 1 EIS, the economic assessment will

focus on differences in the proposed station locations between the alternatives.

Utilities

Above ground and underground utility lines may be adversely affected by the proposed project,

including pipelines and electrical power lines. For the Tier 1 EIS, major utility corridors will be

identified and the interrelationship with the project alternatives and relative differences between

alternatives will be discussed.

Construction Impacts

Construction impacts can include traffic congestion, noise, soil erosion, traffic detours, economic

impacts, safety, utility disruption, and other issues. The construction impacts assessment will

document areas where construction impacts are expected to be of greater concern including

adjacent residential land uses, river crossings, state and county highway crossings, karst

topography areas, and major utilities.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 18

July 2014

ISSUES NOT REQUIRING FURTHER ANALYSIS IN THE TIER 1 EIS

Based on the assessment completed through the initial alternatives evaluation and scoping

processes, the following environmental issue areas do not require additional evaluation and as

a result will not be included in the Tier 1 EIS.

Energy

No major differences in energy requirements and use are anticipated amongst the proposed

alternatives.

Coastal Zones

The project study area is not located within a coastal zone or coastal barrier. Therefore this

issue will not be addressed in the Tier 1 EIS.

Climate Change

The climate change assessment will be deferred to the Tier 2 NEPA process when a preferred

alternative is identified and more clearly defined.

Relationship of Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity

This issue will be deferred to the Tier 2 NEPA process when a preferred alternative is identified

and more clearly defined.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

This issue will be deferred to the Tier 2 NEPA process when a preferred alternative is identified

and more clearly defined.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 19

July 2014

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

State Scoping Meetings

Scoping meetings are planned to provide opportunities for the public to learn more about the

project, ask questions, and provide input. The 30-day comment period on this Scoping

Booklet and Draft Scoping Decision Document will begin on July 7, 2014 and will remain

open through August 6, 2014. The Scoping Meeting Notice will be published in local

newspapers and in the EQB Monitor. Meetings will be held at three different locations as noted

below:

Open House #1:

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

5:00 to 7:00 PM

Heintz Center

Commons Area

Rochester Community and

Technical College

1926 College View Road East

Rochester, MN

Open House #2:

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

5:00 to 7:00 PM

Inver Grove Community Center

Community Room 2

8055 Barbara Ave.

Inver Grove Heights, MN

Open House #3:

Thursday, July 31, 2014

5:00 to 7:00 PM

Kenyon-Wanamingo High School

Commons Area and Auditorium

400 6th St.

 Kenyon, MN

Those attending the public scoping meetings will

be able to view project materials, listen to an

informational presentation, discuss issues with

Zip Rail team members, and present any

comments they may have in verbal and/or written

form. Stenographers will also be available to

record individuals’ comments separately.

Contact Information

To view the Scoping Booklet or for more

information:

www.goziprail.org

Email comments to: info@goziprail.org

Voicemail: 651-366-3195

Or send comments by U.S. mail to:

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Passenger Rail Office

ATTN: Zip Rail

395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 470

St. Paul, MN 55155

Public Outreach Program

The Zip Rail program seeks to provide the public and agencies with accurate information about

the project and its progress, using convenient and varied methods to provide that information

and engage stakeholders and the public to help define the issues to be evaluated in the

program. This will enable the project team to develop, screen and select alternatives in a

manner that reflects public priorities for improved service. Every effort will be made to

accommodate persons with disabilities and non-English speakers in the public involvement

process and to accurately document public comments and responses in accordance with state

and federal requirements.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 20

July 2014

Numerous outreach meetings and presentations with public boards and other stakeholders were

held from March 2014 through June 2014 to provide information and updates and receive

feedback and comments prior to development of this Scoping Booklet. These meetings and

presentations included the following organizations:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Zip Rail Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee

Metropolitan Airports Commission Staff

MnDOT Aeronautics

Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG)

Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority

Dodge County Board of Commissioners

Goodhue County Board of Commissioners

Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority

Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority

Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority

Rochester City Council Committee of the Whole

UMore Park Development, LLC/ University of Minnesota

Flint Hills Resources/Pine Bend Refinery

Canadian Pacific Railway (CP)

Union Pacific Railroad (UP)

CONDAC – Dakota County

Next Steps

The Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD) is provided as an appendix to this report and

available at www.goziprail.org. At the conclusion of the 30-day scoping review period, a Final

Scoping Decision Document will be prepared and posted on the Zip Rail website

(www.goziprail.org). The report will summarize the overall results of the scoping process,

including comments received, and identify alternatives that would be studied in the Tier 1 EIS.

After completion of the Final Scoping Document, the Tier 1 EIS for the project would be initiated

to evaluate the various alternatives and environmental impacts, in order to identify a preferred

alternative. The Tier 1 EIS process would include additional public meetings and consultation

as information is developed to examine the alternatives and environmental impacts. The Service

Development Plan would also be prepared and would evaluate the business case for the project

and provide information to inform the analysis in the Tier 1 EIS.

The Tier 1 EIS process occurs in three stages – Scoping, Draft Tier 1 EIS and Final Tier 1 EIS –

and culminates in a federal Record of Decision under NEPA and a state Determination of

Adequacy under MEPA. Each of the three stages includes publication of a document for public

comment and narrows the number of alternatives, with the Final Tier 1 EIS identifying one or

more Preferred Alternatives for the project. This Tier 1 process will be completed in 2015.
Rochester – Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS

Appendix A: DRAFT Scoping Decision Document

Page 21

July 2014

Upon approval of the Tier 1 EIS, the project would advance to Tier 2. The Tier 2 environmental

process would address site specific environmental issues, project impacts and potential

mitigation measures. In addition, individual properties that could be impacted will be identified.

The Tier 2 environmental process may require an additional 36-42 months to fully evaluate the

project impacts.

PERMITS AND APPROVALS

Preliminary lists of permits and approvals that may be required for the proposed project are

included in Table 1.

Table 1: Preliminary List of Permits and Approvals.

Agency Permit/Approval

Federal:

Federal Railroad Administration •

•

Tier 1 EIS Approval

Tier 1 EIS Record of Decision

•

•

Section 4(f) Evaluation (if needed)

Section 106 Tribal Coordination

• Section 106 Cultural Resources

Determination

• Section 7 Threatened and Endangered

Species Act determination

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Section 404 Permit (fill in U.S. Waters)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Section 7 Threatened and Endangered

Species Consultation (if needed)

State:

Minnesota Department of Transportation •

•

•

•

•

Scoping Booklet Approval

Scoping Decision Document Approval

Tier 1 EIS Approval

Tier 1 EIS Adequacy Determination

Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)

Approvals

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources •

•

Public Water Work Permit (if needed)

Groundwater Appropriation Permit (if

needed)

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES)

Construction Stormwater Permit

• Section 401 Water Quality Certification

State Historic Preservation Office • Section 106 Consultation