Notice2024-14740
Green Eagle Railroad-Construction and Operation Exemption-Line of Railroad in Maverick County, Texas
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
July 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Surface Transportation Board
Abstract
On December 14, 2023, Green Eagle Railroad, LLC (GER), a subsidiary of Puerto Verde Holdings (PVH), filed a petition with the Board for authority to construct and operate approximately 1.3 miles of new common carrier rail line (the Line) in Maverick County, Texas (Proposed Action). 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 environmental and historic impacts related to the Line and the PVGTB Project of the availability of the Final Scope of Study (Final Scope) for the EIS.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 130 (Monday, July 8, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55995-56000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14740]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. FD 36652]
Green Eagle Railroad--Construction and Operation Exemption--Line
of Railroad in Maverick County, Texas
AGENCY: Lead: Surface Transportation Board (Board); Cooperating: United
States Coast Guard (USCG).
ACTION: Notice of availability of the final scope of study for the
environmental impact statement (EIS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 14, 2023, Green Eagle Railroad, LLC (GER), a
subsidiary of Puerto Verde Holdings (PVH), filed a petition with the
Board for authority to construct and operate approximately 1.3 miles of
new common carrier rail line (the Line) in Maverick County, Texas
(Proposed Action). 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 environmental and historic
impacts related to the Line and the PVGTB Project of the availability
of the Final Scope of Study (Final Scope) for the EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Poole, Office of Environmental
Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, c/o VHB, 1001 G Street NW,
Suite 1125, Washington, DC 20001; send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d3e3233293c3e291d3a2f383833383c3a31382f2f38342e733e3230"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9efdf1f0eafffdeadef9ecfbfbf0fbfff9f2fbececfbf7edb0fdf1f3">[email protected]</span></a>; call (202) 934-3330; or call OEA's toll-
free number (888) 319-2337. Reference Docket No. FD 36652 in all
communications. If you require an accommodation under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245. For information
about the environmental review process, you may visit the Board-
sponsored project website at <a href="http://www.greeneaglerreis.com">www.greeneaglerreis.com</a> or the Board's
website at <a href="http://www.stb.gov">www.stb.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
GER proposes to construct and operate an approximately 1.3-mile
rail line that would extend from the United States/Mexico border to the
existing Union Pacific Railroad (UP) connection
[[Page 55996]]
at approximately UP milepost 31. The Line would cross the Rio Grande
River on a new rail bridge (Rail Bridge) and be part of a larger
project proposed by PVH, the Puerto Verde Global Trade Bridge project
(PVGTB Project), consisting of a new trade corridor for freight rail
and commercial motor vehicles between Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico,
and Eagle Pass, Texas, United States. The Board's Office of
Environmental Analysis (OEA) determined that construction and operation
of the Line has the potential to result in significant environmental
impacts; therefore, the preparation of an EIS is appropriate pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370m-
11) and related environmental laws, including section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108). In
addition to the Line, the PVGTB Project in the United States includes a
new commercial motor vehicle roadway that would cross the Rio Grande
River on a new road bridge (Road Bridge) separate from the Rail Bridge;
a control tower; and inspection facilities. Only the Line requires
licensing authority from the Board. Separately from the Board's final
decision on GER's request for authority to construct and operate the
Line under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the proposed bridges would require permits
from USCG and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition,
the Line and the PVGTB Project would require authorization from the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to ensure that the
Line and the PVGTB Project do not obstruct the normal flow or flood
flows of the Rio Grande River. USCG will participate as a Cooperating
Agency in the EIS process. Because USCG, USACE, and IBWC will have
actions related to the Proposed Action that require NEPA review, the
EIS in this proceeding will analyze the impacts of all the related
actions, as appropriate.
The Board's Role in This Proceeding
Board authority is required for the construction and operation of a
new common carrier railroad line such as the Line (49 U.S.C. 10901;
U.S.C. 10502). The Board will review GER's request for authority to
construct and operate the Line through two parallel but distinct
processes: (1) the transportation-related process that will examine
whether the Line satisfies the criteria for an exemption under section
10502; and (2) the environmental review process that is being conducted
by OEA.
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.
Environmental Review Process
On March 29, 2024, 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. 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 the request for authority is made. OEA is
responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with NEPA and related
environmental statutes, including section 106 of the NHPA and section 7
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). USCG is
participating in the environmental and historic review process as a
Cooperating Agency pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.8. OEA and
USCG will prepare this EIS in accordance with NEPA and related
environmental laws, the Board's environmental regulations (49 CFR part
1105), and USCG's NEPA implementing regulations (COMDTINST 5090.1). The
EIS is intended to provide the Board; USCG; USACE; IBWC; other Federal,
State, and local agencies; federally recognized Tribes; and the public
with clear and concise information on the potential environmental and
historic impacts of the Proposed Action, an alternative route that OEA
believes would be reasonable, the No-Action Alternative, and all the
related actions. Additional information on OEA's scope of environmental
analysis for the EIS is described below.
Purpose and Need
The proposed Federal action here is the Board's decision to
authorize with appropriate conditions or to deny GER's request for
authority to construct and operate the Line. The Line is not a Federal
Government-proposed or sponsored project. Thus, the project's purpose
and need should be informed by both the private applicant's goals and
the Board's enabling statute--the Interstate Commerce Act (ICC), as
amended by the ICC Termination Act, Public Law 104-188, 109 Stat. 803
(1996).
GER's purpose for constructing and operating the Line is to develop
an economically viable solution to meet the need for border
infrastructure improvements at Eagle Pass that increases safety and
facilitates binational trade between the United States and Mexico.
According to GER, the Line would resolve rail and truck congestion,
reduce cross border wait times, and route rail traffic around the urban
center of Eagle Pass.
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Proposed Action
According to GER, the Line would be a secure, double-tracked rail
corridor with no roadway/rail at-grade crossings, extending from the
interchange point with the UP tracks at approximately UP milepost 31 on
the Eagle Pass Subdivision near UP's Clark's Park Yard, for
approximately 1.3 miles southwest to the United States/Mexico border.
The Line would cross the Rio Grande River on the Rail Bridge and would
be elevated on a 100-foot-wide earthen embankment. The total width of
the Line, including the service roads, would be approximately 160 feet.
A non-intrusive inspection (NII) facility and noise barriers would be
located within the right-of-way. The Line would be fully fenced,
monitored, and patrolled by security personnel on a service road. In
addition to the Line, which requires Board authority, the PVGTB Project
would include a new commercial motor vehicle roadway that would cross
the Rio Grande River on the Road Bridge; a control tower; and truck
inspection facilities. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would
operate the inspection facilities. PVH would either lease the
facilities to CBP; transfer ownership of the facilities to the General
Services Administration (GSA); or operate the inspection facilities as
a privately owned Central Examination Station under 19 CFR part 118. A
variety of commodities would move to and from Mexico over the Line and
roadway. Trains operating on the Line would consist of approximately
150 cars with two locomotives on the front end and one on the rear end,
for an approximate train length of 9,300 feet.
USCG will issue a decision on a proposed Federal action whether to
grant or deny GER's request for a permit to construct and operate the
proposed bridges across the Rio Grande River and will participate as a
Cooperating Agency in the EIS process. Permits will also be required
from USACE and IBWC. The EIS will analyze the impacts of constructing
and operating the Line as
[[Page 55997]]
well as the other parts of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.
Alternatives To Be Carried Forward in the EIS
The EIS will analyze and compare the potential impacts of
construction and operation of the Proposed Action, reasonable
alternative routes, and the No-Action Alternative (denial of
construction and operation authority). Following consultation with
USCG; USACE; IBWC; other appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies; Tribes; other affected stakeholders; the public; and GER, OEA
has determined that the reasonable alternatives that the EIS will
analyze in detail are:
<bullet> Proposed Action (Southern Rail Alternative), GER's
preferred route. GER originally proposed a route that would have
diverged from the UP mainline at approximate milepost 31, crossed Seco
Creek, curved to the south of Seco Creek on an embankment, crossed over
Rodriguez Street, Barrera Street, and U.S. 277 (Del Rio Boulevard)
using bridges with an embankment in between, traversed an undeveloped
area, crossed Seco Creek in two locations, and continued to and across
the Rio Grande River. On June 27, 2024, GER sent OEA a letter modifying
its original route. The modified route departs the UP mainline at the
same location as the originally proposed route and follows the same
route as the original route until the crossing over U.S. 277. West of
U.S. 277, the modified route curves slightly to the south of the
originally proposed route to avoid potential impacts associated with
crossing Seco Creek and continues to and across the Rio Grande River.
This route is now GER's preferred alternative route and is referred to
as the Southern Rail Alternative below.
<bullet> Northern Rail Alternative. Based on information obtained
through the scoping process (including data collection, technical
evaluations, and an additional site visit), OEA developed the Northern
Rail Alternative as another reasonable build alternative for
consideration in the EIS. The Northern Rail Alternative would follow a
similar route as the Southern Rail Alternative from the UP mainline to
U.S. 277 but diverge to the north approximately 0.1 mile west of U.S.
277 to minimize visual impacts to the residences south of Seco Creek.
The Northern Rail Alternative would cross Seco Creek slightly to the
north of GER's originally proposed route, continue straight, and curve
to cross Seco Creek and the Rio Grande River on the Rail Bridge. Under
this alternative, the Rail Bridge would be located a little farther
north than the Rail Bridge associated with the Southern Rail
Alternative.
Additional information, including a map showing the routes of both
rail alternatives, can be found on the Board-sponsored project website
at <a href="http://www.greeneaglerreis.com">www.greeneaglerreis.com</a>.
Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward in the EIS
OEA reviewed and dismissed from detailed analysis several other
rail routes that GER had considered. Those routes would have run
farther north than the Southern and Northern Rail Alternatives, from
the UP Clark's Park Yard and along or near FM 1588 (Thompson Road),
through residential areas, industrial areas, and open space before
crossing the Rio Grande River. OEA determined that those routes would
be infeasible because to connect with the UP mainline, the routes would
have to cross the existing yard track used for switching, which would
interfere with existing rail operations. In addition, some of the
routes would displace numerous residences or industrial properties. The
routes would also require longer bridges across the Rio Grande River
than either the Southern or the Northern Rail Alternatives. Therefore,
the EIS will carry forward the Southern Rail Alternative, the Northern
Rail Alternative, and the No-Action Alternative for detailed analysis
in the EIS.
Summary of Scoping Process
In December 2023, OEA conducted preliminary consultation with
Federal, State, and local agencies as well as federally recognized
Native American Tribes and elected officials to determine whether to
prepare an Environmental Assessment or an EIS. OEA received responses
from the Mayor of Eagle Pass; the Maverick County Judge; USCG; IBWC;
CBP; USACE; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); the Bureau of
Indian Affairs; the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Texas
Parks and Wildlife; the Texas General Land Office; the Texas Historical
Commission; the City of Eagle Pass (Bridge General Manager, Chief of
Police, City Engineer, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
and Public Works Director); and Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas.
As part of this effort, OEA identified eight agencies (FHWA; GSA;
IBWC; Texas Department of Transportation; USACE; USCG; CBP; and U.S.
State Department) that would potentially need to permit or otherwise
authorize parts of the PVGTB Project. OEA invited these agencies to
participate in the NEPA process as Cooperating Agencies. Only USCG
accepted OEA's Cooperating Agency invitation.
Based on initial information provided by GER, preliminary
consultation with agencies and elected officials, and preliminary
analysis, OEA determined that the preparation of an EIS is appropriate
in this case. The scoping process began on March 29, 2024, when OEA
issued the NOI and published the NOI in the Federal Register. The NOI
announced OEA's intent to prepare an EIS, solicited comments on the
scope of the EIS, and provided information on public scoping meetings.
Simultaneously with the issuance of the NOI, OEA sent scoping letters
to potentially interested Federal, State, and local agencies as well as
six federally recognized Native American Tribes.
To inform the public of the issuance of the NOI and the public
meetings, OEA posted online Google banner advertisements (banner ads)
focusing on the Eagle Pass area; mailed postcards to 723 property
owners in the vicinity of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB
Project; and sent letters to 78 community leaders in the Eagle Pass
area along with a flyer that could be shared with their respective
communities. OEA sent letters to Federal, State, and local elected
officials in Eagle Pass and Maverick County and issued a press release.
During scoping, which lasted from March 29 through April 29, 2024,
OEA hosted three public meetings to receive oral comments: two in-
person meetings in Eagle Pass (April 16, 2024, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. and from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time [CDT]) and one
online meeting (April 23, 2024, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. CDT). OEA also
established a Board-sponsored project website at
<a href="http://www.greeneaglerreis.com">www.greeneaglerreis.com</a> to provide current information about the Line
and the PVGTB Project. OEA set up a toll-free phone line and a
dedicated email address for the public to raise questions and concerns.
As part of the planning effort for the scoping process, OEA
determined that a majority of residents in Eagle Pass and Maverick
County reported as Hispanic or Latino and speak a language other than
English at home, predominantly Spanish. Therefore, OEA has and will
continue to take appropriate measures to facilitate communication with
Spanish speakers. For example, all public scoping materials were made
available in both English and Spanish. OEA also provided simultaneous
interpretation and translation services from English to Spanish and
from Spanish to English at the in-person public scoping meetings held
in Eagle
[[Page 55998]]
Pass and at the public scoping meeting held online. In addition, this
Final Scope is being made available in Spanish as well as English.
In total, during scoping, OEA received 174 comments, 41 of which
were oral comments given at the public scoping meetings and 133 of
which were written comments. OEA summarized and responded to the
substantive comments received below.
Summary of Scoping Comments
<bullet> Purpose and Need: Commenters questioned the need for the
PVGTB Project, noting that the existing commercial motor vehicle
crossing at Eagle Pass has sufficient capacity to accommodate present
and future commercial vehicles. Other commenters noted the development
and economic benefits to be derived from the PVGTB Project. The Purpose
and Need for the Line and the PVGTB Project is discussed above.
<bullet> Proposed Action and Alternatives: Commenters suggested
alternative alignments for the Line through undeveloped areas farther
to the north of Eagle Pass than GER's originally proposed rail route.
Commenters questioned the efficiency of the Line because of its length
and alleged deficiencies in operational planning. Some commenters asked
that OEA consider routing traffic to and from the proposed truck
screening facility (part of the PVGTB Project) via a new north-south
road perpendicular to FM 1589 and connecting to U.S. 277 across from FM
1588. As noted above, the EIS will evaluate the Southern Rail
Alternative, the Northern Rail Alternative, and the No-Action
Alternative. The EIS will also discuss alternatives considered but not
carried forward for detailed analysis.
<bullet> Freight Rail Safety: Commenters expressed concerns about
the potential transportation of hazardous materials through inhabited
areas and the associated risk of accidental spills and contamination,
referencing the 2023 accident in Palestine, Ohio, and emphasizing the
risk of spill-induced injuries or fatalities, such as cancer risks and
other illnesses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
only Federal agency that submitted scoping comments, recommended that
the EIS include a response plan for the accidental release of hazardous
materials and a discussion of how applicable regulations would be
applied to the construction and operation of the Line and associated
facilities. Commenters also noted the benefits of moving rail traffic
away from the downtown area of Eagle Pass and of constructing a secure
rail line. As described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will assess
rail safety impacts, including the risks of derailments and accidental
spills, as appropriate.
<bullet> Roadway Capacity: Commenters raised concerns about the
congestion that the roadway part of the PVGTB Project could create on
local roads, especially along U.S. 277 (Del Rio Boulevard) and FM 1589
(Hopedale Road), which provides access to and from the Hopedale
neighborhood. Commenters stated that the proposed roadway would
conflict with existing roadway plans and asked that impacts on existing
infrastructure be considered. Commenters were also concerned that
increased congestion could affect emergency vehicle response times. As
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address traffic and
roadway system impacts and will consider potential mitigation measures
to address impacts related to traffic and roadway systems, as
appropriate.
<bullet> Roadway Safety: Commenters raised concerns about the risks
associated with the transportation of hazardous materials by truck. A
commenter suggested that the PVGTB Project would improve safety,
considering the current congestion involving automobiles and trucks in
Eagle Pass and noting a recent accident involving hazardous materials
that occurred off Veterans Boulevard because of heavy traffic. As
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will analyze roadway safety
impacts, as appropriate.
<bullet> Noise and Vibration: Commenters expressed concerns about
train noise on houses and schools near the Line, including potential
health effects from noise. A commenter observed that the City of Eagle
Pass has spent approximately 15 years trying to establish quiet zones
for the existing grade crossings that would no longer be traversed by
trains if the Board approves the Line. Commenters also raised concerns
about vibration from both construction and operation of the Line,
especially since some potentially affected houses are old and may, in
the view of the commenters, suffer structural damage. As described
below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address noise and vibration
impacts and will consider potential mitigation measures to address
impacts related to noise and vibration, as appropriate.
<bullet> Air Quality and Climate Change: Commenters raised concerns
regarding potential air quality impacts on human health and communities
due to emissions from rail traffic. EPA submitted scoping comments
recommending that the EIS provide a detailed discussion of ambient air
conditions (baseline or existing conditions); National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and non-NAAQS pollutants; criteria pollutant
nonattainment areas; hazardous air pollutants; and potential air
quality impacts. EPA stated that the discussion should address
potential construction, maintenance, and operational activities, and
that a construction emissions mitigation plan should be included in the
EIS. EPA specified that the EIS should identify all emission sources by
pollutant from mobile sources (on and off-road), stationary sources
(including portable and temporary emission units), fugitive emission
sources, area sources, and ground disturbance. EPA also suggested that
this information be used to identify appropriate mitigation measures.
The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider air quality impacts
in accordance with applicable regulations and guidance, as appropriate.
<bullet> Cultural Resources: Commenters expressed concerns about
potential impacts on Native American burial grounds and historic
cemeteries known to be present in the project area. The Final Scope
reflects that the EIS will consider impacts on cultural and tribal
resources as well as potential mitigation measures to address impacts
on cultural resources, as appropriate.
<bullet> Water Resources: Commenters raised concerns regarding
impacts from construction in the floodplains of the Rio Grande River,
Seco Creek, and Elm Creek, and how construction could affect flood
levels. Commenters also expressed concerns about the potential effects
of an accidental spill from the proposed bridges across the Rio Grande
River on water quality as well as on the area's water supply because
the drinking water intake is located downstream of the proposed bridges
(as opposed to upstream of the existing bridges). EPA's scoping
comments recommended that the EIS discuss compliance with sections 402
and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), including specific segments of
the Rio Grande River near the project area that are impaired (if any).
The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider potential impacts
on water resources, as well as potential mitigation measures to address
impacts on water resources, as appropriate.
<bullet> Biological Resources: Commenters expressed concerns about
impacts on the local ecosystem, especially species dependent on access
to local waterbodies, which may be cut off from their water sources.
EPA's scoping comments recommended that the EIS
[[Page 55999]]
address the need for a plan to revegetate areas cleared for
construction. EPA stated that construction, operation, and maintenance
activities would cause increased sedimentation and turbidity, which can
affect threatened and endangered species in the area, and that best
management practices should be implemented to reduce those risks.
Furthermore, EPA recommended revegetation plans for disturbed areas and
clarification on oil, fuel, and solid waste management spill and leak
protocols. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider impacts
on wildlife and vegetation, as appropriate.
<bullet> Land Use: Commenters raised concerns about impacts on land
that was previously used for mining or as a landfill. Commenters asked
that potential impacts on UP's tracks, network, and operations be
considered, as well as the impacts on Clark's Park Yard. Commenters
also expressed concerns about the Line impeding vehicular movements on
private property. EPA recommended that the EIS analyze impacts from the
generation and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. The Final Scope
reflects that the EIS will consider impacts on land use and impacts
from the generation and disposal of solid and hazardous waste, as
appropriate.
<bullet> Socioeconomics: Commenters raised concerns regarding
potential impacts on property values and the loss of bridge revenues
for the City of Eagle Pass. Commenters also suggested that the Line and
the PVGTB Project would generate economic benefits on both sides of the
border, including new jobs, more housing, and improved trade relations.
Commenters also requested that the need for additional CBP personnel be
evaluated. NEPA requires agencies to evaluate the ``environmental
impact'' and any unavoidable adverse ``environmental effects'' of a
proposed action. A potential change in property values would not be an
effect on the environment. Therefore, the Final Scope reflects that the
EIS will not consider impacts to property values. The Final Scope will
consider impacts from the potential generation of jobs, as appropriate.
<bullet> Environmental Justice: Commenters noted that the Line
would run through low-income neighborhoods that have previously been
subject to adverse impacts from past projects. The Eagle Pass Housing
Authority noted that the Line would be located close to two of the
Authority's housing developments, subsidized by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
respectively. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider
potentially disproportionate impacts on low-income and minority
communities and address environmental justice issues, as appropriate.
Based on the comments received during scoping and OEA's independent
analysis, OEA has prepared the Final Scope of Study for the EIS, which
is detailed below.
Final Scope
Environmental and Historic Impact Analysis
The EIS will address the potential environmental and historic
impacts of the Line and the PVGTB Project, as appropriate. OEA will
evaluate only the potential environmental and historic impacts of
operational and physical changes that are related to the Line, the
alternatives described above, and other parts of the PVGTB Project, as
appropriate.
The EIS will analyze potential direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts on the environment for the Proposed Action, each reasonable
alternative, and other parts of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.\1\
The EIS will also analyze the impacts of the No-Action Alternative.
Impact areas assessed will include freight rail safety; grade crossing
safety and delay; roadway safety and capacity; noise and vibration; air
quality and climate change; energy; geology and soils; cultural
resources; hazardous materials release sites; biological resources;
water resources (including wetlands and other waters of the United
States); land use; socioeconomics; visual resources; environmental
justice; cumulative impacts; and transboundary impacts, as described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NEPA requires the Board to consider direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts. Direct and indirect impacts are both caused by
the action. 40 CFR 1508.1(i)(1) and (2). A cumulative impact is the
``incremental effects of the action when added to the effects of
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions.'' 40 CFR 1508.1(i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Impact Categories
1. Freight Rail Safety
The EIS will:
A. Describe projected rail operations and analyze the potential for
changes in the probability of train accidents, including derailments,
as appropriate.
B. Identify hazardous materials that could be transported and the
likelihood of an accidental release of hazardous materials and its
consequences.
2. Grade Crossing Safety
The EIS will:
A. Evaluate potential impacts on road/rail grade crossing safety
and analyze the potential for a change in the rate of accidents related
to the proposed rail operations, as appropriate.
3. Grade Crossing Delay
The EIS will:
A. Describe existing crossing delays and analyze the potential for
changes in delays related to the proposed rail operations, as
appropriate.
B. Evaluate the potential for disruptions and delays to the
movement of emergency vehicles.
4. Roadway Safety
The EIS will:
A. Describe and analyze changes in crash frequencies for relevant
roadway segments and intersections, as appropriate.
5. Roadway Capacity
The EIS will:
A. Evaluate the effect of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB
Project on affected roadway segments, as appropriate. The EIS will
analyze the volume to capacity ratio of each of the roadway segments
and levels of service at relevant intersections.
6. Noise and Vibration
The EIS will:
A. Describe the potential noise and vibration effects of the Line
and other parts of the PVGTB Project during construction, as
appropriate.
B. Describe the potential noise and vibration effects of the Line
and other parts of the PVGTB Project during operation, as appropriate.
C. Determine, as appropriate, whether the Line and other parts of
the PVGTB Project 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,
the EIS will 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
using applicable thresholds defined by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA).
7. Air Quality and Climate Change
The EIS will:
A. Quantify emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases
resulting from construction and operation of the Line and other parts
of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.
B. Analyze the potential impacts of climate change on the Line and
other
[[Page 56000]]
parts of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.
8. Energy
The EIS will:
A. Describe the effects of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB
Project on the transportation of energy resources, as appropriate.
B. Describe the effects of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB
Project on recyclable commodities, as appropriate.
C. State whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project
would result in an increase or decrease in overall energy efficiency
and explain why, as appropriate.
9. Geology and Soils
The EIS will:
A. Describe geology, topography, and soils within the project area.
B. Evaluate potential effects on geological, topographical, and
soil conditions from the construction of the Line and other parts of
the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.
10. Cultural Resources
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 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.
11. Hazardous Materials Release Sites
The EIS will:
A. Identify known hazardous waste sites or sites where there have
been known hazardous material spills within 500 feet of the Line and
other parts of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate; identify the location
of those sites and the types of hazardous waste involved.
B. Assess the risk from construction associated with each
identified site.
12. Biological Resources
The EIS will:
A. Based on consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
identify whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project would be
likely to adversely affect endangered or threatened species or areas
designated as a critical habitat, as appropriate, and if so, describe
the effects.
B. Evaluate biological resources within the project area, including
vegetative communities, wildlife, aquatic resources, wetlands, and
federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species (including
candidate species).
C. Assess qualitatively the effects of the Line and other parts of
the PVGTB Project on wildlife, as appropriate. Effects may include
displacement, habitat fragmentation, and vehicular collisions as well
as behavioral and noise-related impacts.
13. Water Resources
The EIS will:
A. Identify whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project,
as appropriate, would require permits under section 404 of the CWA and
whether any designated wetlands or 100-year floodplains would be
affected.
B. Identify whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project,
as appropriate, would require permits under section 402 of the CWA.
C. Identify whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project,
as appropriate, would require permits under sections 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act.
D. Evaluate the effects of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB
Project, as appropriate, on surface waters, water quality, wetlands,
floodplains, and groundwater resources, including 303(d)-listed
impaired surface waters, if any.
14. Land Use
The EIS will:
A. Evaluate the effects of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB
Project on land use, as appropriate. Such impacts may include
incompatibility with existing land uses; conversion of land to railroad
use; and compatibility with conservation easements and other
encumbrances on privately owned land, as applicable.
15. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
A. Analyze economic effects of constructing and operating the Line
and other parts of the PVTGB Project, including direct and induced job
creation, as appropriate.
16. Visual Resources
The EIS will:
A. Describe the potential effects of the Line and other parts of
the PVGTB Project on the existing visual character of, and quality of
views from, the vicinity of the project area, as appropriate.
B. Include visualizations illustrating how the Line and other parts
of the PVGTB Project would affect views from select locations, as
appropriate.
17. Environmental Justice
The EIS will:
A. Evaluate whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project
would adversely or beneficially affect low-income or minority
populations, as appropriate.
B. Determine whether adverse impacts would be disproportionately
borne by minority and low-income populations.
18. Cumulative Impacts
The EIS will:
A. Evaluate the cumulative effects of the Line and other parts of
the PVGTB Project, when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions, as appropriate.
19. Transboundary Impacts
The EIS will:
A. Describe the impacts of constructing the Line and other parts of
the PVGTB Project on resources located across the Mexico/United States
border, as appropriate.
20. Mitigation Measures
The EIS will:
A. Describe any measures that are proposed to mitigate adverse
environmental or historic impacts, indicating why the proposed
mitigation is appropriate.
By the Board, Danielle Gosselin, Director, Office of
Environmental Analysis.
Stefan Rice,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2024-14740 Filed 7-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 8, 2024.
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.