Document ID: USCG-2019-0882-0001
Agency: uscg
Document Type: Notice
Title: BNSF Railway Bridge Across the Missouri River at Bismarck, North Dakota; Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement
Posted Date: 2020-01-08T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 930-932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00053]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0882]

BNSF Railway Bridge Across the Missouri River at Bismarck, North 
Dakota; Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an EIS; and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA) and the regulations implemented by the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the National Historic Preservation Act 
(NHPA), the Coast Guard announces its intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential 
environmental consequences of replacing the existing BNSF bridge across 
the Missouri River at Bismarck, ND, or constructing a bridge adjacent 
to the existing bridge. CEQ regulations require an early and open 
process for determining the scope of issues that the Coast Guard needs 
to address in an EIS (``scoping''). Scoping determines which issues to 
analyze in depth in the EIS and eliminates from detailed study the 
issues that are not significant or were covered in prior environmental 
reviews. This document invites the participation of affected federal, 
state, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribes and other 
interested persons in determining the appropriate issues for EIS 
analysis for this project.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to the online docket via https://www.regulations.gov/, on or before February 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0882 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov/. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob McCaskey, Coast Guard District 
Eight Project Officer, 314-269-2381.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

    BNSF Railway Company owns and operates the existing bridge that 
crosses the Missouri River between the cities of Mandan, and Bismarck, 
North Dakota. With components over 130 years old, the in-place 
structure is approaching the end of its useful service life. The 
structure has a history of exposure to ice jams and its substructure 
configuration renders it potentially susceptible to scour events. 
Although currently stable, the structure has experienced structural 
issues at both approaches in the past, resulting in unanticipated 
substructure movements. Since constructing the original bridge in 1882, 
the east hill slope began to move and resulted in the slope moving the 
pier west towards the river inches per year. Multiple remediation 
efforts to correct the pier damage/location and slope movement took 
place from the early 1800s to the mid 1950s. The intent of the project 
is to construct a new, independent bridge across the Missouri River 
upstream of the in-place structure. Operationally, the new structure 
will carry the mainline track and the current structure will be taken 
down. The new structure will provide a significant improvement in 
operational reliability and safety, and will provide enhanced 
structural redundancy thereby making it less susceptible to damage. As 
the current structure is 130 years old, it requires substantial 
inspection and maintenance, which are disruptive to rail service. The 
new structure will be a single-track bridge but have the capability to 
carry a second track in the future when and if volumes necessitate that 
addition.
    The BNSF Bismarck Bridge was constructed with similar methods in 
the same era as the Brooklyn Bridge. It is an iconic landmark that 
predates official North Dakota statehood by six years. The bridge is 
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places for 
its association with broad patterns of railroad, commercial and 
military history of the United States. Because of these attributes, 
certain interest groups have expressed a desire to preserve the 
existing bridge.
    The federal bridge statutes, including the River and Harbors Act of 
1899, as amended, the Act of March 23, 1906, as amended, and the 
General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525 et seq.), require that the 
location and plans of bridges in or over navigable waters of the United 
States be approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security, who has 
delegated that responsibility to the Coast Guard. The Missouri River is 
a navigable water of the United States as defined in 33

[[Page 931]]

CFR 2.36(a). In exercising these bridge authorities, the Coast Guard 
considers navigational and environmental impacts, which include 
historic and tribal effects. The Coast Guard's primary responsibility 
regarding BNSF's proposed railroad bridge is to ensure the structure 
does not unreasonably obstruct navigation.
    The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency (LFA) for this project 
and, as such, responsible for the review of its potential effects on 
the human environment, including historic properties and tribal 
impacts, pursuant to NEPA and NHPA. The Coast Guard is, therefore, 
required by law to ensure potential environmental effects are carefully 
evaluated in each bridge permitting decision.
    On December 14, 2017, the Coast Guard held a public meeting and 
open house in Bismarck, ND, to identify impacts of the bridge 
alteration or replacement and to provide an opportunity for the public 
to offer comments relating to the bridge project. The meeting was held 
in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, 36 CFR 800.2(d). In 
addition, the meeting was also used to explain the NEPA process for 
this project. At the meeting, the Coast Guard accepted input from the 
public on the potential impacts associated with the project that should 
be addressed while developing the Environmental Assessment. Since that 
time, it has been determined that there might be a significant impact 
associated with the potential removal of the existing historic bridge. 
Therefore, the Coast Guard has decided to proceed with the development 
of an EIS. During this process, the Coast Guard will be addressing the 
significant impact on the historic bridge through a Programmatic 
Agreement in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Both the draft 
EIS and draft Programmatic Agreement will be available for public 
comment when the documents are developed.
    The transcript for the meeting is available on the Federal Docket 
associated with this notice and provides a summary of the impacts 
associated with the alternatives considered to date. The four 
alternatives considered include different span lengths, with the piers 
at different distances from the current bridge. Specifically, the 
options included:
     Building a new bridge with 200 foot spans and piers 92.5 
\1\ feet upstream of the existing bridge (alternative considered 
keeping the existing bridge and removing the existing bridge)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In prior communications with stakeholders at the 2017 public 
meeting, the preferred alternative (bridge) was described as having 
a track 80ft and a space for a future second track at 105ft from the 
center line of the current bridge. Note the distance between the 
tracks (e.g. new and future) is 25ft, and the centerline of the 
proposed bridge is located half way in between these tracks, which 
is 92.5ft from the center of the existing bridge. For the purpose of 
simplifying the description of the preferred alternative, the 
dimension from the existing bridge was referenced as the distance 
between the centerline of the existing and proposed bridge, instead 
of distance to tracks. In short, the 92.5ft referenced in the BNSF 
November 2019 presentation, ``BNSF Br. 196.6 Replacement Design 
Concepts Considered'' is exactly the same placement as previously 
communicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Building a new bridge with 400 foot spans and piers 92.5 
\1\ feet upstream of the existing bridge (alternative considered 
keeping the existing bridge and removing the existing bridge)
     Building a new bridge with 200 foot spans and piers 42.5 
feet upstream of the existing bridge (alternative considered keeping 
the existing bridge and removing the existing bridge)
     Building a new bridge with 200 foot spans and piers 20 
feet upstream of the existing bridge and removing the existing bridge 
(BNSF Preferred Design).
    The alternatives were developed to meet the purpose and need of the 
project, which is to provide BNSF Railway with a new bridge that can 
accommodate two tracks at a future date should a second track become 
needed. There are specific constraints in the area that must be taken 
into consideration as designs are evaluated. For example, the bridge is 
close to the Missouri River Natural Area, which is a federally funded 
park managed by the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department in 
cooperation with the North Dakota Department of Transportation, Morton 
County Parks, and the City of Mandan. The Missouri River Natural Area 
is the home to many species, including bald eagles, fox, deer and owls. 
Likewise, the bridge is in close proximity to the Bismarck Reservoir, 
which is a major source of drinking water for residents of the area and 
is located in an area with a history of significant slope stability 
issues.
    The Federal Docket also contains a slide show and Fact Sheet 
providing additional information on the alternatives being considered.
    As part of this evaluation process, the Coast Guard solicits 
comments from State and Federal agencies with expertise in, and 
authority over, particular resources that may be impacted by a project. 
Additionally, the Coast Guard seeks input from any tribes that may be 
affected or otherwise have expertise or equities in the project. 
Agencies that have already participated in the environmental review of 
this Project include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA), the North Dakota State Historic Preservation 
Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
    This project meets the definition of a Major Infrastructure Project 
under Executive Order 13807: Establishing Discipline and Accountability 
in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure 
Projects, also known as ``One Federal Decision.'' Pursuant to the 
requirements in One Federal Decision, the Coast Guard intends to issue 
a single Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) document, unless the 
Coast Guard determines statutory criteria or practicability 
considerations preclude issuance of a combined document. One Federal 
Decision prescribes an average of two years from the date of 
publication of a notice of intent to a single Final EIS and ROD.

II. Scoping Process

    CEQ NEPA regulations at 40 CFR part 1501.7 require an early and 
open process for determining the scope of issues that the LFA needs to 
address in an EIS. This is known as scoping. LFAs are required to 
invite the participation of affected federal, state, and local 
agencies, any affected Indian tribes and other interested persons in 
determining the appropriate issues for EIS analysis. Scoping determines 
which issues to analyze in depth in the EIS and eliminates from 
detailed study the issues that are not significant or were covered in 
prior environmental reviews.
    When evaluating potential alternatives to this project, the Coast 
Guard will consider impacts on historic properties including the 
current bridge, impacts to endangered or threatened species and impacts 
to the Bismarck Reservoir and the Missouri River Natural Area. 
Additionally, FEMA has identified the area of the project as a 
floodplain under the National Flood Insurance Program. As such, the 
design must meet FEMA's ``no net rise'' requirement, which is intended 
to prevent increasing flood hazard risks to existing structures and 
property.

[[Page 932]]

III. Information Requested

    The Coast Guard is developing a draft EIS that addresses impacts 
associated with the alternatives mentioned in Section I above. These 
impacts include those environmental control laws listed in the Coast 
Guard's Bridge Permit Application Guide (available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5pw/Office%20of%20Bridge%20Programs/BPAG%20COMDTPUB%20P16591%203D_Sequential%20Clearance%20Final(July2016).p
df), as well as those impacts associated with floodplain rise, the 
Bismarck Water Reservoirs and the Missouri River Natural Area. Impacts 
associated with the historic bridge will be addressed in a Section 106 
Programmatic Agreement, which will be made available for comment when 
the draft EIS is made available for comment. If there are other items 
that should be addressed in the draft EIS, please send those comments 
to the Coast Guard as indicated in Section IV below.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    In accordance with the CEQ regulations, the Coast Guard invites 
public participation in the NEPA and NHPA process. This notice requests 
public participation in the scoping process, establishes a public 
comment period, and provides information on how to participate. If you 
submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice and 
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal portal at 
http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using 
http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate 
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public 
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and 
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, 
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will 
be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and 
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's Correspondence 
System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).

V. Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold public meetings during this scoping period. 
Our scoping meeting for NEPA and the NHPA was held on December 14, 
2017, at the commencement of the Coast Guard bridge permitting process.

    Dated: January 2, 2020.
Brian L. Dunn,
Chief, Office of Bridge Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-00053 Filed 1-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P