[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47604-47628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17518]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Finance Docket No. 34079]


San Jacinto Rail Limited--Construction Exemption--And The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company--Operation Exemption--
Build-Out to the Bayport Loop Near Houston, Harris County, TX

AGENCIES: Lead: Surface Transportation Board. Cooperating: U.S. Coast 
Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of final scope of study for the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On August 30, 2001, San Jacinto Rail Limited (SJRL) and The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) (referred to 
collectively as the Applicants) filed a petition with the Surface 
Transportation Board (Board) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502 for authority 
for construction by SJRL and operation by BNSF of a new rail line near 
Houston, Harris County, Texas. The project would involve construction 
of approximately 12.8 miles of new rail line to serve the petro-
chemical industries in the Bayport Industrial District (Bayport Loop). 
Trains operating over the new rail line would originate at BNSF's New 
South Yard and operate via trackage rights over the Union Pacific 
Railroad Company's (UP) Glidden Subdivision and UP's Galveston 
Subdivision, also known as the former Galveston, Henderson, and Houston 
Railroad (GH&H) line, to the beginning of the new rail line near 
Ellington Field. Because the construction and operation of this project 
has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts, the 
Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) determined that the 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate. 
To help determine the scope of the EIS, and as required by the Board's 
regulations at 49 CFR 1105.10(a)(2), SEA published in the Federal 
Register and made available to the public on November 26, 2001, the 
Notice of Availability of Draft Scope of Study for the EIS, Notice of 
Scoping Meetings, and Request for Comments. SEA held four public 
scoping meetings at the Pasadena Convention Center on January 14 and 
15, 2002. The scoping comment period originally concluded February 1, 
2002, but, in response to requests, SEA extended the scoping period an 
additional 30 days, to March 14, 2002. During the scoping comment 
period, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) requested cooperating agency status in the 
preparation of the EIS. After review and consideration of all comments 
received, this notice sets forth the Final Scope of the EIS. The Final 
Scope adopts the Draft Scope, which is provided as Attachment A, and 
reflects any changes to the Draft Scope as a result of the comments, 
summarizes and addresses the principal environmental concerns raised by 
the comments, and briefly discusses pertinent issues concerning this 
project that further clarify the Final Scope.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dana White, SEA Project Manager, 
toll-free at 1-888-229-7857 (TDD for the hearing impaired 1-800-877-
8339). The Web site for the Surface Transportation Board is http://www.stb.dot.gov.

Mr. Phil Johnson, U.S. Coast Guard, (504) 589-2965.
Ms. Nan Terry, Federal Aviation Administration, (817) 222-5607.
Ms. Perri Fox, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, (281) 
483-3157.
    This document is available in English and Spanish at the 
repositories listed below or by calling the toll-free number at 1-888-
299-7857. In addition, a set of frequently asked questions in English 
and Spanish is provided as Attachment B for quick reference.\1\

    \1\ In addition, SEA has distributed extra copies ot numerous 
community groups that have previously distributed project 
information from SEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Jacinto College, Central Campus Library, 8060 Spencer Highway, 
Pasadena, TX 77505, (281) 476-1850.
San Jacinto College, North Campus Library, 5800 Uvalde Street, Houston, 
TX 77015, (281) 459-7116.
San Jacinto College, South Campus, 13735 Beamer Road, Houston, TX 
77089, (281) 922-3416.
University of Houston, Clear Lake Campus, Alfred Neumann Library, 2700 
Bay Area Boulevard, Houston, TX 77058, (281) 283-3930.
Freeman Memorial Branch Library, 16602 Diana Lane, Houston, TX 77062, 
(281) 488-1906.
Harris County Public Library, Evelyn Meador Branch, 2400 N. Meyer Road, 
Seabrook, TX 77586, (281) 474-9142.
Harris County Public Library, South Houston Branch, 607 Avenue A, South 
Houston, TX 77587, (713) 941-2385.
Pasadena Public Library, Fairmont Branch, 4330 Fairmont Pkwy, Pasadena, 
TX 77504, (713) 998-1095.
Pasadena Public Library, Main Branch, 1201 Jeff Ginn Memorial, 
Pasadena, TX 77506, (713) 477-0276.
Deer Park Public Library, 3009 Center Street, Deer Park, TX 77536-7099, 
(281) 478-7208.

[[Page 47605]]

Houston Public Library, 500 McKinney Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, (713) 
247-2222.
Park Place Regional Library, 8145 Park Place Blvd, Houston, TX 77017, 
(832) 393-1970.
Patricio Flores Library, 110 North Milby Street, Houston, TX 77003, 
(832) 393-1780.
Melcher Branch Library, 7200 Keller, Houston, Texas 77012, (832) 393-
2480.
Bracewell Branch Library, 10115 Kleckley, Houston, Texas 77075, (832) 
393-2580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Background

    The Bayport Loop consists of approximately 24 shipper facilities. 
UP is the only railroad serving the Bayport Loop. UP acquired the 
existing Bayport Loop trackage in its merger with the Southern Pacific 
Rail Corporation (SP) in 1996. In the Board's final decision approving 
the merger,\2\ and as a condition of the merger approval, the Board 
used its authority to grant trackage rights over former UP lines (but 
not former SP lines) to other rail companies to the extent required to 
ensure an equal level of competition to that which existed before the 
merger. The Board's decision included granting trackage rights to 
ensure access to competitive build-ins or build-outs. The Board stated 
that this would allow other rail companies to replicate the competitive 
options previously provided by the independent operations of UP and SP. 
The Board explained in its decision that shippers need not demonstrate 
the economic feasibility of a build-in or build-out proposal under this 
condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Merger, 1 S.T.B. 233 
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the UP/SP merger, the Bayport Loop was solely served by SP. 
UP operated the former GH&H rail line to the south of Ellington Field, 
and had an opportunity to construct a new rail line into the Bayport 
Loop to compete with SP. However, when the two companies merged in 
1996, this competitive option would have been eliminated but for the 
merger condition noted above. Through the Proposed Action, the 
Applicants here \3\ are seeking approval to create the competitive 
situation provided for by the Board's condition by utilizing trackage 
rights over the former GH&H line and constructing a rail line into the 
Bayport Loop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Applicants are a partnership comprising BNSF, BayRail, 
LLC (wholly owned by BNSF), and affiliates of four plastics and 
chemical production companies located in the Bayport Loop. The four 
production companies are ATOFINA Petro-Chemicals, Inc., Basell USA, 
Inc., Equistar Chemicals, LP, and Lyondell Chemical Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BNSF would operate on average one train each way per day comprising 
36 to 66 railcars, totaling 13,000 to 24,000 loaded railcars per year. 
The majority of the railcars would contain plastic pellets. 
Approximately 1,500 to 7,000 tank cars each year would contain 
hazardous materials or other miscellaneous inbound and outbound 
commodities.

Environmental Review Process

    The Board is the lead agency, pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.5. SEA is 
responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4335, and related 
environmental statutes. SEA is the office within the Board responsible 
for completing the environmental review process. ICF Consulting of 
Fairfax, Virginia is serving as an independent third-party contractor 
to assist SEA in the environmental review process. SEA is directing and 
supervising the preparation of the EIS. The USCG, FAA, and NASA are 
cooperating agencies, pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6. If the USCG, FAA, and 
NASA find the EIS adequate, they will base their decisions on it. The 
EIS should include all of the information necessary for decisions by 
the Board and the cooperating agencies (collectively, the agencies).
    The NEPA environmental review process is intended to assist the 
agencies and the public to identify and assess the potential 
environmental consequences of a Proposed Action before a decision on 
the Proposed Action is taken. The NEPA regulations require the agencies 
to consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the Proposed 
Action. The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which 
oversees the implementation of NEPA, has stated in Forty Most Asked 
Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act 
Regulations that ``[R]easonable alternatives include those that are 
practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and 
using common sense * * *.'' In the EIS, the agencies are considering a 
full range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the 
project, as well as the No-Action Alternative. Some alternatives have 
been dismissed from further analysis because they have been determined 
to be infeasible or because the agencies consider them to be 
environmentally inferior to other alternatives under consideration. The 
EIS will include a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating 
certain alternatives from detailed analysis.
    SEA and the agencies will prepare a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the 
Proposed Action. The DEIS will address those environmental issues and 
concerns identified during the scoping process and detailed in the 
Scope of Study served November 26, 2001. It will also discuss a 
reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Action and recommend 
environmental mitigation measures.
    In addition, the DEIS will also analyze the impacts of the 
additional traffic from the Proposed Action over those UP lines to 
which Applicants may acquire trackage rights pursuant to the UP/SP 
merger condition, namely the Glidden Subdivision and the GH&H line.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In order to determine the potential impacts over the 
trackage rights lines, SEA must establish the current UP traffic 
levels. Because UP is not a participant in this proceeding, and is 
therefore beyond the scope of the Board's jurisdiction here, SEA 
will use the best available information to characterize existing 
conditions on those two lines. Similarly, in analyzing the No-Action 
Alternative, SEA will use the best available information to 
characterize existing conditions on the rail lines that UP currently 
uses to serve the Bayport Loop and analyze the potential impacts 
associated with the decrease in rail traffic on those lines as a 
result of the Proposed Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DEIS will be made available upon its completion for public 
review and comment. A Final EIS (FEIS) will then be prepared reflecting 
the agencies' further analysis and the comments on the DEIS. In 
reaching their future decisions on this case, the Board and the 
cooperating agencies will take into account the full environmental 
record, including the DEIS, the FEIS, and all public and agency 
comments received.

[[Page 47606]]

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    Based on analysis conducted to date and comments received during 
the scoping process, the agencies have determined the reasonable and 
feasible alternatives that will be analyzed in detail in the EIS.\5\ To 
assist with the visualization of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, 
please refer to the map below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Many commenters have urged the Board to require BNSF to 
provide competing service to the shippers in the Bayport Loop via 
trackage rights over existing UP rail lines. However, the UP/SP 
merger decision directs UP and BNSF to negotiate terms for build-in/
build-out arrangements; it does not direct the parties to negotiate 
trackage rights over UP's lines in the state Highway 225 and 146 
corridors. The Board's policy is to encourage private-sector dispute 
resolution whenever possible and BNSF and UP have had exchanges 
regarding Bayport access. If they should reach an agreement granting 
BNSF access to the Bayport Loop over UP's line, BNSF would likely 
move to dismiss its petition to construct and operate a new rail 
line to the Bayport Loop. Until that happens, however, the Board is 
obligated to consider BNSF's petition in this proceeding.

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P

[[Page 47607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.000

BILLING CODE 4915-00-C

[[Page 47608]]

A. Proposed Action and Modifications

    (1) The Proposed Action consists of construction of a new rail line 
along Alignment 1 to the Bayport Loop and operations from BNSF's New 
South Yard over UP's Glidden Subdivision and UP's GH&H line. Alignment 
1, the Applicants' preferred route, has been modified to include 
Alignment 1B, which crosses Taylor Bayou parallel to the Port Road and 
UP crossings. A spur would follow part of the original Alignment 1 
route to serve potential shippers in the Bayport Loop. The Applicants 
developed Alignment 1B because of concerns expressed by the National 
Marine Fisheries Service over an area of Essential Fish Habitat 
associated with the original proposed crossing of Taylor Bayou. BNSF 
would operate on average one train each way per day comprising 36 to 66 
railcars, totaling 13,000 to 24,000 loaded railcars per year. The 
majority of the railcars would contain plastic pellets. Approximately 
1,500 to 7,000 tank cars each year would contain hazardous materials or 
other miscellaneous inbound and outbound commodities.
    (2) The original Taylor Bayou crossing was part of Alignment 1 as 
originally proposed by the Applicants. This alignment would run east 
across Bay Area Boulevard, turn south, cross Taylor Bayou, and turn 
east along Port Road.
    (3) Alignment 1C is a modification to Alignment 1 that would 
connect with the GH&H line just south of where Alignment 1 would 
connect. It parallels Alignment 1 to the south-east corner of the 
Ellington Field fence line. It continues north-east towards the Boeing 
and NASA facilities on Space Center Boulevard and turns north-west to 
rejoin Alignment 1 before it crosses NASA's access road to Ellington 
Field.

B. Alignment 2 Modifications

    Alignment 2 was developed by the Applicants as an alternative to 
the Proposed Action. The original Alignment 2 would have begun 
construction from the GH&H on the north side of the Sam Houston Parkway 
(Beltway 8) and run under Beltway 8. The route then would have run 
parallel to the east side of Beltway 8 to Genoa-Red Bluff Road. It 
would have then run east alongside Genoa-Red Bluff Road, passing to the 
north of Ellington Field and the Baywood Country Club. It would have 
continued east across Red Bluff road to join Alignment 1 into the 
Bayport Loop. SEA dismissed the original Alignment 2 from detailed 
analysis for reasons that are discussed below.
    (1) Alignment 2B, which now replaces Alignment 2, is a modification 
of Alignment 2 that would diverge from Alignment 2 by turning south 
before reaching the City of Houston's Southeast Water Treatment Plant. 
Alignment 2B then turns east across the grounds of the Water Treatment 
Plant and passes to the south of the existing Water Treatment Plant. It 
continues east, crossing Space Center Boulevard over a proposed grade 
separation and joins Alignment 1.
    (2) Alignment 2C is a modification to the original Alignment 2. It 
would follow the original Alignment 2 and turn south from Genoa-Red 
Buff Road on the east side of the Water Treatment Plant. It would then 
turn east again and connect with Alignment 1.
    (3) Alignment 2D is a modification to the original Alignment 2 and 
would turn east before reaching Genoa-Red Bluff Road. It would turn 
south before reaching the Water Treatment Plant, turn east across the 
Plant grounds, and connect to Alignment 1.

C. BNSF Trackage Rights Over UP Lines in the SH 225 and SH 146 
Corridors

    In addition to analyzing the reasonable and feasible alternatives 
described above, consistent with the requirement in the NEPA 
implementing regulations to consider alternatives outside the 
jurisdiction of the lead agency, the EIS will consider BNSF's use of 
trackage rights over UP's lines in the State Highway (SH) 225 and SH 
146 corridors to reach the Bayport Loop. This alternative would involve 
operating from New South Yard over the Glidden Subdivision and 
continuing over UP's lines in the SH 225 and SH 146 Corridors. 
Notwithstanding the unforeseeable likelihood of this event, as 
discussed earlier, SEA believes that it is necessary to analyze this 
alternative in the EIS partly for comparative purposes relative to the 
No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, and partly because of 
the possibility of a negotiated agreement between BNSF and UP regarding 
use of the track.

D. The No-Action Alternative

    Under the No-Action Alternative, the Applicants would not build and 
operate the new rail line into the Bayport Loop and there would be no 
change in current operations. UP would continue to serve the petro-
chemical plants in the Bayport Loop. The No-Action Alternative consists 
of the existing situation where UP transports rail cars to and from the 
Bayport Loop over its lines heading north out of the Loop alongside SH 
146, past Strang Yard, then west on its Strang Subdivision alongside SH 
225, and on to either Englewood Yard or Settegast Yard. In analyzing 
the No-Action Alternative, SEA will use the best available information 
to characterize existing conditions on the rail lines that UP currently 
uses to serve the Bayport Loop and analyze the potential impacts 
associated with the decrease in rail traffic on those lines as a result 
of the Proposed Action.

E. Alternatives Excluded From Detailed Analysis

    During the scoping process, the agencies determined that the 
alternatives discussed below are not reasonable and/or feasible and, 
therefore, do not warrant detailed consideration in the EIS. The EIS 
will, however, further describe the reasons for eliminating them from 
detailed consideration.
    (1) The construction and operation of the Proposed Action along 
Alignments 1A, 2, and 2A. The Applicants believe that these 
alternatives are not feasible because the construction of a single 
grade separation for Genoa-Red Bluff Road and Red Bluff Road is 
economically infeasible and would conflict with the City of Pasadena's 
plans to accommodate growth in traffic by extending Genoa-Red Bluff 
Road to the north/northeast to connect with Fairmont Parkway.
    (2) The construction and operation of the Proposed Action along 
Alignments 3 and 4. Although initially included in the Applicants' 
environmental background document, which accompanied the Applicants' 
petition to the Board,\6\ Alignments 3 and 4 now appear to be 
infeasible because they would involve new construction off the existing 
Port Terminal Railroad Association (PTRA) tracks in the rail corridor 
along SH 225. As determined during this scoping process, the Applicants 
cannot use trackage rights over the PTRA to utilize Alignments 3 and 4 
because of a legal agreement between UP and the Port of Houston 
Authority that prohibits BNSF from using the PTRA tracks to provide 
service to the Bayport Loop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This document is available in the Board's public record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The construction and operation of the Proposed Action along a 
new alignment in the SH 225 and SH 146 corridors to reach Alignment 3 
or 4. This construction alternative, which is not shown on the map, 
would involve operating from New South Yard over the Glidden 
Subdivision and appears to have several engineering challenges, and 
could have environmental and safety concerns that are more substantial

[[Page 47609]]

than the alternatives that are already under consideration.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ More specifically, construction of a new rail line in this 
corridor might also require the relocation of several miles of 
pipeline and existing UP tracks in order to create enough space 
along the existing right-of-way for a new line. The existing rail 
lines pass through land that is developed with residential, 
commercial, and industrial uses. Construction of a new rail line in 
this corridor could bring rail operations closer to homes than any 
of the other alternatives and might require the taking of homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The construction and operation of the Proposed Action using a 
new Beltway 8--Fairmont Avenue Alignment. This alignment would follow 
the original Alignment 2, continue north across Genoa-Red Bluff Road, 
run east along Fairmont Parkway, and run south on Red Bluff Road until 
it reaches one of the other alignments. This alignment may require 
taking a number of businesses and would adversely affect the entrances 
and exits for a large shopping center, adversely affect turning 
movements across Fairmont Parkway, and may have adverse noise effects 
to sensitive receptors.
    (5) Suggestions that negotiations between Bayport Loop shippers and 
UP for lower shipping rates, in an effort to obviate the need for the 
Proposed Action, do not meet the purpose and need of providing 
alternative rail service. Negotiations between the Bayport Loop 
shippers and UP already occur on a regular basis as contracts come up 
for renewal.

Independent Utility

    Scoping comments suggested that the proposed Bayport Channel 
Container/Cruise Terminal (Bayport Terminal) and the Proposed Action 
are connected and requested that an EIS be prepared jointly for the two 
projects. However, based on the Applicant's Verified Statement, SEA's 
consultation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which prepared 
the Draft EIS for the Bayport Terminal, and SEA's consultation with 
Port of Houston Authority, the two projects are not connected. Rather, 
the two projects are separate and distinct. They do not depend on each 
other economically or physically and each would proceed in the absence 
of the other. This issue will be discussed in more detail in the EIS.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

    Under CEQ's guidelines, the analysis of environmental effects 
resulting from a Proposed Action requires the separation of actions and 
effects that are reasonably foreseeable as opposed to results that are 
remote and speculative. Typically, SEA analyzes potential rail 
operations for a period of three to five years into the future. 
Projections for rail operations beyond these time frames are not 
reasonably foreseeable. Beyond three to five years, for example, 
fluctuations in the economy, changes in contracts between shippers and 
railroads, railroad mergers, chemical company mergers, expansions or 
shifts in production among chemical plants, and changes in technology 
become speculative. The time frame for the analysis of potential 
effects will vary by impact area depending on the availability of 
information and SEA's ability to reasonably foresee potential impacts.

Public Participation

    On October 1, 2001, SEA served and distributed the Notice of Intent 
to Prepare an EIS to approximately 489 citizens, elected officials, 
Federal, state, and local agencies, and interested organizations and 
initiated a toll-free project hotline 1-888-229-7857. On November 26, 
2001, SEA served and distributed the Notice of Availability of Draft 
Scope of Study for the EIS, Notice of Scoping Meetings, and Request for 
Comments to approximately 526 citizens, elected officials, Federal, 
state, and local agencies, and interested organizations. The 
distribution covered the communities surrounding the Proposed Action 
and the communities along the UP mainlines connecting the Proposed 
Action to New South Yard. SEA placed notices of the scoping meetings in 
several community newspapers and the Houston Chronicle. SEA also 
provided public service announcements to several Spanish-speaking radio 
stations.
    The scoping meetings were held in the afternoons and evenings on 
January 14 and 15, 2002, at the Pasadena Convention Center. SEA used a 
workshop format to allow attendees to provide comments to and ask 
questions of SEA and SEA's third-party independent contractor, ICF 
Consulting. The 189 people who attended the scoping meetings included 
citizens, organizations, elected officials, and officials from state 
and local agencies. Attendees submitted 21 comment sheets during the 
meetings and 20 attendees provided oral comments to a court reporter. 
At the close of the scoping period, on February 1, 2002, SEA received 
an additional 698 scoping comment forms, form letters, and letters 
raising environmental issues. At that time, SEA had received 14 calls 
to the toll-free hotline. Thirteen of these callers asked for 
information and one provided comments.
    At the request of a number of commenters and several elected 
officials, SEA extended the comment period for an additional 30 days to 
March 14, 2002, to provide the public sufficient opportunity to explore 
alternatives to the proposed route and raise issues pertinent to 
scoping. SEA published the notice to extend the comment period in the 
Federal Register on February 13, 2002, and distributed it to 650 
citizens, elected officials, Federal, state, and local agencies, and 
interested organizations. During that time, SEA conducted additional 
public involvement activities for the communities along that portion of 
the UP mainline that the Applicants would use as part of this proposal. 
Also, project information was translated into Spanish and made 
available to communities and community leaders who live along the 
Glidden Subdivision and the GH&H line and invited comments and 
questions in Spanish to the toll-free hotline. SEA distributed several 
hundred of these documents in Spanish to numerous community groups. At 
the end of the extended scoping period, SEA had received 198 additional 
comment forms, form letters, and letters, as well as 21 calls to the 
toll-free hotline. Six of these callers asked for information and 15 
provided comments.
    As part of the environmental review process to date, SEA has 
conducted broad public outreach activities to inform the public about 
the Proposed Action and to facilitate public participation. SEA has and 
will continue to consult with Federal, state, and local agencies, 
affected communities, and all interested parties to gather and 
disseminate information about the proposal.

Response to Comments

    SEA and the cooperating agencies reviewed and considered the 
approximately 800 comments in preparation of this Final Scope of the 
EIS. The Final Scope adopts the Draft Scope and reflects any changes to 
the Draft Scope as a result of comments. The discussion below 
summarizes and addresses the principal environmental concerns raised by 
the comments, and presents additional discussion to further clarify the 
Final Scope.

A. Rail Operations Safety

General Comments on Infrastructure and Operational Conditions
    Comments stated that to operate additional trains safely over the 
GH&H line its infrastructure should be improved through significant

[[Page 47610]]

investments. In addition, comments stated that the Board should study 
these potential investments through the EIS and require them as 
mitigation. Other comments suggested that the line should be upgraded 
to welded rail between Graham Siding and Tower 30, and new rail and 
bridge construction should be done near Sims Bayou/Berry Creek. Also, 
the applicants should implement crossing improvements and signal 
installation for rail and non-rail traffic to address the increased 
hazardous material traffic.
    Response. The EIS will include a description of the existing rail 
operations safety conditions on the lines that the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives would affect (i.e., those lines over which the Applicants 
are seeking trackage rights). The existing conditions will be used as 
the baseline from which to analyze the impacts of the Proposed Action. 
The EIS also will describe the FRA's regulatory framework for rail 
safety.
Comments on Risks of Increased Rail Traffic
    Comments stated that safety risk will increase because of the 
increased train traffic and the EIS should undertake a full risk 
assessment for train accidents and derailments during loading of tank 
cars and during switching activities in yard facilities. In addition, 
comments also indicated that SEA should conduct a risk assessment that 
includes consideration of derailments, collisions, hazmat releases, and 
human injuries associated with loading, switching, yard activities, 
grade crossings, and operation associated with the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives. Comments stated that BNSF has a poor safety record with a 
total of 485 train accidents in 2001 and a history of chemical spills. 
Comments asked whether, in the case of a derailment, BNSF would be held 
responsible for the damages in the area. Other comments stated that the 
new rail line would be a vast improvement over the present rail line 
because it would be safe, continuous rail on a modern roadbed. In 
addition, comments stated that the line would be safest if it is 
maintained and inspected regularly and suggested that the Board ensure 
that this happens.
    Response. The EIS will analyze the probabilities of derailments and 
collisions in order to determine the risk associated with transporting 
hazardous material. The EIS will also include an analysis of highway-
rail at-grade crossing accidents. The analysis will focus primarily on 
the historical, statistical BNSF and UP accident/derailment rate 
involving trains carrying hazardous material, releases of hazardous 
material and the number of instances of evacuations from hazardous 
materials releases resulting from train accidents/derailments. The EIS 
will describe BNSF's overall safety record as well as the records of 
the other major U.S. railroads.
Comments on Derailments
    Comments expressed concern over potential rail car derailments. In 
addition, comments asked what the chances are of derailment for trains 
traveling straight compared to those making turns, because the new rail 
line makes several turns. Comments expressed concern over the two sharp 
curves in build-out Alignment 1C. Comments stated that BNSF has had 
three derailments since October 2001. Furthermore, comments expressed 
concern over the speed the trains would be operating and contended that 
if they operate over 20 miles per hour (mph) they could derail.
    Response. The EIS will include an analysis of the Proposed Action 
in light of the FRA track safety standards and proposed operating 
speeds. The FRA track safety standards contain requirements for tangent 
(straight) and curved track and once the railroads set the train speeds 
at which they wish to operate, they must maintain the track according 
to the FRA standards. Curved track must meet additional geometry 
requirements, as compared to tangent track, in order to be in 
compliance with the FRA standards.

B. Rail Operations

Comments of the Condition of Existing Infrastructure
    Comments focused on the condition of the existing rail 
infrastructure around Houston, stating that it is currently inadequate. 
Comments expressed concern over the addition of trains and rail cars to 
what the comments characterized as an already congested and poorly 
maintained rail network. Specific comments described the condition of 
the GH&H line, the UP Glidden Subdivision, and T&NO junction as 
unacceptable. Comments stated that the railroads should continue their 
investment in infrastructure. Comments stated that BNSF has not 
included infrastructure improvements as part of its application and 
contests the need for such improvements. Comments suggested that moving 
rail traffic off the existing lines along SH 146 and SH 225 might drain 
the capital necessary to maintain those lines at the same time as 
increasing rail traffic problems elsewhere in Houston. Comments stated 
that SEA should study the condition of the existing infrastructure and 
its traffic levels in the DEIS. Comments requested the Board to study 
infrastructure investment in the DEIS and require this investment as 
part of mitigation.
    Response. In response to concerns raised over the Proposed Action, 
the EIS will include an analysis of rail operations associated with the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives, which involves two trains per day, on 
average, including impacts over UP's main line. The EIS will consider 
the existing rail operations and the condition of the infrastructure 
that the Proposed Action and Alternatives would affect and will use 
this information as a baseline in its analysis of impacts. The EIS will 
consider mitigation measures as appropriate. The EIS also will discuss 
the FRA's regulatory framework for minimum safety standards for track 
infrastructure.
Comments Concerning the GH&H Line
    Comments expressed concern about the condition of the GH&H line and 
what one comment called ``its unacceptable safety and traffic 
problems.'' Comments also mentioned the severity of safety and traffic 
problems near three schools that directly border the line and fifteen 
schools that are located within one mile of the GH&H line and 
attributed some of these problems to the lack of incentive to upgrade a 
lightly used track. Comments suggested that the 150-year-old line needs 
to be repaired and that the GH&H tracks are too old to bear any 
additional traffic. Comments suggested that the Board require that the 
track be replaced with continuous welded rail and that all bridges, 
grade crossings, and switches be brought up to the best available 
standards. Other comments stated that the GH&H line has presented no 
problems for about 150 years.
    Response. The EIS will analyze the rail operations impacts of the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives on the UP's GH&H line. The analysis 
will account for the existing condition of the line and the current 
rail traffic levels. For example, SEA's initial fieldwork found four to 
five UP trains per day operating on the GH&H line based on four days of 
train counts and nine trains per day during a fifth day of train 
counts. The EIS will include a description of safety conditions on the 
GH&H.
Comments on Rail Congestion
    Comments stated that there is chronic rail congestion on the East 
Belt line and in the vicinity of New South Yard that impairs the 
mobility of residents and

[[Page 47611]]

creates a safety problem. Comments highlighted the trains backing into 
New South Yard as a particular source of hardship for residents and 
suggested that this practice be eliminated. Comments stated that the 
Federal requirement that trains not block crossings for more than ten 
minutes without cause is not being enforced. Comments suggested that SH 
225 already exists as a dedicated container and chemical traffic 
corridor and that re-routing traffic away from this corridor would 
create traffic problems on other lines, including the GH&H line, 
Glidden Subdivision, and former Houston Belt & Terminal Railway lines. 
Comments called on SEA to give weight to the benefits of this current 
dedicated corridor.
    Response. The EIS will consider the existing rail operations in the 
project area and the potential effects from the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives, including a discussion of nearby UP, BNSF, and PTRA rail 
line operations on the East Belt, Double Track Junction, T&NO Junction, 
and switching operations in both New South Yard and Old South Yard.
Comments About Daily Train Traffic
    Comments requested that SEA study existing train traffic levels on 
the lines that the Proposed Action would affect, in order to provide a 
baseline rail traffic model. Comments also suggested studying the 
traffic and mapping grade crossings on lines that the Proposed Action 
and Alternatives would directly and indirectly affect. Comments 
requested that SEA determine how existing rail traffic would interact 
with the new traffic, as well as traffic identified in the Bayport 
Terminal and Texas City/Shoal Point container facility DEIS. Comments 
questioned the proposed use of welded track, which could allow speeds 
of up to 60 mph, when the Applicants have stated that the speed limit 
would be 20 mph. Other comments asked how the proposed 20 mph speed 
limit would be controlled and enforced.
    Response. The EIS will consider the existing rail operations in the 
project area and the potential effects from the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives. For example, as discussed earlier, the EIS will include 
the results of SEA's field work which sampled the numbers of trains and 
rail cars operating on the applicable lines in order to better 
determine the daily number of trains for each of the lines in the 
project area. The EIS will also consider the interaction of the new 
trains with existing rail traffic and will describe the enforcement of 
speed limits.
Comments on the Bayport Rail Terminal
    Comments questioned the expansion at the Bayport Rail Terminal that 
is currently taking place, which will roughly triple its capacity. 
Comments suggested that SEA note this in the DEIS.
    Response. The EIS will consider the expansion of the Bayport Rail 
Terminal and any relationship with the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives.

C. Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety

General Comments on Assessment of Existing Conditions
    Comments expressed general concern about whether the EIS would 
adequately assess the existing conditions relevant to hazardous 
materials transportation safety in the area potentially affected by the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives, particularly with respect to the 
extent of the area subject to analysis, the population potentially 
affected in the event of a release, the existing land uses in the area 
(e.g., proximity to homes, schools, airport, assisted living 
facilities), and the existing emergency management services. Comments 
mentioned that the U.S. Department of Transportation extensively 
regulates the transportation of hazardous materials, including by rail. 
Comments also indicated that the Applicants subscribe to a Responsible 
Care initiative that responds to public concerns about the 
manufacture, distribution, and use of chemicals.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Responsible Care is an initiative sponsored by the 
American Chemistry Council which, among other activities, works with 
manufacturers, customers, carriers, suppliers, and distributors to 
foster the safe use, transport, and disposal of chemicals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response. The EIS will describe the existing conditions in the 
project area. The EIS will also describe the existing emergency 
management services, including voluntary initiatives implemented by 
industry in coordination with local authorities. The EIS will include a 
description of regulations applicable to the transportation of 
hazardous materials via rail and related emergency response 
requirements. As part of the assessment of potential impacts associated 
with hazardous materials transportation, the EIS is considering the 
population located within the area of influence of the Proposed Action 
and Alternatives that potentially could be affected in the event of a 
release.
Comments on Potential Impacts Associated with Hazardous Materials 
Transportation
    Comments expressed concern regarding the nature and amount of 
chemicals that the Applicants would transport, as well as the potential 
impacts of spills and releases on the surrounding human and natural 
environment. Comments indicated the need for a risk assessment and 
evacuation plans pertaining to the proposed rail line. Comments 
mentioned the risks related to accidents, including derailments and 
collisions. Other comments expressed concern regarding the safety 
statistics of existing transport by chemical companies and railroads.
    Response. The EIS will assess potential impacts associated with 
hazardous materials transportation based on an analysis of the 
probability of a release of hazardous materials and on an assessment of 
potential consequences in the event of such a release. The analysis of 
the probability of a release of hazardous materials will consider the 
safety statistics from the FRA for railroad companies operating in the 
project area. The assessment of potential consequences will consider 
the types of chemicals transported over the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives, as well as the population located along the main lines 
and around the rail yards that potentially could be affected in the 
event of a release. Both the analysis of the probability of a release 
and the assessment of potential consequences will consider existing 
conditions under the No-Action Alternative, as well as reasonably 
expected potential conditions if the Proposed Action should be approved 
and implemented.
Comments Specific to Terrorism
    Comments expressed concern about potential terrorist acts that may 
involve hazardous materials transportation and may target critical 
infrastructure in the area potentially affected by the Proposed Action.
    Response. Consistent with prior cases before the Board, safety will 
be a paramount concern in the environmental review process in this 
proceeding.
    The EIS will consider the probability of a release of hazardous 
materials during transportation using historic accident statistics, 
regardless of the cause of the release. The EIS will also consider the 
potential consequences of releases to human health and the environment.
    The EIS will also describe the existing regulations and policies 
governing the

[[Page 47612]]

transportation of hazardous materials and the latest developments in 
those regulations and policies, such as the new rules proposed on May 
2, 2002, by the Department of Transportation's Research and Special 
Programs Administration (RSPA), which would require shippers of certain 
hazardous materials to develop or update security plans and provide 
appropriate training. During the course of the environmental review 
process here, SEA will keep abreast of any policies or recommendations 
that RSPA and the FRA may develop and that may be applicable to this 
proceeding, and will provide information on any developments in the 
Draft and Final EIS, if appropriate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ While the Board is directed to promote a safe rail 
transportation system in discharging its duties involving rail 
construction and other matters that require action by the Board, FRA 
has primary authority to ensure railroad safety under the Federal 
Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq. Railroads are 
legally bound to comply with the comprehensive across-the-board 
safety measures adopted under FRSA on all of their lines, regardless 
of any specific mitigation that the Board may impose in any case-
specific environmental review of individual proposals that may 
require Board approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EIS will also recognize the procedures now in place in Houston, 
and in the Bayport Loop area in particular, to handle hazardous 
materials transport safely. Houston and the Bayport Loop have one of 
the largest concentrations of chemical facilities in the country. As a 
result, Houston has in place significant specialized emergency 
management capabilities to address both accidental and intentional 
events that may occur in the process of handing and transporting 
chemicals and hazardous materials.
    The security issues relating to potential terrorist acts in the 
area potentially affected by the Proposed Action do not appear to be 
separate and distinct from the security issues facing the railroad 
industry generally. As noted above, these issues are currently being 
examined for the industry as a whole by RSPA. The EIS will examine the 
procedures that railroads must comply with regarding transportation 
safety, security, and the handling of hazardous materials on all their 
lines.

D. Pipeline Safety

General Comments
    Comments expressed concern about the proximity of the proposed rail 
line to existing pipelines, noting that in many places the proposed 
alignment would cross directly over or run beside existing pipelines. 
Comments recommended that SEA perform a risk assessment that includes 
consideration of pipeline safety factors at rail/pipeline crossings. In 
particular, comments expressed concern that cleanup (e.g., excavation 
of soil) of a spill from a railcar near a pipeline that transports 
flammable or otherwise hazardous chemicals could cause a pipeline 
rupture and/or explosion, as had occurred in the recent past. Comments 
also expressed concern about possible pipeline rupture during 
construction of the proposed line and inquired whether existing 
regulations prohibit construction of rail lines in close proximity to 
pipelines. Comments inquired whether any chemical incompatibilities 
were expected to exist between the contents of a particular pipeline 
and the contents of a rail car passing in close proximity.
    Response. The EIS will consider pipeline safety factors at rail/
pipeline crossings and where a rail alignment runs beside existing 
pipelines. The EIS will examine the likelihood of a hazardous materials 
release due to construction and operation of the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives near pipelines and the potential impacts from a hazardous 
material release.
Comments on Communication in the Event of an Accident
    Comments requested that the scope of the EIS be expanded to include 
an examination of whether communication between the railroad, the 
pipeline companies, and area residents would be sufficient in the event 
of an accident.
    Response. The EIS will describe emergency preparedness requirements 
and plans for the Proposed Action and Alternatives, including 
provisions for communications in the event of an accident.

E. Transportation

Grade Crossing Safety
    Comments expressed concern over vehicle and pedestrian accidents, 
including accidents involving people with disabilities at grade 
crossings. Comments mentioned that four at-grade crossing accidents 
occurred at T&NO junction (immediately south of New South Yard) within 
a ten-month period from January to October 2001. In addition, comments 
expressed concern over the grade crossing safety risks associated with 
travel to and from schools. Comments stated that the Proposed Action 
and Alternatives would double safety risks and requested that BNSF 
undertake a series of crossing improvements and signal installations 
for rail and non-rail traffic. Other comments requested that all major 
roads be grade separated. In addition, comments requested a rail 
overpass and overwalk at Howard Drive to protect the safety of children 
and their pets. Comments stated that too many accidents occur at Old 
Galveston Road and Howard Drive.
    Response. The EIS will analyze potential safety impacts at grade 
crossings. The EIS will address mitigation measures as appropriate and 
will discuss the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations governing grade crossing 
safety, which are delegated to the State of Texas. The EIS will also 
reflect consultations with and recommendations by the Texas Department 
of Transportation regarding grade crossing safety.
Grade Crossing Delay
    Comments expressed concern over a potential increase in vehicle 
traffic congestion throughout east and southeast Houston due to 
additional train traffic from the Proposed Action. In addition, 
comments requested that the delay analysis not be limited to existing 
grade crossings but should include future crossings such as Space 
Center Boulevard, Red Bluff Road, Bay Area Boulevard, Port Road, and SH 
146. Comments expressed concern over traffic blockage due to the lack 
of planned grade separated crossings. Other comments expressed concern 
over the congestion at New South Yard resulting in main road blockages. 
Comments expressed concern over trains blocking access to their 
communities (e.g., Old Galveston Road). Comments also mentioned traffic 
delays around schools. Comments stated that the Texas Transportation 
Code 471.007, which does not allow trains to block crossings for more 
then 10 minutes, is violated daily by existing trains. To address this 
problem, the comments requested that the Board ensure that an 
enforceable plan to prevent rail traffic problems and their associated 
safety risks accompany the application. Comments requested that BNSF 
not store cargo or park trains in such a way that they would block 
streets, other tracks, or crossings. Comments stated that the grade 
crossing delay problem could be mitigated through an enforceable 
commitment to off-peak hour operations. Other comments stated that the 
Board should see that traffic problems in east and southeast Houston 
are solved regardless of exemption approval in this proceeding.
    Response. The EIS will analyze the potential effect that the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives might have on delay at

[[Page 47613]]

existing grade crossings, as well as at new grade crossings.
Emergency Response
    Comments expressed concern over potential delays to emergency 
vehicles and blockages of emergency evacuation routes. Comments 
requested that the EIS include maps of primary emergency management 
systems, fire, and public safety access routes that the proposed 
alignments would block. Comments also expressed concern over the delays 
that would occur at Space Center Boulevard, which is being extended and 
could be used as an evacuation route. Comments stated that the 
community of Shoreacres contracts its emergency medical services from 
Clear Lake and would be directly affected by the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives. Comments requested that the EIS examine the frequency of 
road blockages from BNSF and UP trains.
    Response. The EIS will analyze the potential impacts of the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives on emergency response vehicles and 
evacuation routes due to blocked crossings associated with the train 
traffic of the Proposed Action.
Other Transportation Projects
    Comments requested that the EIS coordinate with other studies such 
as the HGAC 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), the SH 146 
Major Investment Study, the Texas City Shoal Point DEIS and the Bayport 
Terminal DEIS. Comments also expressed the need for the EIS to consider 
the potential transportation impacts of these projects along with the 
Proposed Action.
    Response. The EIS will analyze the Proposed Action and Alternatives 
in the context of other reasonably foreseeable projects in the area. 
The EIS will consider information on transportation improvements and 
road traffic predictions from all relevant studies.

F. Noise and Vibration

General Comments on Noise and Vibration
    Comments expressed generalized concern about noise and vibration 
impacts that would result from the proposed rail operations and 
construction, including adverse effects on communities, schools, 
residences, property values, and overall quality of life along both the 
new and existing rail lines. Comments also expressed concern that rail 
line traffic would increase in the future, which would lead to more 
noise pollution. Additional comments expressed concern about the 
effects of noise and vibration on wildlife. Comments also stated that 
the Proposed Action would reduce noise impacts in comparison to trucks 
in the area.
    Response. Typically, the Board analyzes noise impacts where there 
is an increase of at least eight trains per day on a rail line or an 
increase in rail traffic of at least 100 percent (measured in gross ton 
miles annually) (see 49 CFR 1105.7e(6)). However, in response to 
concerns raised over the Proposed Action, the EIS will analyze the 
noise impacts of train operations associated with an increase of two 
trains per day, on average, over both the new line and trackage rights 
lines, and for construction of the project. The EIS noise analysis will 
include adverse noise effects on sensitive receptors such as residences 
and schools. The EIS will discuss operational and construction-induced 
vibration to address concerns raised by comments. Potential effects of 
noise and vibration on wildlife will be addressed under biological 
resources.
Comments on Evaluation of Noise Levels
    Comments requested that the EIS discuss applicable noise 
regulations and standards and noise levels along all proposed 
alignments, including: (1) Absolute and incremental increase in noise 
levels, as well as appropriate absolute criteria (comments suggested 
EPA's goal of a Day-Night Equivalent Level, abbreviated as 
Ldn or DNL of 55 Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) for 
residential areas) and, (2) short-term (instantaneous to one-hour) 
criteria. Instantaneous noise impact assessment was also requested, 
estimating noise levels for both day and night. Comments also stated 
that the EIS should analyze background noise, frequent noise that is 
louder than ambient noise, periodic noise, infrequent noise, and rare, 
but foreseeable noise. Comments also requested the evaluation of 
mitigation options.
    Response. The Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1105.7 use an 
incremental increase in noise levels of three decibels Ldn 
or more, or an increase to a noise level of 65 Ldn or 
greater as noise impact analysis thresholds. Sixty-five Ldn 
is the standard employed by Federal agencies that regulate or evaluate 
noise impacts, including the EPA, FHWA, Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA), FRA, and FAA. The Board uses this standard in all of its 
environmental review analyses. Federal agencies consider noise levels 
above 65 Ldn as incompatible with residential land use. The 
EIS will discuss existing noise levels. For example, much of the 
project area is already at 65 Ldn or higher due to existing 
sources (e.g., existing rail traffic, Ellington Field). Regarding 
instantaneous noise impact assessment, the EIS will provide 
instantaneous noise levels from a range of sources to provide context 
(e.g., airplanes, trains, and cars), and mitigation measures as 
appropriate.
Comments on Long-term Sound Level Averages
    Comments requested that long-term sound level averages (over an 
hour or more) be included in the analysis for construction activities, 
but not in analysis for operational activities, unless appropriate.
    Response. The construction noise analysis in the EIS will consider 
both long (30-day average) and short-term (8 hour) sound levels. The 
operational analysis in the EIS will consider long-term sound levels.
Comments on Proposed Action and Alternative Alignments
    Comments expressed concern over specific alignments for the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives. Comments specifically referred to 
Alignments 1, 1C, and 2B as unacceptable due to their proximity to the 
Northfork subdivision in Clear Lake City. Comments also suggested that 
Alignments 1, 1B, and 1C would have a negative impact on the community 
because of noise. Comments suggested that the two sharp curves proposed 
in Alignment 1C would cause increased noise when the trains turn and 
the joints move between the cars. Comments suggested that the DEIS 
evaluate noise impacts for existing and reasonably foreseeable future 
land use. More specifically, comments expressed concern over potential 
noise and vibration impacts to NASA's Sonny Carter Training Facility. 
Comments also expressed concern over the increased noise impacts that a 
new rail line would introduce, in addition to the noise from existing 
operations at Ellington Field, near-by industrial plants, and existing 
rail traffic along SH 3. Comments also stated that the new rail line 
would have an insignificant impact on noise in comparison to existing 
operations at Ellington Field.
    Response. The noise analysis in the EIS will include noise contours 
for rail operations over each new construction alignment evaluated and 
noise contours for associated rail operations over the existing 
mainlines, including the No-Action Alternative, to disclose areas where 
the Proposed Action would cause noise effects. The EIS will address the 
potential for wheel squeal noise. The EIS will determine whether the 
Proposed Action would cause any noise and vibration effects to NASA's 
Sonny Carter Training Facility.

[[Page 47614]]

Comments on Vibration Impacts
    Comments expressed generalized concern over the potential effects 
that vibration resulting from construction and operation activities of 
the Proposed Action may have on schools, homes, structures, and/or 
roads. In addition, comments expressed concern over potential vibration 
impacts to NASA's Sonny Carter Training Facility. Comments also 
requested that the EIS analyze and quantify such impacts.
    Response. The EIS will discuss operational and construction-induced 
vibration. The EIS will also evaluate vibration impacts on the basis of 
maximum vibration level. Because maximum vibration levels would be 
essentially unchanged for areas where rail traffic currently exists, 
the EIS discussion of potential vibration impacts is expected to focus 
on areas where new rail construction would occur.

G. Climate and Air Quality

General Comments on Air Quality
    Comments expressed general concerns about air pollution, including 
diesel emissions, and associated adverse health effects resulting from 
construction and operation of the Proposed Action and from potential 
releases should a chemical spill occur. Comments also stated that 
Federal highway funds might be lost as the result of increasing air 
pollution. Further, comments expressed concern over current Clean Air 
Act (CAA) conformity compliance issues and the additional air quality 
impacts that construction and operation of the Proposed Action would 
have on the Houston-Galveston non-attainment area. In addition, 
comments requested that SEA consider all criteria pollutants in the air 
quality analysis. Comments requested dispersion modeling and analysis 
of the air quality impacts on a local, rather than a county-wide, 
level. Comments expressed concern that the Proposed Action would 
increase air pollution by encouraging expansion of the petro-chemical 
plants in Houston. Comments stressed that census data and risk factors 
should be used to determine which populations would likely experience 
health effects from exposure to air emissions. Finally, comments 
requested estimates of emission rates and use of dispersion modeling of 
carbon monoxide from locomotive diesel engines to determine the impacts 
on breathing air intakes at NASA's Sonny Carter Training Facility.
    Response: The Board typically analyzes air impacts where there is 
an increase of at least eight trains per day, an increase in rail 
traffic of at least 100 percent (measured in gross ton miles annually), 
or an increase in rail yard activity of at least 100 percent (measured 
by carload activity). When a Proposed Action affects a non-attainment 
area, as defined by the CAA, as is the case here, the Board typically 
analyzes air impacts if there is an increase of at least three trains 
per day, an increase in rail traffic of at least 50 percent, or an 
increase in rail yard activity of at least 20 percent. The Proposed 
Action anticipates two trains per day, and would therefore not trigger 
any environmental thresholds requiring air quality impacts analysis. 
However, in response to concerns raised over potential impacts to air 
quality from the Proposed Action, the EIS will include analysis of air 
impacts of train operations.
    The EIS will also examine the additional emissions from both the 
construction and operational phases of the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives, including rail-related emissions and potential air 
emission increases due to increased vehicle delays at highway/rail at-
grade crossings. The EIS analysis will include consideration of 
criteria pollutants, with emphasis on those most relevant to the 
Houston non-attainment situation (e.g., NOX and 
PM10). If additional emissions associated with two train 
trips per day are found to be large enough to cause exceedances of 
criteria pollutant standards, then the EIS will include consideration 
of these impacts. Further, the EIS will determine whether carbon 
monoxide concentrations would have an adverse affect on the breathing 
air intakes at NASA's training facility. The EIS will evaluate 
releases, including air emissions, resulting from spills in the context 
of the hazardous materials transport safety analysis.
Comments on Particulate Matter
    Comments expressed general concern over small particle pollutant 
emissions resulting from the Proposed Action. Comments stated that the 
air quality analysis should examine levels of fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) associated with construction and operation of the 
Proposed Action and provide figures showing the impacts on air quality 
specifically for the area that includes the Proposed Action. Comments 
indicated that exhaust from diesel sources is a major source of 
PM2.5 air pollution, as well as other fine particle 
emissions, that may be hazardous and lead to adverse health effects. 
Comments stated that the EIS should analyze the background level of 
PM2.5 air pollution for the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives, determine the sources of fine particle emissions, and 
examine the potential health effects resulting from increased exposure 
to such pollutants.
    Response. Typically, the Board would not analyze potential air 
quality effects from fine particulate emissions (PM2.5) in 
an EIS for a project such as this, with a projected low level of 
increased rail activity (two trains per day on average), the lack of an 
attainment or nonattainment designation for PM2.5 in the 
Houston area pursuant to the CAA, and the absence of a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) or emission threshold that would trigger 
requirements for fine PM. However, in response to concerns raised over 
the Proposed Action, the EIS will include examination of changes in 
diesel particulate emissions resulting from operation and construction 
of the Proposed Action and Alternatives.
Comments on Hazardous Air Pollutants
    Comments expressed concern about hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emissions, especially diesel emissions, resulting from construction and 
operation of the Proposed Action. Comments requested that the EIS 
indicate background levels of HAPs, areas that will experience 
increased HAP levels as a result of the project, the total and 
incremental increase in HAP levels that these areas will experience, 
and the resulting health effects.
    Response. The Board would not normally analyze HAP emissions in an 
EIS for a project such as this with projected low level of increased 
rail activity, and the absence of HAP emission regulations applicable 
to mobile sources in Texas. However, in response to concerns raised 
over the Proposed Action and recent concerns about possible adverse 
health impacts from diesel emissions, the EIS will include a diesel 
emissions screening analysis. The analysis will compare estimates of 
daily average diesel emissions from construction and operation of the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives with county total daily average 
emissions and with the total daily average existing train activity, 
local diesel truck activity and other potential sources of nearby 
diesel emissions (e.g., airport ground support equipment) for selected 
site locations (e.g., near residential areas) in the project area.

H. Water Resources

General Comments on Water Quality
    Comments expressed general concern about the effects of a new rail 
line on

[[Page 47615]]

water resources, including contamination of the water supply, potential 
impacts on water quality, and the effects of hazardous materials on the 
high water table in the project area. Comments mentioned specific 
concern regarding possible adverse impacts on Armand Bayou or the 
Armand Bayou Nature Preserve. Comments also mentioned concern for other 
water bodies, including Mustang Bayou, Taylor Lake, Clear Lake, and 
Galveston Bay.
    Response. The EIS will describe the existing surface water and 
groundwater resources within the project area, including lakes, rivers, 
bayous, streams, stock ponds, wetlands, and floodplains and the 
potential impacts on these resources resulting from construction and 
operation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives.
Comments Specific to Spills
    Comments mentioned the effect that potential chemical spills could 
have on water quality and ecologically sensitive bayous and estuaries. 
Comments also mentioned the possibility of contamination of groundwater 
due to chemical spills, including leakage and runoff from operation and 
construction activities.
    Response. The EIS will analyze the potential impact associated with 
a release of hazardous materials to surface water and groundwater.
Comments Specific to Floodplains
    Comments mentioned possible impacts/changes to the floodplains, 
drainage, and flood control systems as a concern. Comments also 
requested that SEA consider the impacts from constructing a rail line 
that could potentially ``dam the city'' of Clear Lake and reduce the 
region to a 100-year flood plain. Comments requested that SEA include a 
storm surge analysis along the proposed route.
    Response. The EIS will consider the existing surface water and 
groundwater resources within the project area, including floodplains 
and the potential impacts on floodplains resulting from construction 
and operation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. The EIS also 
will consider the water quality issues associated with stormwater, 
including requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) stormwater management program.
General Comments on Wetlands
    Several comments expressed general concern for the negative 
environmental impacts on the wetlands surrounding Armand Bayou and 
other wetlands in the project area. Comments indicated concern for the 
possible impact to water quality from wetland filling and requested 
that the EIS disclose the amount of wetlands that will be filled for 
each alternative alignment. Other comments suggested that the Board 
include a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) analysis for wetlands 
that are proposed to be filled.
    Response. As noted above, the EIS will include a discussion of the 
potential impacts to wetlands and water quality. The approximate 
acreage of impact is calculated for the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives. The EIS will provide the approximate area of impact to 
wetlands along each alignment. A wetlands analysis under CWA Section 
404(b)(1) is part of a permitting process that involves the Applicant 
and the USACE. The EIS will include a discussion of the CWA Section 404 
permitting process.
Comments Related to Isolated Wetlands
    Comments discussed the ruling on isolated wetlands by the U.S. 
Supreme Court on January 9, 2001 in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook 
County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159, 121 S. Ct. 675 
(2001) (SWANCC). Comments stated that no national guidance has yet been 
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, 
and that there are many interpretations of this ruling nationwide. 
Comments also stated that they did not agree with the USACE Galveston 
District's interpretation of the Supreme Court decision that is 
described in the Bayport Terminal DEIS. Comments also indicated the 
view that SEA would likely defer to this interpretation but requested 
that SEA include the following analyses in the EIS: (1) Maps of 
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands and field verification 
of the jurisdictional wetlands, (2) a map layer of proposed filled 
areas in the wetlands, (3) cross-section drawings of the Proposed 
Action with heights and widths, (4) a discussion of the USACE Galveston 
District's interpretation of jurisdictional wetlands, and (5) 
notification to TNRCC of the project during preparation of the DEIS. 
Comments recommended identifying all wetland areas within the project 
area and minimizing any adverse impacts to isolated wetlands to the 
same extend as jurisdictional wetlands.
    Response. The EIS will include a discussion of the applicable 
regulatory programs at both the state and Federal level. The EIS also 
will characterize existing conditions and potential impacts to wetlands 
from the Proposed Action and Alternatives. The potential impacts to 
both wetlands subject to permitting by the USACE under CWA Section 404 
(i.e., ``jurisdictional wetlands'') and non-jurisdictional wetlands 
(e.g., isolated wetlands) is included. The USACE Galveston District 
will make the jurisdictional determination regarding wetlands. The EIS 
will include the results of the determination, if available, for the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives.
Comments on Water-Related Permits
    Comments stated that under the Harris County Stormwater Quality 
Regulations, a stormwater quality permit for construction activity 
might be required from Harris County. Further, comments indicated that 
the Flood Control Division of the Harris County Public Infrastructure 
Department would need to approve the construction drawings for work 
proposed in the Department's right-of-way. Comments also mentioned that 
approval might be required from the Engineering Division of the Harris 
County Public Infrastructure Department due to the impact of the 
proposed rail on existing drainage.
    Comments noted the requirements of and the need to coordinate with 
the Galveston District of USACE. Comments expressed the need to 
determine potential jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and 
Harbors Act of 1899 due to the crossing of Armand Bayou. Comments also 
suggested the need for permits from USACE for environmentally sensitive 
areas of Armand Bayou. Comments suggested consultation with USACE to 
determine if permitting issues under CWA Section 404 would be necessary 
for the regional stormwater detention basin and for the wetlands 
mitigation area in the Space Center Boulevard extension project east of 
Ellington Field.
    Comments indicated that the proposed new rail line crosses Armand 
Bayou, Big Island Slough, and Taylor Bayou, and because these waterways 
are tidally influenced, they are considered navigable waterways of the 
U.S. and subject to USCG jurisdiction. These comments also included 
information to aid in the determination of bridge permits for the 
proposed rail lines.
    Response. As part of the analysis of potential impacts on water 
resources, the EIS will consider the permits and regulations that would 
apply to the Proposed Action and Alternatives, such as permits pursuant 
to Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA.
Comments Related to Mitigation
    Comments mentioned the possible disturbance of property that is 
managed

[[Page 47616]]

by Armand Bayou Nature Center (ABNC). The comments requested that the 
DEIS address potential impacts to this area and that ``an adequate and 
appropriate mitigation plan be developed that is congruent with ABNC's 
mission and purpose.''
    Response. The EIS will characterize the existing conditions of 
ABNC, analyze potential effects, and address mitigation as appropriate.

I. Biological Resources

General Comments on Biological Resources
    Comments mentioned concern about animals and plants in a general 
context, and requested a risk assessment of ``natural areas.'' Comments 
expressed concern about impacts to sensitive habitats associated with 
ecosystems and bayous in the project area. Comments expressed specific 
concern about the possible effects Alignment 1C would have on fish 
spawning areas around Mustang Bayou. Comments expressed concern about 
the threat of introduction of non-indigenous species along the 
alternative alignments. Comments expressed concern about potential 
impacts to coastal wetlands and coastal natural resource areas. 
Comments recommended that the alternative alignments follow existing 
rights-of-way, and also discussed the disturbance of wildlife and 
vegetation that can result from construction activities.
    Response. The EIS will consider the existing plant and animal 
communities and aquatic resources within the project area and the 
potential impacts on biological and aquatic resources from construction 
and operation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives.
Comments on Taylor Bayou, Armand Bayou Nature Center, and Armand Bayou 
Coastal Preserve
    Comments expressed general concern about negative impacts to the 
ABNC. Comments specifically mentioned concerns about the plants and 
animals surrounding ABNC. Comments indicated that Alternative 1 would 
affect the east bank of Taylor Bayou and would eliminate conservation 
management in that area. Comments also stated that alternative 
alignments adjacent to Taylor Bayou would affect inter-tidal marsh and 
upland to wet hardwood forest. Comments requested that the EIS address 
potential impacts and appropriate mitigation plans. Comments remarked 
that the proposed rail line would diminish the aesthetic value of the 
Armand Bayou Coastal Preserve and interfere with educational programs 
at the preserve and the nature center. Comments supported the use of an 
alternative route that avoids crossing the preserve.
    Response. The EIS will consider the existing conditions along 
Taylor Bayou and Armand Bayou and evaluate potential impacts to the 
wetlands, plant and animal communities, scenic resources, and 
recreational uses. The EIS will address the impacts of the Proposed 
Action and Alternatives on these resources, including avoidance, 
minimization, and mitigation (where appropriate), depending on the 
potential effects identified in the EIS.
Comments on Hazardous Materials Damaging Biological Resources
    Comments expressed concern over potential impacts to the ecosystem 
and biological resources in the event of a hazardous materials release 
and mentioned the negative effects a hazardous material spill would 
have on area wildlife or wildlife habitat. More specifically, comments 
expressed concern over impacts to wildlife and ``long-term 
productivity'' (vegetation) in the event of hazardous materials 
entering a water body, and the economic ramifications of such an event. 
Comments also expressed general concern about hazardous chemicals 
causing damage to an unspecified nature preserve and about the 
environmental damage to fish and wildlife that would result from a 
spill into Taylor and/or Armand Bayou. Comments also expressed concern 
about the impact of leakage and runoff from the alignment on the 
surrounding watershed and near-by bayous.
    Response. The EIS will consider the likelihood of a hazardous 
materials release from construction and operation of the Proposed 
Action and Alternatives and the potential impacts to aquatic and 
biological resources from a hazardous material release.
Comments on Effects of Noise, Vibration, and Pollution on Biological 
Resources
    Comments requested that the EIS analyze the effects of noise, 
vibration, and pollution from the project on area ecology. Comments 
also expressed concern about habitat loss resulting from the project, 
and questioned whether lands designated for this project would remain 
as undeveloped habitat if this project were not built. Comments 
requested that the EIS include a comparison of timelines for 
development due to this project versus development due to other 
reasons.
    Response. The EIS will consider the existing terrestrial and 
aquatic resources within the project area and the potential impacts on 
these resources from construction and operation, including noise, 
vibration, and pollution, of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, 
including the No-Action Alternative. The EIS will use the best 
available information for reasonably foreseeable development to analyze 
any future changes in land use and the timeframe for those changes in 
the area affected by the Proposed Action and Alternatives relative to 
the No-Action Alternative.
Comments on Wildlife
    Comments expressed general concerns about wildlife and wildlife 
habitat. Comments specifically mentioned deer, squirrels, rabbits, 
turtles, frogs, armadillos, owls, field mice, wild boar, bobcats, 
egrets, and alligators. Comments expressed concern that the 
construction of the proposed build-out may drive wild pigs into near-by 
neighborhoods or onto the railroad track. Comments also expressed 
concern for the safety of domestic as well as wild animals. Comments 
noted that the project area is a migration route for many bird species 
and requested that measures be taken to ensure that construction 
activities do not have any adverse impacts on migratory birds, in order 
to be in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    Response. The EIS will consider the existing avian and wildlife 
communities and wildlife habitat in the project area and the potential 
impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives on those resources.
Comments Specific to Mitigation
    Comments requested that open space dedications be incorporated into 
the project plan as an opportunity to install wildlife corridors along 
Red Bluff Road and other areas. Comments also recommended minimizing 
the clearing of riparian vegetation as much as possible and mitigating 
for the appropriate habitat losses associated with the disturbed 
project area, by using site-specific native plant species. Comments 
requested that a monthly maintenance program be established for mowing 
grass along the right-of way.
    Response. The EIS will consider the potential impact on biological 
resources, including the potential impact of habitat loss and 
disruption of wildlife corridors, and will include mitigation as 
appropriate, depending on the potential effects identified in the EIS.
Comments on Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species
    Comments expressed generalized concern over the presence of 
endangered and/or protected animal

[[Page 47617]]

and plant species in the area of the Proposed Action. Comments 
expressed concern about the presence of the Federally listed endangered 
species, the Texas prairie dawn-flower in the proposed project area and 
provided general information about the flower. Comments provided lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Species that may occur in Harris County 
and requested that the area affected by the proposed alignment be 
properly evaluated by trained biologists for the presence or absence of 
such species.
    Response. The EIS will consider the existing plant and animal 
communities in the project area, the potential impact to those 
communities, and possible mitigation (where appropriate) depending on 
the potential effects identified in the EIS. At the request of the U.S. 
Fish & Wildlife Service, SEA conducted a survey for the Texas prairie 
dawn in the project area. The EIS will address the potential impacts to 
special status species, including the Texas prairie dawn.

J. Topography, Geology and Soils

General Comments on Geology and Soils
    Comments expressed the need for the EIS to examine specific issues 
related to topography and geology, including consideration of 
subsidence, soil stability, wells and deep well injection sites, 
surface faults, and salt domes.
    Response. The EIS will analyze the geology and soils found within 
the project area, including unique or problematic geologic formations 
or soils and prime farmland and hydric soils and the potential impacts 
on these resources resulting from the construction and operation of the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives. The EIS will include consideration of 
other characteristics that are relevant to identification of potential 
impacts from the Proposed Action, as appropriate.
Comments Specific to Soil Erosion
    Comments mentioned the need to minimize soil erosion and siltation 
into various water bodies. Methods proposed include hay bales, silt 
fences, or other soil erosion prevention techniques. Comments also 
noted that newly graded areas should be seeded or sodded with native 
grasses, leguminous forbs, and trees and that natural buffers around 
wetlands and aquatic systems should remain undisturbed.
    Response. The EIS will include consideration of erosion impacts and 
mitigation, if appropriate. This topic will be addressed in the water 
resources section of the EIS.

K. Land Use

Comments on Current and Future Impacts
    Comments expressed concern that a new rail line would result in 
adverse impacts on both current and future land uses. Specific concerns 
were expressed regarding current land use including impacts on the 
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and safe use of the runways at Ellington 
Field. Comments expressed concern about the impact on the use of Sylvan 
Rodriguez Park. Concerns were expressed about future land use, 
including impacts to runway extensions or taxiway additions at 
Ellington Field, new development at or near Ellington Field, and 
increased industrial (rather than residential or commercial) 
development around the portions of the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives. Regarding future land uses, comments specifically 
suggested that SEA consult with NASA, the cities of Houston and 
Pasadena, and the Clear Lake Area Economic Development Foundation. 
Comments indicated that the EIS should address consistency of the 
proposed project with the coastal management program.
    Response. The EIS will include an analysis of the potential land 
use impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. The EIS land use 
analysis will include consideration of consistency of the project with 
the Coastal Zone Management Plan. The EIS will analyze both potential 
effects on current land use and effects on reasonably foreseeable 
future land use. The EIS will reflect the input of cooperating agencies 
and consultations with other agencies and organizations, including 
those specifically mentioned here. Regarding Ellington Field, SEA is 
consulting with the FAA and the City of Houston on the potential 
impacts of the Proposed Action. The FAA is using this EIS to cover its 
Federal Action and decision relative to its authority. Upon request by 
the owner of Ellington Field (i.e., the City of Houston) to (1) approve 
a change to the airport layout plan (ALP) to accommodate the Proposed 
Action and (2) release the affected airport property from surplus 
property restrictions and/or the airport owner's obligations under 
grant assurances contained in grant agreements, FAA will determine 
whether the ALP approval and release is appropriate pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 47151-47153 (formerly known as the Surplus Property Act), 49 
U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B), 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(16), and any other applicable 
Federal law, regulation, and applicable FAA Orders.
Comments on Future Land Use and Time Period for Analysis
    Comments suggested that the corridor where new rail lines would be 
constructed as part of the Proposed Action and some of the alternatives 
serve as a buffer from further industrial development for residential 
communities to the north and south. Comments stated that the EIS should 
project land use for longer than three to six years because of the 
potential for a new rail line to encourage conversion of a residential 
area to a mixed-use area containing industrial, commercial, and 
residential uses.
    Response. The EIS will use the best available information for 
reasonably foreseeable development to analyze any future changes in 
land use and the timeframe for those changes in the area affected by 
the Proposed Action and Alternatives. The EIS will address potential 
development of the project area for mixed use in the context of current 
residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional uses that 
include Ellington Field, a wastewater treatment plant near Ellington 
Field, the Boeing rocket engine manufacturing facility, the NASA Sonny 
Carter Training Facility, a water treatment plant, aggregate production 
facilities, miscellaneous light industrial and commercial operations, 
gas fields, two gas plants, a golf club, and undeveloped natural areas.

L. Socioeconomics

General Comments
    Comments addressed the impact of the Bayport Loop project on 
socioeconomics in the Houston-Galveston area. Comments expressed 
general concern over lowered quality of life or the absence of economic 
benefits. Comments were received requesting an examination of economic 
impacts.
    Response. The EIS will examine economic and social effects that 
would result from effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives on 
the natural or physical environment. The EIS will analyze environmental 
impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternatives such as noise, air 
quality, land use, and transportation, to determine if these impacts 
might affect quality of life.
Comments on Property Values and Economic Costs
    Comments expressed concern over impacts on property values, 
including degradation in value. Comments stated that the Proposed 
Action ultimately would result in loss of tax revenue, partly as the 
result of lowered property values. Comments requested a cost-

[[Page 47618]]

benefit analysis, including construction costs, income, expense, and 
cash flow statements, and annual rail transportation cost savings. 
Comments requested a complete economic analysis of the project. 
Comments also indicated the need to analyze in the EIS factors such as 
property values, quality of life, franchise taxes, and job growth. 
Comments also referred to the tax base for the Clear Creek Independent 
School District. Comments noted that chemical plants and other 
industries are important to maintain the economic viability and growth 
of the area. Comments also stated support for competition and fairness 
in transportation costs to the chemical industry.
    Response. The EIS will analyze the socioeconomic effects that are 
reasonably foreseeable and that may result from the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives. As noted above, the EIS will examine economic and social 
effects associated with effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 
on the natural or physical environment. The regulations implementing 
NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.23, state that if a cost-benefit analysis relevant 
to the choice among environmentally different alternatives is being 
considered, the EIS should consider the cost-benefit analysis in 
evaluating the alternatives.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Board considers the economic merits of a proposed rail 
line construction and operation in the merits phase of the 
proceeding. At 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10502 the Board exercises its 
authority to exempt rail carrier transportation.
    (a) In a matter related to a rail carrier providing 
transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this 
part, the Board, to the maximum extent consistent with this part, 
shall exempt a person, class of persons, or a transaction or service 
whenever the Board finds that the application in whole or in part of 
a provision of this part ``
    (1) is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of 
Section 10101 of this title; and
    (2) either--
    (A) the transaction of service is of limited scope; or
    (B) the application in whole or in part of the provision is not 
needed to protect shippers from the abuse of market power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Employment and Income
    Comments indicated that the proposed rail line might bring jobs and 
commerce to the Houston area. Comments also stated that loss of jobs 
would occur. Comments suggested that the money funding the project 
might be used to create new jobs instead.
    Response. The EIS will analyze economic impacts from the Proposed 
Action and Alternatives, such as effects on income and employment, 
associated with significant effects on the natural or physical 
environment.
Comments on Public Services
    Comments indicated that construction and operation of a new rail 
line would result in negative impacts on public services, including the 
new Texas Children's Health Center (TCHC).
    Response. To determine the potential effects of the Proposed Action 
and Alternatives on public service facilities in the project area, the 
EIS is analyzing environmental impacts such as noise, air quality, land 
use, and transportation, to determine if they might result in adverse 
effects to public services, including TCHC.
Comments on Parks and Recreation and Aesthetics
    Comments stated that the proposed rail line would have impacts on 
parks. Comments specifically stressed that the project would produce 
significant adverse impacts on the Sylvan Rodriguez Park. Comments also 
referred to potential impacts on the recreational uses of Armand Bayou. 
Comments expressed concern about the effects of the Proposed Action and 
Alternatives on the aesthetic value of nearby neighborhoods and 
surrounding land.
    Response. The EIS will consider the potential effects of the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives on parks and recreation and 
aesthetics.

M. Cultural Resources

General Comments
    Comments indicated that the project might negatively affect 
revitalization of a historic area located near the existing mainline. 
Comments stated that an archeological survey of parts of the proposed 
project would be necessary prior to construction due to potential 
impacts on cultural resources.
    Response. The EIS will address potential impacts to cultural 
resources and will describe the results of archeological surveys 
conducted as part of consultations with the Texas Historical 
Commission.

N. Environmental Justice

General Comments
    Comments expressed concern over impacts that the Proposed Action 
could have on environmental justice communities. Comments indicated 
that the DEIS should account for the environmental justice problems 
(disproportionate adverse effects primarily on low-income and minority 
communities) already created in east and southeast Houston by rail 
traffic and resulting rail safety hazards. Comments indicated that the 
study areas used to examine environmental justice impacts should be 
consistent for all the alternatives, including the No-Action 
Alternative. In addition, comments indicated that the analysis for each 
alternative should include all affected populations, which may include 
populations along rail lines other than those used directly by the 
Proposed Action and Alternatives. Comments suggested that the analysis 
use 2000 Census Bureau data and determine the affected areas based on 
the results of analyses in other sections of the EIS.
    Response. The EIS will address potential impacts of the Proposed 
Action and Alternatives on environmental justice communities. The EIS 
will describe the affected environment and environmental consequences 
associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives across a range of 
topics, e.g., noise, hazardous materials transport, and highway/rail 
grade crossing safety. The environmental justice analysis will use the 
results of these analyses to disclose the affects to environmental 
justice populations (including direct, indirect, and cumulative 
effects) and determine whether the affects are disproportionately high 
and adverse. The EIS will use 2000 Census Bureau data for minority 
populations. The equivalent data is not yet available for income. The 
EIS will use the best available forecast of 2000 income levels.
Comments on Public Involvement and Environmental Justice
    Comments stated that low-income, minority neighborhoods had not 
been informed of the project in a timely manner and expressed concern 
over the impacts from the Proposed Action. Comments also stated that 
agencies should seek input from environmental justice communities as 
early in the scoping process as possible.
    Response. The EIS will describe the environmental justice outreach 
efforts during the scoping process and throughout the preparation of 
the document, including notifications concerning the project, public 
service announcements for Spanish language radio stations, distribution 
of a project fact sheet in Spanish, contacts with community groups, 
availability of a project hotline for Spanish speakers, and extension 
of the scoping comment period.

O. Cumulative Impacts

Comments on Cumulative Impacts
    Comments stated that SEA should consider the cumulative impacts of 
the Bayport Loop Build-Out with other projects being planned in the 
local area.

[[Page 47619]]

These comments mentioned the Bayport Terminal, the TxDOT SH 146 Major 
Investment Study, the 2022 and 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plans, 
and the Texas City/Shoal Point Container Terminal, among others. 
Comments stated that the EIS should study the cumulative impacts to 
rail and road transportation, rail operations, air quality, noise, land 
use, property values, risks of hazardous material release, wetlands, 
ecology, and environmental justice. Comments also stated that the 
Proposed Action should be analyzed along with the Bayport Terminal in a 
joint EIS.
    Response. The EIS will contain analyses of the cumulative impacts 
of the Proposed Action and Alternatives combined with other projects in 
the local area, such as the Bayport Terminal. The analysis of 
cumulative impacts will cover all relevant environmental impact areas 
described in this Final Scope. As discussed earlier in this Final 
Scope, SEA and USACE are preparing separate EISs for this Proposed 
Action and for the Bayport Terminal project because the two projects 
are separate and distinct. They do not depend on each other 
economically or physically and each would proceed in the absence of the 
other.
    The Web site for the Surface Transportation Board is http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: July 8, 2002.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental 
Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
 Secretary.

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P

[[Page 47620]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.001


[[Page 47621]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.002


[[Page 47622]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.003


[[Page 47623]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.004


[[Page 47624]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.005


[[Page 47625]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.006


[[Page 47626]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.007


[[Page 47627]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.008


[[Page 47628]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19JY02.009

[FR Doc. 02-17518 Filed 7-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-C