[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