Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Statement

These Comments are being submitted by the Citizens Against Rochester’s Bypass (the Citizens) in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which analyzes the environmental impacts of the DM&E upgrade through the city of Rochester and discusses some of the impacts of Rochester’s bypass proposal. By this proposal Rochester would compel the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (DM&E) to construct a bypass of the city over thirty miles in length across rivers, streams, fields, farms, and homes in eight townships in Dodge and Olmsted Counties. This heavy-duty rail line would go past or through the homes and farms of hundreds of rural residents, and would slash through and destroy lands where they earn their livelihoods and raise their children, and in many cases where their families have lived and farmed for a century and more.

Rochester’s proposal has the express purpose of moving the adverse effects of this rail project from the city where the railroad has been for a century and a third to quiet rural areas where no railroad has ever been. The construction and operation of this rail line would result in the needless destruction of woods, fields, homes, building sites, and wetlands. It would deprive rural residents of safety and quiet, the very reasons many of the residents live in the country, and would permanently degrade or destroy irreplaceable natural communities.

The Citizens Against Rochester’s Bypass request the Surface Transportation Board to reject Rochester’s bypass proposal. These comments and the accompanying submissions demonstrate that a bypass would cause enormous irreversible damage to the environment.

II. The Citizens Against Rochester’s Bypass

The Citizens Against Rochester’s Bypass are residents of the counties and townships through which the bypass is proposed. In response to the city’s action, the citizens of the affected townships have come together to oppose this bypass. In their opposition, the Citizens have the support of the governments of the townships in which they reside, Ex. A,B,C,D,E, the rural county commissioners of Olmsted County, their state legislators, Ex. F, and the Dodge County board. Ex. G,H. They also are supported by many residents of Rochester itself, who understand the unfairness of the bypass proposal advanced by their city government at the behest of powerful interests in the city.

The Citizens are a cross section of their rural communities, and include cash crop, fowl, dairy, and other livestock farmers, retired persons, business owners, people who work in the city but choose to live in the country, and persons who do not live on but nevertheless own and manage lands which they use for wildlife, woodlots, fishing, and other outdoor activities. They have submitted many letters describing their homes and lands, their lifestyles which depend upon them, and the effect this bypass proposal will and already has had. Their submissions also show the deep attachment these people have to their lands, some of which have been in their families since patents were signed by President Abraham Lincoln, and some of which were first broken by their ancestors under the Homestead Act more than a century ago. See Exhibit 18 to Citizens 1999 submissions. The bypass would alter or destroy the way of life for which these generations have worked.

The Citizens are a true grass-roots organization who have to depend only on their own resources to oppose Rochester’s unjust attempt to move its railroad out to their lands. Unlike their opponents, the Citizens are not bankrolled by the city or the Mayo Clinic. Nor, in contrast to their opponent, have they received any support from city or county governments. Olmsted County, which taxes and purports to represent all of the county’s residents, has by a divided vote funded Rochester’s organization opposed to the coal trains— an organization which is no more than a Trojan horse for the purpose of advancing Rochester’s bypass proposal. Yet these rural citizens directly affected by Rochester’s bypass have been denied similar funding of their efforts to point out the adverse effects of the bypass on their homes, farms, environment, and way of life.

The Citizens therefore have not been able to afford a battery of experts or Washington counsel experienced in proceedings before the STB. They instead have had to rely on their own resources and such professional assistance as their limited funds allow. This submission therefore is the result of their own work, with engineering assistance from Mr. Jeffrey S. Broberg, REM, LPG, of McGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc., who has contributed the technical portions of this presentation.

III. Format of Submission

The response of the Citizens Against Rochester’s Bypass consists of the following documents:

(1) Comments of the Citizens Against Rochester’s Bypass on Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Project, STB Finance Docket No. 33407 [this document].

(2) Bound volume: Olmsted County Minnesota Family Land Business, with locator maps. These submissions are keyed to the DEIS maps from Volume V of the DEIS.

(3) Bound Volume: Historical Resources in Olmsted County along Bypass Route.

(4) Bound volume: Maps of bypass route projected onto various natural features, prepared by Olmsted County Environmental Services. These maps are lettered for identification O-1, etc., and are so referenced in these comments.

(5) Bound volume: Exhibits To Comments of Citizens Against Rochester’s Bypass on DEIS. References in these comments are to Ex. A, etc.

Several references are made to the exhibits accompanying the Citizens’ 1999 submissions. To distinguish them from the new exhibits, the previous exhibits are cited as 1999 Ex. __. The Citizens also rely on their comments made in public hearings in Mankato and Rochester, and individual submissions made throughout this process.

IV. The Bypass Route

Route Variations

Rochester’s Bypass has gone through a number of iterations. Initially considered were a north bypass as well as a number of southern alternatives. One of the southern alternatives went much closer to the city, and was rejected when the city discovered that its route went through land where the city expects further growth and development. The city settled on parameters which would locate the route as far outside the city as possible and outside of the reach of industry and planned development by the city. This pushed the bypass out to lands designated by the county as natural resource protection areas, a designation which did not dissuade the city from proposing its rail line through them.

Rochester also decided to locate its bypass north of I-90, apparently to avoid the expense of crossing that Interstate highway, to share its corridor for at least a few miles, and to avoid conflicts with other towns and rural communities located to the south of that freeway. In short, the gerrymandered appearance of the bypass route is the result of a deliberate political decision to site it where it would affect farm folks only, the least powerful of Olmsted County’s communities.

The DEIS route is shown on Maps 11, 19-29, and 18 in DEIS Volume V, proceeding from East to West. There has been a later revision of the route, contained in Rochester’s “augmented” submission to the STB on June 10, 1999. The deviations from the January 1999 route were apparently made in a clumsy but unsuccessful attempt to avoid wetlands in Rock Dell and High Forest townships, and purportedly to accommodate a planned rerouting of State Highway 30 south of the Rochester airport.^[1] This later revised route is shown on the bound volume of maps from Olmsted County. (Maps O-1 through O-8).

It is possible that there will be further attempts by Rochester to revise its route, sprung at the expiration of the comment period. The city has apparently commissioned an engineering study of the bypass route, and likely will file that study or an abstract of it shortly before expiration of the comment period. The city has shared at least some of the results of this study with Rochester Area Economic Development, Inc. (RAEDI), a private development organization affiliated with Rochester. RAEDI in turn included that information in a report released at a press conference called by the city. The Citizens have requested a copy of that study, which purportedly quantifies the cost of the impacts of the bypass on their properties (despite the fact that there has been no on-site surveys and neither the engineers nor the city have sought or received permission to go onto private lands impacted by the bypass^[2]). The city however has refused to provide it to the rural residents directly affected by the bypass. It is unknown whether this study or other submissions by the city will further revise the route.

In any event this submission comments on the DEIS route, in reliance both upon the DEIS and upon assurances from the STB that this route is the one under consideration. Where possible, the more detailed construction information contained with Rochester’s June 1999 submission also is addressed.

Neither the STB, the railroad, nor the farmers and rural residents affected by the wanderings of Rochester’s bypass route can afford or should be expected to respond to further revisions to the proposal. Undoubtedly each successive rerouting is for the reason of avoiding a particular adverse effect or environmental disaster, but each such rerouting poses new problems of its own. Rochester’s continued need to revise its proposal only points out the obvious fact that there is no feasible and environmentally responsible bypass route.

Overview of Significant Environmental Communities Along Route

A preliminary understanding of the significant environmental resources endangered by Rochester’s proposal can be obtained from the Olmsted County maps, Maps O-1 through O-11, and a map produced by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource’s Division of Fish and Wildlife as part of its Minnesota County Biological Survey. This map is entitled Natural Communities and Rare Species of Olmsted County, Minnesota (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1997). Even on the extremely large scales of these maps, the following areas of concern immediately present themselves.

There are wetlands, seeps, springs, and hydric and floodplain soils throughout the route. Maps O-4, O-5, O-6, and O-7. Much of the bypass is over prime soils. Map O-1. Most of the route has bedrock close to the surface, Map O-10, and a good portion the eastern section is located in a region of known sinkholes. Map O-8. These features contribute to the high sensitivity of virtually the entire area to groundwater pollution from surface spills. Map O-9.

There are many natural communities along the route. Map O-2. Some of them, derived from the DNR map mentioned above (Natural Communities), are the following.

Calcareous fens and wet meadows are encountered in Section 15 of High Forest Township, a short distance north of the June 1999 bypass route. There is a wet meadow on the route in Section 14 of Rock Dell Township. There is a very rare calcareous seepage fen and a shrub swamp in Section 16 of Rock Dell, and a wet meadow and state Wildlife Management Area in Section 6 and 7 of that same township. There is another wet meadow in Salem Township. Section 19 of Salem Township contains mesic oak, maple-basswood, and lowland hardwood forests, dry cliffs, and talus slopes. The bypass would run immediately adjacent to or through all of these communities.

Federal or state listed plants are encountered in Section 156 of High Forest, and along the route in Section 16 and 14 of Rock Dell and Sections 19 and 30 of Salem Townships.

Federal or state listed animals are found in Section 6 of Rock Dell and 19 of Salem Townships.

In short, Rochester’s proposed bypass route would go over and through areas with sensitive geological features and diverse and valuable natural communities. Yet this is the route that Rochester claims is the environmentally preferable alternative. As shown in the detailed comments below, such a route would be an environmental disaster.

V. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement’s

Description of the Effects of the Rochester Alternatives.

The following are the specific comments of the Citizens Against Rochester’s Bypass on the environmental effects of the Rochester alternatives. These are keyed to the appropriate subsections of Section 3.3.2, dealing with the Rochester Bypass. Not all of the subsections are addressed here, and these comments are not a comprehensive summary of all of the Citizen’s concerns about the DEIS. Their submissions in the accompanying volumes, as well as information separately submitted, should be consulted as well.

3.3.2.2 Topography

The DEIS notes that the bypass would cross rather than follow existing land contours (which it does, as well as headwaters of the Zumbro, Root, and Whitewater Rivers, three of southeastern Minnesota’s most scenic and beautiful streams.^[3]) The DEIS however does not describe the extent of the topographic changes required to construct this bypass. The enormity of these changes is shown in information attached to the June 10, 1999 letter of Mr. Steven Kalish, Rochester’s attorney (Kalish letter). The statement of Mr. Leif Thorson of TKDA (the TKDA report) attached to that letter describes the bypass route and attempts to quantify the earthworks needed. This TKDA report and its Attachment A shows fill sections up to ninety feet in height, crossing riverbeds, flood plains, and valleys on earthen embankments a mile and more long. Some of these valley fills would be nearly 400 feet wide. Cut sections would be equally dramatic, up to two miles in length and nearly forty feet in depth, through topsoils, subsoils, and into the bedrock of the regional acquifers.

Some idea of the scale of these massive earthworks can be gained by following the course of an eastbound loaded coal train over the bypass.

Shortly after heading south from the existing alignment, such a train crosses a filled grade a mile long over wetlands, flood plain, and the headwaters of Cascade Creek in Salem Township, and is carried on rails more than forty feet above the existing elevations.

This aerial foray would be immediately followed by a descent into a trench over a mile long and down to 32 feet in depth into hard Dolomitic bedrock.

The Salem Creek crossing in Section 19 would be an earthen dam nearly 100 feet high, with a footprint across this pristine valley floor over 400 feet wide. This fill would be bisected by a 250' long bridge.^[4]

Just south of this enormous embankment would be a 4000 foot long trench up to 38 feet deep, also cut into bedrock.

After nineteen more miles of travel across rolling terrain, through fields, over streams and wetlands, and past wildlife management areas and calcareous fens, the train approaches Highway 52 in Marion Township. Here it crosses farm fields, pastures, woods, wetlands, and watercourses through rolling terrain filled and cut by another string of huge earthworks necessary to construct a roadbed straight and level enough for the operation of a high speed freight railroad. The railroad descends into a mile of trench up to 37 feet deep, and then goes over a sixty-five foot high fill and bridge over the highway, Badger Run, and its valley. This fill is followed immediately by two-mile long trench up to 34 feet deep which rises above the surface only once.

Approaching Eyota, our train goes through another trench 9000 feet long, up to 30 feet deep, through an area with a large concentration of sinkholes, and in fact directly over many of them. Cutting this karst trench would open up a rock formation resembling Swiss cheese, and with little more ability to support a railroad. The construction process itself would be unsafe and the daily operation of 15,000 ton coal trains at over 40 miles per hour would present deadly risks to the crews and neighbors.

These are but some of the permanent topographical changes which would result from Rochester’s bypass. The bypass route would not be constructed over level prairie or gently graded watercourses, as was the original line. Instead the bypass route is nothing more than alternating fills and cuts across the rolling terrain of Olmsted County for a distance of over 30 miles, very few of which are level enough for construction of a railroad. There was no attempt to conform the route to the terrain; it simply was drawn without regard to such niceties as topography, bedrock, land use, aesthetics, or the environment. The sole motivating planning criterion was a desire to exclude the railroad from the city limits or those adjoining farms and woods on which Rochester, with its voracious appetite for urban sprawl, has designs.

But even these dramatic figures understate the actual extent of the earthworks required, because of significant lacunae in Rochester’s bypass proposal. In an apparent effort to reduce the cost of the bypass to a figure approaching the much lower cost of in-city mitigation, the city eliminated grade separations at US Highway 14, a four-lane, controlled access highway west of Byron, and US Highway 63, a similar thoroughfare north of Stewartville.^[5] There is no way that any responsible government would allow these busy thoroughfares to be permanently transected by level grade crossings of a busy trunk railroad.^[6]

Rochester apparently recognizes the ludicrousness of the proposal, and now claims that omitting such crossings was for comparative purposes only.^[7] But alteration of the proposal destroys the utility of the TKDA calculations and their attempt to balance soil volumes taken from cuts with those deposited in fills. Construction of the necessary grade separations of these highways (and in the case of US 14 over an adjoining frontage road as well) would require enormous amounts of additional fill. Lengthy sections of the line on either side of both overpasses would have to be regraded to accommodate these two overpasses.^[8] The requisite fill would have to mined, processed, transported, and placed at substantial additional cost. Alternatively the additional fill would need to be obtained elsewhere on the project, which requires complete regrading and recalculation of cuts and fills.^[9] In short, the topographical changes necessary for actual construction of the bypass are actually more extreme than those shown in Rochester’s on-the-cheap bypass proposal.

The topographical changes would be permanent and would last long beyond the expected life of the Powder River Coal Fields.^[10] Rochester would permanently scar the landscape, and its changes would last not for mere generations or centuries, but many millennia. These scars would be visible from outer space and would have the same impact as an earthquake on a fault line.

In the geological time scale, even the few centuries of this bypass’ usefulness for coal traffic is short. But the scarring of the land for this perceived short-term advantage would stand as a permanent monument to the folly of Rochester’s selfish refusal to act as a good steward of the land and environment which we all hold in trust.

3.3.2.3 Geology and Soils

The DEIS fails to identify the basic geologic terrains found in Olmsted County. In order to evaluate environmental impacts, one must start with an understanding and description of the three basic types of bedrock underlying the county (carbonate, shale, sandstone) followed by understanding and describing the three basic types of Surficial geologic materials underlying the soils (glacial till, alluvium and floodplain deposits, and weathered bedrock). An understanding of these fundamentals is the key to managing a wide range of environmental risks in Olmsted County.

The DEIS should include a more complete and descriptive analysis for Olmsted County and should discuss the geology and associated risks between Alternative R2 (33.3 miles of existing line), the Alternative R3 (57.4 miles of track; existing 23.3 miles plus a 34.1 mile bypass) and Alternative R4 (43.6 miles of track; 9.5 miles of existing plus 34.1 miles of new bypass). To complete the comparison and risk analysis the DEIS should define and take into consideration the following bedrock and glacial geological terrains.

Bedrock terrains

1. Karst, the carbonate controlled uplands and slopes formed in the Upper Carbonate Galena Group (Stewartville, Prosser and Cumminsville Formations) and the deeper Prairie du Chein Group (Shakopee and Oneonta Formations). The karst uplands display a variety of unique characteristics ranging from massive hard rock that requires blasting to excavate, to a wide array of fractures and solution features (vugs, sinkholes and caves) that provide a direct conduit from the surface to groundwater.

2. Impermeable bedrock controlled uplands and slopes, where the rocks at the surface range from dense or plastic shale, to shale rich limestone and dolomite that are so impermeable that the rocks act as an aquatard so that water cannot pass downward through bedrock. The impermeable bedrock units include the Decorah Shale, Platteville Limestone and Glenwood Shale. These units generally contain pollutants, are unstable for foundations and roadbeds, and are subject to seeps, springs, fens and saturated subsoil conditions. Areas underlain by shale have been found to correlate to derailments due to the unstable subsurface conditions.

3. Highly permeable, friable sandstone of the St. Peter formation. Areas underlain by the St. Peter Sandstone are easy to excavate and make good fill material but water and pollutants drain rapidly through to the underlying aquifers and generate a risk for ground water contamination.

An analysis of the geologic terrains underlying the various bypass alternatives is needed to complete the evaluation of environmental impacts. The table below charts the approximate length of rail operations that would cross the described bedrock terrains.

	Total of new miles	Total Operating Miles	Miles crossing bedrock terrain
			Karst (carbonate)	Impermeable bedrock (shale)	Highly permeable bedrock (sandstone)
Alt R-2 Reconstruct Existing	0 miles	~ 33 miles	~ 21 miles	~ 5 miles	~7 miles
Alt R-3 Bypass for coal	~ 34miles	~ 67 miles	~61 miles	~3.5 miles	~2.5 miles
Alt R-3 Bypass for all rail	~34 miles	~43 miles	~ 39 miles	~2.5 mile	~1.5 miles

Glacial geologic terrains

1. Glacial till controlled uplands and slopes where a wide mixture of glacial materials have complex interbedded relationships and complex hydrologic interactions that influence wetlands, fens and groundwater recharge and discharge. These areas form the headwaters of local rivers and streams including the Zumbro River, Root River and Whitewater River. The till is generally easy to excavate and may make suitable fill, however, the complex hydrogeology is difficult to predict and massive excavation can result in unintended consequences by creating new discharge points or drying up nearby stream and wetlands.

2. Alluvial and fluvial terrains formed as sediments deposited by rivers and streams where floods and flash floods routinely occur and where shallow groundwater is near the surface. These areas typically require dewatering for construction and are easily contaminated. These aquifers are not utilized to provide potable drinking water.

3. Weathered bedrock and colluvium is found in upland areas where glacial till was never deposited or has been eroded away. These areas have the highest geologic risk during construction because sinkholes and caves are common and have the highest risk of groundwater contamination because there is no soil or impermeable bedrock to stop the flow of pollutants into the groundwater.

	Total of new miles	Total Operating Miles	Miles crossing Surficial Terrain
			Glacial till (Complex)	Alluvial and Fluvial	Weathered Bedrock
Alt R-2 Reconstruct Existing	0	~33	~11 miles	~22 miles	< 1 mile
Alt R-3 Bypass for coal	34	~67	~ 36 miles	~23 miles	~8 miles
Alt R-3 Bypass for all rail	34	~43	~25 miles	~10 miles	~8 miles

The proposed upgrade of the existing line will not create any substantial new disturbance to the bedrock or Surficial geology. The risks of utilizing the existing right-of-way are substantially understood and have historically been managed with surrounding urban growth in the City of Rochester.

In contrast the bypass creates substantial amounts of new disturbance. Without completing detailed geologic investigations and identifying the short term and long term impacts and risks for each geologic terrain the environmental consequences of the bypass alternatives cannot be determined.

Each geologic terrain has unique characteristics that influence surface hydrology, groundwater recharge, susceptibility of groundwater contamination, suitability for sand gravel or aggregate resources, soil types, the occurrence of wetlands, springs, streams and rivers, the type and diversity of plant and animal communities, land use, and the suitability for agriculture and development. The DEIS is inadequate to evaluate the impacts on the proposed bypass.

3.3.2.3.1 Geological Hazards

One of the tactics of the project opponents is to challenge the project on every possible basis even where there is no foundation for such a challenge. Project opponents raise concerns about karst topography and claim that such topography threatens the present line. In fact there is no threat to the present line, which has been in use for over a century. But Rochester not only disregards the threat of such sinkholes to its proposed bypass, it has located that bypass route directly over actual sinkholes.

The existing railroad line has been in place since the Civil War. In that time it has seen the passage of hundreds of thousands of trains, including passenger trains at speeds of sixty and more miles an hour, long freight trains, and heavy steam locomotives with surface loadings equal to or greater than the projected coal trains. This regular, lengthy, and intensive operation has occurred without problems from sinkholes from karst topography. Maps of the bypass route show no sinkholes on or near the existing line. Map O-8.

In contrast, Rochester's bypass route southeast of the city goes through an area with numerous sink holes, and in fact is located adjacent to or on top of at least six known sink holes. Map O-8.^[11] The bypass route goes directly over the area of Olmsted County which contains the largest concentration of sinkholes north of I-90. It would be harder to design a route which crosses more of them than the route chosen by Rochester.

The DEIS notes the possible significance of the karst features and that the bypass alignment passes through a region with a high probability for sinkholes. This conditional statement is far too weak. Rochester’s poorly thought-out line is located directly on top of those sinkholes. The possible consequences set forth in the DEIS are in fact probable.

As noted in the alternatives analysis, geologic hazards such as sinkholes, caves and susceptibility to groundwater contamination are known to exist along the proposed bypass. Such sinkholes, caves and other karst features however are not known, suspected, or expected to occur along the existing rail bed grade. Speculation about the possibility of their occurrence on the existing route has no weight given the long history of use of the present line.

Even though the DEIS recognizes the risk of sinkholes and groundwater contamination along the bypass route, the analysis is inadequate on a number of counts. For example:

1. Shallow depth to bedrock over large areas of the proposed bypass increases the difficulty and cost of construction and creates risks from blasting.

2. The history of recent sinkhole formation in Olmsted County indicates that new sinkholes most commonly form in areas of massive earth moving activities and areas where grading has caused stormwater diversions or impoundments in drainageways and road ditches. Construction of a new rail bed grade for the bypass would significantly increase the risk of localized sinkhole formation.

3. The fractured carbonate bedrock aquifers have general regional groundwater flows from south to north with deviations that tend to follow the flow of the Zumbro and Whitewater Rivers. Because the karst terrain is susceptible to ground water contamination, any pollutants or disturbance of the interaction of surface and groundwater could have a negative impact on the Rochester’s water supply.

4. Massive grading projects in the glacial till can disturb natural hydrological relationships. There have been recorded instances where large cuts have created artesian wells that cannot be controlled and result in the dewatering and depletion of natural springs, small stream flows or groundwater aquifers. For example a recent controversy over dewatering of excavations at the MSP Airport cited the risk of dewatering Lake Nokomis, a natural recreational lake in Minneapolis. The Environmental Review cited the risk and the project was required to engineer protections that will not deplete the lake. In another example an excavation for a bridge abutment in similar geologic terrain in Dodge County created an artesian spring that cannot be capped. In yet another example excavation for a storm water pond in a similar geologic terrain in Savage, Minnesota tapped a shallow groundwater aquifer that sustained a calcareous fen in a Scientific and Natural Area over one mile away. An adequate environmental analysis would require shallow soil borings and hydrological analysis to assure that excavations will not threaten natural groundwater flow.

A rail line cannot be located where Rochester wants to put it. The city therefore has not proposed a feasible bypass and its plan should be rejected.

3.3.2.3.2 Soil Impacts

The DEIS does not adequately describe the soil conditions, limitations or expected impacts along the bypass route.

Published information is available concerning soil associations, conditions and limitations. The DEIS however omits details that are needed to determine the environmental consequences, risks and costs of constructing the bypass.

The Olmsted County Soil Survey shows that the bypass crosses three distinct landscape areas with broad soil associations:

1. The Racine-Floyd-Maxfield association in Salem, Rock Dell and High Forest Townships, where 28% of the soils have severe limitations due to soil wetness, indicating the presence of wetlands and the need for over excavation and dewatering during construction, and where many of the soils are unstable due to frost heaving, low strength and high plasticity.

2. The Rockton - Channahon - Atkinson association in Marion and Eyota Townships where thin soils and shallow depth to bedrock create severe limitation to excavations and construction.

3. The Mt. Carroll - Otter - Joy association in High Forest and Salem Townships where flooding, wet soils, frost action and low material strength create severe limitations for excavations and road construction.

The DEIS does not adequately evaluate the risks and limitations of soils along the bypass route.

The DEIS notes the significant damage caused to soils by construction and operation of the bypass. It understates however the harm to soils caused by a derailment, and assumes that cleanup operations could take place before significant damage would occur. In fact, the thinness of the soils and porosity of the underlying subsoil and rock would quickly drain unfiltered contaminants into the groundwater, polluting the soil on the way, before any cleanup could occur. Because of this susceptibility, there have been recent cases where pollution has occurred in nearby areas before cleanup crews could even arrive on scene.

The DEIS fails to account for impacts on soils from altered drainage.

Cut sections would lower drainage surrounding areas, making soils less productive. Fill sections would likely interfere with drainage and could lead to wet soils on the upstream side of those fills, leading to reduced productivity. These concerns are more fully addressed in Section 3.3.2.4.1 dealing with agriculture.

The DEIS understates the amount of farmland which would be taken.

The amount of land actually needed for the bypass would be much larger than the 606 acres listed as discussed more fully in the comments on Section 3.3.2.4.1 below.

3.3.2.3.3 Paleontological Resources

The DEIS correctly notes that paleontological resources were likely destroyed during the construction of the original rail line. There is a high probability that similar destruction would be repeated if the Rochester bypass is constructed. An analysis of the proposed bypass route indicates that a minimum of 8 miles and a maximum of 23 miles of the line will encounter bedrock during construction. Some of the bedrock is known to be fossilliferous with Ordovician and Devonian Age Invertebrates including trilobites, cephalopods, brachiopods, pelecopods, bryozoa, crinoids, ostracods and other species. Cretaceous deposits in isolated lenses along the proposed bypass route may have marine fossils including sharks teeth and invertebrates. Glacial age deposits in Olmsted County like those that will be encountered in Salem, Rock Dell, High Forest and Marion Townships are known to have rare fossil deposits where woolly mammoth and giant beaver have been collected.

Published lists of the faunal species that may be encountered during the bypass construction can be found in the following references:

The Paleozoic and Related Rocks of Southeastern Minnesota, C. Stauffer & G. Thiel, pp. 227 - 249 (University of Minnesota, 1941).

Guide to Fossil Collecting in Minnesota, S. Tufford & R. Hogberg, pp. 1 - 28 (University of Minnesota, 1965).

3.3.2.4 Land Use

3.3.2.4.1 Agriculture

The DEIS understates the impact of the bypass on both the agricultural lands taken and those which remain.

Lands Subject to Taking

The majority of the bypass route is located over prime farmland. Map O-1. The various estimates of the amount of agricultural land removed from production contained in Rochester’s submissions and the DEIS are all too low.

First, the railroad right-of-way would be a minimum of 200' wide, the current standard for railroad construction. The baseline for land taking therefore is some 860 acres.

Second, additional land would be needed for sidings. Where passing sidings are constructed, track centers would be farther apart than older construction, in order to comply with safety regulations requiring more space between tracks to allow operations at speed on one track while maintenance is undertaken on the other. This likely would result in the taking of additional land for the length of the siding. (Rochester has not stated where it would locate sidings, but because of its increased length of the bypass over the present route, an additional siding would be needed.)

Third, the corridor will be wider than 200' in many cut and fill sections. The railroad disturbance will not stop where the fill slopes or backslopes meet the existing terrain. The impacts will include drainage ditches and necessary access roads for the maintenance of the track, grades, and fencing, consuming even more acres for right-of-way. The failure to account for these needs and to calculate them based on conditions on the ground understates the amount of land needed.

Fourth, the calculation also excludes from consideration irregular parcels and field remnants uneconomical to farm because of their remaining size and configuration. While the DEIS correctly notes the likelihood of this occurring, it does not calculate the impact. Only a firm and fully engineered route overlain on actual field maps can adequately determine the impact of these additional takings.

Adverse Effects on Remaining Lands and Farm Operations

The DEIS notes the transportation inefficiencies created by the bypass, which would cut farmers off from their fields, necessitating lengthy detours and the operation of slow-moving and noisy farm equipment over busy public roads. These problems would be exacerbated by the numerous cuts and fills. These would make field crossing impractical at many locations, perhaps more than half of the route. Any crossing over a cut section would be especially dangerous because of reduced visibility. It is unrealistic to suggest that any private field crossings would be available. Substitute accesses would have to be obtained and constructed for both fields and driveways to homes and building sites, at a substantial cost, if available at all. And farmers and their equipment would have to take lengthy detours to public grade crossings, each with new hazards to farm machinery and other traffic. The operation of slow-moving machinery as well as trucks over these lengthy detour routes would present additional road safety hazards and increased fuel use, emissions, and equipment depreciation. These impacts should be evaluated and discussed in the FEIS.

The DEIS does not mention decreases in agricultural production on adjoining fields. By severing fields, the bypass would shorten the length of crop rows, making agriculture less efficient and therefore less productive and less profitable. The railroad will cut across field contours, destroy soil conservation practices on highly erodable soils, isolating or orphaning productive fields. The ideal field is rectilinear and long, with a proportionately small part devoted to equipment turnaround space at the end of crop rows. Shorter fields are less efficient, as are irregularly shaped fields. The bypass also will alter the crop row patterns of some fields, leading to an increase in erosion where the natural contours must be crossed rather than followed.

The cut and fill sections of the proposed bypass route will adversely affect drainage by increasing the wetness of soils upstream of the fill sections, and lowering the water table along cut sections. Gullies will be scoured at the outlet of culverts under the embankments. Deep cuts will leave tile line drainages hanging in the air. In the fast-draining and permeable soils of Olmsted County’s soils, these cuts will draw down the water table many hundreds or thousands of feet away, draining wetlands and reducing cropland productivity. This will affect yields in all but the wettest years and make croplands, where still usable, much more susceptible to drought.

The fill sections will have a damming effect on subsurface water flows, leading to increased wetness uphill of these fills, and aridity downhill.

The DEIS does not analyze or consider the effects of train operations on animal husbandry. The volume of information on affected families contains descriptions of many dairy, equine, and other livestock operations which would be adversely affected.

The DEIS does not note restrictions which the railroad would impose on future agricultural changes. One of the success stories of Minnesota agriculture is turkey and fowl farming. Struggling cash crop farmers would be unable to convert their properties to such operations where railroad operations would adversely affect these skittish animals.

Thee foregoing is but a partial list of some of the adverse impacts omitted from the DEIS. These and other effects on agriculture are discussed more fully in the submissions of the affected landowners. See Olmsted County Minnesota Family Land Business.

3.3.2.4.2 Residential

The DEIS incorrectly states that only seven residences are located within 500' of the bypass. The source of this incorrect assertion is nowhere given, but may be based on Rochester’s assertion that seven of the claimed 58 dwellings within 500' feet of the bypass would have to be acquired. Verified Statement of Charles Reiter, at 3, 5 (June 8, 1999), attached to Kalish Letter of June 10, 1999. In fact both the number of residences which would be taken and the number within 500' of the bypass are understated.

A calculation of the actual numbers of affected properties and persons cannot be based on a count from aerial photographs. There surely have been additional changes since such photographs were taken. Nor can a count of those affected be based on assumptions of family size. Many farm homesteads have more than one residence (at least one with four) and extended family groups. The only way to obtain accurate information is an actual count in the field.

The FEIS should also increase the width of the corridor of concern affected to reflect the fact that sound in the quiet countryside is both louder relative to background noise compared to an urban setting, but is less likely to be diffused or absorbed by intervening structures. The area of both apparent and actual disturbance is therefore greater than in the city.

3.3.2.4.3 Business and Industrial

The proposed bypass route would go directly through the industrial park planned by the City of Byron. Due to its configuration at that location and the angle at which it traverses the proposed industrial park, the park would be fragmented, making it much more difficult to sell useful lots. Byron has asked that any bypass be located outside its industrial park. Ex. I. Such a reroute would push the further bypass into Dodge County and affect new communities.

The DEIS notes Pemstar’s claim that it experiences disruptions from DM&E operations. Its manager has admitted that measures can be taken to improve vibration tolerance. Ex. J.

The DEIS notes that Rochester claims that only one business would be affected by the bypass. This is clearly incorrect. Among the businesses directly affected are:

Pumpkin store and family feature in Kalmar Township

Tack, feed, and harness repair shop in Rock Dell Township

Auto body and truck repair shop in Salem Township

Greenhouse in Rock Dell Township

Woodworking shop in Rock Dell Township

Landscaping and sod business in Rock Dell Township

Manufactured home sales business in High Forest Township

Turkey hatchery in Marion Township

This list shows the danger in relying upon Rochester’s submissions (which stated only one business was affected) for any description of the effects of its proposed bypass.

The DEIS hypothesizes that construction of the bypass could open up additional land to industrial development. DEIS 3.3-54.^[12] It could only do so by converting additional agricultural land to industry, a change at odds with Olmsted County’s land use plan. Heavy industry of a type served by railroads is not to be preferred to agricultural production. Heavy industry can be located on the existing line, in non-agricultural areas, with much less damage to the environment.

3.3.2.4.4 Minerals and Mining

The DEIS incorrectly asserts that there are no known mineral and mining operations in proximity to any of the alternatives. There are in fact aggregate mining operations in High Forest and Rock Dell townships. There are other areas as well which are suitable for gravel and aggregate mining.

Minnesota is experiencing a shortage of aggregates for a number of factors, including neighborhood opposition to such operations and environmental concerns. It is very difficult to obtain conditional use permits for such operations anywhere near settled areas, as a consequence of the same NIMBY factors present here.

There is also a projected shortage of such materials, which emphasizes the importance of preserving existing operations and locating new beds. Much of the bypass route goes over glacial till and other strata that have localized deposits suitable for mining sand, gravel, limestone and dolomite. The construction of the bypass would permanently remove those areas from such uses.

They bypass, with numerous grade crossings, some in deep cuts, would also hinder access to those operations and endanger their drivers and other road users.

3.3.2.4.5 Public Facilities

The bypass transects the Holy Redeemer Cemetery east of Rochester, and would require the relocation of many graves. A route deflection to avoid this cemetery, and Oak Grove Cemetery across the road from it, would impact additional building sites and likely involve an increased risk of sinkholes as shown on Map O-8.

3.3.2.4.6 Public Lands

The DEIS notes that the existing line passes nearly two miles distant from the Gordon W. Yeager State Wildlife Management Area, but overlooks the closer proximity of the bypass to several similar areas.

The bypass is located nearly adjacent to the Gunderson State Wildlife Management Area in Sections 6 and 7 of Rock Dell Township.

It goes within a quarter mile of the Suess State Wildlife Management Area in Section 15 of Rock Dell Township.

Most inexcusably, it passes along the north edge of Nelson Fen in Section 16 of Rock Dell Township, a state Wildlife Management Area which protects a rare calcareous fen.

3.3.2.5 Water Resources

Water Resources are an important issue along the Proposed Rochester Bypass because all of Olmsted County, including the City of Rochester, relies on groundwater resources for potable water supplies. Surface waters provide valuable ecological functions, recreation, and water for agriculture. The DEIS does not recognize the extent of interconnectedness of surface and ground water along the bypass route. This hydrologic interconnection was quantified in ground water recharge modeling in the Rochester area conducted by the US Geological Survey (Table WR-1). The USGS reports that about nine percent of the aquifer recharge for the city of Rochester can be attributed to leakage from stream and rivers that have their headwaters in wetlands, springs and seeps along the bypass route. Disturbance to the hydrogeology or contamination of the surface waters would pose an incalculable threat to the water supply. In order to calculate the risk of the Rochester Bypass impacting the water resources the FEIS should:

(A) Describe the existing surface and groundwater resources and known or suspected groundwater recharge areas within two miles of the bypass route. The inventory should including a field survey and professional geological and hydrological evaluation of surface drainage area, flow, groundwater discharge in springs and seeps, and groundwater recharge or surface water loss into the subsurface, should map all rivers, streams, stock ponds, wetlands, aquifers, wells, and floodplains, and should describe the potential impacts on these resources from construction and operation of a new rail line.

(B) Describe the existing uses of water resources within two miles of the project area for irrigation, livestock, and residential, commercial and municipal water supply.

(C) Describe the permitting requirements for the proposed new rail line construction and existing rail line rebuild in regard to wetlands, stream crossings, water quality, and erosion control.

3.3.2.5.1 Surface Water Impacts

The DEIS states the number of intermittent and perennial streams crossed by the proposed bypass but fails to mention the watersheds that are affected, and also fails to mention that ten of these streams are Minnesota Protected Waters that have special protections against degradation. Because the bypass crosses the headwaters of three watersheds, the potential impacts caused by grading and engineered surface drainages needs to be better designed and defined.

As Minnesota and the USEPA are moving toward management of surface water resources in Watershed Units and are beginning to apply the notion of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s), the FEIS should first reference and analyze the watershed health and second analyze the potential impacts to the Zumbro River (USGS unit 0704004), Root River (USGS unit 07040008) and Whitewater River (USGS unit 0704003) Watersheds. The Zumbro River and Whitewater River have active watershed projects with local, state and federal participation in watershed management. The watershed projects should be consulted to assess how the Bypass will affect the goals and plans for watershed management.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and USEPA have evaluated the level of water quality impairment for all three watersheds and find that stream reaches in all three watersheds do not meet the criteria for intended uses because of turbidity and fecal coloform. The DEIS states that “installation of bridges, and culverts could lead to disturbance of sediment and turbidity” but does not quantify the disturbance or assess the permanence of the disturbance. It also does not answer the question of whether the bypass proponent will be responsible for the impairment of these natural waters.

3.3.2.5.2 Wetlands

It should first be noted that no wetland delineation has been completed by Rochester its proposed bypass, and that no permit applications have been submitted to the Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the Local Government units responsible for wetland permitting in Minnesota. No project can receive final approval until wetland permits are received from Federal, State and Local wetland regulators.

The DEIS states that approximately 53.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be within the ROW of the proposed bypass yet does not identify the method for determining the wetland impact. The 53-acre determination is too low, based on a review of soils, land cover, National Wetland Inventory Maps and on-site inspection of the proposed route. A review of maps prepared and submitted by the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners indicates that 191 acres of potential wetlands may be impacted within the 200-foot right of way. The Olmsted County calculation grossly underestimates the wetland impact because it does not take into account hydrologic alterations within the ROW that may drain adjoining wetlands or starve wetlands of the water by diverting surface water flows. The potential wetland impact is huge in comparison to typical wetland impacts that occur from development and road building in the County and could impact more than 2% of all wetlands in the County. Annual reports of wetland loss compiled and reported annually to the legislature by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources indicate that on average less than 20 acres of wetlands are impacted in Olmsted County every year. The bypass may impact more than 200 acres of wetlands in a single project.

The impact of massive grading projects on adjacent wetlands is a potential risk that is significant because of the occurrence of groundwater seepage wetlands and calcareous fens along the Bypass route. McGhie & Betts’ analysis and experience with wetlands in Olmsted County suggests that groundwater seeps and springs sustain most of the wetlands in Salem, Rock Dell, High Forest and Marion Townships. The sustaining hydrology may be derived from saturated lenses in the glacial till or may be derived from the discharge of bedrock groundwater across the Decorah edge. In either case the disturbance caused by constructing a rail bed grade creates the risk that the natural hydrologic pathways will be interrupted and the sustaining hydrology would result in the unintentional draining of wetland complexes. The DEIS is deficient in investigating the occurrence and potential disturbance to geologic units that sustain wetland hydrology.

Minnesota Statutes that protect calcareous fens are a prime example of the importance placed on understanding the hydrologic interactions that sustain these unique wetlands (MN rules 8420.1010 through 8420.1070). Fens are peat-accumulating wetlands with distinct groundwater inflows and specific hydrophytic plant communities that are known to occur along the route of the bypass alternative and in the headwaters of the Zumbro, Root and Whitewater Rivers in Salem, Rock Dell, High Forest, Marion and Eyota Townships. Because fens cannot be drained, filled or otherwise altered without a management plan approved by the Commissioner of the DNR, any grading project within a two-mile radius of peat accumulating wetlands must conduct a hydrologic characterization and identify the complex stratigraphy sequences that sustain fen hydrology. While the rail bed upgrade through Rochester would likely have little new impact on groundwater-fed wetlands or fens, any new sidings or a bypass will require detailed stratigraphy and hydrologic analysis to determine whether grading and construction will disturb or interrupt the hydrology of calcareous fens along the bypass.

Exhibits 12, 14, and 16 from the Citizen’s 1999 submissions should be consulted and their information included in the FEIS.

3.3.2.5.3 Ground Water

The City of Rochester has many farms and other rural residences which get their drinking water from the St. Peter-Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifers, which in turn are fed by surface waters percolating through soils and porous rock along much of the bypass route. The majority of the route is at high risk for ground water pollution, due to the speedy transit of surface waters to the underlying aquifer, from a matter of a few hours to a few days over most of the bypass route. The bypass would require very substantial deep cuts and would expose this aquifer to immediate pollution from rail or other spills. The cut sections of the bypass route west and south of the City would in fact be open wounds into Rochester’s water supply. See Ex. K.

As noted above, all of Olmsted County relies on groundwater resources for potable water supplies. The Olmsted County Geologic Atlas cites two major aquifer units separated by a confining unit: The Upper Carbonate Aquifer consisting of the Dubuque-Maquoketa sequence, and the Galena Group which is separated from the lower St. Peter-Prairie du Chien-Jordon Aquifer by the Decorah-Platteville-Glenwood Confining Layer. The Rochester Bypass route crosses all three units and requires cut and fill sections in all three units that may disturb the natural flow of groundwater. Without detailed engineering investigations it is impossible to begin to assess the impact that rail bed grade construction may have. From McGhie & Betts’ review of the proposed alignment shows that cut and fill section in Rock Dell, High Forest, Marion and Eyota Townships may require cuts to elevations below the water table. The DEIS is deficient in assessing the potential to natural groundwater movement.

The USGS has conducted studies identifying the importance of the Decorah-Platteville-Glenwood confining unit in focusing recharge for the City of Rochester water supply. Groundwater seepage from surface water and from the Upper Carbonate Aquifer accounts for up to 91% of the recharge. The USGS postulates that this rate is affected by storm water drainage systems similar to the roadbed ditches that would be needed along the bypass. The DEIS should assess the impact that the rail bed grade and associated ditches will have on groundwater recharge in Olmsted County.

Table WR-1.

Computer Modeled Water Budget for the

Approximate Area Contributing Water to Rochester

			Rate
Sources			(Mgal/yr)	Percent
Recharge to top of aquifer layers			6,500	90.9
Leakage from streams			650	9.1
	Inflow		7,150	100
Discharges
Rochester Groundwater withdrawal			3,950	54.9
Groundwater seepage to streams			3,250	45.1
		Outflow	7,200	100

The DEIS is dismissive of the chance for a spill of contaminants along the bypass route and fails to acknowledge that there are two risks associated with the construction of the Bypass:

(1) The risk of rail bed grade creating new conduits for the introduction of contaminants; and

(2) The daily operational risk that a spill of hazardous materials would contaminate a regional aquifer.

The DEIS should identify and rank the areas of risk along the rail line and should assess the ability of local emergency responders to abate the risk if spills occur. The DEIS is deficient in identifying the means by which a contaminated aquifer could be restored if a spill occurs. Because the bypass crosses a landscape with aquifers that are highly susceptible to pollution, it presents added risk that does not currently exist. Rochester should be required to address the emergency response and remediation plans that will be required to respond to spills, even if spills are unlikely.

3.3.2.6 Air Quality

Undoubtedly the planned increase in train traffic will result in an increase in air emissions in Olmsted County. From the standpoint of the nation as a whole, and even from that of the states of the Upper Midwest, there will be no net increase in such emissions. The coal will be moving to the same markets with or without the upgrade, either through Olmsted County on the DM&E or along existing BNSF or UP routes through Minnesota and Iowa. Therefore the operation of unit coal trains along this route, bypass or not, will not further degrade the nation’s air quality, and in fact will improve it due to the shorter routes (and fewer train-miles) for a portion of Powder River coal traffic over the DM&E. If Rochester were to build its bypass and coal trains were to operate over it, some of this advantage would be erased due to the increased length of the bypass over the present route and consequent increase in fuel usage and resultant emissions over this longer route. It is hard to see how someone concerned about air quality could advocate a longer and less efficient route.

The air quality issue is instructive on the merits of Rochester’s case and the disingenuousness of its arguments. For the City of Rochester, Mayo Clinic, and Olmsted County themselves are the area’s largest emitters of NOx, and their concerns for air quality in downtown Rochester ring hollow when compared to their actions.

According to data in Olmsted County’s submission, the DM&E will emit 659 tons of NOx into the atmosphere once operational, making it the largest polluter in Olmsted County next to the Rochester Public Utilities plant (of which more below). This figure is premised on 37 trains a day, a figure likely never to be seen in Rochester, the Mayo Clinic’s own traffic consultant having foreseen a likely worse-case scenario of less than half that number.^[13] With the more realistic (but still optimistic) figure of 50 million tons of coal a year (average of 20 total daily trains), the NOx emissions over all of Olmsted County would be 345 tons, rather than 659. That figure represents the non-point source emissions over the entire route in Olmsted County. Rochester and its people are exposed at most to 15% of this route.^[14] 15% of the county’s annual emissions from the railroad hauling 50 million tons of coal is about 52 tons.

A proper adjustment to Olmsted County’s report compares the top five polluters in the county:

Polluter Facility NOx Emissions

tons/yr

Rochester Public Utilities Silver Lake Power Plant 938

Mayo Clinic Franklin Heating Station 199

Olmsted County Waste-to-Energy Facility 110

Mayo Clinic St. Mary’s Plant 54

DM&E Railroad in city 52

Therefore the largest polluter in Rochester is the City itself, through its municipally-owned Silver Lake plant. The second largest is the Mayo Clinic’s Franklin heating station. The third is Olmsted County’s cogenerating incinerator in the eastern part of town. In close competition for fourth place will be the Mayo Clinic’s St. Mary’s Hospital plant and the DM&E railroad within the City. These figures certainly suggest that if diesel emissions at the levels shown above are a serious health concern, then the city and the clinic should take action to reduce them from their own facilities.

The incongruity of the position of the Clinic and its governmental allies is further exemplified by the Silver Lake plant. That plant itself burns high-sulfur eastern coal, delivered both by rail (the DM&E) and by trucks over Rochester’s streets. It is located in the Rochester basin, right downtown, next to the rail line, and only a few blocks from the Clinic. The plant does not even provide power to the City; its power is sold elsewhere. Ex. L.

The plant itself, due to its size, age, technology, and choice of fuels, is the dirtiest plant in the state. Ex. L,M. Yet despite the fact that it is dumping nearly a thousand tons of NOx into the air in downtown Rochester and relies for coal deliveries on the DM&E, the city without apparent embarrassment criticizes the environmental effects of this railroad upgrade and seeks to create a level of hysteria over adverse air quality from railroad operations.

The Mayo Clinic itself, which has the city, county, and front groups do its bidding on the bypass, also contributes to the pollution of Rochester’s air. Through its St. Mary’s and Franklin Heating Station plants it contributes over 250 tons/year in NOx emissions. Mayo also is engaged in negotiations to obtain steam from the Silver Lake power plant of the RPU, up to 150,000 lbs./hour over the next twenty years. Ex. N. That plant, which is not needed to supply Rochester’s needs, will functionally become another steam plant to heat the Mayo Clinic. And negotiations to that end have taken place after the public disclosure of that plant’s status as the dirtiest in the state.

If in fact there is any danger to Rochester residents and Mayo Clinic visitors from air emissions, that danger stems from the City’s and Clinic’s own actions and operations. And if there is any danger to the Clinic’s business from concerns about air emissions from this railroad’s operations, it stems from the artificial and unjustified hysteria caused by the wholesale misrepresentation of the facts put out by the opponents of this project.

A final note on Rochester’s new-found environmentalism and opposition to Powder River coal-fired power plants. As stated above, Rochester does not even use the power its municipal utility produces. Rochester obtains its domestic power from the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, SMMPA, of which it is the largest member. SMMPA provides Rochester with 216 MW of its needs primarily from SMMPA’s PRB coal-fired Sherco 3 generating plant at Becker, Minnesota. http://www.smmpa.org/atsmmpa/cprofile.html. Rochester currently uses 228 mw. http://www.rpu.org/Regulations/index.cfm?section=UtilityData&subsection=index&area=UtilityData&count=6. Virtually all of Rochester’s electricity needs therefore come from SMMPA’s Sherco 3 plant, on-line with the BNSF and fueled entirely by low-sulfur coal from the Powder River basin. Mayo’s and Rochester’s electricity requires burning some 3000 tons of coal a day. Virtually all of this coal comes from the Powder River Basin over the BNSF, through communities such as Fargo, North Dakota, and Detroit Lakes and St. Cloud, Minnesota.

To recapitulate the Rochester opponent’s position in light of their actions:

(1) Powder River coal, and coal-fired power plants in general, are bad for the environment.

(2) But Powder River coal is good enough for Rochester’s electricity needs, provided that coal is burned elsewhere.

(3) High sulfur eastern coal is fine for Rochester’s own antiquated power plant, the dirtiest in the state.

(4) The rail haulage of coal is a bad thing.

(5) But the rail haulage of coal to the Sherco 3 plant serving Rochester’s needs is fine, provided it is hauled through communities other than Rochester with its “unique” quality of life.

(6) The rail haulage and truck haulage of coal into (but not through) Rochester itself is permitted provided it serves Rochester’s own power plant, which must be kept operating to supply Mayo with steam and the city with revenue.

(7) Diesel locomotives pollute the environment and are bad.

(8) Diesel-hauled coal trains are however permitted, but only to serve Rochester’s needs, and provided none go through Rochester itself.

(9) Diesel busses in Rochester, for its own lines and Mayo’s intercampus transit, are permissible, as are trucks for Rochester’s and Mayo’s own domestic needs, even though emissions from such vehicles are a greater threat to health than the railroad. 1999 Ex. 1.

As a final irony, even if the bypass were to be built, locomotive air emissions would be carried by the prevailing winds across the Rochester city limits.

3.3.2.7 Noise and Vibration

3.3.2.7.1 Noise

Rochester’s best method of reducing train noise would be negotiation with the railroad for “whistle-free” crossings, which would eliminate the largest single source of noise. Although the city was given this opportunity it instead chose to fight, a course of action which may expose its residents to horn noise for years to come.

A whistle-free zone would eliminate high-frequency horn noise. There are no sharp curves in town and therefore no likelihood of substantial disturbances from wheel squeal.

Sound walls would not eliminate high-frequency noise but merely reflect it over a larger area. Low frequency noise can effectively be controlled only by mass, and sound walls would be ineffective. Claims that-in-city mitigation would require millions of dollars for such structures are spurious, and in any event residents would be unlikely to want their breezes, sunlight and views interrupted by such them.

3.3.2.7.2 Vibration

Rochester and its allies have made many unsubstantiated assertions regarding claimed adverse impacts from railroad operations on the Mayo Clinic, Pemstar, and their machines and instruments. These claims are without foundation. No studies have been presented and there is no confirmed basis for concern. There is an utter lack of data on adverse effects of vibrations at the distances involved, and the FEIS should give no credence to these claims. The railroad has been in existence and intensive operation since before the establishment of either of these enterprises.

The Mayo Clinic itself has engaged in significant new construction next to its MRI facility. This construction, which is ongoing, required the excavation of foundations into the hard rock underneath the soil. This construction activity was done with blasting, heavy truck traffic, and the use of VibraPac vibrating rollers. Ex. O. Mayo Clinic conducted these activities at a location much closer to its building than the rail line without significant adverse effects to its sensitive equipment. 1999 Ex. 1. The Mayo Clinic has a satellite clinic in Lake City, which it recently expanded, within 500 feet of CP’s line along the Mississippi, which has higher speeds and more trains than will DM&E’s upgraded line. Ex. P.

3.3.2.8 Biological Resources

3.3.2.8.1 Vegetation

The method of analysis of the vegetation communities for the 34.1-mile R-3 and R-4 Bypass Alternatives proposed by the City of Rochester is not described. The analysis of the acres of impact and the types of vegetative communities that will be destroyed is deficient. The DEIS does not adequately describe or evaluate the impact to Ecological Units as defined in the Comprehensive Ecological Classification System that is adopted by the State of Minnesota. The omitted factors are important considerations for defining the total impact and determining whether the impacts can be avoided or mitigated by choosing other alternatives. Regardless of the important omissions it is clear that there would be minimal or no impact to Alternative R-2 - Reconstruction of the existing rail line.

The impact to vegetative communities from Rochester’s bypass is not only poorly defined but is grossly understated. The construction disturbance of creating a new rail bed grade will be a permanent impact resulting in the permanent loss of agricultural land, wetlands and woodlands and may cause permanent changes to adjoining vegetative communities because of habitat fragmentation, introduction of undesirable plant species and the efforts to control vegetation along the ROW.

Rochester’s bypass would result in upland, wetland and aquatic vegetative community disturbances that create a risk of the spread of non-native, undesirable and invasive species. The DEIS does not meet the minimum requirements of United States Executive Order 13112, the invasive species control mandate for all Federal Agencies. Order 13112 and guidance found in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) commits Federal Agencies to prevent and control introductions of invasive species and to minimize the ecological, economic and human health impacts that are caused by invasive species. The DEIS is deficient in identifying the risk, identifying means to prevent the introduction of invasive species or identifying an accurate and reliable means of monitoring the spread of invasive species along a new rail bed grade. In keeping with Executive Order 13112 the Rochester Bypass Alternatives should be deleted from consideration and should not be authorized or funded because of the likelihood of causing or promoting the introduction or spread of invasive species.

If the Rochester bypass proposal is allowed to go forward, an inventory of existing undesirable species should be conducted along the proposed corridor and a detailed plan should be prepared in the Final EIS to identify and implement all feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm from invasive species. A complete listing of Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Plants is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and on the Internet. (<http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/exotics/index.html>). This list should be referenced before completing an inventory or management plan for invasive species.

The FEIS should make specific note of the rare species along the bypass route, identified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in its letter of March 25, 1999, 1999 Ex. 17, and its 2000 inventory. Ex. Q.

3.3.2.9 Wildlife

3.3.2.9.1 Aquatic and Fisheries Impacts

The FEIS should address the effects of the bypass on the species in the Zumbro, Root, and Whitewater Rivers and the watercourses it crosses. These species include fish, mussels, and aquatic insects. The Whitewater and Root Rivers are important trout streams.

3.3.2.9.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

The DEIS for Rochester’s proposed bypass acknowledges that the project would result in permanent wildlife habitat loss but reaches an erroneous and unsupported conclusion that the bypass would not result in permanent damage to the area’s overall wildlife community. While the rail line reconstruction proposed in alternative R-2 would principally create temporary disturbance along the existing corridor, the permanent habitat loss of the bypass alternatives would result in permanent habitat loss and environmental degradation. Rochester’s proposed bypass therefore should be rejected.

No data are presented to identify the vertebrate or invertebrate species that would be disturbed or suffer permanent habitat loss, nor does the DEIS identify the habitat requirements, sensitive interspecies relationships or incremental disturbances that might result in permanent damage to the overall wildlife community. Such information on the Ecological Classifications would be helpful in understanding the potential impact. These details however have not been provided in the DEIS and are not being addressed by the City of Rochester, proponent of the bypass. Information about existing ecological classifications and the resident and migratory wildlife communities is important to evaluate the risk of habitat disturbance, fragmentation or loss, to determine whether the Bypass is a reasonable and prudent alternative, to define whether any proposed impact can be mitigated and to propose suitable mitigation if necessary.

Birds

Executive Order 13186 requires that Federal Agencies avoid or minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds and requires agencies to take steps to protect birds and their habits. Information on migratory birds for the new rail bed grade proposed by the City of Rochester for the bypass is absent from the DEIS. While published information is readily available concerning the observation of migratory birds and nesting birds in Olmsted County, there has been no effort to meet the requirements of the Executive Order.

The following listing of 82 species of birds that nest in Olmsted County includes 22 species identified by the USGS as “declining species”, one state threatened species, one state species of special concern and one former federal endangered species. The notation on state listed and declining species are from published references.^[15]

Great Blue Heron

Green Heron

Canada Goose

Wood Duck

Mallard

Blue Winged Teal (declining)

Turkey Vulture

Coopers Hawk

Red Tailed Hawk

American Kestrel

Peregrine Falcon (delisted federal endangered)

Gray Partridge

Ring-necked Pheasant (declining)

Ruffed Grouse (declining)

Sora Rail

American Coot (declining)

Killdeer

Spotted Sandpiper

American Woodcock

Mourning Dove (declining)

Black-billed Cuckoo

Yellow Billed Cuckoo

Eastern Screech-Owl

Great Horned Owl

Barred Owl

Ruby-throated Humming Bird

Red-headed Woodpecker (declining)

Red-bellied Woodpecker

Downy Woodpecker

Hairy Woodpecker

Northern Flicker

Pileated Woodpecker

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Eastern Phoebe

Great Crested Flycatcher

Eastern Kingbird

Horned Lark

Purple Martin (declining)

Tree Swallow

Northern Rough Winged Swallow

Bank Swallow (declining)

Cliff Swallow

Barn Swallow

Blue Jay

American Crow

Black Capped Chickadee

Tufted Titmouse

White-breasted Nuthatch

House Wren

Blue-gray Gnathatcher

Eastern Bluebird

American Robin

Gray Cat Bird

Brown Thrasher

Cedar Waxwing

Loggerhead Shrike state (threatened)

European Starling

Bell’s Vireo

Warbling Vireo

Blue-winged Warbler

Yellow Warbler

American Redstart

Louisiana Waterthrush (state special concern and declining)

Common Yellowthroat

Northern Cardinal

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Chipping Sparrow

Clay-colored Sparrow

Field Sparrow

Vesper Sparrow (declining)

Savannah Sparrow

Song Sparrow

Bobolink

Red-winged Blackbird

Western Meadowlark (declining)

Common Grackle

Brown-headed Cowbird

Orchard Oriole

Baltimore Oriole

House Finch

American Goldfinch

House Sparrow

Among the alternatives proposed, those alternatives that include the Rochester bypass would result in permanent, non-mitigatable habitat loss and permanent habitat disturbance for migratory and nesting birds.

Mammals

The USGS maintains a list of 50 mammals found in Minnesota. In addition to the listing the checklist identifies the habitats where the mammal species may be found, identifies whether they are common, uncommon or rare and discusses identifying characteristics. The failure to identify mammals that occur along the bypass route and the failure to identify ecological classifications hamper the assessment of impact to mammal species or populations. The DEIS correctly reports that habitat will be permanently destroyed and the new rail line presents an obstacle and risk of mortality.

An adequate environmental review would require a detailed ecological classification to the site level for land within one mile on either side of the proposed bypass to account for the range of more mobile mammals like fox badger, deer and raccoon, and would require a detailed census of small mammals within 1000 feet of the proposed right of way. Without this information an adequate assessment of the impacts to mammals is not possible.

Reptiles and Amphibians

The DEIS does not provide any information concerning the impact of the Rochester’s bypass on reptile and amphibian populations. Published information indicates the occurrence and habitats of 48 species including 19 species of amphibians and 29 species of reptiles in Minnesota, yet the DEIS neither cites the fact that “17 of the 48 species in the state require special attention and have been categorized as endangered (one lizard), threatened (two turtles) or special concern (one turtle, ten snakes, and three frogs.” One snake was added to the Minnesota endangered list in 1996.

A 1998 Federal Interagency Workgroup paper entitled the Task for on Amphibian Declines and Deformities noted that amphibians are particularly sensitive to changes in climate and habitat. Destruction of habitat and the introduction of non-native and/or prey species are cited as primary reasons for the decline of amphibian populations. The proposed Rochester bypass would result in destruction of amphibian habitat in wetlands, rivers and streams and would provide opportunities for the introduction of non-native and prey species. Federal Task Force should review the bypass alternatives.

Amphibians and reptiles are typically secretive, often live in inaccessible habitats and many species are seasonally active or abundant in yearly cycles. An adequate environmental review therefore would require a detailed ecological classification to the site level for land within 1000 feet on either side of the proposed bypass, and would require detailed census of reptiles and amphibians for all suitable amphibian and reptile habitat. Without this information an adequate assessment of the impacts to these species is not possible.

Invertebrates

The DEIS gives no information concerning the environmental impact to butterflies, beetles, spiders or other non-aquatic insects.

Minnesota lists between 126 and 131 species of butterflies known to breed in the state and lists three endangered, three threatened and nine species of special concern. Two of the fifteen species are widespread in occurrence and the others have naturally limited ranges. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has stated that the precarious status of the butterfly species is the result of habitat loss and states that none of the species has shown the ability to adapt to habitat disturbance. Habitat protection is the “immediate essential step” in preventing the endangered and threatened butterflies from vanishing from the state.

3.3.2.10 Transportation

The June 1999 bypass proposal calls for grade crossings over two busy high speed four lane highways. If that proposal is considered the FEIS should address the traffic impacts of these grade crossings.

The effect of the bypass on the movement of farm machinery was discussed in Section 3.3.2.4.1 above. The FEIS should discuss the particular hazards posed by slow-moving machinery, not only at crossings, but to other traffic on lengthy detour routes.

3.3.2.11 Safety

The DEIS notes Rochester’s claims of additional school bus crossings, but does not list the additional crossings over the bypass by the other affected school districts. These are summarized in Exhibit S, and should be addressed in the FEIS.

^[1] The change may have actually been made to correct the original route’s crossing of an entrance ramp to I-90 from US 63, an illustration of mistakes which result from the naive belief that railroads can efficiently be located next to interstate highways.

^[2] Rochester’s proposal is based on information no more detailed that aerial photographs and large-scale USGS topographic maps. There have been no soil borings, property appraisals, or other on-site investigations necessary to determine not only the cost, but also the very feasibility of locating a heavy-haul railroad line on this fragile and unstable terrain.

^[3] Over forty watercourses are crossed by the bypass. 1999 Ex. 10.

^[4] The TKDA report describes the bridge as being 28 feet in height. Id. at 16. Unexplained is how a 28' bridge over the creek will mate with an adjoining 90' fill over the valley floor.

^[5] The TKDA report states that Highway 63 is crossed at grade, id. at 5 and 17, an assertion consistent with the absence of any overpass in the listing of bridges on page 16 of that report. Attachment A however lists the existing elevation at “US HWY 63" as 1230 feet, and a top of rail elevation at 1254 feet, 24' higher, on a 20' fill. Id., Attach. A at 4. So Rochester proposes a twenty foot high fill at Highway 63 with rails twenty four feet above the roadway, but either leaves that rail unsupported by any bridge, or would have the highway raised 24' from its current elevation in order to cross the railroad at grade. These errors are unfortunately all too common in this poorly thought out proposal.

^[6] The railroad crossing Highway 14 would be on both an angle and a curve, implying some degree of superelevation, which surely would affect and likely endanger traffic on this 65 mph highway.

^[7] Rochester rationalizes this by asserting that the DM&E sees no need for additional grade separations on the existing line. This ignores the fact that the existing railroad does not cross Highway 14 at grade in the county, while Rochester’s bypass clearly would.

^[8] In the case of US 63, this is subject to the caveat that TKDA may have provided the fill for a grade separation, but neglected the bridge. See note 5 above.

^[9] These earthwork changes, the expense of the bridges, changes to nearby roads or other improvements, and increased right-of-way for the fills and other changes, would have to be accounted for and would add substantially to the cost of the bypass.

^[10] According to an article in a trade journal, the Powder River Coal Basin coal supplies will last 250- 300 years at current level of consumption. Kaufman, Powder River Basin coal: A bottomless pit? Railway Age, August, 2000. Should those levels of consumption continue to increase as projected, the supplies will be exhausted sooner.

^[11] The map is notoriously deficient in its depiction of the number of actual sinkholes. In a recent study of but two sections of an Olmsted County township, this map identified six sinkholes and McGhie & Betts found ninety-five.

^[12] The source of this may be Rochester’s suggestion of a possible intermodal operation along the bypass route near the Rochester airport. Kalish Letter at 27. This of course is nonsense. Railroads are bulk haulers while aircraft are best suited for time-sensitive packages and express, a fact acknowledged by the project opponents in their denigration of the importance of railroads. Transhipment of containers from rail to plane and vice versa is unlikely to occur among the fields of southern Minnesota.

^[13] Even should PRB coal usage increase by 50% to 500 million tons a year, see Footnote 10 supra, it is hard to see how the DM&E could capture the 100 million tons necessary to operate 17 loaded and 17 empty coal trains each day. PRB coal travels to all points of the compass over the BNSF and UP. The coal routes spoking out from the basin over these railroads number at least one-half dozen within the first two hundred miles and ramify further with distance. DM&E coal will serve only the top tier of states and the Chicago gateway (assuming connections with the I&M, CN via its WC lines, or CP at Winona), and it is highly unlikely that its competitors will allow the DM&E to capture the share of traffic needed to haul 100 million tons a year. And at least part of DM&E’s traffic likely will be consumed or diverted over connections before ever reaching Rochester, a point made too often to require further elaboration.

^[14] Olmsted County is thirty miles wide; the DM&E route across it is slightly longer. The city limits of Rochester extend about six miles along the line, but a good portion of the land within those limits is undeveloped or industrial. As noted in the DEIS, the residential exposure is 1.7 miles. This is slightly over 5% of the DM&E route through Olmsted County. The 15% figure used above therefore is overly generous to the opponents of this project.

^[15] Coffin and Pfannmuller, Minnesota’s Endangered Flora and Fauna, (University of Minnesota Press 1988). Information on federal listings is available on the USGS Biological Resources Division website.