Notice2026-05179
Union Pacific Railroad Company-Construction & Operation Exemption-in Maricopa County, Ariz.
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
March 17, 2026
Issuing agencies
Surface Transportation Board
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12876-12883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05179]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. FD 36501]
Union Pacific Railroad Company--Construction & Operation
Exemption--in Maricopa County, Ariz.
On June 30, 2022, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) filed a
petition for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to construct and operate approximately
six miles of rail line in connection with the Pecos Industrial Rail
Access and Train Extension Project (the PIRATE project) in Maricopa
County, Ariz. (the Line). The Line would connect the Pecos Advanced
Manufacturing Zone (the PAMZ) to the UP main line west of the project
area and provide rail service for Commercial Metals Company (CMC), as
well as an alternative mode of freight transportation to future
shippers. (Pet. 2.) By decision served on September 28, 2022, the Board
instituted a proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). No comments opposing
the transportation merits of UP's petition were filed.
The Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) issued a Draft
Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) on May 31, 2023, examining the
potential environmental and historic impacts of UP's proposal and
requesting public comments, pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370m-11, and the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 300101-307108.
As discussed in more detail below, in August 2023, OEA delayed
issuance of a Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) after
discovering that there had been significant ground disturbance and
damage to National Register of Historic Places-eligible archaeological
resources within the proposed right-of-way. Following briefing on the
issue, the Board was unable to reach a majority decision on whether a
violation
[[Page 12877]]
of NHPA had occurred, and the historic review process under NHPA
resumed. On February 27, 2026, OEA issued a Final EA updating the
environmental analysis and responding to the comments received on the
Draft EA. In the Final EA, based on that analysis, OEA determined that
the conclusions in the Draft EA remain valid. The Final EA also
recommended conditions to the Board to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the
project's potential impacts on the environment and historic properties.
After considering the entire record, including the record on the
transportation merits, the Draft EA, the Final EA, and all comments
received, the Board will grant UP's petition for exemption, subject to
the environmental and historic preservation mitigation measures listed
in the Appendix and set forth in the Final EA.
Background
UP proposes to construct and operate the Line in connection with
the PIRATE project, a public/private initiative to fund, engineer,
design, and build a six-mile industrial rail branch, on land primarily
situated on the former Williams Air Force Base. (Pet. 3.) The Line
would connect the PAMZ to the UP main line (the Phoenix Subdivision)
located west of the project area. (Id. at 2.) According to the
petition, UP has collaborated with the City of Mesa, Ariz., for several
years on the project, which UP states will ``provide far-reaching
public benefits by transferring materials away from public roadways
onto rail, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions, local air
pollution, highway maintenance costs, and congestion associated with
long-haul trucking.'' (Id. at 3; see also id., Ex. A (CMC Statement) at
2.) UP states that the project, which has support from several business
organizations as well as public officials and governmental entities, is
expected to drive economic growth and expand high-skill manufacturing
jobs in Maricopa County. (Id. at 3-4; see also id., Ex. A (CMC
Statement) at 1-2.) According to UP, the Line will allow CMC, the
largest manufacturer of steel rebar in North America and Central Europe
as well as a leading producer in the steel long products market, to
receive raw materials and ship products to customers by rail more
efficiently from two facilities in Mesa, eliminating an estimated
35,000 trucks per year (10,000 from current operations, and 25,000 from
a new manufacturing facility that was scheduled to open in mid-2023).
(Id. at 4; id., Ex. A (CMC Statement) at 1-2.) UP states that the
addition of the Line will also provide an alternative mode of freight
transportation for future customers that locate along the industrial
lead. (Id. at 2, 5.)
On June 30, 2023, CMC filed a letter in support of UP's petition
for exemption, stating that the project is critical to the success of
CMC's operations in Mesa. (CMC Letter 1-2, June 30, 2023.) As noted
above, no comments opposing the transportation merits of the proposed
Line were filed.
As part of the environmental and historic review process,\1\ OEA
initiated a historic review under Section 106 of the NHPA. Section 106
requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their
actions on historic properties (those listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places (National Register)). On April
6, 2022, OEA sent letters to a group of potential consulting parties
\2\ inviting them to participate in Section 106 consultation and
soliciting comments regarding the proposed Area of Potential Effects
(APE) for cultural resources.\3\ (Draft EA 5-4; id., App. K (Section
106 Consultation Documentation).) On September 1, 2022, UP was notified
that a number of previously identified significant archaeological sites
within the project's APE remained eligible for listing in the National
Register, and that the proposed undertaking would have an adverse
effect on historic resources. (See Jacobs Tech. Memorandum (Env't
Comment E.O.-3827) at 3.) \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As noted in the petition, OEA granted a waiver of the
requirement that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be
prepared. (Pet. 5. See also Draft EA 1-7 to 1-8 (describing process
undertaken to determine that preparation of an EA, rather than an
EIS, was appropriate).)
\2\ Consulting parties include the individuals and entities
specified in 36 CFR 800.2(c)(1)-(4) and may also include other
individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the
project ``due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to
the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the
undertaking's effects on historic properties.'' 36 CFR 800.2(c)(5).
\3\ The APE is defined as ``the geographic area or areas within
which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in
the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties
exist.'' 36 CFR 800.16(d). Historic properties can include
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, buildings, districts,
objects, and structures, as well as traditional cultural properties
and landscapes, and the term ``historic property'' includes
properties of religious or cultural significance to Native American
Tribes. (See Draft EA 3-7; Final EA 3-93.)
\4\ As permitted by the regulation at 49 CFR 1105.10(d), OEA
used an independent third-party consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group
Inc. (Jacobs), to assist OEA in conducting the environmental
analysis for the PIRATE project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 31, 2023, OEA issued a Draft EA that examined the potential
environmental and historic impacts of the project, recommended
preliminary mitigation based on the results of that analysis and agency
consultation, and requested public comments. The Draft EA explained
that, if the Board were to authorize the PIRATE project, measures to
mitigate the project's adverse effects on cultural resources would be
included in the project's Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and Historic
Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP), which OEA was drafting at the time in
consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO); Native American Tribes (Tribes); other federal, state, and
local agencies; and UP. (Draft EA 3-88 to 3-89.) The Draft EA comment
period closed on June 30, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ (See, e.g., Env't Comment E.O.-3866 (August 7, 2023 email
from OEA to S. Anton, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, re
upcoming field meeting and information learned); Env't Comment E.O.-
3829 (August 23, 2023 email from Jacobs/OEA to UP re action items
from first weekly call); Env't Comment E.O.-3833 (September 13, 2023
OEA report to SHPO and Section 106 Consulting Parties); Env't
Comment E.O.-3868 (October 13, 2023 letter from Jacobs to SHPO
attaching minutes of October 4, 2023 meeting with consulting parties
re site damage update).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 28, 2023, while preparing the Final EA, OEA discovered that
there had been significant ground disturbance and damage to National
Register-listed and eligible archaeological resources in the APE. (See
Letter from D. Gosselin (Director, OEA) to K. Rice (Sr. Manager M/W
Environmental, UP) at 1 (Aug. 1, 2023) (Env't Comment E.O.-3825)
(noting that OEA made this discovery during analysis of current aerial
photography of the project area).) OEA promptly directed UP to secure
the right-of-way to prevent further damage, began gathering
information, and engaged in outreach with stakeholders.\5\ On August
31, 2023, following meetings with several Tribes, OEA delayed issuance
of the Final EA until further notice. Union Pac. R.R.--Constr. &
Operation Exemption--in Maricopa Cnty., Ariz., FD 36501 (STB served
Aug. 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 110(k) provides that ``[e]ach Federal agency shall
ensure that the agency will not grant a loan, loan guarantee,
permit, license, or other assistance to an applicant that, with
intent to avoid the requirements of [Section 106 of NHPA], has
intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property
to which the grant would relate, or having legal power to prevent
it, has allowed the significant adverse effect to occur, unless the
agency, after consultation with the [Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation], determines that circumstances justify granting the
assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the
applicant.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the issues raised by the Tribes were concerns as to whether a
violation of Section 110(k) of the NHPA had occurred.\6\ On December
11, 2023, the Board commenced consideration of the applicability of
Section 110(k) and took steps to obtain additional information
[[Page 12878]]
about the circumstances surrounding the damage. See Union Pac. R.R.--
Constr. & Operation Exemption--in Maricopa Cnty., Ariz., FD 36501, slip
op. at 4-6 (STB served Dec. 11, 2023). The Board directed UP to respond
to several information requests and to produce documents. Id. at 5-6;
id., App. 2. It also invited submissions from UP and interested parties
on whether UP engaged in ``anticipatory demolition'' of historic
properties in violation of Section 110(k). Id. at 6. OEA also conducted
a thorough damage assessment, which was memorialized in a technical
report finalized in January 2025. (Env't Comment E.O.-3990, Jan. 30,
2025 (Invasive Cultural Res. Damage Assessment Tech. Rep.).)
On June 3, 2025, the Board issued a decision stating that it was
unable to reach a majority on whether UP had violated Section 110(k)
and that, therefore, no determination that Section 110(k) is applicable
would be issued, and the Board would continue with the NHPA Section 106
process and its consideration of the merits of the petition. Union Pac.
R.R.--Constr. & Operation Exemption--in Maricopa Cnty., Ariz., FD
36501, slip op. at 5 (STB served June 3, 2025). Following further
consultations between and among the consulting parties, the MOA was
executed on February 23, 2026, committing UP to comply with the terms
and conditions pertaining to the protection of cultural resources
within the APE, including the development of a HPTP. OEA issued the
Final EA on February 27, 2026. The Final EA recommends conditions to
the Board--including voluntary mitigation (VM) proposed by UP and
mitigation measures (MMs) developed by OEA (each, an MM)--to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate the potential environmental and historic impacts
of the proposed construction and operation of the Line.
Discussion
Rail Transportation Analysis. The construction and operation of new
railroad lines requires prior Board authorization, either 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 formal application
procedures of section 10901. ``In either case, the [statute] expresses
a clear presumption in favor of approving railways.'' Seven Cnty.
Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., 605 U.S. 168, 194 (2025)
(Sotomayor, J., concurring); see also N. Plains Res. Council v. STB,
668 F.3d 1067, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2011) (agreeing that there is a
statutory ``presumption for construction''); Mid States Coal. for
Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d 520, 552 (8th Cir. 2003) (same). Section
10901(c) directs the Board to grant rail construction proposals unless
it finds the proposal ``inconsistent with the public convenience and
necessity.'' See Mid States, 345 F.3d at 552 (quoting 49 U.S.C.
10901(c)); 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). Under section 10502(a), the Board must, to the
maximum extent consistent with Title 49, subtitle IV, part A, exempt
the proposed construction and operation of a rail line 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; 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.
While UP's posture and conduct during the course of this proceeding
have raised serious concerns, the Board concludes that, based on the
record, the proposed construction and operation of the Line qualify for
an exemption under section 10502. The transportation merits of UP's
petition are unopposed. The record shows that there is currently no
rail service to the PAMZ, and that CMC, a major industrial shipper in
the area, must rely solely on trucks to support operations at its two
Mesa-based facilities. (See Pet. 2, 5, 7, 9; id., Ex. A at 1-2.) The
Line would enhance competition by providing CMC and other potential
shippers in the area with a freight rail option that does not currently
exist, advancing the goals specified by 49 U.S.C. 10101(4) & (5).
Additionally, providing a rail-based alternative to trucking would
encourage and promote energy conservation in furtherance of 49 U.S.C.
10101(14). The requested exemption would also eliminate the unnecessary
expense associated with the preparation and filing of a formal
construction application, expedite regulatory decisions, and reduce
regulatory barriers to entry for the Line, in furtherance of 49 U.S.C.
10101(2), (7) & (15). Other aspects of the rail transportation policy
would not be adversely affected.
In addition, consideration of the proposed construction and
operation of the Line under section 10901 is not necessary to protect
shippers from an abuse of market power. As explained above, the Line
would introduce a new freight transportation option for CMC and
potential future shippers located in the PAMZ. CMC fully supports the
project, and no comments opposing the project's transportation merits
have been filed.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Given the finding that regulation here is not needed to
protect shippers from an abuse of market power, the Board need not
determine whether the transaction is limited in scope. See 49 U.S.C.
10502(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Analysis. NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze
the environmental effects of proposed federal actions and to inform the
public concerning those effects. See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). Under NEPA and related
environmental laws, the Board must examine environmental impacts prior
to deciding whether to authorize the construction of a new rail line 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). The Board has ``substantial discretion'' in
assessing the facts relevant to its environmental review and the
relevant impacts. Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1512. It also has ``broad
latitude'' to ``draw a `manageable line''' regarding the scope of its
inquiry. Id. at 1513 (citing Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S.
752, 767 (2004)). NEPA does not require that the Board evaluate
potential environmental effects arising from ``future or geographically
separate projects,'' ``particularly'' those over which the Board does
not ``exercise regulatory authority.'' Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1515-
17; see also id. at 1515 (``Importantly, the textually mandated focus
of NEPA is the `proposed action'--that is, the project at hand--not
other future or geographically separate projects that may be built (or
expanded) as a result of or in the wake of the immediate project under
consideration.'') (citing 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Moreover, while NEPA prescribes a process that must be followed, it
does not mandate a particular result. See Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at
1510 (citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,
350 (1989)). Nor does NEPA otherwise impose any ``substantive
constraints on the agency's ultimate decision to build, fund, or
approve a proposed project.'' Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1511; see also
Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350-51. Rather, in making such decisions, the
Board may ``weigh environmental consequences as [it] reasonably sees
fit under its governing statute and any relevant substantive
environmental laws,'' and may conclude that ``other
[[Page 12879]]
values outweigh the environmental costs.'' See Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct.
at 1507, 1510 (citing Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350).
There has been a thorough environmental review in this case. On May
31, 2023, OEA issued a Draft EA addressing in detail the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the
Line.\8\ The Draft EA analyzed a broad range of environmental issues,
such as transportation and safety, air quality, noise and vibration,
hazardous materials and waste sites, biological resources, water
resources, geology and soils, land use and farmland, socioeconomics,
visual quality, and cultural resources. The Draft EA concluded that
UP's proposed action would have negligible, minor, and/or temporary
impacts and that with the mitigation, no significant impacts would
occur. (See generally Draft EA v-ix (tbl. S-1).) OEA recommended 74
mitigation measures to address project-related impacts in the areas of
transportation and safety, air quality, noise and vibration, hazardous
materials and waste sites, biological resources, water resources,
geology and soils, land use and farmland, socioeconomics, cultural
resources, and visual quality. (See Draft EA 4-2 to 4-13 (listing
measures).) The Draft EA also explained that an EA is appropriate in
this case and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not
required. (Id. at xii, 1-7 to 1-8, 3-108.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Chapter 5 describes the agency, tribal, and public outreach
conducted by OEA leading to the issuance of the Draft EA. (See Draft
EA 5-1 to 5-7.) That outreach included meetings with the towns of
Queen Creek, Ariz., and Mesa to discuss potential traffic impacts of
the PIRATE project. During an April 2022 meeting, Queen Creek
presented a summary of population growth and traffic concerns and
requested that OEA's review include a traffic impact analysis to
evaluate potential safety and traffic impacts and the need for grade
separations where necessary. Based upon the results of OEA's
preliminary analysis, OEA recommended several mitigation measures to
address traffic impacts at crossings, (see Draft EA 4-3 to 4-4
(describing MM-TS-1 through MM-TS-4)), but determined that traffic
impacts did not necessitate grade-separated crossings. (Id. at 3-64,
5-1 to 5-2, 5-3.) That analysis was recently updated with data from
2025, and as discussed below, the updated results do not affect
OEA's determination that grade-separated crossings are not
warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OEA received 10 comments on the Draft EA.\9\ In the Final EA,
served February 27, 2026, OEA updated its analysis and responded to the
substantive comments received on the Draft EA.\10\ (Final EA, App. M at
M-1 to M-2, M-3 to M-14 (tbl. M-1, Draft EA Comments and Responses).)
In response to comments, OEA recommended adding four new MMs; removing
one MM because it is no longer applicable; and modifying 12 MMs to
address changes to an existing condition or otherwise respond to a
comment received. (Final EA 4-2 (listing the MMs).) Where appropriate,
OEA also clarified and corrected information in the Draft EA. (Final
EA, App. M at M-1.) OEA reaffirmed its conclusion in the Draft EA that
the potential environmental and historic impacts of the Line would be
negligible, minor, and/or temporary and that with mitigation, no
significant impacts would occur. (Final EA iii.) In the Final EA, OEA
did not change any of its conclusions from the Draft EA. (Id. at ii.)
OEA also recommended that the Board impose all of the mitigation in the
Final EA on any decision authorizing the proposed rail line. (Id. at xi
(citing Ch. 4, Recommended Mitigation).) \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Comment submissions were received from two individuals, five
agencies (one of which filed two submissions), one business, and UP.
(Final EA, App. M at M-1.)
\10\ Because population growth and development in the region
have increased since the Draft EA was issued in May 2023, OEA
prepared an updated traffic analysis based on 2025 conditions (in
lieu of the data and assumptions from 2022 used in the initial
Traffic Report). (Final EA 3-2; see, e.g., updated Traffic Report
(Final EA, App. B, 2-4 to 2-6, 3-1).) The updated Traffic Report
includes a grade separation analysis for the railroad crossings of
roads within the study area. (Final EA 3-2.) That analysis concludes
that none of the proposed crossings meet the criteria for grade
separation. (Id. at 3-15 and citations therein.)
\11\ OEA evaluated two Action Alternatives for the proposed
project: Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Both alternatives include
construction of a new wye (Y-like rail connection) at the Phoenix
Subdivision and approximately 6.0 miles of rail line extending from
the Phoenix Subdivision to industrial companies at the eastern end
of the PAMZ. (Final EA iii; see id. at iv-ix (tbl. S-1).) OEA also
evaluated the No-Action Alternative, under which UP would not
construct and operate the rail line as proposed and rail service
would not be available in the PAMZ. (Id. at iii.) Based on OEA's
analysis and consultation with appropriate agencies, Native American
Tribes, and other stakeholders, OEA concluded in the Final EA, that,
of the two Action Alternatives, Alternative 1 would result in fewer
impacts on the environment and recommends that the Board authorize
Alternative 1 if the project is authorized. (Id. at xi.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board is satisfied that OEA has taken the requisite hard look
at the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
construction and operation of the Line and that the EA complied with
NEPA. The Draft EA and Final EA adequately assess the environmental
impacts of the proposed construction and operation and include
appropriate recommended environmental mitigation to avoid or minimize
potential environmental impacts.\12\ The Board finds that OEA properly
determined that, with the recommended environmental mitigation
measures, the proposed project will not have potentially significant
environmental impacts, and that preparation of an EIS is unnecessary.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the analysis and conclusions in the Final
EA, including the recommendation to authorize Alternative 1 and the
final recommended mitigation measures, which are set forth in the
Appendix to this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Board notes, in particular, that in the Final EA, OEA
has recommended additional mitigation requiring UP to comply with
commitments imposed during the Arizona Corporation Commission's
railroad crossing review process (MM-TS-6), (see Final EA 3-14), and
has expanded its recommended timing limits for train operations over
the Line to minimize the impact to roadways and to address local
concerns regarding traffic impacts at grade crossings (MM-TS-1),
(see id. at 4-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Review Analysis. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal
agencies to ``take into account the effect of'' their licensing
decisions (in this case, whether to grant UP's request for an
exemption, also called the ``undertaking'' under NHPA) on properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register. If
the undertaking would have an adverse effect on historic properties,
the agency must continue to consult to avoid, minimize or mitigate the
adverse effect. See 36 CFR 800.6(a).
As detailed in the Final EA, OEA initiated the Section 106 process
for the PIRATE project in April 2022, conducted cultural resources
surveys from May through September 2022, assessed project effects in
October and November 2022, and thereafter started the process to
resolve adverse effects. (Final EA x, 5-4 to 5-7; id., App. K2 (Sec.
106 Consultation Documentation).) During the Section 106 process, OEA
consulted with 15 agencies and 10 federally recognized Native American
Tribes (Section 106 consulting parties), four of which requested
government-to-government consultation. (Final EA x.) OEA determined
that construction of the Line would adversely affect four National
Register-eligible and/or listed archaeological sites under Alternative
1, while Alternative 2 would affect three of those sites. (Id.) In
consultation with the Section 106 consulting parties, OEA developed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that identifies requirements and
treatment measures that must be implemented to mitigate adverse
effects. (Id., citing Sec. 3.12, Archaeological and Historic Resources,
and Sec. 5.1.2, NHPA Section 106 Consultation; see generally Final EA,
App. K1 (MOA), Stipulations II, III, VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII,
XIV, XIX, XX, XXI (describing UP-related requirements and
responsibilities).) The execution of the MOA on February 23, 2026,
completed the Section 106 review
[[Page 12880]]
process and commits the signatories to meet their responsibilities
under the MOA and the HPTP.
While this project satisfies the criteria for exemption, UP's
failure to adequately protect the identified National Register-eligible
archaeological sites in the APE from disturbance during the pendency of
the proceeding was deeply troubling. UP represents that it has
instituted several new practices to ensure that, going forward,
cultural resources are not disturbed or damaged during the pendency of
the NHPA Section 106 process for a construction project. (UP Submission
14-17, Dec. 16, 2024.) UP acknowledges that failures in communications
and lack of awareness of the historic review process by various UP
personnel are ``unacceptable'' and ``in need of correction.'' (Id. at
5-6, 18, 24.) Should a future lapse in awareness or communications by
UP personnel (or agents acting on UP's behalf in connection with a
construction project) result in impermissible disturbance or damage to
cultural property, the Board will closely scrutinize UP's conduct and
consider whether significant consequences are appropriate. The Board
expects UP to take all necessary steps to ensure that cultural
resources are not disturbed or damaged during the Section 106 process
in future construction cases.
Conclusion
Construction and operation of the Line will introduce a new freight
transportation option in the PAMZ for both current and potential future
shippers. It will also facilitate the diversion of traffic from truck
to rail, thereby increasing overall energy efficiency. With OEA's final
recommended mitigation, there will be no potential for significant
environmental impacts from construction and operation of the Line.
After carefully considering the transportation merits and environmental
issues, the Board, considering the entire record, finds that the
petition for exemption to allow UP's construction and operation of the
approximately six-mile line of railroad in Maricopa County described as
Alternative 1 in the Draft and Final EAs should be granted, subject to
compliance with the environmental and historic mitigation measures set
forth in the Appendix to this decision.
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 UP's construction and
operation of the above-described rail line from the formal application
procedures of 49 U.S.C. 10901.
2. The Board adopts the environmental and historic mitigation
measures set forth in the Appendix to this decision and imposes them as
conditions to the exemption granted herein.
3. Notice will be published in the Federal Register.
4. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by April 2. 2026.
5. This decision is effective on the date of service.
Decided: March 12, 2026.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, and Schultz.
Aretha Laws-Byrum,
Clearance Clerk.
Appendix
Transportation and Safety
VM-TS-1. UP will follow all applicable federal Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Federal Railroad Administration,
and operational safety regulations to minimize the potential for
accidents and incidents during project-related construction and
operation.
VM-TS-2. UP will consult with appropriate federal, state, and
local transportation agencies to determine the final design of the
at-grade crossing warning devices. Warning devices on public
roadways will be subject to review and approval, depending on
location, by the Arizona Corporation Commission, City of Mesa, and
Town of Queen Creek. UP will follow standard safety designs for each
at-grade crossing for proposed warning devices and signs. These
designs will follow the Federal Highway Administration's Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (2023) and
the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Association's guidelines for railroad warning devices. UP will also
comply with applicable Arizona Corporation Commission, City of Mesa,
and Town of Queen Creek requirements.
VM-TS-3. Prior to construction of road crossings, when
reasonably practical, UP and its contractor(s) will consult with
local transportation officials regarding construction phasing and
temporary traffic control. UP's contractor(s) will be responsible
for local agency coordination of construction schedules, detours,
and temporary traffic control, as well as obtainment of necessary
temporary traffic control permits from the City of Mesa and Town of
Queen Creek. As appropriate, UP's contractor(s) will maintain egress
or traffic routing to allow for passage of emergency and other
vehicles.
VM-TS-4. Prior to project-related construction, UP will consult
with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County to determine the
final details and reasonable signage for private at-grade crossings
along access roads.
VM-TS-5. Prior to project-related construction, UP will consult
with the Arizona Corporation Commission and City of Mesa regarding
roadway safety and user expectations, which includes items such as
pavement markings, signing, delineators, and active warning devices
for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at proposed at-grade
crossings.
VM-TS-6. Prior to and during project-related construction, in
accordance with temporary traffic control permitting requirements,
UP's contractor(s) will install temporary traffic control, including
pavement markings, signing, and detours, throughout the project
limits and applicable work zones.
VM-TS-7. Prior to and during construction and operation of the
project, UP will work with the local agencies to facilitate the
development of cooperative agreements with other emergency service
providers to share services areas and emergency call response.
MM-TS-1. UP shall conduct train operations on or over the PIRATE
at-grade crossings outside the a.m. (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and
p.m. (3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) peak periods to the maximum extent
practicable.
MM-TS-2. Prior to increasing the frequency of trains on PIRATE
beyond two per day (one in each direction) or routinely conducting
train operations at at-grade crossings on or over PIRATE during peak
periods (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. or 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), UP shall
consult with and comply with the reasonable requirements of the
Arizona Corporation Commission.
MM-TS-3. UP shall not block at-grade crossings and adjacent
signalized intersections on major arterials for more than 10 minutes
at a time, when reasonably practicable, unless mechanical failure,
an obstruction on the track, or a similar emergency condition
prevents a train from being moved clear of the crossing. Major
arterials include Pecos Road (south and north), Sossaman Road,
Germann Road, Ellsworth Road, Crismon Road, and Signal Butte Road.
MM-TS-4. UP shall conduct the consultations required in
mitigation measures VM-TS-3, VM-TS-4, and VM-TS-5 at least 30 days
prior to intersection or roadway closures and comply with any
reasonable requirements of those agencies, unless it is not
reasonably practicable. Additionally, the requirements in mitigation
measures VM-TS-3, VM-TS-4, and VM-TS-5, as needed, shall also apply
to the Town of Gilbert.
MM-TS-5. If Alternative 2 is authorized by the Board, prior to
project-related construction, UP shall coordinate with the City of
Mesa regarding any impacts to Willis Road and the remaining part of
the Willis Road project.
MM-TS-6. UP shall fulfill all commitments imposed during the
Arizona Corporation Commission's railroad crossing review process,
as recorded in Arizona Corporation Commission Docket No. RR-03639A-
22-0287.
MM-TS-7. At least 30 days prior to any project-related
construction on Sossaman Road, UP and UP's contractor shall notify
the Mesa Gateway Airport Authority of the construction schedule and
estimated timeline for completion. UP's contractor shall also
[[Page 12881]]
notify Mesa Gateway Airport Authority when construction on Sossaman
Road is complete.
Air Quality
VM-AIR-1. In accordance with Maricopa County dust control
permitting requirements, UP's contractor(s) will implement
appropriate dust control measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions
created during project-related construction. UP will require its
construction contractor(s) to regularly operate water trucks on haul
roads to reduce dust generation.
VM-AIR-2. UP will work with its contractor(s) to make sure that
construction equipment is properly maintained and that mufflers and
other required pollution-control devices are in working condition in
order to limit construction-related air pollutant emissions.
Noise and Vibration
VM-NV-1. UP will comply with Federal Railroad Administration
regulations (49 CFR part 210) establishing decibel limits for train
operation.
VM-NV-2. UP will work with its contractor(s) to make sure that
project-related construction and maintenance vehicles are maintained
in good working order with properly functioning mufflers to control
noise.
MM-NV-1. During project-related construction, UP's daily
construction schedule shall adhere to time restrictions that limit
construction noise prior to 7:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. to the
maximum extent practicable, as set forth in Town of Gilbert
Municipal Code Section 42-63, City of Mesa Municipal Code Section 6-
12-6(G), and Town of Queen Creek Ordinance 282-04.
MM-NV-2. Prior to project-related construction outside of local
time restrictions within Mesa city limits, UP shall consult with and
comply with the reasonable requirements of the City of Mesa for a
special use permit to allow nighttime construction.
MM-NV-3. During project-related construction, UP shall implement
the following best management practices: (a) constructing temporary
sound barriers around work along the Phoenix Subdivision, (b)
routing construction-related truck traffic to minimize use of
residential streets, (c) minimizing idling construction equipment
and placing as far from receptors (e.g., homes, schools, and other
publicly accessible areas that typically have low noise) as
possible, (d) operating earthmoving equipment as far from receivers
as possible, (e) minimizing simultaneous noise and vibration-
generating activities, and (f) avoiding nighttime activities to the
extent possible.
Hazardous Materials and Waste Sites
VM-HAZ-1. Prior to initiating any project-related construction,
UP's contractor(s) will prepare a hazardous waste management plan
detailing the manner in which hazardous wastes will be managed and
describing the types and volumes of hazardous wastes anticipated to
be managed. The hazardous waste management plan will address both
onsite and offsite hazardous waste management and include the
following: description of the methods to be used to ensure accurate
piece counts or weights of shipments; waste minimization methods;
facilities to be used for treatment, storage, and disposal; onsite
areas designated where hazardous wastes are to be handled; identify
whether transfer facilities are to be used, and if so, how the
wastes will be tracked to ultimate disposal. Additionally, UP's
contractor(s) will document hazardous waste inspections on a weekly
basis.
VM-HAZ-2. In accordance with UP contractor's hazardous waste
management plan and emergency management plan, and in the event of a
spill over the applicable reportable quantity, UP's contractor(s)
will comply with its spill prevention, control, and countermeasures
plan and applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining
to spill containment, appropriate clean-up, and notifications.
VM-HAZ-3. UP will require its construction contractor(s) to
implement measures to protect workers' health and safety and the
environment in the event that undocumented hazardous materials are
encountered during construction. UP will document all activities
associated with hazardous material spill sites and hazardous waste
sites and will notify the appropriate state and local agencies
according to applicable regulations. The goal of the measures is to
ensure the proper handling and disposal of contaminated materials,
including contaminated soil, groundwater, and stormwater, if such
materials are encountered. UP will use disposal methods that comply
with applicable solid and hazardous water regulations.
VM-HAZ-4. UP's contractor(s) will responsibly handle and store
gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, lubricants, and other petroleum products
to reduce the risk of spills contaminating soils or surface waters.
If a petroleum spill occurs in the project limits as a result of
project-related construction, operation, or maintenance and exceeds
specific quantities or enters a waterbody, UP's contractor(s) will
be responsible for promptly cleaning up the spill and notifying
responsible agencies in accordance with federal and state
regulations.
VM-HAZ-5. UP will prepare a hazardous materials emergency
response to address potential derailments or spills. This plan will
address the requirements of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration
requirements for comprehensive oil spill response plans. UP will
distribute the plan to federal, state, and local emergency response
agencies. This plan shall include a roster of agencies and people to
be contacted for specific types of emergencies during project-
related construction, operation and maintenance activities,
procedures to be followed by particular rail employees, emergency
routes for vehicles, and the location of emergency equipment.
VM-HAZ-6. In the event of a reportable hazardous materials
release, UP will notify appropriate federal and state environmental
agencies as required under federal and state law.
VM-HAZ-7. UP will comply with applicable Federal Railroad
Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, and Transportation Security Administration
regulations for the safe and secure transportation of hazardous
materials.
MM-HAZ-1. Prior to project-related construction, UP shall
complete an ASTM International E1527-21 Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment for any commercial real estate to be acquired with
respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601) and petroleum products.
MM-HAZ-2. During project-related construction, UP shall
coordinate with Kinder Morgan to ensure that appropriate U.S.
Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration guidelines (n.d.) and other applicable regulations
(49 CFR parts 40 and 190-199; National Fire Protection Association
58 and 59) are followed regarding protecting closed and active
pipelines in close proximity to the project limits.
MM-HAZ-3. During the final design phase of the project, UP shall
coordinate with the owner/operator of any active exploration,
monitoring, remediation, or production monitoring wells within the
project limits to either protect the well, modify the top of casing
to be above the new grade, or relocate the well outside of the
project limits.
Biological Resources
VM-BIO-1. UP will comply with any conditions and mitigation
commitments contained in this Environmental Assessment, recommended
by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and/or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, for sensitive species, including plants, that
could potentially be impacted by the project.
VM-BIO-2. UP will require its contractor(s) to comply with the
requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as applicable. The
following measures will be taken by UP and/or its contractor(s):
a. Where practical, any ground-disturbing, ground-clearing
activities or vegetation treatments will be performed before
migratory birds begin nesting or after all young have fledged.
b. If such activities must be scheduled to start during the
migratory bird breeding season, UP will not take steps to prevent
migratory birds from establishing nests in the potential impact
area. UP or its agents will not haze or exclude nest access for
migratory birds and other sensitive avian species.
c. If such activities must be scheduled during the migratory
bird breeding season, a qualified biologist will perform a site-
specific survey for nesting birds starting no more than 7 days prior
to ground-disturbing activities or vegetation treatments. Birds with
eggs or young will not be hazed, and nests with eggs or young will
not be moved until the young are no longer dependent on the nest.
d. If nesting birds are found during the survey, UP will
establish appropriate seasonal or spatial buffers around nests.
Vegetation treatments or ground-disturbing activities within the
buffer areas will be postponed, where feasible, until the birds have
left the nest. A qualified biologist will confirm that all young
have fledged.
[[Page 12882]]
VM-BIO-3. Within 30 days prior to project-related construction,
qualified biologists will survey for the federal- and state-
protected burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) following guidelines
provided by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). Survey
results will be provided to AGFD.
VM-BIO-4. If burrowing owls are observed at burrows in the
project limits, a 100-foot buffer of no activity will be established
around the burrow for the duration of the project.
VM-BIO-5. If an active burrowing owl burrow is in an area that
requires impact, a local, qualified biologist will be contacted to
remove the owls from the project limits with the appropriate state
and federal permits. The burrows will be collapsed by the biologist
to prevent further nesting activities.
MM-BIO-1. UP shall provide the results of the survey described
in VM-BIO-3 to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) within 30
days of survey completion, in accordance with the AGFD Burrowing Owl
Project Clearance Guidance for Landowners (Arizona Burrowing Owl
Working Group 2009).
MM-BIO-2. UP shall review updated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and Arizona Game and Fish Department species lists within 3 months
of the start of project-related construction to see if any special
status species were added after issuance of the Final EA. If new
species are identified, UP shall notify OEA so that appropriate
action can be taken if warranted.
MM-BIO-3. During implementation of mitigation measure VM-BIO-2,
UP shall not remove any trees or large tree limbs or conduct
vegetation removal activities, such as grubbing or shrub clearing,
between February 1 and September 30 until a biologist has conducted
a bird nest search of grasses, shrubs, trees, and tree limbs and has
determined that no active bird nests are present. Vegetation may be
mowed or removed if it has been surveyed within 7 calendar days
prior to removal as long as only inactive bird nests, if any, are
present. Between October 1 and January 31, grubbing, shrub clearing,
and tree/limb removal activities are not subject to these
restrictions.
MM-BIO-4. Prior to project-related construction, UP shall
conduct a native plant inventory throughout the project limits to
determine if protected native plants will be affected by project-
related construction and consult with the Arizona Department of
Agriculture (AZDA) to determine if a permit is required. If
protected native plants will be affected and an AZDA native plant
permit is required, UP shall comply with the reasonable requirements
of AZDA prior to project-related construction.
MM-BIO-5. UP shall ensure that all disturbed soils are
landscaped, seeded with a native seed mix, or otherwise permanently
stabilized following project-related construction.
MM-BIO-6. Prior to any project-related construction, UP shall
develop and implement a mitigation plan to address the spread and
control of non-native invasive plants during the construction. This
plan shall address the following: (a) planned seed mixes, (b) weed
prevention and eradication procedures, (c) equipment cleaning
protocols, (d) revegetation methods, and (e) protocols for
monitoring revegetation. For any project-related construction on
lands managed by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), UP shall
seek input on the plan and approval from ASLD prior to construction.
MM-BIO-7. During any project-related construction, UP shall use
only the minimum amount of light needed for safety. To the maximum
extent possible and in accordance with Mesa Gateway Airport's
lighting requirements, UP shall use narrow spectrum lighting. UP
shall shield, tilt, or cut lighting to minimize the amount of upward
shining light.
Water Resources
VM-W-1. UP's contractor(s) will submit a Notice of Intent to
request permit coverage under Arizona Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Construction Activity General Permit (CGP)
AZG2020-001 CGP for construction stormwater management.
VM-W-2. UP's contractor(s) will submit an application for
coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
stormwater construction permits pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act for construction stormwater management.
VM-W-3. UP's contractor(s) will develop a stormwater pollution
prevention plan, which will include construction best management
practices to control erosion and reduce the amount of sediment and
pollutants entering surface waters, groundwater, and waters of the
United States. UP will require its construction contractor(s) to
follow all water quality control conditions identified in all
permits, including the Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the Section 401 Water Quality Certification from
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
VM-W-4. UP will obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act before initiating
project-related construction in wetlands and other jurisdictional
waters of the United States. UP will comply with all conditions of
the Section 404 permit.
VM-W-5. UP will obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. UP will
incorporate the conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification into its construction contract specifications and will
monitor the project for compliance.
VM-W-6. UP will minimize impacts to wetlands to the extent
practicable in the final design. After all practicable steps have
been taken to minimize impacts to wetlands, UP agrees to prepare a
mitigation plan for any remaining wetland impacts in consultation
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, where applicable.
VM-W-7. UP's contractor(s) will construct stream crossings
during low-flow periods, when practical.
VM-W-8. When practical and in consultation with the Flood
Control District of Maricopa County and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), UP's contractor(s) will minimize impacts to
streams where impacts are unavoidable, where applicable. After all
practicable steps have been taken to minimize impacts to streams, UP
agrees to prepare a mitigation plan for any remaining stream impacts
in consultation with the Corps, where applicable.
VM-W-9. For streams and rivers within a floodplain regulated by
the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, UP will design the
stream crossing with the goal of not impeding floodwaters and not
raising water surface elevations to levels that would change the
regulated floodplain boundary. If flood elevations change, UP will
coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and/or local
floodplain managers to obtain a Letter of Map Revision where
construction of bridges, culverts or embankments results in an
unavoidable increase greater than 1 foot to the 100-year water
surface elevations.
MM-W-1. Prior to project-related construction, to minimize
impacts to waters of the United States, UP shall (a) mark the
boundaries of the wetlands within Rittenhouse Channel to ensure
avoidance during project-related construction, (b) mark the
construction limits authorized in the Section 404 permit to ensure
impacts within waters of the United States do not extend outside the
permitted limits, (c) ensure that all vehicles and heavy equipment
used during construction use spill containment equipment, (d) not
stage or stockpile within waters of the United States, and (e) not
dispose of any material within waters of the United States or place
materials in a location where they may reenter waters of the United
States through drainage or erosion.
MM-W-2. Prior to project-related construction, UP shall provide
Flood Control District of Maricopa County an opportunity to review
and comment on final design plans, including proposed culverts,
associated end treatments, and other work in the Rittenhouse
Channel.
MM-W-3. UP shall provide a new, permanent City of Mesa access
point into the Ellsworth Channel to replace the access ramp that
would be displaced by construction of the PIRATE channel crossing.
MM-W-4. If UP cannot use existing ramps for construction access
to Rittenhouse Channel, UP shall construct temporary or permanent
access points per Flood Control District of Maricopa County
standards.
MM-W-5. During any project-related construction in a floodplain
regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, UP shall
comply with the reasonable conditions in its August 2025 floodplain
permit from the Flood Control District of Maricopa County.
Geology and Soils
VM-GS-1. UP's contractors(s) will limit ground disturbance to
only the areas necessary for project-related construction.
VM-GS-2. During project-related earth-moving activities, UP's
contractors(s) will remove topsoil and excess earthen material for
safe and legal disposal to an offsite location.
VM-GS-3. UP's contractor(s) will stockpile excavated soil in
areas away from environmentally or culturally sensitive areas and
will use appropriate erosion control measures to prevent or contain
erosion.
[[Page 12883]]
VM-GS-4. UP's contractors(s) will perform finish grading and
surface disturbed areas with appropriate best management practices,
where practical and in consultation with the City of Mesa and Town
of Queen Creek, when construction is completed.
MM-GS-1. UP shall comply with relevant Federal Railroad
Administration inspection and maintenance requirements to identify
and mitigate any threats to the safe operation of the project,
including those resulting from corrosive soils, where present.
Land Use and Farmland
VM-LU-1. Prior to project-related construction, UP will secure
agreements with utility owners to establish responsibility for
protecting or relocating existing utilities, if impacted by
construction.
VM-LU-2. Prior to project-related construction, UP will
coordinate with Arizona State Land Department to develop irrigation
infrastructure protection or relocation plans.
MM-LU-1. UP shall consult with the National Geodetic Survey at
least 90 days prior to beginning project-related construction that
would disturb or destroy geodetic marks E68, F517, DU2011, DU0687,
and any other geodetic marks identified in or adjacent to the
project limits.
MM-LU-2. UP shall coordinate with the Flood Control District of
Maricopa County and the City of Mesa and comply with their
respective reasonable requirements prior to beginning project-
related construction within the Rittenhouse Channel or the Ellsworth
Channel.
MM-LU-3. At least 45 days prior to project-related construction,
UP shall coordinate with the Mesa Gateway Airport to address
potential impacts to the preliminary road alignment between
SkyBridge and Pecos Road (south); confirm the need for Form FAA
7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration); and review
compatibility with airspace, navigation facilities, height
restrictions, and lighting requirements associated with the airport
overflight areas.
MM-LU-4. Prior to beginning project-related construction, UP
shall coordinate with utility providers to verify the adequacy of
existing utility infrastructure to accommodate increased demand,
ensure that industry standards are met, and minimize disruptions.
MM-LU-5. If Alternative 2 is authorized by the Board, UP shall
coordinate with the owner of The Cubes at Mesa Gateway to resolve
conflicts with ongoing or future development prior to project-
related construction.
Socioeconomics
VM-SOC-1. UP will appoint a liaison to consult with communities,
businesses, agencies, tribal governments, educational institutions,
and nonprofit organizations to provide general project information,
progress on construction, information on rail operations and safety
as needed and will seek to develop cooperative solutions to local
concerns regarding project-related construction.
VM-SOC-2. UP and its contractor(s) will consult with appropriate
adjacent landowners for coordination of construction schedules and
temporary access during project-related construction.
MM-SOC-1. At least 2 weeks prior to each temporary road closure,
UP shall alert the following of the road closure and the use of
detours: (1) schools and emergency service providers within 3 miles
of the detour and (2) landowners adjacent to any part of that
proposed detour.
MM-SOC-2. At least 90 days prior to project-related
construction, UP shall make the name and contact information for the
community liaison identified in VM-SOC-1 available to the public. UP
shall also promptly notify OEA once the community liaison is
identified.
Visual Quality
MM-VQ-1. UP shall design and utilize lighting during project-
related construction and operation in compliance with applicable
regulations to preserve visibility around airports, including
Federal Aviation Administration requirements at 14 CFR part 77
(Safe, efficient use, and preservation of the navigable airspace),
Arizona Revised Statutes Sec. 28-8462 (Airport hazard; public
nuisance; prevention and elimination), and Arizona Revised Statutes
Sec. 49-1102 (Shielding of outdoor light fixtures; exemptions).
MM-VQ-2. UP shall ensure project lighting complies with the
zoning provisions of Mesa's Airfield Overlay District, which
prohibit land uses that ``impair visibility in the vicinity'' of
Mesa Gateway Airport.
MM-VQ-3. Prior to project-related construction, UP shall provide
Mesa Gateway Airport an opportunity to review and approve the final
project lighting design plans.
Archaeological and Historic Resources
VM-AHR-1. UP and UP's contractor(s) will comply with the
requirements of the Memorandum of Agreement and the historic
properties treatment plan developed by OEA, Arizona State Historic
Preservation Office, Native American tribal representatives, and
other federal and state agencies in consultation with other
consulting parties.
[FR Doc. 2026-05179 Filed 3-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 17, 2026.
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.