Notice2022-03579
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Soo Line Railroad Company; Central Maine & Quebec Railway US Inc.; Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation; and Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, Inc.-Control-Kansas City Southern; The Kansas City Southern Railway Company; Gateway Eastern Railway Company; and The Texas Mexican Railway Company
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 18, 2022
Issuing agencies
Surface Transportation Board
Abstract
On October 29, 2021, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and their U.S. rail carrier subsidiaries Soo Line Railroad Company; Central Maine & Quebec Railway U.S. Inc.; Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation; and Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (collectively, CP) and Kansas City Southern, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Gateway Eastern Railway Company, and The Texas Mexican Railway Company (collectively, KCS) filed an application with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) seeking the Board's approval of the acquisition of control by CP of KCS (Proposed Acquisition). The Proposed Acquisition has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts; therefore, the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) has determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate to meet the Board's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related laws, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The purpose of this Notice is to inform stakeholders--including members of the public; elected officials; tribes; federal, state, and local agencies; and organizations--interested in or potentially affected by potential environmental and cultural impacts related to the Proposed Acquisition that the Final Scope of Study for the EIS is available.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9406-9412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03579]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. FD 36500]
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway
Company; Soo Line Railroad Company; Central Maine & Quebec Railway US
Inc.; Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation; and Delaware &
Hudson Railway Company, Inc.--Control--Kansas City Southern; The Kansas
City Southern Railway Company; Gateway Eastern Railway Company; and The
Texas Mexican Railway Company
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the Final Scope of Study for the
Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 29, 2021, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited,
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and their U.S. rail carrier
subsidiaries Soo Line Railroad Company; Central Maine & Quebec Railway
U.S. Inc.; Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation; and
Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (collectively, CP) and Kansas
City Southern, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Gateway
Eastern Railway Company, and The Texas Mexican Railway Company
(collectively, KCS) filed an application with the Surface
Transportation Board (Board) seeking the Board's approval of the
acquisition of control by CP of KCS (Proposed Acquisition). The
Proposed Acquisition has the potential to result in significant
environmental impacts; therefore, the Board's Office of Environmental
Analysis (OEA) has determined that the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate to meet the Board's obligations
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related laws,
including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
The purpose of this Notice is to inform stakeholders--including members
of the public; elected officials; tribes; federal, state, and local
agencies; and organizations--interested in or potentially affected by
potential environmental and cultural impacts related to the Proposed
Acquisition that the Final Scope of Study for the EIS is available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Wayland, Office of
Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, c/o VHB, 940 Main
Campus Dr., Suite 500, Raleigh, NC 27606, or call OEA's toll-free
number for the project at 1-888-319-2337. Assistance for the hearing
impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at
1-800-877-8339. The website for the Board is <a href="https://www.stb.gov">https://www.stb.gov</a>. For
further information about the Board's environmental review process and
the EIS, you may also visit the Board-sponsored project website at
<a href="http://www.CP-KCSMergerEIS.com">www.CP-KCSMergerEIS.com</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2021, CP and KCS (collectively, the Applicants)
filed an application with the Board under 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 11323-
25 seeking the Board's approval of the Proposed Acquisition. CP and KCS
are two of the seven Class I railroads in the United States, which are
the largest railroads, defined as having annual revenue greater than
$250 million. CP is one of Canada's two major railroads, extending
across the country and connecting east and west coast ports. In the
U.S., CP connects to Buffalo and Albany, New York and Searsport, Maine.
CP also runs south into the U.S. Midwest and connects with KCS in
Kansas City, Missouri. The KCS network extends from Kansas City,
Missouri to the Gulf Coast and into Mexico, operating across 10 states
in the Midwest and Southeast. CP and KCS provide rail service for a
variety of industries, including agriculture, minerals, military,
automotive, chemical and petroleum, energy, industrial, and consumer
products. CP and KCS are the two smallest Class I railroads, and the
combined railroad would be the smallest Class I railroad by revenue.
Summary of the Board's Review Processes for This Proceeding
The Board will review the Proposed Acquisition through two parallel
but distinct processes: (1) The transportation-related process that
[[Page 9407]]
examines the competitive, transportation, and economic implications of
the Proposed Acquisition on the national rail system, and (2) the
environmental process conducted by OEA that assesses the potential
environmental effects of the Proposed Acquisition on the human and
natural environment through the preparation of an EIS. Interested
persons and entities may participate in either, or both, processes but
if interested persons or entities are focused on potential
environmental and historical impacts on communities, such as noise,
vibration, air emissions, grade crossing safety and delay, emergency
vehicle access, and other similar environmental issues, the appropriate
forum is OEA's environmental review process. The statute setting forth
the procedures for Board review of acquisitions at 49 U.S.C. 11325 and
the Board's implementing regulations at 49 CFR 1180.4 (2000) require
that the Board complete the process within approximately 15 months
after the primary application is accepted for a ``major'' transaction
such as this, and OEA must complete the environmental process before
the Board decides whether to authorize the merger.
Environmental Review Process
On November 12, 2021, OEA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to inform
interested agencies, tribes, and the public of its decision to prepare
an EIS and to initiate the formal scoping process under NEPA (42 U.S.C.
4321-4370m-12) and the Section 106 consultation process under the NHPA
(54 U.S.C. 306108). The NEPA process is intended to assist the Board
and the public in identifying and assessing the potential environmental
consequences of a proposed action before a decision on that proposal is
made. OEA is responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with NEPA
and related statutes, including Section 106 of the NHPA and Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536).
Purpose and Need
The Proposed Acquisition involves an application for Board
authority under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 for CP to acquire KCS. The Proposed
Acquisition is not a federal government-proposed or sponsored project.
Thus, the project's purpose and need is informed by both the
Applicants' goals and the Board's enabling statute--the Interstate
Commerce Act as amended by the ICC Termination Act, Public Law 104-188,
109 Stat. 803 (1996). See Alaska Survival v. STB, 705 F.3d 1073, 1084-
85 (9th Cir. 2013).
According to the Applicants, the purpose of the Proposed
Acquisition is to combine America's two smallest but fastest-growing
Class I railroads to build a more efficient and competitive rail
network. The Applicants state that the Proposed Acquisition would
further the need for expanded and more capable and efficient
transportation infrastructure while simultaneously advancing the
interests of current and future customers in more reliable and
economical rail transportation options serving important North-South
trade flows. The Applicants also state that the Proposed Acquisition
would generate environmental benefits by reducing truck transportation
on highways in North America by more than 60,000 trucks annually,
resulting in less congestion, less maintenance, and improved safety on
those roads; as well as less noise pollution in the places where those
trucks would have driven; and lowered air emissions, including
greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Interstate Commerce Act, as
amended, the Board ``shall approve and authorize a transaction'' such
as this when, after considering several factors, ``it finds the
transaction is consistent with the public interest.'' 49 U.S.C. 11324
(b) & (c).
Proposed Action and Alternatives
The proposed federal action in this proceeding is the Applicants'
Proposed Acquisition of KCS by CP. If the Board authorizes the Proposed
Acquisition, CP and KCS would combine to form an integrated system to
be known as Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC). The combination of
these two railroads would be an end-to-end merger because the CP and
KCS railroad networks do not overlap. The Proposed Acquisition would
result in changes in rail traffic on portions of the combined rail
network. Rail traffic would increase on certain rail line segments and
would decrease on others. The largest change would occur on the CP
mainline between Sabula, Iowa, and Kansas City, Missouri, which would
experience an increase in rail traffic of approximately 14.4 additional
trains per day, on average. Increases in activities at rail yards and
intermodal facilities would also occur.
If the Board authorizes the Proposed Acquisition, the Applicants
plan to make capital improvements within the existing rail right-of-way
to support the projected increases in rail traffic. The capital
improvements would include extending 13 existing passing sidings,
adding 10 new passing sidings, adding approximately four miles of
double track in Blue Valley near Kansas City, Missouri, and
approximately five miles of facility working track adjacent to the
International Freight Gateway intermodal terminal near Kansas City. The
Applicants have stated that they would add the capital improvements
only as needed based on increasing traffic and that design-level
engineering for each capital improvement would only occur if and when
the capital improvement is needed. The Applicants do not propose to
construct any new rail lines subject to Board licensing or to abandon
any rail lines as part of the Proposed Acquisition.
As discussed in the NOI, the Applicants initially informed OEA that
they intended to add 11 new passing sidings as part of the Proposed
Acquisition. Following the issuance of the NOI, however, the Applicants
submitted information clarifying that one of the sidings, located near
Brownsville, Minnesota, had been previously designed to accommodate
projected increases in rail traffic unrelated to the Proposed
Acquisition. The Applicants previously obtained a permit for the siding
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387) (CWA), and the Corps conducted an
environmental and historic review of the siding as part of the
permitting process. Because the Brownsville siding is a preexisting
proposed project, OEA has concluded that this capital improvement would
not occur as a result of the Proposed Acquisition and, therefore, it
would not be appropriate to assess the potential environmental impacts
of the planned siding as part of the EIS for the Proposed Acquisition.
Accordingly, the EIS will evaluate a total of 25 capital improvements.
An interactive map showing the locations of those capital improvements
is available on the Board-sponsored project website at <a href="http://www.CP-KCSMergerEIS.com">www.CP-KCSMergerEIS.com</a>.
Railroads have the right to increase efficiency by improving their
rail lines and rerouting their traffic without seeking authority from
the Board. Therefore, railroad capital improvements that are designed
to improve operational efficiency (such as sidings, double tracking,
and industry track) typically do not require Board authorization or
environmental review by OEA. Where capital improvements are related to
a proposed merger or acquisition requiring Board approval, OEA
considers, as appropriate, the potential environmental impacts from
such capital improvements on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the
Applicants have stated that certain capital improvements would be
necessary to accommodate the increase in rail traffic
[[Page 9408]]
that the Applicants expect would occur as a result of the Proposed
Acquisition. Further, the Applicants have identified the location and
general layout of these 25 planned capital improvements in sufficient
detail to support an environmental review. Therefore, OEA will assess
the potential impacts of the planned capital improvement projects, as
appropriate, as part of the EIS.
The alternative to the Proposed Acquisition is the No-Action
Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would occur if the Board were to
deny authority for the Proposed Acquisition. Under the No-Action
Alternative, CP would not acquire KCS and the projected changes in rail
operations, rail yard activity, and intermodal facility activity would
not occur. Rail traffic on rail lines and activities at rail yards and
intermodal facilities could change to support regular railroad
operations or as a result of changing market conditions, such as
general economic growth, but would not change as a result of the
Proposed Acquisition. Similarly, the Applicants would not construct the
25 planned capital improvement projects under the No-Action
Alternative. However, CP and KCS could construct sidings, extend
existing sidings, or add additional track within the rail right-of-way
in the future without seeking Board authority if needed to support rail
operations on their respective rail networks. Under the No-Action
Alternative, none of the anticipated adverse or beneficial
environmental impacts of the Proposed Acquisition would occur.
During the public comment period for the scoping process, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended that the EIS assess
alternatives for sidings, double tracking, and other new infrastructure
components. OEA notes that potential locations for siding extensions,
new sidings, and other capital improvements along the combined CPKC
system are limited. The locations of the 13 planned siding extensions
are determined by the locations of the existing sidings that would be
extended, so no alternative locations can be considered. The locations
of the 10 planned new sidings are based on system-wide requirements,
including the need for sidings to be placed at regular intervals along
the mainline. The start and end points of new sidings are also
constrained by site-specific conditions, such as the curvature of the
existing mainline. For example, the start and end points for passing
sidings are generally placed on straight sections of track for
operational reasons. OEA understands that the planned double tracking
and the planned facility working track are intended to serve site-
specific operational needs and could not be constructed in other
locations to serve those needs. Further, because the capital
improvements would be constructed only as needed if traffic were to
increase, the final engineering and design of these improvements has
not been completed to allow for comparison of alternatives that would
differ in terms of final engineering and design (such as the final
placement of switches or the locations of construction laydown areas).
Responsive Applications
Certain railroads have notified the Board that they may submit
Responsive Applications for consideration by the Board. Responsive
Applications are proposals that parties other than the Applicants file
with the Board to request modifications or conditions to the primary
application. After the Board receives any Responsive Applications, OEA
will determine what, if any, environmental review would be required. If
any environmental review would be required, that review would be
conducted separately from the EIS for the Proposed Acquisition.
Summary of Scoping Process
The scoping process began on November 12, 2021, when OEA issued the
NOI and published the NOI in the Federal Register. OEA also distributed
the NOI to agencies, organizations, and tribes with jurisdiction or
interest in areas where the Proposed Acquisition could result in
environmental and cultural impacts, including along the CP and KCS
mainlines from Chicago, Illinois to Sabula, Iowa and from Sabula, Iowa,
to Laredo, Texas, where projected increased rail traffic resulting from
the Proposed Acquisition would exceed the Board's thresholds for
environmental review. OEA distributed the NOI via:
<bullet> Letters to local, state, and federal elected officials;
<bullet> Letters to community leaders, such as school principals,
police and fire chiefs, library leadership, and religious leaders;
<bullet> Geotargeted online banner advertisements for minority and
low-income populations;
<bullet> Letters to tribal governments and Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers (THPOs);
<bullet> Letters to federal, state, and local agencies; and
<bullet> A press release to television stations, radio stations,
and newspapers.
OEA held six online public scoping meetings during the scoping
period. To promote participation in the meetings, OEA published meeting
information in the NOI and circulated information to elected officials
(federal, state, and local) and local community leaders through direct
mail and email. OEA also used Google banner advertisements to advertise
the public scoping meetings in minority and low-income communities.
Project information was and continues to be available for public
review on the Board-sponsored project website and the online meeting
room. OEA considered all comments equally no matter how comments were
received, and it was not necessary to attend an online public meeting
to provide scoping comments. Public scoping meeting participants had
the option to deliver their oral comments during the meeting.
Interested parties were encouraged to file their written scoping
comments electronically on the Board's website, <a href="https://www.stb.gov">https://www.stb.gov</a>, or
through the Board-sponsored project website at <a href="http://www.CP-KCSMergerEIS.com">www.CP-KCSMergerEIS.com</a>.
Scoping comments could also be submitted by mail. All comments
submitted during scoping are available to the public on the Board's
website and OEA has added commenters' email addresses to its email
distribution list.
The deadline for submitting comments regarding the scope of the EIS
was originally set for December 17, 2021. However, based on requests
from the public, OEA extended the comment period to January 3, 2022. In
total, OEA received 492 comments, 49 of which were oral comments at the
public scoping meetings and 443 of which were written comments, between
November 12, 2021 and the end of the scoping comment period on January
3, 2022.
OEA has and will continue to update and monitor the Board-sponsored
project website, project email inbox, and toll-free information phone
line throughout the environmental review process to provide current
project information.
Summary of Scoping Comments
<bullet> Environmental Review Process: Commenters requested an
extension of the scoping comment period, an extended comment period on
the Draft EIS, an extension of the Board's oversight period of the
Proposed Acquisition, and that OEA publish a draft Scope of Study for
the EIS. As discussed above, OEA extended the scoping comment period in
response to requests from commenters. Requests for other extensions
will be considered if filed at the appropriate time. Regarding the
issuance of a draft Scope of Study, the Board's regulations at 49 CFR
[[Page 9409]]
1105.10(a)(2) only require the issuance of an NOI with a description of
the proposed action and a request for written comments on the scope of
the EIS. The NOI and public involvement and agency consultation
materials that OEA issued in this case provided the list of topics that
the EIS might address and, therefore, the public and agencies had
information necessary to provide comments regarding the scope of the
EIS.
Commenters requested that the EIS consider projected changes in
rail operations extending at least 10 years after authorization of the
Proposed Acquisition. Consistent with past practice, OEA will assess
impacts related to changes in rail operations projected over five years
from the authorization of the Proposed Acquisition because five years
is not too long to produce reasonable and reliable freight rail
forecasts. The 10-year projections recommended by commenters, however,
would be too long to produce reasonable estimates.
<bullet> Proposed Action and Alternatives: Commenters requested
that OEA consider reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Acquisition.
As discussed above, the EIS will evaluate the Proposed Acquisition and
the No-Action Alternative.
<bullet> Freight Rail Capacity and Safety: Commenters requested
that the EIS evaluate potential public health and safety impacts that
could be associated with the accidental release of oil and other
hazardous substances that could be transported on the combined network.
Commenters expressed concerns about safety, citing their understanding
of CP's safety record, specific incidents, and the potential for
derailments. Commenters requested that the Board impose mitigation
measures to address rail safety, including measures requiring reduced
train speeds and preventative measures for reducing the risk of
derailments. Commenters requested additional information regarding the
potential changes in operations that could occur as a result of the
Proposed Acquisition, including changes to lengths of trains, and
questioned some data provided by the Applicants regarding operations
changes, including the projected number of trains per day and the
projected volumes of oil and other hazardous materials that trains
operating on the combined network could transport. The EIS will provide
additional available information regarding potential changes in
operations, will disclose the potential impacts of those changes on
freight rail capacity and safety, and will consider potential
appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts related to freight
rail capacity and safety.
<bullet> Passenger Rail Capacity and Safety: Commenters expressed
concern regarding increased delays and service impacts to passenger
rail service, such as the Metra commuter rail service. As described
below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address passenger rail capacity
and safety, including impacts to commuter rail, and will consider
potential appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts related to
passenger rail capacity and safety.
<bullet> Roadway/Rail At-Grade Crossing Safety and Delay:
Commenters expressed concern regarding the increased number and length
of trains causing traffic delays and delays to emergency services.
Commenters recommended that the EIS estimate the impact of the Proposed
Acquisition on extended blockages at each crossing, develop mitigation
to address those impacts, and then measure the actual changes using
gate monitoring during the Board's oversight period if the Board
authorizes the Proposed Acquisition. Commenters expressed concern about
trains using the new sidings and blocking access to roads, public land
access, and private driveways (including delays for emergency response
services). Commenters expressed concern regarding decreased safety for
drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists as a result of projected increased
train traffic at grade crossings. Commenters also expressed concern
regarding increased delays at grade crossings blocking access to
important economic activities, recreational facilities, and schools.
Commenters requested that OEA consider mitigation measures, such as
grade separations, to address impacts associated with increased rail
traffic at grade crossings. As described below in the Final Scope, the
EIS will address grade crossing safety and delay impacts and will
consider potential appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts
related to grade crossing safety and delay.
<bullet> Traffic and Roadway Systems: Commenters requested
additional information regarding truck traffic increases at intermodal
facilities and requested that the analysis of traffic operations
include a morning, afternoon/evening, and off-peak period analysis. As
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address traffic and
roadway system impacts and will consider potential appropriate
mitigation measures to address impacts related to traffic and roadway
systems.
<bullet> Noise: Commenters recommended that the impact of noise and
vibration on people and animals living in proximity to the rail lines
be considered. Commenters expressed concern about their communities
experiencing negative impacts from increased train noise. Commenters
also expressed concern regarding vibrations damaging utilities,
roadways, and buildings in their communities. Commenters recommended
mitigation measures for noise impacts on their communities, including
quiet zone restrictions, idling policies, gate crossing policies, and
horn policies. As described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will
address noise and vibration impacts and will consider potential
appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts related to noise and
vibration.
<bullet> Air Quality and Climate Change: Commenters expressed
concern regarding potential air quality impacts on human health,
communities, and wildlife due to emissions from locomotives, vehicles
delayed at at-grade crossings, and from activities at rail yards and
intermodal facilities. Commenters recommended that the EIS evaluate the
short- and long-term emissions and associated potential health impacts
using best available methods, particularly in areas with special air
quality protections and areas where vulnerable community are located.
Commenters also recommended a ``hotspot'' analysis be conducted at rail
yards, intermodal terminals, grade crossings, junctions, and other
places of concentrated rail activity. Commenters further requested that
the EIS consider measures to reduce air emissions, such as vegetative
barriers, staging zones, and using electric switching locomotives.
Commenters requested that the EIS evaluate the potential air quality
benefits of the Proposed Acquisition. Commenters requested that OEA
evaluate the impact of the Proposed Acquisition on climate change in
terms of greenhouse gas emissions and consider climate change
resiliency and adaptation measures or plans to ensure that
infrastructure would maintain structural integrity under changing
climate conditions. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider
beneficial and adverse impacts related to air quality and climate
change, as well as potential appropriate mitigation measures to address
air quality and climate change impacts.
<bullet> Energy: Commenters expressed concern that the Proposed
Acquisition could increase rail transportation of crude oil. As
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will analyze the
[[Page 9410]]
effect of the Proposed Acquisition on the transportation of energy
resources and will consider potential appropriate mitigation measures
to address impacts related to energy.
<bullet> Cultural Resources: Commenters expressed concern that the
25 planned capital improvements could affect cultural resources.
Commenters recommended consultation with tribal governments and THPOs
regarding the Proposed Acquisition. Commenters expressed concerns
regarding vibration impacts to historic districts, sites, and
landmarks. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider impacts
on cultural resources, as well as potential appropriate mitigation
measures to address impacts on cultural resources.
<bullet> Natural Resources (Water Resources and Biological
Resources): Commenters expressed concerns regarding impacts from
increased train traffic, including noise and vibration impacts, and
impacts from the use of chemical and herbicides along the rail right-
of-way on wildlife and vegetation, including migratory birds, forest
preserve assets, and threatened and endangered species. Commenters
recommended that OEA consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
state natural resources departments, and regional and local wildlife
experts regarding impacts on wildlife and vegetation and appropriate
mitigation measures, potentially including wildlife crossings, methods
to prevent the spread of invasive species, and alternative management
practices to limit herbicide use. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS
will consider impacts on wildlife and vegetation, as appropriate.
Commenters recommended that the EIS identify impacts on water
resources, including wetlands, and discuss compliance with Sections
404, 402, and 303(d) of the CWA. Commenters expressed concern that
increased rail traffic could worsen existing impacts related to rail
operation, such as by increasing structural fatigue and maintenance
costs for water crossings, increasing the potential for harmful runoff
from the rail right-of-way, and increasing the risk of derailments or
spills that could affect water quality. The Final Scope reflects that
the EIS will consider potential impacts on water resources, as well as
potential appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts on water
resources.
<bullet> Environmental Justice: Commenters expressed concerns
regarding potentially disproportionate impacts on minority and low-
income populations, including impacts from increased rail traffic and
increased activity at rail yards and intermodal facilities on economic
advancement, business development, healthcare and pharmacy access,
commute times, education access, and food access in minority and low-
income communities. Commenters recommended expanded outreach to
minority and low-income populations, including multilingual outreach to
impacted communities.
Commenters suggested mitigation measures for environmental justice
communities living adjacent to the tracks and near rail yards to
protect their health, including air quality monitoring and air filters
in schools. As described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address
environmental justice impacts and will recommend potential appropriate
mitigation measures to address disproportionately high and adverse
impacts on environment justice communities.
<bullet> Cumulative Impacts: Commenters expressed concern that
cumulative impacts from the Proposed Acquisition and other projects and
activities could result in impacts on people, communities, and the
environment, including impacts related to increased noise, increased
air pollution, decreased economic activity, and decreased safety. As
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address cumulative
impacts, as appropriate.
Based on the comments received and OEA's own analysis, OEA has
prepared the Final Scope of Study for the EIS, which is detailed below.
Final Scope
Environmental Impact Analysis
The EIS will address proposed activities and their potential
environmental impacts, as appropriate. OEA will evaluate only the
potential environmental impacts of operational and physical changes
that are related to the Proposed Acquisition.
The scope of the analysis will include the following types of
activities:
1. Anticipated changes in level of operations on rail lines (for
instance, an increase in average number of trains per day) for those
rail line segments that meet or exceed the Board's thresholds for
environmental review in 49 CFR 1105.7(e).
2. Expected changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal
facilities to the extent such changes may exceed the Board's thresholds
for environmental analysis in 49 CFR 1105.7(e).
3. Planned capital improvements, including new sidings, siding
extensions, and installation of double track and industry track.
Based on OEA's initial screening of topics pertinent to the
Proposed Acquisition and on the fact that no comments were received on
the topics of land use, recreation, geology, soils, and aesthetics, the
Draft EIS will not analyze these topics.
Environmental Impact Categories
The EIS will analyze potential impacts of the Proposed Acquisition
on the environment, including the areas of: freight and passenger rail
capacity and safety, including hazardous materials transport safety;
roadway/rail at-grade crossings, including safety, delay, and emergency
response delay; transportation systems; noise; air quality and climate
change; energy; cultural resources; hazardous waste sites; natural
resources, water resources, and navigation; environmental justice; and
cumulative impacts as described below.
1. Freight and Passenger Rail Capacity and Safety
The EIS will:
A. For rail line segments on which rail traffic is projected to
meet or exceed the Board's thresholds for environmental review as a
result of the Proposed Acquisition, describe projected freight rail
operations and analyze the potential for increased probability of train
accidents including derailments, as appropriate.
B. For rail line segments with existing passenger rail traffic and
a projected average increase of one or more freight trains per day,
describe projected passenger rail operations and analyze the potential
for increased probability of train accidents including derailments, as
appropriate.
C. Determine adequacy of freight rail capacity.
D. For rail line segments with existing passenger rail traffic and
a projected increase of one or more freight trains per day, determine
adequacy of existing and proposed passenger rail capacity and any
impacts to passenger rail service.
E. Identify hazardous materials that would be transported on the
combined network, the materials and quantity; the projected frequency
of service; whether chemicals are being transported that, if mixed,
could react to form more hazardous compounds; safety practices
(including any speed restrictions); the Applicants' safety record on
derailments, accidents, and hazardous spills; the contingency plans to
deal with accidental spills; and the likelihood of an accidental
release of hazardous materials.
F. Describe the Applicants' emergency management or emergency
response plans.
[[Page 9411]]
2. Roadway/Rail At-Grade Crossing Safety and Delay
The EIS will:
A. For all roadway/rail at-grade crossings on rail line segments
where increased traffic would exceed applicable thresholds for
environmental review, describe the existing crossing delay and analyze
the potential for an increase in delay related to the proposed rail
operations, as appropriate.
B. For all roadway/rail at-grade crossings on rail line segments
where projected increases in rail traffic would exceed applicable
thresholds for environmental review, describe the probability of
vehicle accidents, as appropriate.
C. For the 25 planned capital improvements, evaluate the potential
for trains stopped on sidings to block roadway/rail at-grade crossings.
D. Evaluate the potential for disruption and delays to the movement
of emergency vehicles.
3. Traffic and Roadway Systems
The EIS will:
A. Describe the effects of the Proposed Acquisition on regional or
local transportation systems and patterns. Estimate the amount of
traffic (passenger or freight) that would be diverted to other
transportation systems or modes because of the Proposed Acquisition.
B. Describe potential diversions of freight traffic from trucks to
rail and from rail to trucks that would occur as a result of the
Proposed Acquisition, as appropriate.
C. Analyze increased truck traffic to and from intermodal
facilities where the Proposed Acquisition would result in an increase
of 50 or more trucks per day or a 10 percent increase in ADT on
affected roadways.
4. Noise
The EIS will:
A. For rail line segments, analyze noise impacts where an increase
in rail traffic of at least 100 percent (measured in gross ton miles
annually) or an increase of at least eight trains per day is projected
to occur as a result of the Proposed Acquisition.
B. For rail yards, analyze noise impacts where an increase in rail
yard activity of at least 100 percent (measured by carload activity) is
projected to occur.
C. For intermodal facilities, analyze noise impacts where an
average increase in truck traffic of more than 10 percent of the ADT or
50 vehicles per day on any affected road segment is projected to occur.
D. Analyze noise and vibration impacts resulting from the 25
planned capital improvements, as appropriate.
E. If any of the thresholds above would be exceeded, determine
whether the Proposed Acquisition would cause:
i. An incremental increase in noise levels of three decibels (dB)
day-night average sound level (Ldn) or more; and
ii. An increase to a noise level of 65 dB Ldn or greater. If so,
identify sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, libraries, hospitals,
residences, retirement communities, and nursing homes) in the project
area, and quantify the noise increase for these receptors if the
thresholds are surpassed.
5. Air Quality and Climate Change
The EIS will:
A. Quantify air emissions in areas where the Proposed Acquisition
would result in:
i. An increase in rail traffic of at least 100 percent (measured in
gross ton miles annually) or an increase of at least eight trains per
day on any segment of rail line affected by the proposal, or
ii. An increase in rail yard activity of at least 100 percent
(measured by carload activity), or
iii. An average increase in truck traffic of more than 10 percent
of the average daily traffic or 50 vehicles per day on any affected
road segment.
B. If the Proposed Acquisition would affect Class I or
nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act, quantify air emissions
where the Proposed Acquisition would result in:
i. An increase in rail traffic of at least 50 percent (measured in
gross ton miles annually) or an increase of at least three trains per
day on any segment of rail line,
ii. An increase in rail yard activity of at least 20 percent
(measured by carload activity), or
iii. An average increase in truck traffic of more than 10 percent
of the average daily traffic or 50 vehicles per day on a given road
segment.
C. State whether any expected increased emissions are within the
parameters established by the applicable State Implementation Plan.
D. Discuss potential air emissions increases from vehicle delays at
roadway/rail at-grade crossings where the crossing is projected to
experience a change in rail traffic arising from the Proposed
Acquisition that would exceed the threshold described above.
E. Evaluate the air emissions and air quality impacts from
potential changes in operation of trains and changes in truck traffic
that would result from the Proposed Acquisition, including potential
greenhouse gas emissions, as appropriate.
F. Analyze the potential impacts of climate change on the 25
planned capital improvements.
6. Energy
The EIS will:
A. Describe the effect of the Proposed Acquisition on
transportation of energy resources.
B. Describe the effect of the Proposed Acquisition on recyclable
commodities.
C. State whether the Proposed Acquisition would result in an
increase or decrease in overall energy efficiency and explain why.
7. Cultural Resources
For the 25 planned capital improvements, the EIS will:
A. Identify historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or
districts eligible for listing on or listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (National Register) within the Area of Potential Effect
(APE).
B. In consultation with federally recognized tribes participating
in the Section 106 process, identify properties of traditional
religious and cultural importance to tribes and prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites evaluated as potentially eligible, eligible, or
listed on the National Register (archaeological historic properties)
within the APE and analyze potential project-related impacts to them,
including indirect visual effects.
8. Hazardous Waste Sites
For the 25 planned capital improvements, the EIS will:
A. Identify known hazardous waste sites or sites where there have
been known hazardous materials spills within 500 feet of the capital
improvement locations, identify the location of those sites and the
types of hazardous waste involved.
9. Natural Resources
For the 25 planned capital improvements, the EIS will:
A. Based on consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
state whether the Proposed Acquisition would be likely to adversely
affect endangered or threatened species or areas designated as a
critical habitat, and if so, describe the effects.
B. State whether the Proposed Acquisition would affect wildlife
sanctuaries, refuges, or rearing facilities; national or state parks,
forests, or grasslands; critical, unique, or high-value habitats that
support threatened or endangered species; and riparian habitats and
describe any effects.
C. Evaluate the existing biological resources within the project
area,
[[Page 9412]]
including vegetative communities, wildlife, fisheries, wetlands, and
federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species (including
candidate species).
10. Water Resources
A. For the existing mainline, the EIS will, identify any movable-
span bridges that an increase in trains per day might affect.
B. For the 25 planned capital improvements, the EIS will:
i. State whether the Proposed Acquisition would be consistent with
applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards and
describe any inconsistencies.
ii. State whether the capital improvements would require permits
under Section 404 of the CWA and whether any designated wetlands or
100-year floodplains would be affected.
iii. State whether the capital improvements would require permits
under Section 402 of the CWA.
iv. Describe the existing surface water and groundwater resources
within the project area, including lakes, rivers, streams, stock ponds,
wetlands, and floodplains.
v. Evaluate potential impacts from the Proposed Acquisition on the
aquatic habitat environment and fish, including the potential effects
of stream-crossing structures (i.e., culverts and bridges) on fish
passage.
vi. Consider the potential impacts on groundwater and surface water
quality, including 303(d) listed impaired surface waters, from the
capital improvements.
vii. Evaluate potential alterations of stream morphology and
surface water and groundwater movement and flow from the presence of
culverts, bridges, and rail embankments for each capital improvement.
viii. Identify existing navigable waterways within the project
area.
11. Environmental Justice
The EIS will:
A. Evaluate whether the Proposed Acquisition would adversely or
beneficially affect low-income or minority populations.
B. Conduct enhanced outreach efforts to environmental justice
populations.
C. Identify potentially high and adverse impacts to minority and
low-income populations.
D. Determine whether those impacts are disproportionately borne by
minority and low-income populations.
12. Cumulative Impacts
The EIS will:
A. Evaluate the cumulative and incremental impacts of the Proposed
Acquisition when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions in the project area, as appropriate.
13. Mitigation Measures
The EIS will:
A. Describe any actions that are proposed to mitigate adverse
environmental impacts, indicating why the proposed mitigation is
appropriate.
Decided: February 15, 2022.
By the Board, Danielle Gosselin, Acting Director, Office of
Environmental Analysis.
Brendetta Jones,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2022-03579 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 18, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.