Federal Railroad Administration

DES MOINES TRANSLOAD FACILITY

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c)

By the

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration
1. Introduction

The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMAMPO), City of Des Moines, Greater Des 

Moines Partnership (GDMP), and Iowa Department of Transportation (IA DOT), in conjunction with Des 

Moines Industrial (DSMI), propose to construct a multi-modal transloading facility (Des Moines Area 

Transload Facility or Facility) to include trackage, docks, and warehousing within the Des Moines 

Metropolitan Area (the Project). DMAMPO selected DSMI as the developer of the Project, DSMI is also 

the owner and operator of the Facility. DMAMPO will use U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant program funds, administered by 

the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), to construct this Facility. 

Therefore, FRA must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et 

seq.) prior to authorizing DMAMPO to use DOT funds and commence construction of the Project. NEPA 

requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on the natural, social, economic, and 

cultural environment and to disclose those considerations in a public document. The NEPA process 

helps public officials make decisions with an understanding of the potential environmental impacts. 

This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been prepared to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., its implementing 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); 23 CFR parts 771 and 774; and related laws. FRA has made this 

FONSI based on information included in the Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA is incorporated by 

reference to this FONSI.

2. Study Area 

The Project site, as depicted in Figure 1 below, is a 40-acre parcel located within an urbanized area of 

Des Moines that includes industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Until 2012, the Project site was 

used as a motor vehicle storage yard. Currently, the Project site is undeveloped with stormwater

retention ponds. Within the study area, the land use consists of a combination of City municipal 

facilities, state government facilities, commercial, light and heavy industrial, single-family residential, 

and multi-family residential. The Project site is entirely zoned I1 light industrial and I2 heavy industrial. 

The surrounding properties include residential areas to the north, commercial facilities to the south and 

east, and undeveloped areas to the west beyond US Highway 69/SE. 14th Street.1

 

 

1 City of Des Moines, Iowa. Des Moines, Iowa Zoning Map. 14 May 2020, 

https://maps.dsm.city/docs/maps/ZoningMap.pdf. 
Figure 1. 

3. Purpose and Need Statement

The purpose of the Project is to improve the overall freight capacity and options in the Des Moines 

metropolitan area; develop rail centric transportation options for existing businesses; expand existing 

transportation options to attract new industries to the region; and support economic development in 

Central Iowa. 

Demand for third-party logistics solutions for rail-based transloading and opportunities in Central Iowa

drives the need for the Project. The Project is intended to provide a more cost-effective and ecologically 

beneficial shipping alternative to businesses with a 150-mile radius of Des Moines, Iowa.2

Currently, in Des Moines, there is only one rail third-party accessible transload facility. The capacity of 

product the facility can handle is limited by the amount of available trackage; it is served by only one 

railroad Union Pacific (UP); and the facility size can only handle the existing product demand. The lack 

of third-party accessible transload facilities constrain the region’s shippers and create a cost 

disadvantage from a rail logistics perspective. 

 

2 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Org. Des Moines Transload Facility Project INFRA Grant Application. 18 

Jul. 2018.
4. Alternatives 

DMAMPO has studied the Des Moines area potential for a transloading facility since 2013. As a part of 

that process, DMAMPO conducted a search of potential locations for a transload facility within the Des 

Moines Metropolitan Area in 2014, as documented in the Feasibility Study.3

 DMAMPO looked at all 

available property within the region and identified 11 potential sites based on the sites’ proximity to 

existing Class I and II railroads. 

4.1. No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, DSMI would neither construct nor operate the Facility. Area shippers 

would continue to use one mode of transportation (trucking) to deliver cargo long distances, which

would impact the amount of goods transported to and from Des Moines and increase shipping costs. 

Continued reliance upon trucking for the movement of goods would increase the wear on the highway 

system.4

 Trucking is currently handling the demand; however, the opportunity to provide a more 

economical and environmental-friendly shipping alternative by implementing the Project would not be 

realized. Under the No Action Alternative, the purpose of the Project would not be met; however, this 

alternative is retained to provide a comparative baseline against which to analyze the effects of the 

Build Alternative, as required under Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 C.F.R. § 

1502.14). 

4.2. Build Alternative (Preferred Alternative)

The Build Alternative would optimize rail, trucking, and warehousing. Under the Build Alternative, the 

transload Facility consists of approximately 115,200 square feet of warehouse, 12,560 linear feet of rail 

spur lines leading to/from existing rail lines to the Facility, 13 intra-terminal switches, approximately 

1.14-acres for a laydown area, and four storm water ponds. The roads servicing commercial traffic 

would be paved. The City of Des Moines owns the majority of the land on which the Build Alternative

would be located; DSMI would purchase the land from the City of Des Moines as part of the Project. 

Iowa Interstate (IAIS) and Norfolk Southern (NS) own the remaining land, which DSMI would lease and 

purchase, respectively, as part of the Project. 

The hours of operation would be Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, and 7:00 am to noon 

on Saturday. DSMI estimates about 30 to 50 trucks would access the transload Facility each day based 

on contemporaneous truck volume research and the capacity of railcars the Facility would physically 

manage per year. Under the Build Alternative, the Facility would employ approximately 15 to 25 full 

time employees in 2 shifts per week. DSMI estimates that the transload Facility would handle an average 

rail car count of 2,800 cars per year. DSMI anticipates the terminal would receive 2 to 4 independent 

train arrivals/departures per week from various rail carriers, and contain 5 to 30 rail cars per train. Each 

rail car would be the equivalent of about 4 semi loads, or approximately 11,200 truckloads per 

year. DSMI anticipates the commodities handled at the Facility would include bulk materials like 

aggregate and rock salt, bundles of lumber and steel products, pallets of shingles, softener salt, specialty 

grains and minerals. 

 

3

 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Org. Des Moines Rail Transload Feasibility Study. 28 Jun. 2014, 

https://dmampo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/dsm-railport-feasibility-report-final.pdf 4 Ibid, p. 12. 
IAIS and NS would provide railroad services through direct physical interconnections to the Project site. 

DSMI anticipates that NS and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) would have a reciprocal switching 

agreement that would allow the DSMI direct pricing and rail service on BNSF over the NS 

interconnection. IAIS is working on a switching agreement with UP, which would allow similar access for 

UP-based traffic. Client demand would drive switches from each of these carriers, which DSMI 

estimates would average about five days a week. 

5. Selected Alternative

The Selected Alternative consists of the Build Alternative evaluated in the EA. It best meets the purpose 

and need of the Project. The Selected Alternative was the only build alternative carried forward for 

further analysis in Section 2.2 of the EA. The No Action Alternative was evaluated as further described in 

Subsection 2.2 of the EA as a basis against which to compare the Build Alternative in evaluation of 

environmental impacts, but was not identified as the Selected Alternative because it did not meet the 

Project purpose and need. 

The Selected Alternative provides numerous benefits, including: 

• Two mainline railroad interconnections with IAIS and NS that would enable direct 

interconnections with BNSF and UP, creating a financial advantage for shippers with 

competing railroads

• Improved capacity for freight transport in and out of the region, which would make the 

import and export of goods more cost effective. 

• Creation of potential for more high-wage jobs in Des Moines Area value-added industries. 

• Beneficial impact on socioeconomic resources due to increased employment opportunities. 

• Improved fuel efficiency for commodity movement and reduction of gridlock and greenhouse 

gas emissions with new rail transportation options.5

 

• Elimination of truck trips from the highway network by over 17,000 per year and over 

524,000 over 30 years.6

 

Based upon the EA, incorporated by reference with its appendices in this FONSI in its entirety, FRA has 

concluded that the Selected Alternative will have no foreseeable significant impact on the quality of the 

natural and human environments. The Selected Alternative is best able to achieve the proposed action 

purpose and need without significant environmental impacts. Minimization Measures were included in 

the EA to further reduce environmental impacts; even without Minimization Measures, the 

environmental impacts would not rise to a level of significance.

 

5 Association of American Railroads. The Environmental Benefits of Moving Freight by Rail. July 2019, 

https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/AAR-Environmental-Benefits-Movig-Freight-by-Rail.pdf. 6 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Org. Des Moines Rail Transload Feasibility Study. 28 Jun. 2014, 

https://dmampo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/dsm-railport-feasibility-report-final.pdf.
6. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The EA describes the existing conditions in the study area and the potential impacts that would result if 

the Selected Alternative is implemented. Information was gathered from various sources, including site 

observations, maps, aerial photography, and local state and federal agency data. Table 1 summarizes

the physical, biological, and human resources are detailed in EA and the applicable Minimization 

Measures. 
Table 1. Summary of Environmental Consequences and Minimization Measures

Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Air Quality (3.1)

Construction of the Selected Alternative 

would generate minor amounts of fugitive 

dust and gaseous emissions of CO, VOC, 

NOx, SO2, and PM10 and PM2.5 from the 

combustion of fuel by construction 

equipment and vehicles. Increased rail 

traffic using the Facility would contribute 

locomotive exhaust emissions. Based on 

assumptions in Section 3.1.2 of the EA and 

EPA emission factors, on an annual basis, 

the emissions associated with the trains 

would be below the conformity 

requirements; operations emissions of the 

Selected Alternative would be de minimis.

The construction contractor will implement the following air quality

Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the combustion 

engine emissions (CO, VOC, NOx, and SO2) and PM10 emissions during 

construction: 

AQ-1: Use appropriate dust suppression methods during on-site 

construction activities. Available methods include application of 

water, dust palliative, or soil stabilizers; use of enclosures, covers, silt 

fences, or wheel washers; and suspension of earth-moving activities 

during high wind conditions. 

AQ-2: Maintain an appropriate speed to minimize dust generated by 

vehicles and equipment on unpaved surfaces. 

AQ-3: Shut off equipment when it is not in use. 

AQ-4: Cover haul trucks with tarps. 

AQ-5: Stabilize previously disturbed areas with vegetation or 

mulching if such area will be inactive for several weeks or more 

(unlikely). 

AQ-6: Visually monitor all construction activities regularly and 

particularly during extended periods of dry weather and implement 

dust control measures when appropriate. 

Water Quality (3.2)

The Selected Alternative would not impact 

the Raccoon and Des Moines River 

watersheds and would not impact surface 

water quality in the area. 

During operations, the construction contractor will implement the 

following measures during construction: 

WQ-1: Permanently seed undeveloped areas.

WQ-2: Establish no mow zones near and or adjacent to detention 

basins. 

WQ-3: Construct detention basins with restricted outlets.
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Noise and Vibration

(3.3)

The noise analysis performed for the 

Selected Alternative indicated there would 

be no increase in the noise levels at each 

sensitive receptor studied from the 

operation of the Facility. Therefore, the 

Selected Alternative would not have a 

significant operational noise impact.

A general noise assessment was 

conducted. The Selected Alternative 

would not have a significant construction 

noise impact. Because of the low operating 

speeds of the Facility, vibration produced 

by freight trains would dissipate rapidly 

from the source. The nearest residential 

use would not experience any vibration. 

Vibration experienced at the nearest 

residential area during construction would 

not likely be perceived by the residential 

uses. 

No minimization measures are required.

Wetlands (3.4)

The Selected Alternative would fill 4.45 

acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands 

located in storm water basins. The design 

of the Selected Alternative includes several 

storm water basins that would be built at 

the Project site and would have similar 

wetland characteristics to replace the 

functions and values of those wetlands 

that that would be filled. By replacing the 

wetlands at a 1:1 ratio, the Selected 

Alternative would not significantly impact 

wetlands.

No minimization measures are required.
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Threatened and

Endangered Species

(3.5)

The Indiana bat and the northern longeared bat are the only threatened or 

endangered species that may be present 

at the Project site. FRA determined that 

the Selected Alternative would not 

adversely affect either the Indiana bat or 

the northern long-eared bat provided 

DSMI or the construction contractor 

remove trees outside of the bats’ active 

season. FRA received US Fish and Wildlife 

Service concurrence on this determination.

DSMI or the construction contractor will implement the following 

measures: 

TE-1: Conduct tree removal only between April 1st and September 

30th. 

TE-2: Ensure all operators, employees, and contractors working in 

areas of known or presumed bat habitat are aware of all 

Transportation Agency environmental commitments, including all 

applicable Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs). 

TE-3: Modify all phases/aspects of the project (e.g., temporary work 

areas, alignments) to the extent practicable to avoid tree removal in 

excess of what is required to implement the project safely. 

TE-4: Ensure tree removal is limited to that specified in project plans 

and ensure that contractors understand clearing limits and how they 

are marked in the field (e.g., install bright colored flagging/fencing 

prior to any tree clearing to ensure contractors stay within clearing 

limits).

TE-5: When installing new or replacing existing permanent lights, use 

downward-facing, full cut-off lens lights (with same intensity or less 

for replacement lighting); or for those transportation agencies using 

the BUG system developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society, 

the goal is to be as close to 0 for all three ratings with a priority of 

"uplight" of 0 and "backlight" as low as practicable. 

Floodplains (3.6)

The Project site is located within the Area 

with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee and 

is currently outside of the 1% annual 

chance floodplain. Therefore, construction 

and operation of the Selected Alternative 

would not significantly impact floodplain 

values. 

No minimization measures are required.
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Energy Use (3.7)

During construction, the construction 

contractor and any subcontractors would 

use energy to construct the transload 

Facility, including electricity, gasoline, and 

diesel fuel to power construction 

equipment and to install the building 

materials (concrete, steel, etc.). During 

operation, DSMI would use electricity, for 

lighting, ventilation, heat, battery 

chargers, and door operators. 

MidAmerican Energy would be supply 

electrical power for Facility operations. 

While the Selected Alternative would 

result in an increase in energy use 

compared to existing conditions, the 

electrical power and diesel fuel would be 

available from existing sources. The 

Selected Alternative would not have a

significant impact on energy.

No minimization measures are required.

Visual Resources

(3.8)

Views of the Project site would be 

industrial in nature, including warehouses 

and rail lines. As the areas to the east, 

west, and south are industrial and consist 

of roadways and railroad tracks, the 

Selected Alternative would be consistent 

with the surrounding visual environment 

and would not create a substantial change 

in existing visual character of the study 

area. The Selected Alternative would have 

no significant impact on visual resources.

No minimization measures are required.
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Transportation (3.9)

The Selected Alternative would improve 

inbound and outbound reach for products 

for existing and future industries, increase 

competition, relieve congestion in the 

interstate highway system, and lower 

intercity truck traffic for products that are 

shipped via truck. The Selected Alternative 

would have a beneficial long-term impact 

on the highway network.7 There would be 

no significant impact to the local 

roadway/highway network under the 

Selected Alternative. 

No minimization measures are required.

Land Use (3.10)

Construction and operation of the Selected 

Alternative would not impact zoning 

because the Project site is zoned light 

industrial and heavy industrial and a 

transload facility is an allowable use in 

such zones. No private residences or 

structures would need to be relocated 

from the Project site, and there would be 

no displacement of any residential or 

commercial uses because there are 

currently no structures on the Project site. 

No minimization measures are required.

 

7 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Org. Des Moines Rail Transload Feasibility Study. 28 Jun. 2014, https://dmampo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/dsmrailport-feasibility-report-final.pdf.
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Socioeconomics

(3.11)

The Selected Alternative would introduce 

transloading opportunities to both Des 

Moines and Central Iowa. Based on a 2014 

study by DMAMPO,

8 a transload facility in 

Des Moines has the potential to spur 

additional development from businesses 

that desire to export and import goods via 

rail by providing a cost-effective shipping 

alternative compared to trucking within a 

150-mile radius of Des Moines, IA. As a 

result, Des Moines Area businesses could 

potentially add more high-wage jobs in 

value-added industries. 

No minimization measures are required.

 

8 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Org. Rail Market Analysis. 31 Jan. 2014, https://dmampo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/dsm-railport-market-analysisfinal.pdf. 
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Environmental 

Justice (3.12)

Based on a review of data from the US 

Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor 

Statistics9 and the U.S. Census,

10 it was 

determined that EJ populations are 

present in the study area. The study area 

does include low-income and minority 

populations; however, the impacts to 

these populations would not be 

disproportionately high or adverse, as 

described below and in more detail in the 

sections of the EA for: Air Quality (Section 

3.1); Water Quality (Section 3.2); Noise 

and Vibration (Section 3.3); Visual 

Resources (Section 3.8); Transportation 

(Section 3.9); and Hazardous Materials 

(Section 3.14). The Selected Alternative 

would not have a disproportionately high 

and adverse impact on EJ populations.

See Minimization Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6, WQ-1 through 

WQ-3, and HM-1.

 

9 “Economy at a Glance: Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ia_desmoines_msa.htm. 10 “QuickFacts: Iowa; Des Moines city, Iowa.” United States Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/IA,desmoinescityiowa/PST045218.
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Public Health and

Safety (3.13)

Construction of the Facility would not

impact fire, police, medical, or 

transportation services because the

number of employees and visitors during

construction would be minimal compared 

to the overall existing population served. 

The design of the Selected Alternative 

incorporates safety and security measures 

to reduce the risk of rail accidents (i.e., 

signaling, crossing protection) in 

accordance with FRA and State of Iowa 

regulations. In addition, Facility staff 

would be properly trained in safety and 

security matters. The Selected Alternative

would not significantly impact public 

health and safety.

The following minimization measure will be implemented by the 

construction contractor prior to the start of construction:

PH-1: Erect permanent fencing to prevent the public from accessing 

areas immediately within the Project site. 
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Hazardous Materials

(3.14)

The Selected Alternative could impact 

hazardous materials during the 

redevelopment of the Project site, which 

may include site grading, earthwork for 

new structures, roadway construction, and 

construction of utility infrastructure. 

Construction/excavation would disturb 

soils/groundwater at the Project site, and 

unplanned or yet unknown activities might 

expose workers to the chemicals identified 

in the soils/groundwater. Therefore, as 

discussed in Section 3.14.3 of the EA, the 

construction contractor would prepare 

and implement an elective Soil and 

Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) 

during construction. With implementation 

of an elective SGMP, the impact of 

hazardous materials during construction 

would be reduced to not significant levels. 

Operation of the Selected Alternative 

would have no significant impact on 

hazardous waste materials. 

During construction, DSMI will implement the following:

HM-1: Employ an environmental contractor to develop a Soil and 

Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) to inform site construction 

workers of the health and safety concerns and put procedures in 

place to properly handle, characterize, treat, and/or dispose of 

impacted soil and groundwater encountered during construction 

activities. The general contractor will be responsible for 

implementation and oversight of the SGMP. Precautionary measures 

in the SGMP will include the following:

• Enact routine control and avoidance of incidental 

disturbance of soils and groundwater; 

• Employ dust control measures during excavation activities 

at the Project site to achieve no visible emissions; 

• Minimize the movement of surface soils from their original 

location to other areas of the site when working at existing 

grades; 

• Remove and stockpile soils for trenches with a last out, 

first in process; and

• Minimize the volume of excess soils and prevent exposure 

between storm water and impacted soils. 

 

During operation, DSMI will comply with the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. 2 

requirements discussed in Section 3.2.3 of the EA. 
Cultural Resources

(3.15)

FRA completed survey work of the Area of 

Potential Effects (APE) for both 

archaeology and built environment. The 

archaeology reports indicated that due to 

the level of disturbance in the APE, it is 

unlikely for intact cultural deposits to be 

present. FRA determined two structures in 

the APE to be eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places; 

however, the overall character of the area 

and the viewsheds will remain unchanged. 

Therefore, FRA determined that the 

Project resulted in No Adverse Effect and 

submitted the Section 106 consultation 

package on April 30, 2020. The Iowa State 

Historic Preservation Office (ISHPO) 

replied with additional questions for FRA 

on June 9, 2020. FRA sent responses to 

the questions to ISHPO on July 29, 2020. 

ISHPO concurred on the No Adverse Effect 

determination August 21, 2020. On 

August 26, 2020, ISHPO clarified that they 

concur with the No Adverse Effect 

determination, but do not agree with the 

determination of ineligibility of two 

resources. No further work is required 

from FRA, and ISHPO concurrence is 

attached to the FONSI as Appendix B. 

FRA sent consultation packages to the 

following federally-recognized Tribes: 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Iowa Tribe of 

Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of 

Oklahoma; Menominee Indian Tribe of 

As a result of consultation with the Iowa State Historic Preservation 

Office (ISHPO) and federally-recognized Tribes, the following 

minimization measure will be implemented by DSMI:

CR-1: If any potential archaeological or human remains are 

discovered during project activities, all work that could disturb the 

discovery will immediately cease and will not resume until 

investigation of the discovery, and consultation if appropriate, has 

been completed in accordance with Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR 

§ 800.13 and any applicable state laws. DSMI will immediately notify 

FRA. FRA will notify ISHPO and the Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

of the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska via phone at 785.595.3258. 
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Wisconsin; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in 

Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, 

Oklahoma; and Sac & Fox Tribe of the 

Mississippi in Iowa. Details of the Tribal 

consultation are shown below in Section 7 

of the FONSI.

The Selected Alternative will have no 

significant impact on cultural resources.

Section 4(f) (3.16)

Two eligible historic properties were 

identified in the Section 106 process in 

Section 3.15 of the EA. No additional 

Section 4(f) properties were identified 

within the Section 4(f) study area. FRA 

made a de minimis determination due to 

the No Adverse Effect on the two eligible 

historic properties in an email to ISHPO on 

August 25, 2020. ISHPO concurred with 

this determination on August 25, 2020. 

Therefore, construction and operation of 

the Facility would not result in any 

significant impacts to any Section 4(f) 

properties. 

No minimization measures are required.

Indirect and

Cumulative Impacts

(3.17)

The Selected Alternative would have 

beneficial indirect impacts on the Project 

area. The Facility would create increased 

economic development in the surrounding 

business communities. No other projects 

have been identified as planned for the 

Project area. Therefore, it is not 

foreseeable that the Selected Alternative 

would result in any significant cumulative 

impacts. 

No minimization measures are required.
Resource Area Environmental Consequences Minimization Measures

Other 

Environmental 

Resources (3.18)

Neither the Selected Alternative nor the 

No Action Alternative would affect any of 

the following resources because such 

resources are either not located in the 

Project site or would otherwise not be 

impacted during construction or 

operations of the Facility: solid waste 

disposal systems, ecological systems; 

coastal zones; use of water, mine, or 

timber resources; wild and scenic/natural 

rivers; and farmlands. 

No minimization measures are required.
7. Coordination and Consultation

During the development of the EA (documented in Section 3.15 Cultural Resources and Chapter 4 

Coordination and Consultation), Terracon coordinated with Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

(IDNR), DMAMPO, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Iowa 

Office of State Archeologist (IOSA), and the City of Des Moines. FRA consulted with USFWS, various 

federally-recognized Tribes, potential consulting parties, and ISHPO. 

7.1 Public Comment

The DMAMPO issued a press release on June 26, 2020, announcing the public comment period for this 

EA. The press release directed people to the DMAMPO’s website which contained the EA and all 

corresponding reports for the EA. The DMAMPO’s website also contained the link to Regulations.gov, 

where public comments could be formally submitted and available for public review. This information is 

published on the FRA’s website, in their eLibrary. DSMI’s website highlights this process, with a link to 

the DMAMPO’s website. 

Two comments were received in response to the EA and are discussed in Appendix A.

7.1 Tribal Consultation

As a part of the Section 106 process as documented in Section 3.15 of the EA, FRA sent consultation 

letters to the following federally-recognized Tribes via email on April 24, 2020: Apache Tribe of 

Oklahoma; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Menominee Indian Tribe of 

Wisconsin; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; and Sac 

& Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. FRA did not receive any responses from any of the Tribes. FRA 

sent follow up emails to all the Tribes on June 16 and 17, 2020, with no responses received. 

FRA staff then called all the Tribes on July 24, 2020. The following Tribes were reached; voicemails were 

left with the Tribes not listed below:

• Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska – FRA received a voicemail from Lance Foster, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer, on July 27, 2020. He stated that there are no sites in the area that the 

Tribe is aware of, and requested to be notified if there are any unanticipated discoveries at 

785.595.3258. Tribal notification is included in the FONSI as CR-1 as shown in Table 1 above.

• Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin – Amanda Ciampolillo from FRA spoke with David 

Grignon, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, on July 24, 2020. He stated that the Tribe has no 

interest in the area.

• Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma – Amanda Ciampolillo from FRA spoke with Chris Boyd on July 29, 

2020. He asked for a copy of the April 24, 2020 materials, which FRA sent to him on July 29, 

2020. No additional information or contact was received from the Tribe afterwards.

No additional information or contact was received from any Tribe. 
8. Conclusion 

FRA finds that: (1) the EA for the Des Moines Transload Facility satisfies the requirements of NEPA (42 

U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), 

and 23 CFR parts 771 and 774; and (2) the Selected Alternative will have no foreseeable significant 

impact on the quality of the human or natural environment. The EA provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis for FRA to determine that an environmental impact statement is not required for the Des 

Moines Transload Facility as presented in the EA. 

Jamie P. Rennert Date

Director, Office of Infrastructure Investment 

Federal Railroad Administration 

FRA’s Office of Railroad Policy and Development prepared this document in August 2020. For further 

information regarding this FONSI contact:

Amanda Ciampolillo, Environmental Protection Specialist 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Environment and Project Engineering Division 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone (617) 494 - 2173 

 

JAMIE P. 

RENNERT

Digitally signed by 

JAMIE P. RENNERT 

Date: 2020.08.27 

10:26:45 -04'00'
Appendix A: Comments and Responses on the EA

Public comments for the EA were collected using Regulations.gov. The EA was Docket ID: FRA-2020-

0048. During the public comment period for the EA, two comments were received, both submitted on 

July 3, 2020. The text in Comments 1 and 2 are reproduced verbatim as they were submitted on the 

docket. For readability, Comments 1 and 2 were broken down into a comment and response for each 

topic the commenter raised, rather than providing a single response addressed the comment as a 

whole. 

Comment 1

Tracking Number: 1k4-9hlw-y801

Comments Received: 07-03-20

Submitter Name: Anonymous Anonymous

Comments Submitted:

a. Water contamination assessment risk is understated -- looking at only onsite precipitation and 

factors...and not adequately considering flows onto the site from the micro-watershed the site is 

part of.

Response:

The City of Des Moines has used portions of the Project site and the surrounding area for 

stormwater detention for at least four decades. The City of Des Moines modified the existing 

stormwater retention basins to provide drainage control and additional stormwater runoff storage 

volume when the Project site was re-graded during the East Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway 

expansion in early 2013. A majority of the offsite drainage converges in a series of City-owned 

detention basins along the south side of the Project site before reaching the outlet. As discussed in 

Section 3.2.2 (pages 24-25) and Section 3.4.2 (page 33) of the EA, DSMI worked with the City to 

design the stormwater system for the Project to meet the City requirements for both offsite and 

onsite drainage. The stormwater system is designed with capacity to accommodate storm events 

ranging from 1 year to 500-year events including on-site and off-site stormwater flows. 

b. The fact that the site requires the detention ponds (both in number, locations, and in size of acreage 

total) indicates that any leaking oil, gas, chemical, or other liquid including products arriving on train 

or truck to the site can get into Des Moines' ground water.

Response: 

During operation of the Project, DSMI will comply with the NPDES General Permit No. 2 

requirements discussed on page 25 in Section 3.2.3 Water Quality of the EA. Federal law requires 

stormwater permits for construction activity and the operation of industrial or commercial activities. 

In accordance with Federal law, DSMI will obtain an operational industrial permit under Iowa’s 

NPDES General Permit requirements prior to starting operation of the Transload Facility. Iowa’s 

NPDES General Permits require that a pollution prevention plan for construction activity and 

operation be developed and implemented. The pollution prevention plans are designed to reduce 

pollution at the site before it causes a new hazardous environmental condition. The on-site 

stormwater basin along the north end of the Project site will collect and discharge rainfall runoff 

from the Project. This vegetated dry detention pond will be higher in elevation than the offsite city 
basins as discussed in the EA in Section 3.4.2 Wetlands (page 33), which will allow time to clean up 

any spills before the materials can discharge to the City stormwater basins located on the south side 

of the site. As discussed in the EA in Section 3.2 Water Quality (pages 24-25), if a spill occurs, any 

leaking oil, gas, chemical, or other liquid, draining to the on-site stormwater basin would be 

prevented from leaving the site and reported to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The 

State of Iowa (Iowa Administrative Code, 567 Chapter 131.2(455B) - Reporting of hazardous 

conditions), requires any person manufacturing, storing, handling, transporting, or disposing of a 

hazardous substance to notify the department and local law enforcement of the occurrence of a 

hazardous condition. The notification must be made as soon as possible but not later than six hours 

after the onset or discovery of the hazardous condition. 

c. Traffic congestion and the contributing factor of estimated 30 to 50 semi-trucks per day is 

understates that impact and understates the amount of pollution (reduction of Air Quality) from 

truck exhaust and from dirt the trucks kick up into the air.

Response: 

During operation of the Build Alternative, DSMI assumes that the volume of semi-trucks operating 

would add fewer than 100 new trips per day to the existing truck traffic.11 As described in the EA in 

Section 3.9.2 Transportation (page 41-42), the City of Des Moines’s Traffic and Transportation 

Engineers conducted an analysis of the existing roadways in the Project vicinity. The City determined 

that, as noted in the comment, the Project will increase traffic on the roadway and highway network 

surrounding the Project site. The existing roadways surrounding the Project site, including E Martin 

Luther King Jr. Parkway, SE 15th Street, SE 18th Street, Maury Street, and Scott Avenue, are 

designated as truck routes. Therefore, the City concluded the area roadways can accommodate the 

additional traffic volumes. FRA determined in the EA that the Project will not result in a significant 

impact to traffic. The Project will have the beneficial impact on highway congestion by removing 

truck trips from the highway network and transporting freight by rail.

In accordance with Federal requirements, an Air Quality Assessment was completed for the Project. 

As discussed in the EA in Section 3.1.2 Air Quality (page 23), operation of the Project will generate 

minor amounts of fugitive dust and gaseous emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SO2, and PM10 and PM2.5 

from the combustion of fuel by equipment operating on-site and vehicle travel to and from the site, 

as shown in Table 3-3 on page 23 of the EA. The analysis does not indicate there would be a 

reduction in air quality emissions. Based on the assumptions specified in Section 3.1.2 and U.S 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) emission factors, Project emissions will not exceed the 

Clean Air Act de minimis thresholds. While the operational emissions will increase, the impact will 

not be significant. 

d. Furthermore -- Altoona, Iowa has a large publicly available Trans-load and Rail port facility --- the 

MPO study as I read it overlooks that option--as it is not listed as an existing site nor was it listed for 

evaluation (it is not in the EA report's list of "all potential sites for expanded trans-load to serve the 

metro area."!

 

11 Des Moines Industrial. Application for Traffic Analysis. Submitted to City of Des Moines, Iowa, 22 Aug. 2019.
Response: 

As discussed in the EA in Section 1.3 Project Purpose and Need (pages 2-8), the purpose of the 

Project is to improve the overall freight capacity and options in the Des Moines metropolitan area; 

develop rail centric transportation options for existing businesses; expand existing transportation 

options to attract new industries to the region; and support economic development in Central Iowa. 

To achieve this purpose, the DMAMPO undertook an alternatives analysis of potential new sites in 

the Des Moines area on which the Project purpose could be achieved. As described in the EA in 

Section 2.2 Alternatives Considered (page 9-12), the DMAMPO’s considered 11 potential sites in and 

around Des Moines for a new transload facility. The Project site was selected as the only one of the 

11 sites considered because it is currently zoned heavy industrial; has direct access to two Class I 

railroads and one Class II railroad; and is adjacent to a major arterial roadway with a direct 

connection to the interstate highway system. The facility in Altoona, Iowa was in operation at the 

time the DMAMPO undertook its Rail Market Analysis12 completed in 2014. The study shows a 

transload facility in Des Moines has the potential to spur additional development from businesses 

that desire to export and import goods via rail by providing a cost-effective shipping alternative 

compared to trucking within a 150-mile radius of Des Moines, Iowa. Therefore, DMAMPO undertook 

an alternatives analysis of potential sites in Des Moines based on its analysis that there was market 

demand for a facility in Des Moines and in Altoona. 

e. Locomotives, Trucks, and rail cars are NOT quite -- especially in metro areas -- so I am concerned 

about industrial noise from the equipment (on site, as they travel trough the city / metro area, and 

other onsite noise from loading and unloading that amount of tonnage every week! Many people 

live in residential ares adjacent to or near the site -- and more living units are planned for that area 

of the city...this seems problematic.

Response: 

As discussed in the EA in Section 3.3 Noise (pages 26-33), a noise analysis was conducted for the 

Project to determine if increased noise from equipment operating on the Project site and vehicle 

and train traffic would impact the surrounding properties, including the nearby residences. The 

Transload Facility will operate from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and from 7:00 am to 

noon on Saturday. DSMI estimates that the average rail traffic at the Transload Facility will be 2,800 

rail cars per year, or approximately 10 cars per day. DSMI estimates that 30 to 50 trucks will enter 

and exit the Transload Facility per day. During daily operations of the Transload Facility the 

following typical machinery will be expected to operate onsite: diesel skid steer loaders, front 

loaders, forklifts, and TrackMobile. DSMI also anticipates using electric powered forklifts. Table 3-5 

of the EA (page 30) provides the existing average noise levels and the future average noise levels 

calculated based on operations of the Transload Facility. The future average noise levels were 

calculated based on distance of the noise receptors from the Project site, as sound dissipates with 

distance from the source. As shown in Table 3-5, due to the distance from the Project site, there 

will be no increase in the average noise level at each sensitive receptors during operation of the 

Project, including the nearby residences. 

 

12 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Org. Rail Market Analysis. 31 Jan. 2014, https://dmampo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/dsm-railport-market-analysis-final.pdf. 
Comment 2

Tracking Number: 1k4-9hm2-orvo

Comments Received: 07-03-20

Submitter Name: Anonymous Anonymous

Comments Submitted:

a. I seriously doubt that the freight savings rail over truck is 50% as stated. Especially now in times of 

lower priced fuel, trucks are by far less expensive per mile than rail. In addition, since rail carriers are 

private business, they can pick and choose which customers they want to serve. One piece of 

business might get favorable rates, another could receive rates too high to be competitive. I would 

ask for specific examples of the stated savings and not settle for one example.

Response: 

Freight rates will fluctuate by carrier, commodity, shipper, based on the economy. As discussed in 

the EA in Section 3.11.2 (page 45), the DMAMPO Rail Market Analysis13 completed in 2014 shows a 

transload facility in Des Moines has the potential to spur additional development from businesses 

that desire to export and import goods via rail by providing a cost-effective shipping alternative 

compared to trucking within a 150-mile radius of Des Moines, Iowa. Various key targeted industries 

in Des Moines would also potentially see economic benefits. The Project will improve the capacity 

to transport freight in and out of the region and would assist in more cost effectively importing 

products and exporting goods. As a result, Des Moines Area businesses could potentially add more 

high-wage jobs in value-added industries.

b. The transload facility will not reduce the amount of truck traffic in the metro area. While a rail 

shipment equates to 3-4 truck loads. The same amount of trucks will travel the city streets to handle 

the fright. There has to be empty trucks accessing the site and full trucks leaving, offering a highly 

concentrated area for truck traffic. Traffic from the West empty to return to the transload to return 

loaded to the West will not find it efficient to travel 5/65 north to connect to I-80 West. It will be 

more direct to travel thru Des Moines to connect to I-235 to continue West.

Response: 

As discussed in the EA in Section 3.9.2 (page 41-42), the City of Des Moines’s Traffic and 

Transportation Engineers conducted an analysis and concluded the Project will create increased 

traffic on the existing roadways/highways in the Project vicinity but will not exceed the capacity of 

these roadways or cause congestion. See Response 1.c above.

c. While there has been rail activity in the general area of the proposed transload site for years, this 

specific site has direct line of sight, sound, and dusting to a residential area.

Response: 

See Response 1.e above regarding noise. In Section 3.3 Noise (page 30) of the EA, future average 

operation noise levels will not increase compared to the existing average noise level at each 

receptor because noise dissipates with distance from the source. 

See Response 1.c above regarding dusting and air quality during operation of the Project.

 

13 Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Org. Rail Market Analysis. 31 Jan. 2014, https://dmampo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/dsm-railport-market-analysis-final.pdf. 
The visual impacts of the Project are discussed in Section 3.8 Visual Resources (page 40) of the EA. 

The Project site is in an industrial area. After construction, views of the Project site will also be 

industrial in nature, including warehouses and rail lines. The primary viewers, motorists passing the 

Project site and the surrounding business, would perceive a change in the visual environment. 

However, the new development will be consistent with the surrounding properties and will not 

create a significant visual impact to these viewer groups. The nearby residences are the most 

sensitive to changes in the visual environment. Views of the Project site from the nearby residences 

are currently obscured by vegetation, which will remain in place and continue to separate the 

Project site from the residences. Therefore, the view from the residences will continue to be trees 

and other vegetation and there will be no significant impact to their view.

d. As you know, the NS and BNSF operate jointly to access Des Moines. What happens to Class 1 carrier 

connectivity if this lease agreement fails to continue in the future?

Response:

The comment refers to an agreement between NS and BNSF that is not part of the Project and the 

Project will not negatively affect the agreement. Implementation of the Project will generate

additional freight rail demand that may encourage NS and BNSF to continue jointly accessing Des 

Moines. 

 
Appendix B: Concurrence Letter from the Iowa State Historic Preservation 

Office
From: Andre, Sara

To: Ciampolillo, Amanda (FRA)

Cc: DCA SHPO106; Gibb, Heather; Daniel Higginbottom; Kramer, Chris

Subject: Re: R&C 200477129 - FRA - CITY OF DES MOINES - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-MODAL

TRANSLOADING FACILITY - 200 SE 15TH STREET

Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:20:19 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or

open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

R&C 200477129 - FRA - CITY OF DES MOINES - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF

MULTI-MODAL TRANSLOADING FACILITY - 200 SE 15TH STREET

Amanda:

As a follow up to your email, based on the information provided and our previous concurrence

with a no adverse effect determination, we agree with FRA on the de minimis determination

under Section 4f.

Additionally, as noted on the August 21, 2020 comments, this email is a follow-up to clarify

our response regarding resources within the APE. Within the submitted report and Iowa Site

Inventory Forms (ISIF), the SHPO does not agree with the eligibility determination on two of

the resources: 77-09469 (Heartland Co-op, 118 SE 18th St.) and 77-12160 (Iowa Interstate

RR). Full evaluation of these resources would require further research and contextual

information. While we do concur with the no adverse effect for the project as a whole, we did

want to note that these two particular resources would need further research and evaluation to

fully determine eligibility, or non-eligibility, for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places. No further work is necessary on the part of FRA and their consultants, but we felt it

necessary to clarify the information regarding the two above-noted resources.

If you have any further comments or questions, please contact us.

Kind regards,

Sara André

Architectural Historian

State Historic Preservation Office

sara.andre@iowa.gov | 515-242-6157 | iowaculture.gov

***Be advised that the current health emergency may affect the ability of our office to respond to future

correspondences within the expected timeframe. Staff are continuing to work toward meeting the statutory

30-day review and comment period where applicable and will be notifying agencies if any review is

anticipated to take longer than 30 days.***

***Please note: Our office is currently closed to the public in an effort to slow the spread of the COVID-19.

During this time, SHPO staff will be available most effectively through email correspondence and conference

calls***

Iowa Arts Council | Produce Iowa | State Historical Society of Iowa

Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs
Share your stories using #iowahistory

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:01 PM Gibb, Heather <heather.gibb@iowa.gov> wrote:

We have received your July 29, 2020 submittal for the above referenced federal undertaking. We provide the

following response in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its

implementing regulations 36 CFR 800.

Regarding this project, please see the following comments:

R&C 200477129 - FRA - CITY OF DES MOINES - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

OF MULTI-MODAL TRANSLOADING FACILITY - 200 SE 15TH STREET

Concur with the federal agency and/or their designated representative (No Adverse

Effect).

Specific comments on the architectural portion of the submission should follow

next week.

Please note that due to the current status of our office, you will not receive a hard copy of

this email. It is the submitter's responsibility to maintain the official file of record and

to send hardcopies of historic property inventories (archaeological/architectural

survey reports) to SHPO for entry into NADB and the Inventory as circumstances

allow.

Best,

Heather Gibb, Ph.D.

Interim Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Review & Compliance Manager

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

heather.gibb@iowa.gov | 515.281.4137 | iowaculture.gov

Iowa Arts Council | Produce Iowa | State Historical Society of Iowa

Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs

Share your stories using #IowaCulture

**Be advised that the current health emergency may affect the ability of our office to respond to future

correspondences within the expected timeframe. Staff are continuing to work toward meeting the statutory

30-day review and comment period where applicable and will be notifying agencies if any review is

anticipated to take longer than 30 days. **

***Please note: Our office is currently closed to the public in an effort to slow the spread of the COVID19. During this time, SHPO staff will be available most effectively through email correspondence and

conference calls***