Appendix A 

APPENDIX A 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, 

 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT 
Appendix A 

CONDITIONS

RES

acts at highway/rail grade crossings, Applicant, in 

sing Mitigation Plan, shall apply its proposed 

rotection formula to the crossings on the existing 

Minnesota, for the anticipated tonnage levels of coal 

0 million tons, or 100 million tons annually). 

propriate Federal and State transportation agencies 

nd other details of the grade-crossing protections.

ossing protections shall be subject to the review 

ppropriate State Departments of Transportation. 

plicant shall pay 90 percent of the costs associated 

e-crossing protection upgrades on Applicant’s 

to crossings in communities that have executed 

pplicant that address the communities’ safety 

rms of the Negotiated Agreement will apply, so 

Negotiated Agreement achieves at least an 

ng protection. Applicant shall complete these 

n reaching the annual tonnage level of coal (20 

r 100 million tons annually) specified in its plan 

uch completion as part of its quarterly reports 

acts at highway/rail grade crossings, Applicant 

S-based grade-crossing protection formula to the 

n Wyoming, South Dakota, and the Mankato area 

lternative M-2 is approved and constructed), for 

f coal to be moved (20 million tons, 50 million 

lly). 

propriate Federal and State transportation agencies 

nd other details of the grade-crossings protections 

w rail line. Implementation of all grade-crossing 

the new rail line shall be subject to the review and 

priate State Departments of Transportation. As 

Appendix A 

agreed to by Applicant, Applicant shall pay 100 percent of the costs associated with these project-related grade-crossing protections along the new rail line. This Condition shall not apply to crossings where communities or other entities have executed Negotiated Agreements with Applicant that address safety concerns. In those cases, the terms of the Negotiated Agreement will apply, so long as implementation of the Negotiated Agreement achieves at least an equivalent level of grade-crossing protection. Applicant shall complete these grade-crossing protections upon reaching the annual tonnage level of coal (20 million tons, 50 million tons, or 100 million tons annually) specified in its plan and shall certify to the Board such completion as part of its quarterly reports required by Condition 147. 

2. Applicant shall maintain the new and existing rail line and grade-crossing 

warning devices according to FRA track-safety standards (49 CFR Part 213).

Emergency Response3. At least one month prior to initiation of construction activities in the area, 

Applicant shall provide the information described below, as well as any additional information, as appropriate, to each local emergency response organization or other similar body for communities within the project area regarding projectrelated construction and operation of both the new and existing rail line: • The schedule for construction throughout the project area, including the 

sequence of construction and reconstruction of public grade crossings and approximate schedule for these activities at each crossing. 

• Expected schedule for change in rail line operations along Applicant’s 

existing system, including when changes in train speeds and levels of traffic are anticipated to occur, and current and new train speeds and levels of rail traffic. 

• A toll-free number for the Applicant’s contact who shall be available to 

answer questions or attend meetings for the purpose of informing emergency-service providers about the project construction and operation. 

• Revisions to this information, including changes in construction schedule, 

as appropriate. 

4. Applicant shall consult with the communities of Rochester, Owatonna, and 

Mankato, Minnesota, and Brookings and Pierre, South Dakota, and any other affected communities that so request, to coordinate train movements and emergency response and discuss the possible installation by the Applicant of a state-of-the-art electronic display board, or equivalent technology, such as a real time or Global Positioning System (GPS) train location monitoring system in the 

Appendix A

Page 1
Appendix A 

er of each community showing the location of 

de crossing warning signals.

 the appropriate State Departments of 

ffected communities to develop a program for 

cation signs or message boards on railroad property 

mined by the State and/or County to warrant such 

orists of the impending increase in train traffic and 

ystem and commencement of operations along its 

ettering of these signs shall comply with the U.S. 

DOT), Federal Highway Administration’s Manual 

vices, and shall be in place no less than 30 days 

mpletion of project-related construction and 

area. As an alternative, Applicant shall coordinate 

Transportation to develop a mutually satisfactory 

ed by Applicant throughout the counties and 

ail line providing information and notice to the 

es along its existing system and commencement of 

ne. This campaign shall include the use of different 

aper, public meetings, etc.) and may include such 

ncements, advertisements, or legal notices. Prior to 

 the PRB, Applicant shall certify to the Board that 

ion as part of its quarterly reports required by 

ossings on the new and existing rail line, Applicant 

manent signs prominently displaying both a toll

nique grade-crossing identification number in 

way Regulations (23 CFR Part 655). The toll-free 

ours per day by Applicant’s personnel. Where 

se to another rail carrier’s crossing, Applicant shall 

arrier to establish a procedure regarding reported 

evice malfunctions. 

erested communities along its new and existing 

afety measures to eliminate the need to sound train 

ordance with FRA’s final rule on the Use of 

-Rail Grade Crossings.

e material on the back of all passive crossing 

bucks, on the new and existing rail line. Reflective 

at headlights from vehicles approaching the grade 

f the rail line will strike the material and illuminate 

nation in the absence of a passing train and a 

in is passing due to the space between the rail cars. 

nd from the PRB, Applicant shall certify to the 

Appendix A 

Board that it has complied with this condition as part of its quarterly reports required by Condition 147.

9. To the extent practicable, Applicant shall minimize trains blocking grade 

crossings throughout its system. 

Track Warning Devices and Track Infrastructure10. Applicant shall properly maintain its new and existing rail line. Maintenance 

shall include trimming vegetation on railroad property that obscures visibility of oncoming trains and assuring that rail, railroad ties, track fastenings, and ballast material are in good repair, and that warning devices operate properly and are legible.

Hazardous Material Handling Issues11. Prior to initiating any project-related construction and reconstruction activities, 

Applicant shall develop a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (Plan) to prevent spills of oil or other petroleum products and other hazardous materials during construction and reconstruction activities, and operation and maintenance of the rail line. At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following: 

 • Definition of what constitutes a spill.  • Requirements and procedures for reporting spills to appropriate 

government agencies. 

 • Methods of containing, recovering, and cleaning up spilled material.  • Equipment available to respond to spills where the equipment is located.  • List of government agencies and Applicant’s management personnel to be 

consulted with in the event of a spill. 

In the event of a spill, Applicant shall comply with its Plan and applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to containment of the spill and appropriate clean up.

12. Applicant shall comply with DOT Hazardous Materials regulations (49 CFR Parts 

171 and 179) when handling, storing, or disposing of hazardous materials. Applicant shall dispose of all materials that cannot be reused in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local waste management regulations. 

Appendix A

Page 2
Appendix A 

 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

ral Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control 

ment of Environment and Natural Resources, and 

onmental Quality to determine the exact location 

wn to occur within the existing or proposed rail 

with applicable laws concerning these sites. 

l emergency-response plans to allow for agencies 

n an emergency and to locate and inventory 

n dealing with emergencies. Applicant shall 

e plans to the relevant State and local entities prior 

m the PRB. 

ed States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

of natural resources, in the event of a reportable 

h the potential to affect wetlands or wildlife 

Federally threatened or endangered species. 

 standards for recycling or reuse of construction 

il ties. When recycling construction materials is 

hall use disposal methods that comply with 

te regulations.

ion activities related to this project, Applicant 

Natural Resource Conservation Service, local 

ate Federal agencies, and local fire and emergency 

an adequate plan for fire prevention and 

d restoration, including natural habitats, during 

oth the new and existing rail line. To the extent 

hall ensure that all locomotives are equipped with 

xhaust stacks and fire extinguishers suitable for 

vide for the installation of low-spark brake shoes. 

tion at grade crossings, when practicable, 

t one open lane of traffic at all times or provide for 

 as appropriate, to allow for the quick passage of 

construction activities, Applicant shall use 

ty practices recommended by the American 

tenance of Way Association (AREMA) and the 

ck construction in the AREMA Manual for 

Appendix A 

Railway Engineering. Applicant shall maintain the track and provide for track inspection in compliance with AREMA and FRA requirements at 49 CFR 213. 

20. Applicant shall adhere to Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA), FRA, and State construction and operational safety regulations to minimize the potential for accidents. 

21. Where practicable, Applicant shall refuel locomotives at designated refueling 

locations. Applicant shall exercise care during refueling to prevent overflows. In no event shall Applicant conduct refueling activities in a location where an inadvertent spill would enter a watercourse, wetland, or other environmentally sensitive area. 

22. Applicant shall make Operation Lifesaver programs available to communities, 

schools, and other organizations located along the new and existing rail line. 

23. Applicant shall consult and coordinate with school districts regarding placement 

on railroad property of equipment to permit use of in-vehicle warning devices on school buses. 

24. Applicant shall assure that roadway approaches and rail line crossings for both 

new and existing grade crossings are constructed or re-constructed according to the standards of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design manual, applicable State rules, guidelines, or statutes, and the AREMA standards. The goal of grade-crossing design should be to eliminate rough or humped crossings to the extent practicable. 

TRANSPORTATION25. To the extent practicable, Applicant shall confine all project-related construction 

traffic to a temporary access road within the right-of-way or established public roads. Where traffic cannot be confined to temporary access roads or established public roads, Applicant shall make necessary arrangements with landowners to gain access from private roadways. The temporary access roads shall be used only during project-related construction. Any temporary access roads constructed outside the rail line right-of-way shall be removed upon completion of construction, unless otherwise agreed to in accordance with Condition 80. 

26. Applicant shall consult with the State Departments of Transportation in 

Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wyoming and local road authorities in the affected counties or townships to ensure that project-related construction and reconstruction activities are consistent with State and local transportation plans, projects and proposals. 

Appendix A

Page 3
Appendix A 

 FRA, the State Departments of Transportation in 

Wyoming, and local road authorities to develop a 

ventual closure of limited-use public crossings, 

00 Average Daily Traffic, where appropriate 

 available. 

movement of farm equipment to fields and pastures 

 operate on public highways, as a result of road 

n and during operation of Applicant’s rail yards, 

lop appropriate alternative access to these fields 

access could include development of frontage roads 

reements for farmers to coordinate with the yard 

d, if rail operations and safety conditions permit, or 

ss roads. 

on or reconstruction activities related to this 

h Community Liaison(s) to consult with affected 

, businesses, landowners, and agencies; develop 

oncerns; be available for public meetings; and 

ch; and assist communities and other entities in 

assistance may include coordination with FRA for 

pplemental and alternative safety measures at 

nes are desired; identifying potential sources of 

reparing funding applications and grant requests; 

tatives of potential lending organizations. The 

ve access to Applicant’s upper management. 

me and phone number of the Community Liaison(s) 

e local officials in each community through which 

asses. 

 property owners have encroached on Applicant’s 

nt shall make reasonable attempts to identify and 

roposed project-related reconstruction schedule 

ginning reconstruction activities in the area.

y construction fencing, where appropriate, or 

iation of construction or reconstruction activities 

cable, in incorporated areas, permanent fencing 

in link fence installed along all rail line right-of

perty. Applicant shall consult with appropriate 

nincorporated areas to determine appropriate 

l inspect all fencing regularly and promptly repair 

Appendix A 

any damaged fencing. This condition shall not apply to those communities that have executed Negotiated Agreements with Applicant. 

32. In rural areas, Applicant shall minimize the installation of fencing to areas where 

safety is a concern and areas where fencing is required to prevent livestock wandering on to the rail line. Applicant shall consult with Tribal wildlife officials, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, other applicable agencies, and affected landowners to determine appropriate fencing designs for each State. Fencing in rural areas should generally consist of 5-strand barbed wire fence. In order to protect antelope and other big game, Applicant shall encourage landowners in areas where antelope are present to allow construction of 4-strand fence with a smooth bottom wire at least 16 inches above ground level and the top wire not more than 42 inches high, or other designs approved by the applicable State wildlife agency. Applicant shall consult with appropriate State and local authorities in rural areas to determine appropriate fencing design. In areas where the rail line is not fenced, appropriate signage shall be installed to protect the public.

33. At least 48 hours prior to initiating herbicide applications, Applicant shall make 

reasonable attempts to notify property owners adjacent to the right-of-way of its anticipated schedule for herbicide application. Reasonable attempts could include posting a notice on its web site or publishing its schedule in local newspapers. 

34. Applicant shall ensure that all areas disturbed by project-related construction or 

reconstruction activities which are not owned by the railroad (such as access roads, haul roads, crane pads, and borrow pits), are promptly restored as closely to their original condition as is practical following conclusion of project-related construction or reconstruction activities.Applicant shall coordinate with the State Departments of Transportation and Federal and State land management agencies, subject to approval of the land owner, to determine if temporary access roads developed for project-related construction should be removed and the area restored to its previous condition or retained for maintenance by the agency, State, or county to provide additional access to public lands. 

Agriculture/Ranching35. Applicant shall provide its project-related reconstruction and construction 

schedule to affected farmers and ranchers to allow them to determine whether they should continue to crop or graze in right-of-way areas or discontinue such activities due to impending construction and reconstruction activities. 

Appendix A

Page 4
Appendix A 

n(s), established by Condition 29, shall work with 

y any damage to crops, pastures, or rangelands 

elated construction or reconstruction activities and 

o prevent encroachment into the rail line right-of

s) also shall have authority to provide information 

o farmers and ranchers to facilitate movement of 

ne side of the rail line to the other.

d ranchers, Applicant shall be guided by the Land 

 negotiated between the Applicant with the 

hich addresses the following areas of concern: 

 loss. 

 improvements (wells, windmills, corrals, 

systems, etc.). 

pression. 

pacts. 

struction vehicles, equipment, and workers shall 

ng residential properties unless negotiated with 

wner. 

shall store its equipment and materials in 

Applicant’s property to the extent practicable. 

ablished in Condition 29, shall work with affected 

dress any damage to the landowner’s property 

related construction or reconstruction activities. 

Appendix A 

41. Applicant’s project-related construction vehicles, equipment, and workers shall 

not access work areas by crossing business or industrial areas, including parking areas or driveways, unless negotiated with, and agreed to by, the business owner. 

42. In business and industrial areas, Applicant’s project-related equipment and 

materials shall be stored in established storage areas or on Applicant’s property.Parking of Applicant’s equipment, or vehicles, or storage of materials along driveways or in parking lots is prohibited unless agreed to by the property owner. 

43. The Community Liaison(s), established in Condition 29, shall work with affected 

businesses or industries to appropriately redress any damage to the business’s property caused by Applicant’s project-related construction or reconstruction activities. 

44. Applicant shall insure that entrances and exits for businesses are not obstructed by 

project-related construction activities, except as required to move equipment. 

Minerals and Mining45. To help maintain the existing natural environment to the extent practicable, 

Applicant shall utilize materials such as rock, gravel, and sand available from local sources in its project-related activities. 

46. Applicant shall consult with the owners of existing mines and quarries in the 

project area, particularly the quarry in Mankato, Minnesota, if Alternative M-3, the existing rail corridor alternative through Mankato, is built, to ensure that project-related construction and reconstruction activities minimize impacts to mine-related operations. 

47. Prior to initiating construction of the new rail line, Applicant shall obtain any 

necessary permits from the U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding mineral removal and oil and natural gas lessees. 

48. Prior to undertaking project-related construction and reconstruction activities, 

Applicant shall make a reasonable effort to notify all mineral lessees/claimants where BLM has mineral ownership. 

Federal Lands49. Applicant shall obtain a Special Use Permit from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

granting an easement for the rail line to cross lands administered by the USFS designated as National Grasslands prior to initiating any project-related construction activities on USFS lands. Any conditions required under this Special Use Permit, in addition to those imposed by the Board, shall be adhered to by Applicant for activities on USFS lands.

Appendix A

Page 5
Appendix A 

 from the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of 

 crossing any facilities, irrigation ditches, or canals 

a Irrigation Project. Any conditions required under 

 imposed by the Board, shall be adhered to by 

g Reclamation lands. In addition, Applicant shall 

 of Agreement executed by Applicant and 

f-way grant from BLM for the rail line to cross any 

LM prior to initiating any project-related 

c lands. Applicant shall comply with the terms and 

t-of-way grant, in addition to the mitigation 

vities on public lands administered by BLM. 

erfowl production areas and wetland easements, 

elated construction or reconstruction. However, a 

ernative C could be located across a wetlands 

cant shall acquire and provide to the USFWS 

), replacing in kind, function, and value, and 

d necessary environmental reviews and permitting, 

om project-related rail yard construction. 

ion activities, including location of new rail line, 

cess points, either temporary or permanent, are 

ant shall consult with the appropriate State 

hese activities. To the extent practicable, 

blic lands as part of project development. 

anagers of State lands to determine peak use 

provide for over-night use. Applicant shall attempt 

struction activities to avoid these periods, to the 

e efforts to identify all utilities that are reasonably 

ted by the proposed construction within its existing 

isting right-of-way. Applicant shall notify the 

tified prior to project-related construction and 

ordinate with the owner to minimize damage to 

onsult with utility owners to design the rail line so 

g project-related construction and reconstruction 

enance and operation of Applicant’s rail line. 

Appendix A 

56. Should such previously unidentified utilities be discovered during project-related 

construction activities, Applicant shall cease construction, take appropriate action to protect the utility, and contact the utility owner immediately. In the event of damage to any utility during project-related construction, reconstruction, or operation, Applicant shall contact the utility owner immediately and take appropriate remedial action. 

57. Applicant shall make reasonable efforts to protect existing drainage tile systems 

present in agricultural lands adjacent to the rail line right-of-way during projectrelated construction and reconstruction activities. Applicant shall repair, as quickly as practicable, any damage to these systems due to project-related rail construction and reconstruction activities. 

58. Applicant shall dispose of all non-recyclable and non-reusable solid waste 

generated during project-related construction and reconstruction activities in permitted landfills or other disposal sites in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. 

WATER RESOURCES59. Applicant shall obtain all Federal permits, including the Clean Water Act Section 

404 and Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Section 10 permits, required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for project-related alteration or encroachment of wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, or rivers, including the Missouri River, prior to initiation of any project-related construction and reconstruction. Additionally, Applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the State of Minnesota, including Protected Waters Permits, for impacts to water resources in Minnesota due to project-related construction and reconstruction activities. 

60. Applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit from each State (Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming) affected by project-related construction or reconstruction activities. 

61. To minimize sedimentation into streams and waterways, Applicant shall use best 

management practices, such as silt screens and straw bale dikes, to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation, runoff, and surface instability during project-related construction and reconstruction activities. Applicant shall disturb the smallest area possible around any streams and tributaries, and shall consult with the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Wyoming Department of Game and Fish, and the State Departments of Transportation to ensure proper revegetation of disturbed areas as soon as practicable following project-related construction or reconstruction activities. 

Appendix A

Page 6
Appendix A 

g areas for project-related construction equipment 

ntally sensitive in order to control erosion. When 

ivities, such as culvert and bridge work, require 

 shall conduct these activities, to the extent 

 periods when the stream is dry. 

related construction activities near streams, 

orary stream crossings as close to a right angle with 

ant also shall design temporary bridges to span 

elevations of waterways to the extent practical.

onstruction, Applicant promptly shall remove all 

gs and restore the area to as close to its original 

en used in its project-related construction 

dams consist of native material, sheet pile, 

designs matching the local site conditions. All 

on of cofferdams or check dams shall be 

pletion of construction. 

g and laydown yards for project-related 

om wetlands or waterways, if topography permits. 

t permit a 300-foot distance, these areas shall be 

m the water’s edge. Applicant shall not clear any 

ea and the waterway or wetlands. 

pment for any oil, gas, diesel, anti-freeze, grease, 

leum product leaks. If leaks are found, Applicant 

quipment from the construction zone, and repair or 

culverts and bridges are clear of debris to avoid 

ow alteration. Applicant shall design all project

ures to pass a 100 year flood. Applicant shall 

e and construct the new rail line in such a way as to 

rns to the extent practicable and not result in new 

nt shall inspect all drainages, bridges, and culverts 

ntly, as seasonal flows dictate) for debris 

promptly remove debris and properly dispose of it 

lood Control Project in Mankato, Minnesota if 

ail corridor alternative through Mankato, is built, 

 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City of 

 local agencies in Mankato and obtain any 

Appendix A 

necessary permits to prevent adverse impacts from project-related rail line construction and operation to flood control structures.

69. Applicant shall employ best management practices to control turbidity and 

disturbance to bottom sediments during project-related construction or rehabilitation of Applicant’s bridge over the Missouri River at Pierre, South Dakota.

70. Applicant shall obtain a Bridge Permit from the U.S. Coast Guard for any projectrelated activities that would result in the extensive modification of Applicant’s 

existing rail bridge over the Missouri River in Pierre, South Dakota or for construction of a new rail bridge over the river. 

71. Applicant shall complete project-related construction and reconstruction activities 

through wetlands, when such wetlands extend outside the rail line right-of-way in continuous segments, in order to minimize both the time required to complete construction and the time land adjacent to wetlands is disturbed. 

72. Applicant shall ensure that any herbicides used in right-of-way maintenance to 

control vegetation are approved by EPA and are applied by licensed individuals who shall limit application to the extent necessary for rail operations. Applicant shall ensure that only herbicides determined by EPA to be acceptable for use around waterways shall be applied within 150 feet of perennial streams, rivers, and wetlands. Herbicides shall be applied so as to prevent or minimize drift off of the right-of-way onto adjacent areas. 

73. Applicant shall ensure that any wells that could be affected by project-related 

construction or reconstruction activities are appropriately protected or capped to prevent well and groundwater contamination. If these wells are located on private land, Applicant shall first secure permission from the landowner before undertaking any such activities. In the event that Applicant does not receive such permission upon reasonable request, it may petition the Board to be relieved of this obligation. 

74. Applicant shall ensure that new project-related stream, river, and floodplain 

crossings are appropriately designed to minimize impacts to community-designed floodways. In those areas where a community-designed floodway does not exist, Applicant shall ensure that new waterway crossing structures are sufficient to pass a 100 year flood without increasing the flood level by more than one-half foot. 

75. Applicant shall consult with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to 

design project-related waterway crossing structures to allow passage of fish. 

Appendix A

Page 7
Appendix A 

-related construction vehicles from driving in or 

stablished crossing points. 

racticable, ensure that any fill placed below the 

lands and streams is clean and free of fine 

 use fill from local sources where practicable. All 

returned to their pre-construction contours to the 

sing banks reseeded or replanted with native 

project-related construction.

quate clearances and access are provided for safe 

s on the Missouri River at the location of any 

 construction of Applicant’s bridge across the 

 Dakota. Applicant also shall install appropriate 

rs of project-related bridge construction activities 

ation route. 

 rail corridor alternative through Mankato, 

hall provide appropriate fencing along the rail line 

rails, or other recreational areas to provide a safe 

cilities. Applicant shall consult with the City of 

cing design and the possibility of providing 

ve screening. 

deral land managers such as the U.S. Forest 

anagement, and State land managers including the 

ral Resources, South Dakota Game, Fish and 

d Fish Department to determine locations where 

d reconstruction activities will result in lost or 

due to temporary road closures or other 

Applicant shall develop a plan to provide 

s during project-related construction and 

eration of unit coal trains to the extent practicable. 

sult with the Air Quality Working Group, 

ropriate technical expertise which was established 

utually satisfactory approach to minimize the 

ass I airsheds resulting from the locomotive 

coal trains. If no mutually satisfactory approach is 

he effective date of the Board’s decision giving 

nsion Project, then Applicant shall fund 50 percent 

st the parties to reach an agreement. However, the 

Appendix A 

parties jointly may seek more time to continue their negotiations without a mediator if they believe that would be more productive. If the Working Group and Applicant jointly decide that further consultations and/or mediation would be fruitless, then the Working Group may be disbanded. Applicant shall apprise the Board of the status of the ongoing Working Group consultations in the quarterly reports required by Condition 147, and shall also notify the Board if a Memorandum of Agreement is executed, or if the Working Group is disbanded. 

82. Applicant shall meet the Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards 

for diesel-electric railroad locomotives (40 CFR Part 92) when purchasing and rebuilding locomotives for movement of unit coal trains throughout its system. 

83. Applicant, to the extent practicable, shall adopt fuel saving practices, such as 

throttle modulation, dynamic braking, increased use of coasting trains, isolation of unneeded horsepower, and shutting down locomotives when not in use for more than an hour when temperatures are above 40 degrees, to reduce overall emissions during project-related operations. 

84. To minimize fugitive dust emissions created during project-related construction 

and reconstruction activities, Applicant shall implement appropriate fugitive dust suppression controls, such as spraying water, applying a magnesium chloride treatment, tarp covers for haul vehicles, installation of wind barriers, or other State-approved measures. Applicant shall also regularly operate water trucks on haul roads to reduce dust. 

85. Applicant shall obtain appropriate burning permits from the applicable State and 

local agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, prior to any project-related open burning. Open burning shall only be used by Applicant if no other reasonable means of solid waste disposal is available. Applicant also shall notify local fire departments at least four hours before any project-related open burning and obtain verbal or written permission from the fire departments prior to open burning activities.

NOISE AND VIBRATION86. Applicant shall consult with affected communities regarding Applicant’s projectrelated construction schedule, including the hours during which construction takes 

place, to minimize, to the extent practicable, construction-related noise disturbances in residential areas.

87. Applicant shall ensure that curves are lubricated where doing so would reduce 

noise for residential or other noise sensitive receptors. 

Appendix A

Page 8
Appendix A 

d construction activities, Applicant shall develop a 

on Control Plan (the Plan) to minimize 

n within the communities along the rail line. 

se control officer/engineer to develop the Plan, 

ude at least five years’ experience with major 

d board certification membership with the Institute 

r registration as a Professional Engineer in 

il Engineering. 

RA regulations (49 CFR Part 210) establishing 

ns. 

erested communities along its new and existing 

 eliminate the need to sound train horns consistent 

ct rail car wheels to maintain wheels in good 

e development of wheel flats (areas where a round 

d but has a flat section, leading to a clanking sound 

o moving PRB coal trains, Applicant shall inspect 

 surfaces and grind these surfaces to provide a 

ect-related rail operations. 

tinuously welded rail shall be used, unless it is 

ect related construction and reconstruction 

t-related construction and maintenance vehicles in 

rly functioning mufflers to control noise.

 break in the continuously welded rail which can 

d ground vibration as trains pass over or through 

ed rehabilitation of the existing rail line, Applicant 

itches determined to no longer be needed. 

wayside noise (locomotive engine and wheel/rail 

ceptors along Applicant’s existing rail line and 

nstruction that fall within the 70 dBA Ldn noise 

pecified below. With the written concurrence of 

nt(s), Applicant shall mitigate wayside noise with 

ments, including insulated windows. The design 

be a 10 dBA noise reduction. The minimum noise 

BA.

mitigation will depend on the anticipated tonnage 

million tons, 50 million tons, or 100 million tons 

Appendix A 

annually). As coal train operations increase, the 70 dBA Ldn noise contour will widen. Therefore, within 2 years of transporting 20, 50, or 100 million tons of coal annually, Applicant shall certify to the Board in its quarterly reports required by Condition 147 that it has met this condition for all affected receptors that fall within the 70 dBA noise contour for the level of coal then being moved. Noise barrier performance shall be determined in accordance with ANSI S12.8-1987, American National Standard Methods for Determination of Insertion Loss of Outdoor Noise Barriers. Sound insulation performance shall be determined in accordance with ASTM 966-90, Standard Guide for Field Measurements of Airborne Sound Insulation of Building Facades and Facade Elements. This condition shall not apply to those communities or other entities that have executed Negotiated Agreements with Applicant. Should noise mitigation be required at locations identified as containing structures that are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, Applicant shall consult with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer to assess effects and implement appropriate mitigation measures. The total number of noise sensitive receptors that meet the wayside noise mitigation criteria at the three applicable tonnage levels are listed below: 

Table 12-1 

Number of Noise Sensitive Receptors that Meet Wayside Noise Mitigation Criteria

Countya

Communityb

Total Number of 

Receptors - 

20 million tons

Total Number of 

Receptors - 50 

million tonsc

Total

Number of 

Receptors - 

100 million 

tonsc

MINNESOTA

Winona 2 5 1Olmsted

Chester Rochester

11

0

15

01

29

11

44

Dodge 3 04

Appendix A

Page 9
Appendix A 

Table 12-1 

ors that Meet Wayside Noise Mitigation Criteria

otal Number of 

Receptors - 

0 million tons

Total Number of 

Receptors - 50 

million tonsc

Total

Number of 

Receptors - 

100 million 

tonsc

02

04

65

10

01

21

1100

13

13

31

42209547

014393

1140

00

40

61

0 0000

00

10

00

00

12

Appendix A 

Table 12-1 

Number of Noise Sensitive Receptors that Meet Wayside Noise Mitigation Criteria

Countya

Communityb

Total Number of 

Receptors - 

20 million tons

Total Number of 

Receptors - 50 

million tonsc

Total

Number of 

Receptors - 

100 million 

tonsc

SOUTH DAKOTA

Brookings 0 7 22

Kingsbury

Manchester

00

00

02

Beadle 0 01Hand

Vayland

00

20

00

Hyde

Holabird

00

00

10

Hughes

CanningAlto

Pierre

0000

000

13

100

29

Stanley

Wendte

00

10

02

Jones

Capa

00

00

00

Haakon

Nowlin Powell

000

200

000

Jackson 0 00

Appendix A

Page 10
Appendix A 

Table 12-1 

ors that Meet Wayside Noise Mitigation Criteria

otal Number of 

Receptors - 

0 million tons

Total Number of 

Receptors - 50 

million tonsc

Total

Number of 

Receptors - 

100 million 

tonsc

0 100 0000000

10011

00010

0 000 000 000 00

36d 81e 143f

Appendix A 

Table 12-1 

Number of Noise Sensitive Receptors that Meet Wayside Noise Mitigation Criteria

Countya

Communityb

Total Number of 

Receptors - 

20 million tons

Total Number of 

Receptors - 50 

million tonsc

Total

Number of 

Receptors - 

100 million 

tonsc

a Represents number of noise sensitive receptors located outside the limits of established 

communities within the county. 

b Represents number of noise sensitive receptors located within the limits of the established 

community for which the receptor(s) are listed. 

c Represents number of noise sensitive receptors eligible for mitigation and not mitigated under 

previous levels of rail operations. 

d Add 13 noise sensitive receptors for Alternative M-2. Add 35 noise sensitive receptors for 

Alternative M-3. 

e Add 9 noise sensitive receptors for Alternative M-2. Add 16 noise sensitive receptors for 

Alternative M-3. 

f Add 9 noise sensitive receptors for Alternative M-2. Add 54 noise sensitive receptors for 

Alternative M-3.

96. To minimize noise and vibration, Applicant shall install and properly maintain rail 

and rail beds according to the AREMA standards and shall regularly maintain locomotives, keeping mufflers in good working order to control noise. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES97. Applicant shall comply with the Biological Assessment that has been prepared 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, and the Biological Opinion prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for this project.

98. Applicant shall develop and implement, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, a habitat restoration plan designed to compensate for the loss of trees, shrubs, and other woody vegetation, prairies, and other important wildlife habitats as a result of construction and reconstruction related to this project. Applicant’s plan shall 

Appendix A

Page 11
Appendix A 

reas or other areas that are not addressed as part of 

y for raptor nests, including bald eagles, prior to 

construction activities. Applicant also shall 

e to active nests until after active nesting has been 

licant shall consult and coordinate with the 

 Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 

artment, or Minnesota Department of Natural 

propriate action to compensate for raptor nests 

roject-related construction activities.

d construction activities, Applicant shall consult 

servation Service, local grazing associations, and 

op an adequate plan for controlling noxious weeds. 

roved list of herbicides.

construction activities in South Dakota and 

sult with the South Dakota Department of Game, 

artment of Game and Fish, and Tribal wildlife 

cceptable under- and overpass designs and 

rticularly big game. Considerations for under- and 

de providing access to wildlife water sources, 

licant shall develop additional water sources for 

dversely affected, or rendered inaccessible to 

nstruction if suitable alternative sources are not 

construction activities in South Dakota and 

rdinate with the South Dakota Department of 

ng Game and Fish Department, and Tribal wildlife 

ncing standards and designs to allow for 

arly big game, across the right-of-way. Applicant 

e types of fencing when negotiating with 

n on private property. (See also Condition 32.) 

es from the rail line right-of-way as part of normal 

nance activities. 

ated reconstruction activities in Minnesota and 

conduct a survey of the existing rail line right-of

emnants within the existing right-of-way. To the 

hall be avoided during project-related 

cant also shall coordinate with the Minnesota 

es and the South Dakota Department of Game, 

n for the re-establishment of prairie vegetation in 

Appendix A 

prairie remnants which cannot be avoided during project-related reconstruction activities. Such a plan should include, as appropriate, the stripping and stockpiling of topsoil for placement in the disturbed area during revegetation and the use of seed previously taken from the area or other local prairie remnants to revegetate disturbed prairie remnants within the existing right-of-way. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES105. Applicant shall provide written or other resources to inform its workers (both 

temporary and full-time) of the applicable Federal, State, and local requirements for the protection of archaeological resources, graves, other cultural resources, and wildlife (including those concerning threatened and endangered species), as well as the applicable requirements of trespass laws, traffic regulations (such as speed limits and weight restrictions), and regulations pertaining to waste disposal.Applicant’s resources shall inform construction workers of the importance of protecting archaeological resources, graves and other cultural resources, and how to recognize and treat these resources. Applicant shall also establish policies to deter casual collection by construction workers of cultural resources. 

106. Applicant shall comply with the Programmatic Agreement and Identification Plan 

that has been developed through the Section 106 consultation process under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

107. Applicant shall implement all the mitigation included in the Memorandum of 

Agreement that has been developed to ensure that the concerns of Native American Tribes related to the proposed project which are outside the Section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation Act are considered and addressed.

108. Prior to initiating project-related construction or rehabilitation of Applicant’s 

bridge over the Missouri River located at Pierre, South Dakota, Applicant shall ensure that the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act is completed for all archaeological sites and historic structures that would be impacted by the proposed project. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE109. Applicant shall consult and coordinate with the Lakota Sioux Tribe to develop a 

Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan to account for the special needs of Tribal members on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, particularly those inhabiting Red Shirt, South Dakota. This plan shall include Applicant-sponsored training in hazardous materials response for appropriate Tribal personnel with emphasis on methods to protect the Cheyenne River, an important resource to the Pine Ridge Reservation, in the event of a spill of petroleum products such as oil or diesel fuel, or other hazardous materials. 

Appendix A

Page 12
Appendix A 

ated construction or reconstruction activities, 

al Liaison to consult with interested and affected 

utions to the Tribes’ concerns, discuss possible job 

rs, be available for Tribal meetings, conduct public 

on the importance of archaeological and 

ative American Tribes, and conduct periodic Tribal 

hall have access to Applicant’s upper 

provide the name and phone number of the Tribal 

ding Tribal chairmen, Tribal Historic Preservation 

nees.

sturbance only to the areas necessary for project

truction activities. 

ving activities, Applicant shall remove topsoil and 

licant shall also stockpile topsoil for later 

of the right-of-way. Applicant shall place the 

would minimize the potential for erosion, and use 

asures around all stockpiles to prevent erosion. 

amation of disturbed areas as soon as practicable 

n ends along a particular stretch of rail line. The 

 rapid and permanent reestablishment of ground 

icant shall attempt to reclaim disturbed areas prior 

onstruction activities for the winter to avoid 

 erosion throughout the winter. If weather or 

establishment of vegetation, Applicant shall use 

tting, or ground blankets to prevent erosion until 

d construction activities, Applicant shall consult 

tural Resources Conservation Service, State 

ces, Fish and Game, and State Departments of 

ppropriate plan for restoring and revegetating the 

opriate greenstrip seed mix specifications). 

med areas for three years following the 

where efforts to establish vegetative cover have 

ar, Applicant shall reseed annually until vegetative 

 steps to ensure that fill material used in project

s free of contaminants. 

Appendix A 

116. Applicant shall design and construct the new rail line so as to consider local 

geologic potentials for slumping and landslides and develop and implement adequate measures to minimize the potential for these to occur. 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES117. Prior to engaging in any project-related construction across Federal lands, 

Applicant shall conduct testing within the proposed right-of-way where there is a potential for paleontological resources of Class 3 or higher. This testing shall be done to the depth below ground surface at which the rail line is anticipated to be constructed. Prior to initiating project-related construction activities in the areas that warrant testing, Applicant shall prepare a paleontological resources report identifying any resources encountered, as well as the strata most likely to contain significant paleontological resources. Applicant shall submit the report to the Board and the appropriate Federal land managing agency. After submitting the report, Applicant shall consult with the appropriate Federal land managing agency to develop appropriate measures to minimize damage to paleontological resources during project-related construction. These measures may include a requirement that the Applicant retain a paleontologist to be present during earthmoving activities affecting the strata most likely to contain significant fossil resources. 

118. If paleontological resources are encountered during project-related construction 

activities on Federal lands, Applicant shall immediately cease construction activities, inform the appropriate Federal land managing agency of the identified resource, and arrange for evaluation of the resource and determination of how to protect the resource by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist may be employed by the Federal land managing agency, the relevant State Historic Preservation Office, or may be retained by Applicant. Any paleontological resources recovered from project-related construction activities across Federal lands shall remain the property of the United States Government. 

119. If significant paleontological resources are encountered during project-related 

construction activities on private lands, construction crews shall notify the appropriate agencies and take appropriate actions at the work site to protect paleontological resources. 

NEGOTIATED AGREEMENTS120. Applicant shall comply with the terms of all Negotiated Agreements developed 

with local communities regarding environmental issues associated with the PRB Expansion Project. The following list provides the Negotiated Agreements received by the Board to-date: 

Appendix A

Page 13
Appendix A 

Table 12-2 

tiated Agreements

Claremont Cobden 

Eyota Garvin 

Lake Benton Lamberton 

New Ulm Owatonna 

Sleepy Eye Springfield 

Tracy Tyler 

Waseca 

Blunt Cavour 

Elkton Ft. Pierre 

Highmore Huron 

Midland Miller 

Ree Heights St. Lawrence 

Wessington Wolsey 

EASURES

e separated crossings in Rochester, Minnesota, at 

 Drive, West Silver Lake Drive/2nd Avenue NE, 

y acceptable location. Applicant shall consult with 

istration (FHWA), appropriate State and local 

he City of Rochester on the design (for example, 

r or under the rail line), location, and funding of 

cant shall complete installation of one grade 

sporting more than 20 million tons of coal annually 

n one year. Applicant shall complete installation 

ssing prior to transporting more than 50 million 

Rochester for more than one year. These grade 

designed and located to facilitate the movement of 

m medical facilities providing emergency services 

y’s Hospital and Methodist Hospital, which are 

ic. During the Board’s oversight period, Applicant 

Appendix A 

shall apprise SEA of the progress being made toward implementation of this condition in the quarterly reports required by Condition 147. 

122. Prior to initiation of project-related reconstruction activities in Rochester, 

Minnesota, Applicant’s upper management shall meet with representatives of the Mayo Clinic to consult and coordinate with the Mayo Clinic on how best to minimize project-related impacts on the Clinic. Applicant’s upper management shall continue to meet with Clinic representatives on a regular basis during the Board’s oversight period. 

123. Applicant, prior to transporting 50 million tons of coal annually through 

Rochester, Minnesota, shall coordinate with the City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and FRA to develop additional grade-crossing protection devices at the existing grade crossing of Broadway Avenue. This is necessary because the accident frequency at this crossing would exceed the Board’s criteria of significance, even with the protection proposed in DM&E’s Grade Crossing Mitigation Plan, which is discussed in Condition 1. 

124. In determining the final design and location of sidings constructed as part of 

project-related rail line reconstruction, Applicant shall consider the feasibility of shifting the location of the siding proposed in the area of Minneopa State Park in Minnesota to avoid the park. If Applicant determines that it is necessary to build a siding in the park, Applicant shall consider the feasibility of constructing the siding on the south of the tracks on the eastern end, to avoid channel changes in the Minnesota River, or on the north side of the existing track on the west end, to minimize wetland impacts. Applicant shall report the results of its considerations to the Board as part of its reporting under Condition 147. 

125. In determining the final design and location of sidings constructed as part of 

project-related rail line reconstruction, Applicant shall consider locating the siding proposed in the area between Sanborn and Lamberton in Redwood County, Minnesota, on the north side of the existing rail line to avoid impacting the wellvegetated, intact riverbanks on the south side of the existing line. Applicant shall report the results of its considerations to the Board as part of its reporting under Condition 147. 

126. If Applicant determines that the bridge over the access road to Lake Benton, 

Lincoln County, Minnesota requires reconstruction to permit the movement of unit coal trains, Applicant shall consult with the Minnesota DOT to consider ways to design and construct the bridge so as to ensure the safe passage of emergency vehicles.

127. Applicant shall coordinate with the City of Courtland, Minnesota to ensure 

protection of the city’s sewer line during project-related reconstruction of the existing rail line. 

Appendix A

Page 14
Appendix A 

o, Minnesota southern route, is built, Applicant 

ounty, Minnesota, to explore the feasibility and 

ng any new rail line on a trestle or bridge rather 

r valley. 

o, Minnesota southern route, is built, Applicant, 

 tons of coal annually over Alternative M-2, shall 

unty, Minnesota DOT and the FRA to develop 

ction devices at the proposed crossing of Township 

ecause the accident frequency at this crossing 

ria of significance, even with the protection 

rossing Mitigation Plan, which is discussed in 

o, Minnesota southern route, is built, Applicant 

ato Ski Area to minimize, to the extent practicable, 

uction of Alternative M-2 across ski area property. 

ation of a pedestrian and bike underpass of the Red 

nty, south of Mankato, Minnesota, if Alternative 

outhern route, is built. At a minimum, Applicant 

ng signs clearly advising the public to proceed 

e presence of trains. 

o, Minnesota southern route, is built, Applicant 

ng pond for County Highway 90 at Saddle Club, 

 If the holding pond cannot be avoided, Applicant 

ounty regarding its replacement and be responsible 

placing the holding pond. 

o, Minnesota southern route is built, Applicant 

ounty, Minnesota regarding whether the portion of 

ato, Minnesota can be constructed so as to avoid or 

ed Minneopa Trail. 

City of Mankato, Minnesota to determine if 

ped to Land of Memories Park. Should a mutually 

ccess be developed, Applicant shall work with the 

ding for the project.

 rail corridor alternative through Mankato, is built 

t must rebuild the existing bridge over the Blue 

 of unit coal trains, Applicant shall consider 

cle crossing as part of the new rail bridge design. 

Appendix A 

136. If Alternative M-3, the existing rail corridor alternative through Mankato, 

Minnesota is built, for the pedestrian crossings of the Sakatah Singing Hills State Trail in Blue Earth County, Applicant shall install and maintain warning signs clearly advising the public to proceed with caution due to the possible presence of trains.

137. Applicant shall consider locating the Middle East Staging and Marshaling Yard 

near New Ulm, Minnesota in such a way to allow residents of Shag Road access to Shag Road from both ends of the rail yard. Applicant shall report the results of its considerations to the Board as part of its reporting under Condition 147. 

South Dakota138. Applicant shall install a grade separated crossing in Pierre, South Dakota, at Sioux 

Avenue or another mutually acceptable location, to be completed within one year after DM&E transports more than 50 million tons of coal through Pierre annually for more than one year. Applicant shall consult with the FRA, FHWA, appropriate State and local transportation authorities, and the City of Pierre on the design (for example, whether the road would go over or under the rail line), location, and funding of this separation. Applicant shall apprise SEA of the progress being made toward implementation of this condition in the quarterly reports required by Condition 147. 

139. Applicant shall consider improving the existing rail line underpass off of Park 

Street in Fort Pierre, South Dakota to allow a paved crossing suitable for passage of emergency vehicles as part of any project-related reconstruction or replacement of the existing Bad River Bridge.

140. Applicant shall consult with the City of Wall, South Dakota and the South Dakota 

Department of Transportation to consider whether the proposed new rail line west of Wall can be designed and constructed to allow the expansion of the Wall Municipal Airport, as currently proposed. 

141. Applicant shall consult with the South Dakota Department of Transportation to 

consider whether the grade separation of US Highway 18 east of Edgemont, South Dakota proposed in Applicant’s Grade Crossing Mitigation Plan can be designed so as to accommodate future expansion of this highway to four lanes.

142. If Applicant determines that the bridge over 6th Avenue in Brookings, South 

Dakota, requires reconstruction to permit movement of unit coal trains, Applicant shall coordinate with the City of Brookings and the South Dakota Department of Transportation to explore whether the bridge can be designed and constructed to permit the passage of all emergency vehicles. 

143. For the pedestrian crossings at 12th Avenue, 6th Avenue, and the Interstate 29 

pedestrian and bike trail in Brookings, South Dakota, Applicant shall install and 

Appendix A

Page 15
Appendix A 

advising the public to proceed with caution due to 

 50 million tons of coal annually over Alternative 

ra County, Wyoming Department of 

T), and FRA to develop additional grade-crossing 

sed crossing of U.S. Highway 85. Additionally, 

 50 million tons of coal annually over Alternative 

bell County, Wyoming DOT and the FRA to 

ng protection devices at the proposed crossing of 

same for State Highway 450 prior to transporting 

ly. This is necessary because the accident 

ould exceed the Board’s criteria of significance, 

sed in DM&E’s Grade Crossing Mitigation Plan, 

n 1. 

ENT

the facts or circumstances upon which the Board 

ronmental mitigation conditions, or if there are 

oblems that arise during the oversight period, the 

ion. Any community or other interested party may 

 to demonstrate material change or unanticipated 

ntal oversight period. The Board may review the 

inal mitigation and impose additional or modified 

arty contractor to assist SEA in the monitoring and 

sures on an as-needed basis until Applicant has 

truction and reconstruction activities, as well as 

ight period. 

nce with the environmental mitigation conditions 

nt shall submit to SEA reports on a quarterly basis 

t period, documenting the status of its mitigation 

ion. The oversight period in this case shall be the 

d operations. 

Appendix A

Page 16
Appendix B 

APPENDIX B 

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
Appendix B

Page 1
Appendix B

Page 2
Appendix B

Page 3
Appendix B

Page 4
Appendix B

Page 5
Appendix B

Page 6
Appendix B

Page 7
Appendix B

Page 8
Appendix B

Page 9
Appendix B

Page 10
Appendix B

Page 11
Appendix B

Page 12
Appendix B

Page 13
Appendix B

Page 14
Appendix B

Page 15
Appendix B

Page 16
Appendix B

Page 17
Appendix B

Page 18
Appendix B

Page 19
Appendix B

Page 20
Appendix B

Page 21
Appendix B

Page 22
Appendix B

Page 23
Appendix B

Page 24
Appendix B

Page 25
Appendix B

Page 26
Appendix C 

APPENDIX C 

CHAPTERS 3 AND 4 FROM THE FINAL 

 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

1

CHAPTER 3 

LINE EXTENSION

onal analysis and evaluation of the portion of the 

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation’s 

wder River Basin (PRB). Other chapters of this Final 

EA’s additional analysis pertaining to other 

connecting track and various community bypasses for 

 for extending DM&E’s existing system into the PRB, 

atives to the proposed project suggested in comments 

ves include use of the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

or Program) and an additional D Alternative. 

xtension Alternatives is presented on a resource-by

 environmental impacts of each Extension Alternative 

ion in the Draft EIS that remains unchanged is 

summarized, and only new impact analyses are 

nts SEA’s recommendations for the environmentally 

g DM&E’s system into the PRB. 

ERNATIVES IN THE DRAFT EIS

S, SEA conducted an extensive review of alternatives, 

rnatives: 

Application to the Board (Alternative B),

equent to filing its Application to avoid 

reas (Alternative C, Phiney Flat Segment, and WG 

ng process (D Alternatives). 

luding minor variations in the Spring Creek and Hay 

ive were evaluated in the Draft EIS for reasonableness 

cision-making authority for the project, the Board 

l and regulatory responsibility to consider not only 

 engineering, and other applicable factors related to the 

roposed project are to rehabilitate DM&E’s existing 

s to the mines in the PRB. The Board’s regulatory 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

2

responsibility requires it to consider whether the project furthers rail competition, is financially viable, protects rail service to existing shippers, and meets a public need. Under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA), construction applications are to be approved unless they are inconsistent with the public interest (49 U.S.C. 10901(c)).1 The Board 

may (1) approve a transaction as proposed; (2) approve it with conditions, including environmental conditions, to offset or reduce its potential impacts; or (3) disapprove the transaction entirely.2

On December 10, 1998, based on the record developed to that point, the Board found that 

DM&E’s proposal satisfied the transportation aspects of 49 U.S.C. 10901, but explained that final approval awaited the completion of the environmental review process and its assessment of potential environmental effects and the costs of environmental mitigation that it might impose. The Board said it would issue a final decision on the project following completion of the EIS process, and that no new construction could begin until the final decision approving it was effective.

One of the purposes of an EIS is to develop environmental mitigation to minimize or 

eliminate environmental impacts discovered during the course of the environmental review. In a case in which environmental impacts are so severe that they cannot be mitigated effectively, 

1 In enacting ICCTA, Congress intended to facilitate rail line construction by changing the statutory 

standard for approval. Previously approval was required if the agency found that a project was consistent with public convenience and necessity; now approval is required unless the agency finds that the project is inconsistent

with public convenience and necessity. The Board noted in its December 10, 1998 decision (Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroads Corporation Construction into the Powder River Basin, STB Finance Docket No. 33407 (STB served December 10, 1998) (STB Decision), at 17) that “[u]nder the revised statute, proposed rail constructions are to be given the benefit of the doubt.”

2 Board-imposed conditions, including environmental mitigation, must be directly related to the 

transaction, reasonable, and supported by the record. The Board does not require mitigation of pre-existing environmental impacts, such as those resulting from existing railroad operations or land development. 

Appendix C

Page 1
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

3

rove the project under NEPA provided it has 

nmental impacts in an EIS. 

, SEA considered factors such as rail line design and 

ntenance costs, and potential environmental impacts. 

osed by the Applicant were considered. In addition, to 

also evaluated potential alternatives for detailed 

ne construction across USFS lands. This screening 

atives for detailed analysis in the Draft EIS: 

ed Alternative, DM&E’s preferred alternative in its 

ed Proposed Alternative, developed by rerouting 

environmentally sensitive areas. 

ation Corridors Alternative. 

at Alternative A (No-Action) could potentially have 

er service, would not satisfy the purpose and need for 

uld reduce these impacts. SEA determined that 

ficiently used existing rail corridors and avoided 

t was longer than the other Extension Alternatives, 

y of them difficult to mitigate, than Alternatives B and 

s purpose and need. Alternative C would generally 

acts than Alternative B. Because Alternative C 

nmental impact and would meet the purpose and need 

ned to be the least environmentally intrusive (See 

iscussion). 

the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS, and 

n detail in the Draft EIS. Among these suggestions 

dditional existing rail corridor alternative, similar to 

aluated as well. In preparing this Final EIS, SEA 

he results are discussed in the following sections. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

4

3.1.1 RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING 

PROGRAMThe Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), Public Law No. 105-178, 

passed in June of 1998, amended Title V of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. Section 7203 of TEA 21 has new guidelines for the Secretary of Transportation’s provision of direct loans and loan guarantees for rail-related projects to state and local governments; government-sponsored authorities and corporations; railroads; and joint ventures including at least one railroad. This revised program is referred to as the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program (RRIFP or Program). 

The Secretary has delegated to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) his authority 

under the Program to fund projects for: 

• Acquisition, improvement or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or 

facilities, including tracks, components of tracks, bridges, yards, buildings and shops;

• Refinancing outstanding debt incurred for these purposes; and • Development or establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities. 

FRA gives priority to projects that enhance public safety and the environment, promote economic development, enable U.S. companies to be more competitive internationally, are endorsed by plans prepared under 23 U.S.C. 135 by the state or states in which they are located, and preserve or enhance rail or intermodal service to small communities or rural areas. 

Designed as a last resort source of credit, the RRIFP helps railroads fund otherwise 

unaffordable projects. It requires that a railroad submit a letter from a lender that has extended it credit within the previous five years, but refuses financing for the applicant’s proposed project.FRA determines whether financial assistance is justified by present and future demand for the service the project will provide; whether the railroad’s obligation can be repaid within 25 years, based on an appropriate combination of credit-risk premiums and collateral; and whether the project is consistent with the purposes of the program and will economically and efficiently utilize the funds. Because Congress has not yet appropriated funds for administration, FRA requires applicants to pay a credit-risk premium, providing FRA funding to administer the loan. FRA obtains RRIFP monies from the U.S. Department of Treasury for loans to borrowers, which, through credit-risk premiums and loan payments, repay the loan to FRA. 

The RRIFP’s loans outstanding may not exceed $3.5 billion, so that new loans can only 

be made when unpaid principal falls below $3.5 billion. Of this total, $1.0 billion is reserved for 

Appendix C

Page 2
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

5

Class I railroads,3 so that nearly 700 Class II and Class 

he Program has no restrictions on how much a railroad 

classified by the Board according to average annual operating 

f $256.4 million or more; Class II railroads have AAOR of 

ss III railroads have AAOR of less than $20.5 million. DM&E is 

iod, SEA received many suggestions that the RRIFP 

E’s existing rail line. In evaluating the proposed 

notes that DM&E’s identified purpose and need to 

sistent with the intent of the RRIFP. DM&E proposes 

rail line, promote economic development, and enable 

re effectively in the international market place, as 

ver, it would not satisfy the other identified purpose of 

ss into the PRB. 

 states that rehabilitation of its existing rail line (about 

Dakota) would cost approximately $875.75 million in 

iding ($105.55 million) and improvements to existing 

e boosting the efficiency of DM&E’s operation, might 

ses in rail traffic associated with the proposed project. 

xisting rail line, adjusted to 2001 dollars, ranges from 

72.5 to 96.0 percent of the total $1.0 billion in funding 

the RRIFP. SEA’s informal inquiries indicate that 

an for a single railroad when several hundred railroads 

ailable through the Program. 

ntial for repaying any funds borrowed through the 

r the lowest monthly payment), and an average 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

6

Federal interest rate of 3.5 percent, DM&E’s monthly payment could be $3.63 million (on $725 million) to $4.82 million (on $960 million), or $43.56 to $57.8 million per year. With annual revenues of $50 to $60 million, DM&E could be forced to default since, even if its revenues cover loan payments, remaining revenues would not cover operation and maintenance. While after rehabilitation DM&E could cut operating and maintenance costs by deferring track maintenance to cover its loan payments, deferral would soon result in deteriorating track and, within a few years, DM&E’s situation would be similar to today’s. Without a dramatic increase in revenues which is not anticipated from simply rehabilitating the existing line, the benefits would be lost within a few years, probably resulting in restricted train operation (weights, speeds) and safety concerns throughout the system. 

It may be argued that DM&E could target just those parts of its system in most need of 

rehabilitation for more manageable loan payments. However, for DM&E and its shippers to realize the benefits of rail line rehabilitation, the improvements must be system-wide for improved safety and to allow operation of 286,000 pound rail cars throughout the system. System-wide upgrade would involve several hundred miles of track and cost several hundred million dollars. To continue the current “band-aid” approach to rehabilitation could reduce loan payments, but likely would neither generate additional revenue nor produce sufficient systemwide improvements to result in long-term benefits to rail operations or shippers. 

In short, although at first glance the RRIFP would seem a reasonable way for DM&E to 

seek funds to rehabilitate its existing line,4 it is unlikely that the Program could even lend funds 

sufficient to accomplish the system-wide improvements needed to reestablish DM&E as a safe and efficient railroad, that DM&E could repay the loan and still operate responsibly, or that a more affordable loan for less than the full need would achieve the railroad’s goal. After due consideration, SEA has determined that the RRIFP is not a reasonable, practicable, or possible funding method for the rehabilitation of DM&E’s existing line. 3.1.2 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE D

During the scoping phase of this project (before the Draft EIS phase), SEA received 

suggestions that existing transportation corridors – existing rail lines operated by DM&E and other rail carriers and roadways – be used to achieve DM&E’s transportation objectives. In addition, the USFS requested evaluation of an alternative that would use existing transportation corridors, as practicable, to minimize impact to the National Grasslands in South Dakota and Wyoming. SEA recognizes that using existing lines and transportation corridors generally is 

4 DM&E has actually applied for funds under the RRIFP, to maintain parts of its existing rail line, and it 

covers projects not contemplated as part of the PRB Expansion Project.

Appendix C

Page 3
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

7

ded that it does not increase overall impacts to the 

ring techniques to cope with existing facilities, or 

en shippers and users. In the Draft EIS, SEA 

s using existing transportation corridors. Of these 

-7 (Figure 3-1), could potentially efficiently utilize 

o the National Grasslands, and it was therefore retained 

 the Draft EIS. 

g DM&E main line from Wall, South Dakota, 

uld follow a DM&E secondary rail line south to 

e existing DM&E line, requiring new rail alignment 

Dakota, Alternative D would run adjacent and parallel 

gh Newcastle, Moorcroft, and Upton, Wyoming, 

 access the coal mines south of Gillette, Wyoming. 

re construction of new rail line on new right-of-way, 

ting BNSF right-of-way. Although Alternative D 

en Wall and Smithwick, the portion of the alternative 

 require major reconstruction to allow safe and 

hat the existing DM&E rail line south from Rapid City 

 of unit coal trains as presently configured, and would 

rves and level the grade. Even with this major 

t not be possible to develop a suitable alignment for 

native D is approximately 100 miles longer than the 

 SEA to meet DM&E’s need to create a shorter rail 

d that as Alternative D relies on existing rail line 

ghts-of-way would reduce the potential benefits 

corridor and would likely increase its overall impacts. 

ted little flexibility to avoid significant environmental 

ith potentially significant environmental impacts to 

urces, water resources, wetlands, air quality, noise, 

ncluded that these impacts would be greater and affect 

B or C. Based on the results of its analysis, SEA 

ntally preferable alternative in the Draft EIS. 

hat by choosing an existing corridor alternative that 

e, SEA prejudiced the likelihood that this alternative 

ile these comments challenged SEA’s conclusions and 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

8

its retention of only Alternative D-7 (and not the other 6 D Alternatives), they suggested no alternatives that would make a D Alternative more environmentally acceptable. 

In comments on Alternative D, EPA did not dispute SEA’s conclusion that the additional 

mileage of Alternative D significantly increased its potential impacts, particularly to wetlands and other water resources. EPA also recognized that Alternative D’s increased project mileage would reduce DM&E’s competitiveness and efficiency, perhaps making it more difficult to obtain coal transport contracts. EPA suggested evaluation of another D Alternative, called Modified D here, similar to Alternative D-6 in the Draft EIS. EPA’s proposed alignment would use DM&E’s existing rail line west from Wall, South Dakota and south from Rapid City, but would bypass Rapid City, eliminating both potential operational constraints within Rapid City and environmental impacts of realignment and increased rail operations in the City. 

Specifically, Modified D would use DM&E’s existing rail line south to Smithwick, then 

branch off to follow the alignment of Alternative C. Rather than follow the BNSF rail line at Edgemont, as Alternative D would, Modified D would continue along the alignment of Alternative C westward to access the mines. EPA reasoned that following the Alternative C alignment from Smithwick to the mines would shorten Alternative D’s overall length and might avoid the environmental impacts associated with both the additional mileage and passing through several towns.

In response to comments from EPA and others, SEA began extensive discussions with 

EPA. These discussions focused initially on the feasibility of upgrading DM&E’s existing Rapid City to Smithwick line for unit coal trains. EPA agreed with SEA’s determination that the existing line would require substantial construction to be suitable for unit coal trains. EPA noted, however, that use of Alternative C would also require substantial construction effort and questioned whether work done within an existing corridor could reduce the environmental impacts of constructing Alternative C. EPA recommended that SEA evaluate the cut and fill required for each Extension Alternative before determining the feasibility of upgrading DM&E’s existing line from Rapid City to Smithwick. EPA suggested that, if Modified D proved feasible, SEA should issue a Supplemental Draft EIS further comparing potential environmental impacts of Alternatives B, C, D, and Modified D. 

Working cooperatively, SEA and EPA developed a procedure for appropriate analysis to 

determine the feasibility of a Modified D alignment. This procedure included development of an alignment and gradeline for Modified D meeting EPA’s criteria, similar to DM&E’s, of a one percent grade suitable for movement of unit coal trains up to 49 miles per hour, that includes a bypass of Rapid City. This analysis would provide the cut and fill requirements for Modified D, which then could be compared to those of Alternatives B and C to determine the feasibility of Modified D. 

Appendix C

Page 4
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

9

Modified D

ngineering (cut-and-fill requirements) and 

ugh analysis of the potential impacts of this alternative, 

ry design drawings for Modified D between Wall and 

ity. DM&E developed an alignment complying with its 

ight-of-way where practical. However, straightening 

took the rail line outside DM&E’s existing right-of

Rapid City as outlined by EPA, while making maximum 

A decided that DM&E’s alignment appeared reasonable, 

posed Modified D. 

ment of the alignment of Modified D follows Table 3-1, 

n of Modified D (Figure 3-2). Detailed maps showing 

f Rapid City and significant realignments of the existing 

7. Other maps of Modified D are included in the Draft 

ve C or D. 

Table 3-1 

Alternative D Segments 

art End

orth of Wall Section 26, T2N, R9E, about 3.0 miles 

east of Box Elder 

 R9E, about 3.0 

 Elder 

Center of Section 27, T1N, R8E, about 1.0 mile north of Warbonnet 

 27, T1N, R8E, 

rth of 

Section 31, T8S, R8E, just north of Smithwick 

R8E, just north 

Section 29, T9S, R6E, west of Dry Creek

ns in one direction and the next turns in the opposite. DM&E 

h two or more reverse curves at the same time, pulling the cars in 

s the possibility of train derailment.

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

10

Table 3-1 

Modified Alternative D Segments 

Segment Start End

Tepee Creek South Segment (3.7 miles) 

Section 29, T9S, R6E, west of Dry Creek 

SW corner of Section 23, T9S, R6E 

Heppner Segment (3.1 miles) 

SW corner of Section 23, T9S, R6E

Section 29, T9S, R5E, SW of Heppner 

Hat Creek North Segment (7.3 miles) 

Section 29, T9S, R5E, SW of Heppner

Section 25, T9S, R3E at Plum Creek 

Edgemont Segment (3.8 miles) 

Section 25, T9S, R3E at Plum Creek

SW corner of Section 15, T9S, R3E 

Edgemont North Segment (6.9 miles) 

SW corner of Section 15, T9S, R3E

Center of Section 26, T8S, R2E, near existing BNSF rail line 

BNSF Segment (8.0 miles) 

Center of Section 26, T8S, R2E, near BNSF rail line 

NW corner of Section 25, T7S, R1E 

Burdock School Segment (6.0 miles) 

NW corner of Section 25, T7S, R1E

Section 15, T40N, R60W, south of Twenty One Divide, at WY/SD border 

Wyoming Segment (43.9 miles) 

Section 15, T40N, R60W, south of Twenty One Divide, at WY/SD border 

North-center of Section 12, T42N, R67W, at Lion Creek 

450 Segment (16.0 miles) 

North-center of Section 12, T42N, R67W, at Lion Creek 

Southeast corner of Section 29, T43N, R69W, south of Little Thunder Creek 

South Arm (22.2 miles) 

SE corner of Section 29, T43N, R69W, south of Little Thunder Creek

Section 2, T40N, R71W at Antelope coal mine 

North Antelope East Mine Loop Alternative (1.5 miles) 

NE corner of Section 34, T41N, R70W

NE corner of Section 27, T41N, R70W, west of Porcupine Reservoir upon joining existing spur to North Antelope/Rochelle coal mine 

North Antelope West Mine Loop Alternative (2.4 miles) 

Center of Section 32, T41N, R70W, north of Antelope Creek. 

Between Sections 33 and 34, T41N, R70W, north of Antelope Creek upon joining existing North Antelope/Rochelle mine spur. 

Appendix C

Page 5
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

11

Table 3-1 

Alternative D Segments 

art End

ion 14, T43N, 

Section 17, T43, R70W at Black Thunder coal mine. Includes spur to serve Jacobs Ranch coal mine. 

ion 14, T43N, 

Section 14, T43N, R70W at Jacobs Ranch coal mine and second spur in Section 17, T43N, R70W at Black Thunder coal mine. 

tion 6, T42N, 

Creek Road. 

Section 9, T42N, R70W, at North Rochelle coal mine. 

ion 29, T43N, 

Little Thunder 

Section 25, T48N, R71W at Caballo coal mine; includes spurs serving Caballo Rojo, Coal Creek, Cordero, and Belle Ayr coal mines. 

gment would begin Modified D, generally following the 

 Dakota to about 3.0 miles east of Box Elder, South 

ximately 1.0 mile north of Wall, at the point where the 

ough town. Rather than extend westward, it would 

, through the town of Wall and under I-90 southwest of 

t for about 3,000 feet past I-90. At approximately the 

oxelder Creek Segment would branch from the existing 

 the north side of Bull Creek, 1,000 to 2,000 feet north 

oss under I-90, about 4.0 miles east of the interchange 

would likely require raising I-90 as part of the 

ne.

ld continue northwest, approximately 1,800 feet north 

d in the northwest corner of Section 7, T1N, R15E. It 

Jensen Road before rejoining the existing DM&E rail 

ere the existing rail line crosses the Cheyenne River in 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

12

Relocation of the rail line right-of-way along this portion of the Boxelder Creek Segment 

would be necessary to straighten and flatten the rail line to the grade and curve requirements for this project. The existing rail line winds along Bull Creek, creating numerous sharp curves. The Bull Creek drainage is not wide enough to allow the rail line to be optimized and still accommodate the stream channel. In order to avoid relocating numerous miles of Bull Creek or placing it in a pipe or drainage ditch, the rail alignment had to be relocated out of the drainage and along the sideslope of the creek.

The Boxelder Creek Segment would generally follow the same alignment as the existing 

DM&E rail line westward to near Box Elder. After crossing the Cheyenne River, this segment would pass through the town of Wasta and under I-90. It would continue south along the west side of the Cheyenne River. At Boxelder Creek, this segment would turn west away from the river and follow the Boxelder Creek drainage. It would pass through the communities of Owanka and New Underwood, crossing Boxelder Creek numerous times. The Boxelder Creek Segment would end in the center of Section 26, T2N, R9E, approximately 3.0 miles east of the town of Box Elder. Rapid City Bypass Segment

The Rapid City Bypass Segment was developed at the suggestion of EPA, to avoid both 

the operational problems associated with moving trains through Rapid City on the existing rail line and the potential environmental impacts associated with increasing train operations along the existing rail line. The 10.2-mile Rapid City Bypass Segment would begin about 3.0 miles east of Box Elder, curve to the southwest from the existing DM&E rail line, cross Boxelder Creek in the center of Section 27, T2N, R9E, continuing southwest, then cross Section 33 diagonally from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. Continuing southwest, it would pass through the northwest portion of Section 5, T1N, R9E, the southeast corner of Section 6 and the northwest corner of Section 7.

The segment would cross County Road 212, the southeast portion of Section 12, T1N, 

R8E, and Hawthorne Ditch in the southwest corner of the section, then County Roads C232 and T210 in the northwest corner of Section 13, T1N, R8E. It would traverse Section 14, T1N, R8E diagonally from northeast to southwest, crossing Murphy Ditch in the center of the section and State Route 40 and the abandoned Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad grade in the southwest portion of the section. From there it would continue southwest, crossing Rapid Creek and Warren Lamb Road in the southwest corner of Section 14, then move through the southeast tip of Section 15 into Section 22. In the northeast corner of Section 22, it would cross Southside Ditch and the previous channel of Rapid Creek, then in the center of Section 22 it would curve south, crossing Cyclone Ditch and Dry Creek. The bypass would rejoin the existing DM&E rail 

Appendix C

Page 6
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

13

tely 1.0 mile north of Warbonnet, just south of the 

t would begin about 1.0 mile north of Warbonnet at the 

nt would rejoin the existing DM&E rail line, and 

f State Route 79. It would pass through the towns of 

. It would cross numerous drainages – Cheyenne River, 

 Lame Johnny Creek, Beaver Creek, and Sand Creek – 

would be channelized or relocated to accommodate 

uld generally use the existing DM&E line, SEA 

reconstruction along new alignments to achieve design 

 involve slightly straightening curves in small sections 

quired. However, at the crossing of Spring Creek and 

would be required. Between the north and south banks 

ine describes a double “S” curve. New rail line would 

line through a dollar sign ($). Another “S” curve in 

e curve, requiring the line to cross French Creek about 

ortheast on the south side of the creek, and cross the 

burn. After passing through Fairburn, approximately 

ld turn north to rejoin the existing rail line about 2.5 

d D would follow the same alignment as the Smithwick 

ternative B. 

w the same alignment as described in the Draft EIS for 

native C. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

14

This 3.1-mile Heppner Segment of Modified D would follow the Heppner Segment 

described in the Draft EIS for Alternative B. Hat Creek North Segment

This 7.3-mile segment of Modified D would follow the same alignment as described in the 

Draft EIS for the Hat Creek North Segment of Alternative C. Edgemont Segment

This 3.8-mile Edgemont Segment of Modified D would follow the Edgemont Segment 

described in the Draft EIS for Alternative B. Edgemont North Segment

This 6.9-mile segment of Modified D would follow the same alignment as described in the 

Draft EIS for the Edgemont North Segment of Alternative C. BNSF Segment

The 8.0-mile BNSF Segment of Modified D would follow the BNSF Segment described in 

the Draft EIS for Alternative B. Burdock School Segment

The 6.0-mile Burdock School Segment of Modified D would follow the same alignment 

as described in the Draft EIS for the Burdock School Segment of Alternative C. Wyoming Segment

This 43.9-mile segment of Modified D would follow the Wyoming Segment described in 

the Draft EIS for Alternative B. 450 Segment

Appendix C

Page 7
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

15

dified D would be the same segment as the 450 

ternative C. 

 of Modified D would be the same segment as the 

t EIS for Alternative C. 

ative

Mine Loop Alternative of Modified D would be the 

Mine Loop Alternative described in the Draft EIS for 

ative

 Mine Loop Alternative of Modified D would be the 

 Mine Loop Alternative described in the Draft EIS for 

 of Modified D would be the same segment as the 

t EIS for Alternative C. 

native

of Modified D would be the same segment as the Black 

cribed in the Draft EIS for Alternative C. 

native

 Mine Loop Alternative segment of Modified D would 

r South Mine Loop Alternative described in the Draft 

ek Option

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

16

The 4.1-mile North Rochelle Mine Spur-School Creek Option of Modified D would be the 

same segment as the North Rochelle Mine Spur-School Creek Option described in the Draft EIS for Alternative C. 3.1.2.2 Development of Grade Profile for Modified D

After SEA and EPA approved the alignment of Modified D, DM&E developed plan and 

profile drawings showing waterway crossings and the limits of cut and fill. The extent of excavation and fill areas, and amounts of material to be excavated and filled was also calculated. SEA determined that the horizontal (route) and vertical (grade) alignments appeared to meet EPA’s criteria for Modified D, and that the design represented a reasonable and credible effort to develop a heavy-haul rail line using the existing rail line alignment. SEA’s further analysis of the information indicated the following regarding Modified D: 

• The earthwork would be very unbalanced, with extensive cuts and excavation 

south of Rapid City to Smithwick and mostly fill from Rapid City to Wall. 

• Excavation (133 million cubic yards) for Modified D would be about four times 

the fill (33 million cubic yards) required for it.6 Because it is unlikely a local or 

regional need could be identified for such a large quantity of fill material and it is generally uneconomical to transport fill more than a few miles, large areas would be required along the rail alignment for the disposal (dumping) of excess fill. Because of the distance between areas of cut and fill, even with all the excess excavated material, it is still likely that borrow areas from outside the right-of-way would be required to meet the local need for fill. 

• Earthwork quantities (133 million cubic yards of excavated material and 33 

million cubic yards of fill) appeared reasonable, based on the gradeline required for the rail line and the topography of the area. The existing line generally has a grade of 1.5 percent, with nearly 2 percent in some locations. Given the 

6 Since about 5 million cubic yards of material would fill the average football stadium, earthwork for this 

project would fill about 665 football stadiums with about 8.8 million large dump trucks of material.

Appendix C

Page 8
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

17

ng line, significant excavation would be required to 

rcent compensated grade. 

odified D were likely underestimated. They were 

 rail bed cross-section, similar to those shown in 

 using typical dimensions for a heavy-haul rail line, 

height of the rail bed, subballast, ballast, rail, and 

ming a standard 3:1 slope. From this standard template, 

equired to achieve the necessary grade was calculated. 

ns, cuts would be more than 100 feet deep, resulting in 

that would require benching (stair-stepping) the slope 

of the cut. Benching to stabilize sideslopes, reduce 

r runoff draining into the cut likely would result in 

viously projected. 

were used in preparing the engineering estimates, but in 

rcept surface water, and streams would drain into the 

quire larger ditches to accommodate the stream flow, 

ut, which would increase the material excavated to 

Modifications to ditch sizes would also be needed to 

rom the rail line. 

ed for reconstructing existing roadway alignments to 

evel. If Modified D were approved and built, however, 

ment might need to be raised or lowered to bring them 

 rail line or to construct grade separations. 

ver crossings would need to be raised over 40 feet, 

ng and fill within the river flood plain at these 

ment and grade, realignment would be necessary at 

gure 3-16), moving the existing rail line several 

he middle of town. To achieve a suitable grade, the 

et of fill, with a width-of-fill at the base of the rail bed 

ot-high wall would essentially divide Fairburn in half, 

cent) of town would be converted to rail line right-of

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

18

• At many locations excavation for the Modified D Alternative would cut off creeks 

crossing the rail line so that the rail line cut would be lower than the creek bed and the creek would flow into the rail cut. In some cases, the creek would be conveyed in the cut for only a short distance before returning to the existing creek channel.But there are cases where the depth of cut would require up to several miles of creek flow confinement in the cut. In all these areas, the creeks would be dewatered, impacting wetlands and water for wildlife and livestock, and making the water unavailable for irrigation. 

• In several areas, cuts of 50 feet or greater for over 4 miles would be required, 

essentially creating a steep-sloped canyon along the rail line. Such cuts would drain runoff into the rail cut rather than streams and creeks, altering stream hydrologies, resulting in less water in some locations for wetlands, wildlife, livestock, and irrigation. Areas below the return of streams to their channels would experience increased flows, and sediment transport and deposition. Wildlife funneled into these areas would be more easily struck by a passing train since steep slopes and the length of the cuts provide no convenient escape route. 

• Modified D’s estimated 133 million cubic yards of earthwork is many times more 

than Alternative B (11 million cubic yards) and Alternative C (17 million cubic yards) require. Differences in cut and fill, and the bridges, stream channelization, drainage structures, slope stabilization, and erosion control would likely result in significant cost differences between these alternatives as well. Alternative B is estimated to cost $430 million and Alternative C $685 million, but Modified D is estimated to cost $2 billion to construct. And because of the cut-and-fill understatement and road reconstruction for Modified D, the actual cost of construction of Modified D is likely to be substantially higher than $2 billion.

• Even using the alignment of Alternative C in Wyoming and the bypass of Rapid 

City, Modified D would be 85.7 and 85.9 miles longer than Alternatives B and C, respectively, offering no operational advantages over the other alternatives. Travel distance, travel time, fuel consumption and associated emissions, rail line maintenance, and wear and tear on locomotives and rail cars would all be increased. The additional length of the rail line would also likely require additional passing sidings along the entire DM&E mainline. 

SEA had eliminated Alternative D-6 (basically the same as Modified D without the Rapid 

City bypass) from detailed consideration in the Draft EIS because it would not avoid new rail construction in the National Grasslands, offer a shorter or more competitive route into the PRB, or provide construction or operational advantages over Alternatives B and C. EPA did not 

Appendix C

Page 9
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

19

EA’s concerns about these issues, only that it might 

native C. SEA has determined that Modified D would 

ive D (from Edgemont to Black Thunder Mine, 82.8 

 for Alternative D). There would be no impacts to 

Newcastle, Moorcroft, and Upton, and bypassing 

ential impacts to human resources from increased train 

ould still be about 85.9 miles longer than Alternative C. 

ns, SEA has determined that Modified D would have 

f them difficult or impossible to mitigate. The primary 

D is using DM&E’s existing line. But a thorough 

al benefits of using the existing rail corridor would be 

and the new right-of-way that would be required, and 

 required construction. Modified D offers no 

h as reduced distance, fewer environmental impacts, 

g – and the existing alignment could not reasonably be 

d D also does not avoid the Thunder Basin National 

alo Gap National Grassland would be avoided.

 Alternative D, nor Modified D, is a reasonable and 

eliminated them from further consideration in this Final 

 in conducting this additional analysis, and after 

n potentially severe environmental impacts, discussed 

 considering SEA’s results, EPA has concurred that 

e alternative for this project, (see Appendix C). EPA 

e Modified D Alternative, a Supplemental Draft EIS is 

 OF EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES 

 potential environmental impacts of extending 

th Dakota, westward to the mines in the PRB, by 

C, and the original D, on a variety of natural and human 

e Draft EIS led SEA to modify its conclusion that the 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

20

original D Alternative would not be reasonable and feasible, and, as discussed above, the Modified D Alternative also has been carefully assessed, but eliminated from further consideration.

The comments on the Draft EIS analysis of the Extension Alternatives are summarized in 

Appendix B. Comment responses that required no additional analysis are included at the end of each comment summary. Comments that required additional analysis or more extensive discussion are summarized and discussed in later sections of this chapter. 

As explained in the following sections, SEA has analyzed, by environmental topic, the 

potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the two remaining Extension Alternatives, B (Figure 3-18) and C (Figure 3-19). However, it should be noted that these alternatives are not continuous from Wall to the coal mines and must be combined with alternatives for the Spring Creek and Hay Canyon areas and the options to access the Black Thunder and North Antelope coal mines in order to consider the potential impacts of a continuous route. After assessing all of these alternatives, SEA presents its recommendations for the environmentally preferable Extension Alternative (Alternative C combined with the Phiney Flat Alternative, WG Divide Alternative, Black Thunder North Mine Loop, and North Antelope East Mine Loop). 3.2.1 SAFETY

The proposed project would create new rail line crossings of roadways, most at the same 

level as the roadway (at-grade or grade crossings), requiring vehicles to cross the rail line, and creating the potential for accidents. In the Draft EIS, SEA determined the number of new grade crossings Alternatives B and C would create and used it as an indicator of the potential for train/vehicle accidents. As discussed in detail in the Draft EIS, Appendix H, SEA also evaluated the potential for accidents at grade crossings.

Alternative B would create 44 new grade crossings, and Alternative C would create 45 

new grade crossings. Although Alternative C would have one more grade crossing than Alternative B, SEA determined that Alternative B would have a greater impact on safety due to a significant potential for accidents at four road crossings: • Old U.S. Highway 18, Fall River County, South Dakota (100 million ton operation level), • U.S. Highway 85, Niobrara County, Wyoming (50 and 100 million ton level), • U.S. Highway 450, Campbell County, Wyoming (20, 50, and 100 million ton level), and • Bishop Road, Campbell County, Wyoming (50 and 100 million ton level). Alternative C would also have significant potential for accidents at three road crossings: 

Appendix C

Page 10
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

21

y, Wyoming (50 and 100 million ton level), 

nty, Wyoming (100 million ton level), and 

Wyoming (50 and 100 million ton level). 

tive C would also be affected by Alternative B. 

iod, DM&E submitted a grade crossing mitigation plan 

ection for which DM&E proposed to pay substantially 

percent rather than 5-10 percent) to implement. SEA 

crossings would experience significant increases in 

ossing protection provided in this plan. As discussed in 

e Board impose a condition on any decision approving 

ith its grade crossing mitigation plan. Additionally, 

n in Chapter 12 which would require DM&E to provide 

se crossings.

sted a greater likelihood of a train/vehicle accident, as 

ural grade crossing than at an urban grade crossing.

e of accident frequency at public grade crossings, but 

gs or fatal versus non-fatal accidents.

compiled additional information on grade crossing 

 a fatality, from the South Dakota and Wyoming 

tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

S) database.7 The South Dakota DOT maintains 

t does not publish a report which classifies these 

e FARS database reported 15 fatal grade crossing 

nd 1999. Of these, 13 occurred on rural roadways, and 

Based on the data for this six year period, approximately 

sing accidents in South Dakota occurred at rural grade 

in agreement with these numbers. 

Analysis Reporting System, at http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/,

lves a train and a driver-operated vehicle. Colliding passenger 

ld trains colliding with no driver-operated vehicles involved. A 

loss of human life as a direct result of the crash or collision. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

22

The Wyoming DOT provided 

grade crossing accident statistics from 1983 through 2000. Wyoming’s data indicates a total of 105 grade crossings accidents during this time period, with 51 occurring in urban areas and 54 in rural areas. The 105 grade crossing accidents reported by Wyoming DOT for the 17-year time period between 1983 and 2000 resulted in six fatalities, four at rural grade crossings, and two at urban grade crossings. According to Wyoming DOT a location is considered urban if it is within the boundaries of an incorporated area or has a population of 5,000 or more. Based on this data, approximately 67 percent of fatal grade crossing accidents in Wyoming occur at rural grade crossings. The FARS database does not report any fatalities at Wyoming grade crossings from 1994 through 1999. 

 A 1994 report on fatal crashes at grade crossings issued by the NHTSA8 indicates that 

60 percent of all fatal rail crossing crashes in the United States occur in rural areas. The study also reports that between 1975 and 1992 over 30 percent of all fatal crashes at grade crossings occurred at crossings on roadways with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Between 19829 and 

1992, over 30 percent of fatal crashes occurred at grade crossings where a crossbuck10 was 

posted. The 1994 report states that the majority of grade crossing accidents occurred on straight, blacktop roadways, under dry road conditions. Poor road conditions apparently are not a major factor in rail grade crossing accidents. This may be due to drivers traveling at slower speeds and paying greater attention to driving conditions under bad weather or other poor road conditions.

8 Terry Klein, Tina Morgan, and Adrienne Weiner, Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Fatal Crash and 

Demographic Descriptors, National Technical Information Service, 1994. 

9 Information prior to 1982 used a different criteria for crossing protection that does not specify crossbucks 

as a means of crossing protection. 

10 Crossbucks are black-and-white X-shaped signs that read “RAILROAD CROSSING.”

Appendix C

Page 11
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

23

ents have in common are driver-related and include 

arning signals, and failure to be attentive. 

rnatives would create predominantly rural grade 

majority of these crossings would not exceed Board 

ever, in the unlikely event of a train/vehicle accident at 

eater likelihood of a fatality occurring. 

mber of new grade crossings each Extension 

, Alternative B would have 44 new grade crossings 

ade crossings. SEA looked at the number of new grade 

ial for each alternative to affect vehicle safety. The 

nity for vehicles to encounter a train. Therefore, it is 

grade crossings.12

lysis, SEA has determined that, as noted in the Draft 

e potentially significant impacts to vehicle safety at 

y DM&E, and recommended in Chapter 12 of this 

below significant levels. Alternative C would have one 

cy are one or more additional accidents every 100 years for 

sings determined to have one or more accidents every 20 years; in 

re accidents every 40 years), and one or more additional accidents 

other crossings), as discussed in detail in the Draft EIS, Chapter 

deral Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Closed Crossing Initiative, 

Highway-Rail Safety. At this conference, held on July 7-10, 1991 

k to achieve a 25 percent reduction in the number of rail/highway 

s of December, 2000, FRA had achieved approximately 52 

crossings. SEA agrees with FRA that reductions in grade 

e vehicle safety and supports efforts to close additional crossings. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

24

more grade crossing than Alternative B. But, because this would be of a rural roadway with a low level of vehicle traffic, the potential safety impacts at this crossing would be minimal. Therefore, SEA determined Alternative C, with the mitigation recommended in Chapter 12, would have no significant impact on safety. 3.2.2 TRANSPORTATION

As SEA acknowledged in the Draft EIS, any of the proposed Extension Alternatives have 

the potential to impact transportation in the project area. For example, there would be temporary delays to motorists during construction of grade crossings, delays to motorists when trains are passing through grade crossings, and delays to emergency vehicles. However, SEA determined that due to the low population of the area and low level of vehicle traffic on the roads crossed by the Extension Alternatives (44 or 45 new grade crossings depending on the alternative for more than 250 miles of new rail line), neither of the proposed alternatives would have a significant impact on vehicle delay. SEA indicated in the Draft EIS that it is possible that an emergency vehicle could be blocked by a passing train when responding to an emergency. But because emergencies are random events, SEA saw no valid way to predict the likelihood of a passing train delaying an emergency vehicle, whether such a delay would result in increased loss of life or property, or whether any differences in the potential to delay emergency vehicles would exist between the Extension Alternatives. 

Comments on the Draft EIS raised concerns that the rural nature of the project area and 

the limited road access to many areas would impede the movement of emergency vehicles, and that delays to emergency vehicles responding to medical emergencies and fires could result in increased loss of life and property damage. In response, SEA contacted a number of emergency service providers,13 including fire and rescue, ambulance, and police. All indicated that to the 

extent possible, they respond to emergencies along routes which would avoid potential delays, including those created by a passing train. SEA recognizes that in sparsely populated rural areas like the area around Extension Alternatives, a route which would avoid the need to cross the rail line may not be available. In such cases, emergency service providers indicated that they respond to an emergency with a primary and alternate route in case an obstruction is encountered. If available, a second response unit may be dispatched along another route or notified of the emergency so it can respond quickly should the first unit be delayed. In the rural, largely undeveloped area of the Extension Alternatives, the firebreak along the rail line, which also would serve as a rail line service road, could provide a potentially shorter route to an open 

13 These included Kansas City, Lees Summit, and St. Peters, Missouri; Scottsbluff, Nebraska; Aberdeen, 

South Dakota, Baltimore, Maryland, and Durham, North Carolina.

Appendix C

Page 12
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

25

 an alternate crossing. Appropriate advance planning 

cy service providers generally should allow for 

in the project area. 

uth Dakota and Wyoming had regulations or guidelines 

d block a road crossing. In Wyoming, the Wyoming 

) rules conform to the “General Code of Operating 

es prohibit a train from blocking a public grade 

if the train is in motion, disabled, complying with a 

ation, stopped to avoid an accident, or no traffic is 

ons prohibit a train from blocking an emergency 

ore than 20 minutes, unless the train is disabled or 

or object on the rail line. Crossings, and thus vehicles, 

if an emergency vehicle is not being blocked from 

 states’ guidelines that, under normal operating 

locked from responding to a call for 10 minutes or 

is represents over three times the period of time 

ted for this project to pass a crossing.14 Thus, while 

s would potentially block movement of vehicles, 

mal and anticipated operating conditions, none of them 

elines regarding the blocking of crossings. 

gation of the potential impacts of the proposed project 

rmined that its analysis presented in the Draft EIS was 

significant impact to vehicle delay or the movement of 

ternative B or Alternative C. 

 State of South Dakota, noted that the Wall Municipal 

submitted plans to the Federal Aviation 

rt runway by 1,300 feet, from 3,500 feet to 4,800 feet. 

y 7,400 feet in length traveling at 45 miles per hour requiring 3.1 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

26

 The State was concerned that the proposed new rail line construction would interfere with the proposed runway expansion. In response, SEA obtained plans for the airport which showed the existing runway and proposed runway expansion in relation to the proposed rail line. 

The proposed alignment for new rail line construction does not appear to present any 

operational concerns with existing airport operations. However, under the proposed expansion, the existing runway would extend into the right-of-way of the proposed rail line, resulting in a direct conflict between the two facilities. Presently, the proposed runway expansion calls for the existing runway to be extended to the northwest. It does not appear that adequate space is available to feasibly extend the runway to the southeast, as other airport facilities, including numerous fuel tanks, and the town of Wall are presently located in this area. While the presence of the proposed rail alignment would preclude extension of the full 1,300 feet, it may be possible to extend the runway several hundred feet without resulting in conflict with the rail line.However, this additional distance may be inadequate to provide for the safe take-off and landing of the type of aircraft intended to be served by the full extension. 

SEA consulted airport personnel for more information on the status of the proposed 

extension. SEA learned that the proposed extension is part of its long-range plans, and while desirable, is subject to obtaining Federal funding.15 No date for construction of the extension has been established, and airport personnel indicated that the runway extension probably would not take place until after completion of the resurfacing of the existing runway, scheduled for 2003 or 2004.16

15 It is expected that the FAA would provide 90 percent of the funding, the City of Wall would provide 6 

percent, and the State of South Dakota would provide 4 percent.

16 Personnel at Wall Municipal Airport expressed support for the proposed PRB Extension Project. While 

the new rail line construction would conflict with the proposed runway extension, they emphasized that the runway project was a proposal and may not ever be approved, funded, and constructed.

Appendix C

Page 13
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

27

, SEA believes that it is currently somewhat 

 of the runway will ever occur, and that, in any event, 

away. Thus, construction of the new rail line, if final 

 completed at such time as the airport is in a position 

n project. The alignment of the new rail construction 

he full runway extension. However, the runway 

ars, through review of aerial photography, that it may 

ed alignment slightly, without significant changes to 

pacts, to make the rail line compatible with the runway 

nsultations to accomplish this take place, SEA has 

re DM&E to coordinate with the City of Wall and the 

potentially develop the proposed rail alignment, if 

y expansion to remain feasible (See Chapter 12). 

 the project area of the proposed Extension 

ming, business and commercial, and residential uses. 

consideration of land use issues beyond those included 

in response to comments received on the Draft EIS. 

nching under the heading of rangeland/grazing land.

ary for raising livestock. In the project area, cattle are 

eep, horses, and goats also are raised. Farms for 

 as ranches. The activity of raising livestock and 

 as ranching. 

he potential impacts to ranching (Chapter 4, Section 

astures and allotments, 

ures and allotments from necessary resources (such as 

ents, 

rns and operations, 

 and allotments and disruption of normal livestock 

ents, such as fences, buildings, or shelter belts, 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

28

• spread of noxious weeds, • loss of livestock to vehicle and train accidents, and• loss of forage due to railroad-induced fires. These impacts differ in nature and extent for each ranch crossed by a potential 

alternative. Impacts to ranching depend on variables such as the size of the ranch, how and where the rail alignment would cross the ranch, and how the lands within the ranch are managed and operated. In order to compare the different alternatives, SEA determined the amount of grazing and rangeland potentially affected by each alternative. SEA used the amounts of grazing and rangeland converted to rail line right-of-way as an indicator of the potential project impacts to ranching. Thus, the more grazing and rangeland affected, the greater the potential for significant adverse impacts to ranching. 

The Draft EIS indicated that Alternative B would cross approximately 231.6 miles of 

rangeland (ranchland), including 90.3 miles in South Dakota (4,378.2 acres) and 141.3 miles in Wyoming (6,850.9 acres). Alternative C would cross approximately 207.0 miles of ranchland, including 75.8 miles in South Dakota (3,673.2 acres) and 121.6 miles in Wyoming (5,895.7 acres).

A number of comments on the Draft EIS appeared to support and reiterate the types and 

range of potential impacts to ranchland and ranching operations SEA identified in the Draft EIS.  Therefore, no additional analysis of these impacts was required. 

SEA did receive comments expressing concern that ranching should not have been 

classified as an agricultural land use because it differs from farming. SEA agrees that ranching and farming are dramatically different uses of the land. SEA had grouped farming and ranching under agriculture because both ranching and farming are activities dependent upon the land and involve the production of food and feed, whether it be for human or animal consumption. While it does not effect the overall analysis of impacts, SEA has broken agricultural land use into ranching and farming for this Final EIS in response to concerns raised in comments. 

Additionally, SEA received comments that ranching should have been assessed under the 

category of business and industrial because ranching is a business and many persons within the project area depend upon it for their livelihood. SEA recognizes that ranching is a means of making a living. In the Draft EIS, however, business and industrial land referred to areas developed as stores, factories, restaurants, service stations, and other places of commerce that serve the general public. Ranches include facilities such as barns, corrals, garages, and homes, but typically people do not do business at a ranch in the same manner as at shopping centers, malls, or industrial and business parks. Therefore, SEA appropriately treated ranching separately from business and industrial land use. 

Appendix C

Page 14
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

29

tial impacts to ranching summarized above have 

are operated to make the most efficient and productive 

e resources the land provides. Additionally, they are 

 power and labor. Disruption of ranching operations 

 new rail line would reduce the forage available on the 

 to feed livestock. More time and labor costs to work 

ing livestock, would likely be required. Additionally, 

as fences, barns, and corrals may be incurred due to 

l line construction. The potential economic impacts of 

an operating ranch are discussed in greater detail in 

and to indicate potential land use impacts to farming. 

 the Draft EIS (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.6.1.2) would 

il line right-of-way, 

smaller fields, 

ccess fields, 

of irrigation structures, and 

s by large, slow-moving farm equipment. 

opland would have economic impacts (See the 

onomics). The only comments SEA received regarding 

d by the Extension Alternatives (not including the Hay 

ter in this chapter) indicated that, like ranching, 

 farming is a business and a means for many in the 

ropland involves the use of land to produce feed and 

 under agricultural land use. SEA’s approach does not 

ct impacts on farming. As the comments received on 

ned that no additional analysis of this topic was 

ally be affected by construction and operation of either 

ences are associated with the ranches and farms found 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

30

throughout the project area. Most residences are in low density areas and may be a mile or more from their closest neighbor. To a lesser extent, these are areas of higher density residences. SEA noted in the Draft EIS that construction and operation of a new rail line would result in a variety of impacts to residential land use, including increased noise, safety considerations, dust, traffic congestion, and potential vehicle delays, as discussed in detail in the Draft EIS, Section 4.3.6.2.

A number of commenters are concerned that residential properties would decline in value 

as a result of construction and operation of a new rail line, or increases in rail traffic along existing portions of DM&E’s rail line. As noted in the Draft EIS, Section 4.3.6.2, SEA expects some negative impact to residential property values. 

In response to the comments SEA received on this issue, SEA conducted additional 

research. SEA’s analysis shows that residential property values are based on a variety of factors.Valuation of property is heavily influenced by subjectivity and personal preferences for living space. Also, determinants of residential real estate prices include: 

• supply and demand • economic trends • season of the year • location in relation to amenities • geographic location • social location In general, there is a limited supply of most types of real estate, whatever its size, location, 

or type. The demand for a particular type of real estate is countered by its availability.17 As 

demand increases, so will price. As availability decreases, price will increase. 

The real estate market is highly influenced by the economy. Generally, in good economic 

times, real estate prices will increase, reflective of increased employment, wages, and the confidence of the consumers that they will remain employed and be able to handle the debt associated with purchasing a home. Low interest rates also may increase real estate prices as more persons seek to take advantage of the lower payments and debt associated with lower rates. During slower economic conditions, consumers may be worried about assuming greater debt along with concerns about remaining employed or reduced wages. During these times, demand for real estate generally declines, potentially causing prices to fall to levels low enough to entice buyers.

17 Mattson-Teig, “Cleveland Targets New Growth Industries,” National Real Estate Investor, Atlanta, 

Georgia, 15 October, 2000, pp. 38-43.

Appendix C

Page 15
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

31

e due to the season of the year. As people tend to 

eal estate prices may see a rise at these times due to 

et Stats,” at http://realtor.com/basics/sell/setprice/stats.asp.

ocation” holds true in the real estate market. Access to 

dential property value. Nearby amenities such as gas 

ainment opportunities make real estate more attractive 

demand for a particular location. People generally 

 similar demographics. Income, perceived wealth, 

 of the attributes people may consider when looking 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

32

Additionally, geographic location, or physical location, may affect the value of a 

particular property. A favorable climate, scenery, and proximity to such things as lakes or parks often increase residential property demand. Proximity to industrial development (or as in this case a rail line) may cause the property to be viewed as undesirable and reduce the demand. However, people vary in their tastes and tolerances, including tolerance to noise.19 Thus, even 

proximity to a perceived nuisance such as a rail line may have little or no affect on property value if other factors increasing its potential value are present. 

In the final analysis, real estate values are determined largely by the demand. If a property 

is in an area of high demand, be it because of the type or size of the house or location, its value will be sustained, even if some negative aspects are present. If the property is not in a demand area, its value will suffer. The personal preferences of the particular buyer are also important. One buyer may be willing to pay much more than another buyer for the same property. The value of a property is therefore highly dependent on finding the right buyer for the right property. 

Consequently, while SEA acknowledges that negative impacts to property values are 

possible from this rail line, it is impossible to generalize about the potential impacts to residential real estate values along the proposed project. One house may experience a reduced selling price while the one next door may not. An economic slow down may cause all real estate prices in the area to decline, while a growing economy may result in price increases for properties adjacent to the rail line. Some decline in value to residential properties likely would occur during construction and initial operation of the proposed line. Real estate values may see a decline due in part to uncertainties about the project and its potential impacts. However, over time, residents often adapt to rail operations and real estate prices could stabilize or increase so that, over time, the proposed project could have relatively little impact on the price of residential real estate. 

19 Walters, Noise and Prices, 1975, pp. 41, 58.

Numerous commenters expressed concern that DM&E, a private corporation, could be 

allowed to take land from private citizens against their will through eminent domain, a process whereby land can be acquired from private citizens for the general benefit of all citizens. SEA points out that because of DM&E’s, and for the most part all railroads’, responsibility to provide rail service to those shippers requesting it, many states have given railroads the power of eminent domain to enable them to acquire the lands they need to meet the transportation needs of the areas they serve. SEA notes that eminent domain is governed by the various states in which the involuntary land acquisition occurs (here Wyoming, South Dakota, or Minnesota). Furthermore, 

Appendix C

Page 16
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

33

to landowners. Finally, several commenters indicated 

ry agreements with DM&E for the use of their land. 

s with the majority of land owners in this area. 

t the mineral resources in western South Dakota and 

uctive in the world. The proposed project would 

 largest supplies of coal in the United States.

ces are found throughout the area. These materials 

ring the construction of a rail line as contemplated by 

Alternative B would cross approximately 1.2 miles of 

ive C would not cross any existing mining and quarry 

te closely with each mine it intends to access to ensure 

ess to recoverable coal reserves. 

osed project, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

rovide a comparison of the impacts of the Extension 

deral mineral rights include lands managed by the 

s owned by private citizens, where the Federal 

ny minerals known or potentially occurring on those 

ights of a particular parcel are owned by the Federal 

ecoverable minerals occur within the parcel. 

 calculated the distance of land for which the Federal 

se distances were calculated using BLM Mineral 

ernative B would cross approximately 106.1 miles 

eral land. This included approximately 27.7 miles in 

e Federal ownership is for all minerals. Federal 

South Dakota for Alternative B included 

8 miles of USFS lands and 11.4 miles in private 

uld cross approximately 78.4 miles (3,801 acres) of 

nership was for all minerals and approximately 7 miles 

l. Land ownership or management with Federal 

es of USFS lands, 45.4 miles of private lands, and 2.8 

 lands where the Federal ownership of coal only 

would cross approximately 104.6 miles 

eral land. This included approximately 32.9 miles in 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

34

South Dakota (1,595 acres), all of which the Federal ownership is for all minerals. Federal mineral land ownership or management in South Dakota for Alternative C included approximately 2.4 miles of BLM lands, 11.0 miles of USFS lands and 19.5 miles in private ownership. In Wyoming Alternative C would cross approximately 72.0 miles (3,391 acres) of Federal mineral land where the Federal ownership was for all minerals and approximately 3.4 miles of land with only Federal ownership of coal. Land ownership or management with Federal ownership of all minerals included 1.6 miles of BLM lands, 29.6 miles of USFS lands, and 40.8 miles of private lands. Approximately 3.4 miles of private land would be crossed with Federal ownership of only coal resources.

Because Alternative B would cross more lands with Federal mineral rights, it would 

potentially have a greater impact on these resources. However, due to the long and generally narrow linear nature of a rail line, it is unlikely construction and operation of either Alternative B or C would preclude significant recovery of any mineral resources found along their alignments. Therefore, neither alternative is anticipated to have a significant impact on Federal mineral rights. 3.2.3.5 Other Land Use

SEA received few additional comments on the discussion of other types of land use in the 

Draft EIS, and no additional analysis beyond that presented in the Draft EIS is required here.SEA does note that it did receive comments regarding potential impacts to the Fall River Water Users System — a system of wells and water pipelines to provide water for domestic and livestock needs within the county. However, as this water system would be typical of other utility systems found throughout the project area, potential impacts to utilities were discussed in the Draft EIS, and SEA has included recommended mitigation for utilities, no additional discussion is required.3.2.4 SOCIOECONOMICS

Normally, SEA does not evaluate the potential socioeconomic impacts of rail line 

construction proposals. Rather, SEA considers only the potential environmental impacts associated with the direct changes to the physical environment. That is, SEA would consider the impacts associated with actual conversion of land to rail line right-of-way. However, in this case, some of the cooperating agencies requested inclusion of a broader range of potential socioeconomic impacts associated with this project. Therefore, SEA included a discussion of the potential socioeconomic impacts associated with the project in this EIS. As appropriate, SEA has been assisted by the cooperating agencies in preparing its analysis. 

As discussed in the Draft EIS (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.16), the proposed PRB Expansion 

Project would have long- and short-term impacts to the socioeconomic conditions in the project 

Appendix C

Page 17
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

35

result of increased construction employment and 

 three years of project construction. Long-term 

would continue for the life of the project, perhaps 

omic impacts of the two Extension Alternatives would 

of SEA’s socioeconomic analysis contained in the 

nducted for this Final EIS. 

d rail line, local populations in the project area are 

nstruction workers. As discussed in detail in the Draft 

 two- to three-year construction jobs are expected that 

 either Extension Alternative. Many of these jobs 

 local construction contractors, ranchers, and farmers 

d college and high school students on summer break. 

ute some distance, potentially as much as 50 miles one 

viduals would have no impact on local populations. 

non-local individuals temporarily relocating to the area. 

 for the two to three years of construction. Others 

on season, approximately April to November. As 

hwork and bridges, then rail bed and finally track — 

n workers would be dispersed along the entire 

rall work force would be located in any single location 

construction was completed, such as bridgework, 

ject area to other job locations. 

could result in temporary impacts on local housing and 

ervices in a number of communities throughout the 

ely include Rapid City, Hot Springs, Edgemont, 

d Gillette. However, most workers are expected to 

RV parks, or mancamps established by DM&E. 

g in these communities should be only slightly 

ncreased demand for rental properties and spaces in 

cted to be only a small percentage of the overall 

area. These workers would likely use trailer or RV 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

36

parks or rental properties within communities so that their spouses could seek employment and their children attend school. Such families would cause insignificant increases in local populations that should be easily absorbed by the affected counties, based on their small numbers and recent population changes (Draft EIS, Table 4.4-41).

DM&E has indicated that mancamps, most likely resembling RV parks, would be 

established throughout the project area. One to three such camps would probably be necessary for convenient travel from camp to job sites along the rail line. DM&E could not acquire land for such camps through eminent domain because they would not be part of the actual rail line rightof-way and facilities. Therefore, mancamp locations would be based on the proximity of the alignment to properties of willing landowners. Site development would include water and electrical hookups and waste and sewage disposal and treatment for 20 to 50 trailers, RVs, or campers at each camp. 

Currently, it can be difficult for tourists to find lodging in this area, particularly in late 

summer, due to the annual motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota which draws thousands of tourists. In addition, many thousands of tourists visit the Black Hills area and Mount Rushmore each summer. Although the presence of construction workers could increase demand for lodging, this is not expected to be a significant problem if construction workers use primarily mancamps and trailer/RV parks. Moreover, unoccupied spaces in mancamps could provide opportunities for tourist RVs and campers, should more traditional areas be full. Following construction, DM&E would either restore the mancamp areas to their original condition or transfer ownership and operation to the landowners, who could continue to maintain and operate them as RV parks for travelers, tourists, and hunters. 

During operation of the proposed project, permanent employment (120-350 jobs) would 

be added to the area, generally at the proposed new rail yards. New employees would likely relocate to communities near these rail yards, although not all new jobs would be filled by nonresidents required to relocate to the area. Minor population increases in Wright, Newcastle, Edgemont, Hot Springs, Rapid City, and Wall would be likely to occur. Larger towns offering more conveniences would likely see more workers move in. Since this influx would be a small percentage of the overall population, larger communities should be able to absorb them without experiencing increased prices for housing or other goods and services. Recent population declines (Draft EIS Tables 4.1-24 and 4.2-15) within the project area have resulted in available housing and unused capacity in schools, electricity, and water treatment. 

Any increase in population would help offset the steady population declines numerous 

areas surrounding the proposed line have experienced for many years, and is not expected to burden the communities or counties. Numerous comments on the Draft EIS suggest that the 

Appendix C

Page 18
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

37

 jobs to the area, potentially preventing further 

 project. 

e a wide variety of temporary jobs, as discussed in 

4.4.16.2). A large number, approximately 900, 

d over the two-to-three-year construction period.

d be created in non-construction areas, such as 

d service stations, as a result of construction workers 

nment, and patronizing local establishments. A 

available to local residents and nearby Native 

cted to decrease as a result, potentially leading to 

ea to attract qualified workers. Approximately $125 

construction workers over the three year construction 

w rail line across cropland would likely increase 

d use in this area, farming occurs primarily adjacent to 

raft EIS (Section 4.4.6.1.2), rail line construction and 

e right-of-way, reducing farm revenues and incomes. 

quiring additional time and labor to access fields on 

smaller fields created by the rail line crossing may 

duced expenses to farm these areas — time, fuel, seed, 

nsion Alternatives, consisting mostly of dryland 

ome uneconomical to farm or offer reduced profits if 

mation provided by the Bureau of Reclamation 

and farming would be approximately $116 per acre 

k. SEA has calculated potential lost revenue from 

way based on the annual estimated revenue per acre 

 rail line right-of-way by each Extension Alternative 

griculture may be somewhat greater because there is no 

natives includes mostly irrigated lands. Impacts to these lands, 

ct, are discussed under the Hay Canyon Alternatives.

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

38

way to accurately predict how many acres separated from larger fields would be taken out of production. This would depend on the size of the field and whether it could be incorporated into an adjoining field, converted to other use, or sold to another landowner. Ultimately, each affected landowner would decide what land to take out of production, based on his or her specific situation and preferences. 

Table 3-2 

Revenue Losses Due to Conversion of Cropland by Extension 

Alternatives

Alternative Cropland (acres) Annual Revenue Loss

Alternative B 1,149.0 $133,284Alternative C 1,323.6 $153,537

3.2.4.2.2 Ranching

Construction and operation of a new rail line across existing ranchland could also 

increase the labor required to move cattle from pasture to pasture across the rail line. Even in areas with culverts, bridges, trestles, or other structures allowing underpass of the rail line, cattle may be reluctant to pass through these confined areas, requiring more time and people to move them across or through rail line underpass structures. Ranch operations may need to be altered or land use changed to reduce costs. Smaller parcels of ranchland divided from the larger ranch property by rail line construction may become uneconomical to graze if the small size provides limited forage and herding costs are prohibitive. Smaller ranches may be forced to sell out to larger ranches if increases in operating costs are too great for smaller ranches to absorb. Suitable structures for moving cattle would minimize the impacts associated with a rail line crossing through a ranch. 

Most ranches potentially crossed by Extension Alternatives are cow-calf operations 

which maintain a stock of breeding females to raise calves. Calves born from late winter into spring are sold as feeder cattle prior to the onset of winter. Due to climate and the type of forage on ranches throughout the project area, about 35 acres are required for forage per cow/calf pair.Summer grazing may require more land, since cattle cover greater distances to find food when the range is not exceptionally good. In winter, grazing acreage may be less since winter pastures generally offer higher quality forage, and in a smaller area ranchers can more easily monitor cattle for calving and during bad weather. Conservatively, a ranch supports one less cow for each 35 acres lost, which means one less calf each year. With a selling weight of about 600 pounds, at $1.00/pound, the potential economic impact to a ranch would be about $600 per 35 

Appendix C

Page 19
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

39

addition to the costs of additional herding efforts.

ntial economic impacts to ranching operations for each 

duction in grazing land and the number of cattle that 

Table 3-3 

ternatives Based on Acres of Ranchland Lost 

and 

Reduction in Cattle 

Supported

Annual Value of 

Cattle Lost 

320 $192,000

273 $163,800

y the Extension Alternatives obtain supplemental 

ases. Individual hunters pay a per-day, per-season, or 

ranch, which may cover camping, lodging, and meals. 

by a particular person or group. Often ranchers 

ve wildlife habitat, making the area more attractive to 

use. Ranchers principally charge for the hunting of 

me such as turkeys and waterfowl may also be hunted. 

dicating that the proposed project would reduce ranch 

roperties, due to loss of habitat and the noise and 

d unattractive to both game and hunters. SEA 

e for many farmers and ranchers in the project area 

the land provides. These fees can be quite significant, 

individual to hunt to several thousand dollars to lease 

r, as discussed in the Draft EIS (Section 4.4.10.2), 

 would have a significant impact on game populations 

itat loss and wildlife mortality due to construction and 

ution should not change significantly. Over time, 

operations and reestablish in suitable habitat. Rail 

habitat, since limited human disturbance and protection 

ing) allows vegetation to become well established and 

, hunters will continue to return year after year. Few 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

40

would be expected to change their traditional patterns, once familiar with the land, and hunters could take advantage of train noise to cover their movements while stalking game. While trains would occasionally spook game and spoil a hunter’s opportunity, this should not be the norm. 

SEA also received numerous comments expressing concerns that property values of 

ranches crossed by the proposed rail line would be reduced. Reduction in property values, it was stated, would result from loss of usable land on the ranch and added expenses to continue ranch operations. Added expenses could include: 

• Construction and maintenance of additional fencing, • Duplication of buildings, corrals, and other facilities for the other side of the rail 

line, 

• Installation of new water sources, • Loss of forage, requiring purchase of hay for livestock, particularly in winter, • More labor required to trail, herd, and move cattle across the rail line, and • More time required to move about the ranch because of the rail line and adjacent 

fencing.

Higher operating costs would result in lower profit margins, reducing the value of the ranch. 

SEA agrees that each of these items could reduce ranch efficiency and raise costs, but 

believes that the degree of impact, not just the likelihood of its occurrence, would determine how much expenses would be increased. Some factors that would determine the degree to which ranch costs would increase and contribute to reduced property values include: 

• Ranch size: Smaller ranches would experience more inefficiency than larger 

ranches.

• Location of the rail line: A ranch divided in half would likely be more affected 

than one that divided off only a small portion from the rest of the ranch. 

• Location of proposed line in relation to shelter, water, buildings, and other 

improvements. 

• Impact on access to and within the ranch and to parcels divided from the larger 

ranch area. 

• Highest and best use: If a property’s “before project” highest and best use is 

residential lots with recreational value, but its highest and best use would be grazing land “after project,” the affect on property value would probably be greater than for an equal-sized parcel that would have the same best and highest use both “before” and “after.” 

Appendix C

Page 20
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

41

ion, DM&E would have to compensate landowners. 

hich addresses partial taking of a property, a 

rty taken or the difference between the value of the 

lue after it, whichever is greater. Obviously, the 

he ranch, its condition, and improvements, including 

unters and their use fees. 

roperty after the taking includes the value of the land 

tify to factors affecting the value of the property, 

o a building, potential lost revenue from reduced 

All would be considered in determining the reduction 

ng of the entire property. For this project, DM&E 

rs with land directly crossed by any Extension 

ggests that property values of farms and ranches 

ed for 5-10 years after the land is acquired.22 Once 

pacts, and ranching and farming patterns have been 

alled, new field configurations developed, irrigation 

asture rotations reestablished – affected property 

vels. Thus, although DM&E would be required to 

perty values determined at the time of the land 

es would likely return to levels comparable to those 

roposed rail line. 

d purchase necessary goods, services, and materials, 

offering such goods, materials, and services would see 

ds and services in the project area should exceed $250 

period, or an average of approximately $83.3 million 

te of 5 percent, about $14 million in sales and use 

ternative construction (Table 4.4-43 of the Draft EIS). 

8 N.W.2d 806 (S.D. 1996); Corson Vill. Sanitary Dist. v. 

Elec. Power Coop. v. Poindexter, 305 N.W.2d 46 (S.D. 1995).

urces, Hot Springs, SD, personal communication, 2000.

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

42

Following construction, there would be about 120 permanent jobs, representing millions 

of dollars in annual payroll, mostly associated with the two proposed new rail yards. As DM&E obtains additional coal contracts and increases rail traffic, 350 permanent jobs could be added in the area, primarily at the West Staging and Marshaling Yard. Local merchants and retailers would likely experience increases in sales, particularly when new employees first move into and establish homes in the area. 

Increases in sales and taxes due to railroad construction would be somewhat offset by 

reduction in sales in other sectors, particularly agriculture. Loss of farm and ranch land would reduce purchases of seed, fertilizer, and fuel previously used to farm lost ground. Cattle reduction would reduce sales of supplemental feed, hay, and veterinary supplies. Reduced agricultural and livestock production would lower revenues for grain elevators and livestock dealers and shippers. Revenues of farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness dealers would decline by hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they would spend less on local goods and services.However, these losses should be significantly less than the millions of dollars of railroad salaries added to the project area.3.2.4.3 Public Services and Fiscal Condition

SEA determined that DM&E would pay $7.8 to $9.4 million in property taxes per year 

(Draft EIS, Table 4.4-44) for 40 to 100 million tons of coal transport, in addition to those already collected by the counties, which could fund county projects and services. In most counties, taxes paid by DM&E would represent a 50 percent increase in total county taxes collected at the 40 million tons of coal level and significantly more at 100 million tons. Since these are primarily rural counties with limited development and generally agricultural land use, assessed tax values of these lands are significantly less than the assessed value would be for a modern rail line. The rail line would therefore account for a large portion of the tax base. 

SEA received numerous comments that the Draft EIS’s projections of taxes to be paid by 

DM&E in South Dakota counties were too high because of changes in South Dakota’s tax assessment method for railroads during preparation of the Draft EIS. Therefore, SEA analyzed the tax code to determine whether modifications to the data presented in the Draft EIS were necessary, and the following discusses this additional investigation. 

Under the former taxation scheme, railroads in South Dakota received tax credits for 

funds invested in system rehabilitation projects, paid county taxes based primarily on tonnage transported within the county, and paid two percent sales tax. To promote railroad use, the state provided tax credits for railroads to rehabilitate their systems for adequate service, particularly for agricultural commodities. Railroads transporting up to 5 million gross tons per year received 

Appendix C

Page 21
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

43

penditures for rail line rehabilitation. Those 

ar received a 50 percent state tax credit, but those 

ns got no state tax credit. DM&E would generally get 

60,000 carloads per year, at 263,000 pounds each, for 

 these tax credits have been eliminated under the new 

llected taxes allocated to each county, the State 

y the railroad (66 percent) and the mileage of rail line 

locations now have been reversed to place greater 

he county (now 66 percent) and less on the tonnage 

 the percentage of sales tax railroads pay on goods and 

as been doubled from two to four percent. 

me took affect on July 2, 2001, and under it DM&E 

ginally estimated in the Draft EIS. By eliminating tax 

 would require additional taxes from DM&E, monies 

provements. This added tax burden could make it 

d system-wide improvements. Under any Extension 

ckage in Custer and Fall River Counties and the value 

it would be assessed more taxes for its facilities in 

x monies. Additionally, the tonnage of material 

ially, also increasing the amount assessed for tax 

etermined that the fiscal impact of the proposed project 

 flowing to South Dakota and the counties through 

o reason to modify its conclusion. The project would 

h it now appears that the fiscal impact may be 

aft EIS. 

nts concerned with potential quality of life impacts of 

ncreases in noise, local reductions in air quality, 

 of communities or separation of neighbors, reduced 

tic appeal of residential viewsheds, and potential 

roposed project and any of the potential Extension 

 the quality of life of populations through which the 

d in the Draft EIS, noise disturbance would increase, 

hin a few hundred feet of the track, potentially 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

44

interfering with residents’ sleep patterns, conversations, and recreational activities. Residents in close proximity to and down-wind of the rail line may occasionally notice the smell of diesel emissions. Travelers may experience short delays and they would need to exercise care to avoid a train-related accident. The new rail line would alter the setting of several homes, making the view less aesthetically pleasing.

Construction and operation of a new rail line would require local residents to become 

concerned and aware of things they have not had to consider before the rail line. Initially, their quality of life may be reduced. However, over time, current residents generally would be expected to adapt to the changes resulting from the presence of the train, just as they do to construction of new roadways. Additionally, new residents that move into the area would know from the outset that they will face the impacts associated with operation of a rail line.3.2.5 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE ISSUES

Issues and concerns unique to Native American Tribes that were discussed as part of the 

cultural resources evaluation in the Draft EIS are treated separately here. Cultural resources usually include historic sites or structures and archaeological resources, which are valued for the insight they offer on the history of an area, culture, or civilization and how it lived and worked.Issues discussed in this section relate to traditions and cultural beliefs of the Native American peoples who occupied the region, and do not involve specific sites, nor traditions or cultures no longer in existence. They pertain to concerns, beliefs, and traditions of importance to Native American Tribes, particularly members of the Lakota or Dahcotah Nation, that are still practiced and passed on by many members of the Native American Tribes with historical ties to the area. 3.2.5.1 Treaty Issues

Throughout the Euroamerican colonization of the United States, immigrants and settlers 

encountered Native American Tribes, creating alliances, marriages, trades, and conflicts. Conflicts often arose when Native Americans attempted to protect the land and resources upon which their lives and culture depended, and ended in treaties with the Federal government. Wars over treaty violations occurred up until the late 1800s. 

Two treaties hold particular importance to the Lakota:23 the Treaty of Fort Laramie and 

the Treaty with the Sioux and Arapaho.24 The former, signed on September 17, 1851, 

23 General term, meaning “Friend,” referring to the various Tribes of the Lakota or Dahcota Nation, more 

commonly known as the Sioux, the title given them by the early French explorers and trappers.

24 The formal title of this treaty is “Treaty with the Sioux - Brule, Oglala, Miniconjou, Yanktonai, 

Appendix C

Page 22
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

45

merican Nations, including the Sioux, Gros Ventre, 

, Crow, Cheyenne, and Arapaho. Territories 

med conflict with the U.S. government included all of 

and extended into southwestern North Dakota, 

rado, eastern Wyoming, and southeastern Montana 

ved for Native Americans and protected from 

inued to move into the Black Hills and plains regions, 

established by the Fort Laramie Treaty, renewing 

ettlers. After the Powder River War of 1866-1867, a 

ned in 1868 (Treaty of 1868), establishing the Great 

h no unauthorized persons of the U.S. were ever to be 

of this Treaty, the Sioux relinquished rights received 

nly the lands specified for the Great Sioux Nation and 

atte, Nebraska and along the Republican River25 in 

 in the Black Hills, reserved for the Sioux, settlers and 

government first tried to prevent entry in accord with 

ew the troops. The government attempted to purchase 

ations were unsuccessful and hostilities resumed. 

ry 28, 1877, which abrogated the Treaty of 1868 and 

x Reservation by adding territory to the north while 

ation. Developed by a presidential committee, this 

d with the signatures of less than the three-fourths of 

f 1868. In 1889, Congress split the Great Sioux 

ns of today, opening up the area between the White 

 the Treaty of 1868 did not comply with the approval 

Treaty of 1868 was never legally abrogated, so the 

tates illegally acquired the Black Hills. After nearly a 

 that the Act of 1877 constituted a taking of land by 

ain (Sioux Nation v. United States, 33 Ind. Cl. 

Arcs, and Santee - and Arapaho.”

n the Treaty as the Republican Fork of the Smoky Hill River.

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

46

Comm’n 151 (1974)), and that the Sioux Nation was entitled to fair compensation. A subsequent court proceeding ruled that the Sioux Nation was due $17.1 million, fair value for the land taken in 1877, plus 5 percent interest, from 1877. In a decision rendered on June 30, 1980, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Court of Claims ruling, and reaffirmed that compensation due the Sioux Nation must be paid, but to date the Sioux have accepted no money. Treaty Chiefs and Treaty Council members within the Sioux Nation prefer return of the land itself, and the issue still remains unresolved. 

Many commenters indicated that the proposed project would violate the Treaty of 1868.

The proposed new construction would cross extensive areas within the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation established by this Treaty and reserved for the Sioux against encroachment by non-Natives. While the ruling of the Court of Claims, upheld by the Supreme Court, holds that the lands were taken under Congress’ right of eminent domain, the Sioux Nation believes that the because the Treaty of 1868 was never legally abrogated, they retain control of the lands within the Great Sioux Reservation. In effect, the Sioux Nation’s position is that all occupation of those lands within the Reservation, including ranches, towns, farms, roads, rail lines, and other facilities developed after 1868, are illegal and should be removed, and the land returned to the Sioux. Additionally, the Sioux Nation believes that for the PRB Expansion Project to cross this area, the Sioux Nation must grant its permission and be compensated for the lands involved. 

SEA recognizes the complexities of the treaty issues involved in this case, but it is 

beyond the jurisdiction of SEA or the Board to resolve issues involving whether there was a taking, how a treaty should be interpreted, or to take action in this case which would contradict or question the courts’ decisions on eminent domain and compensation due the Sioux Nation. Additionally, it is beyond the jurisdiction of SEA or the Board under ICCTA to require DM&E to provide compensation for land. 3.2.5.2 Traditional Cultural Properties

During the middle to late-1800s, the various Tribes of the Lakota or Sioux Nation were 

one of many groups of Native Americans that occupied the plains regions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and eastern Colorado and Montana. However, prior to this time, the area had a several-thousand-year history of habitation by numerous Native American Tribes, some of whom lived year-round in the plains, and others who traveled there during various times of the year to hunt buffalo. Additionally, the Black Hills of South Dakota hold particular spiritual importance to many Native American Tribes since they are considered by many the birthplace of many Native American peoples (like the Garden of Eden of Judeao-Christian background). Many individuals and Tribes traveled to the Black Hills on pilgrimages or for other spiritual purposes.

Appendix C

Page 23
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

47

on, the Native Americans living and hunting 

l use areas. As primarily nomadic hunters and 

 They learned which areas provided shelter from 

ndable supplies of water during drought conditions, 

als for making tools and lodges, and where the buffalo 

ring the year. These areas were used year after year 

might be used for only a few days or months at a time. 

part of Native American spiritual life, for sacred or 

 Tribes did not erect permanent structures for worship, 

same hilltop or outcropping for purification, prayer, 

Locations were often chosen because of the view or 

ul meditation or prayer, and used for generations. 

also became important components of the religious 

Often these areas provided plants or other materials, 

ant spiritual powers or significance. Medicinal plants 

ied their dead within or near a traditional campsite so 

ear the deceased while the campsite was used. Often 

as, not unlike Euroamerican cemeteries, chosen for 

 They would commonly be on a hilltop offering wide, 

e dead were and still are considered sacred. Because of 

portant events in their history and religion linked to the 

and ancient significance for the plains Tribes. 

 would likely be classified as Traditional Cultural 

he Draft EIS. These generally include areas eligible for 

ric Places (NRHP) because of their association with 

mmunity that are rooted in its history and are important 

tity (National Register Bulletin 38). It is expected that 

d many would be affected by any Extension 

e sites are significant to the Native Americans and 

ntities and locations are often closely guarded by the 

tified within the project area, several archaeological 

atives could be classified as TCPs.

e Extension Alternatives include camp and burial sites, 

ship sites, which would be affected if new rights-of

t their destruction, new rights-of-way permanently 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

48

alter the physical characteristics of the site, or the character of the site is altered by proximity of a new line. A rail line crossing a TCP would encounter physical evidence or remains (artifacts) left by the historic users of the site. Evidence (tepee rings, fire hearths, sweat lodges) and artifacts (projectile points, pottery, tools) would need to be documented and excavated to obtain information of scientific or historic value and to prevent destruction of the resources. Graves containing human remains and funerary objects encountered would be identified, documented, exhumed, and re-interred at another location, perhaps not nearby or chosen by the descendants of the deceased.

Selection of sacred, worship, and cemetery sites may be influenced by characteristics of 

quiet, solitude, natural beauty, or a feeling of being close to the heavens. Construction of a rail line across or in proximity to these areas could alter these characteristics and cuts and fills would alter the natural landscape. While at some sites noise and disruptions may not significantly alter the purpose or use of the site, others may no longer be desirable for their former purposes. 

It is expected that numerous TCP sites occur along all of the Extension Alternatives, but 

it is difficult to determine which Extension Alternative would have a greater impact on them. As new construction, Alternatives B and C would have potentially significant impacts, particularly being located along the Cheyenne River, between the Black Hills and the plains. It is expected that there are numerous TCPs within the Cheyenne River valley, along the streams that feed it, and along the hills and ridges overlooking the river. Because both Alternatives B and C utilize the Cheyenne River corridor, both are expected to have significant impacts on many of the same TCPs. If a greater number are located within the Cheyenne River valley, Alternative B would likely have a greater impact on these resources. If a greater number are located along the hills and ridges overlooking the Cheyenne River, Alternative C would likely have a greater impact. 3.2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impacts to cultural resources would occur if important archaeological or historic sites or 

structures which could substantially add to scientific understanding of human occupation of the project area are damaged or destroyed during project construction, as discussed in the Draft EIS (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.15). The project area has a rich and long history of human occupation, as discussed in the Draft EIS and further in Section 3.2.5 of this Final EIS. Known sites of archaeological and historical significance occur throughout the area. SEA identified 298 sites within 1.0 mile of Alternative B, 70 in South Dakota, and 228 in Wyoming.26 Six sites in South 

Dakota are eligible for the NRHP and 51 sites in Wyoming are eligible or on the NRHP.

26 In order to compare the potential impacts of the Extension Alternative to cultural resources, SEA 

Appendix C

Page 24
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

49

nown and recorded by the South Dakota State Historic 

ological Research Center, and the Wyoming SHPO.

ces sites within 1.0 mile of Alternative C. Of these, 96 

n Wyoming. One site in South Dakota and 49 sites in 

le for the NRHP. SEA determined that because of the 

d project would encounter significant cultural 

ant impacts to these resources. 

s cultural resources analysis in the Draft EIS generally 

ts supported SEA’s conclusion that significant cultural 

a and they would likely be significantly impacted by 

estioned how SEA could analyze the potential project 

he alternatives had not been surveyed to determine the 

ong each of the rights-of-way. These comments 

onducted along portions of Alternative C. In response 

-ground survey for cultural resources, SEA provides 

 take a “hard look” at the potential impacts of a 

es that the EIS process should rely on available 

ensome or cost prohibitive to obtain. As such, it is the 

l impacts to cultural resources, to rely on information 

resource sites. This case is no different. It is not 

perspective, due to the length of the proposed project, 

r new rail line construction to extend DM&E’s 

 detailed cultural resource survey for the EIS process. 

ation for its analysis in the Draft EIS. Even with this 

ermined the proposed project would have significant 

y was not necessary for the EIS process, such a survey 

6 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The 

tion and mitigation of cultural resources determined 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

50

eligible for the NRHP that would be affected by a proposed project. Completion of this process requires extensive on-the-ground surveys, testing of sites identified, and, if significant sites are identified, appropriate mitigation. Additionally, completion of the Section 106 process is generally required prior to initiation of construction as part of Federal approval or permits. 

DM&E recognized the potential time required to conduct cultural resources surveys and 

any subsequent mitigation. Therefore, it decided to proceed with on-the-ground surveys prior to any project approval in order to reduce delays to commencing construction should the Board and the cooperating agencies decide to approve the project. Because DM&E had no expertise in cultural resources, and because SEA was working with the cooperating agencies and consulting with the Wyoming and South Dakota SHPOs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Tribes, it requested that SEA, through the use of its third-party contractor, conduct the necessary surveys to ensure the surveys complied with the requirements of the various agencies and the Programmatic Agreement under development for the project. SEA therefore directed its third-party contractor to conduct a survey of the route DM&E desired to be surveyed. DM&E requested the alignment of Alternative C be surveyed, even though it was not its preferred alternative and no decision on the project had been issued. DM&E assumed the risk that, should the project ultimately be approved, Alternative C would be the route approved. It understood that no decision on the project had been made and that if the project was denied, the work would be for nothing. Moreover, should Alternative C not be approved, DM&E would be required to complete survey work for the alternative approved. 

Under the direction of SEA, the third-party contractor conducted an intensive survey of 

Alternative C in South Dakota. However, because land access was through landowner permission only, the entire alignment of Alternative C could not be surveyed. Time, cost, and weather constraints prevented completing the survey in Wyoming. 

A total of 111.5 miles of Alternative C in South Dakota were surveyed. The survey 

identified 238 sites within the proposed rail line right-of-way, including 57 sites considered eligible for the NRHP — an average of slightly over 2 sites per mile, with just under one significant site every two miles. Sites identified included cairns (stone piles possibly covering a grave), stone circles, areas of scattered artifacts, campsites, one town site, farmsteads, roads/trails, dumps, one irrigation canal, and one dam. 

Although the entire alignment in South Dakota has not been surveyed and surveys in 

Wyoming have not been completed, SEA has estimated the potential impacts of Alternative C on cultural resources by using data obtained from the surveys completed. Based on a project length of approximately 263 miles of new rail construction, Alternative C could be expected to have about 526 cultural resource sites within the proposed right-of-way, of which approximately 132 

Appendix C

Page 25
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

51

re mitigation. This represents a significant impact to 

e B have been conducted, the density of known sites 

indicate that Alternative B would have similar impacts 

htly longer than Alternative C (265.8 miles versus 

 more cultural resources within the right-of-way. No 

 of Alternatives B and C to cultural resources would 

ould have significant overall impacts, as SEA indicated 

a variety of water resources, including surface waters 

er, and wetlands. The following sections summarize 

resented in the Draft EIS, the comments received 

 of additional analysis SEA conducted to address these 

 potential impacts to surface waters, including 

eam corridors, stream channel modifications, and loss 

asured the degree of impact from each alternative by 

m crossings for each Extension Alternative. SEA also 

e Cheyenne River was a sensitive and important 

EA determined the length of each alternative that 

River or its tributaries as a measure of the potential for 

 

at Alternative B would cross 20 perennial streams, 14 

 of the Cheyenne River) and six in Wyoming. 

ittent streams, 208 in South Dakota and 415 in 

Alternative B would be within 500 feet of the 

Alternative C would cross 14 perennial streams, 10 in 

e Cheyenne River) and four in Wyoming. Alternative 

ms, 230 in South Dakota and 290 in Wyoming. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

52

Approximately 20.9 miles of Alternative C would be within 500 feet of the Cheyenne River or its tributaries.

As with nearly all the resources SEA analyzed in the Draft EIS, SEA received comments 

expressing concern that the proposed project would have significant impacts on surface waters. Of particular concern were impacts to the Cheyenne River. Commenters noted that SEA indicated that Alternative C would have less impact to the Cheyenne River than Alternative B.However, Alternative B would be within 500 feet of the Cheyenne River for only approximately 1.0 mile more than Alternative C. Commenters suggested that this minimal difference did not justify SEA’s conclusion that Alternative B would have a greater impact to the Cheyenne River and the subsequent selection of Alternative C as the least impacting alternative to the Cheyenne River.

In response to these comments, SEA reevaluated the potential impacts of the Extension 

Alternatives to the Cheyenne River. As noted in the Draft EIS, Alternative C was developed partly in response to concerns about the potential impacts of the project to the Cheyenne River and the riparian areas adjacent to the river. SEA agreed that based on the numbers presented in the Draft EIS, there appears to be little difference in the alternatives’ potential to impact the Cheyenne River. SEA, however, questioned this because in looking at the location of the alignments, Alternative C appeared further from the Cheyenne River for much more of its distance than Alternative B. 

In reviewing the information presented in the Draft EIS, SEA noted that some 

commenters had misunderstood the mileage figures contained in the Draft EIS. These mileage figures did not only include the portion of each alternative within 500 feet of the Cheyenne River, as interpreted by the commenters, but also included the length of the alternative within 500 feet of any perennial tributary to the Cheyenne River, such as Battle Creek or Sand Creek.SEA acknowledges that this data was confusing. 

SEA now clarifies that Alternative B would cross the Cheyenne River twice, both of 

which would be new crossings. One crossing would be south of Wasta, South Dakota and another at Edgemont, South Dakota. Alternative B would be within 500 feet of the Cheyenne River for 9.11 miles. Along this length, Alternative B would have eight points where the topography adjacent to the river would likely require that the alignment be constructed on a steep sideslope immediately adjacent to the river. These locations, referred to as pinch-points, would likely require extensive stream bank stabilization, channel modifications, and, potentially, placement of fill in the river itself, resulting in some relocation of the stream channel. 

Appendix C

Page 26
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

53

s, would also cross the Cheyenne River twice.

the Cheyenne River for 4.98 miles. No pinch-points 

s that Alternative B would have greater potential 

native C. Alternative B would be within 500 feet of 

han Alternative C. This additional mileage in 

ter loss of riparian habitat and increased potential for 

ation from Alternative B. Direct impacts on the river 

ch points along Alternative B. Because Alternative C 

mpacts would occur from Alternative C. Therefore, 

f the actual Cheyenne River valley, minimizing 

n areas adjacent to the river, SEA believes that 

 Alternative B on the Cheyenne River. In addition, it 

rol erosion and acceptable mitigation for loss of 

 C, while substantial, may be reduced to levels below 

 not be possible with Alternative B because of the 

 direct impact on the river from the pinch-points in the 

ating that the project could potentially impact surface 

Act, Section 303(d), for development of Total 

o known as impaired waters. A TMDL is the amount 

 water body without endangering the water quality 

not previously identified these waters in the Draft EIS, 

ial impacts on them. In response to these comments, 

ntial impacts on impaired waters below. 

within the state according to the beneficial use of the 

 generally the best and highest level the water source 

the quality of the water. Beneficial use classifications, 

r quality use include industrial, agriculture, wildlife 

act recreation, warm water fishery, cold water fishery, 

uires a state to: 

which are impaired, that is they contain pollutants at 

y affect their designated beneficial use, 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

54

(61) prioritize impaired waters for development of TMDL for those pollutants 

determined to be the cause of reduced water quality, and 

(62) establish and adopt TMDLs for all identified impaired water bodies. 

States must develop and update their lists of impaired waters every two years. 

Both South Dakota and Wyoming have developed lists of impaired waters under Section 

303(d). After reviewing the state lists, SEA identified two impaired water bodies in South Dakota that would be crossed by the Extension Alternatives. No impaired waters in Wyoming would be crossed. Those impaired waters potentially affected by the Extension Alternatives are listed in Table 3-4. Also included are the pollutants which are the reason for impairment and SEA’s determination as to whether construction and operation of an Extension Alternative would have an adverse effect on the “impaired” classification. 

Table 3-4 

Impaired Water Bodies Crossed By Extension Alternatives

 Water Body State Location Priority Pollutant(s)

Extension 

Alternative 

Adversely 

Impacted by 

Proposed Project 

Cheyenne River SD Edgemont 2

(Medium)

TSS, TDS, fecal coliform, conductivity 

B and C Potential

Temporary 

Cheyenne River SD Wasta 2

(Medium)

TSS, fecal coliform B and C Potential

Temporary 

As shown in Table 3-4, the Cheyenne River crossings at Wasta and Edgemont by either 

of the Extension Alternatives would cross portions of the Cheyenne River classified as impaired.  Both of these would be new crossings of the Cheyenne River for both alternatives. During construction of these crossings, disturbance to the river bank and in-stream work have the potential to increase total suspended solids (TSS) and total dissolved solids (TDS) in the river, as discussed in detail in the Draft EIS (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.7). These increases in TSS could further exacerbate existing problems with TSS identified in the Cheyenne River at these locations, resulting in greater levels of impairment. 

However, appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures, as recommended in 

Chapter 12 of this Final EIS, would minimize the additional sediment, and subsequent TSS levels entering the river. Additionally, river crossing construction would be temporary, lasting only for the period of time required to construct the crossing, anticipated to be one to two years in total. Following completion of crossing construction and restoration of the river bank and rail line right-of-way as recommended in Chapter 12, any additional TSS levels from construction 

Appendix C

Page 27
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

55

er effects on the impaired status of the Cheyenne 

paired waters are anticipated as a result of this project. 

M&E would require water for dust control, rail bed 

ds of construction workers in mancamps. As 

icated it would likely obtain some of its water needs 

th landowners. Increased demand from these wells 

yield as groundwater surrounding the well is depleted. 

turn to normal once pumping demands returned to 

EIS (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.7.3). 

EA’s conclusions about project impacts to 

d that the increased use of water for the proposed 

uifers, leading to lower well yields insufficient to 

on into this issue. As discussed in Draft EIS, Section 

oject area. Numerous aquifers at various depths are 

stic needs for water in the area. Currently, these 

 and are primarily tapped for domestic use by the few 

E would likely utilize several sources of water, 

ers along the alignment. The amount of water needed, 

cted to be significantly greater than the annual use by 

e required during the period of construction; however, 

out of the year. Additionally, water use from any one 

e that construction would occur in proximity to the 

nerally result from water being pumped out faster than 

r. However, due to the yields of water provided by 

orary, likely lasting for only a few hours. 

 periodic, not continuous. Thus, groundwater from 

me to flow into areas that may be depleted by 

d also be reduced by the use of surface water DM&E 

ment and local water rights, from local ponds and 

long-term or significant short-term impacts to 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

56

3.2.7.3 Wetlands

In its evaluation of the potential wetland impacts of the Extension Alternatives, SEA used 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps to estimate the amount of wetlands converted to rail line right-of-way for each alternative. SEA recognizes that NWI maps may not indicate all wetlands present, may indicate wetlands where they do not actually exist, and are not based on the criteria of the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for classification of an area as a wetland under COE jurisdiction. However, NWI maps provide a useful means of comparing the potential impacts of alternatives. As discussed previously under Cultural Resources, to undertake a full wetlands delineation of all the project alternatives in this case would be prohibitively expensive and unnecessary because NWI maps permit an adequate comparison of each alternative’s impact to wetlands. SEA determined that Alternative B would convert 62.1 acres of wetlands to rail line right-of-way, 38.8 acres in South Dakota and 23.3 acres in Wyoming. Alternative C would convert 62.2 acres to rail line right-of-way, including 48.5 acres in South Dakota and 13.7 acres in Wyoming. 

As part of the Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit process, the COE requires a detailed 

delineation of all the potential wetlands affected by a project. Because this project would require such a permit from the COE, DM&E is required to submit an application for a Section 404 permit to the COE, along with a delineation of wetlands potentially affected by the project. The COE generally only requires a delineation of the alternative the Applicant intends to construct, not all the alternatives evaluated. In order to facilitate a timely decision on the Section 404 permit, DM&E proceeded with the necessary delineation of wetlands along Alternative C. As discussed previously under Cultural Resources, DM&E conducted this delineation knowing that no decision had been made on the project and its work could be for nothing should the project be denied or another route approved. DM&E completed the delineation of Alternative C and submitted it, along with its application to the COE for a Section 404 permit, concurrent with the issuance of the Draft EIS. As required by COE regulations, the delineation and Section 404 application submitted by DM&E were made available for agency and public review and comment. 

SEA received many comments regarding inconsistencies between the area of wetlands 

listed as potentially impacted in the Draft EIS and the Section 404 permit. EPA noted in its comments that the area of wetlands identified as potentially impacted by the Extension Alternatives, in particular Alternative C, was much less than that actually delineated within the proposed rail line right-of-way. EPA expressed concern with the validity of using NWI maps to determine and compare potential wetland impacts. In particular, EPA was concerned that the inaccuracy of NWI maps may be such that it would be difficult to determine which Extension Alternative would have the least impact on wetlands, as required as part of the Clean Water Act, Section 404 permitting process. If NWI maps were so unreliable, EPA reasoned, they may not be valid for determining and comparing the potential impacts of the Extension Alternatives. 

Appendix C

Page 28
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

57

e wetlands potentially impacted by the alternatives 

mments regarding the inconsistencies between the 

A conducted additional investigation into the 

ad participated in the wetland delineation. While the 

dology to be used, the delineation was the 

 contacted DM&E to obtain detailed information on 

rnative C. 

 by DM&E, SEA determined several reasons for 

tion 404 permit delineation. First, the wetland 

d geographically, with wetland impacts reported for 

e east) and western South Dakota (the area from Pierre 

Alternative C). This organization of the delineation 

s interpreted western South Dakota to include only 

ds were potentially impacted for western South 

5 acres were along Alternative C. 

 the wetland delineations had identified a narrow band 

e, along many of the intermittent streams in South 

ed as a dashed line on NWI maps, and they generally 

o them outlined due to their small size. Therefore, 

tent streams crossed by the Extension Alternatives, it 

m. Thus, the delineations included wetlands associated 

S did not include them. 

ated with intermittent streams in South Dakota, SEA 

ring an average rail line right-of-way width of 400 

ds that would potentially be impacted by the Extension 

ative B would impact 38.8 acres of wetlands in South 

ciated with the 208 intermittent stream crossings, for a 

mpact 48.5 acres of wetlands in South Dakota, plus an 

30 intermittent stream crossings, for a total of 80.2 

ative C in South Dakota (80.2 acres) under this 

 presented in the delineation (79.95 acres). 

oming in the Draft EIS for Alternative C (13.7 acres) is 

lineation (17.0 acres). 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

58

SEA presented its additional investigation and these results to EPA and the COE. Both 

agencies agreed that inclusion of wetlands associated with intermittent streams allowed for a more complete evaluation of the potential wetlands impacts of the alternatives (See Letter to EPA in Appendix C). 

After conducting additional analysis, SEA has determined, as it did in the Draft EIS, that 

Alternative B would have less impact on wetlands than Alternative C. Under the COE permitting process, the COE must permit the alternative that has the least impact on wetlands. However, Section 404 (b)(1) provides the COE some flexibility to select an alternative other than the one having the least wetlands impact. Specifically, Section 404 (b)(1) states: 

Except as provided under § 404 (b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences.27

Based on this guidance, and considering that the COE is a cooperating agency for this 

EIS, SEA considered which Extension Alternative would be preferable based on potential impact on aquatic and other environmental resources. SEA discusses the impacts of the Extension Alternatives in other sections of this chapter. However, in this section on water resources SEA has determined that Alternative B would have potentially significant impact on the Cheyenne River due to this alternative’s proximity to the river and the numerous pinch-points along the alignment. SEA also determined that Alternative C, with appropriate mitigation, would likely not have significant impacts on the Cheyenne River or the riparian resources adjacent to the river. Although Alternative C would impact approximately 12.7 more acres of wetlands than Alternative B, SEA considers Alternative C to be the preferred alternative for the overall protection of aquatic resources, should the proposed project be approved.3.2.8 RECREATION

27 40 CFR 230.10(a)Each of the proposed project alternatives has the potential to impact recreation in the 

project area. As discussed in the Draft EIS, conversion of recreational lands, particularly public lands, would eliminate use of these lands for recreation. The visual contrast and noise created by the project could detract from the recreational experience, particularly of those seeking quiet and 

Appendix C

Page 29
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

59

operating rail line could eliminate an area’s eligibility 

a wild and scenic river.

es of public land, cross two RARE II areas, one 

feet of another Inventoried Roadless area, across the 

, be within 3,700 feet of Badlands National Park, and 

e River considered eligible for designation as Wild and 

iles of public land and be within 500 feet of two 

ation occurs throughout the project area on private 

 but also includes camping, hiking, horseback riding, 

n private land is limited to the landowners and their 

of the area and the numerous large ranches and farms, 

sed. 

at any of the proposed alternatives would have adverse 

ely be due to the noise created by passing trains 

 determined that Alternative B would have a greater 

e public lands, directly affect RARE II areas, affect 

esignation as Wild and Scenic, and be closer to 

ged recreation on private land would also be affected.

dant opportunities, these impacts would not be 

t EIS supported SEA’s conclusion that recreation 

 Generally, no alternative was noted as having a 

nters expressed the concern that SEA should consider 

nificance than expressed in the Draft. However, as 

nal opportunities are abundant throughout the project 

c lands. While localized impacts to favored spots may 

rivate and public use. SEA determined no additional 

ation was warranted in this Final EIS. 

 Tribes concerning the proposed Crazy Horse Scenic 

vided any information on this proposal. Therefore, 

 to the status of the proposal. 

ted an application to the State of South Dakota for the 

the Pine Ridge Reservation as a Scenic Byway, to be 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

60

named for the Sioux Chief, Crazy Horse. The byway would begin at Exit 131 on Interstate 90. It would follow State Highway 240 south to Interior, South Dakota, then to Scenic, South Dakota along State Highway 44. At Scenic, the byway would turn south on BIA Route 27 and onto the Pine Ridge Reservation. The byway would turn west on BIA Route 2 at the Badlands National Park, White River Visitors Center. It would follow BIA Route 2 west to BIA Route 41, turning north along the western boundary of Badlands National Park. At Red Shirt, South Dakota, the byway would continue across the Cheyenne River on State Highway 40, continuing westward through Hermosa, South Dakota to eventually connect with the Norbeck Scenic Byway in the Black Hills.

Currently, the application for the Crazy Horse Scenic Byway is still pending and no 

scenic byway has been designated. The State has indicated the proposal meets the criteria for a scenic byway with two exceptions, an open landfill south of Red Shirt and BIA Route 41 being unpaved. SEA’s contacts with personnel at Badlands National Park indicated that the landfill has likely been recently closed. Additionally, the State has some of the necessary funds for paving BIA Route 41 but is seeking the additional funds for 2002. Paving of BIA Route 41 could commence in 2003. 

Scenic byways in South Dakota are determined through review by a Scenic Byway 

Review Committee. This committee considers the byway application based on the safety of the motoring public and the unique and unusual scenic, cultural, geologic, wildlife and habitat, and aesthetic features of the route. The review committee makes a recommendation to the State Transportation Commission who then makes the final decision on the designation of the route. 

SEA’s preliminary contacts with the State of South Dakota indicate that construction of a 

new rail line could affect the eligibility of a route for designation as a scenic byway. However, it would be up to the discretion of the review committee. Alternative B

The alignment of Alternative B would cross the portion of the Crazy Horse Scenic 

Byway that includes State Highway 40. Alternative B would cross Highway 40 just west of the Cheyenne River. This portion of the Cheyenne River is considered eligible as a wild and scenic river. It is likely construction of a rail line at this location would adversely affect the eligibility of this portion of the Cheyenne River for future designation as a wild and scenic river.Additionally, the alteration to the landscape caused by construction of the rail line along the Cheyenne River could also result in this stretch of roadway being considered ineligible as a scenic byway. 

Appendix C

Page 30
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

61

uld also cross the portion of the Crazy Horse Scenic 

lternative C would cross Highway 40 approximately 

ota. This crossing would be within approximately 0.5 

line on steel lattice towers currently crosses the 

d by DM&E to be a grade separation due to the 

crossing would pose no safety hazard to motorists, it is 

l line would impact the eligibility of the route for 

y since other portions of the route follow and cross 

 is crossed by the existing DM&E rail line in 

 Alternative impacts to a variety of biological 

nd threatened and endangered species. SEA received 

to biological resources. For the most part, commenters 

Draft EIS regarding the project’s potential impacts. 

tion measures to protect these resources. SEA 

ed mitigation recommendations, as appropriate, in 

aised issues that resulted in SEA conducting additional 

migration and inclusion of prairie dogs, which some 

ng as a threatened or endangered species. SEA’s 

ssues is discussed below. 

oposed Extension Alternatives would have similar 

ortality, loss of habitat, disturbance, and impedance of 

he types and amounts of big game ranges that would be 

sented in the Draft EIS, Table 4.4-39, SEA determined 

ween the Extension Alternatives. Alternative B would 

ing, although Alternative C would affect more crucial 

fect more deer habitat than Alternative C in both South 

ld affect more pronghorn habitat in South Dakota, but 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

62

Alternative B would affect more in Wyoming. The Draft EIS concluded that no significant impacts to big game would occur as a result of construction and operation of any of the proposed Extension Alternatives due to the abundant big game habitat throughout the area, the ability of these species to adapt and acclimate, their mobility allowing them to seek out areas away from the rail line if desired, and the limited mortality expected from train/wildlife collisions. 

Commenters on the Draft EIS, including the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, and Native American Tribes, indicated concern SEA had not adequately considered the impact of the potential rail line as a barrier to big game migration. Commenters expressed concern that a rail line in eastern Wyoming oriented east-west would cross migration corridors for pronghorn. During migration periods, large numbers of pronghorn could accumulate along the rail line and be hit by a passing train. Wyoming Game and Fish Department acknowledged that it had little data on pronghorn migration in this area of Wyoming but indicated large numbers of pronghorn were known to winter in areas south of the alignments for the Extension Alternatives. Thus, with funding provided by DM&E, Wyoming Game and Fish Department conducted surveys along the proposed Extension Alternatives in Wyoming to obtain data on potential big game migration routes.

SEA was unaware of these studies and was not provided copies of the results prior to 

issuance of the Draft EIS. In response to comments that big game surveys had been conducted, SEA obtained and reviewed the reports prepared as part of these surveys. Wyoming Game and Fish Department conducted flights between February and May, 1999, and between January and March, 2000. The results of these flights indicated large numbers of antelope dispersed throughout the proposed rail alignment area. It appears likely that an east-west rail line across eastern Wyoming would be crossed by large numbers of antelope moving north-south between summer and winter areas. 

Additionally, commenters noted that the Cheyenne River provided important habitat for 

big game, and that constructing a rail line along the river would provide an obstacle to big game moving to and from the river valley, increasing their susceptibility to being hit by a train. While no big game migration corridors are mapped in southwestern South Dakota, Native American Tribal traditions discuss movement of big game from the Black Hills into the foothills and plains and from the plains to the foothills in winter. These patterns would require large numbers of big game to cross a rail line located along the Cheyenne River because it would lie between the plains and the foothills. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department has expressed particular concern for the projectrelated impacts to pronghorn. This is largely due to the characteristics of pronghorn which make 

them more susceptible to being struck by a passing train. Pronghorn are not anticipated to use 

Appendix C

Page 31
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

63

ely closed nature of these structures. Thus, they 

r which generally have no problem jumping over a 

eferring to crawl under a fence. Additionally, 

reatened, will run from the threat. While it may be a 

fence along the rail line, pronghorn, attempting to run 

by the fence, increasing the likelihood they would run 

oncerning big game migration routes received on the 

repared by Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

firms it position in the Draft EIS that the proposed 

game mortality as a result of individuals within the 

n. SEA has included recommended mitigation 

ded to facilitate movement of pronghorn across the rail 

ring the Extension Alternatives, Alternative B would 

ig game because Alternative B accesses the mines by 

several rail lines running east-west. This 

es for pronghorn to cross when moving north-south as 

er the PRB, then split north-south with only short 

dual mines. As a result, SEA believes Alternative B 

an Alternative C, although mitigation could prevent 

cies

EA contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

y threatened or endangered species potentially affected 

vided a list of species potentially affected by the 

k-footed ferret, piping plover, interior least tern, 

lid sturgeon, Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid, American 

ring preparation of the Draft EIS, SEA and the 

k-tailed prairie dog had been submitted for protection 

t the USFWS was considering the information 

t any decision on the listing would occur before release 

the black-tailed prairie dog in the Draft EIS analysis. 

xtension Alternatives has the potential to adversely 

d species, including the black-tailed prairie dog, which 

wift fox, which has recently been removed from 

 Alternative B would have significant impact on 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

64

threatened and endangered species as it would cross a black-footed ferret reintroduction area, thus likely making the site unsuitable for ferret reintroduction and jeopardizing reestablishment of the species.

SEA received comments regarding Federally threatened and endangered species, with 

most of the emphasis on the black-tailed prairie dog. Commenters indicated that SEA should consider project impacts to this species. SEA notes that the Draft EIS (Chapter 4, Sections 4.1.8.4 and 4.4.10.4.10) discusses the potential impacts of the Extension Alternatives to blacktailed prairie dogs. Although not yet listed, and likely not to be listed in the foreseeable future, this species is included in the analysis at the same level as other Federally listed species. SEA determined the potential impact to prairie dogs by determining the amount of habitat each of the Extension Alternatives would convert to rail line right-of-way, approximately 552.7 acres for Alternative B and 819.4 acres for Alternative C. As discussed in the Biological Assessment prepared for the project, contained in the Draft EIS (Appendix K) and the Final EIS (Appendix H), SEA anticipates some mortality to prairie dogs during construction of the rail line. However, the high reproductive rate of prairie dogs is expected to easily replace any losses. Additionally, SEA observed numerous prairie dog towns along other existing rail lines in the project area, suggesting this species is capable of adapting to rail lines and utilizing the habitat they provide.Therefore, SEA continues to conclude that the proposed project would have no significant impacts on black-tailed prairie dog populations. 3.2.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION

SEA conducted extensive analysis of the potential project-related impacts to noise 

sensitive and vibration receptors, as presented in the Draft EIS (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.9). SEA determined that several noise sensitive receptors along both Extension Alternatives would be adversely affected by project-related increases in train noise. For both Extension Alternatives, most of the noise sensitive receptors affected would be located in Fall River County, South Dakota. Due to its proximity to the community of Edgemont, South Dakota, Alternative B would adversely affect a greater number of noise sensitive receptors than Alternative C. 

SEA received comments on the Draft EIS indicating that the rail line would result in 

increased noise and adverse impacts along the proposed Extension Alternatives. These comments support SEA’s analysis in the Draft EIS. No commenters raised issues requiring additional analysis of project-related impacts to noise sensitive receptors. SEA has concluded the analysis contained in the Draft EIS is appropriate. 

SEA also conducted extensive analysis of the potential impacts to structures from 

project-related increases in vibration. In the Draft EIS, SEA indicated that structures within 100 

Appendix C

Page 32
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

65

ated as part of this project could experience some 

 determined that operation of Alternative C could 

uctures would be potentially damaged by Alternative 

EA has determined that structures would likely need to 

ally be damaged by rail vibration. Because DM&E’s 

oximately 100 feet on either side of the rail line, no 

o be damaged by project-related vibration. Although 

lternatives, including the two structures within 100 

e rail-induced vibration, it would not likely be 

refore, SEA has determined that neither of the 

icant vibration problems. 

 from agencies and the public during scoping 

ts of coal dust blowing from rail cars (fugitive coal 

ect to air quality at Class I airsheds. These concerns 

e, vegetation and crops along the rail line, visibility, 

 to keep windows closed, inability to hang laundry 

m vehicles and homes. The following summarizes 

sented in the Draft EIS (Sections 3.2.8, 4.3.8, and 

analysis of this issue for this Final EIS. 

at fugitive coal dust would not present a significant 

moisture content of PRB coal, which produces less 

ent, so that a crust tends to form over exposed coal. 

educe the potential for a significant fugitive dust 

ce to support this conclusion, including its 

e PRB with no signs of fugitive dust, lack of coal dust 

lines,28 and lack of public complaints concerning coal 

mounts of PRB coal are transported.29

pecific locations of large amounts of coal along the existing rail 

 these locations and its own investigation, the coal present was 

ce it was present in large amounts and in localized areas.

South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, and 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

66

In preparing the Final EIS, SEA conducted further investigation into whether 

characteristics of PRB coal influence its potential for producing fugitive dust capable of causing an environmental impact. In the Draft EIS, SEA found no detailed studies on the amount of coal dust lost from rail transportation, nor did subsequent investigation identify detailed studies on fugitive coal dust from transport of PRB coal. However, SEA did find a general analysis of the fugitive coal dust issue and analysis of fugitive dust generated by a specific type of eastern coal.  These studies are summarized below. 

In 1996, Simpson Weather Associates of Charlottesville, Virginia, in cooperation with 

and with funding from Norfolk Southern Corporation, conducted an evaluation of fugitive coal dust losses along a rail corridor in Virginia with heavy coal traffic.30 This study was conducted 

along an approximately 500-mile rail corridor with known fugitive coal dust complaints, and evaluated the loss of metallurgical coal31 under a variety of meteorological and physical 

conditions. It concluded that while fugitive coal dust emissions did not appear to violate ambient air quality standards and that no remedial action was necessary, up to 0.6 tons (1,200 pounds) of coal could be lost per rail car over the 500-mile trip. Typical losses were reported to be 0.2 to 0.4 tons per rail car (400 to 800 pounds).

In an additional study, Simpson Weather Associates discussed concerns about fugitive 

coal dust from the time the coal is mined until it is shipped abroad.32 This study expanded on the 

initial one, indicating that the transported coal traveled on trains reaching a speed of 50 miles per hour, and that the metallurgical coal was crushed and dried prior to transport. It also indicated that fugitive coal dust is related to the size of the coal transported, its clay and moisture content, and seasonal considerations. Moisture content is most significant, since low moisture content resulted in dust problems during the coal’s entire transportation route. 

SEA also identified an additional study prepared by the Pennsylvania State University 

(Penn State) Department of Energy, Environmental, and Mineral Economics,33 that discussed 

30 Edward M. Calvin, G.D. Emmitt, and Jerome E. Williams. 1996. “A Rail Emission Study: Fugitive 

Coal Dust Assessment and Mitigation,” Environment Virginia, 1996.

31 Coal used in metal production, forging, or smelting industries is generally of high heat value per ton and 

thus capable of generating the high and sustained temperatures needed for the metal industries.

32 George D. Emmitt. 1999. “Fugitive Coal Dust: An Old Problem Demanding New Solutions,” Port 

Technology International, No. 9, pp. 125-128.

33 Jeffrey K. Lazo and Katherine T. McCain. 1996. “Community Perceptions, Environmental Impacts, 

and Energy Policy - Rail Shipment of Coal,” Energy Policy, Vol. 24 (6), pp. 531-540. 

Appendix C

Page 33
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

67

t issue in light of the scientific evidence. It noted that 

ergy needs has increased interest in fugitive coal dust 

l as psychological impacts on residences and 

nce coal users are attempting to reduce ash and 

Amendments of 1990, coal is crushed into smaller 

sh and slag-forming components from the coal. 

g, a process of grinding or pulverizing the coal in a 

mounts of coal of smaller particle size being shipped. 

 fugitive coal dust is classified as a nuisance pollutant, 

y danger to the environment or human health. Coal 

d to either human health, environmental, or agricultural 

ge of 7-10 μm has been linked to an emphysemic 

ition is generally confined to individuals working in 

unt of respirable coal dust, even with repeated 

all to pose any threat to the health of individuals living 

 both Environment Canada and EPA showed no effect 

at coal dust had no effect on agricultural production or 

tals were generally higher in soils than in the coal dust. 

al dust accumulating in adjacent soils nor of negative 

neering, Pennsylvania State University, Personal Interview - 18 

e T. McCain, “Community Perceptions, Environmental Impacts, 

gy Policy, Vol. 24 (6), pp. 531-540. 

es, Inc. Personal communication - 27 October, 1994. Cited in 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

68

Jeffrey K. Lazo and Katherine T. McCain, “Community Perceptions, Environmental Impacts, and Energy Policy - Rail Shipment of Coal,” Energy Policy, Vol. 24 (6), pp. 531-540. 

In evaluating the results of the Simpson Weather Associates studies, SEA found several 

significant differences between the eastern coal evaluated there and PRB coal. The studies evaluated coal transport along a rail corridor known to experience fugitive coal dust complaints. SEA contacted Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, and Missouri and found no records of complaints related to fugitive coal dust. Following release of the Draft EIS, SEA made additional contacts with communities along rail lines transporting a high volume of PRB and eastern coals (Table 3-5). None along the PRB coal rail lines were aware of any complaints of fugitive coal dust (some were unaware that coal was transported through the community at all), while the eastern communities had heard of the problem. While anecdotal, this evidence is consistent with SEA’s conclusion in the Draft EIS that fugitive coal dust is not a problem with PRB coal. 

Table 3-5 

Communities Contacted Regarding Fugitive Coal Dust 

Community Agency Railroad

Gillette, WY Office of Environmental Services BNSFAberdeen, SD City Health Department BNSFJamestown, ND Health Department BNSFSt. Cloud, MN Department of Environmental Health BNSFOsceola, IA Clark County Office of Environment BNSFAmes, IA Office of Public Relations UPScottsbluff, NB Health Department BNSF and UP 

Appendix C

Page 34
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

69

Table 3-5 

ted Regarding Fugitive Coal Dust 

Agency Railroad

als, and Energy Department NS36 and CSXT37

ureau CR*

of Air Quality CSXT and CR* 

tion (Conrail) assets acquired by NS and CSXT, Finance Docket 

tallurgical coal, which is generally dustier than steam 

ghout the eastern United States periodically, if not 

ely giving rise to incidents of fugitive coal dusting and 

m coal, however, PRB coal is less dusty and less likely 

il cars. Moreover, moisture content of the studies’ 

 to 11.4 percent. In contrast, PRB coal averages 30 

cles of coal sticking together, which reduces fugitive 

st losses occurred in the summer months, under hot, 

wind and train speeds. But during much of the year the 

E’s existing rail line are moderate to below freezing. 

 high temperatures and winds form fugitive dust. 

nd BNSF trains operating in the PRB at speeds greater 

or loaded coal trains for this project during hot, dry 

e dust from the rail cars. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

70

According to the studies, fugitive dust was increased by tunnels, trestles, trains passing in 

the opposite direction, and close hills or cuts through hills for the rail line. As a general rule, DM&E’s existing rail line across South Dakota and Minnesota traverses open, flat terrain.Although no tunnels, large trestles, or significant hill-cuts occur along the existing line, several hill-cuts would likely be created by the proposed project. However, these would occur primarily in sparsely populated areas where fugitive dust would have little, if any, impact on local residents and would be similar to dust created by wind erosion and vehicles on local gravel roads. Because coal dust is relatively inert and not a hazard to human health or biological resources, any fugitive dust in these areas would have no significant impact on the environment.  Fugitive dust could be generated when a loaded train passes another train at one of the many passing sidings necessary for project operation. However, none of these sidings would be in towns or communities, only in rural areas with scattered residents, where fugitive dust created would likely be similar to that created through agricultural operations, wind erosion, and vehicles on gravel roads.

The available studies emphasize that smaller sizes of coal, such as those produced by 

underground and longwall mining techniques, result in fugitive dust. In contrast, PRB coal is mined in open pits using explosives, large mechanical shovels, bulldozers, and trucks. This process results in coal particles much larger than in other mining techniques. Although PRB coal is processed to a more uniform size for transport, particle size is generally one to two inches. Final crushing of PRB coal for use by the utility is generally done at the generating station immediately prior to introduction of the coal into the boiler combustion chamber. This delayed crushing is done both to accommodate the specific particle size requirements for the individual combustion chambers and to make the coal easier to handle and reduce dust generated from coal-handling at the generating station. The larger particle size of PRB coal makes it unlikely to produce significant amounts of fugitive dust. 

Some comments on the Draft EIS questioned why fugitive coal dust was not considered 

as a potential source of visibility impairment, particularly at Class I airsheds such as Badlands National Park, contributing to regional haze. Others indicated that fugitive coal dust emissions should have been quantified and included in the air modeling study conducted for the project alternatives, just as were locomotive emissions, including the associated particulate emissions. SEA does not believe it would be appropriate to include fugitive coal dust emissions as part of the air quality visibility analysis. Previous air quality studies in the region have considered locomotive emissions, as did SEA in this case. PRB coal data indicate that it is a highly unlikely source for fugitive coal dust, and studies on eastern coal with very different characteristics from PRB coal are not valid surrogates for potential PRB coal-dust emissions. 

Appendix C

Page 35
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

71

ost fugitive coal dust is larger than 10 μm. Dust 

fall out of the air in a relatively short distance and not 

long distances as would be necessary to contribute to 

iculate emissions from locomotives, while being 

carried aloft in a plume of hot air. This hot air rises 

 atmospheric conditions have greater influence on 

xtended periods of time and transporting them great 

 acted on by such forces. Any fugitive dust would be 

ntributing to local or regional visibility concerns. 

analysis and the studies discussed above, SEA 

t result from the transport of PRB coal along the 

nd very localized basis. As discussed in the Draft EIS, 

ashing of adjacent residences, businesses, or vehicles 

e fugitive coal dust should be an infrequent event and 

 to human health or the environment, SEA has 

significant concern for this project. 

ed a condition (Condition 67) requiring DM&E to 

f the Air Quality Working Group, which was 

agencies, including the National Park Service, with 

erstands that DM&E and the Working Group have 

veral months, and that various versions of a draft 

culated. The negotiations reached an impasse, 

 agreement on one issue: train caps or emission caps. 

anted DM&E to limit the number of trains or the 

traffic or emissions approached levels that would be 

h as the Badlands National Park in South Dakota.38

o train or emission caps because to do so would violate 

to provide service upon reasonable request to the 

 49 U.S.C. 11101(a)). 

s the Board has frequently stated, railroads must have 

affic over particular line segments in response to 

scussion of the regional haze issue and SEA’s conclusions about 

lass I airsheds would occur. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

72

changes in shipper demands and other market conditions.39 Any caps — whether to trains or 

emission levels — would be inappropriate, in violation of the railroad’s common carrier obligation, and beyond the Board’s jurisdiction to impose.40

39 See Major Rail Consolidation Procedures, STB Ex Parte No. 582 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served June 11, 

2001), slip op. at 39-40. 

40 In one railroad merger, the Board imposed a temporary traffic cap in one community (Reno, Nevada) to 

permit completion of an ongoing environmental mitigation study. No permanent traffic cap has ever been imposed by the Board. 

Appendix C

Page 36
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

73

 believes that the Working Group has been productive, 

agreement may be reached following issuance of this 

d’s jurisdiction.41 Therefore, SEA is retaining its 

t to require mediation (half of which would be funded 

&E cannot agree on terms within one year of the date 

o the project.42 (See SEA’s recommended mitigation 

re are technological and other limitations to the 

g Group to minimize project-related impacts of 

pear feasible to require DM&E to accelerate 

ons standards, as the technology needed to retrofit 

oreover, DM&E is exploring the possibility of using a 

ut is concerned that it could be placed at a competitive 

n the PRB did not have to operate under the same 

ve to be available to address the impacts of regional 

rom the locomotive emissions of DM&E coal trains. 

ot agree on reasonable measures to assure that project

ated, regional haze could constitute an unavoidable 

e not anticipated until DM&E were to transport 40 million tons of 

or the parties to seek to resolve the impasse, assuming that the 

roject. 

 the parties jointly could ask for more time to continue their 

 would be more productive. The parties also could mutually 

 clear that further meetings would not be fruitful. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

74

In the Draft EIS (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.13), SEA explained that the purpose of the 

proposed new rail line construction is to transport coal and that no shippers or receivers of hazardous materials are located along the proposed alignments of any of the Extension Alternatives. Therefore, SEA indicated that no hazardous material are anticipated to be transported over the new rail line as a result of this project.43

43 DM&E currently transports small amounts of a variety of hazardous materials, including liquefied 

petroleum gas (LPG), anhydrous ammonia, phosphoric acid, ferric chloride, fuel oil, and ethylene acetyl (a flammable gas used in welding, among other things). 

Specifically, SEA stated that the proposed PRB Expansion Project is intended to 

facilitate the transport of coal between coal mines in the PRB and coal-burning electrical generating facilities east of the PRB. The coal cars of other railroads currently serving the mines are transported empty to the coal mines and loaded with coal. The loaded cars then are transported to the specific utility plant, unloaded, and shipped empty back to the mines for reloading. The pricing structure for transport of coal accounts for the cars to return empty to the mine. Therefore, railroads can afford to operate in this manner by charging more for coal transport.

SEA received comments concerning hazardous materials. These comments primarily 

expressed concerns that DM&E would use empty coal cars to haul waste material, including trash and hazardous wastes, from the east to disposal facilities in the west if this project is approved and implemented. Commenters urged that DM&E be prohibited from hauling hazardous materials or waste over the new rail line (or additional hazardous materials over the portion of its existing system connecting to the proposed new rail line). 

However, a variety of practical reasons exist which make it unlikely that DM&E would 

haul trash or hazardous materials in empty coal cars. First, rail cars are designed to perform specific functions and transport specific types of commodities. Coal cars are no exception. They are designed to transport coal. While they potentially could be used to transport other bulk commodities (such as rock or gravel), they would be inappropriate for the transport of trash and any type of hazardous material or waste. Transport of material other than coal in these cars 

Appendix C

Page 37
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

75

ned prior to being loaded with coal to prevent 

fect its combustion properties and the operation of the 

uld be uneconomical and impractical for a unit train in 

bottom (or hopper) bumpers and rotary dumpers. 

n on the bottom of the car to allow the coal to fall out 

veyor system which receives the coal below the rail 

pulled over an open chute, the hoppers opened and the 

ype of coal car is a rotary dumper. These cars are 

ack and the track rotated, containing one or two rail 

upside down position, dumping the coal into a 

 rotated back to the upright position and new cars 

 Thus, individual generating stations are designed to 

rder to use coal cars to transport other commodities, 

ble to accommodate the type of car delivering the 

the PRB, many of the coal cars they move are owned 

ads. These cars are either leased back to the railroad 

de coal to the utility’s facilities or the railroad simply 

t the cars from the generating facility to the mine and 

ars for other means. Coal cars are therefore typically 

he mine to another location to, for example, pick up a 

ocation, and then return to the mine. Any attempt to 

in delays to the train returning to the mine, being 

g station, as the utility only has enough cars to meet its 

k turn around time. Such operations would not be 

l cars for other purposes also would increase the wear 

 maintenance costs. 

ted that there have been attempts to open facilities in 

ng for receipt of trash and hazardous materials, SEA is 

operate any such facilities along the existing DM&E 

Alternatives. No such facilities currently exist along 

s no destination for any trash or hazardous materials. 

uch materials, it would have to interchange them with 

al facility, reducing any economic advantage that 

ods. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

76

It is possible that DM&E could transport trash or other hazardous materials over the 

Extension Alternatives using rail cars appropriate for such goods. DM&E, as a common carrier, is legally bound to provide rail service to anyone, for the transport of anything, including hazardous materials, upon request to do so.44 The Board cannot preclude a common carrier from hauling or not hauling particular commodities, but any transport of hazardous materials would have to be in strict compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. Moreover, SEA is unaware of any facilities along the Extension Alternatives that would require transport of hazardous materials. Thus, SEA does not anticipate that DM&E would be asked to operate trains transporting trash or hazardous materials over the proposed Extension Alternatives for the foreseeable future. Therefore, SEA does not anticipate any impacts from the transport of hazardous materials. 

44 See 49 U.S.C. 11101(a) (“A rail carrier providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of 

the Board under this part shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request”); see also Ethan Allen v. 

Maine Cent. R.R. Co., 431 F. Supp. 740 (D. Vt. 1977) (stating that common carriers have a duty to provide adequate 

transportation to shippers if the shippers’ requests are reasonable (citing Pennsylvania R.R. v. Sonman Shaft Coal 

Co., 242 U.S. 120 (1916); Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. v. Hardwick Farmers Elevator Company, 226 U.S. 426 (1913); 

Johnson v. Chicago, M., St.P & P. R.R., 400 F.2d 968 (9th Cir. 1968)), Overbrook Farmers Union Coop. Ass’n, 5 

I.C.C. 2d 316 (1989) (railroad violated duties under 49 U.S.C. 11101(a) by failing to provide service to shippers after flood damage prompted railroad to impose an embargo on the line).

3.2.13 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

SEA conducted an extensive analysis of the geology and soils along the Extension 

Alternatives in the Draft EIS (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.5). SEA determined that the geology of the project area consisted of extensive areas of Pierre shale and Fort Union formations, which are 

Appendix C

Page 38
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

77

ecause of the long stretches of these formations that 

atives, approximately 150.6 miles by Alternative B and 

ded in the Draft EIS that there was the potential for 

rmations. However, SEA stated that engineering and 

oncerns regarding areas susceptible to slumping and 

at SEA had understated the potential problems 

 of a new rail line across Pierre shale formations. 

ruction across these formations would be difficult, if 

ed rail line could be constructed, the susceptibility of 

slumping (landslides) would pose an ongoing threat to 

ations. 

 the fact that, in order to construct a safe and reliable 

to both identify potential geologic hazards prior to 

ng construction to address any problem areas 

s raised by commenters, SEA conducted additional 

 Pierre shale formation and ways, if any, to avoid 

ussion of Pierre shale is included in Appendix M and 

e shale’s susceptibility to landslides and slumping, and 

due to high shrink/swell potential and moderate to high 

well potential refers to the tendency of the soil or rock 

shale formation has a high shrink/swell potential 

 other expandable materials. Much like a sponge, 

aterials, they absorb the water and expand or swell, 

n occur when water in soil freezes and the expansion of 

ve). Absorption of water can cause the formation to 

As water drains from the formation, it shrinks as the 

become compressed. Generally, such formations will 

articular area. However, during periods of drought, 

ly, periods of high precipitation can result in excessive 

r shrinking and swelling can cause fracturing of 

entially leading to slumps or landslides. 

otential, the Pierre shale formation has a moderate to 

posed to moisture, can act as a lubricant, causing the 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

78

layers of rock to slide on each other. Under such conditions, rock material on slopes can lose its stability and slide along lower layers of rock, resulting in slope instability and landslides.

For issues of shrink/swell potential and clay content, moisture is the primary concern. A 

constant and minimal moisture level needs to be maintained to minimize the potential for rock and soil materials to shrink or swell. Moisture needs to be kept away from high clay content areas to prevent sliding of the rock layers within which they occur. Accordingly, in areas where there are Pierre shale formations, it is more critical that there be good drainage along the rail alignment. 

After examining the issue in more detail and identifying the underlying causes of the 

potential problems associated with crossing the Pierre shale, SEA continues to believe that DM&E should be able, through the extensive geotechnical investigation of the alignment which would be required prior to final design and construction, to identify those areas of Pierre shale along the Extension Alternatives which would potentially pose a problem for rail line construction and operation. Once these areas are identified, measures (over-excavation of material beneath the rail bed, flattening of sideslopes to reduce their steepness,45 larger drainage 

ditches adjacent to the railbed, and other techniques to remove the expandable material from the rail bed and or keep the water off of it) could be utilized to maintain the stability of the rail bed. It is not unusual for construction projects to proceed in terrain with a variety of geologic challenges. Indeed, existing rail lines and roadways occur throughout the project area, many of them built across Pierre shale. Accordingly, SEA is confident that construction of a safe rail line is feasible in this area, provided appropriate engineering and design measures are implemented. SEA has recommended appropriate geology mitigation in Chapter 12. 

In assessing the potential project-related impacts to soils in the Draft EIS, SEA 

determined the length of each Extension Alternative that would cross soils with a high erosion hazard, approximately 221.3 miles for Alternative B and 208.2 miles for Alternative C. The proposed rail line would cross soils with high erosion hazards including soils that raised concerns due to water, wind, or steepness. As particular soils may have more than one of these hazards, SEA noted that the totals presented in the Draft EIS likely overestimated the total amount of these soils. However, SEA presented these totals as a way to compare the sensitivity of the soils crossed by each Extension Alternative to erosion. 

45 Flatter sideslopes require more horizontal area per vertical rise of slope. Therefore, SEA considered the 

need for extra excavation to stabilize sideslopes in the Draft EIS, using an average right-of-way width of 400 feet rather than the minimum 200 feet required to account for extra right-of-way requirements to establish stable sideslopes and rail bed.

Appendix C

Page 39
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

79

lained about the manner in which SEA totaled the 

SEA refined its approach and has included the miles of 

sion hazards, as presented in Appendix L of the Draft 

ately 112.0 miles of soil with a high water erosion 

d erosion hazard, and 103.8 miles of soil with a high 

ative C would cross approximately 95.4 miles of soil 

es of soil with a high wind erosion hazard, and 91.1 

e to steep slopes. As both Extension Alternatives 

oils, albeit Alternative C would affect less, and both 

 during construction, SEA reaffirms its conclusion in 

th would have significant impacts on soils. However, 

 Chapter 12, SEA believes these impacts can be 

nducted an extensive analysis to determine the 

acts on minority or low-income communities, 

ustice communities, as discussed in detail in Appendix 

he U.S. Bureau of Census for the census block group 

th race and income information is managed) to 

nities potentially were located along the Extension 

ion of a census block group as having environmental 

in the prior cases: 

k group is of minority status k group is of low-income status 

or the census block group is at least 10 percentage 

unty in which the census block group is located 

s for the census block group is at least 10 percentage 

unty in which the census block group is located. 

mined that three environmental justice communities 

tension Alternatives.46 One environmental justice 

ounties of Custer, South Dakota, and Weston and 

ntal justice census block groups in the Draft EIS; however, 10 of 

e crossed by only Alternative D, which has been determined 

l EIS.

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

80

Niobrara, Wyoming. One additional environmental justice community in Shannon County would not be crossed by the proposed Extension Alternatives, although it could be indirectly affected. SEA determined that none of these communities would be disproportionately impacted by construction and operation of either Alternative B or C. 

The Commenters’ Concerns. SEA received comments from EPA and others involving 

the methodology SEA had employed in its environmental justice analysis in the Draft EIS. Additionally, commenters questioned why SEA used 1990 census data instead of more recent 2000 census data, and contended that ranchers and farmers should be considered low-income populations. Some commenters indicated that various communities along the rail line, including Rochester, had more recent census data for the particular communities. 

Early in the preparation of the Draft EIS, SEA consulted with EPA concerning the 

methodology SEA intended to use to identify potential environmental justice communities. In this case, two EPA administrative regions are involved, Region 5 for Minnesota and Region 8 for South Dakota and Wyoming. SEA determined that each region uses different criteria for classification of a community as low-income. Region 8 considers individuals at or below the national poverty level as low-income. Region 5 uses 1.5 times the poverty level as the determinant for low-income status because individuals can be above the poverty level but still be struggling financially. SEA requested guidance from EPA on a uniform standard to be used for this project. However, EPA provided no indication of what criteria SEA should use. Therefore, because SEA has used the poverty level standard in the past and because Region 8, which covers the majority of the project area, also uses the poverty level, SEA decided to use the poverty level as the indicator of low-income status in the Draft EIS. 

In its comments on the Draft EIS, EPA acknowledged the different criteria applied by 

Region 5 and Region 8 to identify environmental justice communities. EPA also concurred that one approach should be used to identify low-income populations. But because Region 5's criteria would be more inclusive and thus provide a more conservative analysis, EPA recommended that SEA consider income levels at and below 1.5 times the poverty level as lowincome in this case. SEA has conducted additional analysis, as discussed later in this section, using Region 5's low-income criteria for this Final EIS. 

Additionally, EPA recommended in its comments that SEA use state percentages for 

minority and low-income populations rather than the county percentages. EPA indicated that because counties are much smaller areas they may present a relatively homogeneous population, which may not be characteristic of the state as a whole. Additionally, EPA recommended that SEA compare the census block group percentages for minority and low-income populations to 1.5 times the state percentages for these groups. Classification of a census block group as either minority or low-income would be based on the census block group’s percentages for these areas 

Appendix C

Page 40
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

81

e applicable state percentage. SEA has conducted 

based on EPA’s recommendations, as discussed in 

s analysis pertaining to the Extension Alternatives are 

ng SEA’s use of 1990 census data, SEA notes that it 

, at which time the 2000 census was still in-progress. 

aft EIS, the Bureau of Census began to make available 

However, these data were generally at the state or 

e analysis requires data at the census block group level, 

h race and income data is obtained. SEA has 

termine when census block group data for the 2000 

at this level of census data would not be available until 

 and cities have developed their own estimates or 

 in order for SEA to conduct a valid environmental 

develop data for all the affected census block groups, 

oreover, all data must be for the same sample period. 

mpare census data estimated or projected for the year 

he year 1995. The only consistent data set available 

 census. While SEA recognizes that this data may be 

means of comparison between project alternatives. 

al environmental justice analysis using 1990 census 

e been appropriate to identify low-income populations 

 Some ranchers and farmers prosper even in difficult 

ntifying low-income populations by annual income 

ble. 

is Final EIS. SEA first sought to obtain census data to 

dered to be low-income (income at or below 1.5 times 

ta, Wyoming, and each census block group crossed by 

hat, in contrast to the number of individuals within 

in poverty, insufficient income data was available to 

g at or below the low-income level. This was due to 

ndividual basis at the census block group level. 

 group level were available at the household level. 

that, given the lack of better data, it was appropriate to 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

82

determine potential low-income census block groups based on the percentage of households at or below the low-income level. Therefore, SEA calculated the percentage of households for each state and census block group that would be considered low-income. 

After calculating the percentage of households considered low-income for each census 

block group and the states, SEA multiplied the state percentage by 1.5 to obtain the percentage level above which EPA recommended that census block groups have environmental justice status. South Dakota was found to have a low-income household percentage of 38.4; Wyoming’s was 36.0 percent. Increasing these percentages by 50 percent resulted in percentages of 57.6 and 54.0, respectively. Therefore, a census block group in Wyoming would need to have a percentage of low-income households of 54 percent or greater to be considered environmental justice under EPA’s recommendation. Similarly, a census block group in South Dakota would need to have a percentage of low-income households of 57.6 percent or greater to be considered environmental justice under EPA’s recommendation. Because these criteria percentages are greater than 50 percent (the criteria SEA applied in the Draft EIS), despite EPA’s recommendation, SEA remained consistent with the 50 percent or more criteria applied in the Draft EIS. Moreover, SEA’s approach is more conservative for South Dakota and Wyoming than EPA’s recommendation. Based on this analysis, SEA determined four census block groups would meet the criteria for classification as environmental justice. These census blocks, one each found in Fall River and Custer counties, South Dakota and Converse and Weston counties, Wyoming, would be crossed by either of the remaining Extension Alternatives. 

SEA next calculated the minority population percentage for each state, multiplied by 1.5, 

and compared it to the minority percentage for each census block group (calculated for the Draft EIS). Based on this comparison, SEA determined that no census block groups meet the criteria for environmental justice classification due to minority populations. 

Following identification of the potential environmental justice communities, SEA 

conducted additional analysis to determine if these census block groups would be disproportionately affected by the proposed project. This analysis was done according to the methodology discussed in the Draft EIS, Appendix D. Based on this analysis, SEA determined that none of the environmental justice communities crossed by the Extension Alternatives would be disproportionately affected by the proposed project. 

While SEA determined that no disproportionate impacts would occur to census block 

groups identified as environmental justice, SEA concluded that disproportionate impacts could occur to Native American populations, particularly the various Sioux Tribes in South Dakota. In conducting additional analysis on the potential impacts of the proposed project, SEA determined that significant impacts would occur to cultural resources and Traditional Cultural Properties. These impacts would occur mainly to archaeological resources associated with Native American 

Appendix C

Page 41
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

83

ese sites, which are an important cultural and spiritual 

esult in a significant impact to Native Americans, a 

has recognized the potential significance of 

an Tribes. SEA has initiated consultation with over 

cooperating agencies, has worked with representatives 

Agreement (PA) and Identification Plan (ID Plan) to 

ide for participation of the Tribes throughout the 

itigating, potential impacts to cultural resources. 

he Tribes, SEA and the cooperating agencies have 

develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

portance to the Tribes are addressed. The MOA 

 Tribes in the EIS process, and affords them the 

roject construction and operation to further address 

nt impacts to important Tribal resources, SEA has 

ons requiring compliance with the MOA and PA and 

gation is required due to these measures providing the 

nd input as to the potential impacts and mitigation 

itional cultural properties.

TIONS

ations, SEA has taken into consideration the entire 

nsion Alternatives and the No-Action Alternative. This 

task due to the expansive nature of the project, 

al characteristics (such as types of wildlife, vegetation, 

f resources potentially significantly impacted. 

nts on the potential environmental impacts and SEA’s 

enerally, these comments apply to a particular part of 

oming or South Dakota. Additionally, many 

d local agencies, targeted specific resources for which 

tory responsibility. Ultimately, however, it is SEA’s 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

84

responsibility to evaluate, review, and consider all of the impacts to all the resources along all of the alternatives and develop a single recommended alternative. 

In this case, each Extension Alternative would have impacts on the environment. 

Additionally, no one alternative would have the least impact on all the resources evaluated. Also, impacts within a resource category may differ for each alternative. For example, one alternative may have greater impacts on big game but lesser impacts on sage grouse leks, both impacts to wildlife and both important considerations. Such a situation requires SEA to weigh the degree of the environmental impact of each Alternative, viewed as a whole, and the extent to which the impacts are capable of being effectively mitigated. 

After careful and thorough consideration of all the available information on alternatives, 

SEA has developed recommendations for the proposed project. These recommendations address each of the components associated with extending DM&E’s existing rail line into the PRB, including:• overall rail line extension - Alternatives B or C versus the no-action alternative 

(Alternative A)47

• alternative route variations for the Spring Creek area - Spring Creek and Phiney Flat 

Segments 

• alternative route variations for the Hay Canyon area - Oral, Hay Canyon, and WG Divide 

Segments 

• mine loop route variations - North Antelope (East and West Loops) and Black Thunder 

(North and South Loops) 

SEA’s specific recommendations and its rationale are presented in the following sections. 3.3.1 THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

In the Draft EIS, SEA conducted extensive analysis of the reasonable and feasible 

alternatives for extending DM&E’s existing rail system into the PRB. These alternatives included the No-Action alternative (Alternative A), DM&E’s proposed action alternative (Alternative B), and the modified proposed action alternative (Alternative C) — designed to avoid some of the potential environmental impacts of Alternative B. SEA concluded in the Draft EIS, that although Alternative A would not result in many of the potential impacts of the action 

47 SEA also analyzed an existing transportation corridor alternative (Alternative D) in the Draft EIS.

However, as discussed above, Alternative D (and a Modified D Alternative) have since been determined unreasonable and have been eliminated from further consideration.

Appendix C

Page 42
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

85

e potential to result in significant impacts to safety and 

would not meet the stated purpose and need for the 

ecessary revenues to rehabilitate its existing rail line 

nt rail carrier access to the PRB. SEA reaffirms here 

Alternative A. Therefore, the remaining issue for SEA 

ich action alternative, Alternative B or C, would be 

ard decide to approve the project. 

hat both Alternatives B and C would have potentially 

 land use, geologic hazards, soils, paleontological 

uality, vegetation, cultural resources, and aesthetics.

ative B could have significant impacts to threatened 

ined that, if the mitigation recommended in the Draft 

 of these impacts could be reduced, potentially below 

ntially significant adverse environmental impacts, 

tural resources, would likely still result. Therefore, 

he Draft EIS was issued, SEA indicated that while it 

d be viewed as environmentally preferable, Alternative 

y intrusive Extension Alternative. 

d extensive additional analysis in a variety of resource 

owing compares the Extension Alternatives based on 

ally be significantly impacted by the proposed project, 

he Draft EIS, additional analysis in the Final EIS, and 

d potentially result in significant impacts on safety, 

ld be slightly greater. However, DM&E has 

otection plan for Alternative C and SEA is 

&E to comply with it as part of any project approval. 

ed and implemented, the potential safety impacts of 

ed. DM&E has not submitted such a plan for 

ction plan submitted for Alternative C could generally 

oard approved that Alternative. Therefore, with 

lternative B or C would have a significant impact on 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

86

Potentially significant impacts regarding geology would result from the proposed new 

line because each of the Extension Alternatives would cross extensive areas of Pierre shale which could be unstable, resulting in landslides or slumping. Landslides or slumping would cause long-term maintenance problems and could jeopardize safe operation of the rail line. However, as noted above and in the Draft EIS, appropriate design and engineering measures exist to allow DM&E to identify the potential problem areas, address them, and reduce the likelihood of future problems. Alternative B, because of the numerous pinch-points along the Cheyenne River, would likely require more extensive measures to ensure stability and safety of the rail bed along that alignment. These additional measures would likely result in greater impacts to the Cheyenne River and soils on adjacent areas due to the increased earthwork required to construct a suitable rail bed at these locations. 3.3.1.3 Soils

Overall, the potential impacts from both Extension Alternatives would be similar and 

potentially significant. However, mitigation measures recommended in Chapter 12 of the Final EIS would serve to reduce soil losses and disturbance during construction. Both alternatives cross similar amounts of erodible soils, the impacts of which could also be addressed through implementation of SEA’s recommended mitigation. In short, impacts to soils, while potentially significant, would be similar between the two alternatives and could likely be mitigated to levels below significance.3.3.1.4 Paleontological Resources

Both Extension Alternatives have the potential to have significant impacts on 

paleontological resources. Alternative C could potentially have a greater impact because it would affect slightly more areas with a Probable Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) of 5, the level with the highest potential for these resources. However, while fossils occur in particular rock strata, they are not evenly distributed, but occur somewhat randomly. Therefore, it is possible that few, if any, fossil resources would be encountered in a high-probability area and for significant fossil resources to be encountered in a low-probability area. SEA is recommending mitigation to minimize the likelihood of potentially significant impacts. 3.3.1.5 Land Use

Appendix C

Page 43
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

87

d have potentially significant impacts on agricultural 

nds. DM&E has developed a Land Use Mitigation 

ed that compliance with it be imposed as a condition 

n and applicable laws that provide for landowner 

 Chapter, SEA believes that many of the impacts on 

ed a mitigation plan (included as Attachment B to 

cts of Alternative C, the USFS identified preferred 

prove the project. Implementation of the USFS 

he impacts of Alternative C to Federal lands. No such 

, and SEA believes it would be more difficult to 

e B. Alternative B would affect approximately 13.0 

al RARE II and Roadless areas which are sensitive to 

nally, it would be difficult to mitigate the potential 

n of the Cheyenne River the USFS considers eligible 

have potentially significant impacts to water resources, 

ive B would have substantially greater impacts to 

al streams and 623 intermittent streams, compared to 

for Alternative C. Both Alternatives cross the 

he river is listed as impaired. However, Alternative B 

River for 9.11 miles and contain several pinch-points 

o the river. Alternative C, in contrast, would be within 

98 miles and would have no pinch-points. 

 could be more effectively mitigated due to the 

oncludes that Alternative C would have the fewest 

ential impacts could likely be reduced to insignificant 

n. 

ximately 90.8 acres of wetlands and Alternative C 

 wetlands. Each Extension Alternative would have 

s. However, as part of the COE Section 404 permit 

elop mitigation for potential wetland impacts, and SEA 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

88

is recommending that the Board impose a condition requiring that DM&E obtain and comply with its 404 permit, thereby minimizing or eliminating any potential loss of wetlands. 3.3.1.8 Air Quality

Neither of the Extension Alternatives would have an adverse impact on air quality, based 

on National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration emissions increments for Class II airsheds, due to locomotive emissions of criteria pollutants. As such, the project would have no affect on the air attainment status of the project area. 

SEA also evaluated the potential impacts of the Extension Alternatives upon visibility at 

Class I airsheds, including Badlands National Park. Both Alternatives B and C would have similar impacts to visibility, particularly at operation levels at and above 50 million tons of annual coal transport.

As part of this project, SEA has developed an air quality working group to study the 

impacts of the proposed project at Badlands National Park and other Class I airsheds and develop mitigation measures to minimize impacts to these visual resources. SEA has recommended, as part of any mitigation imposed by the Board should the project be approved, that DM&E comply with the recommendations of this working group. Additionally, SEA has included other recommended mitigation measures intended to minimize impacts to Class I airsheds.3.3.1.9 Vegetation

Construction of either Alternative B or C would require that a substantial amount of 

vegetation be cleared, much of which would be converted to rail line right-of-way. Because revegetation measures could be implemented to reestablish vegetative cover, the potential effect of loss of vegetation could be mitigated. Therefore, this project likely would not result in significant adverse impacts for common vegetative communities found throughout the area, including grassland, coniferous forest, and sagebrush shrublands.

However, deciduous woodland and riparian vegetation are uncommon in the project area 

and provide valuable habitat for eagles and other raptors, wild turkey, deer, and elk. Based on comments from the USFWS and South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, it appears that loss of deciduous woodlands, particularly riparian woodlands, may be difficult to mitigate successfully. Both Extension Alternatives would convert deciduous woodlands to rail line rightof-way, approximately 24.2 acres for Alternative B and 33.9 acres for Alternative C. Although Alternative B would affect less overall deciduous habitat, it would affect more riparian areas because it is closer to the Cheyenne River for over 9 miles, compared to less than 5 for 

Appendix C

Page 44
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

89

Alternative B would have a somewhat greater impact 

native C. 

SFWS, and South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

nt of a mitigation plan, as part of the COE permitting 

abitats. SEA believes it is likely that significant 

mized as part of this process. Additionally, SEA has 

tion measures to minimize impacts on vegetation 

raditional Cultural Properties

lternative is likely to result in significant adverse 

nal Cultural Properties. It is likely that significant 

hin the rail line alignment. In some cases, it may be 

er cases this will not be possible, and the site will 

es sites will likely be inadvertently discovered during 

stroyed. Construction and operation of a rail line 

many traditional cultural properties and would 

tion, mitigation, and protection of cultural resources 

 among SEA, interested Tribes, cooperating agencies, 

tion, State Historic Preservation Offices, and DM&E, 

f Agreement, Programmatic Agreement, and 

ct, adverse, and likely significant, impacts are 

d Traditional Cultural Properties. Impacts to 

y mitigated through excavation. However, excavation 

National Historic Preservation Act and by the Tribes. 

roperties would be difficult to mitigate due to their 

 viewshed. Overall, SEA expects significant adverse 

which Extension Alternative may be selected. 

eate a visual intrusion into the landscape. Train 

e current scenic character of the project area as well as 

 undeveloped area currently provides. These impacts 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

90

Because of the similarities in the route alignments for Alternative B and C, the impacts of 

the two alternatives on aesthetics would be generally the same. However, Alternative B would have greater impacts, as it involves new construction in more areas along the Cheyenne River considered eligible for classification as Wild and Scenic (and consequently potentially greater impacts on the eligibility of the Crazy Horse Scenic Byway), cross more National Grasslands with a visual quality objective (VQO) of partial retention (7.5 miles verses 5.1 miles for Alternative C), and runs along the scenic Cheyenne River valley for a greater distance than Alternative C (9.11 miles verses 4.98 miles).3.3.1.12 Threatened and Endangered Species

Because of the similarity of the location and habitat types crossed by the two alternative 

alignments, potential impacts to threatened and endangered species would generally be similar for Alternatives B and C. However, Alternative B would have potentially adverse impacts on the black-footed ferret by crossing a prairie dog-habitat area identified for reintroduction of this species into the wild. By contrast, Alternative C would avoid this area and likely have little, if any, impact on black-footed ferrets. 3.3.1.13 Summary

After considering all the available information, SEA has determined that Alternatives B 

and C would have basically the same impacts to safety, soils, paleontological resources, land use, wetlands, air quality, and cultural resources. Appropriate mitigation would reduce the significant impacts on safety, soils, land use, and wetlands to levels below significance. Even with SEA’s recommended mitigation, however, significant impacts to cultural resources and Traditional Cultural Properties are likely. There also could be significant effects on paleontological resources and air quality (visibility at Class I airsheds) if the new line is constructed.

For the remaining resources potentially significantly impacted, including geology, water 

resources, vegetation, aesthetics, and threatened and endangered species, SEA has found differences in potential impacts, assuming that SEA’s recommended mitigation is implemented. In each of these areas, Alternative C — which was developed to avoid a number of environmentally sensitive areas — would have less potentially significant effects than Alternative B. Alternative C would avoid steep slopes and pinch-points along the Cheyenne River, which could require extra earthwork to stabilize, placement of fill in the Cheyenne River, and relocation of the river channel. Additionally, Alternative C would be out of the Cheyenne River valley to a greater extent than Alternative B, which generally follows the river for the majority of its length, and would be within 500 feet of the river for over four miles less than Alternative B. By avoiding the Cheyenne River, impacts to the waters of the river and the 

Appendix C

Page 45
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

91

ver would be reduced. Alternative C also would avoid 

d retain the eligibility of the Cheyenne River for Wild 

tive C would avoid the large prairie dog complex 

lack-footed ferrets. 

ive (Alternative A) would prevent impacts to a variety 

ernative would result in potentially significant impacts 

e and need for the project. 

udes that either of the Extension Alternatives would 

However, significant impacts from the construction and 

lly either be similar between Alternatives B and C or 

e Board decides to give final approval to the PRB 

 the environmentally preferred Alternative. This 

sition that if the project is approved, Alternative C 

48

ATIONS

 for portions of Alternatives B and C have been 

 process to respond to engineering and environmental 

in the Spring Creek and Hay Canyon areas and to 

ope coal mines. SEA’s final conclusions on these 

ternative Route Variations in South Dakota

hat the Spring Creek Segment (Figure 3-23)would have 

lands, and vegetation and that the Phiney Flat 

void these impacts. SEA stated that the Phiney Flat 

ntially greater impacts to paleontological resources, 

 known to have a higher potential for containing 

reek Segment would also have some potentially 

ary 14, 2000, if the Board determines new rail line is in the 

ative C as the preferred alternative, with some modifications. 

Action.

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

92

significant impacts to paleontological resources. As the Phiney Flat Alternative appeared to create fewer impacts which would be more capable of being mitigated than the Spring Creek Alternative, SEA preliminarily determined that the Phiney Flat Alternative would be environmentally preferable to the Spring Creek Segment. Commenters, particularly the State of South Dakota, generally supported SEA’s determination. 

SEA also received comments from the Native American Tribes expressing concern for 

archaeological resources in the Spring Creek and Phiney Flat areas. In the Draft EIS, SEA determined that both the Spring Creek and Phiney Flat alignments had a high potential for encountering archaeological resources. Neither of these alignments was surveyed for cultural resources, as discussed previously in Section 3.2.6. However, based on the results of the areas that were surveyed, it appears that Spring Creek has a greater potential to contain not only more sites, but more significant sites as well. This is primarily due to the Spring Creek Segment’s location within and along the Spring Creek drainage. In contrast, the Phiney Flat Segment is mainly located outside of any significant drainages and therefore would be less likely to contain cultural resources sites. Additionally, the Phiney Flat area is relatively open and flat, providing potential opportunities to shift the alignment slightly to avoid a significant cultural site if one were to be identified within the proposed right-of-way. 

For all of these reasons, SEA believes the Phiney Flat Alternative would be the 

environmentally preferred construction alternative for the Spring Creek area. 3.3.2.2 Hay Canyon Segment, Oral Segment, and WG Divide Alternative Route Variations 

in South Dakota

In the Draft EIS, SEA identified and evaluated three alternative alignment variations for 

the Hay Canyon area (Figure 3-24). Originally, the Oral Segment, which generally ran along the Cheyenne River and utilized a portion of DM&E’s existing rail line between Oral and Smithwick, South Dakota, had been included as part of Alternative B. The Hay Canyon Segment, which generally extended along Hay Canyon, was developed as part of Alternative C as part of an overall attempt to move the proposed rail line away from the Cheyenne River. It was then determined that both would have potentially significant impacts on wetlands and riparian habitats which could be difficult to mitigate effectively. Therefore, a third variation, the WG Divide Alternative, was developed to provide an alignment for evaluation that would minimize impacts to these riparian and wetland areas. However, the WG Divide Alternative would impact private lands within the Angostura Irrigation District and associated facilities administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Reclamation expressed concerns to SEA that railroad construction and operation under the WG Divide Alternative could have significant impacts to land use, irrigation facilities, and economics within the Angostura Irrigation District. In these circumstances, SEA requested additional comment from agencies 

Appendix C

Page 46
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

93

nvironmentally preferable extension alternative. SEA 

able extension alternative could be selected, it would 

nts on the Hay Canyon area route variations. The 

at it preferred the WG Divide Alternative due to 

reas along the Cheyenne River and Hay Canyon. The 

ews. Reclamation requested additional analysis of the 

h construction of new rail facilities across irrigated 

ved and the repayment contract and facilities at 

tion would be necessary. SEA also received 

l impact to waters classified as impaired under the 

nducted additional analysis of the Hay Canyon area 

esults of cultural resource surveys to evaluate the three 

unter cultural resources. 

hat the Oral Segment would affect 4.5 miles (218.2 

.7 acres) of irrigated land, and 13.9 miles (673.9 acres) 

would cross 1.8 miles of cropland (87.3 acres), all of 

07.9 acres) of rangeland. WG Divide Alternative 

5 acres) of cropland, including 5.8 miles (281.2 acres) 

s) of rangeland. 

t EIS, Reclamation conducted additional review of 

outing variations. Reclamation determined that the 

 437 acres of lands associated with the Angostura 

SEA has revised its acreage impacts in this Final EIS 

WG Divide Alternative. 

onsulted with Reclamation to determine the potential 

with conversion of agricultural lands to rail line right

rovides $17 of annual income per acre and that 

SEA also determined, in consultation with 

nerate approximately $227 per acre in crop revenue 

e, totaling $372 per acre of annual revenue. Based on 

 the potential lost annual revenue for each Hay 

acts are presented in Table 3-6. 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

94

Table 3-6 

Value of Revenue from Agricultural Land - Oral Segment, Hay Canyon Segment, 

and WG Divide Routing Alternative

 Alternative 

Acres

Dryland

Crops

Annual

Revenue

Lost

Acres of 

Irrigate

d Land 

Annual

Revenue

Lost

Acres of 

Rangeland

Annual

Revenue

Lost

Total

Annual

Revenue

Lost

OralSegment 

145.5 $16,878 72.7 $27,044 673.9 $11,456 $55,378

Hay Canyon 0 0 87.3 $32,476 707.9 $12,034 $44,510WG Divide 0 0 437.0 $162,564 436.4 $7,419 $169,983

Based on SEA’s further analysis, it appears the WG Divide Alternative would have the 

greatest economic impact to annual farm revenues, approximately $169,983. While these revenue losses may be significant to individual farmers, overall, they are insignificant compared to the millions of dollars in construction earnings, sales and use taxes, and employment income expected to be generated by this project in Fall River and Custer Counties. Additionally, farmers and ranchers would be compensated for the lost value of their properties, which can be expected to include consideration of revenue losses due to land converted to rail line right-of-way. 

However, the loss of irrigated lands and associated revenues associated with the WG 

Divide could impact the ability of the Angostura Irrigation District and its members to fund the $200,000 annual District budget, as well as payments of approximately $26,000 to Reclamation for water service and the annual project construction repayment. Additionally, removal of lands from irrigation could result in remaining water users paying a higher price for water in order to generate sufficient funds for the District to cover its costs and fund payments to Reclamation. 

In its comments on the Draft EIS, Reclamation expressed concern for these issues and 

indicated that approval of the WG Divide Alternative would require implementation of appropriate mitigation to protect Angostura facilities and maintain the economic and financial viability of the District. SEA is aware that Reclamation and DM&E have developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which would become effective as part of any permit by Reclamation for a routing alternative, particularly WG Divide, that would cross Reclamation and Irrigation District lands (See Appendix E). This MOA is designed to ensure that Reclamation’s concerns are appropriately addressed, and SEA is recommending that the Board impose a condition requiring DM&E to comply with the MOA, if the WG Divide Alternative is approved and constructed. 

Appendix C

Page 47
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

95

EA also determined that areas of the Cheyenne River 

h Dakota, under the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). 

 cross the Cheyenne River. However, none of them 

ver is currently considered to be impaired. 

ve American Tribes expressing concern for cultural 

Canyon Alternatives. None of the Hay Canyon 

l resources. Based on the results of the cultural 

d in South Dakota, SEA reviewed the alignments of the 

ir potential to contain cultural resources sites. SEA 

greatest potential to contain many and potentially 

Hay Canyon Segment. This is largely due to these two 

an historic water source. The WG Divide Alternative, 

tural sites, is the least likely to be impacted. The WG 

rticular drainage. As much of the area along the 

und in these areas would likely have been disturbed or 

ctices. 

tally preferred routing alternative, SEA has looked 

alternatives, and the degree to which these impacts 

EA focused on water resources, riparian areas, 

sources in reaching its conclusion. 

ree alternatives, the Oral Segment and Hay Canyon 

nt impacts to water resources (including the Cheyenne 

reas, wetlands, and cultural resources. Moreover, these 

itigate. 

ative would have substantially less impact to water 

ltural resources, but would result in thousands of 

year. These losses, while potentially significant to 

 much less than taxes and salaries paid by DM&E as 

roposed project. Additionally, the costs to mitigate the 

yon Segments could be several hundred thousand 

rnative, and the riparian impacts could not be 

n and DM&E have developed an MOA that would be 

by Reclamation for impacts to irrigation facilities and 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

96

Because it now appears that significant impacts to irrigated lands associated with the WG 

Alternative can be effectively mitigated, SEA has determined that the WG Divide Alternative is the environmentally preferred route variation. 3.3.2.3 Black Thunder Mine Loop Alternative Route Variations in Wyoming

SEA indicated in the Draft EIS that two alternatives were evaluated for accessing the 

Black Thunder coal mine, Black Thunder North Mine Loop and Black Thunder South Mine Loop (Figure 3-25). SEA noted that the Black Thunder South Mine Loop would have greater impacts to safety, geological hazards, soils, paleontological resources, land use, Federal lands, surface waters, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife (except to raptors), transportation, cultural resources, and aesthetics. The Black Thunder North Mine Loop would have greater, albeit minimal, impacts to Federal grazing pastures, state lands, and raptor nests. Based on its detailed evaluation in the Draft EIS, SEA concluded that the Black Thunder North Mine Loop was the environmentally preferred route variation. 

SEA received no comments on its analysis or conclusions concerning the Black Thunder 

Mine Loop alternatives. Therefore, SEA reaffirms its conclusion in the Draft EIS that the Black Thunder North Mine Loop is the environmentally preferred route variation. 3.3.2.4 North Antelope Mine Loop Alternative Route Variations in Wyoming

SEA evaluated two route variations in the Draft EIS to access the North Antelope coal 

mine, the North Antelope East Mine Loop and North Antelope West Mine Loop (Figure 3-26). SEA concluded that neither of these alternatives would have significant environmental impacts. Impacts from both alternatives would be minimal or could be effectively mitigated to minimal levels. SEA determined that the West Mine Loop would have greater impacts to safety, geological hazards, soils, paleontological resources, land use, surface waters, wildlife, threatened and endangered species habitat, and transportation. The East Mine Loop would have greater impacts on soils with an erosion hazard, number of Federal grazing pastures crossed, and wetlands. Because the East Mine Loop would have fewer impacts on a greater number of resources, all of which would be minimal, SEA identified the North Antelope East Mine Loop as the environmentally preferred route variation. 

SEA received no comments on its analysis or conclusions and reaffirms here that the 

North Antelope East Mine Loop is the environmentally preferred route variation. 

Appendix C

Page 48
November, 2001

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

97

etailed evaluation of a variety of potential alignments 

e PRB. SEA evaluated the impacts of each alternative 

, including safety, transportation, geology, soils, 

resources, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, threatened 

, noise and vibration, air quality, socioeconomics, and 

formation and analysis conducted to-date, SEA has 

o approve the proposed project, it appears that, with 

ve C combined with the Phiney Flat Alternative, WG 

Mine Loop, and North Antelope East Mine Loop 

alternative (Figure 3-27). 

* * * * * 

Chapter 3 Extension Alternatives November, 2001Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

98

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Appendix C

Page 49
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

1

CHAPTER 4 

NE, RAIL YARDS, AND SIDINGS

ional analysis in response to comments on the Draft 

f rehabilitating DM&E’s existing rail line (Section 

2), and construction of new sidings (Section 4.3).

M&E identified two primary purposes for its proposed 

M&E, the first purpose would be “to create a third 

to the 11 PRB coal mines” that would offer 

fficiencies not available on any railroad presently 

-efficient, lower-cost routings for many PRB coal 

&E’s second purpose for the proposed project, as 

rm DM&E’s existing operations so that it can offer 

oal commodities vastly improved service, new 

nt and safer operations.” To accomplish these purposes, 

rail facilities including new rail line track, sidings, and 

xisting rail line across South Dakota and Minnesota 

posed new rail line extension track and alternatives is 

mments regarding the potential environmental impacts 

ail line and the construction and operation of project

d from those requiring simple clarification of SEA’s 

equesting that SEA conduct additional analysis for the 

s chapter, SEA provides additional analysis and more 

quired it. This chapter also presents SEA’s 

ve for each project component, if the Board ultimately 

B includes SEA’s summaries and responses to all of 

S. 

ed a detailed discussion of the condition of DM&E’s 

ght restrictions and DM&E’s safety record. To 

nsport and a more efficient and safe transportation 

by DM&E in its project purpose and need noted 

abilitate its existing rail line across South Dakota and 

l line. DM&E indicated that such system-wide 

h revenue generated through the extension of its 

s in the PRB. 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

2

As discussed in the Draft EIS, the Board has the authority to license new rail lines 

accessing new markets (49 U.S.C. 10901). Railroads are not required to seek or receive the Board’s authority to rehabilitate or improve their existing systems.1 When DM&E submitted its 

Application to the Board in February of 1998, it sought the Board’s approval to construct and operate a new rail line extending from its existing rail line near Wall, South Dakota into the PRB. DM&E’s Application did not seek the Board’s approval of DM&E’s plans to rehabilitate its existing rail line in South Dakota and Minnesota because railroads can repair, replace, or rehabilitate their existing rail lines without seeking Board authority. 

In addition to its Application pending before the Board, however, DM&E is seeking 

other permits and approvals from the Federal cooperating agencies. One of these agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), will consider an Application from DM&E to dredge and fill waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands as part of the reconstruction of existing rail infrastructure. Therefore, the COE requested that SEA include an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of activities associated with DM&E’s upgrading or rehabilitating its existing system so that the COE will have the information it needs for its permitting decisions. Normally, the Board would not examine these impacts. However, to prepare a document that satisfies the regulatory requirements of all the cooperating agencies, including the COE, this EIS has assessed the potential environmental impacts of the rail line rehabilitation. 

In assessing the reconstruction of DM&E’s existing system in the Draft EIS, SEA 

considered both Action and No-Action Alternatives. The No-Action Alternative would result from the Board’s denial of DM&E’s Application to construct and operate a new rail line extension into the PRB to transport coal. Under this alternative, DM&E could rehabilitate and reconstruct its existing rail line, but no new construction outside the existing rail right-of-way would be approved. DM&E has stated that it is unlikely that it could undertake the overall rehabilitation of its existing rail line without the expansion into the PRB. Moreover, as noted in the Draft EIS and in the Board’s decision issued December 10, 1998, the service DM&E currently offers to its shippers would probably continue to deteriorate, or even cease if it does not rebuild its existing rail line. Therefore, SEA preliminarily determined that rather than simply maintaining the status quo, the No-Action Alternative could result in potentially significant 

1 The Board does consider the environmental impacts of increased operations over an existing line if the 

increase would not occur but for a project that requires Board approval.

Appendix C

Page 50
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

3

such as safety and socioeconomics. Furthermore, 

d would be unable to impose any mitigation to 

tation of the existing rail line that SEA considered in 

’s grant of final authority to construct and operate a 

 alternative would involve the total reconstruction and 

e across southern Minnesota and central South Dakota 

act that Board approval is not required for 

d’s decision on DM&E’s proposed expansion will 

stem will be rehabilitated. 

hat rehabilitation of the existing rail line and operation 

ave significant impacts on wetlands, noise sensitive 

d cultural resources, safety (increasing highway/rail 

ng rail safety for hazardous materials transport), and 

 delays, but improving rail operations). However, 

oard approves the Action Alternative, it may impose 

SEA also determined that the Action Alternative 

impacts from increased employment and railroad-paid 

raft EIS, SEA determined that the No-Action 

isfy any of its identified purposes and needs for this 

 DM&E would not construct new rail line into the 

 transport of the region’s coal. Moreover, since 

 from a new line into the PRB to make it financially 

e its existing system for improved and continued rail 

d expansion is denied. In contrast, an upgraded, 

antial safety benefits to DM&E’s existing rail 

ety in the communities and surrounding rural areas in 

pecifically, to a maximum of 34 unit coal trains — 

y improvements that might result from a totally 

ota and eastern South Dakota. But because some 

d, SEA indicated in the Draft EIS that, based on 

ft EIS and the Board’s ability to impose appropriate 

nsion and rehabilitation of the existing rail line — is 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

4

SEA received numerous comments on potential impacts of reconstructing and operating 

up to 34 unit coal trains along the existing rail line, predominantly addressing the existing rail line for which communities proposed bypasses (Pierre and Brookings, South Dakota; and Rochester, Minnesota) or DM&E proposed connecting track (Mankato, Minnesota). SEA reviewed and responded to these comments in this Final EIS at Appendix B and, for those requiring additional analysis, in Chapters 5 through 9. However, some comments, particularly those submitted by EPA and state agencies in South Dakota and Minnesota, were applicable to the entire rail line, not just portions of the existing rail line in or near Pierre, Brookings, Rochester, and Mankato. Those comments involved these topics: 

• Grade-crossing safety • Evaluation of state-listed threatened and endangered species• Impacts on impaired surface waters under the Clean Water Act - Section 303(d) • Potential increases in rail traffic due to proposed recreational excursion trains• Structural damage due to project-related increases in ground vibration and • Methodology for identifying potential environmental justice communities 

The following sections discuss SEA’s additional analysis to address these comments. 4.1.1 SEA’s RECOMMENDATION

SEA conducted an extensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated 

with rehabilitation of the existing DM&E rail line in the Draft EIS. In preparing this Final EIS, SEA reviewed the comments on its analysis in the Draft EIS and conducted additional analysis as appropriate. As a result, SEA has determined that the conclusions presented in the Draft EIS concerning rehabilitation of the existing rail line are still valid. SEA found that potential environmental impacts presented in the Draft EIS could be mitigated, or in the case of structural damage from increased vibration, were overstated in the Draft EIS. Therefore, because rehabilitation of the existing rail line would produce substantial safety improvements to rail operations and public safety at highway/rail grade crossings and since other impacts, including noise, could be reduced through mitigation, SEA prefers the Action Alternative, if the Board approves the proposed project. Chapter 12 presents SEA’s recommended mitigation to address potential environmental impacts of the rail line rehabilitation. 4.1.2 SAFETY

SEA conducted an extensive evaluation of all public grade crossings along the existing 

DM&E rail line from Winona, Minnesota to Wall, South Dakota for the Draft EIS. This analysis determined the potential increase in accident frequency at each grade crossing, as discussed in 

Appendix C

Page 51
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

5

A’s analysis considered the existing crossing warning 

ings, existing and project-related train speeds, and 

ge daily traffic or ADT) using each crossing. 

sings according to their existing accident frequencies.

equency of one or more accidents every 20 years were 

 crossings. In Minnesota, existing crossings were 

crossings if there was one or more accidents every 

 crossing on each state’s list of the 50 highest accident 

crossings were considered low frequency or Category 

egory A crossings, a predicted increase of one accident 

 Category B crossings, one additional accident every 

Draft EIS that increased levels of train traffic would 

requency at numerous grade crossings. In South 

ed significant impacts at eight grade crossings under 

operations, 7 additional grade crossings under the 50 

ngs under the 100 MNT level. In Minnesota, SEA 

he Draft EIS) that significant increases in accident 

s under the 20 MNT level of operations, 2 additional 

nd 10 additional grade crossings under the 100 MNT 

M&E submitted a voluntary grade crossing mitigation 

ress potential safety issues along the existing rail line. 

&E’s entire rail line from Wall, South Dakota to 

hat DM&E’s plan would substantially improve the 

existing line, including crossings determined to 

t frequency as a result of the increased rail traffic 

t. Table 4-1 offers an overview of the warning-device 

posed grade-crossing mitigation plan. 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

6

Table 4-1 

Summary of Proposed Grade-Crossing Warning-Device Upgrades

Proposed Device Upgrade Level of Operation 

From To

20

MNT

50

MNT

100

MNT

No Crossing Protection

Crossbucks

200

Crossbucks Crossbucks with Stop 

Signs 0 0 0

Crossbucks Flashing Red Lights 9 5 8Crossbucks Flashing Red Lights 

and Gates 0 0 0

Crossbucks with Stop Signs

Flashing Red Lights 

139

Crossbucks with Stop Signs

Flashing Red Lights and Gates 0 0 0

Flashing Red Lights Flashing Red Lights 

and Gates 4 5 8

Total Upgrades 16 13 25

Generally, the plan includes the safety improvements identified in Table 4-1 using FRA’s 

“PCAPS” method.2 The proposed plan would also minimize potential increases in accident 

frequency that could result from increased rail traffic. Therefore, SEA has included in Chapter 12 a recommendation that DM&E’s grade crossing mitigation plan be imposed as part of any project approval that would include rehabilitation of the existing DM&E rail line. 4.1.3 WILDLIFE

2 Federal Railroad Administration, Personal Computer Accident Prediction System.

Appendix C

Page 52
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

7

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) information on the 

ted by the proposed project, including: 

a) 

and South Dakota)

(Minnesota) 

 (Minnesota) 

(Minnesota) 

nesota) 

sota) 

ta) 

hid (Minnesota) 

South Dakota) 

Dakota) 

a) 

kota) 

akota) 

outh Dakota) 

South Dakota) 

ota) 

outh Dakota) 

tlining the potential project effects to each of these 

and Appendix H of the Final EIS), and submitted it to 

d the Biological Assessment and has prepared a 

presents the USFWS position on the Biological 

he proposed project on Federally-listed threatened and 

on also provides mitigation measures to prevent or 

ect to Federally-listed threatened and endangered 

listed threatened, endangered or candidate species, 

d species in the Draft EIS. However, unless these 

ere not individually evaluated in the Draft EIS and are 

gical Assessment prepared for the USFWS. 

USFWS and various state agencies, including the 

es (DNR), regarding the evaluation of threatened and 

le the USFWS did not concur with SEA’s conclusion 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

8

that the proposed project would not adversely affect Federally-listed threatened and endangered species, it noted that project impacts could be minimized through appropriate mitigation. The USFWS also indicated that the Topeka shiner would be the only species potentially affected by the proposed rail line reconstruction, but SEA concluded that these effects would not be significant. In Chapter 12, SEA has included recommendations that DM&E be required to comply with mitigation methods included in the Biological Assessment and USFWS’s Biological Opinion. 

The Minnesota DNR and others questioned SEA’s wildlife analysis in the Draft EIS.

Comments were generally related to inadequate descriptions of migratory bird species found in the project area and inadequate descriptions of impacts on Minnesota State-listed species. Concerning migratory bird species, the Draft EIS discussed potential impacts on a variety of bird species, including waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, raptors, and mourning dove (considered an upland bird), all of which are migratory species. Therefore, SEA believes it has adequately evaluated the potential impacts on migratory birds in this EIS. 

SEA also received comments noting that while state-listed threatened and endangered 

species were identified in the Draft EIS, the potential impacts of the proposed project to each species were not discussed in detail. NEPA requires Federal agencies to comply with Federal laws and statutes in their environmental reviews. There is no such requirement for state laws. Accordingly, SEA’s analysis focused on the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1972, as amended, which provides protection to species Federally-listed as endangered (defined as in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of the species range) or Federally-threatened (defined as in danger of becoming endangered throughout all or a significant portion of the species range).

Often, a species may be uncommon in one state but common in another due to different 

habitat or climate. Recognizing that even uncommon species comprise an important part of a state’s wildlife resources and natural history, many states have developed programs to identify and protect uncommon species within the state. Generally, any Federally-listed species would also be state-listed. However, in most cases, state-listed species do not meet the definition of Federally endangered or threatened, and are not protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Because state-listed species are not covered by the Federal statute, SEA is not required to 

specifically consider them as part of this EIS. The proposed rail line reconstruction project would have impacts to state-listed species similar to those described for other wildlife. 4.1.4 IMPAIRED WATERS

Comments also indicated that the project could potentially affect surface waters, 

identified for development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) levels, also known as 

Appendix C

Page 53
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

9

t, Section 303(d). TMDL is the amount of a pollutant 

nd still have the body meet water quality levels for its 

entify the impaired waters in the Draft EIS, and 

o impaired waters below. 

, states classify their surface waters according to the 

y. Beneficial use classifications, from lowest water

de industrial, agricultural, wildlife and livestock, non

r and cold water fishery, and domestic water supply. 

Act requires states to: 

re impaired, that is contain levels of pollutants at 

 their designated beneficial use. 

lopment of TMDL for those pollutants determined to 

ity. 

 identified impaired water bodies. 

of impaired waters every two years. The overall intent 

ntify and establish limits for pollutants affecting their 

s so that they are suitable for their beneficial uses. 

 have developed lists of impaired waters under Section 

fied several impaired water bodies in South Dakota 

 line and potentially affected by its reconstruction (see 

 pollutants responsible for the impairment and SEA’s 

nd operation of the existing rail line would exacerbate 

as impaired. 

Table 4-2 

ies Crossed By Existing Rail Line

Times

Crossed

Pollutant(s) or 

Impairment

Adversely Affected 

by Proposed Project

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

10

Table 4-2 

Impaired Water Bodies Crossed By Existing Rail Line

 Water Body State Portion

Impaired

Times

Crossed

Pollutant(s) or 

Impairment

Adversely Affected 

by Proposed Project

Cottonwood River MN JD 30 - 

Minnesota

River

2 Fecal Coliform No 

Garvin Brook MN All 11 Fecal Coliform, 

turbidity 

Potential Temporary (for turbidity) 

South Fork, Whitewater River 

MN All 10 Fecal Coliform No

Bad River SD All 16 Accumulated 

sediment 

Potential Temporary 

Lake Sharpe SD Hughes

County 

1 Accumulated 

sediment 

Potential Temporary 

Lake Preston SD Kingsbury 

County 

1 TSI* Potential Temporary 

Bad River SD Midland 2 Ammonia NoBad River SD Philip 0 Ammonia No* TSI is the Trophic State Index, used by South Dakota, which combines measurements of turbidity and 

concentrations of chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus as indicators of the eutrophic level of a water body.

As shown in Table 4-2, all the impaired water bodies crossed by the existing rail line in 

Minnesota are impaired by fecal coliform contamination from introduction of either human or animal fecal waste into a body of water. This can result from surface water runoff from a feedlot, dairy, or pasture, or from improperly functioning septic or sewer systems. Reconstruction and operation of the existing rail line would not affect the presence of fecal material along these waterways. Therefore, reconstruction of the proposed project would have no effect on the fecal coliform status of these water bodies. 

Appendix C

Page 54
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

11

Garvin Brook, Bad River, Lake Sharpe, and Lake 

waterway (dissolved or suspended sediment in the 

ussed in the Draft EIS, reconstruction of bridges and 

acent to waterways could result in increases in 

TSS). Reconstruction activities could exacerbate 

e to the impairment of these streams. However, 

 sedimentation control measures such as those listed in 

l sediment entering these waterways and limit impacts 

of crossing construction and restoration of the river 

n Chapter 12, there should be no more additions to TSS 

mpaired status of these water bodies. With 

 sedimentation control practices, no long-term 

ter bodies would be expected. Thus, no significant 

d as a result of this project. 

 bodies include parts of the Bad River near Midland 

oncentrations. Waterway ammonia contamination can 

erly functioning septic or sewer systems, or 

of nitrogenous fertilizer. As with fecal coliform, 

ld have no effect on these activities. Therefore, rail 

 impairment of these parts of the Bad River. 

 DM&E has stated that it intends to develop passenger 

reational opportunities along the rail line. Excursions 

g, and transportation to and from the Black Hills 

ervice suitable for commuters would be provided. 

e rail-traffic level SEA used in the Draft EIS to 

nd 34 unit coal trains per day, plus 3 freight trains) 

sion trains. Commenters believed that the increased 

ation, vehicle delay, air emissions, and accidents. 

d that it would consult local tourism and travel 

 excursion train service, and therefore, it could not 

d. DM&E did, however, roughly estimate about two 

and one eastbound on Monday, although additional 

l occasions. It is also likely that such service would be 

of the rail line, rather than travel from end to end of 

ervice is likely to be minimal, and definite plans for 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

12

this service have not been developed, the potential environmental impacts from such service do not meet the “reasonably foreseeable” standard for NEPA analysis. Consequently, SEA has not included it in its EIS analysis. 4.1.6 VIBRATION

Several factors determine the amount of ground vibration caused by a passing train, 

including the speed, weight, and length of the train, the condition of the rail line, and the specific type of soil surrounding the rail bed. As discussed in the Draft EIS and elsewhere in this Final EIS, structures along the existing DM&E rail line would experience varying degrees of vibration and different levels of impact. The magnitude of ground vibration would not be increased by the potentially increased number of trains. However, it could be increased due to heavier, faster, and longer trains.

For the Draft EIS, SEA determined that ground vibration could be sufficient to cause 

structural damage to structures within 100 feet of the rail line. Additionally, structures between 101 and 200 feet could experience vibration levels sufficient to raise concerns for structural damage. SEA determined that structures between 201 and 400 feet would not be damaged by ground vibration but could experience disturbance and inconvenience (such as rattling windows).  Tables 3.2-21 and 4.3-20 in the Draft EIS list the number of structures within these distances that would be potentially affected by project-related increases in vibration. SEA also indicated that project-related vibration could affect vibration-sensitive equipment such as MRIs, electron microscopes, and analytical balances. However, no such equipment was identified along the existing rail line except as discussed in Chapter 9 – Rochester, Minnesota. 

Because a number of comments expressed concern about vibration damage to homes, 

SEA conducted field investigations in a residential area of Rochester, Minnesota, to determine the potential for project-related vibration to damage homes along the rail line (Appendix M). Peak acceleration and peak velocities measured at 50 feet from the track were within 0.01 g and 0.01 in/second. The results of these tests indicate that structures as close as 50 feet from the track would not be damaged by ground vibration from trains. Because DM&E’s right-of-way is a minimum of 100 feet (50 feet on either side of the rail line centerline) except in small, scattered locations, SEA has not identified any structures within 50 feet of the existing rail line. 

SEA also determined that while increased train weight and speed could increase vibration 

levels, installation of continuously welded rail, as proposed by DM&E, would likely reduce much of this increase, resulting in only a small increase, if any, in vibration. The modeling conducted as part of these studies indicates that vibration levels due to the proposed project are not expected to increase sufficiently, following rehabilitation and operation of the existing rail 

Appendix C

Page 55
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

13

A has received no evidence that structures along the 

 due to past or current rail operations. Therefore, 

ase an insignificant amount, if at all, through operation 

ed rail, SEA anticipates that the proposed project 

to buildings along the existing rail line. 

, particularly residences along the rail line, would 

bance due to an increased number of passing trains. 

n Rochester, Minnesota, however, indicated that 

 feet or more from the track would be within the 

not cause structural damage. Any residences located 

 vibration higher than that measured on Seventh 

ticipated to be sufficient to cause structural damage. 

o be a concern for structures beyond 400 feet from the 

ration may affect sensitive medical equipment such as 

No such equipment has been identified along the 

t discussed in Chapter 9, as noted above. 

to determine the potential for disproportionately high 

come communities, collectively referred to as 

cussed in detail in Appendix D of the Draft EIS. SEA 

for the census block group (the smallest geographic 

mation is managed) to determine if environmental 

g the existing DM&E rail line. SEA’s criteria in the 

ck group as having environmental justice status were: 

ck group has minority status. 

ck group is of low-income status. 

tion for the census block group is at least 10 

ercentage for the entire county in which the census 

ulation for the census block group is at least 10 

ercentage for the entire county in which the census 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

14

Based on these criteria, SEA determined that the existing rail line crosses eight environmental justice communities, four each in South Dakota and Minnesota.3 All these census block groups 

were identified as potential environmental justice communities because they meet the lowincome criteria. 

SEA received three categories of comments on the environmental justice analysis 

reported in the Draft EIS. The EPA commented on the methodology SEA had employed. Other commenters questioned SEA’s use of 1990 instead of 2000 census data. Last, commenters took the position that ranchers and farmers should be considered low-income populations. 

EPA’s comments on the methodology SEA used primarily pertained to how SEA 

identified potential environmental justice communities. SEA’s criteria, listed above, are consistent with those it has used in past cases. Early in the preparation of the Draft EIS, SEA consulted with EPA concerning the methodology for identifying potential environmental justice communities. In this case, two EPA administrative regions are involved, Region 5 for Minnesota and Region 8 for South Dakota and Wyoming. SEA determined that each region used different criteria for classification of a low-income community. Region 8 considered individuals at or below the national poverty level low-income, while Region 5 used 1.5 times the poverty level as the determinant for low-income status, believing that individuals above poverty level could still be struggling financially. While SEA requested guidance from EPA on a uniform standard for this project, EPA indicated no preference between the two criteria. Because SEA has used the poverty level in the past and Region 8, which covers the majority of the project area, also uses the poverty level, SEA considered its use appropriate as the indicator of low-income status. 

3 The Draft EIS identified nine potential environmental-justice communities along the existing rail line, five 

of which are located in Pierre, South Dakota and are discussed in Chapter 5 of this Final EIS.

In comments on the Draft EIS environmental justice methodology, EPA acknowledged 

the different criteria applied by Region 5 and Region 8 to identify low-income communities. EPA also concurred that a single criterion should be used to identify low-income populations. Because Region 5's criteria would be more inclusive and provide a more conservative analysis, EPA recommended that SEA use income levels at and below 1.5 times the poverty level as lowincome. In view of EPA’s recommendation, SEA has conducted additional analysis, as discussed later in this section, using Region 5's low-income criteria. 

Appendix C

Page 56
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

15

hat SEA use state percentages for minority and low

centages, which may present a relatively homogeneous 

s a whole because counties are much smaller areas. 

e the census block group percentages for minority and 

ate percentages for these groups. Classification of a 

ow-income is based on its percentage of minority and 

reater than 1.5 times the applicable state percentage. 

alysis based on EPA’s recommendations, as discussed 

results later in this section.

 from agencies (including EPA), communities, and 

90 rather than 2000 census data. Commenters stated 

no longer a valid representation of population 

enters indicated that various communities along the 

en SEA released the Draft EIS in September, 2000, the 

w data was available during final preparation of the 

n of the Draft EIS, the Bureau of Census began to 

e 2000 census, generally at the state or county level. 

wever, requires data at the census block group level, the 

 both race and income is obtained. SEA consulted 

hether census block group data were available for use 

l of data will not be available until summer of 2002 or 

some counties and cities have developed their own 

a. However, to conduct a valid environmental justice 

 groups, counties, and the state must be consistent. 

he same survey methodology and must be for the same 

e for SEA to compare census data estimated or 

ata projected for the year 1995. The only consistent 

s case is the 1990 census. While SEA recognizes that 

rovides the best available demographic information. 

ata are available, SEA has conducted its additional 

census data. 

al justice comments suggested that ranchers and 

populations. SEA has identified low-income 

s reported to the Bureau of Census. These levels 

 compared to national income levels and are 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

16

independent of occupation. While SEA recognizes that ranchers and farmers are subject to low markets for agricultural goods, some ranchers and farmers prosper even in difficult economic times. SEA notes that its additional analysis using 1.5 times the poverty level increases the conservatism of the environmental justice analysis. Additionally, the national poverty level accounts for the cost of living throughout the country, including areas such as the east and west coasts where the cost of living is higher than in the Midwest. Using 1.5 times the national level, which is already a conservative level for South Dakota and Wyoming, results in the additional analysis likely being more inclusive of potential environmental justice communities than that conducted for the Draft EIS. Therefore, SEA has chosen not to arbitrarily classify any particular occupational group as having environmental justice status, but has utilized its past methodology, and that recommended by EPA, of finding low-come populations based on their incomes. 

In conducting the additional analysis recommended by EPA, SEA first sought census 

data to determine the percentage of persons considered low-income (at or below 1.5 times the national poverty level) for South Dakota, Minnesota, and each census-block group crossed by the existing rail line. SEA determined that census data needed to complete this analysis was not available. After consultation with EPA, SEA evaluated the percentage of households for each state and census block group that would be considered low-income, instead of the number of individuals.

After calculating the percentage of low-income households for each census block group 

and the states, SEA multiplied the state percentage by 1.5 to obtain the level above which EPA recommended that census block groups be classified as having environmental justice status. Initial calculations showed South Dakota having a low-income household percentage of 38.4, and 31.0 percent of Minnesota households were low-income. Increasing these percentages by 1.5 times resulted in percentages of 57.6 and 46.5, respectively. Because South Dakota’s percentage was more than 50 percent and SEA had initially considered census block groups with low-income populations of 50 percent or greater as environmental justice communities, SEA took the more conservative approach of using 50 percent or more of the census block group. 

Because 1.5 times the Minnesota percentage was 46.5 percent, SEA classified census 

block groups with a percentage of low-income households of 46.5 percent or greater as environmental justice communities. Based on this analysis, SEA determined that 41 census block groups would meet the criteria for environmental justice communities. The 16 census block groups in South Dakota included one each in Brookings, Hughes, and Hyde counties, six in Beadle County, four in Kingsbury County, and three in Hand County. The 25 census block groups in Minnesota included five each in Winona and Brown counties, three each in Steele, Lincoln, Lyon, and Redwood counties, one in Dodge County, and two in Waseca County. 

Appendix C

Page 57
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

17

opulation percentage for each state, multiplied it by 

ntage for each census block group calculated for the 

son, SEA determined that one census block group in 

tal justice classification for minority populations. This 

met the environmental justice criteria for low income. 

al environmental justice communities, SEA did more 

s block groups would be disproportionately affected by 

rding to the methodology discussed in the Draft EIS, 

ensus block groups in Minnesota and seven in South 

proportionately high and adverse noise impacts 

ck groups include one in Steele County, two each in 

dwood County. The South Dakota groups include 

ounty, and one each in Beadle and Hyde counties. 

onmental justice communities would be subject to 

ses in accident frequencies at grade crossings. SEA 

nesota, including three in Brown County, and one in 

ty census block groups would also likely experience 

ts due to project-related increases in noise. In South 

roups that would be subject to disproportionately high 

ies at grade crossings. These include one in 

crossings), three in Beadle County (two affected by 

 one in Hand County (two grade crossings), one in 

unty (two affected by four grade crossings). SEA 

ookings, four in Kingsbury, and two in Beadle County 

y high and adverse impacts as a result of project

mmended mitigation for project-related increases in 

 DM&E comply with its voluntary grade crossing 

ould provide improved safety at those grade crossings 

es. These mitigation measures would minimize 

ety. While environmental justice communities would 

 would not be significant or disproportionate with 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

18

In the Draft EIS, SEA evaluated eight new rail yards and interchange connections as part 

of the proposed rail line extension and rehabilitation of the existing rail line (Chapters 3 and 4 of the Draft EIS). Three rail yards would be in Minnesota, four (two yards and two interchanges) would be in South Dakota, and one rail yard would be in Wyoming. 

As discussed in the Draft EIS, rail yard locations were selected and planned by DM&E to 

serve multiple functions, including crew changes, regular inspections, fueling, and maintenance needs. By planning for multiple functions, the overall number of yards, and the attendant environmental impacts, could be minimized. However, in order to minimize the number of yards and increase their functions, yard location must be based on the distance between yards. In this case, DM&E proposed yards located between 225 and 275 miles, or 7 hours, apart. DM&E’s other considerations for a new yard location included communities and towns, environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and road crossings, topography, and the location of existing rail yards.

In light of these considerations, and the desire to have yards serve multiple functions to 

minimize the number of yards needed, few alternative locations were available for new yards. In the Draft EIS, SEA evaluated alternative locations for two – the Middle East Staging and Marshaling Yard in Minnesota and the West Staging and Marshaling Yard in Wyoming. 

Of all the yards evaluated in the Draft EIS, SEA received comments for only three that 

required additional analysis – the East and the Middle East Staging and Marshaling Yards in Minnesota, and the Central Staging and Marshaling Yard in South Dakota. The following sections discuss comments about these rail yards, additional analysis conducted, and SEA’s recommendations, as appropriate, for rail yards. Additional information on rail yards can be found in the Draft EIS (Chapters 3 and 4). 4.2.1 EAST STAGING AND MARSHALING YARD (LEWISTON)

The East Staging and Marshaling Yard would be approximately 600 feet wide and 2.1 

miles long, located between Utica and Lewiston, Minnesota. DM&E presented no alternative locations for the East Staging and Marshaling Yard, also called the East or Lewiston Yard.Topographic constraints and the need to be close to the eastern end of DM&E’s rail line were factors in selecting locations for this yard. SEA conducted a detailed evaluation of the potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of a rail yard at this location in the Draft EIS. 

SEA’s evaluation of the Lewiston Yard included a wide range of environmental 

resources, including land use, water resources, soils, geology, noise, air emissions, transportation, safety, biological resources, cultural resources, and socioeconomics. However, 

Appendix C

Page 58
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

19

erally confined to geology and transportation. SEA 

to these comments, as discussed below. 

at the Lewiston Yard would be located over dolomite 

 inches of soil, but made no mention of sinkholes or 

 yard construction in the Lewiston Yard area. 

mations similar to the karst and sinkholes in Olmsted 

lems they presented to rail line construction, also 

making the site unsuitable for a rail yard. 

A made additional site visits to the Lewiston Yard 

gical characteristics. SEA visually identified 

dentifiable because they generally consist of a circular 

 trees, surrounded by crop fields. SEA also identified 

 on U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps, and confirmed that the 

as karst. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 9, 

o hundreds per square mile, and sinkholes are a 

ars that sinkhole formation was recently active in the 

en where sinkholes are not present today, they could 

ssues, it appears that the presence of karst at DM&E’s 

icate construction and operation of a rail yard. To 

ould need to undertake appropriate engineering and 

sinkholes at this site, perform detailed geotechnical 

ock formations, and perform careful monitoring for 

yard, which would be extremely costly. 

sal, which would also be located around karst features, 

the Lewiston Yard to avoid karst topography.4 To the 

e existing rail line closely follows local drainages, 

hester bypass, SEA determined that the mitigation that would be 

ss could itself have potentially significant impacts by essentially 

nder the rail line. In contrast, the environmental impacts 

y would be far less severe simply because the areas affected 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

20

including Garvin Brook. Construction of a rail yard in this location would require extensive earthmoving activities and would likely have substantial effects on surface waters and wetlands.  However, moving the yard site slightly west, to the area between Utica and St. Charles, Minnesota would place it in an area with a lower probability of sinkholes and over areas of shale.  In addition, based on the available information, it appears that a rail yard slightly adjusted to the west would have impacts similar in nature and extent to those of the currently proposed site. In short, SEA believes that a slightly modified location to the west would minimize karst-related impacts and would not result in potentially significant impacts in the other environmental resource areas.4.2.1.2 Transportation

SEA recognized in the Draft EIS that construction of the Lewiston Yard would affect one 

roadway, Township Road 13. The rail yard would cross this road, which, as discussed in the Draft EIS, would require rerouting or closure as it would not be able to cross through the rail yard. SEA indicated that rerouting or closure of Township Road 13 would reduce access through this area and increase traffic on other local roadways providing alternate access. 

Commenters on the Draft EIS indicated that construction and operation of the Lewiston 

Yard would cut off access to farm fields, particularly for two farm families who currently live south of the existing rail line, and farm land on both the north and south sides of the rail line. Construction of the yard would require them to drive farm equipment around the yard and along State Highway 14, the primary east-west thoroughfare across southern Minnesota, to access fields on the north side of the rail line. This would reduce farm efficiencies by increasing travel time to reach fields, and fuel costs, as well as posing a potential safety hazard to farmers and motorists from operation of large, slow-moving farm equipment on Highway 14. 

While SEA did not specifically mention these impacts in the discussion of the Lewiston 

Yard in the Draft EIS, SEA discussed repeatedly throughout the Draft EIS impacts similar to those raised by commenters. SEA concurs with the commenters that construction and operation of the Lewiston Yard would reduce access through the area, causing farmers to drive greater distances to access fields and use a high-traffic roadway in the process, creating potential safety hazards to themselves and other motorists. 

During its additional site visits, SEA identified equipment crossings along the existing 

DM&E rail line where the Lewiston Yard would be located. While not suitable for passage of a vehicle, they currently allow passage of farm equipment over the rail line to access fields on the opposite side of the track. SEA realizes that it would not be possible to retain such crossings because many new rail lines would run parallel to the existing line, and agrees that reductions in access could create hazardous conditions on high-traffic local roadways. Therefore, SEA has 

Appendix C

Page 59
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

21

ilitate continued access to fields isolated by rail yard 

mers may experience reduced efficiencies due to 

 recommended mitigation would minimize potential 

iculture commented that lands at the Lewiston Yard 

ural Land Preservation Program, under state statute 

n Chapter 3). Lands are enrolled for eight year terms. 

ated only for emergencies or under executive order of 

required for DM&E to acquire lands enrolled in this 

Yard, acquisition would be subject to review by the 

mental quality board could suspend eminent domain 

proposed action is not compatible with the goals of the 

atives. The Lewiston Yard may not be considered 

f DM&E were to use eminent domain to acquire land 

cultural Land Preservation Program, acquisition could 

nd Final EIS, SEA has determined that the proposed 

gineering measures, geotechnical investigation, and 

It appears that DM&E could avoid karst-related 

 location of the Lewiston Yard to the west. 

D MARSHALING YARD (MANKATO)

haling Yard proposed by DM&E, also known as the 

e as a staging yard for empty and loaded trains and 

ay freights; a point of interchange with UP and CP; a 

ty; a location for storage of maintenance of way 

king between Utica and Winona, Minnesota. The 

A considered for this rail yard, a comparison of the 

omments on SEA’s analysis in the Draft EIS, and 

ation for the Middle East Yard. 

or the Middle East Yard, designated as Option A and 

d be about 400 feet wide and 2.4 miles long, located 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

22

along the existing DM&E rail line between Minneopa State Park and Judson, Minnesota where the existing rail line runs along County Route 68. Option B would be 400 feet wide and 2.3 miles long, along the existing DM&E rail line adjacent to Shag Road, east of New Ulm, Minnesota. These alternative locations are approximately 10 miles apart. 

SEA’s detailed evaluation of the Middle East Yard alternatives for the Draft EIS 

analyzed potential impacts of construction and operation at each proposed yard location on environmental resources including land use, water resources, soils, geology, noise, air emissions, transportation, safety, biological and cultural resources, and socioeconomics. SEA determined that impacts on many of these resources would be similar for both rail yards because of their similar size, the characteristics of their locations, and operations. However, there are differences between the two options in terms of land use (including public lands and agricultural land) and wetlands.

SEA indicated in the Draft EIS that Option B would be environmentally preferred, based 

on its avoidance of the Minneopa State Park area, an important resource for citizens in and around Mankato. SEA stated that while the impacts on Minneopa State Park from Option A would be difficult to mitigate, the wetlands losses estimated for Option B could be mitigated under the Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit process. Greater impacts to agricultural land, including prime farmland, were not considered significant due to the extensive amount of prime farmland in Brown County. Additionally, Option B did not appear to create any significant operational difficulties that would affect the overall project’s purpose of creating an efficient route for transport of PRB coal.

Comments on the Middle East Yard focused on three primary topics: Minneopa State 

Park, water resources and access. SEA’s additional investigation of these issues is presented below.4.2.2.1 Minneopa State Park

Commenters on Option A, including Minnesota DNR, expressed concern that a new rail 

yard between Minneopa State Park and Judson would produce significant impacts on Minneopa State Park and limit its potential for expansion. As discussed in the Draft EIS, the proposed location for the Middle East Yard is not within the present boundaries of Minneopa State Park.However, it would be within the statutory boundary of the park, including those lands approved by the Minnesota legislature for acquisition to expand the park. Commenters supported SEA’s discussion in the Draft EIS that Minneopa State Park is an important resource to the area, noting its heavy use, and pointed out its planned expansion. They also indicated that construction of the Middle East Yard at Option A would reduce both the land available for park expansion and the area’s desirability as a state park. Increased levels of rail activity associated with Option A would also reduce the quality of the recreational experience within the existing state park. 

Appendix C

Page 60
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

23

made additional site visits to Minneopa State Park and 

t the Option A site would significantly affect users of 

rst, the rail yard would be at a distance from the park, 

 while the state park is on a wooded bluff 

d from the flood plain. However, SEA reaffirms its 

ate Park is an important regional resource, particularly 

use of the area and the potential for acquisition of 

expansion a reasonably foreseeable event. 

uld limit the ability of the state to acquire lands 

hat would provide the quality recreational experience 

hat Middle East Yard Option B would affect more 

 3.7 acres. However, Option A would affect more 

rub/shrub, and forested – than Option B, which would 

ands. Option A would also potentially have a greater 

ion B, since it would likely require relocation or 

, compared to one for Option B. As explained in the 

tlands could be mitigated, preventing long-term 

by construction of the Middle East Yard.

uding EPA and Minnesota DNR, expressed concerns 

sources. Both agencies noted, as had SEA in the Draft 

 of more wetlands than Option A. But Minnesota 

eam noted in the Draft EIS for Option B was actually a 

tated its belief that Option A appeared to be the 

wetlands. 

e again in May of 2001, the stream running through 

as evidence of recent overflow. Rainfall and high 

 to determine whether the stream is intermittent (as 

erennial (as stated by Minnesota DNR). However, the 

wetlands, many apparently the result of drainage and 

hat the Option B yard site would have greater impacts 

 of the Clean Water Act provides the COE some 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

24

flexibility in selecting an alternative to the one having the least wetlands impact. Specifically, Section 404 (b)(1) states: 

Except as provided under § 404 (b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences.5

Based on all the available information on the Middle East Yard, SEA believes that both 

alternatives appear to be practicable. Option A would affect fewer wetlands acres, but would have potentially significant impacts on Minneopa State Park and require relocation and channelization of five streams as opposed to one for Option B. Option A would also affect about 0.9 acres of wooded wetlands, which are generally more difficult to mitigate than emergent or scrub/shrub wetlands. 

5 40 CFR 230.10(a).

Because the existing rail line would be a barrier between Option B and the Minnesota 

River, it would help prevent construction runoff and sedimentation into the river. Conversely, Option A would be constructed on the river side of the existing rail line, so that drainage would be away from the tracks and into the river. Thus, while Option A would have fewer impacts specifically on wetland acreage, it would have other impacts on aquatic resources such as streams and the Minnesota River. However, these impacts, and the wetlands impacts of either option, could be mitigated through the Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit process, resulting in no significant long-term differences in the impacts of the two alternatives on aquatic resources. 4.2.2.3 Transportation Access

In the Draft EIS, SEA noted that Option A would cross two roads, both with average 

daily traffic (ADT) levels estimated at less than or equal to 100 vehicles per day, while Option B would cross only one road (Township Road 97 or Shag Road) with an ADT of less than or equal to 100. SEA indicated that construction and operation of rail yards across these roads would result in reduced access and delays, but that these roads could be closed or rerouted. 

Several commenters expressed concerns about reduced access to residences along Shag 

Road if Option B were constructed, indicating that closure where Shag Road crosses the rail line 

Appendix C

Page 61
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

25

one direction. They also noted that the remaining 

d also cross the existing line at the western end of the 

ximity of this single access point to the rail yard 

would be blocked, thereby delaying residents and 

mes along Shag Road. 

Shag Road could be reduced more often than at other 

e of the slower speeds – substantially less than the 45 

e project as a whole – of trains entering and leaving the 

ked crossing time and potential vehicle delay. While 

ld be maintained, it could be substantially reduced. 

e Option B Middle East Yard would be confined to 

s of the existing rail line and Shag Road. In contrast 

he center of the rail yard, Option B would cross Shag 

nly the existing rail line and one or two rail sidings 

 the yard crossing of Shag Road could be maintained, 

or redesign of the rail yard could also allow continued 

ail line. Therefore, SEA has included recommended 

rve access at both ends of Shag Road. 

ve for the Middle East Yard, SEA generally reaffirms 

ary differences between the Middle East Yard 

otential state park lands. As discussed in the Draft EIS 

water resources: Option B would impact more wetland 

mpact on drainages and types of wetlands. However, 

reasonably mitigated as part of the Clean Water Act, 

o significant long-term differences in the impacts of the 

 of lands identified for expansion of the Minneopa 

tion A. Moreover, these lands could not be replaced, 

s directly related to their proximity to existing state 

he Option A location would not only remove the 116.4 

park lands but could also make adjacent lands 

ue to the noise and safety concerns associated with an 

s its position in the Draft EIS, supported by Minnesota 

ard is the environmentally preferred alternative. 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

26

4.2.3 CENTRAL STAGING AND MARSHALING YARD

Although SEA evaluated three locations for the Central Staging and Marshaling Yard 

(Central Yard), they were not considered alternatives, since each location would be determined by which Extension Alternative is selected (discussed in Chapter 3), if any. SEA evaluated the potential impacts of each rail yard upon a variety of natural and human resources, including land use, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, cultural resources, noise, air quality, and socioeconomics. 

SEA received few criticisms of the Central Yard, but numerous letters and petitions in 

general support of the proposed project and rail yard. Commenters indicated that the Central Yard location near Huron, South Dakota would provide needed economic benefits such as jobs and tax revenues. The only other comments specific to the Central Yard were that the location of the rail yard for Extension Alternative C, west of Huron, would cross a USFWS wetlands easement. The commenter acknowledged SEA’s indication that the Extension Alternative B yard location east of Huron would also cross a USFWS easement. 

Although SEA indicated in the Draft EIS that the Central Yard for Alternative C would 

affect approximately 55.9 acres of wetlands, it did not specifically state that these wetlands were part of a USFWS wetland easement. SEA reported in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS that there were USFWS wetlands easements along the existing rail line in Beadle County. Therefore, SEA concurs with the commenter that the Alternative C rail yard would cross a USFWS wetlands easement. Because SEA recognized the potential for the proposed project, particularly the rail yards, to affect wetlands easements, it included recommended mitigation in the Draft EIS to minimize the impacts on them. Based on its review of the public comments and the analysis in the Draft EIS, SEA determined that the conclusions in the Draft EIS remain accurate, and SEA retains the recommended mitigation in Chapter 12 of this Final EIS. 4.3 SIDINGS

As part of the proposed PRB Expansion Project, DM&E would construct many new 

sidings along its existing rail line. Although some comments on the Draft EIS suggested that SEA had not considered the construction and operation of these sidings as part of its analysis for the Draft EIS, they were discussed in detail in Chapters 1 and 2. In addition, Tables 2-6 to 2-8 of the Draft EIS described the proposed locations for sidings necessary for the rail line Extension Alternatives.

SEA determined that constructing new sidings would disturb the existing right-of-way 

during installation of new ties, rail, and ballast. Furthermore, as explained in the Draft EIS, DM&E indicated that about 20 percent (120 miles) of the existing rail bed requires earthwork to 

Appendix C

Page 62
November, 2001 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

27

ration of unit coal trains, which would cause additional 

of rail bed reconstruction could not be identified and 

ng the entire rail line, SEA estimated that the entire 

by reconstruction. While this will not likely be the 

e assumption, thus probably overstating actual 

e locations of sidings could affect vehicle delay and 

a roadway. As explained in the Draft EIS (Chapters 3 

e delay and accident frequencies to be expected from 

n Alternatives due to variations in the actual locations 

uld cross.

 was difficult to determine the location of sidings since 

milepost. Because persons not associated with 

tions along the rail line, commenters requested that 

ustrating the locations of proposed sidings. SEA has 

nal EIS, a list of proposed siding locations and maps 

ost notations every five miles along the rail line. 

 this chapter, SEA recommends that if the Board 

tion Alternative (consisting of rehabilitating DM&E’s 

mmends Option B for the Middle East Yard. 

* * * * * 

Chapter 4 Existing Rail Line, Rail Yards, and Sidings November, 2001 Powder River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

28

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 

Appendix C

Page 63
Appendix D 

APPENDIX D 

BRIDGES AND HISTORIC STRUCTURES LIST
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

6.10 M 9.5 MN Through Plate Girder 1940 Yes Yes A, C 1940-1949 6.30 M 10 MN Deck Plate Girder 1912 Yes Yes A, C 1912-1949 6.50 M 12 MN Through Plate Girder 1906 Yes Yes A,C 1906-1949 7.25 M 13 MN Deck Plate Girder 1904 Yes Yes A, C 1904-1949 7.35 M 14 MN Timber Frame Bridge 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949 

8.10 M 15 MN Deck Plate Girder 1904 Yes Yes A, C 1904-1949 8.25 M 16 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 9.50 M 20 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

10.25 M 22 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 10.50 M 23 MN Through Plate Girder 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 

11.05 M 24 MN Through Plate Girder 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 

11.75 M 25 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 

12.00 M 26 MN Through Plate Girder 1910 Yes Yes A, C 1910-1949 

12.40 M 27 MN Through Plate Girder 1913 Yes Yes A, C 1913-1949 

12.80 M 28 MN Through Plate Girder 1919 Yes Yes A, C 1919-1949 

13.05 M 29 MN I-Beam 1903 Yes Yes A, C 1903-1949 

13.40 M 30 MN I-Beam 1903 Yes Yes A, C 194 1-1949 

13.50 M 30.5 MN Wood Stringer Bridge 1962 n/a No n/a n/a 

13.75 M 31 MN Deck Plate Girder 1910 Yes Yes A, C 1910-1949 

14.25 M 32 MN Stone Arch 1882 Yes Yes A, C 1882-1949

Reh

14.70 M 33 MN Stone Arch 1880 Yes Yes A,C 1880-1949

Reh

15.00 M 34 MN Deck Plate Girder 1901 Yes Yes A, C 1901-1949 

15.14 M 35 MN Stone Arch 1880 Yes Yes A,C 1880-1949

Reh

15.30 M 36 MN Stone Arch 1883 Yes Yes A, C 1883-1949

Reh

15.45 M 37 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 

15.60 M39 MN Deck Plate Girder 1898 Yes Yes A,C 1898-1949 

15.87 M 40 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 

16.10 M 41 MN I-Beam 1902 Yes Yes A, C 1902-1949 

16.30 M 42 MN I-Beam 1905 No No n/a n/a 

16.40 M 43 MN I-Beam 1905 Yes Yes A, C 1905-1949 

16.50 M 44 MN I-Beam 1905 Yes Yes A, C 1905-1949 

16.75 M 45 MN I-Beam 1902 No No n/a n/a 

16.90 M 46 MN I-Beam 1903 Yes Yes A, C 1903-1949 

17.80 M 47 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1903 Yes Yes A 1903-1949 

18.20 M 48 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 

18.80 M 5l MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 

19.50 M 53 MN I-Beam 1904 Yes Yes A, C 1904-1949 

20.40 M 55 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 

20.95 M 56 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

21.45 M57 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

22.20 M 59 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 24.15 M 61 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1910 Yes Yes A 1910-1949 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 1
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

24.45 M 62 MN Stone Arch 1907 Yes Yes A, C 1907-1949

Reh

25.90 M 63 MN Stone Arch 1907 Yes Yes A, C 1907-1949

Reh

27.50 M 65 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1895 Yes Yes A 1895-1949 

27.80 M 66 MN I-Beam 1904 Yes Yes A, C 1904-1949 

29.40 M 71 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1957 n/a No n/a n/a 

29.80 M 73 MN Single Stone Box Culvert Ca. 1900 Yes Yes A Ca. 1900-1949 

29.90 M 74 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 n/a No n/a n/a 

30.50 M75 MN Single Stone Box Culvert Ca. 1900 Yes Yes A ca. 1900-1949 

30.90 M76 MN I-Beam 1914 Yes Yes A,C 1914-1949 31.10 M 77 MN Through Plate Girder 1910 Yes Yes A, C 1910-1949 

31.70 M 78 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1938 Yes Yes A 1938-1949 

31.80 M 79 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1938 Yes Yes A 1938-1949 

31.87 M80 MN I-Beam 1910 Yes Yes A,C 1910-1949 

32.45 M 83 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1974 n/a No n/a n/a 

33.10 M 85 MN Through Plate Girder 1919 Yes Yes A, C 1919-1949 

33.25 M 86 MN Through Plate Girder 1919 Yes Yes A, C 1919-1949 

33.45 M 87 MN Through Plate Girder 1919 Yes Yes A, C 1919-1949 

33.80 M 88 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1902 Yes Yes A 1902-1949 

34.40 M 89 MN Through Plate Girder 1907 Yes Yes A, C 1907-1949 

34.85 M 90 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1941 Yes Yes A 1941-1949 

34.90 M 91 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1970 n/a No n/a n/a 

35.70 M 92 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1964 n/a No n/u n/a 

36.30 M 93 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1951 n/a No n/a n/a 

36.75 M 94 MN Through Plate Girder 1904 Yes Yes A, C 1904-1949 37.25 M 95 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 38.15 M 96 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 38.55 M 97 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1899 Yes Yes A 1899-1949 38.95 M 98 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1903 Yes Yes A 1903-1949 39.50 M lOO MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1899 Yes Yes A 1899-1949 40.05 M 101.5 MN Deck Plate Girder 1930 Yes Yes A,C 1930-1949 40.10 M l02 MN Stone Arch 1883 Yes Yes A,C 1883-1949

Reh

40.90 M 104 MN Stone Arch 1910 Yes Yes A,C 1910-1949

Reh

41.05 M 105 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 41.85 M 106 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1942 Yes Yes A 1942-1949 

42.50 M 107 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1945 Yes Yes A 1945-1949 

43.10 M 108 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1953 n/a No n/a n/a 

43.50 M 109 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 189 1-1949 43.75 M 110 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1905 Yes Yes A 1905-l949 44.10 M 111 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1940 Yes Yes A 1940-1949 

44.50 M 111.5 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1966 n/a No ri/a n/a 

44.60 M 112 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1957 n/a No n/a n/a 

45.40 M 113.5 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1975 n/a No n/a n/a 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 2
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

45.45 M 115 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1942 Yes Yes A 1942-1949 45.70 M 115.5 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1971 n/a No n/a n/a 

46.10 M I16 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1956 n/a No n/a n/a 

46.40 M 117 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1946 Yes Yes A 1943-1949 

46.50 M 118 MN I-Beam 1946 Yes Yes A 1946-1949 

46.55 M 120 MN I-Beam 1966 n/a No n/a n/a 

47.01 M 121 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1938 Yes Yes A 1938-1949 

47.30 M 122 MN I-Beam 1910 Yes Yes A,C 1910-1949 

47.40 M 123 MN I-Beam 1910 Yes Yes A,C 1910-1949 

47.90 M 125 MN l-Beam 1910 Yes Yes A,C 1910-1949 

49.00 M 126 MN Deck Plate Girder 1919 Yes Yes A,C 1919-1949 

49.60 M 128 MN Deck Plate Girder 1916 Yes Yes A,C 1916-1949 

50.80 M 130 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1957 n/a No n/a n/a 

50.84 M 131 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1957 n/a No n/a n/a 

51.90 M 133 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1942 Yes Yes A 1942-1949 

53.50 M 134 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1905 No No n/a n/a 

54.10 M 136 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

54.80 M 137 MN Stone Arch 1892 Yes Yes A, C 1892-1949

Reh

55.10 M 138 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1892 Yes Yes A 1892-1949 

55.40 M 139 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1894 Yes Yes A 1894-1949 

55.50 M 140 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1892 Yes Yes A 1892-1949 

55.60 M 141 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1894 Yes Yes A 1894-1949 

55.90 M 142 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1892 Yes Yes A 1892-1949 

56.05 M 143 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1894 Yes Yes A 1894-1949 

56.10 M 144 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1894 Yes Yes A 1894-1949 

56.20 M 145 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1895 Yes Yes A 1895-1949 

56.60 M 146 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1895 Yes Yes A 1895-1949 

57.90 M 148 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1905 Yes Yes A 1905-1949 

59.80 M 151 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 

59.90 M 152 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

60.40 M 153 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

61.60 M 156 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

63.40 M 161 MN I-Beam 1907 Yes Yes A,C 1907-1949 

64.70 M 165 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 No No n/a n/a 

65.40 M 166 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

66.20 M 168 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

67.90 M 170 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1895 Yes Yes A 1895-1949 

68.10 M 171 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1905 Yes Yes A 1905-1949 

69.90 M 177 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1944 Yes Yes A 1944-1949 

71.05 M 179 MN Deck Plate Girder 1919 Yes Yes A, C 1919-1949 

73.50 M 183 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 No No n/a n/a 

74.40 M 184 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

75.40 M 186 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 No No n/a n/a 

76.10 M 188 MN I-Beam 1913 Yes Yes A,C 1913-1949 77.30 M 191 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 3
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

78.10 M 192 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

78.75 M 194 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

79.30 M 195 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1904 Yes Yes A 1904-1949 

80.20 M 196 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 

82.10 M 201 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 

82.50 M 202 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 

83.60 M 204 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

84.10 M 205 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1960 n/a No n/a n/a 

84.80 M 206 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 

84.90 M 207 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

85.10 M 208 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

85.80 M 209 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

86.35 M 210 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

88.98 M 219 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

89.75 M 220 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1905 Yes Yes A 1905-1949 

91.10 M 221 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 

92.20 M 224 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

92.75 M 225 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 

92.90 M 226 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

93.40 M 227 MN I-Beam 1940 Yes Yes A,C 1940-1949 

93.60 M 228 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1953 n/a No n/a n/a 

93.85 M 229 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1895 Yes Yes A 1895-1949 

94.40 M 230 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

95.30 M 231 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1956 n/a No n/a n/a 

95.70 M 232 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

95.80 M 233 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

96.20 M 234 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

97.12 M 235 MN I-Beam 1916 Yes Yes A,C 1916-1949 97.90 M 236 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 No No n/a n/a 

98.45 M 237 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

98.94 M 239 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1951 n/a No n/a n/a 

99.25 M 240 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 No No n/a n/a 

100.50 M 243 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1903 Yes Yes A 1903-1949 

100.80 M 244 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1894 Yes Yes A 1894-1949 

101.20 M 245 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

102.10 M 246 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1894 Yes Yes A 1894-1949 

102.80 M 248 MN Stone Arch 1884 No No n/a n/a 

103.30 M 249 MN I-Beam 1908 Yes Yes A,C 1908-1949 105.45 M 252 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

105.60 M 253 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1911 Yes Yes A 1911-1949 

107.25 M 256 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 

107.50 M 257 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 No No n/a nia 

109.90 M 262 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

110.60 M 263 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

112.10 M 265 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

112.40 M 266 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 4
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

113.54 M 269 MN Deck Plate Girder 1916 Yes Yes A,C 1916-1949 

113.68 M 270 MN Deck Plate Girder 1908 Yes Yes A,C 1908-1949 

113.90 M 271 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

114.55 M 273 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

115.10 M 274 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 No No n/a n/a 

115.50 M 276 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

115.90 M 278 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

116.55 M 281 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1895 No No n/a n/a 

116.65 M 282 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1895 No No n/a n/a 

116.80 M 283 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949 

117.20 M 284 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1895 Yes Yes A 1895-1949 

118.08 M 286 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1969 n/a No n/a n/a 

118.80 M 287 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 No No n/a n./a 

119.10 M 288 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949

Not 

Rou

119.30 M 289 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949

Not 

Rou

119.75 M 290 MN Concrete Arch 1915 Yes Yes A 1915-1949

Not 

Rou

120.25 M 291 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1972 n/a No n/a n/a

Not 

Rou

120.60 M 293 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1896 Yes Yes A 1896-1949

Not 

Rou

122.40 M 298 MN Concrete Box Culvert 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949

Not 

Rou

123.30 M 300 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1899 Yes Yes A 1899-1949

Not 

Rou

123.50 M 301 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949

Not 

Rou

127.83 MA 311 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1942 Yes Yes A 1942-1949

Not 

Rou

127.96 MA 312 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1956 n/a No n./a n/a

Not 

Rou

128.53 MA 316 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1972 n/a No n./a n/a

Not 

Rou

128.72 MA 317 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1972 n/a No n/a n/a

Not 

Rou

128.90 MA 319 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle ca.1940 Yes Yes A,C 1940-1949

Not 

Rou

129.15 MA 321 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle ca.1940 Yes Yes A,C 1940-1949

Not 

Rou

129.40 MA 322 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1972 n/a No n/a n/a

Not 

Rou

129.55 MA 324 MN Stone Arch 1887 Yes Yes A,C 1874-1949

Not 

Rou

143.39 M 1612 MN Deck Plate Girder 1951 n/a No n/a n/a 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 5
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

143.60 M 1614 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1908 Yes Yes A 1908-1949 

144.21 M 1617 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 Yes Yes A 1949 

144.52 M 1622 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1938 Yes Yes A 1938-1949 

144.90 M 1625 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1931 No No n/a n/a 

145.85 M 1637 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1956 n/a No n/a n/a 

146.33 M 1640 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1969 n/a No n./a n/a 

146.70 M 1641 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1956 n/a No n./a n/a 

146.85 M 1641 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1945 Yes Yes A 1945-1949 

147.25 M 1643 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1927 n/a No nia n/a 

147.80 M 1644 MN Concrete and I-Beam 1908 Yes Yes A,C 1908-1949 

147.90 M 1645 MN I-Beam 1909 Yes Yes A,C 1909-1949 150.53 M 1650 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1942 Yes Yes A 1942-1949 

150.60 M 1651 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 

150.96 M 1654 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1972 n/a No n./a n/a 

151.41 M 1657 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1927 Yes Yes A 1927-1949 

151.63 M 1658 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1938 Yes Yes A 1938-1949 

151.72 M 1659 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1971 n/a No nia n/a 

151.80 M 1660 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 

152.08 M 1661 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1939 Yes Yes A 1939-1949 

152.20 M 1662 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1968 n/a No n./a n/a 

152.30 M 1663 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1929 Yes Yes A 1929-1949 

152.50 M 1664 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 

152.80 M 1665 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1931 Yes Yes A 1931-1949 

152.95 M 1666 MN Deck Plate Girder 1914 Yes Yes A,C 1914-1949 153.38 M 1668 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1939 Yes Yes A 1939-1949 

153.98 M 1672 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1970 n/a No n/a nla 

154.21 M 1675 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1929 Yes Yes A 1929-1949 

154.30 M 1676 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 

154.31 M 1677 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1944 Yes Yes A 1944-1949 

154.98 M 1679 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1938 Yes Yes A 1938-1949 

155.60 M 1682 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 

157.50 M 1686 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1910 Yes Yes A 1910-1949 

157.81 M 1687 MN Through Plate Girder 1919 Yes Yes A,C 1919-1949 

158.72 M 1690 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1908 Yes Yes A 1908-1949 

158.74 M 1691 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1927 Yes Yes A 1927-1949 

158.84 M 1693 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1938 Yes Yes A 1938-1949 

158.94 M 1694 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1935 Yes Yes A 1935-1949 

159.50 M 1698 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1927 Yes Yes A 1927-1949 

160.35 M 1699 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1931 Yes Yes A 193 1-1949 

160.80 M 1700 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1944 

161.47 M 1701 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1931 Yes Yes A 1931-1949 

162.80 M 1703 MN

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1913 Yes Yes A,C 1913-1949 

164.10 436 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

164.60 438 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1899 Yes Yes A 1899-1949 

164.80 439 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1899 Yes Yes A 1899-1949 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 6
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

165.90 442 MN Stone Arch 1910 Yes Yes A, C 1910-1949

Reh

166.10 442.5 MN Through Plate Girder 1896 Yes Yes A, C 1896-1949 166.50 442.75 MN I-Beam 1911 Yes Yes A, C 1811-1949 

167.10 444 MN I-Beam 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 

168.30 445 MN Single Slone Box Culvert 1871 Yes Yes A 1871-1949 

168.63 446 MN I-Beam 1913 Yes Yes A,C 1913-1949 

169.20 448 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1902 Yes Yes A 1902-1949 

170.10 449 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901 -1949 

171.14 451 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1955 n/a No n/a n/a 

171.90 452 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1892 Yes Yes A 1892-1949 

172.20 453 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1957 n/a No n/a n/a 

173.30 455 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1892 Yes Yes A 1892-1949 

174.90 457 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

177.40 460 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 

177.78 462 MN I-Beam 1910 Yes Yes A 1910-1949 

178.40 463 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1892 Yes Yes A 1892-1949 

179.90 464.5 MN Through Plate Girder 1940 Yes Yes A 1940-1949 

180.40 465 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

181.30 466 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

181.66 468 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1955 n/a No n/a n/a 

182.10 469 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

182.60 470 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

182.70 471 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

183.25 472 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

183.50 473 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 

184.12 474 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

184.90 475 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

185.50 476 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 No No n/a n/a 

186.20 477 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1903 No No n/a 1903-1949 

186.76 477.75 MN Through Plate Girder 1932 Yes Yes A 1932-1949

Reh

186.79 478 MN Deck Plate Girder 1917 Yes Yes A, C 1917-1949 187.50 480 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

191.10 487 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

191.50 488 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

191.80 489 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

192.30 490 MN Concrete Box Culvert 1916 Yes Yes A 1916-1949

Reh

192.70 491 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1926 n/a No n/a n/a 

193.50 494 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1899 Yes Yes A 1899-1949 

193.80 495 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

194.20 496 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

195.66 498 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 Yes Yes A 1949 

195.90 500 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

196.10 501 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1894 Yes Yes A 1894-1949 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 7
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

196.74 502 MN Deck Plate Girder 1924 Yes Yes A, C 1924-1949 

197.30 503 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 

197.40 504 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

197.50 505 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1946 Yes Yes A 1946-1949 

198.01 506 MN I-Beam 1910 Yes Yes A,C 1910-1949 

198.80 507 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1892 Yes Yes A 1892-1949 

198.90 508 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1899 Yes Yes A 1899-1949 

199.50 510 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

202.10 517 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

203.39 520 MN I-Beam 1910 No No n/a n/a 

203.60 521 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

203.90 522 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

204.29 524 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1952 n/a No n/a n/a 

205.75 525 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 Yes Yes A 1898-1949 

206.20 526 MN

Deck Plate Girder, Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1919, 1920 Yes Yes A, C 1919-1949 

206.45 527 MN I-Beam 1919 Yes Yes A,C 1919-1949 

206.73 528 MN I-Beam 1918 Yes Yes A,C 1918-1949 

206.98 529 MN Through Plate Girder 1919 Yes Yes A, C 1919-1949 

207.46 530 MN I-Beam 1916 Yes Yes A,C 1916-1949 

207.71 531 MN I-Beam 1913 Yes Yes A,C 1916-1949 

207.80 532 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1891 Yes Yes A 1891-1949 

209.25 534 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 

211.90 539 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1898 No No n/a n/a 

212.25 540 MN Stone Arch 1904 Yes Yes A, C 1904-1949

Reh

213.90 511 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1940 Yes Yes A 1940-1949 

214.85 544 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1936 Yes Yes A 1936-1949 

216.20 546 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1903 Yes Yes A 1903-1949 

217.30 548 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1897 Yes Yes A 1897-1949 

219.30 554 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 

220.10 556 MN Deck Plate Girder 1917 Yes Yes A, C 1917-1949 

220.20 556.5 MN Deck Plate Girder 1915 Yes Yes A,C 1915-1949 

220.38 557 MN Cast-Iron Pipe Culvert 1905 Yes Yes A 1905-1949 

221.20 559 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1901 Yes Yes A 1901-1949 221.81 560 MN Stone Arch 1910 Yes Yes A,C 1910-1949

Reh

222.10 561 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 222.70 562 MN Concrete Box Culvert 1923 Yes Yes A 1923-1949

Reh

223.50 564 MN Stone Arch 1905 Yes Yes A, C 1905-1949

Reh

224.80 565 MN Stone Arch 1919 Yes Yes A,C 1919-1949

Reh

225.95 566 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1910 Yes Yes A 1910-1949 226.20 567 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1892 Yes Yes A 1892-1949 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 8
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

227.70 1302 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1902 Yes Yes A 1902-1949 

234.45 1312.5 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1948 Yes Yes A 1948-1949 

235.90 1315 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 Yes Yes A 1949 

236.20 1316 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1902 Yes Yes A 1902-1949 

237.07 1317 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1961 n/a No n/a n/a 

237.59 1319 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1943 Yes Yes A 1943-1949 

237.76 1320 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1943 Yes Yes A 1943-1949 

238.31 1321 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1955 n/a No n/a n/a 

238.65 1322 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1955 n/a No n/a n/a 

239.20 1324 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1902 Yes Yes A 1902-1949 

239.62 1325 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1902 Yes Yes A 1902-1949 

239.80 1326 MN Single Slone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1908- 1949 

242.12 1330 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1963 n/a No n/a n/a 

243.12 1332 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1952 n/a No n/a n/a 

244.20 1333 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1945 Yes Yes A 1945-1949 

244.60 1334 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1969 n/a No n/a n/a 

245.20 1336 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1910 Yes Yes A 1910-1949 

245.30 1337 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1963 n/a No n/a n/a 

245.80 1338 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 3902 Yes Yes A 1902-1949 

245.90 1339 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1902 Yes Yes A 1902-1949 

246.25 1340 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1902 Yes Yes A 1902-1949 

246.85 1341 MN

Double Intersection Warren Deck Truss 1902 Yes Yes A, C 1902-1949

N

247.35 1342 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1952 n/a No n/a n/a

N

248.06 1345 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1955 n/a No n/a n/a 

248.42 1347 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1931 Yes Yes A 193 1-1949 

249.40 1353 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1913 Yes Yes A 1913-1949 

250.05 1353 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1952 n/a No n/a n/a

N

251.30 3356 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1910 Yes Yes A 1910-3949 

251.72 1357 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1969 n/a No n/a n/a 

253.20 1350 MN I-Beam 1912 Yes Yes A,C 1912-1949 

253.76 1361 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1904 Yes Yes A 1904-1949 

253.90 1363 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1910 Yes Yes A 1910-1949 

256.40 1366 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1904 Yes Yes A 1904-1949 

257.30 1368 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1905 Yes Yes A 1905-1949 

258.63 1371 MN I-Beam 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 259.80 1374.5 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1946 Yes Yes A 1946-1949 

259.90 1375 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1931 Yes Yes A 193 1-1949 

260.30 1376 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1935 Yes Yes A 1935-1949 

261.80 1380 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1961 n/a No n/a n/a 

263.42 1383 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1963 n/a No n/a n/a 

263.63 1384 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1950 n/a No il/a n/a 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 9
Minnesota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance D

263.86 1385 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1955 n/a No n/a n/a 264.70 1386 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1961 n/a No n/a n/a 

265.20 1387 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 Yes Yes A 1949 

265.55 1388 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1961 n/a No n/a n/a 

266.50 1391 MN Stone Arch 1908 Yes Yes A,C 1908-1949 

267.10 1392 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1946 Yes Yes A 1946-1949 

267.90 1393 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1956 n/a No N/A n/a 

268.47 1394 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 Yes Yes A 1949 

268.95 1395 MN Cast-Iron Pipe Culvert 1903 Yes Yes A 1903-1949 

269.19 1396 MN Single Stone Box Culvert 1907 Yes Yes A 1907-1949 269.82 1397 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1967 n/a No n/a n/a 

271.29 1398 MN Open Deck Pile Trestle 1946 Yes Yes A 1946-1949 

272.85 1399 MN I-Beam 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949 

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 10
South Dakota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance Dis

276.53 1 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1968 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

278.18 2 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1961 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

280.31 5 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1948 Yes Yes A 1948-1949 R

280.92 6 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1904 Yes Yes A 1904-1949 R

282.60 7 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1903 Yes Yes A 1903-1949 R

283.44 8 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1929 Yes Yes A 1929-1949 R

283.60 8.5 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1956 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

283.66 9 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1954 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

285.52 10 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 nla n/a n/a n/a R

287.05 11 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1968 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

287.29 12 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

288.11 14 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

290.70 17.5 SD Through Plate Girder 1937 Yes Yes A, C 1937-1949 R291.88 18 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1960 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

292.30 19 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1965 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

292.60 20 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1968 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

293.20 21 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

293.45 23 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1956 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

293.98 24 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

294.30 24.5 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1972 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

294.90 27 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

295.10 28 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1960 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

295.50 29 SD Riveted Pratt Through Truss 1910 Yes Yes A, C 1910-1949 No W295.90 30 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

301.87 38 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1936 Yes Yes A 1936-1949 R

302.29 40 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1956 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

302.45 41 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

302.86 43 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1940 Yes Yes A 1940-1949 R

303.30 45 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1959 a n/a n/a n/a R

304.13 46 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1935 Yes Yes A 1935-1949 R

305.32 47 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1953 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

306.76 48 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 R

307.10 49 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 R

307.90 51 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949 R

308.88 52 SD I-Beam 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 R312.84 58 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1940 Yes Yes A 1940-1949 R

314.50 60 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1906 Yes Yes A 1906-1949 R

315.24 61 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1933 Yes Yes A 1933-1949 R

318.74 72 SD I-Beam 1909 Yes Yes A,C 1908-1949 R319.95 73 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1907 Yes Yes A 1907-1949 R

320.45 73.5 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1907 Yes Yes A 1907-1949 R

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 11
South Dakota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance Dis

325.10 83 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949 R

326.70 88 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1911 Yes Yes A 1911-1949 R

327.25 89 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1904 Yes Yes A 1904-1949 R

327.39 90 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1947 Yes Yes A 1947-1949 R

328.14 91 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1968 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

330.60 95 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1900 Yes Yes A 1900-1949 R

333.10 100 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1903 Yes Yes A 1903-1949 R

335.79 105 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1930 No No nla n/a R

337.76 107 SD Deck Plate Girder 1909 Yes Yes A,C 1909-1949 R340.60 109 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1940 Yes Yes A 1940-1949 R

342.11 110 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1945 Yes Yes A 1945-1949 R

344.63 112 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1939 Yes Yes A 1939-1949 R

347.00 118 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1952 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

347.66 120 SD Deck Plate Girder 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 R348.65 121 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949 R

349.82 124 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1962 n/a n/a nla n/a R

351.00 126 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1962 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

352.41 127 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1963 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

353.34 129 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1952 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

356.64 137 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1938 Yes Yes A 1938-1949 R

357.28 138 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1927 Yes Yes A 1927-1949 R

358.70 140 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949 R

362.04 142 SD Deck Plate Girder 1904 Yes Yes A, C 1904-1949

Reh

365.55 144 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949 R

369.70 145 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 Yes Yes A 1949 R

371.25 147 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1907 Yes Yes A 1907-1949 R

372.60 148 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1905 Yes Yes A 1905-1949 R

375.20 150 SD Precast Concrete Slab 1996 No No n/a n/a No W379.80 153 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1967 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

381.85 156 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949 R

388.00 163 SD Deck Plate Girder 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 R389.25 166 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1907 Yes Yes A 1907-1949 R

390.98 168 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1946 Yes Yes A 1946-1949 R

397.10 173 SD Deck Plate Girder 1912 Yes Yes A, C(b) 1912-1949 R398.74 177 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1935 Yes Yes A 1935-1949 R

400.20 180 SD Deck Plate Girder 1910 Yes Yes A,C 1910-1949 R403.41 186 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1941 Yes Yes A 1941-1949 R

406.10 188 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1952 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

407.60 189 SD I-Beam 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 R410.10 191 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949 R

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 12
South Dakota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance Dis

410.70 192 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1909 Yes Yes A 1909-1949 R

413.18 194 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1931 Yes Yes A 1931-1949 R

414.17 195 SD I-Beam 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 R418.15 200 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1910 Yes Yes A 1910-1949 R

448.49 222 SD Through Plate Girder 1914 Yes Yes A,C 1914-1949 R449.90 223 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1907 Yes Yes A 1907-1949 R

450.10 224 SD Single Stone Box Culvert 1907 Yes Yes A 1907-1949 R

450.93 226 SD Through Plate Girder 1912 Yes Yes A, C 19 12-1949 R452.15 228 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1953 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

452.70 229 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1969 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

453.46 230 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 Yes Yes A 1949 R

455.07 232 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1934 Yes Yes A 1934-1949 R

455.38 233 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1935 Yes Yes A 1935-1949 R

455.82 234 SD Through Plate Girder 1911 Yes Yes A,C 1911-1949 R456.16 235 SD Through Plate Girder 1911 Yes Yes A,C 1911-1949 R456.45 236 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1947 Yes Yes A 1947-1949 R

458.03 239 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1970 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

458.65 240 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1939 Yes Yes A 1930-1949 R

459.18 242 SD Deck Plate Girder 1910 Yes Yes A, C 1910-1949 R459.60 243 SD Through Plate Girder 1910 Yes Yes A, C 1910-1949 R459.95 244 SD Double Stone Box Culvert 1908 Yes Yes A 1908-1949 R

460.88 248 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1939 Yes Yes A 1939-1949 R

462.32 251 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 Yes Yes A 1949 R

462.57 252 SD Through Plate Girder 1908 Yes Yes A, C 1908-1949 R463.41 254 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1937 Yes Yes A 1937-1949 R

464.04 255 SD Through Plate Girder 1912 Yes Yes A,C 1912-1949 R464.30 256 SD Through Plate Girder 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 R465.61 259 SD Through Plate Girder 1909 Yes Yes A, C 1909-1949 R466.30 261 SD Through Plate Girder 1913 Yes Yes A,C 1913-1949 R466.62 263 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1939 Yes Yes A 1939-1949 R

467.48 265 SD Through Plate Girder 1909 No No n/a n/a R472.65 271.25 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1948 Yes Yes A 1948-1949 R

473.43 272 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 No No n/a n/a R

473.70 272.5 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1966 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

474.00 274 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1966 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

474.54 275 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1941 Yes Yes A 1941-1949 R

476.80 288 SD Deck Plate Girder unknown Yes Yes A, C(b) [1940]-1949 R477.31 289 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1948 Yes Yes A 1948-1949 R

478.25 293 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1934 Yes Yes A 1934-1949 R

479.20 295 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1948 Yes Yes A 1948-1949 R

479.50 297 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1947 Yes Yes A 1947-1949 R

479.50 297A SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1947 Yes Yes A 1947-1949 R

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 13
South Dakota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance Dis

480.10 298 SD Double Stone Box Culvert 1907 No No n/a n/a R

481.32 300 SI) Open Deck Pile Trestle 1946 Yes Yes A 946-1949 R

481.87 301.25 SD Through Plate Girder 1907 Yes Yes A, C 1907-1949 R482.88 1500 SD Pennsylvania Through Truss 1907 Yes Listed A, C 1907-1949

Reh

484.64 1506 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1906 Yes Yes A, C 1906-1949

Reh

485.02 1507 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss, Through Plate Girder 1921 Yes Yes C 1921-1949 R

485.74 1508 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss [1885] Yes Yes A, C(b) [1885]-1949 R

486.48 1509 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss [1885] Yes Yes A, C(b) [1885]-1949 R

487.22 1510 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1929 Yes Yes A 1929-1949 R

488.64 1512 SD Through Plate Girder 1920 No No n/a n/a R489.48 1513 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1927 Yes Yes A 1927-1949 R

490.05 1514 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1925 Yes Yes A 1925-1949 R

491.50 1519 SD Deck Plate Girder 1928 Yes Yes C 1928-1949 R492.43 1522 SD Through Plate Girder 1905 Yes Yes A, C 1911-1949 R492.94 1523 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949 R

494.12 1527 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1924 Yes Yes A, C 1924-1949 R

495.67 1531 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1925 Yes Yes C 1925-1949

Reh

496.81 1532.5 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1942 No No n/a n/a R

496.97 1533 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1924 No No n/a n/a R

497.23 1534 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949 R499.38 1538 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949 R

500.37 1539 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1943 Yes Yes A 1943-1949 R

501.55 1545 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1923 Yes Yes A 1923-1949 R

501.75 1546 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1931 Yes Yes A 1931-1949 R

502.28 1547 SD Deck Plate Girder 1926 Yes Yes A,C 1926-1949 R502.76 1548 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1922 Yes Yes A 1922-1949 R

503.65 1552 SD Through Plate Girder 1926 No No n/a n/a

N

Ne

R

507.41 1563 SD Through Plate Girder 1924 Yes Yes C 1924-1949 R508.97 1567 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss [1886] No No n/a n/a R

510.31 1569 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss [1885] Yes Yes C(b) [1885]-1949 R

511.70 1571 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1923 Yes Yes A 1923-1949 R

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 14
South Dakota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance Dis

518.41 1593 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1924 Yes Yes C 1924-1949 R

519.59 1597 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1927 Yes Yes A 1927-1949 R

519.94 1600 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1929 Yes Yes A 1929-1949 R

520.44 1602 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1885 Yes Yes C(b) l885-I949 R

521.48 1603 SD Through Plate Girder 1922 Yes Yes A, C 1922-1949 R525.91 1612 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1948 Yes Yes A 1948-1949 R

526.12 1615 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1921 Yes Yes A 1921-1949 R

526.53 1617 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1915 Yes Yes A 1915-1949 R

530.16 1628 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1924 Yes Yes A 1924-1949 R

531.50 1631 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949 R

532.20 1632 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1920 No No n/a n/a R

532.90 1634 SD Through Plate Girder 1930 Yes Yes A, C 1930-l949 R535.00 1639 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1946 Yes Yes A 1946-1949 R

535.66 1640 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1886 Yes Yes A, C(b) 1886-1949 R

536.49 1642 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1886 Yes Yes A, C(b) 1886-1949 R

537.28 1644 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1946 Yes Yes A 1946-1949 R

537.63 1645 SI) Open Deck Pile Trestle 1932 Yes Yes A 1932-1949 R

538.81 1648 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1937 Yes Yes A 1937-1949 R

539.85 1652 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1886 Yes Yes A, C(b) 1886-1949 R

540.35 1655 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1918 Yes Yes A 1918-1949 R

541.32 1657 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1924 Yes Yes A 1924-1949 R

542.14 1659 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss [1885] Yes Yes A, C(b) [1885]-1949 R

542.63 1660 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1929 Yes Yes A 1929-1949 R

542.94 1661 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1922 Yes Yes A 1922-1949 R

544.21 1665 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1926 Yes Yes A 1926-1949 R

544.64 1666 SI) Open Deck Pile Trestle 1923 Yes Yes A 1923-1949 R

545.86 1670 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1925 Yes Yes A 1925-1949 R

546.63 1672 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1922 Yes Yes A 1922-1949 R

547.12 1673 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1968 n/a n/a n/a n/a R

547.71 1674 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss 1886 Yes Yes C(b) l886-l949 R

548.60 1676 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1920 Yes Yes A 1920-1949 R

549.50 1677 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1924 No No n/a n/a R

550.11 1678 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1939 Yes Yes A 1939-1949 R

550.30 1678.5 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1922 Yes Yes A 1922-1949 R

550.37 1679 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1923 Yes Yes A 1923-1949 R

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 15
South Dakota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance Dis

551.63 1681 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1922 Yes Yes A 1922-1949 R

552.50 1682 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1921 Yes Yes A 1921-1949 R

553.17 1684 S Open Deck Pile Trestle 1929 Yes Yes A 1929-1949 R

555.94 1689 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949 R

556.63 1691 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1923 Yes Yes A 1923-1949 R

557.23 1692 SI) Open Deck Pile Trestle 1926 Yes Yes A 1926-1949 R559.52 1695 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1920 Yes Yes A 1920-1949 R

560.33 1697 SD Riveted Pratt Pony Truss unknown Yes Yes A, C(b) [1928]-1949 R562.84 1703 SD Through Plate Girder 1921 Yes Yes C 1921-1949 R565.17 1711 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss [1885] Yes Yes A, C(b) [1885]-1949 R

565.70 1712 SD Deck Plate Girder 1922 Yes Yes A, C 1922-1949 R567.37 1715 SD Deck Plate Girder 1893 Yes Yes A, C(b) 1893-1949 R569.25 1719 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1923 Yes Yes A 1923-1949 R

570.47 1725 SI) Open Deck Pile Trestle 1932 Yes Yes A 1932-1949 R

573.98 1734 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1934 Yes Yes A 1934-1949 R

575.96 1736 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1940 Yes Yes A 1940-1949 R

576.81 1738 SI) Open Deck Pile Trestle 1922 Yes Yes A 1922-1949 R

577.52 1739 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1939 Yes Yes A 1939-1949 R

578.57 1741 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1940 No No n/a n/a R

580.36 1745 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1942 Yes Yes A 1942-1949 R

580.80 1746 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949 R

583.12 1749 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1921 Yes Yes A 1921-1949 R

587.96 1760 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1924 Yes Yes A 1924-1949 R

588.44 1762 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1924 Yes Yes A 1924-1949 R

589.05 1764 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949 R

593.14 1776 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1925 Yes Yes A 1925-1949

Not O

Rou

593.43 1778 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1930 Yes Yes A 1930-1949

Not O

Rou

594.92 1786 SD Deck Plate Girder 1928 Yes Yes A, C 1928-1949

Not O

Rou

595.06 1787 SD Deck Plate Girder 1925 Yes Yes A, C 1930-1949

Not O

Rou

596.48 1794 SD Deck Plate Girder 1924 Yes Yes C 1924-1949

Not O

Rou

596.97 1797 SD Deck Plate Girder 1924 Yes Yes C 1929-1949

Not O

Rou

597.40 1799 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1922 Yes Yes A 1922-1949

Not O

Rou

597.70 1800 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1923 Yes Yes A 1923-1949

Not O

Rou

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 16
South Dakota Historical Bridges

Disposition of Eligible Bridges

Mile Post Number State Main Span Type Year Built Integrity Eligible Criteria Significance Dis

598.51 1802 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949

Not O

Rou

598.96 1804 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1934 Yes Yes A 1934-1949

Not O

Rou

599.80 1807 SD Through Plate Girder 1922 Yes Yes A, C 1922-1949

Not O

Rou

600.17 1809 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949

Not O

Rou

600.46 1810 SD Through Plate Girder 1925 Yes Yes A, C 1925-1949

Not O

Rou

602.27 1813 SD

Triangular Lattice Through Truss (spans l&4); Warren Through Truss (spans 2&3) [1885] Yes Yes A, C(b) [1885]-1949

Not O

Rou

603.39 1815 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1930 Yes Yes A 1930-1949

Not O

Rou

603.75 1816 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1930 Yes Yes A 1930-1949

Not O

Rou

603.93 1817 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1923 Yes Yes A 1923-1949

Not O

Rou

604.32 1821 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1940 Yes Yes A 1949-1949

Not O

Rou

605.42 1823 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1928 Yes Yes A 1928-1949

Not O

Rou

605.81 1824 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1930 Yes Yes A 1930-1949

Not O

Rou

606.70 1828 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1929 Yes Yes A 1929-1949

Not O

Rou

607.60 1831 SD Deck Plate Girder 1929 Yes Yes C 1929-1949

Not O

Rou

609.50 1843.5 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1932 Yes Yes A 1932-1949

Not O

Rou

609.76 1844 SD Open Deck Pile Trestle 1949 Yes Yes A 1949

Not O

Ro

610.20 1845 SD Through Plate Girder 1927 Yes Yes A,C 1927-1949

Not O

Ro

Section 303 Analysis 

Appendix D

Page 17
Appendix E 

APPENDIX E 

OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES LIST
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-1 Minnesota

Resource 

Type

Ownership Type Location Determination of Use Distance to

Rail Line 

(feet)

Wildlife Refuge DNR East Side State WMA 2.5 miles west of Chester; 

adjacent to rail line for 

approx. 0.1 mile

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat

passes through 

or adjacent to

Wildlife Refuge DNR Gordon W. Yeager 

State WMA

East of Rochester, rail line 

passes through 1.3 miles of 

this area

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat

passes through 

or adjacent to

Wildlife Refuge DNR Rochester State Game 

Refuge

Around Cit y of Rochester; 

rail line passes through 8 

miles of this area

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat

passes through 

or adjacent to

Wildlife Refuge DNR Claremont State Game 

Refuge

East of Claremont; rail line 

passes through 3 miles of this 

area

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat

passes through 

or adjacent to

Wildlife Refuge DNR Waseca State WMA 2.5 miles east of Waseca; rail 

line is the south border of site 

for 0.8 mile

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat

passes through 

or adjacent to

Wildlife Refuge DNR Born State WMA 3 miles NW of Janesville; less 

than 500 ft south of rail line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 600

Wildlife Refuge DNR East Minnesota River 

State Game Refuge

North of Mankato; rail line 

passes through less than one 

mile of SE corner of this area

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat

passes through 

or adjacent to

Wildlife Refuge DNR Somsen State WMA 3.5 miles west of New Ulm; 

less than 1 mile south of rail 

line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 0

Wildlife Refuge DNR Rosenau-Lambrecht 

State WMA

3.5 miles west of New Ulm; 

rail line is border for 0.15 

miles of this area

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 0

Wildlife Refuge DNR Yankton State WMA Less than 1 mile SE of 

Balaton; rail line passes 

through 0.5 mile of this area

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat

passes through 

or adjacent to

Wildlife Refuge DNR Happy Hollow State 

WMA

1.5 miles NW of Balaton; 0.5 

mile NE of rail line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 600

Wildlife Refuge DNR Discors State WMA 1.5 miles west of Tyler; less 

than 200 ft south of rail line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 200

Wildlife Refuge DNR Hole-in-Mountain 

State WMA

2.5 miles south of Lake 

Benton; rail line is east border 

for 0.8 mile of this area

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 1900

Public 

Recreation/

Wildlife Refuge

DNR Flandrau State Park South of New Ulm No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, vibration, or 

ecological intrusion substantially diminishing 

wildlife habitat

1300

Public 

Recreation/

Wildlife Refuge

DNR Minneopa State Park West of Mankato No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise 1800

Public 

Recreation/

Wildlife Refuge

DNR Richard J. Dorer 

Memorial Hardwood 

State Forest

Winona County No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise 200

Public 

Recreation

DNR Sakatah Singing Hills 

State Trail

Mankato to I-35 in Faribault No direct or constructive use – while the 

existing rail line does cross this property, the 

south bypass alternative avoids crossing this 

property. Fewer trains per day would cross the 

trail on the existing rail line under the operations 

of the Project, thereby benefiting trail users. If 

existing line used, temporary use as a result of 

trail closure during construction.

passes through 

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

DNR Red Jacket Bike Trail South to north Mankato City 

limits

No direct or constructive use – the trail does not 

cross the existing or south bypass alternative rail 

lines.

passes through 

or adjacent to

State

Minnesota
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-2 South Dakota

Resource 

Type

Ownership Type Location Determination of Use Distance to 

Rail Line 

(feet)

Wildlife 

Refuge/Public 

Recreation

USFWS Waterfowl Production 

Area

3 Miles northwest of Volga No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat

passes through

or adjacent to

Wildlife 

Refuge/Public 

Recreation

USFWS Waterfowl Production 

Area

1 Mile northwest of Arlington No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 750

Wildlife 

Refuge/Public 

Recreation

USFWS Waterfowl Production 

Area - Dry 

Lake/Selken/Van 

Moorlehen

6 miles northwest of Volga, 

rail line passes through about 

2 miles

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 1100

Wildlife 

Refuge/Public 

Recreation

USFWS Waterfowl Production 

Area

3 miles east of De Smet, rail 

line is immediately adjacent 

to the south for 0.5 mile

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat <2000

Wildlife 

Refuge/Public 

Recreation

USFWS Waterfowl Production 

Area - Halverson

Just east of De Smet, rail line 

passes through approximately 

1.5 miles of this area

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat <2000

Wildlife 

Refuge/Public 

Recreation

USFWS Waterfowl Production 

Area - Maga Ta-Hohpi 

and Weaver

3 miles southeast of Wolsey, 

rail line is 0.8 mile north

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 1900

Wildlife 

Refuge/Public 

Recreation

USFWS Waterfowl Production 

Area

2 miles east of Wolsey, rail 

line is 0.15 mile south

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 800

Wildlife 

Refuge/Public 

Recreation

SDGFP State Game Production 

Area

3.5 miles northwest of 

Wolsey, T111N, R64W, S18 

and T111N, R65W, S13

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat

passes through

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

SDGFP Missouri River Trail Farm Island Recreation Areas Temporary direct use due to temporary trail 

closure. Construction would accommodate need 

for crossing.

passes through

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

SDGFP La Framboise Island 

National Recreational 

Trail

Pierre No direct use as rail line would not permanently 

alter or temporarily close any portion of the trail 

or access to the trail.

800

Public 

Recreation

City of 

Brookings

Pioneer Park US 14 and Western Ave No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

900

Public 

Recreation

City of 

Brookings

South Side Park 2nd St. South and Main Ave. 

South

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

500

Public 

Recreation

City of 

Brookings

Pedestrian/Bicycle 

Trail

East of 22nd Ave No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

passes through

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

City of Arlington City Park Southeast of Arlington No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

1100

Public 

Recreation

City of Lake 

Preston

Preston City Park/ 

Thorsness Park

Southeast of Lake Preston No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

1600

Public 

Recreation

City of Huron Winter Park Between Kansas Ave and 

Oregon Ave at 5th and 7th

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

1650

South Dakota

Federal

Local

State
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-2 South Dakota

Public 

Recreation

City of Huron Campbell Park Between California and 

Dakota (37 Hwy) at 5th and 

7th

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

1900

Public 

Recreation

City of Huron Ravine Lake Park 800 Easy St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

800

Public 

Recreation

City of Huron Riverside Park 340 Riverview Drive No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

500

Public 

Recreation

Hughes County Roadside Park 2.5 miles northeast of City of 

Blunt, just north of rail line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise

<2000

Public 

Recreation

Pennington 

County

Roadside Park 0.25 miles west of the 

Pennington/Jackson County 

Line, just south of the rail line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise <2000

Public 

Recreation

Aurora City Park Broadway & Front St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Aurora Baseball field Front St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 100

Public 

Recreation

Brookings Lions Park Near intersection of Medary 

Ave. and Orchard Dr.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 100

Public 

Recreation

Volga Volga City Park 101 Lincoln Lane just south 

of East 1st St

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation

Volga Community Center Between First and Second St 

along Samara Ave.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Volga Pool Between Third and Fourth St 

along Samara Ave.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1300

Public 

Recreation

Arlington Camping Sites Hwy 14 and Main St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Arlington Camping Facilities Intersection of Hwy 81 & 

Hwy 14 at "Lake"

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 350

Public 

Recreation

Lake Preston Throsness Park 1st St No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1500

Public 

Recreation

De Smet Washington Park Harley Dunn Ave & 3rd St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1100

Public 

Recreation

De Smet Rose Vincent 

Memorial Park

Harley Dunn Ave & Front St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 500

Public 

Recreation

De Smet 4-H Park 2nd St. & Industrial No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-2 South Dakota

Public 

Recreation

Huron James River and 

Fishing Access Area 3rd Street Dam and all along 

the river

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Huron The Heartland 

Snowmobile Trail

The trail runs west of Iroquois 

to Huron, cuts over to Hwy. 

37 and travels to Hwy. 34. 

From there, you travel west 

on Hwy. 34 for Hwy 281 

where you go north to the 

Alpena Road. Turn east and 

back to Hwy. 37

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Huron Memorial Park 10 Jersey Ave NE No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Huron Swimming Pool 25 Jersey Ave NE No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Wolsey Community Park 320 Commercial Drive No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 600

Public 

Recreation

Wessington City Park East St. SE, Harris St. E. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Highmore Ballpark 125 2nd St. SW No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800

Public 

Recreation

Highmore Central Park intersection of Iowa and 2nd 

St

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800

Public 

Recreation

Highmore East Park 2 blocks east of Iowa Ave on 

2nd St.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800

Public 

Recreation

Harrold City Park North end of S. Nixon Ave No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 0-200 

Public 

Recreation

Blunt City Park W. Newbery Ave & N. 

Mapleton St.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Devine Park Between S Jackson Ave and S 

Van Buren Ave at E Erskine 

and E Franklin Streets

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1050

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Griffin Park North of E Missouri Ave, 

between Parkwood Dr and S 

Washington Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1200

Public 

Recreation

Pierre LaBarge Park Between Maple Ave and N 

Poplar Ave at W 3rd and 2nd 

Streets

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1450

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Bike and Walking 

Trails

Along Hwy 34 No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through

or adjacent to
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-2 South Dakota

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Steamboat Park Near intersection of Poplar 

Ave and W Missouri Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1100

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Fischer's Lilly Park Near intersection of Ash Ave 

and 2 Rivers St; along the 

Missouri River

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1400

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Capitol Lake Near intersection of E 

Broadway Ave and Governors 

Dr

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1400

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Hillsview Golf Course Near intersection of 

Sandwedge Dr and Fairway 

Dr

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Soccer Field and 

Recreational Center

Near intersection of S. Lowell 

Ave and E Sully Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Oahe Softball Complex Near intersection of S 

Buchanan Ave and E Sully 

Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1300

Public 

Recreation

Pierre City Park Near intersection of W Main 

Ave and 1st St; along 

Missouri River

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 600

Public 

Recreation

Pierre Farm Island Recreation 

Area/

Oahe Downstream 

Recreation Area

1301 Farm Island Rd, Pierre, 

SD, 57501

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Wall Wall Community Park 1st Ave and N. Glen St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 400

Public 

Recreation

Wall Sleepy Hollow 

Campground

118 4th Ave. W. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 500

Public 

Recreation

Wall Arrowhead 

Campground

418 Crown St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 750
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-1 Minnesota

Public 

Recreation

Winona County Farmers Community 

Park

Southwest of Winona; 

adjacent to and east of the rail 

line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through 

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Olmsted Chester Woods County 

Park

South of Chester; within 500 

ft of rail line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through 

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Waseca Goose Lake County 

Park

2.5 miles east of Waseca; 

adjacent to rail line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through 

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Blue

Earth

Williams County Park West of Mankato; adjacent to 

rail line

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 0

Public 

Recreation

Winona Levee Park Between Walnut and Johnson 

Streets on the Mississippi

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 100

Public 

Recreation

Winona Lake Park Lake Park Drive between 

Huff St. and Mankato Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1100

Public 

Recreation

Winona C. A. Rohrer Rose

Garden

East of the bandshell in Lake 

Park

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Winona Windom Park Broadway & Huff No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1500

Public 

Recreation

Winona Upper Mississippi

River National 

Wildlife & Fish 

Refuge

51 E. Fourth St., 452-4232 No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no ecological intrusion 

substantially diminishing wildlife habitat 1300

Public 

Recreation

Winona Bicycling Lake Winona No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1100

Public 

Recreation

Winona Cross Country Skiing Westfield Golf Course, 1460 

W. 5th St.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800

Public 

Recreation

Winona Hockey Bud King Ice Indoor Arena, 

635 St. Charles St., 454-7775

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1800

Public 

Recreation

Winona Pool Bob Welch Aquatic Center, 

780 W. 4th St., 457-8210

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 500

Public 

Recreation

Winona Golf Courses Westfield Golf Club, 1460 W. 

Fifth St, Winona, MN 55987

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1600

Public 

Recreation Stockton Baseball/Softball 

Fields

W of Intersection of S 

Broadway and E 9th St

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1700

Public 

Recreation Lewiston Farmers Community 

Park

2.5 Miles E of Lewiston on 

Hwy 14

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 60

Public 

Recreation Lewiston Baseball/Softball 

Fields

S of Intersection of Benson 

Dr. and Court St.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1900

Public 

Recreation Lewiston Lewiston Country 

Club Golf Course 19917 Highway 14

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through 

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation Utica Baseball/Softball 

Fields

E of S Center St and N of 

Church St.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 600

Public 

Recreation

St. Charles Kieffer Park Oakview Dr and Old Valley 

Rd

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1500

City

Local
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-1 Minnesota

Public 

Recreation

St. Charles City Park along Hwy 14 on the west 

side of the City

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 900

Public 

Recreation

St. Charles Oak View Park along Oakview Drive in the 

southwest section of the City

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 600

Public 

Recreation

St. Charles Sportsman Park

E of Park Road SW of Golf 

Course

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1700

Public 

Recreation

St. Charles Fairgrounds Between Hwy. 14 & CR-26, 

near intersection of 10th & 

7th street

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 400

Public 

Recreation

Dover

City Park W of Intersection of Plessant 

St. S and W South Street

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1800

Public 

Recreation

Eyota Sunrise Park 4th St. SE btw South Ave and 

Washington Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1200

Public 

Recreation Eyota Chester Woods Park 3 Miles W of Eyota right off 

Hwy 14

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation Eyota Eyota Ball Park 1 N Front St W

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation

Eyota Westside Park btw 2nd St. and 5th St. on 

west side of town

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1400

Public 

Recreation

Eyota Freedom Park Center Ave and N. Front St. 

NW

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Central Park 225 1 Ave. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Cooke Park 7 St. and 7 Ave. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Diamond Ridge Park Valley Dr & 48 Ave. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1600

Public 

Recreation

Rochester East Park 1738 East Center St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 900

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Faud Mansour Sports 

Complex

2100 BLK Collegeview Rd No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1800

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Kutzky Park

2 Street & 13 Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1400

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Goose Egg Park 9 St. & 2 Ave No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1500

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Mayo Field 403 E. Center St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1200

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Soldiers Memorial 

Field Golf Course

244 East Soldiers Field Drive No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 400

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Mayo Memorial - 

Civic Center

30 Civic Center Dr No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through 

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Rochester Quarry Hill Park 9 St. & 19 Ave. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1800
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-1 Minnesota

Public 

Recreation

Byron Ice Skating Rink

Intersection of 4th St NW and 

Byron Ave N

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Byron Byron Pool Near intersection of Hwy 14 

and 2nd Ave SW

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Byron Klingvall Park Hilldale Ct NW No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Byron Olde Towne Park on N. Byron No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 500

Public 

Recreation

Byron Valley View Park Near intersection of 6th St NE 

and 3rd Ave NE

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1300

Public 

Recreation

Kasson Park #1 Near intersection of 2nd St 

NW and 8th Ave NW

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1200

Public 

Recreation

Kasson Park #2 Near intersection of 7th St NE 

and 4th Ave NW

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1700

Public 

Recreation

Kasson Park #3 Near intersection of 4th St NE 

and 2nd Ave NW

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1200

Public 

Recreation

Kasson Park #4 Near intersection of 6th St NE 

and 11th Ave NE

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1700

Public 

Recreation

Dodge

Center

West Park Located on 2nd Street NW No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 700

Public 

Recreation

Dodge

Center

Tall Oaks Park Located on South Street West No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1900

Public 

Recreation

Claremont East Park Church St. between E St. N 

and Julia St.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800

Public 

Recreation

Claremont West Park South of Wheat St. on W. 

Front St. 

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Owatonna Dartts Park Cherry St. & Mineral Springs 

Rd.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Owatonna Buecksler Park Smith Ave No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1400

Public 

Recreation

Owatonna Crocus Park Glendale St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1300

Public 

Recreation

Owatonna Fremont Park Front St No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Owatonna Hammann Park Between East Rice Lake Rd & 

East Main St

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Owatonna Hazel Park Kelly St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 900

Public 

Recreation

Owatonna Jaycee Park Between East Rice Lake Rd & 

East Main St

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Owatonna West Hills Park State Ave & Florence No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1500
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-1 Minnesota

Public 

Recreation

Waseca Emerson Park 2nd Ave & 9th St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1500

Public 

Recreation

Waseca Loon Lake Access Elm Ave & 10th St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Waseca Loon Lake Park 7th Ave & 10th St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1800

Public 

Recreation

Waseca Memorial Park Elm Ave. & Eastern City 

Limits

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Waseca Oak Park 7th St. & Railroad No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through 

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Waseca Trowbridge Park N State St. & 4th Ave. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1700

Public 

Recreation

Waseca Veterans Park 3rd St. & 5th Ave No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 700

Public 

Recreation

Janesville Veterans Memorial 

Park

First St. & Mott No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 400

Public 

Recreation

Eagle Lake North Park 105 Cate St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through 

or adjacent to

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Bienapfl 1401 4th Ave No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Columbia Park 2022 5th Ave No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1200

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Hubbard Park 510 South Broad Street No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1400

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Intergovernmental 

Center

10 Civic Center Plaza No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 500

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Land of Memories 

Park

Amos Owen Lane No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1200

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Liberty Place Park 1100 South Front St No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1300

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Minnesota River Trail Main St and Riverfront Dr No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Reconciliation Park 100 N Riverfront Dr No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Sibley Park 900 Park Ln No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Spruce Park Intersection of 4th & Spruce No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Tourtellotte Park 300 Mabel St No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1600

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Tourtellotte Parkway 310 Mabel St No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1600
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-1 Minnesota

Public 

Recreation

Mankato Washington Park 215 4th St North No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1500

Public 

Recreation

Mankato West Mankato Trail South Riverfront Dr and 

Popular St

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Bike Trail begins on North Broadway at 

the KC Road and traverses 

through meadowland and 

bean fields, behind Mueller 

and German Parks, and 

parallels the DM&E Railroad 

tracks through wooded areas 

to 20th S St

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

200

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Cottonwood River 

Beach

Cottonwood and River, New 

Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1700

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm German Park 3rd North Street and German 

Street, New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 500

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Johnson Park German Street and 3rd North 

Street, New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 700

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Kiesling Park Minnesota Street and 2nd 

North Street, New Ulm, MN 

56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 900

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Lincoln Park Washington Street and 7th 

South Street, New Ulm, MN 

56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1900

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Minnecon Park Minnesota River and 

Highway 14, New Ulm, MN 

56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1600

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Mueller Park Spring Street and 3rd North 

Street, New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm North Park Franklin Street and 17th 

North, New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm North German Park German Street and 7th North 

Street, New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm North Market Park German Street and 14th North 

Street, New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 400

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Riverside Park Front Street and 3rd South 

Street, New Ulm, MN 56073 

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Schonlau Park Minnesota Street and 4th 

North Street, New Ulm, MN 

56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1300

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Skate Park 1st South Street and German 

Street, New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 400

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm South German Park German Street and 1st South 

Street, New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 400

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm South Market Park German Street and 14th South 

Street, New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 400

Public 

Recreation

New Ulm Trap Range Broadway Street and 21st 

North Street

New Ulm, MN 56073

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 800
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-1 Minnesota

Public 

Recreation

Essig Ballpark E. Ballpark St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Sleepy Eye Allison Park 4th Ave. NW, Elm St. NW No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 900

Public 

Recreation

Sleepy Eye Eagles Park Water St.SW and 7th Ave. 

SW

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1300

Public 

Recreation

Sleepy Eye Sleepy Eye Golf Club 280th Ave. and Hwy 14 No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 100

Public 

Recreation

Cobden City Park 2nd and CR 22 No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 500

Public 

Recreation

Springfield Riverside Park North of Cottonwood St, 

between Cass Ave. and E End 

Ave.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Springfield Community Center Near intersection of Central 

Ave and Cass Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation

Springfield Rotary Park South of Central Ave, 

between O'Connell Ave. and 

Cass Ave.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 300

Public 

Recreation

Springfield Browns Park Along Burns Ave, south of 

Central Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1400

Public 

Recreation

Springfield Sticker Field Along Burns Ave, south of 

Walnut Ave

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 600

Public 

Recreation

Springfield Springfield Golf Club S O'Connell Ave No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1900

Public 

Recreation

Sanborn Ladd Field Letford St.between NW St. 

and South St. 

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 100

Public 

Recreation

Sanborn North Park W. Yeager St. and NW St. No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation

Sanborn Farmers Golf Course W. Central St., 1/2 mile west 

of town

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 600

Public 

Recreation

Lamberton Central Park Between Douglas St. and Elm 

St. Between 3rd St. and 4th 

St.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Revere Town Park No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration <1800

Public 

Recreation

Walnut

Grove

City Park South of Main St, between 8th 

St and 7th St

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 600

Public 

Recreation

Walnut

Grove

Fergussen Park Near 601 Washington Ave, 

Walnut Grove, MN 56180

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1400

Public 

Recreation

Tracy Wheels Across the 

Prairie Museum

West Highway 14 No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 900

Public 

Recreation

Tracy Sebastian Park East 2nd St. and Elm Street No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1300

Public 

Recreation

Garvin City Park 125 Sherman St No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 500
APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF OTHER SECTION 303 PROPERTIES

Table E-1 Minnesota

Public 

Recreation

Balaton Park on Lake Ave Between Lake Ave. and RR 

Ave., and between 2nd St. and 

3rd St.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 500

Public 

Recreation

Tyler Baseball fields County Road 8, south of golf 

course

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1500

Public 

Recreation

Tyler Park to be renovated/ 

developed

Corner of Willow and Oak No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Tyler Swimming Pool Park Corner or Oak St. and County 

Road 8

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1000

Public 

Recreation

Lake

Benton

Lakeside Park At the intersection of Hwys 

75 and 14 on the west shore of

Lake Benton lake

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 900

Public 

Recreation

Lake

Benton

West Side Field

North end of Harrison St.

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 1300

Public 

Recreation

Lake

Benton

Norwegian Creek Park One mile north and one mile 

east of the city of Lake 

Benton

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration 200

Public 

Recreation

Verdi Town Park Between Front St. and Center 

St. N along railroad

No direct or constructive use – No additional 

ROW required and no affect related to increase 

in noise, aesthetics, access, or vibration

passes through 

or adjacent to
Appendix F 

APPENDIX F 

DM&E BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
May 5, 2006 

Page 1 of 8

ment 

 

to support a categorical conclusion that there is not a 

 to replacing the bridges previously identified in the 

original EIS Document prepared for the project and the 

 March, 2006. In keeping with the original Statement, 

e types separately. We’ve included typical rail car axle 

, 40 to 50 thousand pounds per axle. The proposed 

o 78,000 pounds. The length of span and axle 

he actual load a given span may need to carry. 

nt, consist of the following: 

substructures 

f the piling 

r rail, stretching between the bents supported on the 

here the ties supporting the rail are directly fixated to 

lly built in the 1940’s replacing timber bridges 

pical of timber railway bridges for lightly used railroad 

 these sites. The 1940 era construction conformed to 

t provide for today’s heavy axle, 100 to 125-ton car unit 

typically around a Cooper’s E-55. Current railroad 

per’s E-80 loading. The AREMA Manual, Chapter 7 

m of 6-pile per bent and at least 4 stringers per rail for 

of timber decay and mechanical forces causing wear on 

40 to 50 years. The mechanical forces cause further 

carrying capacity of the structure. Based on this 

he bridges in this category is fit for heavy-haul train 

e to the nature of this type of timber structures, the 

e and condition, they can be treated as a structural type 

re unchanged does not meet the project goals. Feasible 

placing the structure. As detailed below, the preferred 

 type, Alternative D. 

4(f) Statement, the existing structures barely provide 

traffic loads. They will not support the proposed 

 the next several years would be replaced on an 

urrent levels of traffic. This alternative, while leaving 

DM&E PRB Section 4(f) Statement May 5, 2006 Additional Bridge Information Page 2 of 8

the structure as it is, does not meet the project goals and is not feasible and prudent for the project or for avoidance of replacement of the structures. 

Alternative B – Rehabilitate the existing structure 

The existing structure was not designed to carry the proposed loading and is currently overstressed. Rehabilitation would replace existing members with similar material maintaining the look of the bridge, but not increasing the load carrying capacity. It is not prudent to use this option as timber of the sizes used in the 1940’s is difficult to find and very expensive to obtain, fabricate and use for construction. Even if found and even if the premium price was paid, the weaker timber infrastructure would not sustain the heavy haul traffic. This alternative is not feasible as it would not support the proposed traffic to meet the project goals. Therefore, this alternative is not a prudent or feasible avoidance alternative for the replacement of the structures. 

Alternative C – Upgrade and or replace the existing structure with new timber components 

Additional piling would need to be driven at each bent, existing piling would also need to be replaced. Additional stringers would need to be added with existing stringers replaced. To provide for longevity and meet current standards for track maintenance, the existing open deck would need to be replaced with a ballast deck. Upgrading the structure in place is not feasible as the spacing of the existing piling make it difficult to add additional pile that provide adequate additional support. Typically upgrading of the structure would change the look of the current structure, not maintaining the historical integrity of the existing bridge. Replacing the structure with a new timber structure would also not maintain the historical integrity of the existing structure. The alternative to replace the structure with a new timber structure with bents driven between the existing bents is not favored due to the impacts of the continual maintenance on the future train traffic, cost and difficulty of obtaining the new large size timbers, impacts to the opening size restricting the hydraulic flow and the life-cycle cost of replacement verses the anticipated life-span. While theoretically possible, this alternative would radically change the look of the existing structure, involve far more impact to waterways due to far more pilings being driven than necessary, and result in an inferior end-product that would be difficult to maintain. 

Alternative D – Replace the structure with a non-timber structure 

Site conditions, hydraulics and hydrology and construction methods that minimize impacts to existing train traffic will determine the type of structure used. Current railroad practice is to design a structure that will typically have a 100-year life span and be designed to support a Cooper’s E-80 loading or greater depending on the type of structure. The structure is also designed to support the heavy axle cyclic loading created by unit trains proposed for this project. Precast concrete box culverts, bridges comprised of precast concrete ballast decks on steel pile bents or ballast deck steel spans on steel pile bents meet the design and longevity criteria embodied in the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering and DM&E standards. This alternative supports the project goals and is favored to use for these sites and provides a structure that meets the project’s goals. 

Appendix F

Page 1
May 5, 2006 

Page 3 of 8

ed in the early part of this century before the advent of 

shapes. This early century span type consisted of one 

 treated timber bridge ties on an open deck construction 

due to their typical short length, in the 25- to 30-foot 

r of cyclic loadings. This high cyclic loading is 

ed for the light axle loads, typically 40 to 50 thousand 

ructure was used by railroads throughout the country 

y as they met the then current design standards and 

nger and more permanent than the timber bridges but fit 

re not unique to this area. Based on a review of the 

his category are equipped with steel of a heavy enough 

ul traffic on a sustained and safe basis. 

d by un-mortared and un-reinforced masonry piers or 

 have been tested to state with certainty that each is 

 it is immaterial to the final outcome because of the 

bridge in this category. Even in the highly unlikely 

structure was found that could support heavy haul 

se as the steel superstructure is too light. 

short span lengths coupled with the construction era of 

 treated as a structural type category. Maintaining the 

 not meet the project goals. Feasible and prudent 

ng the structure. As detailed below, the preferred 

tructure type, Alternative D. 

tive 

ans and light load carrying design, have reached the age 

re fatigue failure is a concern with the current levels of 

onitoring these structures for warning symptoms of 

ght design will not support the heavier axle loads and 

 traffic to meet the project goals. This alternative, while 

not meet the project goals and is not feasible and 

dance of replacement of the structures. 

cement of the existing structure members with similar 

ms are no longer rolled, and would not support this 

th and size of the members, if they existed, would not 

repair procedure does not exist that creates new fatigue 

ion, the existing substructures, with non-reinforced 

pport the anticipated future loadings. Rehabilitation 

d to maintain the historic integrity of the structure and it 

affic to meet the project goals. 

DM&E PRB Section 4(f) Statement May 5, 2006 Additional Bridge Information Page 4 of 8

Alternative C – Upgrade or replace with similar components This alternative does not maintain the historical integrity of the structure. “I-beams” of the type and size originally used, if one were to add beams to increase the load carrying capacity, do not exist. One would also need to upgrade or replace the substructure – doing this while maintaining train traffic would require relocated substructure unit which would typically require different span lengths then those currently in use, requiring a new structure. A new structure does not maintain the historic integrity of the existing structure.Alternative D – Replacement with new structure Site conditions, hydraulics and hydrology and construction methods that minimize impacts to existing train traffic will determine the type of structure used. Current railroad practice is to design a structure that will typically have a 100-year life span and be designed to support a Cooper’s E-80 loading or greater depending on the type of structure. The structure is also designed to support the heavy axle cyclic loading created by unit trains proposed for this project. Precast concrete box culverts, bridges comprised of precast concrete ballast decks on steel pile bents or ballast deck steel spans on steel pile bents meet the design and longevity criteria embodied in the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering and DM&E standards. This alternative is preferred alternative to use for these sites and provides a structure that meets the project’s goals. 

b. Through Plate Girder 

These structures consist of two main steel girders supporting a steel flooring system between them that supports an open deck of creosote timber ties supporting the rail. The spans are typically supported by un-mortared and un-reinforced masonry piers or timber pile bents. These spans typically range up to 80 feet in length. The bridges constructed prior to mid-century were designed to carry 40-50 thousand pound axle loads. The initial determination that the spans need replacement is based on this design load history. The main girders and portions of the flooring system were builtup of smaller structural steel members riveted together to form girders, floorbeams and stringers. The steel members were then connected together to form a span. This type of construction is typical of the era and span length they are used for. They were typically used throughout the country for moderate length spans requiring a shallower depth between the top of rail and low steel elevation providing additional vertical clearance under the structure. Due to the similar girder type, span lengths and the construction era of the structures, this type of bridge is treated as a structural type category. However, due to the nature of the built-up construction and the typical span length, steel fatigue of the main girders is not a major concern. This same type of construction for the main girders may also provide the load carrying capacity to support the loads created by the proposed traffic. However, the internal flooring system, due to the “short span” nature if the floorbeams and stringers supporting the deck may not support the loads created by the proposed traffic and they are subject to steel fatigue similar to the “I-beam” bridges. Therefore the alternatives to be used involve a review process that will be conducted during the design phase of the 

Appendix F

Page 2
May 5, 2006 

Page 5 of 8

that meets project criteria while at the same time 

ion to support the selection of the alternative to meet 

 process will be used: 

mation and existing plans, conduct a rating review of 

system to determine load carrying capacity of the 

n accordance with Chapter 15 of the AREMA Manual 

 the following: 

pacity of the main beams and flooring system are found 

support the proposed project, no change required. 

pacity of the flooring system inadequate, thus it does not 

oals. 

e conceptual upgrade or replacement option 

e if it is prudent to perform the work based on impacts 

e or replacement option on train operations and cost of 

ng the work. This work would change the historical 

of the interior portion of the structure which is typically 

e. Exterior visible changes may be seen when rivets are 

and replaced with high-strength structural bolts. 

dent based on the impacts to train operations, extensive 

ion costs time frame, then replace the span. 

pacity of the main girders inadequate. 

, for this type of design, if the main girders are 

e, the interior flooring system will also be inadequate. 

ating or upgrading the main girders typically involves 

 removing and replacing cover plates on the top and 

anges, removing rivets and reconnecting the members 

-strength bolts. This work is very time consuming, 

nsive, may damage, in the construction process, 

l steel components all resulting in a very expensive 

e. In addition, the historical integrity of the structure is 

ained. Coupled with the cost and impacts of replacing 

ng system, it is not prudent to upgrade the existing 

and a new structure will be utilized as a replacement. 

der webs are also found to be inadequate in addition to 

nd bottom flanges, it is not feasible to upgrade the webs 

p and bottom flanges as the entire girder is essentially 

laced. If this is the case, a new structure will be 

s a replacement. 

ve process that it is not feasible or prudent to keep the 

looring system rehabilitation/replacement, then a new 

cast concrete box culverts, bridges comprised of precast 

on steel pile bents or ballast deck steel spans on steel 

gevity criteria embodied in the AREMA Manual for 

standards. This alternative is the preferred alternative 

ot feasible or prudent to keep the existing structure. 

DM&E PRB Section 4(f) Statement May 5, 2006 Additional Bridge Information Page 6 of 8

c. Deck Plate Girder 

These structures consist of two main girders directly supporting an open deck of creosote timber ties supporting the rail. The spans are typically supported by un-mortared and unreinforced masonry piers or timber pile bents. These spans typically range up to 80 feet in length with the predominant length in the 30 to 50-foot range. The bridges constructed prior to mid-century were designed to carry 40-50 thousand pound axle loads. The initial determination that the spans need replacement is based on this design load history. The main girders, normally two per span, were built-up of smaller structural steel members riveted together. The main girders, typically spaced seven to nine feet apart, are connected together with steel framing called diaphragms and a top and bottom lateral system to form a span. This type of construction is typical of the era and span length they are used for. They were typically used throughout the country for moderate length spans where the taller girders below the rail did not create a clearance problem with the feature crossed. Due to the similar girder type, span lengths and the construction era of the structures, this type of bridge is treated as a structural type category. However, due to the nature of the built-up construction and the typical span length, steel fatigue of the main girders is not a major concern. This same type of construction for the main girders may also provide the load carrying capacity to support the loads created by the proposed traffic. The alternatives to be used involve a review process that will be conducted during the design phase of the project to determine the approach that meets project criteria while at the same time providing the detailed documentation to support the selection of the alternative to meet 4(f) requirements. During final design, the following process will be used: x Utilizing field condition information and existing plans, conduct a rating review of 

the girders to determine load carrying capacity of the structure and its components in accordance with Chapter 15 of the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. 

x Based on the rating determine the following: 

o Load carrying capacity of the beams is found to be adequate to support 

the proposed project, no change required. 

o Load carrying capacity of the main girders inadequate. 

 Rehabilitating or upgrading the main girders typically involves 

adding or removing and replacing cover plates on the top and bottom flanges, removing rivets and reconnecting the members with high-strength bolts. This work is very time consuming, labor intensive, may damage, in the construction process, additional steel components all resulting in a very expensive procedure. In addition, the historical integrity of the structure is not maintained. The required work requires complete closure of the track over the bridge causing severe disruptions to train service to DM&E customers. It is not prudent to upgrade the existing structure and a new structure will be utilized as a replacement.If the girder webs are also found to be inadequate in addition to the top and bottom flanges, it is not feasible to upgrade the webs 

Appendix F

Page 3
May 5, 2006 

Page 7 of 8

p and bottom flanges as the entire girder is essentially 

laced. If this is the case, a new structure will be 

s a replacement. 

ve process that it is not prudent to keep the existing 

e beam rehabilitation/upgrade, then a new structure will 

box culverts, bridges comprised of precast concrete 

ile bents or ballast deck steel spans on steel pile bents 

eria embodied in the AREMA Manual for Railway 

s. This alternative is the preferred alternative to use for 

to keep the existing structure. 

ere the span lengths are typically longer than 80 feet. 

he weight of steel used on longer spans to utilize the 

hese types of structures were used around the country on 

r construction. The bridges constructed prior to mid

ads in the 40 to 50 thousand pounds. The initial 

replacement is based on this design load history. The 

n-reinforced, non-mortared stone masonry piers or 

 timber corbels and blocks used to support the bearings. 

steel members riveted to form steel shapes framed into 

et tall. Two trusses are framed together with a top 

ttom flooring system that supports the creosote tie open 

n traveling through the truss. The flooring system is 

m. The trusses typically range from 16-feet to 18-feet 

 lengths and the construction era of the structures, this 

tural type category. However, due to the nature of the 

al span length, steel fatigue of the main truss girders is 

ype of construction for the main trusses may also 

 to support the loads created by the proposed traffic. 

tem, due to the “short span” nature if the floorbeams 

may not support the loads created by the proposed 

l fatigue similar to the “I-beam” bridges. Therefore the 

eview process that will be conducted during the design 

he approach that meets project criteria while at the 

documentation to support the selection of the alternative 

 process will be used: 

mation and existing plans, conduct a rating review of 

system to determine load carrying capacity of the 

n accordance with Chapter 15 of the AREMA Manual 

 the following: 

pacity of the main trusses and flooring system are found 

support the proposed project, no change required. 

DM&E PRB Section 4(f) Statement May 5, 2006 Additional Bridge Information Page 8 of 8

o Load carrying capacity of the flooring system inadequate, thus it does not 

meet the project goals. 

 Determine conceptual upgrade or replacement option  Determine if it is prudent to perform the work based on impacts 

of upgrade or replacement option on train operations and cost of performing the work. This work would change the historical integrity of the interior portion of the structure which is typically not visible. Exterior visible changes may be seen when rivets are removed and replaced with high-strength structural bolts. 

 If not prudent based on the impacts to train operations, extensive 

construction costs time frame, then replace the span. 

o Load carrying capacity of the main trusses inadequate. 

 Typically, for this type of design, some of the components could 

be found to be adequate and other parts such as the top and bottom chords could be found to be inadequate 

 Rehabilitating or upgrading the main truss members typically 

involves adding or removing and replacing those components found to be inadequate, removing rivets and reconnecting the members with high-strength bolts. Modern structural steel shapes are used which would not maintain the historical integrity of the structure. This work is very time consuming, labor intensive, may damage, in the construction process, additional steel components all resulting in a very expensive procedure. Coupled with the cost and impacts of replacing the flooring system, it is not prudent to upgrade the existing structure and a new structure will be utilized as a replacement. 

If it is determined through the above process that it is not feasible or prudent to keep the existing structure or perform the flooring system rehabilitation/replacement, then a new structure will be constructed. Precast concrete box culverts, bridges comprised of precast concrete spans with ballast decks on steel pile bents or ballast deck steel spans on steel pile bents meet the design and longevity criteria embodied in the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering and DM&E standards. This alternative is the preferred alternative to use for these sites where it is not feasible or prudent to keep the existing structure. 

e. Deck Riveted Truss 

This structure is of similar construction to the Through Riveted Truss, except the flooring system and trains travel on top of the truss and the truss hangs below. The approach will be the same as the Through Riveted Truss bridges. 

Appendix F

Page 4
Appendix G 

 APPENDIX G

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR COMMENT LETTER