Port of Moses Lake-Construction Exemption-Moses Lake, Wash., 66266-66268 [2019-26089]
Download as PDF
66266
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2019 / Notices
tungsten, tungsten carbide, and
zirconium.
Additionally, a report under Section
1245(e) of IFCA for an earlier time
period included a determination that
identified four certain types of those
materials that are used in connection
with the nuclear, military, or ballistic
missile programs of Iran. Following a
review of the available information, and
in consultation with the Department of
the Treasury, the Secretary of State has
not identified any additional certain
types of those materials that are used in
connection with the nuclear, military, or
ballistic missile programs of Iran.
Dated: October 29, 2019.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2019–26070 Filed 12–2–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–27–P
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. FD 34936]
Port of Moses Lake—Construction
Exemption—Moses Lake, Wash.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
On August 28, 2008, the Port of Moses
Lake (the Port) filed a petition seeking
an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502
from the prior approval requirements of
49 U.S.C. 10901 to construct
approximately 7.6 miles of rail line as
part of its Northern Columbia Basin
Railroad Project (NCBRP) in the City of
Moses Lake, Wash. The Port’s petition
involved construction of two lines, the
first between the community of
Wheeler, Wash., and Parker Horn,
Wash. (Segment 1), and the second
between existing trackage of the
Columbia Basin Railroad Company, Inc.
(CBRW), and the east side of the Grant
County International Airport (Segment
2). Following the completion of the
environmental review process, which
was conducted in conjunction with the
Washington State Department of
Transportation, the Board authorized
construction of the environmentally
preferred routes for Segments 1 and 2,
subject to environmental mitigation
measures, finding that the construction
project met the standards for an
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502.1 Port
1 In the same 2008 petition, the Port also sought
an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to acquire
from CBRW approximately three miles of rail line
from Parker Horn near Stratford Road to a point
near the Grant County International Airport
(Segment 3), which would connect Segments 1 and
2. See Port of Moses Lake—Constr. Exemption—
Moses Lake, Wash., FD 34936 et al., slip op. at 1,
3 (STB served Aug. 27, 2009). The Board considered
the acquisition request in Docket No. FD 34936
(Sub-No. 1) and granted the acquisition exemption
in its August 2009 Decision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Dec 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
of Moses Lake—Constr. Exemption—
Moses Lake, Wash. (August 2009
Decision), FD 34936 et al. (STB served
Aug. 27, 2009).
On November 2, 2018, the Port filed
a petition to reopen. In that petition, the
Port requested authorization from the
Board under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for route
modifications that account for land
development that has occurred along
and near the proposed rail line since the
Board’s August 2009 Decision.2 (Port
Pet. 5–6, Nov. 2, 2018.) The Port also
sought to enable the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to participate in a
supplemental environmental review
process for a modified route.3 By
decision served on January 28, 2019, the
Board reopened this proceeding to
consider the Port’s proposed route
modifications. Port of Moses Lake—
Constr. Exemption—Moses Lake, Wash.,
FD 34936 (STB served Jan. 28, 2019).
The Board found that the Port had
presented new evidence and changed
circumstances that warranted
reopening. Id. at 3. The Board found
that it could not have considered the
proposed route modifications
previously, as the proposed revisions to
the original route were designed to
consider development of the land along
and near the originally proposed rail
line that had not occurred before the
August 2009 Decision. Port of Moses
Lake, FD 34936, slip op. at 3. OEA,
along with the FRA participating as a
cooperating agency, then prepared a
Supplemental EA to consider what, if
any, environmental impacts the
proposed route modifications would
have and whether additional or different
environmental conditions should be
recommended to mitigate those impacts.
In this decision, the Board authorizes
the proposed modifications to the Port’s
construction project, subject to OEA’s
final recommended environmental
mitigation measures. The environmental
mitigation measures are set forth in the
Final Supplemental EA, as discussed
below.
2 The petition sought to reopen only the
proceeding relating to construction authority
(Docket No. FD 34936); the part of the Port’s project
involving acquisition of the existing rail line
(Docket No. FD 34936 (Sub-No. 1)) remains
unchanged.
3 To meet the Board’s obligations under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 4321–4370i, and related environmental laws,
the Board prepares an Environmental Assessment
(EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
addressing the potential environmental impacts of
all proposed rail constructions. 49 CFR 1105.6(a) &
(b). The environmental review process, which is
undertaken by the Board’s Office of Environmental
Analysis (OEA), is separate from the agency’s
consideration of the transportation merits of the
proposed modified project.
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
The Port is a noncarrier municipality
of the State of Washington that is
chartered for economic development. It
operates the Grant County International
Airport and the Grant County
International Airport Industrial Park,
which has over one million square feet
of building space and over 1,000 acres
of industrial and commercial land. (Port
Pet. 2, Aug. 28, 2008.) The Port states
that NCBRP is one of the means by
which the Port seeks to promote
economic development on industrial
lands near the airport and on land
zoned for industry along Wheeler Road.
(Port Pet. 2, Nov. 2, 2018.) The Port
further states that NCBRP serves the
purpose of moving rail traffic out of the
downtown area of the City of Moses
Lake. (Id.)
Prior to the Board authorizing
construction in 2009, OEA conducted
an environmental review that analyzed
the environmental impacts associated
with the proposed project. After
preparing, issuing, and receiving public
comment on a Preliminary EA, OEA
issued a Final EA recommending the
environmentally preferred alignments
for Segments 1 and 2 as well as
proposed mitigation measures.4 OEA
also issued a Post EA that contained an
executed Programmatic Agreement
setting forth the process to address any
adverse effects to historic properties.
In its August 2009 Decision, the Board
adopted the analysis and conclusions of
the Preliminary EA, Final EA, and Post
EA, and imposed the recommended
mitigation measures. As noted above,
the Board authorized construction of the
environmentally preferred routes for
Segment 1 and Segment 2. The Board
found that, subject to the Port’s
compliance with the mitigation
measures, the construction, acquisition,
and operation of the proposed line
would not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. See
August 2009 Decision, FD 34936 et al.,
slip op. at 6–7.
According to the Port, the Board’s
authorization of the construction of the
route in 2009 coincided with a
significant economic downturn, which
slowed implementation of the project
and hampered the Port’s efforts to
secure funding. (Port Pet. 3, Nov. 2,
2018.) The Port indicates that it received
state funding in 2015 and federal
4 For full descriptions of Segment 1 and Segment
2, see Final EA 3–19 to 3–20, May 8, 2009, Port of
Moses Lake—Constr. Exemption—Moses Lake,
Wash., FD 34936 et al. OEA’s 2009 environmental
review included analysis of the environmental
impacts associated with the proposed acquisition of
Segment 3. As stated above, however, the
acquisition of Segment 3 is not at issue here.
E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM
03DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2019 / Notices
funding from the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) (administered
by the FRA) in 2017 and is now ready
to proceed with the NCBRP. (Id.)
However, according to the Port, in the
years since the Board’s authorization,
the land along and near the proposed
rail line has been developed, and some
modifications to the route originally
proposed are necessary to avoid the
relocation of several new commercial
enterprises. (Id. at 3, 5.) Additionally,
the Port states that new development
near the end of Segment 2 warrants a
minor route modification to ensure that
the NCBRP can access all of the
businesses that would make use of rail
service. (Id. at 5.)
Specifically, the Port proposes the
following adjustments to the proposed
route, which it claims would reduce the
impacts of the rail project on the
environment and the local community:
(1) An adjustment westward of the
western end of Segment 1 to avoid
buildings and reduce the acreage of
wetlands affected; (2) adjustments to
Segment 1 to enable the rail line to cross
local roads at right angles, rather than
diagonally, which the Port claims would
improve visibility, increase safety, and
otherwise reduce local impacts; and (3)
modifications to Segment 2 to better
reach existing and future development
in the Grant County International
Airport area, minimize impacts, and
slightly reduce the amount of track
required. According to the Port, the
proposed route modifications would
reduce the impact of the rail line on
existing land uses and better fulfill the
objectives of the NCBRP. (Id. at 3, 5–6.)
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
Discussion and Conclusions
Rail Transportation Analysis
The construction of new railroad lines
requires prior Board authorization,
through either a certificate under 49
U.S.C. 10901 or, as requested here, an
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from
the prior approval requirements of
§ 10901. Section 10901(c) directs the
Board to grant authority for rail line
construction proposals unless it finds
the proposal ‘‘inconsistent with the
public convenience and necessity.’’ See
Alaska R.R.—Constr. & Operation
Exemption—A Rail Line Extension to
Port MacKenzie, Alaska, FD 35095, slip
op. at 5 (STB served Nov. 21, 2011),
aff’d sub nom. Alaska Survival v. STB,
705 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2013).
Under § 10502(a), the Board must
exempt a proposed rail line construction
from the prior approval requirements of
section 10901 when it finds that: (1)
Those procedures are not necessary to
carry out the rail transportation policy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Dec 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
of 49 U.S.C. 10101; and (2) either (a) the
proposal is of limited scope, or (b) the
full application procedures are not
needed to protect shippers from an
abuse of market power.
In the August 2009 Decision, the
Board found that the Port met the
standards of 49 U.S.C. 10502 for an
exemption from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 for the
construction of the proposed rail line.
The Board concluded that the requested
exemption would reduce the need for
federal regulation (49 U.S.C. 10101(2)),
ensure the development of a sound rail
transportation system with effective
competition to meet the needs of the
shipping public (49 U.S.C. 10101(4)),
foster sound economic conditions in
transportation (49 U.S.C. 10101(5)), and
reduce regulatory barriers to entry (49
U.S.C. 10101(7)). See August 2009
Decision, FD 34936 et al., slip op. at 4.
The Board also found that other aspects
of the rail transportation policy would
not be affected. Finally, the Board found
that regulation of the proposed
construction is not necessary to protect
shippers from the abuse of market
power. Id.
No party has challenged the Board’s
2009 conclusions on the transportation
merits of the proposal, and nothing in
the record developed since then calls
those conclusions into question.5 The
Board therefore reaffirms those
conclusions here and now turns to
consideration of the environmental
aspects of the proposed modifications to
the project.
Environmental Analysis
NEPA requires Federal agencies to
examine the environmental effects of
proposed federal actions and to inform
the public concerning those effects. Balt.
Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). Under
NEPA and related environmental laws,
the Board must consider significant
potential beneficial and adverse
environmental impacts in deciding
whether to authorize railroad
construction as proposed, deny the
proposal, or grant it with conditions
(including environmental mitigation
conditions). Lone Star R.R.—Track
5 On February 19, 2019, Ronald S. Piercy filed a
comment proposing an alternative route for
Segment 1. On March 11, 2019, the Port replied to
Mr. Piercy’s comment, noting that the issues raised
by Mr. Piercy are not relevant to the transportation
merits of the proposal. The Port further notes that
the Board previously considered and rejected an
alternative routing, known as the ‘‘Piercy
Alternative,’’ almost identical to that proposed now
by Mr. Piercy, in the Final EA, published in May
2009. (Port Reply 1–2.) OEA addressed Mr. Piercy’s
comment in the Final Supplemental EA, as
discussed below.
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66267
Constr. & Operation Exemption—in
Howard Cty., Tex., FD 35874, slip op at
4 (STB served Mar. 3, 2016). While
NEPA prescribes the process that must
be followed, it does not mandate a
particular result. Robertson v. Methow
Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,
350 (1989). Once the adverse
environmental effects, if any, of a
proposed action have been adequately
identified and evaluated, an agency may
conclude that other values outweigh the
environmental costs. Id.
The Environmental Review Process.
On July 11, 2019, following the
reopening of this proceeding, OEA, with
the FRA as a cooperating agency, issued
for public review and comment a Draft
Supplemental EA focusing on potential
impacts arising from the Port’s proposed
modifications to the original alignments
of Segments 1 and 2 that had been
authorized by the Board in 2009. (Draft
Supp. EA 1–2.) The Draft Supplemental
EA did not reevaluate components of
the project that were unchanged from
those evaluated in the prior EA,
including any potential environmental
impacts associated with Segment 3,
which the Port is not proposing to
modify. (Id. at 1–3.) OEA preliminarily
found the proposed modifications to
Segments 1 and 2, designated as
Modification 1B for Segment 1 and
Modification 2B or 2C for Segment 2, to
be preferable to the original alignment
that the Board authorized in 2009. (Id.
at 7–1.) OEA determined that the
proposed modifications would avoid or
limit the project’s impacts to the land
development that has occurred in the
vicinity since 2009 and would increase
the project’s effectiveness by ensuring
that the new rail line is constructed near
existing businesses and facilities that
are likely to use freight rail
transportation. (Id.) To avoid or
minimize the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed project, the
Draft Supplemental EA preliminarily
recommended revising certain
mitigation measures imposed in the
August 2009 Decision, removing one
condition, and adding three new
environmental mitigation measures.
(See Draft Supp. EA 6–1 to 6–12.) Based
on the analysis in the Draft
Supplemental EA, OEA preliminarily
concluded that the proposed project, as
conditioned, would not result in any
significant environmental impacts and
that, therefore, an EIS would be
unnecessary in this proceeding. (Id. at
7–1.) OEA received five comments on
the Draft Supplemental EA.
On November 5, 2019, OEA issued the
Final Supplemental EA. In the Final
Supplemental EA, OEA identified the
environmentally preferred alternative
E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM
03DEN1
66268
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2019 / Notices
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
for the proposed modifications to the
rail line—Modification 1B for Segment
1 and Modification 2C for Segment 2
(incorporating design changes the Port
proposed in comments on the Draft
Supplemental EA) 6—based on the
entire environmental record, including
the comments received on the Draft
Supplemental EA and the final
recommended mitigation measures.
(Final Supp. EA 5–1 to 5–2.) OEA
considered and responded to the five
comments received on the Draft
Supplemental EA, which raised issues
pertaining to fish, wildlife, and
vegetation; hazardous materials;
socioeconomics and environmental
justice; traffic and transportation; water
resources; and wetlands. (Id. at 3–1 to
3–11.) OEA also responded to Mr.
Piercy’s comment on the Port’s petition
to reopen, which raised issues
pertaining to alternatives and traffic and
transportation. (Id. at 3–1 to 3–2.)
Lastly, OEA set forth its final
recommended mitigation measures in
Chapter 6 of the Final Supplemental EA.
(Id. at 6–1 to 6–12.)
The Board’s Analysis of the
Environmental Issues. The Board adopts
the analysis and conclusions in both the
Draft Supplemental EA and Final
Supplemental EA, and the final
recommended mitigation measures. The
Board is satisfied that OEA, together
with the FRA, has taken the requisite
hard look at the potential environmental
impacts associated with the Port’s
proposal and properly determined that,
with the recommended environmental
mitigation in the Final Supplemental
EA, the proposed project will not have
potentially significant environmental
impacts, and that preparation of an EIS
is unnecessary.
Conclusion
In conclusion, after weighing the
transportation merits and environmental
issues, and considering the entire
record, the Board authorizes the
proposed route modifications to the
Port’s project that have been assessed in
the Draft and Final Supplemental EAs,
subject to compliance with the
mitigation measures listed in Chapter 6
of the Final Supplemental EA.
This action, as conditioned, will not
significantly impact the quality of the
human environment or the conservation
of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board
exempts construction of the Port’s
proposed route modifications from the
prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C.
10901.
6 Final
Supp. EA 1–3 to 1–6, 5–1 to 5–6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Dec 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
2. The Board adopts the
environmental mitigation measures set
forth in the Final Supplemental EA and
imposes them as conditions to the
exemption granted here.
3. Notice will be published in the
Federal Register on December 3, 2019.
4. Petitions for reconsideration must
be filed by December 23, 2019.
5. This decision is effective January 2,
2020.
Decided: November 26, 2019.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman,
Fuchs, and Oberman.
Kenyatta Clay,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2019–26089 Filed 12–2–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Impact Statement: San
Diego and Orange Counties, California
Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of Intent.
AGENCY:
The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), on behalf of
the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), is issuing this
notice to advise the public that a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft
EIS) will be prepared for a proposed
highway project in Orange County and
San Diego County, California.
DATES: The formal scoping period has
been extended and will occur from
November 8, 2019 through January 8,
2020. The deadline for comments is
now 5:00 p.m. on January 8, 2020. One
scoping meeting was held on
Wednesday, November 20, 2019, from
5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and the second
one will be held on Wednesday,
December 4, 2019 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m.
ADDRESSES: The Wednesday, November
20, 2019 public scoping meeting was
held at Norman P. Murray Community
Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Mission
Viejo, CA 92692. The Wednesday,
December 4, 2019 public scoping
meeting will be held at the Ocean
Institute, 24200 Dana Point Harbor
Drive, Dana Point, CA 92629.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caltrans District 12, 1750 East 4th
Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705, Attn: Env/
SCTRE Scoping. Formal scoping
comments can also be submitted via
email at scoping@SCTRE.org. More
information can also be found at the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
project website at https://
www.SCTRE.org.
Effective
July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and
Caltrans assumed, environmental
responsibilities for this project pursuant
to 23 U.S.C. 327. Caltrans as the
assigned National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) agency, in cooperation with
the Foothill/Eastern Transportation
Corridor Agency (F/ETCA), will prepare
a Draft EIS on a proposal for a highway
improvement project in Orange County
and San Diego County, California. The
proposed improvements intended to
address north-south regional mobility
and accommodation of travel demand
include the extension of the tolled State
Route (SR) 241 lanes to Interstate (I) 5,
the extension of Crown Valley Parkway
to SR 241, new connections between
Ortega Highway, Antonio Parkway,
Avery Parkway, and SR–73, new general
purpose lanes on I–5, new managed
lanes on I–5, or combinations of these
preliminary alternatives. Currently, the
following alternatives are being
considered, ranging from approximately
4 to 22 miles in length:
• Alternative 1/No Build Alternative;
taking no action.
• Alternative 13; connect SR 241 to I–
5 via a connection from Los Patrones
Parkway to La Novia Avenue, I–5
widening and improvements, and the
addition of HOT lanes in each
direction on I–5
• Alternative 17; connect SR 241 to I–
5 via a connection from Los Patrones
Parkway to Avenida Vaquero, I–5
widening and improvements, and the
addition of HOT lanes in each
direction on I–5
• Alternative 14; connect SR 241 to I–
5 via a connection from Los Patrones
Parkway to Avenida Pico, I–5
widening and improvements, and the
addition of HOT lanes in each
direction on I–5
• Alternative 11; add I–5 general
purpose lanes from I–405 to San
Diego County
• Alternative 12; add I–5 HOT/toll lanes
from I–405 to San Diego County
• Alternative 9; connect Ortega
Highway and Antonio Parkway to
Avery Parkway and SR 73
• Alternative 18; connect SR–241 to
SR–73 and extend Crown Valley
Parkway to SR 241
• Alternative 21; extend Los Patrones
Parkway to Avenida La Pata and add
HOT lanes in each direction on I–5
• Alternative 22; extend Los Patrones
Parkway to Avenida La Pata
• Alternative 23; extend I–5 managed
lanes from SR 73 to Basilone Road or
from Avenida Pico to Basilone Road
(depending on the design option)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM
03DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66266-66268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26089]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. FD 34936]
Port of Moses Lake--Construction Exemption--Moses Lake, Wash.
On August 28, 2008, the Port of Moses Lake (the Port) filed a
petition seeking an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to construct approximately 7.6
miles of rail line as part of its Northern Columbia Basin Railroad
Project (NCBRP) in the City of Moses Lake, Wash. The Port's petition
involved construction of two lines, the first between the community of
Wheeler, Wash., and Parker Horn, Wash. (Segment 1), and the second
between existing trackage of the Columbia Basin Railroad Company, Inc.
(CBRW), and the east side of the Grant County International Airport
(Segment 2). Following the completion of the environmental review
process, which was conducted in conjunction with the Washington State
Department of Transportation, the Board authorized construction of the
environmentally preferred routes for Segments 1 and 2, subject to
environmental mitigation measures, finding that the construction
project met the standards for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502.\1\
Port of Moses Lake--Constr. Exemption--Moses Lake, Wash. (August 2009
Decision), FD 34936 et al. (STB served Aug. 27, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the same 2008 petition, the Port also sought an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval requirements of 49
U.S.C. 10901 to acquire from CBRW approximately three miles of rail
line from Parker Horn near Stratford Road to a point near the Grant
County International Airport (Segment 3), which would connect
Segments 1 and 2. See Port of Moses Lake--Constr. Exemption--Moses
Lake, Wash., FD 34936 et al., slip op. at 1, 3 (STB served Aug. 27,
2009). The Board considered the acquisition request in Docket No. FD
34936 (Sub-No. 1) and granted the acquisition exemption in its
August 2009 Decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 2, 2018, the Port filed a petition to reopen. In that
petition, the Port requested authorization from the Board under 49
U.S.C. 10502 for route modifications that account for land development
that has occurred along and near the proposed rail line since the
Board's August 2009 Decision.\2\ (Port Pet. 5-6, Nov. 2, 2018.) The
Port also sought to enable the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to
participate in a supplemental environmental review process for a
modified route.\3\ By decision served on January 28, 2019, the Board
reopened this proceeding to consider the Port's proposed route
modifications. Port of Moses Lake--Constr. Exemption--Moses Lake,
Wash., FD 34936 (STB served Jan. 28, 2019). The Board found that the
Port had presented new evidence and changed circumstances that
warranted reopening. Id. at 3. The Board found that it could not have
considered the proposed route modifications previously, as the proposed
revisions to the original route were designed to consider development
of the land along and near the originally proposed rail line that had
not occurred before the August 2009 Decision. Port of Moses Lake, FD
34936, slip op. at 3. OEA, along with the FRA participating as a
cooperating agency, then prepared a Supplemental EA to consider what,
if any, environmental impacts the proposed route modifications would
have and whether additional or different environmental conditions
should be recommended to mitigate those impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The petition sought to reopen only the proceeding relating
to construction authority (Docket No. FD 34936); the part of the
Port's project involving acquisition of the existing rail line
(Docket No. FD 34936 (Sub-No. 1)) remains unchanged.
\3\ To meet the Board's obligations under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370i, and related
environmental laws, the Board prepares an Environmental Assessment
(EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing the
potential environmental impacts of all proposed rail constructions.
49 CFR 1105.6(a) & (b). The environmental review process, which is
undertaken by the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA), is
separate from the agency's consideration of the transportation
merits of the proposed modified project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this decision, the Board authorizes the proposed modifications
to the Port's construction project, subject to OEA's final recommended
environmental mitigation measures. The environmental mitigation
measures are set forth in the Final Supplemental EA, as discussed
below.
Background
The Port is a noncarrier municipality of the State of Washington
that is chartered for economic development. It operates the Grant
County International Airport and the Grant County International Airport
Industrial Park, which has over one million square feet of building
space and over 1,000 acres of industrial and commercial land. (Port
Pet. 2, Aug. 28, 2008.) The Port states that NCBRP is one of the means
by which the Port seeks to promote economic development on industrial
lands near the airport and on land zoned for industry along Wheeler
Road. (Port Pet. 2, Nov. 2, 2018.) The Port further states that NCBRP
serves the purpose of moving rail traffic out of the downtown area of
the City of Moses Lake. (Id.)
Prior to the Board authorizing construction in 2009, OEA conducted
an environmental review that analyzed the environmental impacts
associated with the proposed project. After preparing, issuing, and
receiving public comment on a Preliminary EA, OEA issued a Final EA
recommending the environmentally preferred alignments for Segments 1
and 2 as well as proposed mitigation measures.\4\ OEA also issued a
Post EA that contained an executed Programmatic Agreement setting forth
the process to address any adverse effects to historic properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For full descriptions of Segment 1 and Segment 2, see Final
EA 3-19 to 3-20, May 8, 2009, Port of Moses Lake--Constr.
Exemption--Moses Lake, Wash., FD 34936 et al. OEA's 2009
environmental review included analysis of the environmental impacts
associated with the proposed acquisition of Segment 3. As stated
above, however, the acquisition of Segment 3 is not at issue here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its August 2009 Decision, the Board adopted the analysis and
conclusions of the Preliminary EA, Final EA, and Post EA, and imposed
the recommended mitigation measures. As noted above, the Board
authorized construction of the environmentally preferred routes for
Segment 1 and Segment 2. The Board found that, subject to the Port's
compliance with the mitigation measures, the construction, acquisition,
and operation of the proposed line would not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. See August 2009 Decision, FD 34936 et
al., slip op. at 6-7.
According to the Port, the Board's authorization of the
construction of the route in 2009 coincided with a significant economic
downturn, which slowed implementation of the project and hampered the
Port's efforts to secure funding. (Port Pet. 3, Nov. 2, 2018.) The Port
indicates that it received state funding in 2015 and federal
[[Page 66267]]
funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
(administered by the FRA) in 2017 and is now ready to proceed with the
NCBRP. (Id.) However, according to the Port, in the years since the
Board's authorization, the land along and near the proposed rail line
has been developed, and some modifications to the route originally
proposed are necessary to avoid the relocation of several new
commercial enterprises. (Id. at 3, 5.) Additionally, the Port states
that new development near the end of Segment 2 warrants a minor route
modification to ensure that the NCBRP can access all of the businesses
that would make use of rail service. (Id. at 5.)
Specifically, the Port proposes the following adjustments to the
proposed route, which it claims would reduce the impacts of the rail
project on the environment and the local community: (1) An adjustment
westward of the western end of Segment 1 to avoid buildings and reduce
the acreage of wetlands affected; (2) adjustments to Segment 1 to
enable the rail line to cross local roads at right angles, rather than
diagonally, which the Port claims would improve visibility, increase
safety, and otherwise reduce local impacts; and (3) modifications to
Segment 2 to better reach existing and future development in the Grant
County International Airport area, minimize impacts, and slightly
reduce the amount of track required. According to the Port, the
proposed route modifications would reduce the impact of the rail line
on existing land uses and better fulfill the objectives of the NCBRP.
(Id. at 3, 5-6.)
Discussion and Conclusions
Rail Transportation Analysis
The construction of new railroad lines requires prior Board
authorization, through either a certificate under 49 U.S.C. 10901 or,
as requested here, an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior
approval requirements of Sec. 10901. Section 10901(c) directs the
Board to grant authority for rail line construction proposals unless it
finds the proposal ``inconsistent with the public convenience and
necessity.'' See Alaska R.R.--Constr. & Operation Exemption--A Rail
Line Extension to Port MacKenzie, Alaska, FD 35095, slip op. at 5 (STB
served Nov. 21, 2011), aff'd sub nom. Alaska Survival v. STB, 705 F.3d
1073 (9th Cir. 2013).
Under Sec. 10502(a), the Board must exempt a proposed rail line
construction from the prior approval requirements of section 10901 when
it finds that: (1) Those procedures are not necessary to carry out the
rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101; and (2) either (a) the
proposal is of limited scope, or (b) the full application procedures
are not needed to protect shippers from an abuse of market power.
In the August 2009 Decision, the Board found that the Port met the
standards of 49 U.S.C. 10502 for an exemption from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 for the construction of the proposed
rail line. The Board concluded that the requested exemption would
reduce the need for federal regulation (49 U.S.C. 10101(2)), ensure the
development of a sound rail transportation system with effective
competition to meet the needs of the shipping public (49 U.S.C.
10101(4)), foster sound economic conditions in transportation (49
U.S.C. 10101(5)), and reduce regulatory barriers to entry (49 U.S.C.
10101(7)). See August 2009 Decision, FD 34936 et al., slip op. at 4.
The Board also found that other aspects of the rail transportation
policy would not be affected. Finally, the Board found that regulation
of the proposed construction is not necessary to protect shippers from
the abuse of market power. Id.
No party has challenged the Board's 2009 conclusions on the
transportation merits of the proposal, and nothing in the record
developed since then calls those conclusions into question.\5\ The
Board therefore reaffirms those conclusions here and now turns to
consideration of the environmental aspects of the proposed
modifications to the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ On February 19, 2019, Ronald S. Piercy filed a comment
proposing an alternative route for Segment 1. On March 11, 2019, the
Port replied to Mr. Piercy's comment, noting that the issues raised
by Mr. Piercy are not relevant to the transportation merits of the
proposal. The Port further notes that the Board previously
considered and rejected an alternative routing, known as the
``Piercy Alternative,'' almost identical to that proposed now by Mr.
Piercy, in the Final EA, published in May 2009. (Port Reply 1-2.)
OEA addressed Mr. Piercy's comment in the Final Supplemental EA, as
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Analysis
NEPA requires Federal agencies to examine the environmental effects
of proposed federal actions and to inform the public concerning those
effects. Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87,
97 (1983). Under NEPA and related environmental laws, the Board must
consider significant potential beneficial and adverse environmental
impacts in deciding whether to authorize railroad construction as
proposed, deny the proposal, or grant it with conditions (including
environmental mitigation conditions). Lone Star R.R.--Track Constr. &
Operation Exemption--in Howard Cty., Tex., FD 35874, slip op at 4 (STB
served Mar. 3, 2016). While NEPA prescribes the process that must be
followed, it does not mandate a particular result. Robertson v. Methow
Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989). Once the adverse
environmental effects, if any, of a proposed action have been
adequately identified and evaluated, an agency may conclude that other
values outweigh the environmental costs. Id.
The Environmental Review Process. On July 11, 2019, following the
reopening of this proceeding, OEA, with the FRA as a cooperating
agency, issued for public review and comment a Draft Supplemental EA
focusing on potential impacts arising from the Port's proposed
modifications to the original alignments of Segments 1 and 2 that had
been authorized by the Board in 2009. (Draft Supp. EA 1-2.) The Draft
Supplemental EA did not reevaluate components of the project that were
unchanged from those evaluated in the prior EA, including any potential
environmental impacts associated with Segment 3, which the Port is not
proposing to modify. (Id. at 1-3.) OEA preliminarily found the proposed
modifications to Segments 1 and 2, designated as Modification 1B for
Segment 1 and Modification 2B or 2C for Segment 2, to be preferable to
the original alignment that the Board authorized in 2009. (Id. at 7-1.)
OEA determined that the proposed modifications would avoid or limit the
project's impacts to the land development that has occurred in the
vicinity since 2009 and would increase the project's effectiveness by
ensuring that the new rail line is constructed near existing businesses
and facilities that are likely to use freight rail transportation.
(Id.) To avoid or minimize the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed project, the Draft Supplemental EA preliminarily recommended
revising certain mitigation measures imposed in the August 2009
Decision, removing one condition, and adding three new environmental
mitigation measures. (See Draft Supp. EA 6-1 to 6-12.) Based on the
analysis in the Draft Supplemental EA, OEA preliminarily concluded that
the proposed project, as conditioned, would not result in any
significant environmental impacts and that, therefore, an EIS would be
unnecessary in this proceeding. (Id. at 7-1.) OEA received five
comments on the Draft Supplemental EA.
On November 5, 2019, OEA issued the Final Supplemental EA. In the
Final Supplemental EA, OEA identified the environmentally preferred
alternative
[[Page 66268]]
for the proposed modifications to the rail line--Modification 1B for
Segment 1 and Modification 2C for Segment 2 (incorporating design
changes the Port proposed in comments on the Draft Supplemental EA)
\6\--based on the entire environmental record, including the comments
received on the Draft Supplemental EA and the final recommended
mitigation measures. (Final Supp. EA 5-1 to 5-2.) OEA considered and
responded to the five comments received on the Draft Supplemental EA,
which raised issues pertaining to fish, wildlife, and vegetation;
hazardous materials; socioeconomics and environmental justice; traffic
and transportation; water resources; and wetlands. (Id. at 3-1 to 3-
11.) OEA also responded to Mr. Piercy's comment on the Port's petition
to reopen, which raised issues pertaining to alternatives and traffic
and transportation. (Id. at 3-1 to 3-2.) Lastly, OEA set forth its
final recommended mitigation measures in Chapter 6 of the Final
Supplemental EA. (Id. at 6-1 to 6-12.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Final Supp. EA 1-3 to 1-6, 5-1 to 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board's Analysis of the Environmental Issues. The Board adopts
the analysis and conclusions in both the Draft Supplemental EA and
Final Supplemental EA, and the final recommended mitigation measures.
The Board is satisfied that OEA, together with the FRA, has taken the
requisite hard look at the potential environmental impacts associated
with the Port's proposal and properly determined that, with the
recommended environmental mitigation in the Final Supplemental EA, the
proposed project will not have potentially significant environmental
impacts, and that preparation of an EIS is unnecessary.
Conclusion
In conclusion, after weighing the transportation merits and
environmental issues, and considering the entire record, the Board
authorizes the proposed route modifications to the Port's project that
have been assessed in the Draft and Final Supplemental EAs, subject to
compliance with the mitigation measures listed in Chapter 6 of the
Final Supplemental EA.
This action, as conditioned, will not significantly impact the
quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy
resources.
It is ordered:
1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts construction of the
Port's proposed route modifications from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901.
2. The Board adopts the environmental mitigation measures set forth
in the Final Supplemental EA and imposes them as conditions to the
exemption granted here.
3. Notice will be published in the Federal Register on December 3,
2019.
4. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by December 23,
2019.
5. This decision is effective January 2, 2020.
Decided: November 26, 2019.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
Kenyatta Clay,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2019-26089 Filed 12-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P