Notice2023-25786
Desertxpress Enterprises, LLC-Authority To Construct and Operate-Petition for Exemption From 49 U.S.C. 10901-Passenger Rail Line Between the Victor Valley, Cal. and Rancho Cucamonga, Cal.
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
November 22, 2023
Issuing agencies
Surface Transportation Board
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81519-81526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25786]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. FD 36488]
Desertxpress Enterprises, LLC--Authority To Construct and
Operate--Petition for Exemption From 49 U.S.C. 10901--Passenger Rail
Line Between the Victor Valley, Cal. and Rancho Cucamonga, Cal.
On April 13, 2021, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, d/b/a Brightline West (DesertXpress),\1\ filed a
petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for an exemption from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to construct and operate an
approximately 50-mile high-speed passenger rail line between the Victor
Valley, in Southern California, and Rancho Cucamonga, Cal. (the RC
Line). DesertXpress plans to operate as a common carrier providing
passenger rail service on the rail line to be constructed. DesertXpress
does not plan to provide freight rail service. No comments opposing the
transportation merits of DesertXpress' petition were filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On September 17, 2018, DesertXpress' ownership group entered
into an agreement to sell the company to Brightline Holdings LLC
(Brightline). Fortress Inv. Grp. LLC--Continuance in Control--Cent.
Me. & Que. Ry., FD 36225, slip op. at 1-2 (STB served Oct. 11,
2018). Brightline's acquisition of DesertXpress was consummated on
March 4, 2019. (DesertXpress Pet. 2 n.2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 12, 2021, the Board instituted a proceeding under 49 U.S.C.
10502.\2\ As discussed below, the Board, through the Office of
Environmental Analysis (OEA), participated in the environmental and
historic review of the RC Line as a cooperating agency
[[Page 81520]]
under the lead of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). This
thorough environmental review took a ``hard look'' at environmental
impacts, selected a preferred alternative, and recommended
environmental mitigation conditions to avoid or minimize the selected
alternative's potential environmental impacts. After considering the
entire record on both the transportation and the environmental issues,
the Board will grant DesertXpress' petition for exemption, subject to
environmental conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On July 21, 2023, DesertXpress filed a letter requesting
that the Board expedite a final decision in this proceeding. On July
27, 2023, U.S. Representative Dina Titus filed a letter urging the
Board to expeditiously consider DesertXpress' petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
In DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC--Construction & Operation
Exemption--in Victorville, Cal. and Las Vegas, Nev., FD 35544 (STB
served Oct. 25, 2011), the Board exempted from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 DesertXpress' proposal to construct and
operate an approximately 190-mile high-speed passenger rail line
between Las Vegas, Nev., and the Victor Valley (the LV Line).\3\ The RC
Line will extend from a point of connection with the southern terminus
of the LV Line in the Victor Valley to Rancho Cucamonga. (DesertXpress
Pet. 4.) The RC Line's alignment will be entirely within the I-15
right-of-way except for the final mile at Rancho Cucamonga, which will
exit the I-15 right-of-way, proceed west along 8th Street and terminate
adjacent to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority's
(Metrolink's) Rancho Cucamonga train station on the south side of 8th
Street west of Milliken Avenue.\4\ (Id. at 5.) DesertXpress' Rancho
Cucamonga station will link DesertXpress' train services with the
passenger services operated by Metrolink and the bus rapid transit
system. (Id. at 6.) DesertXpress states that connecting its service to
Metrolink's rail system in this manner will create a seamless all-rail
option for travel between Las Vegas and points throughout the greater
Los Angeles, Cal., Orange County, Cal., and San Bernardino, Cal.
metropolitan areas. (Id. at 14.) The RC Line will be built and operated
on a dedicated, fully grade-separated right-of-way with no at-grade
crossings. (Id. at 4.) It will consist of a single main-line track with
passing sidings and will be dedicated exclusively to high-speed
passenger service. (Id. at 4, 18.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The LV Line has not yet been constructed. On March 27, 2019,
DesertXpress filed a petition to reopen the Board's October 25, 2011
decision, in which DesertXpress requested that the Board approve
changes to the alignment of the LV Line, including moving the
proposed terminus approximately four miles from the City of
Victorville to the Town of Apple Valley, both situated in the Victor
Valley. The Board will address the proposed alignment changes to the
LV Line in a separate decision.
\4\ An additional DesertXpress station in the City of Hesperia,
Cal. (south of Victorville) is also planned. (DesertXpress Pet. 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DesertXpress currently plans to operate 50 trains per day (25 in
each direction) between Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga. (Id. at 7.)
Trains will depart from both Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga at 45-
minute intervals and will operate at speeds up to 180 miles per hour.
(Id.) The first trains will depart Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas at
5:30 a.m. with the final trains arriving in Rancho Cucamonga and Las
Vegas at approximately 11:30 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., respectively. (Id.)
The RC Line is forecasted to attract approximately 1.5 million
additional passengers to DesertXpress' train service, compared to the
LV Line standing alone, by the third year of revenue operations. (Id.
at 6.) Travelers on the RC Line will include both passengers traveling
between Las Vegas and Southern California and passengers traveling
between the Victor Valley and Rancho Cucamonga stations. (Id.)
According to DesertXpress, the service between Victor Valley and Rancho
Cucamonga is expected to attract more than half a million riders
annually by the second year of service and the RC Line is expected to
double the number of westbound passengers who choose DesertXpress train
service for their travel from Las Vegas to Southern California. (Id.)
DesertXpress plans to commence construction of the RC Line as soon
as practicable following approval of its petition. (Id. at 11.)
According to DesertXpress, the estimated cost of constructing the RC
Line is approximately $2 billion and Brightline plans to finance the
construction with a blend of tax-exempt bonds, taxable debt, and
equity. (Id.)
Several parties filed comments in response to DesertXpress'
petition. The only comment on the transportation merits was filed on
May 13, 2021 by the Allied Rail Unions \5\ stating that they support
DesertXpress' petition. On May 5, 2021, the San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians (San Manuel Band) filed comments on environmental issues and a
request for an extension of time to file further comments. The Board
granted that request in a decision served on May 19, 2021. In addition,
the San Manuel Band, Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo Band),
and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) filed comments
regarding environmental issues on June 3, 2021, June 4, 2021, and June
8, 2021, respectively. On June 22, 2021, DesertXpress filed a reply to
the comments of San Manuel Band, Morongo Band, and NPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Allied Rail Unions is a group of unions composed of the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division/IBT; Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen; International Association of Sheet Metal,
Air, Rail and Transportation Workers-Mechanical Division; and
National Conference of Firemen and Oilers, 32BJ/SEIU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion and Conclusions
Rail Transportation Analysis. The construction of new rail lines
requires prior Board authorization through issuance of a certificate
under 49 U.S.C. 10901 or, as requested here, through an exemption under
49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval requirements of section 10901.
Section 10901(c) directs the Board to authorize rail line construction
proposals unless it finds the proposal ``inconsistent with the public
convenience and necessity.'' See Alaska R.R.--Constr. & Operation
Exemption--a Rail Line Extension to Port MacKenzie, Alaska, FD 35095,
slip op. at 5 (STB served Nov. 21, 2011), aff'd sub nom. Alaska
Survival v. STB, 705 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, Congress has
established a presumption that rail construction projects are in the
public interest unless shown otherwise. See N. Plains Res. Council v.
STB, 668 F.3d 1067, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2011); Mid States Coal. for
Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d 520, 557 (8th Cir. 2003).
Under section 10502(a), the Board ``shall exempt'' a proposed rail
line construction from the detailed application procedures of section
10901 when it finds that: (1) those procedures are not necessary to
carry out the rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101 (RTP); and
(2) either (a) the proposal is of limited scope, or (b) the full
application procedures are not necessary to protect shippers from an
abuse of market power.
Based on the record in this proceeding, the Board concludes that
the proposed construction qualifies for an exemption from the section
10901 prior approval requirements. Simply put, this is a project with a
lot of upside and little, if any, downside, one that has the potential
for broad public benefits, and one for which no issues about the
project's current or future financial viability, including any negative
effects of financial nonviability, have been raised.\6\ Extending
DesertXpress' previously approved service between Las Vegas and Victor
Valley further south to Rancho Cucamonga and
[[Page 81521]]
providing a connection to Metrolink's rail service there supports the
RTP. It will provide additional transportation options for travelers
throughout the greater Los Angeles, Orange County and San Bernardino
metropolitan areas, thereby reducing congestion on the I-15 freeway,
while also reducing air pollution and overall fuel consumption. Thus,
the RC Line will help ``to ensure the development and continuation of a
sound rail transportation system with effective competition among rail
carriers and with other modes,'' 49 U.S.C. 10101(4), and will
``encourage and promote energy conservation.'' 49 U.S.C. 10101(14). In
addition, constructing the RC line to extend DesertXpress' service will
help ``foster sound economic conditions in transportation,'' 49 U.S.C.
10101(5), by increasing demand for DesertXpress' service. As noted
above, it is projected that the RC Line will attract an additional 1.5
million passengers to DesertXpress' train service annually. An
exemption will also minimize the time and administrative expense
associated with obtaining Board approval and expedite the introduction
of a new rail service for millions of travelers and will therefore both
``reduce regulatory barriers to entry into and exit from the
industry,'' 49 U.S.C. 10101(7), and ``provide for the expeditious
handling and resolution of . . . proceedings required or permitted to
be brought [before the Board].'' 49 U.S.C. 10101(15). Other aspects of
the RTP would not be adversely affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd.,
345 F.3d 520, 552 (8th Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, consideration of the RC Line under section 10901 here
is not necessary to protect shippers from an abuse of market power. The
RC Line will not be used to provide freight rail transportation to
shippers, nor will it cause any shipper to lose access to any rail
options.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Because regulation of the proposed construction and
operation is not needed to protect shippers from the abuse of market
power, the Board need not determine whether the transaction is
limited in scope. 49 U.S.C. 10502(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Analysis. The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requires federal agencies to examine the environmental effects
of proposed federal actions and to inform the public concerning those
effects. Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87,
97 (1983). Under NEPA and related environmental laws, the Board must
consider significant potential beneficial and adverse environmental
impacts in deciding whether to authorize a railroad construction
project as proposed, deny the proposal, or grant it with conditions
(including environmental mitigation conditions). Lone Star R.R. Track
Constr. & Operation Exemption--in Howard Cnty., Tex., FD 35874, slip op
at 4 (STB served Mar. 3, 2016). While NEPA prescribes the process that
must be followed, it does not mandate a particular result. Robertson v.
Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989). Once the
adverse environmental effects have been adequately identified and
evaluated, an agency may conclude that ``other values outweigh the
environmental costs.'' Id.
In every exemption case, the Board considers both the
transportation merits and the environmental impacts in deciding whether
to authorize the proposed action. With respect to environmental issues,
the Board, through OEA, participated in the environmental and historic
review of the RC Line as a cooperating agency under the lead of FRA.
FRA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA,
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and related
environmental laws to evaluate the potential environmental and historic
impacts of the RC Line. The EA analyzed both a Build Alternative and
No-Build Alternative (i.e., No-Action Alternative), and FRA identified
the Build Alternative as the preferred alternative. (EA xv, 10-14.) The
EA also identified mitigation measures to reduce potential
environmental impacts. (EA 57-58, 61-63, 67, 90-102, 137-38, 173-76,
192, 198-200.) The EA was made available for public review and comment
between October 28, 2022, and November 28, 2022.
On July 12, 2023, FRA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), which incorporated the EA by reference. The FONSI concluded
that the Build Alternative would not significantly impact the quality
of the human environment and should be authorized subject to
appropriate environmental mitigation (FONSI 15 & Attach. A). The FONSI
also addressed the public comments on the EA. The comments received on
the EA were minor and the responses to the comments were limited to
factual corrections or explanations of why the comments did not warrant
further response. (FONSI 2.)
Concurrently with preparation of the EA, FRA initiated consultation
under Section 106 of NHPA, which included efforts to identify,
evaluate, and assess effects to historic properties that could be
impacted by the RC Line.\8\ (EA 138-58.) FRA concluded that
construction and operation of the RC Line would have no adverse effects
on resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. (Id.) The California State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) did not object to FRA's finding of no adverse effect for
the RC Line. FRA issued a final Finding of Effect report and made a
finding of no adverse effect for the RC Line on June 30, 2023. (Id. at
13-14.) Accordingly, no historic mitigation was imposed. (Id. at 8, 10
& Attach. A.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Board participated as a consulting party in FRA's
Section 106 consultation process, along with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, DesertXpress, Caltrans, City of Fontana, City
of Ontario, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Rialto, City of
Victorville, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the United States Forest Service. (FONSI 13). As part
of that process, FRA consulted with the Chairpersons of and/or
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for the Chemheuvi Indian
Tribes, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Morongo Band of
Mission Indians, the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, the
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of
Mission Indians, and identified tribal contacts for the Yuhaaviatam
of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band). (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OEA prepared a memorandum making final environmental
recommendations for this proceeding (Environmental Memo), which is
attached to this decision. The Environmental Memo summarizes the
environmental and historic review process, the potential environmental
impacts of the construction and operation of the RC Line, and FRA's
mitigation measures to minimize those impacts. (Environmental Memo 3-
8.) The Environmental Memo recommends that the Board adopt FRA's EA and
the conclusions in the FONSI, and that it impose the environmental
mitigation measures set forth in Attachment A to the FONSI as
conditions to any decision authorizing construction and operation of
the RC Line. (Environmental Memo 8-9.)
The Board's Analysis of the Environmental Issues. The Board adopts
FRA's analysis and conclusions in both the EA and FONSI. The Board is
satisfied that OEA, together with FRA and the cooperating agencies, has
taken the requisite ``hard look'' at the potential environmental
impacts associated with DesertXpress' proposal and properly determined
that, with the recommended environmental mitigation in the FONSI, the
RC Line will not have potentially significant environmental impacts and
that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is unnecessary.
As noted above, San Manuel Band, Morongo Band, and NPCA filed
comments regarding environmental issues. However, those comments raise
concerns regarding FRA's
[[Page 81522]]
environmental and historic review process with respect to the proposed
modified alignment of the LV Line. (San Manuel Band Comments 1-2, May
5, 2021; Morongo Band Comments 1-2; NPCA Comments 1.) The LV Line is
not at issue in this proceeding and parties were given the opportunity
in DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC, Docket No. FD 35544, to provide
comments in the LV Line proceeding. See DesertXpress Enters., LLC, FD
35544, slip op. 1-2 (STB served Dec. 3, 2020) (providing 20-day period
for filing of public comments). Accordingly, comments regarding the
modified alignment of the LV Line will not be considered in this
proceeding.
In addition, San Manuel Band and NPCA urge the Board not to permit
an exemption from review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). (San Manuel Band Comments 2-3, June 3, 2021; NPCA Comments 2.)
However, the only issue for the Board in this case is whether to grant
DesertXpress' petition seeking an exemption from 49 U.S.C. 10901.
Moreover, state permitting or preclearance requirements like CEQA are
categorically preempted under 49 U.S.C. 10501(b) as to any lines and
facilities that are an integral part of the national rail
transportation system. EPA--Pet. for Declaratory Ord., FD 35803, slip
op. at 7 (STB served Dec. 30, 2014); see also City of Auburn v. United
States, 154 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 1998). Indeed, the Board
previously found that section 10501 preempted the application of CEQA
to the LV Line.\9\ DesertXpress Enters., LLC--Pet. for Declaratory
Ord., FD 34914, slip op. at 5 (STB served June 27, 2007). Because
CEQA's permitting requirements could be used to deny or significantly
delay construction of the RC Line, CEQA review is preempted in this
proceeding as well.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Although the California High-Speed Rail Authority conducted
an environmental review under CEQA as well as NEPA for the
California High-Speed Train System--a project within the Board's
jurisdiction--it ``elected'' to apply CEQA on its own volition and,
in its environmental documentation, reserved the right to assert
federal preemption in response to any potential legal challenge to
its CEQA compliance. Cal. High-Speed Rail Auth.--Pet. for
Declaratory Ord., FD 35861, slip op. at 1-2, 11 (STB served Dec. 12,
2014); see also Cal. High-Speed Rail Auth.--Constr. Exemption--in
Merced, Madera, & Fresno Cntys., Cal., FD 35724 et al., slip op. at
3 n.6 (STB served Dec. 20, 2022) (finding that the ``Board is only
required to comply with NEPA'' and related federal environmental
laws despite FRA and California High-Speed Rail Authority conducting
joint NEPA and CEQA review).
\10\ While the RC Line will be an intrastate line located
completely within California, it will connect to the LV Line, which
will extend into Nevada. Therefore, the RC Line will be part of the
interstate rail network and will be subject to the Board's
jurisdiction. See e.g., 49 U.S.C. 10501(a)(2)(A) (stating that the
Board has jurisdiction over rail transportation between a place in
``a State and a place in the same or another State as part of the
interstate rail network''); Cal. High-Speed Rail Auth.--Pet. for
Declaratory Ord., FD 35724, slip op. at 13-14 (STB served June 13,
2013) (finding that a rail line to be located completely within
California was subject to Board jurisdiction because it would have
extensive interconnectivity with Amtrak, an interstate passenger
rail carrier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The project's transportation merits--expanding the broader
DesertXpress passenger service to provide more seamless transportation
to and from Southern California and Las Vegas, as well as providing a
passenger rail option between Rancho Cucamonga and Victor Valley--are
manifest. And the environmental and historic impacts have been
thoroughly analyzed as required under NEPA and NHPA, with environmental
mitigation imposed as appropriate. Accordingly, the Board grants
DesertXpress' petition for exemption.
This action, as conditioned, will not significantly impact the
quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy
resources.
It is ordered:
1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts DesertXpress'
construction and operation of the RC Line from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901, subject to the requirement that
DesertXpress build the FRA-preferred Build Alternative.
2. The Board adopts the environmental mitigation measures set forth
in Attachment A to the FONSI and imposes them as conditions to the
exemption granted here.
3. Notice will be published in the Federal Register.
4. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by December 6, 2023.
5. This decision is effective, December 16, 2023.
Decided: November 15, 2023.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and
Schultz.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
Appendix
Surface Transportation Board
Washington, DC 20423
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22NO23.254
Office of Environmental Analysis
MEMORANDUM
TO: Martin Oberman, Chairman; Karen Hedlund, Vice Chairman; Patrick
Fuchs, Member; Michelle Schultz, Member; Robert Primus, Member
Cc: Mai Dinh, Director, Office of Proceedings
FROM: Danielle Gosselin, Director, Office of Environmental Analysis
DATE: October 20, 2023
SUBJECT: Docket No. FD 36488, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC--
Construction and Operation Exemption--Passenger Rail Line Between
Victor Valley and Rancho Cucamonga, Cal.: Environmental Memorandum
This memorandum summarizes the environmental and historic review
conducted for the proposed 49-mile high-speed rail line between the
Victor Valley and Rancho Cucamonga, California (RC Line or Project).
The proposed RC Line would be part of the electrified high-speed
passenger railroad system that DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a
Brightline West (Brightline West) intends to construct and operate
between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada. The memorandum
also presents the Office of Environmental Analysis' (OEA) final
recommendations to the Board regarding adoption of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Project, including the selection of the
build alternative as the preferred alternative, and the
environmental mitigation that should be imposed if the Board
authorizes the RC Line.
Introduction
The Board, through OEA, participated in the environmental review
of the RC Line as a cooperating agency under the lead of the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA). FRA prepared an EA in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), and related environmental laws to evaluate
the potential environmental and historic impacts of the RC Line. The
EA analyzed both a Build Alternative and No-Build Alternative (i.e.,
No-Action Alternative), and FRA identified the Build Alternative as
the Preferred Alternative. (EA xv, 10-14.) The EA also identified
mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts. (EA
57-58, 61-63, 67, 90-102, 137-38, 173-76, 192, 198-200.) The EA was
made available for public review and comment between October 28,
2022, and November 28, 2022.
On July 12, 2023, FRA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), which incorporated the EA by reference,\1\ and which
concluded that the Build-Alternative would not significantly impact
the quality of the human environment and should be authorized
subject to appropriate
[[Page 81523]]
environmental mitigation. (FONSI 15, 17 & Attachment A.) The FONSI
summarized the Project's potential construction and operations
impacts, as well as FRA's proposed mitigation measures, and
addressed the public comments on the EA. (FONSI 7-13 & Attachment
C.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FONSI attached an errata sheet making certain
corrections to the EA. (FONSI, Attachment B.) FRA used an errata
sheet in lieu of a Final EA because the comments received on the EA
were minor and the responses to the comments were limited to factual
corrections or explanations of why the comments did not warrant
further response. (FONSI 2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OEA has independently reviewed the EA and FONSI and agrees with
FRA's analysis and conclusions. Further, OEA has determined that the
EA adequately assesses the potential environmental and historic
impacts of the RC Line and complies with the Board's
responsibilities under NEPA, NHPA, and related environmental laws.
OEA also concurs with FRA's selection of the Build-Alternative as
the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, in any decision authorizing
construction and operation of the RC Line, OEA recommends that the
Board: (1) adopt the EA and FRA's conclusions in the FONSI; (2)
approve construction and operation of FRA's Build-Alternative for
the RC Line; and (3) impose the environmental mitigation in
Attachment A to the FONSI.
Background
On April 13, 2021, Brightline West filed a petition for
exemption with the Board under 49 U.S.C. 10502 to construct and
operate the RC Line. Brightline West proposes to construct the RC
Line within the Interstate-15 (I-15) right-of way for 48 miles and
on existing transportation corridors for the last mile into the
proposed Rancho Cucamonga station. (FONSI 1.) The RC Line would
include two new rail stations--one in Hesperia and one in Rancho
Cucamonga, both in California.\2\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A station at Victorville connecting the RC Line to the
separate high-speed passenger rail project between the Victor Valley
and Las Vegas, Nevada, was approved by the Board in 2011.
DesertXpress Enters., LLC, et al.--Constr. & Operation Exemption--in
Victorville, Cal. & Las Vegas, Nev., FD 35544, slip op. at 2, 5 (STB
served Oct. 25, 2011). On March 27, 2019, Brightline West petitioned
the Board to reopen the 2011 decision to permit construction of the
Victor Valley-Las Vegas line along a different route than what had
been previously approved. The project modifications also include
moving the Victorville station to within the Town of Apple Valley.
The Victor Valley-Las Vegas line has involved a separate
environmental review and is currently pending before the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the RC Line is to provide an alternative
transportation option (in addition to cars) between the Los Angeles
metropolitan region and the High Desert of San Bernardino County.
(FONSI 3.) Trains are expected to operate daily every 60 minutes
between the Victor Valley and Rancho Cucamonga. (Id. at 1.) The trip
between the Victor Valley and Rancho Cucamonga will be approximately
35 minutes. Service will be coordinated with existing and planned
Metrolink service at the Rancho Cucamonga station to provide a
convenient connection between the RC Line and commuter rail systems.
(Id.) Trains traversing over the RC Line would be capable of
reaching a top speed of approximately 140 miles per hour. (Id.)
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The charts below from FRA's FONSI provide an overview of the
potential construction and operations impacts of the RC Line, and
the associated mitigation measures to minimize these impacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term operational
Analysis area impacts of the Mitigation
selected alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation............ The Rancho Cucamonga During Project
station will result design, Brightline
in traffic impacts West will coordinate
to three with SBCTA,
intersections that Caltrans, Rancho
are projected to Cucamonga, and
operate at Hesperia to
unacceptable level incorporate
of service during intersection
the 2025 Opening improvements to
Year conditions lessen or avoid
during peak periods adverse impacts to
and will also traffic to the
degrade the level of extent feasible,
service at the including optimizing
Milliken Avenue/7th signal timing to
Street Intersection reflect changes in
compared to the 2045 traffic flows in
No Build scenario. station areas during
operation of the
Project.
Operation of the Brightline West will
Project would coordinate with
increase demand for local transit
local transit at the agencies to identify
Hesperia station, opportunities to
such that the hourly best serve the needs
volume of passengers of transit users at
desiring to depart the Hesperia and
the station via bus Rancho Cucamonga
will likely exceed stations without
the available bus significantly
capacity during any affecting other
single hour. At the transit services.
Rancho Cucamonga Brightline West will
station, the Project develop and
will impact implement a parking
passengers utilizing demand management
regional rail on plan prior to
Sunday, when there operation of the
is a 5-hour period Project to manage
in the late increasing parking
afternoon/early demand at the
evening with only Hesperia and Rancho
one train in each Cucamonga stations.
direction.
Based on ridership
estimates, parking
at the Hesperia and
Rancho Cucamonga
stations will exceed
the amount of
existing and planned
spaces at the
station in the 2045
Horizon Year.
Land Use and Community None................. None.
Facilities.
Socioeconomic Environment. None................. None.
Cultural Resources........ None................. None.
Aesthetics................ The Project would During the design
have a permanent phase, Brightline
impact on views of West will design
the San Gabriel and rail features,
San Bernardino including bridge
Mountains, as well pillars/columns,
as the Southern raised tracks,
California Edison trains, catenary
Boulder Dam-San structures, crash
Bernardino barriers, retaining
transmission lines walls, abutments,
from northbound I- fencing, and
15, looking north embankments to blend
toward the split of with or represent
northbound and the surrounding
southbound I-15 as desert or urban
it climbs toward the environment.
summit of Cajon Pass. Features will be
created or stained
in muted desert
colors. Bright
colors and highly
reflective materials
will be avoided, as
feasible. Project
elements defined in
the design process
will include visual
elements that
contribute to a
sense of place and a
memorable experience
for motorists,
pedestrians, and
rail passengers.
Concrete will be
embossed with
patterns, where
appropriate, that
are indicative of
the surrounding
environment and that
create a visual link
between the railway
features and their
surroundings and
will be similar in
character to recent
nearby freeway
projects.
Water Quality............. The Project will To protect water
result in permanent quality, Brightline
increased impervious West will install
surface along the permanent water
rail alignment and quality treatment
the proposed devices in
Hesperia station, accordance with the
which will increase National Pollutant
the amount of Discharge
stormwater runoff Elimination System
and nonpoint-source (NPDES) permit
pollution in some obtained for the
areas, affecting 48 Project (Mitigation
ephemeral or Measure WQ-7).
intermittent Brightline West will
drainage features. redesign and resize
the existing
drainage features to
accommodate the
potential increase
in runoff along the
rail alignment.
Additionally,
stormwater treatment
will be designed in
accordance with the
Caltrans Project
Planning and Design
Guide (PPDG). The
100-year, 24-hour
storm event will be
used to determine
the appropriate size
of drainage
facilities need for
the Project
(Mitigation Measure
WQ-8).
[[Page 81524]]
Wetlands and Stream Areas. During Project Prior to
operation, railway construction,
crossings over Brightline West will
Debris Cone Creek, coordinate with
Cajon Wash/Creek, USACE to obtain a
and Lytle Creek will jurisdictional
require new determination for
structures in the aquatic resources.
channels. All If applicable,
crossings will Brightline West will
result in less than obtain any required
0.1 acre of permits and
permanent fill. The implement all
Project will have no required permit
permanent impacts on conditions.
the Mojave River
itself, but a small
portion (less than
0.01 acre) of
wetlands associated
with the Mojave
River will be
permanently impacted.
Floodplains............... None................. None.
Biological Resources...... Approximately 64 Brightline West will
acres of native implement mitigation
vegetation habitat and compensation
types will be strategies
permanently identified during
converted to consultation with
transportation uses USFWS and documented
by the Project. in USFWS' Biological
Permanent impacts Opinion. Brightline
occur in a wide West will also
variety of habitat obtain an Incidental
types; most Take Permit for
permanent impacts Endangered Species
would occur in Act (ESA)-listed
Desert Scrub species. Refer to
habitats (37 acres). Attachment A, for a
list and description
of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1
through BIO-57.
Geology, Soils, and Seismic activity Brightline West will
Seismicity. during operation hire qualified
could result in geologists and
impacts related to geotechnical
surface fault engineers to conduct
rupture, ground geotechnical
shaking, and investigations along
liquefaction because the Project
the Project alignment for
alignment crosses or potential hazards
comes within 1,000 related to geology,
feet of four major soils, seismicity.
faults: the Sierra Brightline West will
Madre, the San incorporate
Jacinto, the San recommendations of
Andreas, and the the evaluation that
Cleghorn faults. avoid or minimize
hazardous impacts
and will be
implemented prior to
design and
construction. Refer
to Attachment A for
a list and
description of
Mitigation Measures
GEO-2 through GEO-8.
Air Quality and Greenhouse None. The Project None.
Gas. will not result in
exceedances of the
de minimis
thresholds for
criteria pollutants
in the applicable
air basins. As
ridership increases
during the operation
period, the Project
will reduce
emissions of both
criteria pollutants
and GHGs by
providing an
alternative to
passenger car travel
and reducing vehicle
miles traveled
within the South
Coast Air Basin and
Mojave Desert Air
Basin, resulting in
a beneficial impact
to air quality and
reductions in
greenhouse gas
emissions.
Energy Resources.......... None................. None.
Noise and Vibration....... None................. None.
Safety and Security....... None................. None.
Environmental Justice..... The Project will not None.
result in
disproportionately
high and adverse
human health or
environmental
effects on minority
populations and low-
income populations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporary
construction-related
Analysis area impacts of the Mitigation
selected alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation............ None................. None.
Land Use and Community None................. None.
Facilities.
Socioeconomic Environment. None................. None.
Cultural Resources........ None................. None.
Aesthetics................ Changes in visual Brightline West will
quality from implement measures
construction will to minimize
result from nighttime light
implementation of spillover onto
standard industry adjacent properties,
practices, including to reduce glare for
the use of temporary freeway motorists,
lighting, fences, and to prevent
barriers, visible lighting
stockpiling of overflow into the
materials, and the natural dark sky of
use of heavy the desert at night.
equipment, and will Visual screening,
result in temporary such as fences, will
visual disturbances be erected along
to natural visual construction and
resources. staging areas as
appropriate.
Landscaping and
native vegetation
that is cleared for
temporary
construction areas
(TCA) will be
replaced by
Brightline West
within one year of
the completion of
construction at any
location along the
alignment.
Water Quality............. Construction of the Brightline West will
Project will impact implement Best
water quality from Management Practices
activities involving (BMP) during
soil disturbance, construction and
excavation, cutting/ operation of the
filling, Project to minimize
stockpiling, and impacts on aquatic
grading. Grading resources
could result in (Mitigation Measure
increased erosion WQ-1), comply with
and sedimentation of the statewide
surface waters. National Pollutant
Stormwater runoff Discharge
from TCAs could Elimination System
contain sediment and (Mitigation Measure
other contaminants, WQ-2), implement a
and could carry stormwater pollution
contaminants to prevention program
drainages, (SWPPP) (Mitigation
groundwater, and Measure WQ-3),
impaired water implement a spill
bodies. prevention, control
and countermeasures
plan (SPCC)
(Mitigation Measure
WQ-4), locate TCAs
to avoid key water
features (Mitigation
Measure WQ-5), and
obtain water from
existing,
commercially
available water
sources (Mitigation
Measure WQ-6).
Wetlands and Streams...... Construction of Brightline West will
bridges over the contract with a
Bell Mountain Wash, qualified biologist,
Mojave River, Brush who will be on site
Creek, Cleghorn prior to and during
Creek, Cajon Wash/ construction of the
Creek and Lytle Project to identify
Creek, will involve and protect aquatic
work in the Ordinary resources. The
High Water Mark biologist will
(OHWM). The Project define the
may require boundaries of the
temporary soil aquatic resources
disturbance and and will supervise
vegetation clearing the placement of
within the Mojave exclusion fencing to
River riparian area protect those areas
and in and around during all project
other drainages activities.
along the corridor. Additionally, a silt
fence around the
construction areas
adjacent to aquatic
resources will
protect the
resources, including
waters of the United
States (WOTUS), from
runoff and spills
associated with
construction
activities, if any.
Aquatic resources
that are affected by
construction
activities (e.g.,
clearing, ground
disturbance) will be
restored by
Brightline West with
native vegetation
within one year of
the completion of
construction at any
location along the
alignment.
[[Page 81525]]
Floodplains............... Project construction Brightline West will
will involve the use implement BMPs prior
of heavy, earth- to construction to
moving equipment in minimize the
the floodplains of temporary effects on
the Mojave River and floodplains, and
Lytle Creek, and construction
near the floodplains equipment and
of Etiwanda Channel materials will not
and Hawker-Crawford be stored within the
Channel Construction floodplain.
activities within Brightline West will
floodplains will return any temporary
likely result in effects on
temporary impacts floodplains to
such and minor preconstruction
erosion and runoff conditions.
on floodplains.
Biological Resources...... Construction of the Brightline West will
project would have implement mitigation
temporary impacts on and compensation
approximately 2,206 strategies
acres of various identified during
types of wildlife consultation with
habitat. The most USFWS and documented
common habitat types in USFWS' Biological
would be Urban Opinion. Brightline
(1,787 acres), West will also
Desert Scrub (168 obtain an Incidental
acres), and Mixed Take Permit for ESA-
Chaparral (128 listed species.
acres). Construction Refer to Attachment
impacts would A, for a list and
include disturbance description of
of vegetation and Mitigation Measures
soils, construction BIO-1 through BIO-
noise, hydrologic 57.
modifications,
facilitation of
invasive species,
and changes in
habitat elements
that increase or
decrease populations
of predators or prey
species.
Geology, Soils, and Construction of the Brightline West will
Seismicity. Project may result retain qualified
in impacts related geologists and
to ground fissures geotechnical
due to pile driving. engineers to conduct
geotechnical
investigations along
the Project
alignment for
potential hazards
related to geology,
soils, seismicity.
Recommendations of
the evaluation that
avoid or minimize
hazardous impacts
will be implemented
prior to design and
construction
(Mitigation Measure
GEO-1).
Air Quality and Greenhouse Construction of the Prior to construction
Gas. Project will activities,
temporarily generate Brightline West will
emissions of both develop and
criteria pollutants implement a fugitive
and GHGs. However, dust control plan
the Project will not and utilize
result in additional means to
exceedances of the reduce construction
de minimis period emissions of
thresholds for air pollutants, such
criteria pollutants as solar powered
in the applicable signal boards.
air basins. The
Project will result
in short-term
increases in GHG
emissions from
construction
activities.
Energy Resources.......... None................. None.
Noise and Vibration....... Construction of the Brightline West will
Project will result require the
in short-term noise contractors to
impacts to resources prepare a detailed
due to elevated Noise Control Plan
noise levels (Mitigation Measure
associated with NOI-1) in
construction coordination with a
activities, qualified noise
including monitor prior to
construction construction.
equipment, diesel Brightline West will
engines, impact pile comply with all
driving and applicable local
jackhammering. noise regulations to
minimize temporary
construction noise
and vibration
impacts (Mitigation
Measure NOI-2).
Hazardous Materials....... Construction of the Brightline West will
Project may result prepare a Hazardous
in the release of Materials Management
hazardous materials Plan (HMMP) prior to
through disturbance application for
of identified permits for
hazardous materials demolition, grading,
sites and using or construction, as
hazardous materials, required by the
either of which may State of California
result in impacts on (Mitigation Measure
human health. There HAZ-1). The HMMP
is also the shall be reviewed
potential to and approved by
encounter previously either the office of
unidentified the State Fire
hazardous materials Marshall or the San
along the Project Bernardino County
footprint. Certified Unified
Program Agency
(CUPA). Activities
identified in the
HMMP will be
implemented by
Brightline West
throughout the
construction period.
Safety.................... Construction of the Brightline West will
Project will involve implement
use of heavy construction safety
equipment on site, requirements during
earthwork, and other construction, per
major construction regulatory
activities, requirements,
including the including California
transportation of Division of
overweight and Occupational Safety
oversized materials. and Health (Cal
Throughout OSHA) Construction
construction, Safety Orders and
workers and nearby California Public
community members Utilities Commission
could be exposed to (CPUC) General Order
hazards, which could No. 176.
affect human health
or present to safety
from construction
site hazards and
accidents,
associated with
construction site
equipment and
activities.
Project construction
could temporarily
increase fire risks
in the high fire
hazard severity
zones (FHSZ) due to
the storage and use
of flammable or
combustible
materials, operation
of vehicles and
heavy machinery.
The Rancho Cucamonga
and Hesperia
stations will not be
located within FSHZ
zones.
Environmental Justice..... The Project will not None.
result in
disproportionately
high and adverse
human health or
environmental
effects on minority
populations and low-
income populations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Review Under Section 106
Concurrently with preparation of the EA, FRA initiated
consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, which included efforts
to identify, evaluate, and assess effects to historic properties
that could be impacted by the RC Line. (EA 138-58.) As part of that
process, FRA consulted with the Chairpersons of and/or Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers for the Chemheuvi Indian Tribes, the
Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians,
the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians, and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, and
identified tribal contacts for the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.
(FONSI 13.) The Board participated as a consulting party in FRA's
Section 106 consultation process, along with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, Brightline West, Caltrans, City of Fontana,
City of Ontario, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Rialto, City of
Victorville, Federal Highway Administration, United States Army
Corps of Engineers, and the United States Forest Service. (Id.)
FRA concluded that construction and operation of the RC Line
would have no adverse effects on resources listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. (Id.) On May
22, 2023, the California State Historic Preservation Officer did not
object to FRA's finding of no adverse effect for the RC Line. FRA
issued a final Finding of Effect report and made a finding of no
adverse effect for the Project on June 30, 2023. (Id. at 13-14.)
Accordingly, no historic mitigation was imposed. (Id. at 8, 10 &
Attachment A.)
OEA's Final Environmental Recommendations
After participating in FRA's environmental review, OEA concludes
that the EA adequately assesses the potential environmental and
historic impacts associated with the RC Line and concurs with the
conclusions reached by FRA in the FONSI. Accordingly, OEA recommends
that the Board adopt FRA's EA and the conclusions in the FONSI, and
that it impose the environmental mitigation attached to the FONSI at
Attachment A as conditions to any decision authorizing construction
and operation of the RC Line. OEA concludes that FRA's mitigation
measures are adequate to address the potential environmental and
historic impacts of the RC Line. Therefore,
[[Page 81526]]
OEA does not recommend any additional environmental or historic
mitigation.
[FR Doc. 2023-25786 Filed 11-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 22, 2023.
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.