[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9633-9637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2655]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 34435]
Ameren Energy Generating Company--Construction and Operation
Exemption--in Coffeen and Walshville, IL
By petition filed on February 5, 2004, Ameren Energy Generating
Company (AEGC or petitioner), a wholly owned subsidiary of Ameren
Corporation (Ameren), on behalf of itself and Coffeen and Western
Railroad Company (CWRC), its railroad subsidiary,\1\ seeks an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C.
10901, to allow the construction and operation of approximately 13
miles of rail line. The line would run between AEGC's Coffeen Power
Plant near Coffeen, IL, and separate connections with the Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UP) and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) near Walshville,
IL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Through a wholly owned subsidiary, Ameren ERC, Inc., Ameren
controls the Missouri Central Railroad Company (MCRR). See Ameren
Corporation--Control Exemption--Missouri Central Railroad Company,
STB Finance Docket No. 33805 (STB served Nov. 5, 1999). In addition,
Ameren owns a 60% interest in Electric Energy, Inc. (EEI), an exempt
wholesale generator with 1,087 megawatts of capacity. Through EEI,
Ameren controls the Joppa & Eastern Railroad (JERR). Ameren has
obtained authority to control MCRR, JERR, and CWRC. Ameren
Corporation--Control Exemption--Coffeen and Western Railroad
Company, STB Finance Docket No. 34498 (STB served May 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision served on May 5, 2004, the Board instituted a
proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). On May 26, 2004, Norfolk Southern
Railway Company (NS) filed a notice of appearance and initial comments,
to which AEGC and CWRC replied on June 22, 2004.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By decision served July 9, 2004, the Board denied a motion
filed June 2, 2004, by CWRC to strike as irrelevant and
inappropriate NS's initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) conducted an
environmental review of the proposed construction and alternatives to
the proposal. A detailed Environmental Assessment (EA), prepared by
SEA, was issued for public review and comment on May 25, 2005. SEA then
prepared a Post Environmental Assessment (Post EA) dated January 13,
2006. The Post EA considers all the comments received on the EA,
reflects SEA's further independent analysis, and sets forth SEA's final
recommended environmental mitigation.
After considering the entire record, including both the
transportation aspects of the petition and the potential environmental
issues, we will grant the requested exemption, subject to the
environmental mitigation measures recommended in the Post EA, which are
set forth in the Appendix.
Background
Ameren's electric generating facilities provide energy services to
1.7 million electric customers and have a net generating capacity of
more than 14,500 megawatts. The Coffeen Power Plant is a 900-megawatt
facility and, at full capacity, can burn approximately 450 tons of coal
to produce 6.7 million
[[Page 9634]]
pounds of steam per hour. The plant annually receives approximately 2.5
million tons of coal, most of which comes via NS from the Monterey Mine
near Macoupin, IL.
NS currently transports the coal south from the Monterey Mine
toward St. Louis, MO, and then north to a connection with BNSF at
Litchfield, IL. From Litchfield, NS operates via trackage rights on
BNSF track southeast to Sorento, IL, where it returns to its own track
again for the last 12 miles east to the Coffeen Power Plant. AEGC
states that the final 12-mile stretch of track is an island of NS track
because NS has abandoned the sections of track to the east and the
west. According to petitioner, NS does not serve any other shippers on
this segment.
AEGC states that, since 2003, the coal mine currently supplying
coal to the Coffeen Power Plant has had occasional difficulties
providing the tonnage that Ameren needs. This concern, along with
Ameren's overall desire to lower fuel costs by maximizing the fuel
source and transportation options at its plants, led Ameren to
investigate rail service alternatives that would provide more flexible
and reliable service from a broader range of coal mine origins.
AEGC states that Ameren considered various potential routes that
might be available to connect the Coffeen Power Plant to the lines of
both UP and BNSF, each of which has access to numerous coal mines
throughout the West. One route (referred to here as Route A) would
consist of an approximately 13-mile line that starts at Coffeen and
travels southwest and roughly parallel to the NS track for
approximately 1 mile. It would then cross the NS line and closely
follow existing transmission lines until near its end, where it would
fork into two short segments that connect to the separate lines of UP
and BNSF, both of which are near Walshville.
A second route (referred to here as Route B) would require NS to
voluntarily agree to sell, lease, or otherwise allow Ameren to use the
existing 12-mile island track. AEGC would then construct a 5-mile rail
line from a point near the end of NS's line at Sorento north to
connections with UP and BNSF lines near Walshville. AEGC considers
Route B preferable, but states that, if construction and operation of
that line is not possible, it would construct and operate the longer
Route A line instead. Either of the proposed rail lines would provide
the Coffeen Power Plant with direct access to rail lines of both UP and
BNSF.
AEGC states that Ameren would finance the construction of the line
and that CWRC would undertake the actual construction. The record
indicates that CWRC might operate the line, or that Ameren might enter
into a contract with another carrier to conduct the operations. In
either case, the rail line would be operated as a common carrier rail
line and other shippers could request service. AEGC states that, if
another carrier were to operate the line, CWRC would retain a residual
common carrier obligation to provide rail service.
AEGC states that the proposed build-out would increase competition
by providing the Coffeen Power Plant with direct access to the services
of two additional rail carriers. It explains that this increase in rail
transportation options would increase the plant's fuel source options,
thereby increasing plant reliability and decreasing the plant's total
costs of operation. According to AEGC, this proposal is the kind of
transaction that should qualify for an exemption from the prior
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901. It notes that the ICC
Termination Act of 1995 \3\ liberalized the public convenience and
necessity (PC&N) test of section 10901 so that there is now a
presumption that a proposed rail construction project should be
approved.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995).
\4\ Under 49 U.S.C. 10901, we must authorize the construction
and operation of a new line ``unless the Board finds that such
activities are inconsistent with the public convenience and
necessity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NS has not directly opposed the proposed construction. However, it
has raised concerns about the use of the Board's summary class
exemption procedures at 49 CFR 1150.31 when CWRC was authorized to
become a common carrier.\5\ NS does not specifically ask for revocation
of the exemption in that proceeding, but states that it is ``troubled''
by CWRC's creation through the filing of a notice of exemption, and
asks the Board to consider reviewing the class exemption procedures
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Coffeen and Western Railroad Company--Lease and Operation
Exemption--Near Coffeen, IL, STB Finance Docket No. 34497 (STB
served May 10, 2004). By that notice, CWRC obtained an exemption to
lease from AEGC and operate approximately 0.2 miles of rail line
near Coffeen, IL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion and Conclusions
Rail Transportation Analysis
The construction and operation of railroad lines require prior
Board authorization, either through issuance of a certificate under 49
U.S.C. 10901 or, as requested here, by granting an exemption under 49
U.S.C. 10502 from the formal application procedures of section 10901.
Under section 10502, we must exempt a proposed rail line construction
from the detailed application procedures of section 10901 when we find
that: (1) Those procedures are not necessary to carry out the rail
transportation policy (RTP) of 49 U.S.C. 10101; and (2) either (a) the
proposal is of limited scope, or (b) the full application procedures
are not necessary to protect shippers from an abuse of market power.
Here, based on the information provided, we conclude that detailed
scrutiny of the proposed construction and operation under 49 U.S.C.
10901 is not necessary to carry out the RTP, and that therefore the
proposed construction project is appropriate for handling under the
exemption process. The proposed rail line will increase the rail
transportation options available to Ameren and its subsidiaries, as
well as other area shippers, and thus will enable shippers to realize
the benefits of increased railroad competition [49 U.S.C. 10101(1) and
(4)]. Moreover, exempting the proposed construction and operation from
49 U.S.C. 10901 will reduce the need for Federal regulation, ensure the
development of a sound transportation system with effective competition
among rail carriers, foster sound economic conditions, and reduce
regulatory barriers to entry [49 U.S.C. 10101(2), (4), (5), and (7)].
Nothing in the record indicates that the proposal would adversely
affect other aspects of the RTP.
Use of the formal application procedures here is not necessary to
protect shippers from an abuse of market power. Rather, the proposed
rail line will provide the area with additional transportation options
and enhanced competition. Given our finding regarding the lack of need
for shipper protection, we need not determine whether the transaction
is limited in scope.
NS does not oppose this build-out proposal. Nor is there any
evidence on the transportation related aspects of this case suggesting
that the construction proposal does not qualify for our exemption
procedures or is otherwise improper. NS has expressed concerns about
the procedure by which CWRC was authorized to become a common carrier
in a different proceeding. However, this proceeding is not the
appropriate vehicle for reevaluating our procedures in that case or our
class exemption procedures generally. Consequently, we see no need on
this record to address NS's concerns further.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We will not, as requested by NS (June 14, 2004 response at
8-9), make CWRC's authorization to be a common carrier contingent
upon the approval and construction of the proposed build-out. CWRC
has already obtained the authority to be a common carrier in STB
Finance Docket No. 34497. The additional authority granted to CWRC
here, to operate the rail line proposed here, could only be
exercised if this line is built; thus, there is no need to make this
new operating authority contingent upon construction of the rail
line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9635]]
Environmental Analysis
In reaching our decision, we have also analyzed the environmental
impacts associated with this construction proposal by fully considering
the EA, Post EA, and the entire environmental record. Based on the
environmental record, we have also assessed the two alternative routes
that could be constructed and what environmental mitigation to impose.
1. The Requirements of NEPA
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-43,
requires Federal agencies to examine the environmental effects of
proposed Federal actions and to inform the public concerning those
effects. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). Under NEPA and related environmental
laws, we must consider significant potential beneficial and adverse
environmental impacts in deciding whether to authorize a railroad
construction as proposed, deny the proposal, or grant it with
conditions (including environmental mitigation conditions). The purpose
of NEPA is to focus the attention of the government and the public on
the likely environmental consequences of a proposed action before it is
implemented, in order to minimize or avoid potential adverse
environmental impacts. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490
U.S. 360, 371 (1989). While NEPA prescribes the process that must be
followed, it does not mandate a particular result. Mid States Coalition
for Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d 520, 533-34 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, once
the adverse environmental effects have been adequately identified and
evaluated, we may conclude that other values outweigh the environmental
costs. Robertson v. Methow, 490 U.S. 332, 350-51 (1989).
2. The Environmental Review Process
As noted above, in this case an EA was issued for public review and
comment on May 25, 2005. In the EA, SEA preliminarily concluded, based
on the information provided from all sources as of the date of the EA,
as well as its independent analysis, that the construction and
operation of AEGC's proposed rail line (using either Route A or Route
B) would have no significant environmental impacts if the mitigation
measures recommended in the EA were imposed. Prior to completion of the
EA, AEGC had voluntarily proposed extensive environmental mitigation
measures for the proposed project. SEA preliminarily recommended that
we impose this mitigation, and some additional environmental
conditions, on any decision granting the petition for exemption.
Comments on the EA were filed by: NS; the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA); the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5 (USEPA); the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS); and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). AEGC replied to
some of the comments. After considering the comments to the EA and the
reply, SEA prepared a Post EA, dated January 13, 2006, in which it
revised some of the mitigation recommended in the EA.\7\ Specifically,
SEA recommended the addition of the following mitigation: Mitigation
measure 52, which addresses permitting requirements from IEPA;
mitigation measure 50, which addresses Best Management Practices to
prevent soil erosion; mitigation measure 28, which concerns drainage
and potential erosion; mitigation measure 29, which addresses Best
Management Practices for long-term maintenance of culverts and bridges;
and mitigation measure 23, which imposes a 3-year mitigation monitoring
and management program. Additionally, SEA recommends modifying its
previously recommended mitigation measure 14, which concerns retention
of woody debris and mulching. Finally, the Post EA states that the
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency has completed its review under
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f,
and has concluded that no historic properties would be affected by the
proposed project. Accordingly, SEA recommends that the mitigation
measure that pertains to that process (former mitigation measure 47)
not be imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ To the extent SEA's final recommended mitigation measures
would affect AEGC's voluntary mitigation measures, AEGC agreed to
SEA's recommended revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEA determined that, with its final recommended mitigation, neither
Route A nor Route B would have significant environmental impacts.
However, SEA designated Route B as environmentally preferable, because
it would require only about 4.6 miles of new rail line construction,
compared to Route A's approximately 13 miles of new line construction.
3. Our Conclusions on the Environmental Issues
After carefully reviewing the entire environmental record, we adopt
all of SEA's analysis and conclusions, including those not specifically
discussed here. We are satisfied that SEA took the requisite ``hard
look'' at potential environmental impacts and accurately identified and
independently evaluated the potential environmental effects associated
with the project.
With respect to alternatives, we identify Route B as the preferred
alternative, because it would be shorter. But we also find that
petitioner may construct Route A, because, as the analysis in the EA
and Post EA demonstrates, construction and operation of either
alternative would have no significant environmental impacts with SEA's
final recommended mitigation conditions, all of which we will impose. A
list of all of our conditions, including both the voluntary mitigation
developed by petitioner and SEA's own mitigation recommendations, is
set forth in the Appendix to this decision.
Other Matters
Finally, AEGC has requested that, if we grant its requested
exemption, we should also revoke the exemption to the extent necessary
to summarily issue a PC&N certificate in order to facilitate a
potential crossing mentioned in its petition for exemption. Under 49
U.S.C. 10901(d), the Board may order a rail carrier to allow another
constructing carrier to cross its property ``[w]hen a certificate has
been issued * * *,'' so long as the construction and operation of the
crossing do not materially interfere with the crossed carrier's
operations and the crossed carrier is compensated. Keokuk Junction Ry.
Co. v. STB, 292 F.3d 884 (D.C. Cir. 2002). However, in a construction
exemption proceeding, the Board only issues a section 10901 certificate
in response to a petition to cross. See The Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company--Petition for Declaration or Prescription of
Crossing, Trackage, or Joint Use Rights, STB Finance Docket No. 33740
(STB served May 13, 2003). AEGC has not filed a petition to cross, but
merely states that it ``may need to seek crossing authority.'' It would
therefore be premature to issue a section 10901 certificate at this
time.
Conclusion
We find, after weighing the various transportation and
environmental
[[Page 9636]]
concerns and considering the entire record, that the petition for
exemption should be granted and that petitioner may build either Route
A or Route B, subject to compliance with the environmental mitigation
listed in the Appendix to this decision.
As conditioned, this action will not significantly affect either
the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy
resources.
It is ordered
1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts AEGC's construction and
CWRC's operation of the above-described line from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901.
2. The Board adopts the environmental mitigation measures set forth
in the Appendix to this decision, and imposes them as a condition to
the exemption granted in this proceeding.
3. AEGC's motion to revoke the exemption to the extent necessary to
issue a PC&N certificate is denied.
4. Notice will be published in the Federal Register on February 24,
2006.
5. Petitions to reopen must be filed by March 16, 2006.
6. The decision is effective on March 26, 2006.
By the Board, Chairman Buttrey and Vice Chairman Mulvey.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
Appendix
AEGC'S Voluntary Mitigation Measures
AEGC voluntarily proposes to incorporate the following
mitigation measures into the proposed project.
Transportation and Traffic Safety
1. AEGC shall install, at its sole cost, the necessary signage,
lighting, and safety warnings for all at-grade crossings as approved
and permitted by the Illinois Commerce Commission (Routes A and B).
2. AEGC agrees to install, at its sole cost, flashers/gates at
County Road 9/Panama Avenue to elevate safety at this grade crossing
as requested by the Bond County Engineer (Route B only).
3. In order to minimize delays of vehicular traffic during
construction of the road crossings, AEGC shall schedule the work so
that construction of the roadway approaches would be completed
before construction work within the roadway occurs (Routes A and B).
4. To the extent applicable, AEGC shall require the track
contractor to pre-build track panels for the grade crossings (Routes
A and B).
5. AEGC shall place detour signs and detour traffic around work
sites as applicable. At least one month before road crossing
construction would begin, AEGC shall notify and provide information
to the nearest fire department and emergency response units and
notify the County, Illinois Commerce Commission and Illinois
Department of Transportation of the planned roadway construction
schedule (Routes A and B).
6. To the maximum extent feasible, AEGC shall construct the
proposed grade crossings during the summer months when school is out
of session. If road crossing construction cannot occur during the
summer months, AEGC shall, at least one month before road crossing
construction is scheduled to begin, notify and provide information
to the applicable school districts regarding the days and times that
road construction is planned. AEGC shall consider school bus
schedules in planning and executing the necessary road work (Routes
A and B).
7. AEGC shall coordinate with NS, as necessary, regarding
construction of the proposed Route A crossing of NS in order to
prevent construction activities from interfering with NS operations
over its line (Route A only).
8. AEGC shall coordinate with NS, as necessary, to prevent rail
operations over the proposed Route A crossing of NS from interfering
with NS operations over its line (Route A only).
9 AEGC shall make reasonable efforts to identify all utilities
that are reasonably expected to be materially affected by the
proposed construction within the right-of-way. AEGC shall work with
each utility to determine the appropriate project-related
modification needed, if any, and enter into an agreement regarding
the same, if necessary. AEGC shall pay all project-related costs
associated with these modifications or adjustments (Routes A and B).
10. AEGC shall ensure that the contractor it selects to perform
all maintenance and inspections shall do so in compliance with
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) standards. AEGC shall also
ensure that its contractor uses practices recommended by American
Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association for project-
related construction (Routes A and B).
11. AEGC shall limit the maximum train speed on Route A to 45
mph and on Route B to 40 mph (Routes A and B).
Land Use
12. AEGC shall work with farmers and ranchers to remedy actual
damage to crops, pastures, or rangelands caused by project-related
construction (Routes A and B).
13. AEGC shall negotiate with affected landowners to provide
private crossings, where appropriate, to minimize severance impacts
(Routes A and B).
14. AEGC shall ensure all construction debris is disposed of in
a proper and legal manner consistent with all applicable Federal,
state, and local disposal procedures. To the maximum extent
feasible, AEGC shall ensure that woody debris resulting from right-
of-way clearing activities during rail line construction is left on-
site in forested areas as wildlife habitat. Regarding woody debris
that cannot be left on-site, AEGC shall take reasonable steps to
mulch the trees for residential or community use within the project
area (Routes A and B).
15. AEGC shall limit construction activities and vegetation
clearing to the proposed right-of-way, to the extent possible
(Routes A and B).
16. Should any land not owned by AEGC be directly disturbed by
project-related construction, AEGC shall restore such areas to their
original condition, as may be reasonably necessary, upon completion
of project-related construction (Routes A and B).
17. AEGC's project-related construction vehicles, equipment, and
workers shall not access work areas by crossing residential
properties without the permission of the property owners (Routes A
and B).
18. AEGC shall coordinate with the Illinois Department of
Transportation regarding any agreement needed for the crossing of
the state-owned land near Illinois Route 127 (Route A only).
Geology/Soils
19. AEGC shall limit ground disturbance to only the areas
necessary for project-related construction activities (Routes A and
B).
20. AEGC shall commence reclamation of disturbed areas as soon
as practicable after project-related construction ends along a
particular stretch of rail line. The goal of reclamation shall be
the rapid and permanent reestablishment of native ground cover on
disturbed areas (Routes A and B).
21. During project-related construction, AEGC shall take
reasonable steps to ensure that contractors use fill material
appropriate for the project area (Routes A and B).
Water Resources/Wetlands
22. AEGC shall require its construction contractor to utilize
Best Management Practices, to include:
a. Practices to reduce erosion and sedimentation that could
occur as a result of construction, including along slopes and in
channels (Routes A and B);
b. Disturbance of the smallest area possible around water
resources (Routes A and B);
c. Reseeding of areas as soon as practicable to prevent erosion
(Routes A and B);
d. If necessary, use of seeding fiber mats, straw mulch, plastic
lined slope drains, and silt dikes (Routes A and B);
e. Use of native species where practicable for revegetation
(Routes A and B);
f. Development of a spill prevention plan prior to construction,
including measures to be taken in case any spills occur (Routes A
and B);
g. Maintaining construction and maintenance vehicles in good
working order (Routes A and B);
h. Daily inspections of all equipment for any fuel, lube oil,
hydraulic, or antifreeze leaks. If leaks are found, the contractor
shall immediately remove the equipment from service and repair or
replace it and remediate the spill (Routes A and B);
i. Practices to control turbidity and disturbance to bottom
sediments during project-related construction of the proposed
Coffeen Lake crossing (Route A only).
23. AEGC shall implement a monitoring and management program
covering a minimum of three years to ensure that mitigation
activities are successful (Routes A and B).
[[Page 9637]]
24. AEGC shall develop a bridge maintenance plan in compliance
with FRA regulations (Routes A and B).
25. Culvert construction in streams with significant water flow
that could not be barricaded shall have a by-pass channel cut
adjacent to the site to accommodate ``normal'' flow conditions
(Routes A and B).
26. Culvert construction in streams not having significant flow
and that could be barricaded shall have a pump(s) set up to pass the
water through the placement/construction site (Routes A and B).
27. Erosion control measures at culvert construction sites shall
remain in place until the permanent culvert construction process is
completed (Routes A and B).
28. AEGC shall ensure drainage and evaluate potential erosion
concerns that may arise downstream of structures installed across
the drainageways (Routes A and B).
29. AEGC shall use Best Management Practices for long-term
maintenance of culverts and bridges along the proposed rail line
(Routes A and B).
30. AEGC shall construct the proposed rail line in such a way as
to maintain current drainage patterns to the extent practicable
(Routes A and B).
31. Where appropriate, AEGC shall work with farmers on any
drainage issues which might arise (Routes A and B).
32. AEGC shall prohibit project-related construction vehicles
from driving in or crossing streams at other than established
crossing points (Routes A and B).
33. AEGC shall coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency regarding the appropriate wetland mitigation
(Routes A and B).
34. AEGC shall construct all project-related drainage crossing
structures to pass a 100-year flood and AEGC shall coordinate with
the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to ensure the new
floodplain crossings are appropriately designed to minimize impacts
(Routes A and B).
35. For wells located within the proposed right-of-way but
outside the grading limits, AEGC shall cap or otherwise close those
wells in accordance with state regulations (Routes A and B).
36. AEGC shall require that appropriate vegetation control
measures are followed and that herbicides applied during right-of-
way vegetation control procedures are approved by USEPA for such
purposes (Routes A and B).
37. AEGC shall require that the company conducting vegetation
control procedures is licensed to do so (Routes A and B).
38. In order to prevent the potential disbursement of sprayed
substances to adjacent drainageways and wetlands, AEGC shall require
that herbicide spraying not be undertaken on days with high winds
and that on marginally windy days, an additive may be used to
minimize any potential impact (Routes A and B).
Biological Resources
39. The proposed Route A crossings of Lake Fork, Shoal Creek,
and Bearcat Creek shall be bridged, thereby reducing potential
impacts to the river otter habitat (Route A only).
40. The culvert crossing at Grove Branch on Route B shall be
sized to minimize any impacts to the river otter habitat (Route B
only).
41. The proposed culverts at Stream 19 and other intermittent
streams shall be sized to minimize any natural resource impacts
(Routes A and B).
Air Quality
42. AEGC shall follow Federal, state, and local regulations
regarding the control of fugitive dust emissions. This may include
spraying water, applying a magnesium chloride treatment, placing
tarp covers on vehicles, and installing wind barriers, if necessary
(Routes A and B).
43. AEGC shall work with its contractors to make sure that
construction and maintenance equipment is properly maintained and
that mufflers and other required pollution-control devices are in
working condition in order to limit construction-related air
emissions (Routes A and B).
44. AEGC shall require its construction contractor to obtain the
necessary burning permits to dispose of vegetation and other debris
cleared from the proposed rail right-of-way (Routes A and B).
Noise and Vibration
45. AEGC shall work with its construction contractor to
minimize, to the extent practicable, construction-related noise
disturbances near any residential areas (Routes A and B).
46. AEGC shall require its construction contractor to maintain
project-related construction and maintenance vehicles in good
working order with properly functioning mufflers to control noise
(Routes A and B).
47. AEGC shall use continuously welded rail and rail lubricants,
as practicable, on the newly constructed line in order to reduce
wheel/rail wayside noise (Routes A and B).
48. AEGC shall require, as practicable, its contractor(s) to
comply with FRA regulations that establish decibel limits for train
operations and locomotive noise standards (Routes A and B).
Additional Mitigation
49. AEGC shall comply with any reasonable stream/wetland
mitigation that may be required as part of its project-related
permit applications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Illinois
Department of Natural Resources, and Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act (Routes A and B).
50. As site-specific erosion and sediment control and other Best
Management Practices plans are developed, AEGC shall provide copies
of these plans to NRCS (Routes A and B).
51. As requested by USFWS, in order to avoid impacting the
Indiana bat, AEGC shall ensure that any project-related tree
clearing activities in Bond County not occur during the period of
April 1 to September 30. If tree-clearing during this time period
cannot be avoided, AEGC shall consult with USFWS prior to tree
clearing regarding the necessity of conducting mist net surveys to
determine if Indiana bats are present. AEGC shall report the outcome
of these consultations with the USFWS to SEA (Route B only).
52. AEGC shall coordinate with the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency to obtain any permits required from that agency
(Routes A and B).
[FR Doc. E6-2655 Filed 2-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P