The southern portion of the project area is generally flat, but to the north the proposed rail corridor passes through a more rolling topography. Much of the land between the White Bluff station and the northwest corner of the Arsenal is in large timber tracts which largely retain a forest cover, although there are many small acreages interspersed in these tracts from which the forest cover has been removed (see Figures A-3 and A-6). Figure A-6 shows the approximate location of a residential subdivision of manufactured homes which is under development near the proposed rail line in the Jefferson River Road area.

The Arsenal is essentially an industrial property and land use in that part of the project area within the Arsenal is typical of such property. The proposed new rail construction within the Arsenal would be located within a largely cleared area immediately adjacent to the existing UP rail transportation corridor.

The Arsenal has been authorized to transfer to The Alliance a 1500-acre section of land extending east from its northwestern corner. The Alliance plans to develop a Bioplex technology center which it is hoped would attract research facilities and industry. The Alliance expects the transfer of title to the property to occur in September or October 2000. The next step in developing the site would be provision of an access road to the site. The Jefferson County OES has applied for funding to construct an emergency evacuation road to connect Highway 365 with the environs of the munitions incineration facility currently under construction in the northeastern part of the Arsenal. If such a road is constructed, The Alliance believes that it could also provide road access to the proposed Bioplex site.

2.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING

The project area is located approximately 30 miles southeast of Little Rock. With a 1990 population of 57,140, Pine Bluff is Arkansas' fourth largest city. The City states that it is the trade, entertainment, recreational, and health services center of Southeast Arkansas, with an area population of more than 250,000.

Jefferson County's 1990 population was 85,487, 48.1 percent of which was male, and 51.9 percent female. The county's estimated July 1, 1998, population was 81,556, a decline of 4.6 percent since 1990, although the state's population is estimated to have increased by eight percent between 1990 and 1998. The county's 1990 population was 56.0 percent white, 43.1 percent black, and 0.9 percent "other race". In 1990, 65.9 percent of county residents 25 years of age and older had completed high school or higher. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in 1995 26.5 percent of the Jefferson County population lived below the poverty level, compared with 18.2 percent for the State of Arkansas population and 13.8 percent for the U.S. population. Estimated 1995 median household income was $25,273 for the county, compared to $26,515 for Arkansas and $34,076 for the US. Jefferson County is part of the eleven-county Southeast Economic Development District.

Farming is important in the eastern part of Jefferson County, in the alluvial soils of the Arkansas River. Forestry (pine) is important in the upland western portion of the county. The regional economy is based on agriculture (including cotton, soybeans, rice, poultry and catfish), timber and forest products, while the Pine Bluff economy is centered in manufacturing, government, and services; the city has a manufacturing base employing approximately 8,000 area residents.

2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY

Jefferson County is approximately square with a narrow, irregular extension on its east side along the Arkansas River. This river roughly divides the county in half, running from approximately the northwest to the southeast corner. The county is about 43 miles wide and 29 miles long, with a total area of 580,480 acres.

The project area is part of the Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion. This ecoregion is characterized by rolling terrain that is broken by stream valleys, which within the project area are of only minor size. Most of the Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion is gently to moderately sloping; its surface deposits are of ocean bed origin and date from approximately 135 million to 70 million years in age, i.e., Tertiary and Quaternary.

Drainage in the project area is an easterly direction into the Arkansas River (see Figures A-9 and A-10). Tributary streams to the Arkansas River in the project area include Eastwood Bayou, Tulley Creek, and Caney Bayou. Elevation ranges from about 370 feet above mean sea level near the beginning of the proposed line at the power plant to around 225 feet above sea level at the southern end of the project area near the location of the proposed crossover track.

Because of the moist tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico that persistently covers the area, the project area is characterized by long, hot summers and fairly short, cool winters, with only rare and non-persistent cold waves. Precipitation is usually fairly heavy and well distributed throughout the year, with the average annual precipitation being approximately 50 inches. Prolonged droughts are relatively rare in the project area, although the summers of 1998 and 1999 were extremely dry. The mean daily maximum temperature is 75 degrees, while the mean daily minimum temperature is 53 degrees.

2.3.1 Soils

In the western part of Jefferson County, where the project area is located, soils formed on uplands in stratified sediment deposited on the bottom of the shallow coastal embayment that covered all of Jefferson County many thousands of years ago, and in recent alluvium washed from this material. These soils are moderately well drained to poorly drained, loamy soils that are used mainly for the production of wood crops.

In the northern part of the project area, the proposed new rail construction would begin in the Sacul-Sawyer-Savannah soil association. This association is comprised of moderately well drained, nearly level to gently sloping, loamy soils on uplands. The association consists of broken ridges and narrow swales. Natural drainageways are slow-flowing, intermittent streams. Sacul soils are moderately well drained and are on ridges and side slopes. Sawyer soils are moderately well drained and are on the lower parts of side slopes. Savannah soils are moderately well drained and are on ridges and side slopes. This association is used mainly as woodland, but some small tracts are used for cultivated crops. Erosion is a moderate to severe hazard on these soils.

The remainder of the project area is located in the Pheba-Savannah-Amy soil association. This association is comprised of poorly drained to moderately well drained, level to gently sloping, loamy soils on uplands and stream terraces. The soils are on broad flats that are broken by ridges. The soils formed in thick beds of loamy sediment. Natural drainageways are mainly slow-flowing, intermittent streams.

2.4 WATER RESOURCES

2.4.1 Groundwater

The Arkansas Geological Commission indicates that the proposed construction would be on sand and gravel of Quaternary age and on clay and silt in the Jackson Group which is Eocene in age. The Geological Commission states that these units are not considered to be major aquifers (See Appendix C, Attachment 9).

2.4.2 Surface Water

The project area is located in the Arkansas River drainage basin, which is part of the Mississippi River basin (see Figures A-9 and A-10). The project area parallels the Arkansas River and traverses several small tributaries that flow into the Arkansas. Most of these tributaries exhibit intermittent channels that drain upland areas to the west and direct the runoff ultimately to the Arkansas River.

The proposed new rail construction would cross the following streams (from north to south): Love Creek North Branch, Love Creek, Carver Mill Creek (north branch), Carver Mill Creek (south branch), Jackson Creek, Eastwood Bayou, Tulley Creek, and Henslee Creek (along the proposed new crossover track).

Water quality in streams of the Gulf Coastal Ecoregion is generally mildly acidic and low in mineral and nutrient quantities. In these streams, intermittent summertime flows result in the absence of dilution and reaeration flows which makes dissolved oxygen the critical limiting water quality factor.

Along the proposed new rail line Carver Mill Creek has been mapped as having FEMA 100-year floodplain and floodway designations, as has Henslee Creek along the proposed crossover track.

Certain sites within the project area are designated as jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 404 wetland is one that meets the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) definition as "an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands are valuable because they provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species and because they filter overland runoff, serve as stormwater storage basins, and stabilize stream banks.

The above wetland definition requires the presence of positive indicators for each of three basic elements that are used in identification and delineation of wetlands: wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology is determined by the presence of permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, during at least a certain portion of the growing season. Hydric soils are those that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (oxygen-deficient) conditions in the upper part. Hydrophytic vegetation is macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. These criteria are developed in detail in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual).

Qualified wetland scientists delineated Section 404 wetlands and other waters of the United States within the proposed rail ROW using procedures required by the 1987 Manual.

Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the floodplains of Love Creek, Carver Mill Creek North, Eastwood Bayou, Caney Bayou, and Henslee Creek. Within the proposed ROW itself total acreage of jurisdictional wetlands is estimated at approximately 1.25 acres at three locations: Love Creek, North Branch of Carver Mill Creek, and Eastwood Bayou. Each of these wetland areas is located on the floodplain of an intermittent stream channel and has developed as a result of a past beaver impoundment, although beaver activity within the wetlands was very limited to nonexistent at the time of the delineation.

Minor amounts of additional wetlands acreage outside the proposed ROW were delineated for the purpose of drawing attention to areas that should be avoided during staging of equipment for the proposed railroad construction.

Because of poor hydrology at the wetland sites, most wetland functions and values were low. Project area wetlands showed no evidence of being significant in the following wetland functions and values: (1) erosion control, (2) flood storage, (3) flood conveyance, (4) sediment control, and (5) water quality improvement. Moreover, the absence of open water in combination with small size of the wetlands appeared to significantly limit the types of wildlife that would frequent these wetlands on a sustained basis.

In addition to the jurisdictional wetlands identified, a total of approximately 1,550 linear feet of channels of intermittent and permanent tributaries within the corridor of the proposed new rail construction has a potential for jurisdiction by the Corps under Section 404 as "other waters of the U.S.".

Potential impacts of the proposed rail line on the above waterways and wetlands are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

There are no officially designated wildlife refuges or protected areas within the proposed project area.

A survey of the entire project area was conducted by qualified wildlife biologists during the period of July 1999 through February 2000. The purposes of this survey were to: (1)describe plant and animal species expected and/or observed in the study area; (2)evaluate wildlife habitat; and (3)determine if any threatened, endangered (T&E), or sensitive species or their habitat occur within the study area. The initial phase of the survey involved a review of literature, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC), and other potential sources of site-specific data. ⁽⁹⁾

This was followed by extensive onsite field investigation, which included the wetland survey discussed in Section 2.4. The survey results are described below.

Conclusions regarding the biological resource impacts of the proposed construction and operation are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4.

2.5.1 Flora

Most of the project area between the White Bluff power plant and the northwest Arsenal boundary represents an upland area that supports a forest vegetation cover. Almost all of that forest vegetation is subject to active management as industrial timberland. This area consists of a mostly mature forest cover represented by two major forest types: (1)Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine-Mixed Hardwood, and (2)Bottomland Hardwood.

The Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine-Mixed Hardwood type represents a mixture of community types, most of which are adapted to dry conditions. Canopy dominants include various mixtures of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), Southern red oak (Quercus falcata), post oak (Quercus stellata), black hickory (Carya texana), and white oak (Quercus alba). Dominants of the understory on these dry areas include winged elm (Ulmus alata), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and numerous species of blueberry (Vaccinium spp.).

Limited areas of the Bottomland Hardwood type are found on sites in the area of proposed new rail construction that have soils with apparently higher moisture holding capacities, i.e., streamsides and lower slopes. Canopy dominants include water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and loblolly pine. Basswood (Tilia americana) is of occasional occurrence on higher and better drained sites. Understory dominants include American holly (Ilex opaca), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple (Acer rubrum), hazelnut (Corylus americana), and cane (Arundinaria gigantea).

Sites dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, i.e., adapted to high moisture levels, were extremely localized within the project corridor and for the most part were restricted to relatively narrow floodplains of several small streams. The three major areas supporting hydrophytic vegetation, e.g., Love Creek, Carver Mill Creek North, and Eastwood Bayou, developed in response to past beaver impoundments. Dominant species found in these mostly early successional wet habitats include woolly bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), millet (Echinochloa crus-galli), climbing hemp (Mikania scandens), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), beak-sedge (Rhynchospora glomerata), a panic-grass (Panicum scoparium), bur-reed (Sparganium americanum), and miscellaneous other species. Intact floodplains of smaller tributaries, e.g., Carver Mill Creek South, Jackson Creek, etc., typically are dominated by woody species, including willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), common alder (Alnus serrulata), red maple (Acer rubrum), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and miscellaneous other species.

That part of the project area located between Stark Gate and Dexter Gate primarily represents a grass-dominated area that is similar in structure and species composition to the railroad grassland described in the next paragraph. Small portions of this area support an upland forest community of the Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine-Mixed Hardwoods type. This area includes a highly disturbed borrow pit area that supports numerous weedy species.

The project area from approximately Dexter Gate south to the southern terminus of the Arsenal includes the existing rail line planned for rehabilitation. This existing ROW is burned annually to reduce cover and prevent invasion by woody species. Vegetation cover there was dominated by herbaceous species and had a prairie-like appearance. This area is here referred to as the railroad grassland. Dominant species in that prairie-like community included three grass species: little bluestem (Andropogon scoparius), panic grass (Panicum anceps), and velvet panic grass (Panicum scoparium). In addition to these grasses, other dominant species included grass-leaved golden aster (Heterotheca graminifolia), blazing star (Liatris pycnostachya), and hoary pea (Tephrosia onobrychoides). The Nature Conservancy (1977) provides a detailed list of species associated with this plant community, i.e., both inside and outside of the proposed project corridor.

The overall project area represents a mosaic of intact forest communities, disturbed forest communities in various stages of succession, grasslands, various weedy plant communities associated with developed areas, and small amounts of wetlands and open water. This habitat diversity supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife species, as documented in the following section.

2.5.2 Fauna

The literature basis for this section draws heavily on studies prepared for the Arsenal. Because habitat diversity within the project area closely approximates habitat diversity within the Arsenal, the studies should provide a good index of wildlife species having a high probability of occurrence within the project area.

One such study documented the presence of eight species at the Arsenal through onsite trapping activities. These eight species included: cotton mouse (Permomyscus gossypinus), hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), fulvous harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens), golden mouse (Ochromotys nuttalli), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), and Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis). In addition to the eight species known from trapping activities, the study identified several additional mammal species at the Arsenal on the basis of tracks, scat, and actual sightings. These species included beaver (Castor canadensis), gray and/or fox squirrel (Sciurus spp.), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), river otter (Lutra canadensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis latrans), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and black bear (Ursus americanus).

Another study evaluated the presence of bat taxa at the Arsenal. Saugey documented the occurrence of five species of bats at the Arsenal, including red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), and southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius). In addition, the study suggested that an additional seven species of bats have a high likelihood for occurrence at the Arsenal on the basis of known Arkansas distributions. These species include silver-haired bat (Lasionyceteris noctivagans), Brazilian free-tail bat (Tadarida brasiliensis cynocephala), Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and seminole bat (Lasiurus seminolus). The study also indicated that the following species that are known elsewhere in Arkansas should not occur at the Arsenal: small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii), gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens).

The Nature Conservancy has documented a total of 155 bird species from the Arsenal. Included among this total are 37 neotropical migratory species, over 50% of which nest in forest habitats. The remaining neotropical migrants consist of species that are associated with brushy fields, hedgerows, grass and isolated large trees, and several species, i.e., chimney swift and several swallows, that nest in structures or holes.

A survey for amphibians and reptiles at the Arsenal found that amphibians at the facility included toads, frogs, and salamanders. The survey reported 11 toad and frog species, i.e., dwarf American toad (Bufo americanus charlesmithi), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei fowleri), Northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans crepitans), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), Cope's gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), Northern spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer crucifer), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata feriarum ), Eastern narrowmouth toad (Gastrophyyne carolinensis), bullfrog (Rana catesbiana), bronze frog (Rana clamitans clamitans), Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia). Salamanders were represented by spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), and Western lesser siren (Siren intermedia nettingi).

Reptiles at the Arsenal included alligators, lizards, snakes, and turtles. Alligators and lizards included American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), green anole (Anolis carolinensis carolinensis), Northern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), and six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus). Snakes were well represented and included Southern black racer (Coluber constrictor priapus), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta), Western mud snake (Farancia abacura reinwardtii), Eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrihinos), speckled kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus holbrooki), yellowbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster), broad-banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), diamondback water snake (Nerodia rhombifer rhombifer), midland water snake (Nerodia seipedon pleuralis), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), Graham's crayfish snake (Regina grahamii), midland brown snake (Storeria dekayi wrightorum), western ribbon snake (Thamnophis proximus proximus) rough earth snake (Virginia striatula), Southern copperhead (Agkistrodon controtrix contortrix), and Western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma). The study documented a total of 10 species of turtles, including common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina), alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temmincki), common musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), Southern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta dorsalis), Mississippi map turtle (Graptemys kohnii), Ouachita map turtle (Graptemys pseudogeographica ouachitensis), red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans), three-toed box turtle (Terrapene carolinae), ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata ornata), and Midland smooth softshell (Apalone mutica mutica).

Surveys conducted in 1998 and 1999 for insect species at the Arsenal indicated the presence of a rich assemblage of grassland species, many of which have been considered rare, endangered and/or remnant dependent in neighboring states. Three of these species, i.e., rattlesnake master borer moth (Papaipema eryngii), Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana), and a leafhopper (Deltella decisa) are known to be especially rare throughout their respective ranges. Field studies were conducted over a major portion of the Arsenal's land base, but the so-called "railroad prairie", i.e., grass-dominated ROW adjacent to existing railroad tracks through the Arsenal, represented a location that supported numerous rare species. This ROW is burned on an annual basis, which undoubtedly plays a major role in preventing invasion of woody species into the grass-dominated areas, which would result in loss of suitable habitat for the insect species.

A 1997 inventory of crayfishes of the Arsenal documented the presence of eight species of crayfishes at the facility. Those species included Cambarus ludovicianus, Fallicambarus fodiens, Faxonella clypeata, Orconectes palmeri longimanus, Procambarus acutus, Procambarus clarkii, Procambarus ouachitae, and Procambarus tulanei. Some of these species make burrows in terrestrial habitats, while others are more closely associated with aquatic habitats.

2.5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally Listed Species

No federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species are currently known within the project area (Appendix C, Attachments 4 & 5). Moreover, no suitable habitat exists within the project area for any species that is protected under the Endangered Species Act. The report on bat species at the Arsenal confirmed that the three federally listed bat species known from Arkansas should not occur at the Arsenal, i.e., gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens).

The occurrence has been documented of several rare insect species at the Arsenal, some of which were reported from existing railroad ROW. However, none of these species represents a federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species.

State Listed Species and Species of State Concern

The ANHC tracks plant and animal occurrence records and assigns rankings to species based on their apparent degree of rarity. ANHC assigns rankings to tracked species using a dual system of global and state rankings. ⁽¹⁰⁾

Species which ANHC designates as state-listed have no real legal status in the State of Arkansas. ANHC has no enforcement authority, and little protection is afforded vascular plant species or habitat by the State of Arkansas except for certain state-owned lands where collection of plants and animals is prohibited without authorization by the appropriate state agency.

ANHC tracks localities for species that are either federally listed or state-listed in addition to those that are considered rare for one reason or another. A search of ANHC records indicates the occurrence of several species of state concern within Jefferson County. These include 16 animal and 22 plant species (listed in Table 2-1 at the end of this chapter). Two of these species, i.e., Florida panther (Felix concolor coryi) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), represent federally listed species; however, neither are expected within the proposed rail corridor. Species shown in the table as having no federal status and state status as "inventory" represent sensitive species of state concern which have no protection by either federal or state law.

The Nature Conservancy has documented seven of the vascular plant species shown in Table 2-1 as occurring at the Arsenal: Carex atlantica ssp. capillacea, Chamaelirium luteum, Eleocharis flavescens, Eleocharis microcarpa, Eupatorium hyssopifolium var. hyssopifolium, Lycopodium appressum, and Scleria pauciflora. Each of these represents species that are of widespread occurrence elsewhere but peripheral in Arkansas. The biological resourcs field survey of the proposed rail corridor observed two of the species, i.e., Eupatorium hyssopifolium and Scleria pauciflora, near the proposed ROW within the Arsenal at locations which would not be affected by the proposed rail line construction. Both are among those species having no protection by either federal or Arkansas law. None of the other plant or animal species listed in Table 2-1 were observed within or near the proposed rail corridor.

2.6 TRANSPORTATION

Figure A-11 shows major elements of the state and local transportation system. Pine Bluff is located approximately 40 miles southeast of Little Rock at the intersection of U.S. Highways 65 and 79. U.S. Highway 65 is a major north-south route through the state, while U.S. Highway 79 extends east through Memphis into Tennessee and west into Texas. A southern bypass around Pine Bluff is under construction. Upon completion, it will be designated I-530 and will allow through traffic on Highways 65 and 79 to loop to the south of downtown Pine Bluff, instead of passing through the downtown area, as it does currently. Pine Bluff also has a fully functional river port situated on the Arkansas River. The project area is situated north of Pine Bluff between U.S. 65 and the Arkansas River. The UP line to which the proposed new rail construction and planned rail line rehabilitation would connect is part of UP's mainline to Little Rock.

Transportation impacts are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5.

2.7 AIR QUALITY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air pollutants, called "criteria" pollutants: ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and respirable particulate matter. The standards were established to protect the public from exposure to harmful amounts of pollutants. When the pollutant levels in an area have caused a violation of a particular standard, the area is classified as "nonattainment" for that pollutant. Likewise if emissions do not exceed the maximum allowed levels, the region is an "attainment area" for the specific pollutant. The designations are pollutant-specific, which means that an area may fall into both categories for different pollutants. Jefferson County is in attainment of the NAAQS for all six criteria air pollutants.

EPA maintains an inventory by geographic area of the number of sources emitting criteria air pollutants as well as total air pollutant emissions from those sources. EPA data indicate that in Jefferson County in 1996 there were seven stationary sources of criteria air pollutants; these include Entergy's White Bluff power plant at Redfield and six industrial facilities located in Pine Bluff. The White Bluff plant ranked second among those seven in terms of emissions.

The nearest Class I area is the Caney Creek Wilderness Area located approximately 125 miles to the west in the Ouachita National Forest. ⁽¹¹⁾

2.8 NOISE

The proposed new rail ROW would begin at the White Bluff plant and pass through what is primarily commercial timberland until entering the Arsenal near the Stark Gate. Noise levels along this northern portion of the proposed ROW would be expected to be relatively low, ranging between 40 and 45 dB. However, ambient noise levels could be expected to be higher in the vicinity of the power plant due to the activities involved in operation of the plant, icluding existing rail and vehicular traffic there. Inside the Arsenal boundaries, ambient noise levels are expected to be higher, due to vehicular traffic on local roads within the Arsenal and on nearby Highway 365, and due to rail traffic on the existing UP rail line located immediately adjacent to the proposed rail ROW.

2.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Researchers believe that Native American settlement of the project vicinity prior to the 19th Century matches the general Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian periods documented elsewhere in the central and lower Mississippi River Valley. However, as there have been relatively few intensive archeological investigations in the area and the results of those have been sparse, at the present time there is insufficient data to confirm theories on Native American settlement of the area. The data which does exist consists of scattered bits of lithic debris from stone tool manufacture and use along with occasional ceramic fragments; this shows evidence for a clustering of materials along or adjacent to the small drainages which are tributary to the Arkansas River, such as Eastwood Bayou.

The archeological record created by the successive groups of European and American explorers and occupants of the region is also very poorly documented; however, the documentary record indicates that although DeSoto and his band may have entered the area by as early as 1541, the actual occupation of the area by Europeans began in 1686 when explorers, hunters, trappers, and traders began coming up the Arkansas River into the interior portions of Arkansas. By the end of the 18th century the area was home to at least a few farmers. The 19th century saw the emergence of cotton farming, followed later by harvesting of timber, with much of the land in the area eventually being managed as industrial timberland .

An intensive cultural resources survey was conducted in the area of the proposed new rail construction. This included a records search and a field survey.

A search of records at the Arkansas Archeological Survey indicated the presence of two sites located within or near the project area. One of these was located approximately 200 meters east of the proposed ROW; it consisted of chert and novaculite chips, one pot sherd, one chert point, and several broken novaculite points. This site appears to have been destroyed by construction of a road. The second site is a previously reported archeological site adjacent to the existing rail line within the Arsenal. This site consisted of a scatter of trash judged to be from the early to mid-20th Century. This trash is not associated with any known structure other than the existing rail line and is not considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Trained archaeologists conducted a field survey of that part of the ROW proposed for new rail construction outside the Arsenal boundaries; this includes the proposed ROW from the White Bluff plant to the Arsenal and also the location of the proposed crossover track south of the Arsenal. ⁽¹²⁾

The survey in the area north of the Arsenal included walking single line transects and digging shovel tests at 25 meter intervals along these transects. The survey of the proposed crossover location included a pedestrian transect of the area. The field survey found no cultural materials.

The cultural resource survey found no previously unrecorded archeological sites within the proposed project area. The previously recorded 20th Century site north of the Dexter Gate has been disturbed and was previously judged not to be eligible for the NRHP. The survey recommended no further archeological investigations for the project area. The cultural resource survey results have been forwarded to the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, which is currently reviewing its findings.

2.10 RECREATION

There are no officially designated wildlife refuges or protected areas within the proposed project area. The Arsenal Golf Course is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the proposed rail ROW near the Dexter Gate (see Figure A-7). There are no other public recreational facilities in the immediate project area.

CHAPTER 3.0DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

3.1 ENTERGY'S PROPOSED ROUTE

3.1.1 Construction

Entergy proposes to connect its White Bluff electric generating plant with a former SP rail line now owned by the UP. To do this, Entergy proposes to build an approximately 8.6 mile long new rail line to connect the White Bluff plant with approximately 4.2 miles of existing trackage which it plans to rehabilitate (see Figures A-2 through A-8). It would also construct a crossover track to connect the rehabilitated trackage with the UP line. As already noted, this Draft EA considers the environmental impacts of rail operations over the line planned for rehabilitation but not impacts of actually rehabilitating the line.

The proposed new rail line would begin at the existing spur line into the White Bluff plant and would proceed in a southeasterly direction to cross Kearney Road and Jefferson River Road. The line would then proceed south to enter the Arsenal at its northwest corner. After a short distance the proposed rail line would exit the Arsenal and continue due south just outside the western Arsenal boundary before re-entering Arsenal property just north of the Stark Gate. The proposed line would then cross the Stark Gate access road (Roemer Road). A short distance after crossing Roemer Road the proposed new rail line would turn in a southeasterly direction and would continue just inside the

Arsenal boundary for the remainder of its distance, crossing the Dexter Gate access road and then connecting with the existing main switching lead of the U.S. Government Railroad a little southeast of the Dexter Gate. ⁽¹³⁾

From its beginning at the White Bluff plant to its connection with the Arsenal trackage, the proposed rail line would be in new rail ROW. The proposed crossings of Kearney Road and Jefferson River Road would be grade-separated. The proposed crossings of the Stark Gate and Dexter Gate access roads would also be grade-separated. As shown in Figure A-7, from just south of the Stark Gate the proposed rail line would closely parallel the existing UP line, which lies just outside the Arsenal boundary.

Entergy plans to rehabilitate the section of Arsenal trackage shown in Figure A-8; that trackage connects to an approximately 0.2 mile length of track formerly owned by the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW, also known as the Cotton Belt). ⁽¹⁴⁾

Entergy would also rehabilitate that short section of track. The final piece of new rail construction would be the proposed crossover track which would connect the rehabilitated existing line with the UP mainline. The approximate location of the crossover is shown in Figures A-2 and A-8. The proposed crossover would connect to the UP at approximately UP Milepost 383.6. ⁽¹⁵⁾

The line would have an approximate total of 45,400 feet of new main line track. Basic steps in the construction process would be as follows:

• Clear the ROW for construction. Marketable trees would be harvested where practical. All other trees and brush would be piled and burned and the ashes buried on the ROW.

• Following clearing operations, excavation, hauling, and embankment construction for the roadbed would begin. Culvert pipes would be installed during embankment construction.

• Once the roadbeds are constructed to grade at bridge locations, pile driving for bridge abutments, trestle bents, and bridge piers would begin.

• After installation of piling, bridge pier construction and trestle bent cap installation would begin.

• Once bridge piers, trestle and bridge abutments, and trestle bent caps are in place at each bridge, bridge and trestle spans would be erected.

• Following completion of fine grading of the embankments and cuts, seeding and erosion protection may be placed at any time.

• After bringing the top of the subgrade to correct grade and alignment, subballast would be placed on top of the subgrade to provide a surface for track construction.

• When sufficient subballast and bridge construction has been completed to allow efficient track construction to proceed, track construction would begin.

• Once tracklaying is completed, the rail would be thermally adjusted and tested for defects.

Entergy expects that UP would construct the turnout and any signaling required for the proposed crossover. Entergy's construction contractor would build the remainder of track and bridges. Other than trestles and bridges, there are no planned rail-related structures such as enginehouses, storehouses, or other railroad-type buildings or structures. Entergy indicates that it has no information at this time concerning staging areas, haul roads, borrow, or waste areas.

Figure A-12 shows the condensed track profile of the proposed rail line, while Figure A-13 shows the typical railroad cross-section.

The typical ROW width is governed by the many cuts and fills on the proposed route. The minimum ROW purchased would be 150 feet, while the typical ROW purchased would be approximately 200 feet. The maximum ROW required would be approximately 475 feet; however, wider widths may be negotiated with individual land owners to avoid property severance. All ROW on the Arsenal would be under an easement.

The proposed rail line construction is expected to require approximately eighteen months, and is weather-dependent. Clearing and grubbing would require approximately three months; earthwork would overlap clearing and grubbing, and would require approximately eleven months. Bridge construction would require approximately nine months, plus another three months of fabrication time for both steel and precast girders. Track laying (including track rehabilitation) would require about four months to complete. Relocation of the Dexter Gate and subsequent construction of the overpass of the Dexter Gate access road would require twelve to eighteen months, and would be done concurrently with other activities.

3.1.2 Operation and Maintenance

Operations

The proposed rail line would serve Entergy's White Bluff coal-fired power plant. This facility currently receives via the UP daily shipments of coal mined in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. Entergy states that the plant has experienced repeated shortages of coal supply during the past several years. Construction and operation of the proposed rail line would enable BNSF to compete with UP for shipment of coal to the White Bluff plant. Actual shipments over the line would depend on the outcome of competitive bidding between the two carriers. Shipments won by BNSF under the competitive bidding would move over the proposed rail line. The maximum coal deliveries over the line would be approximately 6.5 million tons per year.

Coal to the White Bluff plant currently moves in Entergy-owned unit trains over the UP from the Powder River Basin through Kansas City, MO, Wagoner OK, Van Buren and North Little Rock, AR, to the plant. Empties move via the reverse of the loaded movement.

BNSF coal shipments to the plant would originate from any of several mines in the Powder River Basin. BNSF would move the loaded trains through Kansas City, MO, to Jonesboro, AR. From Jonesboro BNSF would move the trains via trackage rights over UP's line to Pine Bluff, then over UP's Pine Bluff to Little Rock line as far as the proposed crossover to the trackage planned for rehabilitation and then onto the proposed new rail line to the White Bluff plant. Routing of the empty trains is subject to negotiations between BNSF and UP concerning UP's directional running arrangement. The most efficient routing would be with UP's directional traffic flow, in which case the empty trains would depart the plant using existing Entergy rail connections with the UP mainline, travel through North Little Rock to Hoxie, AR, then via BNSF to the mine.

There are no other potential shippers currently located along the proposed route. The proposed rail line would pass very near the proposed Bioplex site (see approximate location in Figure A-11). If the site develops, it is possible that potential rail shippers might locate there and ship over the line at some point in the future. However, there is no definite indication as to if or when this might occur.

Entergy is not aware of any plans to ship munitions bound for the new munitions incineration facility (see approximate location in Figure A-11) over the proposed rail line. The Arsenal has in the past and plans to continue in the future to ship white phosphorus, a hazardous commodity, by rail approximately once or twice a year. The Arsenal has an Emergency Contingency Plan already in place that has been approved by the State to respond to any material spill.

Entergy Rail would own the proposed rail line. It has not yet determined who would provide operations over the line; however, options for this include BNSF, a third party rail operator, or a combination of both.

Maximum coal deliveries over the line would be approximately 6.5 million tons per year, or approximately 400 to 460 loaded trains per year carrying 14,000 to 16,000 tons each. There would thus be a maximum of 800 to 920 yearly train movements (loaded and empty) over the proposed rail line. Trains over the proposed rail line would operate 365 days a year, which would mean an average of less than three train movements per day. ⁽¹⁶⁾

A typical train is expected to consist of two to four locomotives and 115 to 135 cars. Normal train length is expected to be approximately 6,300 to 7,500 feet. Train operating speed through the Arsenal is expected to be 25 mph south of the Baldwin Yard area. North of this point train speed would be 35 mph until approaching the White Bluff plant, where train speed would be restricted to 10 mph. Train operations could occur at any time of day, seven days per week, loaded or empty.

Maintenance

Track maintenance would be performed by an established contractor in accordance with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements provided in CFR 49, Part 213, Track Safety Standards. Maintenance aspects designed to detect and prevent the potential for derailments include periodic inspections for, and correction of, internal rail defects, track geometry, track structure, and switch and other track components.

An established contractor would provide vegetation control in accordance with applicable environmental regulations and accepted practices. These include:

• Within the Arsenal: Vegetation control would be performed in accordance with established practices for existing Arsenal rail trackage. Current practice is by burning in order to preserve the prairie habitat of the area.

• Remaining trackage: Vegetation would be controlled by the use of liquid herbicides applied by licensed applicators using hi-rail units (road vehicles equipped with rail wheels for operating on tracks). Herbicides used would be those approved by EPA for aquatic vegetation management. Application will be once per year, with spot spraying as necessary to control noxious weeds. Size of the area to be sprayed would be 20 feet on each side of the centerline, except at private grade crossings, if any, where spraying would be widened as required to provide adequate visibility (there would be no at-grade crossings of public roads). Blowing of spray would be controlled by use of reduced pressure, drift control, nozzle size, or by not spraying at all when wind is high enough to move spray. Herbicide runoff would be controlled by following label instructions, and handspraying if necessary to avoid runoff.

3.2 INITIALLY CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED RAIL CONSTRUCTION

3.2.1 Non-Rail Transport

Rail-barge Movement

In 1994 and 1998 Entergy evaluated rail-barge deliveries of coal and in 1998 implemented a temporary rail-barge delivery to the White Bluff plant to supplement UP deliveries during the UP service crisis. Entergy found this alternative to be infeasible as a long-term solution for the following reasons:

• Rail-barge movement was unable to deliver a sufficient volume to meet the plant's requirements without a major investment in high-capacity barge handling and unloading facilities at the plant. However, it was seen as a useful method to supplement deliveries by other modes of transportation during supply shortages.

• Rail-barge movement was not economically feasible due to circuitous routing, costly rail-to-barge transfer, costly barge-to-plant transfer, and breaking up of barge tows and operation through five locks on the Arkansas River. A sixth lock is presently under construction which would also have to be negotiated during certain times of the year, depending on navigation conditions.

Rail-Truck Movement

Entergy also considered a rail-truck movement via an assumed transload point at Jonesboro, AR, the closest BNSF mainline point to the White Bluff plant. This would require installation and operation at Jonesboro of a high-volume rail-to-truck transload facility capable of handling coal unit trains and over-the-road transportation by truck from Jonesboro to the White Bluff Plant, a one-way distance of approximately 160 miles. Assuming an average load of 28 tons per truck and an average cycle time of 7 hours including loading, unloading and fuel/maintenance stops, this would require approximately 187 trucks operating in continuous service, 24 hours per day, delivering a total of approximately 636 truckloads per day to the plant. This would result in a truckload of coal approximately every 2.25 minutes. Aside from the high cost of the new transload facility and the over-the-road truck movement, the socio-economic impact of the noise, congestion and highway damage associated with such an operation would be unacceptable.

3.2.2 All-Rail Alternatives

Entergy identified alternate rail construction routes to the White Bluff plant using USGS mapping supplanted by aerial and ground reconnaissance. It used the following criteria to evaluate the routes:

• Current use of the land

• Noise and visual impacts

• Estimated number of residences displaced

• Sensitive land areas near the route

• Protected species potential

• Habitat quality

• Wetlands (hydric soils)

Entergy indicates that, in its route selection it attempted to avoid or minimize impacts in the above areas and at the same time, reflect current engineering practice for the design of unit train railroad facilities. It identified and evaluated the following rail construction routes as alternatives to the proposed route (see Figure A-14).

Route A

Route A would begin in new rail construction at the same point on the White Bluff plant spur line as would the proposed route. However, after only a short distance Route A would diverge from the proposed route and proceed due south to the community of Jefferson. At that point Route A would turn and move in a southeasterly direction until entering the Arsenal near the Stark Gate. From that point the new rail construction involved in Route A would again follow the same alignment as the proposed route, ending a short distance southeast of the Dexter Gate. However, Route A would involve substantially longer rehabilitation of existing rail line because it was assumed that the route would not be able to utilize UP's Pine Bluff to Little Rock line to access the existing Arsenal trackage. Instead Route A would follow the alignment of the former Cotton Belt Arsenal spur from the southern Arsenal boundary all the way to the west end of downtown Pine Bluff.

Route A would involve 9.1 miles of rail construction in new ROW; it would also involve 7.6 miles of track reconstructed on existing ROW, much of it in downtown Pine Bluff. Route A was Entergy's original preferred route because the relatively flat terrain along the route of new rail construction made the route desirable from an engineering standpoint. However, reconstruction of and operation over a rail line through urban Pine Bluff would likely cause significant adverse socioeconomic, noise, visual, and transportation impacts on the surrounding community. The route would also have affected residential areas near the Jefferson community. Table 3-2 shows a summary comparison of the proposed and alternate routes. The table shows that there were 190 residences within 500 feet of the entire length of Route A, that the route would affect 14 acres of wetlands, and would involve 10 at-grade public road crossings.

Once the Board issued its decision finding that Entergy does have the option to utilize UP's Pine Bluff to Little Rock line to access existing Arsenal trackage (by building out to the connection point with the UP line proposed in this proceeding), Entergy no longer considered Route A a viable alternative due in part to its potential negative environmental impacts.

Route A1

Whereas the proposed route and Route A involve routing the rail line through the Arsenal, Route A1 assumes that this option would not be available and that the line would have to be located entirely outside the Arsenal. Route A1 would follow the same alignment as Route A from the White Bluff spur line until just south of Jefferson. At that point Route A1 would diverge from Route A, continuing south to cross the UP and Highway 365 before turning to move in a southeasterly direction. The route would roughly parallel the UP and after approximately five miles would again cross Highway 365. Just south of the southern Arsenal boundary Route A1 would turn in a more easterly direction, again crossing the UP as well as the former Cotton Belt to be in the same alignment as Route B. It would then proceed east and southeast to connect with another former Cotton Belt line in eastern Pine Bluff. Route A1 would avoid downtown Pine Bluff; in that part of the route which it has in common with Route B, Route A1 would be located north and east of Lake Pine Bluff.

The entire length of Route A1, 16.9 miles, would be new construction in new rail ROW. Table 3-2 shows that there were 170 residences within 500 feet of the entire length of the route, that the route would affect 20 acres of wetlands, and would involve 14 at-grade public road crossings.

Once the Arsenal committed to allow Entergy to build a rail line on its property and to allow it to also use existing Arsenal trackage, Entergy no longer considered Route A1 a viable alternative due in part to its potential negative environmental impacts.

Route B

Route B would follow the same alignment as Route A from the White Bluff plant spur line to a point just south of the southern Arsenal boundary. At that point Route B would diverge from the former Cotton Belt Arsenal spur (and Route A) to move in an easterly and southeasterly direction, continuing on to connect with another former Cotton Belt line in eastern Pine Bluff. As noted above, this final segment of Route B between the former Cotton Belt Arsenal spur and the end of the route in east Pine Bluff is also shared with Route A1.

Route B would avoid downtown Pine Bluff; in that part of the route which it has in common with Route A1, Route B would be located north and east of Lake Pine Bluff.

Route B would involve 13 miles of rail construction in new ROW; it would also involve 5.2 miles of rail line rehabilitation in existing ROW. Table 3-2 shows that there were 120 residences within 500 feet of the entire length of the route, that the route would affect 19 acres of wetlands, and would involve 7 at-grade public road crossings.

Once the Board issued its decision finding that Entergy does have the option to build out to the connection point with the UP line proposed in this proceeding, Entergy no longer considered Route B a viable alternative due in part to its potential negative environmental impacts.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ROUTE

SEA preliminarily concludes that Entergy's proposed route for providing alternate rail access to the White Bluff plant is the most environmentally preferable route. This route is clearly preferable to Routes A, A1, and B for a number of reasons: it has the least mileage of new construction in new ROW, there are substantially fewer residences within 500 feet of the ROW, the route would affect a much smaller amount of wetlands, and would not increase rail traffic through any public at-grade road crossings.

In a letter dated April 19, 2000, Entergy requested that SEA include in this EA an in-depth environmental analysis of the proposed route and a less detailed analysis of the alternatives (Appendix B, Attachment 3). In its telephone response of July 17, 2000, SEA indicated that this approach would be appropriate. SEA based its determination on the results of consultations with its third-party consultant and other governmental agencies and on a review of environmental analysis data available up to that time.

3.4 THE NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

SEA also considered the "no-build" alternative. If the proposed rail line is not built, environmental impacts associated with that rail construction and operation would not occur. These potential impacts include acquisition of land for ROW, limited wetland effects, and limited operational air, noise, and transportation impacts. However, failure to gain competitive access to more than one rail carrier for transporting coal could affect Entergy's ability to maintain adequate fuel supplies for its White Bluff plant.

CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED RAIL LINE

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses environmental impacts of constructing and operating over the proposed new rail line and operating over the rail line to be rehabilitated. The issues raised by the various respondents to the consultation process are discussed in the appropriate sections of this chapter. Chapter 7 presents SEA's recommended mitigation.

4.2 LAND USE/SOCIOECONOMICS

4.2.1 Land Use

The potential for land use impacts from construction of a rail line generally arises from acquisition of land for the ROW and associated uses, as well as from effects on property adjacent to the ROW due to such things as restriction of access. The extent to which such impacts actually occur depends on the circumstances of the particular case.

Land use along the northern portion of the proposed new rail construction, between the White Bluff station and the northwest corner of the Arsenal, is largely in commercial timberland. However, the proposed new rail line would pass through an area currently being developed as a residential subdivision along Jefferson River Road (see Figure A-6). Although there are 24 lots within the subdivision, at the present time it contains only seven residences, all of which are single or doublewide manufactured homes. Three of these residences are located within the proposed ROW and would be acquired and removed by Entergy. Entergy states that it hopes to reach an agreement with all existing property owners in the subdivision for the purchase of their lot. It has already purchased from the subdivision developer land options on the lots which have not yet been sold to prospective homeowners.

Within the Arsenal the new rail line would be located within a largely cleared area adjacent to an existing rail transportation corridor.

The ROW for the proposed new rail line outside the Arsenal property would require approximately 165.5 acres of land (excluding ROW on the White Bluff plant site itself). All of this land is currently in private ownership and would be acquired in fee by Entergy. This land would be acquired from nine landowners, with multiple tracts belonging to some large landowners.

ROW for the proposed rail line within the Arsenal would be obtained through an easement. The process of granting the easement would be initiated by the Arsenal and submitted through appropriate channels. Publicly owned land at the grade-separated crossings would be accessed under an easement agreement with Jefferson County.

Entergy states that it has attempted to minimize instances of property severance by the proposed rail line. Where severance is unavoidable, Entergy would negotiate with the landowner and either purchase the severed property or provide access to the property.

Along the proposed line within the Arsenal Entergy would replace fencing at locations directed by the Arsenal. Outside the Arsenal Entergy would provide fencing where required by adjacent landowners. In the subdivision referred to above, several of the existing residences would be located outside the proposed rail

ROW; if Entergy is not able to acquire those properties, it would install fencing between the properties and the proposed ROW.

There are 64 residences or known residential lots within 500 feet of the ROW. Twenty-four of these are the new subdivision lots referred to above, although only seven structures are located on those lots. Three of those structures would be within the ROW and thus removed; the closest of the remaining four is estimated to be approximately 150 feet from the proposed ROW. There are other residences estimated to be 120 feet from the proposed Arsenal ROW; however, all of these are located to the west of the UP, which is between those residences and the proposed line.

Vegetation and construction debris would be piled up and burned where permitted. Burial and haulage to landfills are other options that could be implemented if appropriate. Entergy indicates that it has no information at this time concerning staging areas, haul roads, or borrow/spoil sites.

Entergy states that it knows of no hazardous waste sites within the proposed new rail ROW.

4.2.2 Socioeconomics

Entergy expects that, on average, approximately 25-30 people would be employed during construction of the proposed rail line; this number would double at the peak of activity. The average time of employment would be nine months to one year, at an average base salary of $10 to $12 per hour. To the extent that the wages these employees would receive are spent within the local area, the construction phase of the proposed action would positively affect the local economy. However, this would represent a minimal effect due to the relatively limited number of construction employees and the limited duration of employment.

The proposed rail line would pass along the western edge of the planned Bioplex site at an elevation that would allow rail service from the proposed line into the site (see Figure A-11). The Alliance, the site's developer, wishes to obtain direct rail access into the site and Entergy indicates that it is coordinating the line's design with the organization. Direct rail access into the site could enhance the development potential of the project.

Environmental Justice

In its comments on the proposed rail construction, EPA requested that the Board consider Environmental Justice impacts in its environmental review (Appendix C, Attachment 3).

Presidential Executive Order No. 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations" directs individual federal agencies to develop approaches that address environmental justice concerns in their programs, policies, and procedures. SEA conducted an environmental justice analysis to: (1) determine the presence or absence of EJCOC surrounding the proposed rail line; ⁽¹⁷⁾

and (2) if such a community is present, to determine the presence or absence of disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on the citizens of that community. ⁽¹⁸⁾

SEA conducted an environmental justice analysis on block groups within Jefferson County that may be affected by construction of the proposed rail line. The analysis was based on census information and norms compiled from U.S. Census Bureau data. Subject norms included percent of minorities and percent of low-income population in Jefferson County; these were used as a point of reference for comparison to actual census block data using the criteria noted above.

Based on census block group data analyzed for Jefferson County using EPA criteria, the study area for the proposed rail corridor initially appears to have a single EJCOC. In the absence of a more detailed analysis, it would appear that a disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect could result from the proposed project within Block Group 9 of Census Tract 5.02. However, a detailed analysis of census data available for Census Tract 5.02, Block Group 9, has shown that this conclusion is premature.

As shown by census data for Block Group 9, that block group does support some blocks that individually would meet EJCOC criteria on the basis of percent minority, percent households below poverty level, and/or percent population below poverty level. However, none of the 5 blocks within Block Group 9 that are contiguous or close to the southern terminus of the project area meet EJCOC criteria. The 1990 census data indicate that there are no inhabitants and housing units within a group of 5 contiguous blocks of Block Group 9 which includes less than 2,400 linear feet of the project line and actually extends beyond the southern terminus of the project area, i.e., Blocks 901B, 902, 903, 904B, and 905D. The northern boundary of Block 905C, which represents the fifth block within Block Group 5.02 from the southern terminus project area, is at a distance of approximately 6,000 feet, i.e., greater than 1 mile, from the south boundary of the Arsenal.

In conclusion, the project area does not meet EJCOC criteria and therefore does not have a potential to cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on the citizens of the community in the vicinity of the proposed rail line.

The full text of the environmental justice analysis is shown in Appendix D.

4.3 WATER RESOURCES

4.3.1 Groundwater

Rail line construction could theoretically affect groundwater quantity in two ways: (1) if placement of the line were in some way to interfere with infiltration of water through the earth's surface into the aquifers where groundwater is stored, or (2) if movement of water through the aquifer were to be interfered with due to severance of the aquifer by excavation for the rail line. However, the proposed action is not expected to have either of these effects. The Arkansas Geological Commission has indicated that the proposed rail line would not be located in an area of major aquifers. Furthermore, Entergy states that it does not expect to cut into known aquifers, or to place fill in known exposed recharge areas.

Groundwater quality could be affected if a spill or release of contaminants were to occur during rail line construction or operation and penetrate the aquifer, thereby contaminating it. The likelihood of such a release is extremely small due to the fact that fuels and oils, the items most frequently associated with spills, would not be present in large quantities. In addition, as noted above, the project area is not an area of major aquifers.

4.3.2 Surface Water

A rail line does not have to actually cross a waterway to affect it; however, generally speaking, the surface water resources of most concern are those a rail line would actually cross. The following discussion of impacts deals first with potential impacts of building the proposed rail line, and then with impacts of operating and maintaining it.

Construction

The actual process of constructing a rail line could affect drainageways and wetlands in the following ways:

• Soil/Debris Deposition. Soil or debris could be deposited into a waterway or wetland while rail construction activities are taking place in or near the waterway or wetland. Disturbance of the streambed by instream construction activities could also increase siltation. In addition, soil could erode into the waterway/wetland over time after completion of construction activities as a result of steep cut or fill slopes or as a result of inadequate revegetation procedures. Soil or debris deposition could adversely affect water quality.

• Interference with Surface Drainage. This could occur if placement of fill material were to block surface drainageways or if bridge or culvert openings were not large enough to accommodate waterflow, causing the drainageway to overflow its channel. This is a particular concern if any part of the proposed rail construction is to be located in a floodway, in which case the concern is that the railway structure not block movement of floodwaters to the extent that floodwater heights and velocities would be increased.

• Wetland Impacts. Wetland vegetation could be destroyed by work occurring in the wetland and also by adverse effects on water quality due to soil or debris deposition. Placement of fill material in a wetland to serve as support for the track structure removes a portion of the wetland from use and could alter the hydrology of that portion of the wetland which is not covered with fill.

Table 4-1 lists the drainageway crossings to be made by the proposed rail line and describes the drainageways and proposed crossing method. ⁽¹⁹⁾

As indicated in the table, all of the drainageways which would be crossed by the new rail line are intermittently flowing at the proposed crossing point.

At trestles, steel H-piles would be driven as foundations, and capped with either a precast or cast-in-place concrete pile cap. The spans would be supported on the pile cap. At bridges, steel H-piles would be driven to support a cast-in-place concrete pier base, which would then support the cast-in-place concrete bridge piers. The steel bridge spans would be placed on the piers. No in-stream construction activities are expected in any of these small streams. Mobile cranes would be set up on either side of streamways to erect the piers and spans. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan would be prepared for the project; it would be administered by the Construction Manager, and implemented by the Contractor.

The proposed new rail construction would not impede existing surface drainage, which would be routed through the channels where drainage presently flows. The only changes in drainage would be placement of culverts under fills in the stream channel. All bridges would be designed to pass the 100-year storm. All culverts would be designed to pass the 25-year, 24-hour storm, and would not flood the track during a 100-year storm. The proposed new rail construction would cross mapped Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplains at Carver Mill Creek and at Henslee Creek (on the proposed crossover). Entergy is coordinating the project, regarding 100-year floodplain and floodway issues, with the local FEMA administrator for Jefferson County.

As noted in Chapter 2, the Board's subcontractors performed a survey to identify U.S. Waters, including wetlands, subject to regulation by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Three small wetland areas were delineated in the vicinity of the project corridor (Love Creek, Carver Mill Creek North, and Eastwood Bayou). These three small areas represent a total of approximately 1.25 acres within the proposed ROW. Each of these wetland areas is located on the floodplain of an intermittent stream channel and has developed in response to past beaver impoundment activities. However, the proposed new rail construction is expected to adversely affect less than one-quarter of an acre of these wetlands. The major impact in the wetland areas would be the placement of steel H-piles driven to support rail trestles. Direct wetland impacts due to deposition of fill during bridge and culvert installation would be avoided or minimized through the use of appropriate construction techniques, including use of: (1) pile-driven construction; (2) bridge structures that would span wetlands and stream channels; and (3) contained-form construction. Approximately 1,550 linear feet of channels of intermittent tributaries within the proposed new rail ROW (excluding wetlands) are considered "other waters of the U.S.".

On June 7, 2000, the Corps authorized Entergy's "proposed placement of dredged and fill materials in waters of the U.S. associated with the construction and rehabilitation of bridges along 12.8 miles of new and existing rail line" (Appendix C, Attachment 2). The Corps authorized the proposed activity under Department of the Army General Permit GB, provided the conditions included in that permit are met. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act is administered by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ); as part of its Corps permit, Entergy received Section 401 water quality certification for activities verified under General Permit GB.

The proposed rail line construction would also require a construction permit from ADEQ. This permit would incorporate the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Entergy expects to submit the required Notice of Intent by January 31, 2001.

EPA requested that the Draft EA address surface water impacts and take steps to prevent surface and groundwater contamination (Appendix C, Attachment 3). The steps noted above should minimize water resource impacts due to rail construction.

Operation and Maintenance

An accident during train operations over the proposed line could result in a spill of contaminant (such as diesel fuel) into a waterway or wetland. However, the likelihood of a train accident is thought to be minimal due to the projected low traffic level on the line and also to the planned maintenance program for the rail line. In addition, diesel fuel for the locomotives, which is the primary potential contaminant to be carried for the foreseeable future, would only be present in limited quantities.

Maintenance of the proposed rail line could cause toxic materials to be deposited in a waterway if herbicides applied to the ROW to control vegetation were to run off into adjacent drainageways or wetlands. The typical pattern for herbicide application would be a strip along the length of the rail bed and bounded on either side by drainage ditches. Nevertheless, at least a limited potential exists for a certain amount of the applied herbicide to run or wash off from the part of the ROW on which it is sprayed into adjacent drainageways. However, Entergy's proposed maintenance policy would minimize the potential for such run-off.

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Project area biological resources are described in Chapter 2, Section 2.5.

Aquatic wildlife is directly affected by water quality and quantity; therefore, the aspects of rail construction and operation which affect aquatic wildlife are essentially the same as those which affect surface water resources. As noted in Section 4.3, these activities are:

• construction activity in or adjacent to drainageways/wetlands could cause increased siltation of the water resource, with possible effects on vegetation and fish spawning

• removal of stream/riparian vegetation, including large trees overhanging streams, could affect water quality and, thus, aquatic wildlife

• construction activity in wetlands could uproot and destroy aquatic vegetation

• material or structures used to support the rail line as it crosses the drainageway or wetland could permanently remove portions of the resource as habitat

• herbicides used in the ROW vegetation control program could wash into waterways, with a possibly toxic effect on aquatic flora and fauna

• operations over the proposed rail line could at some point result in accidents with a potential for contaminant spills into waterways.

Terrestrial wildlife could be affected by construction and operation of a rail line in the following ways:

• conversion of land within the ROW from its current habitat use

• the track and supporting structure could act as a barrier to animal movement

• operations over the line could sporadically disturb animals in the vicinity, perhaps during critical breeding/nesting periods.

Construction-related impacts and habitat conversions are not expected to threaten the existence of any aquatic species. Siltation impacts due to construction near waterways and wetlands should be minimal, because the Corps permit authorizing the proposed project under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires implementation of measures that should minimize soil erosion (measures equivalent to those contained in Suggested Methods for Erosion/Sedimentation Control for Pipeline Projects). In addition, bridges of pile-driven construction have been designed to minimize impacts on aquatic and wetland resources. Moreover, waterways within the project area are mostly intermittent and characterized by a paucity of aquatic life forms. The minor amounts of wetlands within the project area are of low quality and support very few aquatic or wildlife species.

Construction impacts on terrestrial vegetation within the ROW would be limited because almost all of the trackage within the proposed new ROW would be located in areas that have long been managed for timber production and have thus already sustained major disturbance over a long time period.

New ROW acquisition and rail line construction could cause some fragmentation of local habitat. However, this should have minimal impacts on animal movements due to the presence of numerous culverts and pile-driven bridges with long spans that would facilitate movement of terrestrial animal species. Terrestrial wildlife species that partially or totally depend on forested wetlands for food, cover, and breeding areas would possibly sustain long-term albeit very minor loss of habitat.

Should herbicides applied to the ROW during ROW maintenance wash into drainageways, there could be an adverse effect on aquatic wildlife. Likewise, an accident during train operations over the proposed line could result in a spill of contaminant into a waterway. However, in view of the projected low traffic levels and maintenance activities on the proposed line the potential for release of contaminants is very low. Herbicides would be applied only by personnel trained in their use and would include only those compounds having EPA approval.

Use of controlled burns to keep the proposed ROW clear of woody vegetation could damage adjacent vegetation. However, such impacts should be limited because ROW maintenance on an annual schedule would prevent a build up of excess organic matter that could allow fire to escape beyond the ROW.

Train operations over the proposed rail line could disturb animals in the vicinity; however, in view of the projected low traffic levels, the potential for this is very low.

As indicated in Chapter 2, Section 2.5, the project area supports no known federally listed species or habitat having a potential for supporting federally listed species. Two species of concern to state agencies and local conservation entities, i.e., Eupatorium hyssopifolium and Scleria pauciflora, were observed near the railroad within the Arsenal at locations which would not be affected by the proposed rail line construction. Following rail construction, the maintenance of ROW through the use of fire, herbicides, and other vegetation management tools has a high potential to increase the extent of prairie-like habitat that is suitable and available for colonization by these two early-successional species.

4.5 TRANSPORTATION

Construction and operation of the proposed rail line could affect transportation in the following ways:

• Construction of the rail line could affect local transportation infrastructure

• Operations over the proposed rail line could cause delays of vehicular traffic at grade crossings

• Operations over the proposed rail line could cause train-vehicular accidents at grade crossings

• Operations over the proposed rail line could cause train derailments

• There could be a reduction in transportation-related impacts on rail routes or other transportation modes which might incur a reduction in traffic as a result of the proposed action

4.5.1 Construction

The proposed new rail line would cross two public roads, Kearney Road and Jefferson River Road, and two access roads into the Arsenal, at Stark Gate and Dexter Gate. All of these road crossings would be grade-separated. The proposed rail line would underpass both Kearney and Jefferson River Roads (Figure A-21 shows a typical road overpass). The proposed line would overpass the Stark Gate access road on a through-plate girder bridge.

The UP line presently crosses the Dexter Gate access road at-grade. Entergy's proposed line would make a grade-separated crossing of that road and Entergy has proposed to the Arsenal to grade separate the road for both the UP line and the proposed line. If the Arsenal accepts this proposal, Entergy would raise the access road over both the UP and proposed lines, thereby eliminating UP's currently existing at-grade crossing of the road. If the Arsenal decides not to pursue this overpass of both rail lines, the proposed rail line would overpass the Dexter Gate access road on a through plate girder bridge similar to that for the Stark Gate. Construction of the grade separation at the Dexter Gate would require relocating the gate and gatehouse a short distance from its present location.

At the present time, Entergy expects no at-grade crossings of private roads. If property severance is unavoidable and the severed landowner needs a private grade crossing, Entergy states that it would provide a plank crossing with informational signs and that the crossing would be designed to meet federal, state, and local requirements.

As noted in Chapter 2, a munitions incineration facility is currently under construction at the Arsenal for the purpose of destroying chemical munitions (see Figure A-22). The Jefferson County OES has applied to FEMA for funding to design and construct two new roads to serve as part of an emergency evacuation roadway system in order to reduce the risk for individuals living and/or working near the Arsenal and incineration facility. The primary road would generally run west from the entrance at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's National Toxological Research Center (NTRC) to an intersection with Stagecoach Road and Highway 365, with overpasses of the UP mainline and Highway 365. OES states that, although FEMA has indicated its support for constructing this road, it has not actually approved funding for it, and that it may be quite some time before this occurs. OES is less certain that FEMA would fund the second road. As the proposed evacuation road would run in an east-west direction from the vicinity of the incineration facility to Highway 365, it would intersect the proposed rail line, which would run north-south. The mayor of Pine Bluff has expressed concern that the presence of the proposed rail line could affect the cost of constructing the evacuation road, if and when it is constructed (see Appendix C, Attachment 11).

As also noted in Chapter 2, the Arsenal is expected to transfer ownership of a 1,500-acre site at the northwest corner of the Arsenal to The Alliance, which has plans to develop the Bioplex technology park (see Figure A-22). The Alliance believes that the emergency access road described above, if constructed, could also function as an access road to the proposed Bioplex site. The mayor of Pine Bluff expressed concern that, if the proposed rail line crosses the proposed emergency access road at-grade, this could negatively affect potential development of the Bioplex (Appendix C, Attachment 11).

Entergy states that it has met with The Alliance, the Arsenal, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, the Jefferson County Judge, and the Jefferson County OES regarding issues of emergency access and access to the planned Bioplex site. Jefferson River Road is the public road which currently serves the NCTR (see Figure A-22). The proposed rail line would not block any existing public roads or Arsenal access roads, as all these road crossings would be grade-separated. Entergy states that it would cooperate with The Alliance, the State of Arkansas, and Jefferson County regarding the proposed emergency access road and road access to the Bioplex and that it would keep these groups advised of its plans with respect to all access road issues.

The proposed rail line would pass along the western edge of the Bioplex site at an elevation that would allow rail service off the line into the Bioplex. Entergy states that The Alliance desires rail service to the site and that it is coordinating its design for the rail line with officials at the organization.

Arkansas Highways and Transportation states that, as the proposed line would not intersect any existing or proposed state highways, it would have miminal impacts upon the state highway system. The Department requested that, if future modifications to the proposed rail alignment do intersect with the state highway system, the Department should be contacted (Appendix C, Attachment 10).

At the present time, construction of the proposed new rail line is expected to affect the utilities listed below. Entergy and the utility companies are currently assessing the work needed at each location. As a result, the necessary protective actions listed below are typical for the type of crossing, but may not necessarily represent the scope of work ultimately required at the particular utility crossing. For cable lines such as telephone, the cable would be run through conduits under the track, and be relocated as necessary to support construction. If, after further analyses, a pipeline is determined to be adequate to withstand the additional loadings without casing and venting as allowed by AREMA procedures, the casing and venting may be eliminated by agreement between the pipeline company and Entergy.

• Ammonia pipeline, approximate Station 24+70, encase and vent if required;

• Transmission line, approximate Station 24+90, raise;

• Gas pipeline, approximate Station 59+00, encase and vent;

• Electrical transmission line, approximate Station 63+50, relocate or raise;

• Gas pipeline, approximate Station 96+00, no action, under a bridge;

• Electrical transmission line, approximate Station 98+50, relocate or raise;

• Gas line, approximate Station 126+50, relocate under track, encase, and vent;

• Water line, approximate Station 126+75, relocate and encase under track;

• Phone cable and TV cable, approximate Station 126+80, relocate and conduit;

• Power distribution line, approximate Station 276+50, raise;

• Phone cable, approximate Station 276+55, relocate and conduit under track;

• Water line, approximate Station 280+00, encase if required;

• Power line, approximate Station 291+00, raise or relocate;

• Water line, approximate Station 291+40, under bridge, no action required; and

• Power lines, approximate Station 293+50 and 294+50, relocate.

Based on the above information, the proposed rail line construction would not adversely affect existing transportation infrastructure. Entergy has stated that it wishes to cooperate with the appropriate organizations to prevent or minimize potential conflict with future transportation infrastructure, such as the proposed emergency access road.

4.5.2 Operations

There would be a maximum of approximately 800 to 920 total yearly train movements (loaded and empty) over the proposed rail line, which would equate to an average of less than three train movements per day. ⁽²⁰⁾

A typical train would consist of two to four locomotives and 115 to 135 cars. Train operating speed through the Arsenal is expected to be 25 mph south of the Baldwin Yard area. North of this point train speed would be 35 mph until approaching the White Bluff plant, where train speed would be restricted to 10 mph. Train operations could occur at any time of day, seven days per week, loaded or empty.

There should be no vehicular accident or delay impacts at the proposed public road crossings and the Arsenal access road crossings, as these would all be grade-separated. The existing UP crossing of the Dexter Gate access road is at-grade; if the Arsenal accepts Entergy's proposal to grade separate that crossing by raising the access road over both the UP and proposed rail lines, there would be a reduction in potential at-grade crossing accidents and delay.

Trains operating over the proposed rail line would also operate through trackage rights over UP's mainline between Pine Bluff and the proposed crossover track to the former Cotton Belt line. Entergy states that its proposed operations over UP's line would not interfere with UP's operations over that line because BNSF's Entergy train operations over UP's mainline would be governed by UP operating rules. Trains would be dispatched by the UP in accordance with dispatch protocol established for BNSF trackage rights granted in connection with the UP-SP merger.

Any instance of train operation over a rail line involves at least a limited potential for derailment. However, track safety inspections would be conducted according to FRA standards contained in 49 CFR Part 213. The inspection program should detect any potential problems with the physical condition of the line at an early stage, minimizing derailment potential.

4.6 AIR QUALITY

4.6.1 Construction

Entergy states that fugitive dust control would be addressed in its construction specifications, which would require each contractor to use water trucks and other appropriate dust control measures. In addition, the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan which would be implemented for the project would require prompt reseeding or revegetation of disturbed areas after completion of earthwork construction activities; this would also help keep fugitive dust to a minimum.

4.6.2 Operation

Rail operations can affect air quality through emission of air pollutants from locomotive diesel fuel combustion.

The Board typically applies a threshold level of rail traffic increase for determining whether to quantify the air pollution which would be generated by rail traffic over a new rail line proposed for construction. This threshold is contained in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5). ⁽²¹⁾

If the line proposed for construction is not located in either a Class I or a nonattainment area, pollutant emissions from rail traffic will be quantified only if the proposed action would add eight or more trains per day to the line to be constructed.

The project area is not in a Class I area. Jefferson County is in attainment for all six criteria air pollutants. Substantially fewer than eight train movements per day are expected to be added to the proposed line (two to four daily train movements are expected). Because of this, expected air pollutant emissions from rail operations over the proposed line have not been quantified. However, they are expected to be insignificant.

4.7 NOISE

4.7.1 Construction

Noise levels in the area would rise during construction of the proposed rail line. Vehicles and machinery used for land clearing, road bed construction, and bridge construction would generate temporary increases in noise levels. However, construction noise emissions would be of short term duration and would be confined to the eighteen-month construction period. In addition, approximately the northern half of the proposed new rail line would be constructed in a largely wooded area which is sparsely populated, thus limiting the number of people potentially affected by such noise. That part of the proposed construction within the Arsenal would also be located in a wooded area, for the most part, although there are some residences to the west of the proposed and UP rail lines in the area between the Stark Gate and the Dexter Gate.

4.7.2 Operations

Train operations over the proposed rail line would raise ambient noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the line.

The Board applies a threshold level of rail traffic increase for determining whether to quantify noise which would be generated by rail traffic over a new rail line proposed for construction. This threshold is contained in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(6). ⁽²²⁾

If the proposed action would add eight or more trains per day to the line to be constructed, noise to be generated by operations over the line must be quantified and sensitive receptors may have to be identified. As projected train operations over the proposed line fall substantially short of this threshold, SEA has not quantified the potential increase in noise levels due to such operations. However, it can be said that the potential increase in noise would be fairly minimal due to the low rail traffic level. Also, the number of noise receptors would be relatively few, as much of the line would pass through a primarily wooded area, with relatively few receptors located nearby.

4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The cultural resource survey conducted for the proposed action and described in Chapter 2, Section 2.9, found no sites on or eligible for the NRHP along the ROW for the proposed new rail construction. The results of the survey have been forwarded to the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program for review.

4.9 RECREATION

With the exception of the Arsenal Golf Course located some 1,000 feet to the east of the proposed new ROW near the Dexter Gate, there are no public recreation sites in the project area. The proposed new rail construction and operation would not affect access to the golf course. Noise and air quality impacts on persons using the golf course would be minimal.

CHAPTER 5.0UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The proposed rail line construction would result in conversion of approximately 166 acres of land to rail use for the ROW outside the Arsenal. The proposed line would pass through a subdivision which is under development in the Jefferson River Road area.

The proposed new rail construction would affect less than one-quarter of an acre of wetlands due to placement of dredged and fill material during bridge construction. Rail construction and operation would have minor adverse wildlife impacts, including habitat loss, increased human presence associated with construction and maintenance activities, noise, train-wildlife collisions, and the possibility of contaminants being introduced into the environment.

Proposed rail line operations would have localized, but insignificant, air and noise impacts.

CHAPTER 6.0 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Cumulative environmental impacts result when the effects of an action on a particular resource, ecosystem, or human community are added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time. Cumulative impacts of the proposed rail line construction would include those which may result from construction of the planned Bioplex development, possible construction of the emergency access road to the munitions incineration facility, and construction of the incineration facility itself. While environmental impacts from the proposed rail line construction itself are not expected to be significant, these impacts would be added to similar impacts which may result from the above-noted other projects in the area. Thus the proposed rail construction and operation would add somewhat to the total of impacts in the project area related to conversion of land to other uses, wetland impacts, removal of land from use as wildlife habitat, increased air pollutant emissions, and increased localized noise levels.

CHAPTER 7.0 SECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION

Based on the Section of Environmental Analysis' review of all information available to date, and its independent analysis of the proposed rail line construction and operation, all the comments and mitigation requested by various federal, state, and local agencies, as well as other concerned parties, and the mitigation offered by Entergy, the Section of Environmental Analysis preliminarily recommends that, if the Surface Transportation Board approves the proposed construction and operation, such approval be subject to the following mitigation measures:

Land Use

1. As agreed to by Entergy, where property severance is unavoidable, Entergy shall negotiate with the landowner and either purchase the severed property or provide access to the property.

2. As agreed to by Entergy, along the proposed line within the Arsenal Entergy shall replace fencing at locations directed by the Pine Bluff Arsenal.

3. As agreed to by Entergy, outside the Pine Bluff Arsenal Entergy shall provide fencing where required by adjacent landowners.

4. As agreed to by Entergy, in the subdivision which the proposed rail line would pass through in the Jefferson River Road area, if Entergy is not able to acquire those residences outside the proposed right-of-way, Entergy shall install fencing between the properties and the proposed ROW.

5. Entergy shall develop any other sites related to the proposed rail construction, such as staging areas, borrow/spoil sites, and haul roads, in accordance with all applicable environmental regulations.

6. Entergy shall require its construction contractor to dispose of all waste material generated during construction in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

7. Should hazardous wastes be encountered in the project area during the proposed construction, Entergy shall handle and dispose of such wastes in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Water Resources

8. As agreed to by Entergy, it shall prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and require that its construction contractor implement the provisions of the plan.

9. As agreed to by Entergy, all bridges shall be designed to pass the 100-year storm, and all culverts shall be designed to pass the 25-year, 24-hour storm, and not to flood the track during a 100-year storm.

10. As agreed to by Entergy, it shall coordinate the proposed construction, regarding 100-year floodplain and floodway issues, with the local Federal Emergency Management Agency administrator for Jefferson County.

11. Entergy shall comply with any conditions attached to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit issued in conjunction with the proposed rail line construction.

12. Entergy shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and shall require its construction contractor to abide by its provisions.

13. For ROW maintenance, Entergy shall use only contractors trained in herbicide application and shall require those contractors to follow label directions in applying herbicides. Entergy shall also require those contractors to use only herbicides registered for such use with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to follow all applicable state regulations regarding use of those herbicides.

Transportation

14. As agreed to by Entergy, it shall construct the crossings of Kearney Road, Jefferson River Road, and the Stark Gate and Dexter Gate access roads on grade separations.

15. As agreed to by Entergy, if property severance is unavoidable and the severed landowner needs a private grade crossing, Entergy shall install a plank crossing (the crossing surface where the rail line and road intersect would be wooden planks) with informational signs and the crossing shall meet applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

16. Entergy shall cooperate with the appropriate organizations, including The Economic Development Alliance of Jefferson County, the State of Arkansas, and Jefferson County, to try to prevent or minimize potential conflict with the planned emergency access road and to try to ensure that the proposed rail construction would not adversely affect road access into the Bioplex site. Entergy shall keep those groups advised of its plans with respect to all access road issues.

Air Quality

17. As agreed to by Entergy, it shall require its construction contractor(s) to use water trucks and other appropriate dust control measures.

Conclusion and Request for Comments

Based on the information provided from all sources to date and its independent analysis, the Section of Environmental Analysis preliminarily concludes that construction and operation of the proposed rail line would have no significant environmental impacts if the Surface Transportation Board imposes and Entergy implements the mitigation recommended above. Therefore, the environmental impact statement process is unnecessary in this proceeding.

The Section of Environmental Analysis specifically invites comments on all aspects of this Draft EA, including suggestions for additional mitigation measures. We will consider all comments received in making our final recommendations to the Surface Transportation Board. The Surface Transportation Board will consider the entire environmental record, our final recommendations, including final recommended mitigation measures, and the environmental comments in making its final decision in this proceeding.

If you wish to file comments and any questions regarding this Draft EA, send an original and 10 copies to the Office of the Secretary, Attn: Phillis Johnson-Ball, Environmental Review (FD 33782), Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20423. Comments should refer to the docket number of this proceeding: Finance Docket No. 33782.

Date made available to the public: November 2, 2000

Comment due date: December 4, 2000

FOR THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT SEE THE PDF VERSION

1. ¹ Unless referred to separately, EAI and Entergy Rail will be referred to collectively as Entergy.

2. ² The Surface Transportation Board (Board) was formerly the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, which was enacted on December 29, 1995, and took effect on January 1, 1996, abolished the ICC and transferred certain rail functions and proceedings to the Board.

3. ³ This Draft EA considers the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed new rail line and also of rail operations over the line planned for rehabilitation; it does not consider the environmental impacts of the rehabilitation process itself.

4. ⁴ A manufactured home is a prefabricated house that is put together in standardized sections.

5. ⁵Entergy Rail had contended that a decision of the Board in Finance Docket 32760 (the UP-SP merger proceeding) allowed it to "build out" from the White Bluff plant to a line of the former SP in order to provide alternative rail access by BNSF. UP, SP's successor, disputed, among other things, the location to which Entergy proposed to build out.

In a decision served on March 21, 2000, in Finance Docket 32760 (Decision No. 88), the Board interpreted conditions that it had imposed in granting merger authority that relate to the preservation of pre-merger build-in, build-out options for all shippers. In that decision, the Board found that Entergy Rail had a pre-merger option to build-out from the White Bluff plant to the connection point proposed in this proceeding and the Board preserved that option, with trackage rights giving BNSF access to the build-out connection point. The Board also directed UP and BNSF to submit to arbitration any unresolved dispute respecting construction of the proposed new crossover.

6. ⁶As noted earlier, this Draft EA considers the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed new rail line and also of rail operations over the line planned for rehabilitation; it does not consider the environmental impacts of the rehabilitation process itself.

7. ⁷ The project area as described here includes both the area of new rail construction and the area of rail operations over the line planned for rehabilitation.