[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9406-9412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03579]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. FD 36500]


Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway 
Company; Soo Line Railroad Company; Central Maine & Quebec Railway US 
Inc.; Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation; and Delaware & 
Hudson Railway Company, Inc.--Control--Kansas City Southern; The Kansas 
City Southern Railway Company; Gateway Eastern Railway Company; and The 
Texas Mexican Railway Company

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the Final Scope of Study for the 
Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: On October 29, 2021, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, 
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and their U.S. rail carrier 
subsidiaries Soo Line Railroad Company; Central Maine & Quebec Railway 
U.S. Inc.; Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation; and 
Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (collectively, CP) and Kansas 
City Southern, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Gateway 
Eastern Railway Company, and The Texas Mexican Railway Company 
(collectively, KCS) filed an application with the Surface 
Transportation Board (Board) seeking the Board's approval of the 
acquisition of control by CP of KCS (Proposed Acquisition). The 
Proposed Acquisition has the potential to result in significant 
environmental impacts; therefore, the Board's Office of Environmental 
Analysis (OEA) has determined that the preparation of an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate to meet the Board's obligations 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related laws, 
including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 
The purpose of this Notice is to inform stakeholders--including members 
of the public; elected officials; tribes; federal, state, and local 
agencies; and organizations--interested in or potentially affected by 
potential environmental and cultural impacts related to the Proposed 
Acquisition that the Final Scope of Study for the EIS is available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Wayland, Office of 
Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, c/o VHB, 940 Main 
Campus Dr., Suite 500, Raleigh, NC 27606, or call OEA's toll-free 
number for the project at 1-888-319-2337. Assistance for the hearing 
impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at 
1-800-877-8339. The website for the Board is https://www.stb.gov. For 
further information about the Board's environmental review process and 
the EIS, you may also visit the Board-sponsored project website at 
www.CP-KCSMergerEIS.com.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 29, 2021, CP and KCS (collectively, the Applicants) 
filed an application with the Board under 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 11323-
25 seeking the Board's approval of the Proposed Acquisition. CP and KCS 
are two of the seven Class I railroads in the United States, which are 
the largest railroads, defined as having annual revenue greater than 
$250 million. CP is one of Canada's two major railroads, extending 
across the country and connecting east and west coast ports. In the 
U.S., CP connects to Buffalo and Albany, New York and Searsport, Maine. 
CP also runs south into the U.S. Midwest and connects with KCS in 
Kansas City, Missouri. The KCS network extends from Kansas City, 
Missouri to the Gulf Coast and into Mexico, operating across 10 states 
in the Midwest and Southeast. CP and KCS provide rail service for a 
variety of industries, including agriculture, minerals, military, 
automotive, chemical and petroleum, energy, industrial, and consumer 
products. CP and KCS are the two smallest Class I railroads, and the 
combined railroad would be the smallest Class I railroad by revenue.

Summary of the Board's Review Processes for This Proceeding

    The Board will review the Proposed Acquisition through two parallel 
but distinct processes: (1) The transportation-related process that

[[Page 9407]]

examines the competitive, transportation, and economic implications of 
the Proposed Acquisition on the national rail system, and (2) the 
environmental process conducted by OEA that assesses the potential 
environmental effects of the Proposed Acquisition on the human and 
natural environment through the preparation of an EIS. Interested 
persons and entities may participate in either, or both, processes but 
if interested persons or entities are focused on potential 
environmental and historical impacts on communities, such as noise, 
vibration, air emissions, grade crossing safety and delay, emergency 
vehicle access, and other similar environmental issues, the appropriate 
forum is OEA's environmental review process. The statute setting forth 
the procedures for Board review of acquisitions at 49 U.S.C. 11325 and 
the Board's implementing regulations at 49 CFR 1180.4 (2000) require 
that the Board complete the process within approximately 15 months 
after the primary application is accepted for a ``major'' transaction 
such as this, and OEA must complete the environmental process before 
the Board decides whether to authorize the merger.

Environmental Review Process

    On November 12, 2021, OEA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to inform 
interested agencies, tribes, and the public of its decision to prepare 
an EIS and to initiate the formal scoping process under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 
4321-4370m-12) and the Section 106 consultation process under the NHPA 
(54 U.S.C. 306108). The NEPA process is intended to assist the Board 
and the public in identifying and assessing the potential environmental 
consequences of a proposed action before a decision on that proposal is 
made. OEA is responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with NEPA 
and related statutes, including Section 106 of the NHPA and Section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536).

Purpose and Need

    The Proposed Acquisition involves an application for Board 
authority under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 for CP to acquire KCS. The Proposed 
Acquisition is not a federal government-proposed or sponsored project. 
Thus, the project's purpose and need is informed by both the 
Applicants' goals and the Board's enabling statute--the Interstate 
Commerce Act as amended by the ICC Termination Act, Public Law 104-188, 
109 Stat. 803 (1996). See Alaska Survival v. STB, 705 F.3d 1073, 1084-
85 (9th Cir. 2013).
    According to the Applicants, the purpose of the Proposed 
Acquisition is to combine America's two smallest but fastest-growing 
Class I railroads to build a more efficient and competitive rail 
network. The Applicants state that the Proposed Acquisition would 
further the need for expanded and more capable and efficient 
transportation infrastructure while simultaneously advancing the 
interests of current and future customers in more reliable and 
economical rail transportation options serving important North-South 
trade flows. The Applicants also state that the Proposed Acquisition 
would generate environmental benefits by reducing truck transportation 
on highways in North America by more than 60,000 trucks annually, 
resulting in less congestion, less maintenance, and improved safety on 
those roads; as well as less noise pollution in the places where those 
trucks would have driven; and lowered air emissions, including 
greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Interstate Commerce Act, as 
amended, the Board ``shall approve and authorize a transaction'' such 
as this when, after considering several factors, ``it finds the 
transaction is consistent with the public interest.'' 49 U.S.C. 11324 
(b) & (c).

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The proposed federal action in this proceeding is the Applicants' 
Proposed Acquisition of KCS by CP. If the Board authorizes the Proposed 
Acquisition, CP and KCS would combine to form an integrated system to 
be known as Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC). The combination of 
these two railroads would be an end-to-end merger because the CP and 
KCS railroad networks do not overlap. The Proposed Acquisition would 
result in changes in rail traffic on portions of the combined rail 
network. Rail traffic would increase on certain rail line segments and 
would decrease on others. The largest change would occur on the CP 
mainline between Sabula, Iowa, and Kansas City, Missouri, which would 
experience an increase in rail traffic of approximately 14.4 additional 
trains per day, on average. Increases in activities at rail yards and 
intermodal facilities would also occur.
    If the Board authorizes the Proposed Acquisition, the Applicants 
plan to make capital improvements within the existing rail right-of-way 
to support the projected increases in rail traffic. The capital 
improvements would include extending 13 existing passing sidings, 
adding 10 new passing sidings, adding approximately four miles of 
double track in Blue Valley near Kansas City, Missouri, and 
approximately five miles of facility working track adjacent to the 
International Freight Gateway intermodal terminal near Kansas City. The 
Applicants have stated that they would add the capital improvements 
only as needed based on increasing traffic and that design-level 
engineering for each capital improvement would only occur if and when 
the capital improvement is needed. The Applicants do not propose to 
construct any new rail lines subject to Board licensing or to abandon 
any rail lines as part of the Proposed Acquisition.
    As discussed in the NOI, the Applicants initially informed OEA that 
they intended to add 11 new passing sidings as part of the Proposed 
Acquisition. Following the issuance of the NOI, however, the Applicants 
submitted information clarifying that one of the sidings, located near 
Brownsville, Minnesota, had been previously designed to accommodate 
projected increases in rail traffic unrelated to the Proposed 
Acquisition. The Applicants previously obtained a permit for the siding 
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387) (CWA), and the Corps conducted an 
environmental and historic review of the siding as part of the 
permitting process. Because the Brownsville siding is a preexisting 
proposed project, OEA has concluded that this capital improvement would 
not occur as a result of the Proposed Acquisition and, therefore, it 
would not be appropriate to assess the potential environmental impacts 
of the planned siding as part of the EIS for the Proposed Acquisition. 
Accordingly, the EIS will evaluate a total of 25 capital improvements. 
An interactive map showing the locations of those capital improvements 
is available on the Board-sponsored project website at www.CP-KCSMergerEIS.com.
    Railroads have the right to increase efficiency by improving their 
rail lines and rerouting their traffic without seeking authority from 
the Board. Therefore, railroad capital improvements that are designed 
to improve operational efficiency (such as sidings, double tracking, 
and industry track) typically do not require Board authorization or 
environmental review by OEA. Where capital improvements are related to 
a proposed merger or acquisition requiring Board approval, OEA 
considers, as appropriate, the potential environmental impacts from 
such capital improvements on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the 
Applicants have stated that certain capital improvements would be 
necessary to accommodate the increase in rail traffic

[[Page 9408]]

that the Applicants expect would occur as a result of the Proposed 
Acquisition. Further, the Applicants have identified the location and 
general layout of these 25 planned capital improvements in sufficient 
detail to support an environmental review. Therefore, OEA will assess 
the potential impacts of the planned capital improvement projects, as 
appropriate, as part of the EIS.
    The alternative to the Proposed Acquisition is the No-Action 
Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would occur if the Board were to 
deny authority for the Proposed Acquisition. Under the No-Action 
Alternative, CP would not acquire KCS and the projected changes in rail 
operations, rail yard activity, and intermodal facility activity would 
not occur. Rail traffic on rail lines and activities at rail yards and 
intermodal facilities could change to support regular railroad 
operations or as a result of changing market conditions, such as 
general economic growth, but would not change as a result of the 
Proposed Acquisition. Similarly, the Applicants would not construct the 
25 planned capital improvement projects under the No-Action 
Alternative. However, CP and KCS could construct sidings, extend 
existing sidings, or add additional track within the rail right-of-way 
in the future without seeking Board authority if needed to support rail 
operations on their respective rail networks. Under the No-Action 
Alternative, none of the anticipated adverse or beneficial 
environmental impacts of the Proposed Acquisition would occur.
    During the public comment period for the scoping process, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended that the EIS assess 
alternatives for sidings, double tracking, and other new infrastructure 
components. OEA notes that potential locations for siding extensions, 
new sidings, and other capital improvements along the combined CPKC 
system are limited. The locations of the 13 planned siding extensions 
are determined by the locations of the existing sidings that would be 
extended, so no alternative locations can be considered. The locations 
of the 10 planned new sidings are based on system-wide requirements, 
including the need for sidings to be placed at regular intervals along 
the mainline. The start and end points of new sidings are also 
constrained by site-specific conditions, such as the curvature of the 
existing mainline. For example, the start and end points for passing 
sidings are generally placed on straight sections of track for 
operational reasons. OEA understands that the planned double tracking 
and the planned facility working track are intended to serve site-
specific operational needs and could not be constructed in other 
locations to serve those needs. Further, because the capital 
improvements would be constructed only as needed if traffic were to 
increase, the final engineering and design of these improvements has 
not been completed to allow for comparison of alternatives that would 
differ in terms of final engineering and design (such as the final 
placement of switches or the locations of construction laydown areas).

Responsive Applications

    Certain railroads have notified the Board that they may submit 
Responsive Applications for consideration by the Board. Responsive 
Applications are proposals that parties other than the Applicants file 
with the Board to request modifications or conditions to the primary 
application. After the Board receives any Responsive Applications, OEA 
will determine what, if any, environmental review would be required. If 
any environmental review would be required, that review would be 
conducted separately from the EIS for the Proposed Acquisition.

Summary of Scoping Process

    The scoping process began on November 12, 2021, when OEA issued the 
NOI and published the NOI in the Federal Register. OEA also distributed 
the NOI to agencies, organizations, and tribes with jurisdiction or 
interest in areas where the Proposed Acquisition could result in 
environmental and cultural impacts, including along the CP and KCS 
mainlines from Chicago, Illinois to Sabula, Iowa and from Sabula, Iowa, 
to Laredo, Texas, where projected increased rail traffic resulting from 
the Proposed Acquisition would exceed the Board's thresholds for 
environmental review. OEA distributed the NOI via:
     Letters to local, state, and federal elected officials;
     Letters to community leaders, such as school principals, 
police and fire chiefs, library leadership, and religious leaders;
     Geotargeted online banner advertisements for minority and 
low-income populations;
     Letters to tribal governments and Tribal Historic 
Preservation Officers (THPOs);
     Letters to federal, state, and local agencies; and
     A press release to television stations, radio stations, 
and newspapers.
    OEA held six online public scoping meetings during the scoping 
period. To promote participation in the meetings, OEA published meeting 
information in the NOI and circulated information to elected officials 
(federal, state, and local) and local community leaders through direct 
mail and email. OEA also used Google banner advertisements to advertise 
the public scoping meetings in minority and low-income communities.
    Project information was and continues to be available for public 
review on the Board-sponsored project website and the online meeting 
room. OEA considered all comments equally no matter how comments were 
received, and it was not necessary to attend an online public meeting 
to provide scoping comments. Public scoping meeting participants had 
the option to deliver their oral comments during the meeting. 
Interested parties were encouraged to file their written scoping 
comments electronically on the Board's website, https://www.stb.gov, or 
through the Board-sponsored project website at www.CP-KCSMergerEIS.com. 
Scoping comments could also be submitted by mail. All comments 
submitted during scoping are available to the public on the Board's 
website and OEA has added commenters' email addresses to its email 
distribution list.
    The deadline for submitting comments regarding the scope of the EIS 
was originally set for December 17, 2021. However, based on requests 
from the public, OEA extended the comment period to January 3, 2022. In 
total, OEA received 492 comments, 49 of which were oral comments at the 
public scoping meetings and 443 of which were written comments, between 
November 12, 2021 and the end of the scoping comment period on January 
3, 2022.
    OEA has and will continue to update and monitor the Board-sponsored 
project website, project email inbox, and toll-free information phone 
line throughout the environmental review process to provide current 
project information.

Summary of Scoping Comments

     Environmental Review Process: Commenters requested an 
extension of the scoping comment period, an extended comment period on 
the Draft EIS, an extension of the Board's oversight period of the 
Proposed Acquisition, and that OEA publish a draft Scope of Study for 
the EIS. As discussed above, OEA extended the scoping comment period in 
response to requests from commenters. Requests for other extensions 
will be considered if filed at the appropriate time. Regarding the 
issuance of a draft Scope of Study, the Board's regulations at 49 CFR

[[Page 9409]]

1105.10(a)(2) only require the issuance of an NOI with a description of 
the proposed action and a request for written comments on the scope of 
the EIS. The NOI and public involvement and agency consultation 
materials that OEA issued in this case provided the list of topics that 
the EIS might address and, therefore, the public and agencies had 
information necessary to provide comments regarding the scope of the 
EIS.
    Commenters requested that the EIS consider projected changes in 
rail operations extending at least 10 years after authorization of the 
Proposed Acquisition. Consistent with past practice, OEA will assess 
impacts related to changes in rail operations projected over five years 
from the authorization of the Proposed Acquisition because five years 
is not too long to produce reasonable and reliable freight rail 
forecasts. The 10-year projections recommended by commenters, however, 
would be too long to produce reasonable estimates.
     Proposed Action and Alternatives: Commenters requested 
that OEA consider reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Acquisition. 
As discussed above, the EIS will evaluate the Proposed Acquisition and 
the No-Action Alternative.
     Freight Rail Capacity and Safety: Commenters requested 
that the EIS evaluate potential public health and safety impacts that 
could be associated with the accidental release of oil and other 
hazardous substances that could be transported on the combined network. 
Commenters expressed concerns about safety, citing their understanding 
of CP's safety record, specific incidents, and the potential for 
derailments. Commenters requested that the Board impose mitigation 
measures to address rail safety, including measures requiring reduced 
train speeds and preventative measures for reducing the risk of 
derailments. Commenters requested additional information regarding the 
potential changes in operations that could occur as a result of the 
Proposed Acquisition, including changes to lengths of trains, and 
questioned some data provided by the Applicants regarding operations 
changes, including the projected number of trains per day and the 
projected volumes of oil and other hazardous materials that trains 
operating on the combined network could transport. The EIS will provide 
additional available information regarding potential changes in 
operations, will disclose the potential impacts of those changes on 
freight rail capacity and safety, and will consider potential 
appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts related to freight 
rail capacity and safety.
     Passenger Rail Capacity and Safety: Commenters expressed 
concern regarding increased delays and service impacts to passenger 
rail service, such as the Metra commuter rail service. As described 
below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address passenger rail capacity 
and safety, including impacts to commuter rail, and will consider 
potential appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts related to 
passenger rail capacity and safety.
     Roadway/Rail At-Grade Crossing Safety and Delay: 
Commenters expressed concern regarding the increased number and length 
of trains causing traffic delays and delays to emergency services. 
Commenters recommended that the EIS estimate the impact of the Proposed 
Acquisition on extended blockages at each crossing, develop mitigation 
to address those impacts, and then measure the actual changes using 
gate monitoring during the Board's oversight period if the Board 
authorizes the Proposed Acquisition. Commenters expressed concern about 
trains using the new sidings and blocking access to roads, public land 
access, and private driveways (including delays for emergency response 
services). Commenters expressed concern regarding decreased safety for 
drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists as a result of projected increased 
train traffic at grade crossings. Commenters also expressed concern 
regarding increased delays at grade crossings blocking access to 
important economic activities, recreational facilities, and schools. 
Commenters requested that OEA consider mitigation measures, such as 
grade separations, to address impacts associated with increased rail 
traffic at grade crossings. As described below in the Final Scope, the 
EIS will address grade crossing safety and delay impacts and will 
consider potential appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts 
related to grade crossing safety and delay.
     Traffic and Roadway Systems: Commenters requested 
additional information regarding truck traffic increases at intermodal 
facilities and requested that the analysis of traffic operations 
include a morning, afternoon/evening, and off-peak period analysis. As 
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address traffic and 
roadway system impacts and will consider potential appropriate 
mitigation measures to address impacts related to traffic and roadway 
systems.
     Noise: Commenters recommended that the impact of noise and 
vibration on people and animals living in proximity to the rail lines 
be considered. Commenters expressed concern about their communities 
experiencing negative impacts from increased train noise. Commenters 
also expressed concern regarding vibrations damaging utilities, 
roadways, and buildings in their communities. Commenters recommended 
mitigation measures for noise impacts on their communities, including 
quiet zone restrictions, idling policies, gate crossing policies, and 
horn policies. As described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will 
address noise and vibration impacts and will consider potential 
appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts related to noise and 
vibration.
     Air Quality and Climate Change: Commenters expressed 
concern regarding potential air quality impacts on human health, 
communities, and wildlife due to emissions from locomotives, vehicles 
delayed at at-grade crossings, and from activities at rail yards and 
intermodal facilities. Commenters recommended that the EIS evaluate the 
short- and long-term emissions and associated potential health impacts 
using best available methods, particularly in areas with special air 
quality protections and areas where vulnerable community are located. 
Commenters also recommended a ``hotspot'' analysis be conducted at rail 
yards, intermodal terminals, grade crossings, junctions, and other 
places of concentrated rail activity. Commenters further requested that 
the EIS consider measures to reduce air emissions, such as vegetative 
barriers, staging zones, and using electric switching locomotives. 
Commenters requested that the EIS evaluate the potential air quality 
benefits of the Proposed Acquisition. Commenters requested that OEA 
evaluate the impact of the Proposed Acquisition on climate change in 
terms of greenhouse gas emissions and consider climate change 
resiliency and adaptation measures or plans to ensure that 
infrastructure would maintain structural integrity under changing 
climate conditions. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider 
beneficial and adverse impacts related to air quality and climate 
change, as well as potential appropriate mitigation measures to address 
air quality and climate change impacts.
     Energy: Commenters expressed concern that the Proposed 
Acquisition could increase rail transportation of crude oil. As 
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will analyze the

[[Page 9410]]

effect of the Proposed Acquisition on the transportation of energy 
resources and will consider potential appropriate mitigation measures 
to address impacts related to energy.
     Cultural Resources: Commenters expressed concern that the 
25 planned capital improvements could affect cultural resources. 
Commenters recommended consultation with tribal governments and THPOs 
regarding the Proposed Acquisition. Commenters expressed concerns 
regarding vibration impacts to historic districts, sites, and 
landmarks. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider impacts 
on cultural resources, as well as potential appropriate mitigation 
measures to address impacts on cultural resources.
     Natural Resources (Water Resources and Biological 
Resources): Commenters expressed concerns regarding impacts from 
increased train traffic, including noise and vibration impacts, and 
impacts from the use of chemical and herbicides along the rail right-
of-way on wildlife and vegetation, including migratory birds, forest 
preserve assets, and threatened and endangered species. Commenters 
recommended that OEA consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
state natural resources departments, and regional and local wildlife 
experts regarding impacts on wildlife and vegetation and appropriate 
mitigation measures, potentially including wildlife crossings, methods 
to prevent the spread of invasive species, and alternative management 
practices to limit herbicide use. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS 
will consider impacts on wildlife and vegetation, as appropriate.
    Commenters recommended that the EIS identify impacts on water 
resources, including wetlands, and discuss compliance with Sections 
404, 402, and 303(d) of the CWA. Commenters expressed concern that 
increased rail traffic could worsen existing impacts related to rail 
operation, such as by increasing structural fatigue and maintenance 
costs for water crossings, increasing the potential for harmful runoff 
from the rail right-of-way, and increasing the risk of derailments or 
spills that could affect water quality. The Final Scope reflects that 
the EIS will consider potential impacts on water resources, as well as 
potential appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts on water 
resources.
     Environmental Justice: Commenters expressed concerns 
regarding potentially disproportionate impacts on minority and low-
income populations, including impacts from increased rail traffic and 
increased activity at rail yards and intermodal facilities on economic 
advancement, business development, healthcare and pharmacy access, 
commute times, education access, and food access in minority and low-
income communities. Commenters recommended expanded outreach to 
minority and low-income populations, including multilingual outreach to 
impacted communities.
    Commenters suggested mitigation measures for environmental justice 
communities living adjacent to the tracks and near rail yards to 
protect their health, including air quality monitoring and air filters 
in schools. As described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address 
environmental justice impacts and will recommend potential appropriate 
mitigation measures to address disproportionately high and adverse 
impacts on environment justice communities.
     Cumulative Impacts: Commenters expressed concern that 
cumulative impacts from the Proposed Acquisition and other projects and 
activities could result in impacts on people, communities, and the 
environment, including impacts related to increased noise, increased 
air pollution, decreased economic activity, and decreased safety. As 
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address cumulative 
impacts, as appropriate.
    Based on the comments received and OEA's own analysis, OEA has 
prepared the Final Scope of Study for the EIS, which is detailed below.

Final Scope

Environmental Impact Analysis

    The EIS will address proposed activities and their potential 
environmental impacts, as appropriate. OEA will evaluate only the 
potential environmental impacts of operational and physical changes 
that are related to the Proposed Acquisition.
    The scope of the analysis will include the following types of 
activities:
    1. Anticipated changes in level of operations on rail lines (for 
instance, an increase in average number of trains per day) for those 
rail line segments that meet or exceed the Board's thresholds for 
environmental review in 49 CFR 1105.7(e).
    2. Expected changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal 
facilities to the extent such changes may exceed the Board's thresholds 
for environmental analysis in 49 CFR 1105.7(e).
    3. Planned capital improvements, including new sidings, siding 
extensions, and installation of double track and industry track.
    Based on OEA's initial screening of topics pertinent to the 
Proposed Acquisition and on the fact that no comments were received on 
the topics of land use, recreation, geology, soils, and aesthetics, the 
Draft EIS will not analyze these topics.

Environmental Impact Categories

    The EIS will analyze potential impacts of the Proposed Acquisition 
on the environment, including the areas of: freight and passenger rail 
capacity and safety, including hazardous materials transport safety; 
roadway/rail at-grade crossings, including safety, delay, and emergency 
response delay; transportation systems; noise; air quality and climate 
change; energy; cultural resources; hazardous waste sites; natural 
resources, water resources, and navigation; environmental justice; and 
cumulative impacts as described below.
1. Freight and Passenger Rail Capacity and Safety
    The EIS will:
    A. For rail line segments on which rail traffic is projected to 
meet or exceed the Board's thresholds for environmental review as a 
result of the Proposed Acquisition, describe projected freight rail 
operations and analyze the potential for increased probability of train 
accidents including derailments, as appropriate.
    B. For rail line segments with existing passenger rail traffic and 
a projected average increase of one or more freight trains per day, 
describe projected passenger rail operations and analyze the potential 
for increased probability of train accidents including derailments, as 
appropriate.
    C. Determine adequacy of freight rail capacity.
    D. For rail line segments with existing passenger rail traffic and 
a projected increase of one or more freight trains per day, determine 
adequacy of existing and proposed passenger rail capacity and any 
impacts to passenger rail service.
    E. Identify hazardous materials that would be transported on the 
combined network, the materials and quantity; the projected frequency 
of service; whether chemicals are being transported that, if mixed, 
could react to form more hazardous compounds; safety practices 
(including any speed restrictions); the Applicants' safety record on 
derailments, accidents, and hazardous spills; the contingency plans to 
deal with accidental spills; and the likelihood of an accidental 
release of hazardous materials.
    F. Describe the Applicants' emergency management or emergency 
response plans.

[[Page 9411]]

2. Roadway/Rail At-Grade Crossing Safety and Delay
    The EIS will:
    A. For all roadway/rail at-grade crossings on rail line segments 
where increased traffic would exceed applicable thresholds for 
environmental review, describe the existing crossing delay and analyze 
the potential for an increase in delay related to the proposed rail 
operations, as appropriate.
    B. For all roadway/rail at-grade crossings on rail line segments 
where projected increases in rail traffic would exceed applicable 
thresholds for environmental review, describe the probability of 
vehicle accidents, as appropriate.
    C. For the 25 planned capital improvements, evaluate the potential 
for trains stopped on sidings to block roadway/rail at-grade crossings.
    D. Evaluate the potential for disruption and delays to the movement 
of emergency vehicles.
3. Traffic and Roadway Systems
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe the effects of the Proposed Acquisition on regional or 
local transportation systems and patterns. Estimate the amount of 
traffic (passenger or freight) that would be diverted to other 
transportation systems or modes because of the Proposed Acquisition.
    B. Describe potential diversions of freight traffic from trucks to 
rail and from rail to trucks that would occur as a result of the 
Proposed Acquisition, as appropriate.
    C. Analyze increased truck traffic to and from intermodal 
facilities where the Proposed Acquisition would result in an increase 
of 50 or more trucks per day or a 10 percent increase in ADT on 
affected roadways.
4. Noise
    The EIS will:
    A. For rail line segments, analyze noise impacts where an increase 
in rail traffic of at least 100 percent (measured in gross ton miles 
annually) or an increase of at least eight trains per day is projected 
to occur as a result of the Proposed Acquisition.
    B. For rail yards, analyze noise impacts where an increase in rail 
yard activity of at least 100 percent (measured by carload activity) is 
projected to occur.
    C. For intermodal facilities, analyze noise impacts where an 
average increase in truck traffic of more than 10 percent of the ADT or 
50 vehicles per day on any affected road segment is projected to occur.
    D. Analyze noise and vibration impacts resulting from the 25 
planned capital improvements, as appropriate.
    E. If any of the thresholds above would be exceeded, determine 
whether the Proposed Acquisition would cause:
    i. An incremental increase in noise levels of three decibels (dB) 
day-night average sound level (Ldn) or more; and
    ii. An increase to a noise level of 65 dB Ldn or greater. If so, 
identify sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, libraries, hospitals, 
residences, retirement communities, and nursing homes) in the project 
area, and quantify the noise increase for these receptors if the 
thresholds are surpassed.
5. Air Quality and Climate Change
    The EIS will:
    A. Quantify air emissions in areas where the Proposed Acquisition 
would result in:
    i. An increase in rail traffic of at least 100 percent (measured in 
gross ton miles annually) or an increase of at least eight trains per 
day on any segment of rail line affected by the proposal, or
    ii. An increase in rail yard activity of at least 100 percent 
(measured by carload activity), or
    iii. An average increase in truck traffic of more than 10 percent 
of the average daily traffic or 50 vehicles per day on any affected 
road segment.
    B. If the Proposed Acquisition would affect Class I or 
nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act, quantify air emissions 
where the Proposed Acquisition would result in:
    i. An increase in rail traffic of at least 50 percent (measured in 
gross ton miles annually) or an increase of at least three trains per 
day on any segment of rail line,
    ii. An increase in rail yard activity of at least 20 percent 
(measured by carload activity), or
    iii. An average increase in truck traffic of more than 10 percent 
of the average daily traffic or 50 vehicles per day on a given road 
segment.
    C. State whether any expected increased emissions are within the 
parameters established by the applicable State Implementation Plan.
    D. Discuss potential air emissions increases from vehicle delays at 
roadway/rail at-grade crossings where the crossing is projected to 
experience a change in rail traffic arising from the Proposed 
Acquisition that would exceed the threshold described above.
    E. Evaluate the air emissions and air quality impacts from 
potential changes in operation of trains and changes in truck traffic 
that would result from the Proposed Acquisition, including potential 
greenhouse gas emissions, as appropriate.
    F. Analyze the potential impacts of climate change on the 25 
planned capital improvements.
6. Energy
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe the effect of the Proposed Acquisition on 
transportation of energy resources.
    B. Describe the effect of the Proposed Acquisition on recyclable 
commodities.
    C. State whether the Proposed Acquisition would result in an 
increase or decrease in overall energy efficiency and explain why.
7. Cultural Resources
    For the 25 planned capital improvements, the EIS will:
    A. Identify historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or 
districts eligible for listing on or listed on the National Register of 
Historic Places (National Register) within the Area of Potential Effect 
(APE).
    B. In consultation with federally recognized tribes participating 
in the Section 106 process, identify properties of traditional 
religious and cultural importance to tribes and prehistoric or historic 
archaeological sites evaluated as potentially eligible, eligible, or 
listed on the National Register (archaeological historic properties) 
within the APE and analyze potential project-related impacts to them, 
including indirect visual effects.
8. Hazardous Waste Sites
    For the 25 planned capital improvements, the EIS will:
    A. Identify known hazardous waste sites or sites where there have 
been known hazardous materials spills within 500 feet of the capital 
improvement locations, identify the location of those sites and the 
types of hazardous waste involved.
9. Natural Resources
    For the 25 planned capital improvements, the EIS will:
    A. Based on consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
state whether the Proposed Acquisition would be likely to adversely 
affect endangered or threatened species or areas designated as a 
critical habitat, and if so, describe the effects.
    B. State whether the Proposed Acquisition would affect wildlife 
sanctuaries, refuges, or rearing facilities; national or state parks, 
forests, or grasslands; critical, unique, or high-value habitats that 
support threatened or endangered species; and riparian habitats and 
describe any effects.
    C. Evaluate the existing biological resources within the project 
area,

[[Page 9412]]

including vegetative communities, wildlife, fisheries, wetlands, and 
federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species (including 
candidate species).
10. Water Resources
    A. For the existing mainline, the EIS will, identify any movable-
span bridges that an increase in trains per day might affect.
    B. For the 25 planned capital improvements, the EIS will:
    i. State whether the Proposed Acquisition would be consistent with 
applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards and 
describe any inconsistencies.
    ii. State whether the capital improvements would require permits 
under Section 404 of the CWA and whether any designated wetlands or 
100-year floodplains would be affected.
    iii. State whether the capital improvements would require permits 
under Section 402 of the CWA.
    iv. Describe the existing surface water and groundwater resources 
within the project area, including lakes, rivers, streams, stock ponds, 
wetlands, and floodplains.
    v. Evaluate potential impacts from the Proposed Acquisition on the 
aquatic habitat environment and fish, including the potential effects 
of stream-crossing structures (i.e., culverts and bridges) on fish 
passage.
    vi. Consider the potential impacts on groundwater and surface water 
quality, including 303(d) listed impaired surface waters, from the 
capital improvements.
    vii. Evaluate potential alterations of stream morphology and 
surface water and groundwater movement and flow from the presence of 
culverts, bridges, and rail embankments for each capital improvement.
    viii. Identify existing navigable waterways within the project 
area.
11. Environmental Justice
    The EIS will:
    A. Evaluate whether the Proposed Acquisition would adversely or 
beneficially affect low-income or minority populations.
    B. Conduct enhanced outreach efforts to environmental justice 
populations.
    C. Identify potentially high and adverse impacts to minority and 
low-income populations.
    D. Determine whether those impacts are disproportionately borne by 
minority and low-income populations.
12. Cumulative Impacts
    The EIS will:
    A. Evaluate the cumulative and incremental impacts of the Proposed 
Acquisition when added to other past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable future actions in the project area, as appropriate.
13. Mitigation Measures
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe any actions that are proposed to mitigate adverse 
environmental impacts, indicating why the proposed mitigation is 
appropriate.

    Decided: February 15, 2022.

    By the Board, Danielle Gosselin, Acting Director, Office of 
Environmental Analysis.
Brendetta Jones,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2022-03579 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P