Great Lakes Basin Transportation, Inc: Authority To Construct and Operate a Rail Line in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin, 14929-14932 [2016-06151]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Notices
October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C.
2459), Executive Order 12047 of March
27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat.
2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et
seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of
October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority
No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as
appropriate, Delegation of Authority No.
257–1 of December 11, 2015), I hereby
determine that the object to be included
in the exhibition ‘‘A Portrait of
Antinous: In Two Parts,’’ imported from
abroad for temporary exhibition within
the United States, is of cultural
significance. The object is imported
pursuant to a loan agreement with the
foreign owner or custodian. I also
determine that the exhibition or display
of the exhibit object at The Art Institute
of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, from on
about April 2, 2016, until on or about
August 28, 2016, and at possible
additional exhibitions or venues yet to
be determined, is in the national
interest. I have ordered that Public
Notice of these Determinations be
published in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information, including an object
list, contact the Office of Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S.
Department of State (telephone: 202–
632–6471; email: section2459@
state.gov). The mailing address is U.S.
Department of State, L/PD, SA–5, Suite
5H03, Washington, DC 20522–0505.
Dated: March 10, 2016.
Mark Taplin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau
of Educational and Cultural Affairs,
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2016–06171 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice: 9464]
Additional Designation of a North
Korean Entity Pursuant to Executive
Order 13382
Department of State.
Designation of The Strategic
Force Pursuant to E.O. 13382
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Pursuant to the authority in
section 1(ii) of Executive Order 13382,
‘‘Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass
Destruction Proliferators and Their
Supporters’’, the State Department, in
consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Attorney General, has
determined that The Strategic Force has
engaged, or attempted to engage, in
activities or transactions that have
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:50 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
materially contributed to, or pose a risk
of materially contributing to, the
proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction or their means of delivery
(including missiles capable of delivering
such weapons), including any efforts to
manufacture, acquire, possess, develop,
transport, transfer or use such items, by
any person or foreign country of
proliferation concern.
DATES: The designation by the Secretary
of State of the entity identified in this
notice pursuant to Executive Order
13382 is effective on December 8, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director, Office of Counterproliferation
Initiatives, Bureau of International
Security and Nonproliferation,
Department of State, Washington, DC
20520, tel.: 202–647–5193.
Background
On June 28, 2005, the President,
invoking the authority, inter alia, of the
International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706)
(‘‘IEEPA’’), issued Executive Order
13382 (70 FR 38567, July 1, 2005) (the
‘‘Order’’), effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern
daylight time on June 30, 2005. In the
Order the President took additional
steps with respect to the national
emergency described and declared in
Executive Order 12938 of November 14,
1994, regarding the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them.
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with
certain exceptions, all property and
interests in property that are in the
United States, or that hereafter come
within the United States or that are or
hereafter come within the possession or
control of United States persons, of: (1)
The persons listed in the Annex to the
Order; (2) any foreign person
determined by the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Attorney General, and
other relevant agencies, to have
engaged, or attempted to engage, in
activities or transactions that have
materially contributed to, or pose a risk
of materially contributing to, the
proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction or their means of delivery
(including missiles capable of delivering
such weapons), including any efforts to
manufacture, acquire, possess, develop,
transport, transfer or use such items, by
any person or foreign country of
proliferation concern; (3) any person
determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, the Attorney General,
and other relevant agencies, to have
provided, or attempted to provide,
financial, material, technological or
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14929
other support for, or goods or services
in support of, any activity or transaction
described in clause (2) above or any
person whose property and interests in
property are blocked pursuant to the
Order; and (4) any person determined
by the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State,
the Attorney General, and other relevant
agencies, to be owned or controlled by,
or acting or purporting to act for or on
behalf of, directly or indirectly, any
person whose property and interests in
property are blocked pursuant to the
Order.
Information on the additional
designee is as follows:
Name: Strategic Force
AKA: Strategic Forces
AKA: Strategic Rocket Force
AKA: The Strategic Rocket Force
Command of KPA
AKA: Strategic Rocket Force of the
Korean People’s Army
Address: Pyongyang, North Korea
Dated: December 8, 2015.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
Note: This document was received by the
Office of the Federal Register on March 10,
2016.
[FR Doc. 2016–05848 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–27–P
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[STB Docket No. FD 35952]
Great Lakes Basin Transportation, Inc:
Authority To Construct and Operate a
Rail Line in Indiana, Illinois and
Wisconsin
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement;
Notice of Availability of the Draft Scope
of Study for the Environmental Impact
Statement; Notice of Scoping Meetings;
and Request for Comments on Draft
Scope of Study.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Great Lakes Basin
Transportation, Inc. (GLBT) plans to file
either a petition for exemption pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 10502, or an application
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901, seeking
authority from the Surface
Transportation Board (Board) to
construct and operate an approximately
278-mile rail line. According to GLBT,
the proposed rail line would extend
generally from near La Porte, Indiana
through Illinois to near Milton,
Wisconsin and would connect with
existing Class I railroads.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
14930
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Notices
The construction and operation of the
GLBT’s proposed rail line 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 pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The purpose of this
Notice of Intent is to inform
stakeholders—including members of the
public; Tribes; federal, state, and local
agencies; environmental groups;
potential shippers and other parties—
interested in or potentially affected by
the proposed project. OEA will hold
public scoping meetings as part of the
NEPA process. Comments submitted
during scoping will assist OEA in
defining the range of alternatives and
potential impacts to be considered in
the EIS. OEA has developed a Draft
Scope of Study for the EIS for
stakeholder review and comment.
Public meeting dates and locations,
along with the Draft Scope of Study, are
provided below. This Notice of Intent
initiates the EIS process and scoping.
DATES: Dates and Locations: The public
scoping meetings will be held at the
following locations on the dates listed:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
• April 11, 2016; 5:30–8:00 p.m.; Manteno
Sportsmen’s Club Banquet Hall, 851 North
Main Street, Manteno, Illinois;
• April 12, 2016; 5:30–8:00 p.m.; Lowell
Town Hall, 501 East Main Street, Lowell,
Indiana;
• April 13, 2016; 5:30–8:00 p.m.;
American Legion Banquet Hall, 203 South
Washington Street, Wanatah, Indiana;
• April 14, 2016; 5:30–8:00 p.m.; Civic
Auditorium Banquet Room, 1001 Ridge
Street, LaPorte, Indiana;
• April 18, 2016; 5:30–8:00 p.m.; Craig
High School Cafeteria, 401 South Randall
Street, Janesville, Wisconsin;
• April 19, 2016; 5:30–8:00 p.m.; Cherry
Valley Fire Station #2 Hall, 4919 Blackhawk
Road, Rockford, Illinois;
• April 20, 2016; 5:30–8:00 p.m.; Rochelle
Township High School Auditorium, 1401
Flagg Road, Rochelle, Illinois; and
• April 21, 2016; 5:30–8:00 p.m.; Seneca
High School Auditorium, 307 East Scott
Street, Seneca, Illinois.
The scoping meetings will be held in
an open house format for the first hour
followed by a brief presentation by
OEA. After the presentation, interested
parties will be provided an opportunity
for public comment at an open
microphone for the balance of the
scoping meeting. A court reporter will
transcribe these oral public comments.
The meeting locations comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). Persons
that need special accommodations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:50 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
should contact OEA’s project manager
listed below.
OEA invites written public comments
on all aspects of the Draft Scope of
Study and is providing a 60-day public
comment period which begins on March
18, 2016. These written comments may
be submitted (1) during the scoping
meetings, or (2) by mailing or electronic
filing the comments using the filing
instructions below. Comments should
be submitted by May 16, 2016 to assure
full consideration during the scoping
process. OEA will issue a Final Scope
of Study after the close of the scoping
comment period.
Summary of the Board’s
Environmental Review Process: The
NEPA process is intended to assist the
Board and the public in identifying and
assessing the potential environmental
consequences of a proposed action
before a decision on the proposed action
is made. OEA is responsible for
ensuring that the Board complies with
NEPA and related environmental
statutes. The first stage of the EIS
process is scoping. Scoping is an open
process for determining the scope of
environmental issues to be addressed in
the EIS. As part of the scoping process,
OEA has developed, and has made
available for public comment in this
notice, a Draft Scope of Study for the
EIS. Scoping meetings will be held in
the project area to provide further
opportunities for public involvement
and input during the scoping process. In
addition to comments on the Draft
Scope of Study, interested parties are
also encouraged to comment on
potential alternative routes for the
proposed rail line. At the conclusion of
the scoping period, OEA will issue a
Final Scope of Study for the EIS.
After issuing the Final Scope of
Study, OEA will prepare a Draft EIS for
the project. The Draft EIS will address
the environmental issues and concerns
identified during the scoping process
and assess and compare potential
alternatives including the no-action
alternative. The Draft EIS will also
contain OEA’s preliminary
recommendations for environmental
mitigation measures. Upon its
completion, the Draft EIS will be made
available for review and comment by
the public, government agencies, and
other interested parties. OEA will
prepare a Final EIS that considers
comments on the Draft EIS. In reaching
its decision in this case, the Board will
consider the Draft EIS, the Final EIS, all
environmental comments, and OEA’s
recommendations regarding the
environmentally preferred alternative
and environmental mitigation measures.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
OEA will be inviting several agencies
to participate in this EIS process as
cooperating agencies on the basis of
their special expertise or jurisdiction by
law.
Filing Environmental Comments:
Scoping comments submitted by mail
should be addressed to: Dave Navecky,
Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001, Docket No. FD 35952.
Scoping comments may also be
submitted electronically on the Board’s
Web site, www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking
on the ‘‘E–FILING’’ link on the home
page and then selecting ‘‘Environmental
Comments.’’ Log-in accounts are not
needed to file environmental comments
electronically, and comments may be
typed into the text box provided or
attached as a file. If you have difficulties
with the e-filing process, please call
202–245–0350.
Please refer to Docket No. FD 35952
in all correspondence, including efilings, addressed to the Board.
Scoping Comments are due by May
16, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dave Navecky by mail at Office of
Environmental Analysis, Surface
Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20423–0001; by email
at david.navecky@stb.dot.gov, or by
phone at 202–245–0294. Assistance for
the hearing impaired is available
through the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.
Members of the press should contact
Dennis Watson in the Board’s Office of
Public Assistance, Governmental
Affairs, and Compliance by email at
dennis.watson@stb.dot.gov, or by phone
at 202–245–0234.
The Web site for the Board is
www.stb.dot.gov. Project specific
information on the Board’s Web site
may be found by placing your cursor on
the ‘‘Environmental Matters’’ button,
then clicking on the ‘‘Key Cases’’ button
in the drop down menu and then
selecting ‘‘Great Lakes Basin.’’ For
additional information about the
Board’s environmental review process
and this EIS, you may also visit a Boardsponsored project Web site at
GreatLakesBasinRailEIS.com. The
project Web site includes a map of the
project area including the potential
route proposed by GLBT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Draft Scope of Study for the EIS
Purpose and Need
GLBT states that the principal
purpose of the proposed rail line is to
provide Class I railroads and a regional
railroad utilizing the Chicago
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
metropolitan terminal area with more
efficient options to route trains around
the city. The Class I railroads include:
BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, Canadian National
Railway Company, Norfolk Southern
Railway Company, Canadian Pacific
Railway Company, and CSX
Transportation, Inc. The regional
railroad is the Wisconsin and Southern
Railroad LLC. The proposed rail line
would (1) allow freight traffic not
destined for or originating in Chicago to
bypass the existing congested Chicago
terminal area, and (2) add capacity to
accommodate existing and reasonably
anticipated future growth while
avoiding major population centers.
GLBT anticipates that the proposed
rail line would be utilized by unit
commodity trains and mixed carload
and intermodal trains that do not
require transport to the Chicago
terminal area for sorting or delivery.
GLBT would construct a terminal for its
rail operations near Manteno, Illinois to
provide switching, servicing, and car
and locomotive repair to its railroad
customers. According to GLBT, transit
times through the Chicago area, which
currently can take up to 30 hours to
complete, would be reduced to under 8
hours depending on the specific
interchange points and applicable speed
restrictions on the proposed rail line.
The expected congestion relief would
allow the railroads to better handle their
Chicago proper and suburban traffic and
make room for potential future growth
within the existing terminal network.
The proposed project is not a federal
government-proposed or sponsored
project. Thus, the Board has determined
that the project’s purpose and need
should be informed by both the
applicant’s goals and the agency’s
enabling statute, here, 49 U.S.C. 10901.
Section 10901 provides that the Board
must approve a construction request
unless it finds that the construction is
‘‘inconsistent with the public
convenience and necessity.’’
Proposed Action and Alternatives
GLBT’s proposed rail line would
involve a petition for exemption or
application seeking authority from the
Board to construct and operate an
approximately 278-mile rail line.
According to GLBT, the rail line would
extend generally from near La Porte,
Indiana through Illinois to near Milton,
Wisconsin.
The proposed rail line would consist
mostly of double track. The tracks
would use Centralized Traffic Control
signals and Positive Train Control to
allow for movements of up to 110 trains
per day. Other major elements of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:50 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
proposed project would include a 200foot-wide right-of-way, flyovers at
railroad crossings, four major river
crossings in the State of Illinois (the
Illinois, Kankakee, Fox, and Rock
rivers), and grade-separated crossings of
interstate highways and many
roadways. The proposed project could
include at-grade road crossings and the
closure of some small rural roads.
The EIS will analyze and compare the
potential impacts of (1) construction
and operation of all reasonable and
feasible alternative routes for the
proposed GLBT rail line and (2) the noaction alternative (denial of the petition
or application).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Proposed Construction and Operation
Analyses in the EIS will address the
proposed activities associated with the
construction and operation of the rail
line and its potential environmental
impacts, as appropriate.
Impact Categories
The EIS will analyze potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts 1 of
GLBT’s proposed rail line construction
and operation, including the range of
reasonable and feasible alternatives, on
the human and natural environment, or
in the case of the no-action alternative,
the lack of these activities.
Impact areas addressed will include
the categories of transportation systems,
safety, land use, recreation, biological
resources, water resources, including
wetlands and other waters of the U.S.,
navigation, geology and soils, air
quality, noise, energy resources,
socioeconomics, cultural and historic
resources, aesthetics and environmental
justice. Other categories of potential
impacts may also be included as a result
of comments received during the
scoping process or on the Draft EIS. The
EIS will include a discussion of each of
these categories as they currently exist
in the project area and will address the
potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of each reasonable
and feasible alternative on each category
as described below:
1. Transportation Systems
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing transportation
network in the project area.
1 NEPA requires the Board to consider direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts. Direct and
indirect impacts are both caused by the action. 40
CFR 1508.8(a)–(b). A cumulative impact is the
‘‘incremental impact of the action when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (federal or
non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions.’’ 40 CFR 1508.7.
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14931
b. Analyze potential impacts resulting
from each alternative on the existing
transportation network in the project
area.
c. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to transportation
systems, as appropriate.
2. Safety
The EIS will:
a. Describe road/rail grade crossing
safety and analyze the potential for an
increase in accidents related to the
proposed rail operations, as appropriate.
b. Describe existing rail operations
and analyze the potential for increased
probability of train accidents, as
appropriate.
c. Analyze the potential for disruption
and delays to the movement of
emergency vehicles from any new atgrade crossings and road closures that
could accompany the construction and
operation of the proposed rail line.
d. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on safety, as
appropriate.
3. Land Use
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing land use patterns
in the project area. Analyze potential
impacts on existing land use patterns
and land uses from each alternative
including potential impacts on
agricultural activities from rail line
construction and operation.
b. Evaluate consistency with Coastal
Zone Management Program, as
applicable.
c. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
impacts on land use, as appropriate.
4. Recreation
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing conditions and
analyze the potential impacts of each
alternative on recreational areas and
opportunities provided in the project
area.
b. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on recreational
opportunities, as appropriate.
5. Biological Resources
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the existing biological
resources within the project area,
including vegetative communities,
wildlife, fisheries, wetlands, and federal
and state threatened or endangered
species, and the potential impacts to
these resources resulting from each
alternative.
b. Describe any relevant wildlife
sanctuaries, refuges, national or state
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
14932
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Notices
parks, forests, or grasslands, and analyze
the potential impacts on these resources
resulting from each alternative.
c. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to biological resources,
as appropriate.
6. Water Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe the existing surface water
and groundwater resources within the
project area, including the lakes, rivers,
streams, agricultural drainage tile
systems, stock ponds, wetlands, and
floodplains and analyze the potential
impacts on these resources resulting
from each alternative.
b. Describe the permitting
requirements for the various alternatives
with regard to wetlands, river crossings,
water quality, floodplains, and erosion
control.
c. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to water resources, as
appropriate.
7. Navigation
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing navigable
waterways within the project area and
analyze the potential impacts on
navigability resulting from each
alternative.
b. Describe the permitting
requirements for the various alternatives
with regard to navigation.
c. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
impacts on navigation, as appropriate.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8. Geology and Soils
The EIS will:
a. Describe the geology, soils, and
seismic conditions found within the
project area, including unique or
problematic geologic formations or soils,
prime farmland, and hydric soils, and
analyze the potential impacts on these
resources resulting from each
alternative.
b. Analyze potential measures
employed to avoid or construct through
unique or problematic geologic
formations or soils.
c. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on geology and soils, as
appropriate.
9. Air Quality and Climate
The EIS will:
a. Analyze the potential air emissions
from operations on each alternative,
including potential changes in
greenhouse gas emissions, as
appropriate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:50 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
b. Analyze the potential air quality
impacts resulting from rail line
construction activities.
c. Analyze the potential impacts of
the proposed project on global climate
change and the potential impacts of
global climate change on the proposed
project.
d. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on air quality and global
climate change, as appropriate.
10. Noise and Vibration
The EIS will:
a. Describe the potential noise and
vibration impacts on noise sensitive
receptors (e.g., residences, schools, and
libraries) of each alternative.
b. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on sensitive noise
receptors, as appropriate.
11. Energy Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe and analyze the potential
impact of the proposed project on the
distribution of energy resources in the
project area resulting from each
alternative.
b. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on energy resources, as
appropriate.
12. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
a. Analyze the effects of a potential
influx of construction workers to the
project area and the potential increase
in demand for local services interrelated
with natural or physical environmental
effects.
b. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on social and economic
resources, as appropriate.
c. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to TCPs, and builtenvironment and archaeological historic
properties, as appropriate.
14. Aesthetics
The EIS will:
a. Describe the potential impacts of
the proposed rail line construction on
any areas identified or determined to be
of high visual quality.
b. Describe the potential impacts of
the proposed rail line construction on
any waterways considered for or
designated as wild and scenic.
c. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on aesthetics, as
appropriate.
15. Environmental Justice
The EIS will:
a. Describe minority and low-income
populations in the project area.
b. Analyze the potential impacts
resulting from each alternative on those
minority and low-income populations.
c. Propose mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on environmental
justice populations, as appropriate.
16. Cumulative Impacts
The EIS will evaluate the cumulative
and incremental impacts of the
proposed project when added to
impacts from other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions in
the project area, as appropriate.
Decided: March 15, 2016.
By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Director,
Office of Environmental Analysis.
Kenyatta Clay,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2016–06151 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
13. Cultural and Historic Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe historic buildings,
structures, sites, objects, or districts
eligible for listing on or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places
(built-environment historic properties)
within the area of potential effects for
each alternative and analyze potential
project impacts on them.
b. Describe properties of traditional
religious and cultural importance to
Indian Tribes, Traditional Cultural
Properties (TCPs), and prehistoric or
historic archaeological sites evaluated as
potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on
the National Register of Historic Places
(archaeological and historic properties)
within the area of potential effects for
each alternative, and analyze potential
project impacts on them.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2016–2)]
Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor
Surface Transportation Board.
Approval of rail cost adjustment
AGENCY:
ACTION:
factor.
The Board has approved the
second quarter 2016 rail cost adjustment
factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by
the Association of American Railroads.
The second quarter 2016 RCAF
(Unadjusted) is 0.840. The second
quarter 2016 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.356.
The second quarter 2016 RCAF–5 is
0.336.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
Effective Date: April 1, 2016.
18MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14929-14932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06151]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[STB Docket No. FD 35952]
Great Lakes Basin Transportation, Inc: Authority To Construct and
Operate a Rail Line in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement;
Notice of Availability of the Draft Scope of Study for the
Environmental Impact Statement; Notice of Scoping Meetings; and Request
for Comments on Draft Scope of Study.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Great Lakes Basin Transportation, Inc. (GLBT) plans to file
either a petition for exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502, or an
application pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901, seeking authority from the
Surface Transportation Board (Board) to construct and operate an
approximately 278-mile rail line. According to GLBT, the proposed rail
line would extend generally from near La Porte, Indiana through
Illinois to near Milton, Wisconsin and would connect with existing
Class I railroads.
[[Page 14930]]
The construction and operation of the GLBT's proposed rail line 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 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The purpose of
this Notice of Intent is to inform stakeholders--including members of
the public; Tribes; federal, state, and local agencies; environmental
groups; potential shippers and other parties--interested in or
potentially affected by the proposed project. OEA will hold public
scoping meetings as part of the NEPA process. Comments submitted during
scoping will assist OEA in defining the range of alternatives and
potential impacts to be considered in the EIS. OEA has developed a
Draft Scope of Study for the EIS for stakeholder review and comment.
Public meeting dates and locations, along with the Draft Scope of
Study, are provided below. This Notice of Intent initiates the EIS
process and scoping.
DATES: Dates and Locations: The public scoping meetings will be held at
the following locations on the dates listed:
April 11, 2016; 5:30-8:00 p.m.; Manteno Sportsmen's
Club Banquet Hall, 851 North Main Street, Manteno, Illinois;
April 12, 2016; 5:30-8:00 p.m.; Lowell Town Hall, 501
East Main Street, Lowell, Indiana;
April 13, 2016; 5:30-8:00 p.m.; American Legion Banquet
Hall, 203 South Washington Street, Wanatah, Indiana;
April 14, 2016; 5:30-8:00 p.m.; Civic Auditorium
Banquet Room, 1001 Ridge Street, LaPorte, Indiana;
April 18, 2016; 5:30-8:00 p.m.; Craig High School
Cafeteria, 401 South Randall Street, Janesville, Wisconsin;
April 19, 2016; 5:30-8:00 p.m.; Cherry Valley Fire
Station #2 Hall, 4919 Blackhawk Road, Rockford, Illinois;
April 20, 2016; 5:30-8:00 p.m.; Rochelle Township High
School Auditorium, 1401 Flagg Road, Rochelle, Illinois; and
April 21, 2016; 5:30-8:00 p.m.; Seneca High School
Auditorium, 307 East Scott Street, Seneca, Illinois.
The scoping meetings will be held in an open house format for the
first hour followed by a brief presentation by OEA. After the
presentation, interested parties will be provided an opportunity for
public comment at an open microphone for the balance of the scoping
meeting. A court reporter will transcribe these oral public comments.
The meeting locations comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). Persons that need special
accommodations should contact OEA's project manager listed below.
OEA invites written public comments on all aspects of the Draft
Scope of Study and is providing a 60-day public comment period which
begins on March 18, 2016. These written comments may be submitted (1)
during the scoping meetings, or (2) by mailing or electronic filing the
comments using the filing instructions below. Comments should be
submitted by May 16, 2016 to assure full consideration during the
scoping process. OEA will issue a Final Scope of Study after the close
of the scoping comment period.
Summary of the Board's Environmental Review Process: The NEPA
process is intended to assist the Board and the public in identifying
and assessing the potential environmental consequences of a proposed
action before a decision on the proposed action is made. OEA is
responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with NEPA and related
environmental statutes. The first stage of the EIS process is scoping.
Scoping is an open process for determining the scope of environmental
issues to be addressed in the EIS. As part of the scoping process, OEA
has developed, and has made available for public comment in this
notice, a Draft Scope of Study for the EIS. Scoping meetings will be
held in the project area to provide further opportunities for public
involvement and input during the scoping process. In addition to
comments on the Draft Scope of Study, interested parties are also
encouraged to comment on potential alternative routes for the proposed
rail line. At the conclusion of the scoping period, OEA will issue a
Final Scope of Study for the EIS.
After issuing the Final Scope of Study, OEA will prepare a Draft
EIS for the project. The Draft EIS will address the environmental
issues and concerns identified during the scoping process and assess
and compare potential alternatives including the no-action alternative.
The Draft EIS will also contain OEA's preliminary recommendations for
environmental mitigation measures. Upon its completion, the Draft EIS
will be made available for review and comment by the public, government
agencies, and other interested parties. OEA will prepare a Final EIS
that considers comments on the Draft EIS. In reaching its decision in
this case, the Board will consider the Draft EIS, the Final EIS, all
environmental comments, and OEA's recommendations regarding the
environmentally preferred alternative and environmental mitigation
measures.
OEA will be inviting several agencies to participate in this EIS
process as cooperating agencies on the basis of their special expertise
or jurisdiction by law.
Filing Environmental Comments: Scoping comments submitted by mail
should be addressed to: Dave Navecky, Surface Transportation Board, 395
E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, Docket No. FD 35952.
Scoping comments may also be submitted electronically on the
Board's Web site, www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on the ``E-FILING'' link
on the home page and then selecting ``Environmental Comments.'' Log-in
accounts are not needed to file environmental comments electronically,
and comments may be typed into the text box provided or attached as a
file. If you have difficulties with the e-filing process, please call
202-245-0350.
Please refer to Docket No. FD 35952 in all correspondence,
including e-filings, addressed to the Board.
Scoping Comments are due by May 16, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Navecky by mail at Office of
Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20423-0001; by email at david.navecky@stb.dot.gov, or by
phone at 202-245-0294. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available
through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Members of the press should contact Dennis Watson in the Board's Office
of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance by email at
dennis.watson@stb.dot.gov, or by phone at 202-245-0234.
The Web site for the Board is www.stb.dot.gov. Project specific
information on the Board's Web site may be found by placing your cursor
on the ``Environmental Matters'' button, then clicking on the ``Key
Cases'' button in the drop down menu and then selecting ``Great Lakes
Basin.'' For additional information about the Board's environmental
review process and this EIS, you may also visit a Board-sponsored
project Web site at GreatLakesBasinRailEIS.com. The project Web site
includes a map of the project area including the potential route
proposed by GLBT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Draft Scope of Study for the EIS
Purpose and Need
GLBT states that the principal purpose of the proposed rail line is
to provide Class I railroads and a regional railroad utilizing the
Chicago
[[Page 14931]]
metropolitan terminal area with more efficient options to route trains
around the city. The Class I railroads include: BNSF Railway Company,
Union Pacific Railroad Company, Canadian National Railway Company,
Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and
CSX Transportation, Inc. The regional railroad is the Wisconsin and
Southern Railroad LLC. The proposed rail line would (1) allow freight
traffic not destined for or originating in Chicago to bypass the
existing congested Chicago terminal area, and (2) add capacity to
accommodate existing and reasonably anticipated future growth while
avoiding major population centers.
GLBT anticipates that the proposed rail line would be utilized by
unit commodity trains and mixed carload and intermodal trains that do
not require transport to the Chicago terminal area for sorting or
delivery. GLBT would construct a terminal for its rail operations near
Manteno, Illinois to provide switching, servicing, and car and
locomotive repair to its railroad customers. According to GLBT, transit
times through the Chicago area, which currently can take up to 30 hours
to complete, would be reduced to under 8 hours depending on the
specific interchange points and applicable speed restrictions on the
proposed rail line. The expected congestion relief would allow the
railroads to better handle their Chicago proper and suburban traffic
and make room for potential future growth within the existing terminal
network.
The proposed project is not a federal government-proposed or
sponsored project. Thus, the Board has determined that the project's
purpose and need should be informed by both the applicant's goals and
the agency's enabling statute, here, 49 U.S.C. 10901. Section 10901
provides that the Board must approve a construction request unless it
finds that the construction is ``inconsistent with the public
convenience and necessity.''
Proposed Action and Alternatives
GLBT's proposed rail line would involve a petition for exemption or
application seeking authority from the Board to construct and operate
an approximately 278-mile rail line. According to GLBT, the rail line
would extend generally from near La Porte, Indiana through Illinois to
near Milton, Wisconsin.
The proposed rail line would consist mostly of double track. The
tracks would use Centralized Traffic Control signals and Positive Train
Control to allow for movements of up to 110 trains per day. Other major
elements of the proposed project would include a 200-foot-wide right-
of-way, flyovers at railroad crossings, four major river crossings in
the State of Illinois (the Illinois, Kankakee, Fox, and Rock rivers),
and grade-separated crossings of interstate highways and many roadways.
The proposed project could include at-grade road crossings and the
closure of some small rural roads.
The EIS will analyze and compare the potential impacts of (1)
construction and operation of all reasonable and feasible alternative
routes for the proposed GLBT rail line and (2) the no-action
alternative (denial of the petition or application).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Proposed Construction and Operation
Analyses in the EIS will address the proposed activities associated
with the construction and operation of the rail line and its potential
environmental impacts, as appropriate.
Impact Categories
The EIS will analyze potential direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts \1\ of GLBT's proposed rail line construction and operation,
including the range of reasonable and feasible alternatives, on the
human and natural environment, or in the case of the no-action
alternative, the lack of these activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NEPA requires the Board to consider direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts. Direct and indirect impacts are both caused by
the action. 40 CFR 1508.8(a)-(b). A cumulative impact is the
``incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions.'' 40 CFR 1508.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact areas addressed will include the categories of
transportation systems, safety, land use, recreation, biological
resources, water resources, including wetlands and other waters of the
U.S., navigation, geology and soils, air quality, noise, energy
resources, socioeconomics, cultural and historic resources, aesthetics
and environmental justice. Other categories of potential impacts may
also be included as a result of comments received during the scoping
process or on the Draft EIS. The EIS will include a discussion of each
of these categories as they currently exist in the project area and
will address the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of
each reasonable and feasible alternative on each category as described
below:
1. Transportation Systems
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing transportation network in the project area.
b. Analyze potential impacts resulting from each alternative on the
existing transportation network in the project area.
c. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts to transportation systems, as appropriate.
2. Safety
The EIS will:
a. Describe road/rail grade crossing safety and analyze the
potential for an increase in accidents related to the proposed rail
operations, as appropriate.
b. Describe existing rail operations and analyze the potential for
increased probability of train accidents, as appropriate.
c. Analyze the potential for disruption and delays to the movement
of emergency vehicles from any new at-grade crossings and road closures
that could accompany the construction and operation of the proposed
rail line.
d. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts on safety, as appropriate.
3. Land Use
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing land use patterns in the project area. Analyze
potential impacts on existing land use patterns and land uses from each
alternative including potential impacts on agricultural activities from
rail line construction and operation.
b. Evaluate consistency with Coastal Zone Management Program, as
applicable.
c. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential impacts on land use, as appropriate.
4. Recreation
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing conditions and analyze the potential impacts
of each alternative on recreational areas and opportunities provided in
the project area.
b. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts on recreational opportunities, as
appropriate.
5. Biological Resources
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the existing biological resources within the project
area, including vegetative communities, wildlife, fisheries, wetlands,
and federal and state threatened or endangered species, and the
potential impacts to these resources resulting from each alternative.
b. Describe any relevant wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, national or
state
[[Page 14932]]
parks, forests, or grasslands, and analyze the potential impacts on
these resources resulting from each alternative.
c. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts to biological resources, as appropriate.
6. Water Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe the existing surface water and groundwater resources
within the project area, including the lakes, rivers, streams,
agricultural drainage tile systems, stock ponds, wetlands, and
floodplains and analyze the potential impacts on these resources
resulting from each alternative.
b. Describe the permitting requirements for the various
alternatives with regard to wetlands, river crossings, water quality,
floodplains, and erosion control.
c. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts to water resources, as appropriate.
7. Navigation
The EIS will:
a. Describe existing navigable waterways within the project area
and analyze the potential impacts on navigability resulting from each
alternative.
b. Describe the permitting requirements for the various
alternatives with regard to navigation.
c. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential impacts on navigation, as appropriate.
8. Geology and Soils
The EIS will:
a. Describe the geology, soils, and seismic conditions found within
the project area, including unique or problematic geologic formations
or soils, prime farmland, and hydric soils, and analyze the potential
impacts on these resources resulting from each alternative.
b. Analyze potential measures employed to avoid or construct
through unique or problematic geologic formations or soils.
c. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts on geology and soils, as appropriate.
9. Air Quality and Climate
The EIS will:
a. Analyze the potential air emissions from operations on each
alternative, including potential changes in greenhouse gas emissions,
as appropriate.
b. Analyze the potential air quality impacts resulting from rail
line construction activities.
c. Analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project on global
climate change and the potential impacts of global climate change on
the proposed project.
d. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts on air quality and global climate change, as
appropriate.
10. Noise and Vibration
The EIS will:
a. Describe the potential noise and vibration impacts on noise
sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, and libraries) of each
alternative.
b. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts on sensitive noise receptors, as appropriate.
11. Energy Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe and analyze the potential impact of the proposed
project on the distribution of energy resources in the project area
resulting from each alternative.
b. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts on energy resources, as appropriate.
12. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
a. Analyze the effects of a potential influx of construction
workers to the project area and the potential increase in demand for
local services interrelated with natural or physical environmental
effects.
b. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts on social and economic resources, as
appropriate.
13. Cultural and Historic Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or
districts eligible for listing on or listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (built-environment historic properties) within the area
of potential effects for each alternative and analyze potential project
impacts on them.
b. Describe properties of traditional religious and cultural
importance to Indian Tribes, Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs),
and prehistoric or historic archaeological sites evaluated as
potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (archaeological and historic properties) within the
area of potential effects for each alternative, and analyze potential
project impacts on them.
c. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts to TCPs, and built-environment and
archaeological historic properties, as appropriate.
14. Aesthetics
The EIS will:
a. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed rail line
construction on any areas identified or determined to be of high visual
quality.
b. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed rail line
construction on any waterways considered for or designated as wild and
scenic.
c. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts on aesthetics, as appropriate.
15. Environmental Justice
The EIS will:
a. Describe minority and low-income populations in the project
area.
b. Analyze the potential impacts resulting from each alternative on
those minority and low-income populations.
c. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate
potential project impacts on environmental justice populations, as
appropriate.
16. Cumulative Impacts
The EIS will evaluate the cumulative and incremental impacts of the
proposed project when added to impacts from other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area, as
appropriate.
Decided: March 15, 2016.
By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Director, Office of Environmental
Analysis.
Kenyatta Clay,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2016-06151 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P