Green Eagle Railroad-Construction and Operation Exemption-Line of Railroad in Maverick County, Texas, 55995-56000 [2024-14740]

Agencies

• Surface Transportation Board

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55995-56000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14740]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. FD 36652]


Green Eagle Railroad--Construction and Operation Exemption--Line 
of Railroad in Maverick County, Texas

AGENCY: Lead: Surface Transportation Board (Board); Cooperating: United 
States Coast Guard (USCG).

ACTION: Notice of availability of the final scope of study for the 
environmental impact statement (EIS).

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

SUMMARY: On December 14, 2023, Green Eagle Railroad, LLC (GER), a 
subsidiary of Puerto Verde Holdings (PVH), filed a petition with the 
Board for authority to construct and operate approximately 1.3 miles of 
new common carrier rail line (the Line) in Maverick County, Texas 
(Proposed Action). 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 environmental and historic 
impacts related to the Line and the PVGTB Project of the availability 
of the Final Scope of Study (Final Scope) for the EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Poole, Office of Environmental 
Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, c/o VHB, 1001 G Street NW, 
Suite 1125, Washington, DC 20001; send an email to 
[email protected]; call (202) 934-3330; or call OEA's toll-
free number (888) 319-2337. Reference Docket No. FD 36652 in all 
communications. If you require an accommodation under the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245. For information 
about the environmental review process, you may visit the Board-
sponsored project website at www.greeneaglerreis.com or the Board's 
website at www.stb.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    GER proposes to construct and operate an approximately 1.3-mile 
rail line that would extend from the United States/Mexico border to the 
existing Union Pacific Railroad (UP) connection

[[Page 55996]]

at approximately UP milepost 31. The Line would cross the Rio Grande 
River on a new rail bridge (Rail Bridge) and be part of a larger 
project proposed by PVH, the Puerto Verde Global Trade Bridge project 
(PVGTB Project), consisting of a new trade corridor for freight rail 
and commercial motor vehicles between Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico, 
and Eagle Pass, Texas, United States. The Board's Office of 
Environmental Analysis (OEA) determined that construction and operation 
of the Line has the potential to result in significant environmental 
impacts; therefore, the preparation of an EIS is appropriate pursuant 
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370m-
11) and related environmental laws, including section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108). In 
addition to the Line, the PVGTB Project in the United States includes a 
new commercial motor vehicle roadway that would cross the Rio Grande 
River on a new road bridge (Road Bridge) separate from the Rail Bridge; 
a control tower; and inspection facilities. Only the Line requires 
licensing authority from the Board. Separately from the Board's final 
decision on GER's request for authority to construct and operate the 
Line under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the proposed bridges would require permits 
from USCG and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, 
the Line and the PVGTB Project would require authorization from the 
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to ensure that the 
Line and the PVGTB Project do not obstruct the normal flow or flood 
flows of the Rio Grande River. USCG will participate as a Cooperating 
Agency in the EIS process. Because USCG, USACE, and IBWC will have 
actions related to the Proposed Action that require NEPA review, the 
EIS in this proceeding will analyze the impacts of all the related 
actions, as appropriate.

The Board's Role in This Proceeding

    Board authority is required for the construction and operation of a 
new common carrier railroad line such as the Line (49 U.S.C. 10901; 
U.S.C. 10502). The Board will review GER's request for authority to 
construct and operate the Line through two parallel but distinct 
processes: (1) the transportation-related process that will examine 
whether the Line satisfies the criteria for an exemption under section 
10502; and (2) the environmental review process that is being conducted 
by OEA.
    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.

Environmental Review Process

    On March 29, 2024, 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. 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 request for authority is made. OEA is 
responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with NEPA and related 
environmental statutes, including section 106 of the NHPA and section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). USCG is 
participating in the environmental and historic review process as a 
Cooperating Agency pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.8. OEA and 
USCG will prepare this EIS in accordance with NEPA and related 
environmental laws, the Board's environmental regulations (49 CFR part 
1105), and USCG's NEPA implementing regulations (COMDTINST 5090.1). The 
EIS is intended to provide the Board; USCG; USACE; IBWC; other Federal, 
State, and local agencies; federally recognized Tribes; and the public 
with clear and concise information on the potential environmental and 
historic impacts of the Proposed Action, an alternative route that OEA 
believes would be reasonable, the No-Action Alternative, and all the 
related actions. Additional information on OEA's scope of environmental 
analysis for the EIS is described below.

Purpose and Need

    The proposed Federal action here is the Board's decision to 
authorize with appropriate conditions or to deny GER's request for 
authority to construct and operate the Line. The Line is not a Federal 
Government-proposed or sponsored project. Thus, the project's purpose 
and need should be informed by both the private applicant's goals and 
the Board's enabling statute--the Interstate Commerce Act (ICC), as 
amended by the ICC Termination Act, Public Law 104-188, 109 Stat. 803 
(1996).
    GER's purpose for constructing and operating the Line is to develop 
an economically viable solution to meet the need for border 
infrastructure improvements at Eagle Pass that increases safety and 
facilitates binational trade between the United States and Mexico. 
According to GER, the Line would resolve rail and truck congestion, 
reduce cross border wait times, and route rail traffic around the urban 
center of Eagle Pass.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Proposed Action

    According to GER, the Line would be a secure, double-tracked rail 
corridor with no roadway/rail at-grade crossings, extending from the 
interchange point with the UP tracks at approximately UP milepost 31 on 
the Eagle Pass Subdivision near UP's Clark's Park Yard, for 
approximately 1.3 miles southwest to the United States/Mexico border. 
The Line would cross the Rio Grande River on the Rail Bridge and would 
be elevated on a 100-foot-wide earthen embankment. The total width of 
the Line, including the service roads, would be approximately 160 feet. 
A non-intrusive inspection (NII) facility and noise barriers would be 
located within the right-of-way. The Line would be fully fenced, 
monitored, and patrolled by security personnel on a service road. In 
addition to the Line, which requires Board authority, the PVGTB Project 
would include a new commercial motor vehicle roadway that would cross 
the Rio Grande River on the Road Bridge; a control tower; and truck 
inspection facilities. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would 
operate the inspection facilities. PVH would either lease the 
facilities to CBP; transfer ownership of the facilities to the General 
Services Administration (GSA); or operate the inspection facilities as 
a privately owned Central Examination Station under 19 CFR part 118. A 
variety of commodities would move to and from Mexico over the Line and 
roadway. Trains operating on the Line would consist of approximately 
150 cars with two locomotives on the front end and one on the rear end, 
for an approximate train length of 9,300 feet.
    USCG will issue a decision on a proposed Federal action whether to 
grant or deny GER's request for a permit to construct and operate the 
proposed bridges across the Rio Grande River and will participate as a 
Cooperating Agency in the EIS process. Permits will also be required 
from USACE and IBWC. The EIS will analyze the impacts of constructing 
and operating the Line as

[[Page 55997]]

well as the other parts of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.

Alternatives To Be Carried Forward in the EIS

    The EIS will analyze and compare the potential impacts of 
construction and operation of the Proposed Action, reasonable 
alternative routes, and the No-Action Alternative (denial of 
construction and operation authority). Following consultation with 
USCG; USACE; IBWC; other appropriate Federal, State, and local 
agencies; Tribes; other affected stakeholders; the public; and GER, OEA 
has determined that the reasonable alternatives that the EIS will 
analyze in detail are:
     Proposed Action (Southern Rail Alternative), GER's 
preferred route. GER originally proposed a route that would have 
diverged from the UP mainline at approximate milepost 31, crossed Seco 
Creek, curved to the south of Seco Creek on an embankment, crossed over 
Rodriguez Street, Barrera Street, and U.S. 277 (Del Rio Boulevard) 
using bridges with an embankment in between, traversed an undeveloped 
area, crossed Seco Creek in two locations, and continued to and across 
the Rio Grande River. On June 27, 2024, GER sent OEA a letter modifying 
its original route. The modified route departs the UP mainline at the 
same location as the originally proposed route and follows the same 
route as the original route until the crossing over U.S. 277. West of 
U.S. 277, the modified route curves slightly to the south of the 
originally proposed route to avoid potential impacts associated with 
crossing Seco Creek and continues to and across the Rio Grande River. 
This route is now GER's preferred alternative route and is referred to 
as the Southern Rail Alternative below.
     Northern Rail Alternative. Based on information obtained 
through the scoping process (including data collection, technical 
evaluations, and an additional site visit), OEA developed the Northern 
Rail Alternative as another reasonable build alternative for 
consideration in the EIS. The Northern Rail Alternative would follow a 
similar route as the Southern Rail Alternative from the UP mainline to 
U.S. 277 but diverge to the north approximately 0.1 mile west of U.S. 
277 to minimize visual impacts to the residences south of Seco Creek. 
The Northern Rail Alternative would cross Seco Creek slightly to the 
north of GER's originally proposed route, continue straight, and curve 
to cross Seco Creek and the Rio Grande River on the Rail Bridge. Under 
this alternative, the Rail Bridge would be located a little farther 
north than the Rail Bridge associated with the Southern Rail 
Alternative.
    Additional information, including a map showing the routes of both 
rail alternatives, can be found on the Board-sponsored project website 
at www.greeneaglerreis.com.

Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward in the EIS

    OEA reviewed and dismissed from detailed analysis several other 
rail routes that GER had considered. Those routes would have run 
farther north than the Southern and Northern Rail Alternatives, from 
the UP Clark's Park Yard and along or near FM 1588 (Thompson Road), 
through residential areas, industrial areas, and open space before 
crossing the Rio Grande River. OEA determined that those routes would 
be infeasible because to connect with the UP mainline, the routes would 
have to cross the existing yard track used for switching, which would 
interfere with existing rail operations. In addition, some of the 
routes would displace numerous residences or industrial properties. The 
routes would also require longer bridges across the Rio Grande River 
than either the Southern or the Northern Rail Alternatives. Therefore, 
the EIS will carry forward the Southern Rail Alternative, the Northern 
Rail Alternative, and the No-Action Alternative for detailed analysis 
in the EIS.

Summary of Scoping Process

    In December 2023, OEA conducted preliminary consultation with 
Federal, State, and local agencies as well as federally recognized 
Native American Tribes and elected officials to determine whether to 
prepare an Environmental Assessment or an EIS. OEA received responses 
from the Mayor of Eagle Pass; the Maverick County Judge; USCG; IBWC; 
CBP; USACE; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs; the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Texas 
Parks and Wildlife; the Texas General Land Office; the Texas Historical 
Commission; the City of Eagle Pass (Bridge General Manager, Chief of 
Police, City Engineer, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, 
and Public Works Director); and Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas.
    As part of this effort, OEA identified eight agencies (FHWA; GSA; 
IBWC; Texas Department of Transportation; USACE; USCG; CBP; and U.S. 
State Department) that would potentially need to permit or otherwise 
authorize parts of the PVGTB Project. OEA invited these agencies to 
participate in the NEPA process as Cooperating Agencies. Only USCG 
accepted OEA's Cooperating Agency invitation.
    Based on initial information provided by GER, preliminary 
consultation with agencies and elected officials, and preliminary 
analysis, OEA determined that the preparation of an EIS is appropriate 
in this case. The scoping process began on March 29, 2024, when OEA 
issued the NOI and published the NOI in the Federal Register. The NOI 
announced OEA's intent to prepare an EIS, solicited comments on the 
scope of the EIS, and provided information on public scoping meetings. 
Simultaneously with the issuance of the NOI, OEA sent scoping letters 
to potentially interested Federal, State, and local agencies as well as 
six federally recognized Native American Tribes.
    To inform the public of the issuance of the NOI and the public 
meetings, OEA posted online Google banner advertisements (banner ads) 
focusing on the Eagle Pass area; mailed postcards to 723 property 
owners in the vicinity of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB 
Project; and sent letters to 78 community leaders in the Eagle Pass 
area along with a flyer that could be shared with their respective 
communities. OEA sent letters to Federal, State, and local elected 
officials in Eagle Pass and Maverick County and issued a press release.
    During scoping, which lasted from March 29 through April 29, 2024, 
OEA hosted three public meetings to receive oral comments: two in-
person meetings in Eagle Pass (April 16, 2024, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 
p.m. and from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time [CDT]) and one 
online meeting (April 23, 2024, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. CDT). OEA also 
established a Board-sponsored project website at 
www.greeneaglerreis.com to provide current information about the Line 
and the PVGTB Project. OEA set up a toll-free phone line and a 
dedicated email address for the public to raise questions and concerns.
    As part of the planning effort for the scoping process, OEA 
determined that a majority of residents in Eagle Pass and Maverick 
County reported as Hispanic or Latino and speak a language other than 
English at home, predominantly Spanish. Therefore, OEA has and will 
continue to take appropriate measures to facilitate communication with 
Spanish speakers. For example, all public scoping materials were made 
available in both English and Spanish. OEA also provided simultaneous 
interpretation and translation services from English to Spanish and 
from Spanish to English at the in-person public scoping meetings held 
in Eagle

[[Page 55998]]

Pass and at the public scoping meeting held online. In addition, this 
Final Scope is being made available in Spanish as well as English.
    In total, during scoping, OEA received 174 comments, 41 of which 
were oral comments given at the public scoping meetings and 133 of 
which were written comments. OEA summarized and responded to the 
substantive comments received below.

Summary of Scoping Comments

     Purpose and Need: Commenters questioned the need for the 
PVGTB Project, noting that the existing commercial motor vehicle 
crossing at Eagle Pass has sufficient capacity to accommodate present 
and future commercial vehicles. Other commenters noted the development 
and economic benefits to be derived from the PVGTB Project. The Purpose 
and Need for the Line and the PVGTB Project is discussed above.
     Proposed Action and Alternatives: Commenters suggested 
alternative alignments for the Line through undeveloped areas farther 
to the north of Eagle Pass than GER's originally proposed rail route. 
Commenters questioned the efficiency of the Line because of its length 
and alleged deficiencies in operational planning. Some commenters asked 
that OEA consider routing traffic to and from the proposed truck 
screening facility (part of the PVGTB Project) via a new north-south 
road perpendicular to FM 1589 and connecting to U.S. 277 across from FM 
1588. As noted above, the EIS will evaluate the Southern Rail 
Alternative, the Northern Rail Alternative, and the No-Action 
Alternative. The EIS will also discuss alternatives considered but not 
carried forward for detailed analysis.
     Freight Rail Safety: Commenters expressed concerns about 
the potential transportation of hazardous materials through inhabited 
areas and the associated risk of accidental spills and contamination, 
referencing the 2023 accident in Palestine, Ohio, and emphasizing the 
risk of spill-induced injuries or fatalities, such as cancer risks and 
other illnesses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 
only Federal agency that submitted scoping comments, recommended that 
the EIS include a response plan for the accidental release of hazardous 
materials and a discussion of how applicable regulations would be 
applied to the construction and operation of the Line and associated 
facilities. Commenters also noted the benefits of moving rail traffic 
away from the downtown area of Eagle Pass and of constructing a secure 
rail line. As described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will assess 
rail safety impacts, including the risks of derailments and accidental 
spills, as appropriate.
     Roadway Capacity: Commenters raised concerns about the 
congestion that the roadway part of the PVGTB Project could create on 
local roads, especially along U.S. 277 (Del Rio Boulevard) and FM 1589 
(Hopedale Road), which provides access to and from the Hopedale 
neighborhood. Commenters stated that the proposed roadway would 
conflict with existing roadway plans and asked that impacts on existing 
infrastructure be considered. Commenters were also concerned that 
increased congestion could affect emergency vehicle response times. As 
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address traffic and 
roadway system impacts and will consider potential mitigation measures 
to address impacts related to traffic and roadway systems, as 
appropriate.
     Roadway Safety: Commenters raised concerns about the risks 
associated with the transportation of hazardous materials by truck. A 
commenter suggested that the PVGTB Project would improve safety, 
considering the current congestion involving automobiles and trucks in 
Eagle Pass and noting a recent accident involving hazardous materials 
that occurred off Veterans Boulevard because of heavy traffic. As 
described below in the Final Scope, the EIS will analyze roadway safety 
impacts, as appropriate.
     Noise and Vibration: Commenters expressed concerns about 
train noise on houses and schools near the Line, including potential 
health effects from noise. A commenter observed that the City of Eagle 
Pass has spent approximately 15 years trying to establish quiet zones 
for the existing grade crossings that would no longer be traversed by 
trains if the Board approves the Line. Commenters also raised concerns 
about vibration from both construction and operation of the Line, 
especially since some potentially affected houses are old and may, in 
the view of the commenters, suffer structural damage. As described 
below in the Final Scope, the EIS will address noise and vibration 
impacts and will consider potential mitigation measures to address 
impacts related to noise and vibration, as appropriate.
     Air Quality and Climate Change: Commenters raised concerns 
regarding potential air quality impacts on human health and communities 
due to emissions from rail traffic. EPA submitted scoping comments 
recommending that the EIS provide a detailed discussion of ambient air 
conditions (baseline or existing conditions); National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and non-NAAQS pollutants; criteria pollutant 
nonattainment areas; hazardous air pollutants; and potential air 
quality impacts. EPA stated that the discussion should address 
potential construction, maintenance, and operational activities, and 
that a construction emissions mitigation plan should be included in the 
EIS. EPA specified that the EIS should identify all emission sources by 
pollutant from mobile sources (on and off-road), stationary sources 
(including portable and temporary emission units), fugitive emission 
sources, area sources, and ground disturbance. EPA also suggested that 
this information be used to identify appropriate mitigation measures. 
The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider air quality impacts 
in accordance with applicable regulations and guidance, as appropriate.
     Cultural Resources: Commenters expressed concerns about 
potential impacts on Native American burial grounds and historic 
cemeteries known to be present in the project area. The Final Scope 
reflects that the EIS will consider impacts on cultural and tribal 
resources as well as potential mitigation measures to address impacts 
on cultural resources, as appropriate.
     Water Resources: Commenters raised concerns regarding 
impacts from construction in the floodplains of the Rio Grande River, 
Seco Creek, and Elm Creek, and how construction could affect flood 
levels. Commenters also expressed concerns about the potential effects 
of an accidental spill from the proposed bridges across the Rio Grande 
River on water quality as well as on the area's water supply because 
the drinking water intake is located downstream of the proposed bridges 
(as opposed to upstream of the existing bridges). EPA's scoping 
comments recommended that the EIS discuss compliance with sections 402 
and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), including specific segments of 
the Rio Grande River near the project area that are impaired (if any). 
The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider potential impacts 
on water resources, as well as potential mitigation measures to address 
impacts on water resources, as appropriate.
     Biological Resources: Commenters expressed concerns about 
impacts on the local ecosystem, especially species dependent on access 
to local waterbodies, which may be cut off from their water sources. 
EPA's scoping comments recommended that the EIS

[[Page 55999]]

address the need for a plan to revegetate areas cleared for 
construction. EPA stated that construction, operation, and maintenance 
activities would cause increased sedimentation and turbidity, which can 
affect threatened and endangered species in the area, and that best 
management practices should be implemented to reduce those risks. 
Furthermore, EPA recommended revegetation plans for disturbed areas and 
clarification on oil, fuel, and solid waste management spill and leak 
protocols. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider impacts 
on wildlife and vegetation, as appropriate.
     Land Use: Commenters raised concerns about impacts on land 
that was previously used for mining or as a landfill. Commenters asked 
that potential impacts on UP's tracks, network, and operations be 
considered, as well as the impacts on Clark's Park Yard. Commenters 
also expressed concerns about the Line impeding vehicular movements on 
private property. EPA recommended that the EIS analyze impacts from the 
generation and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. The Final Scope 
reflects that the EIS will consider impacts on land use and impacts 
from the generation and disposal of solid and hazardous waste, as 
appropriate.
     Socioeconomics: Commenters raised concerns regarding 
potential impacts on property values and the loss of bridge revenues 
for the City of Eagle Pass. Commenters also suggested that the Line and 
the PVGTB Project would generate economic benefits on both sides of the 
border, including new jobs, more housing, and improved trade relations. 
Commenters also requested that the need for additional CBP personnel be 
evaluated. NEPA requires agencies to evaluate the ``environmental 
impact'' and any unavoidable adverse ``environmental effects'' of a 
proposed action. A potential change in property values would not be an 
effect on the environment. Therefore, the Final Scope reflects that the 
EIS will not consider impacts to property values. The Final Scope will 
consider impacts from the potential generation of jobs, as appropriate.
     Environmental Justice: Commenters noted that the Line 
would run through low-income neighborhoods that have previously been 
subject to adverse impacts from past projects. The Eagle Pass Housing 
Authority noted that the Line would be located close to two of the 
Authority's housing developments, subsidized by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
respectively. The Final Scope reflects that the EIS will consider 
potentially disproportionate impacts on low-income and minority 
communities and address environmental justice issues, as appropriate.
    Based on the comments received during scoping and OEA's independent 
analysis, OEA has prepared the Final Scope of Study for the EIS, which 
is detailed below.

Final Scope

Environmental and Historic Impact Analysis

    The EIS will address the potential environmental and historic 
impacts of the Line and the PVGTB Project, as appropriate. OEA will 
evaluate only the potential environmental and historic impacts of 
operational and physical changes that are related to the Line, the 
alternatives described above, and other parts of the PVGTB Project, as 
appropriate.
    The EIS will analyze potential direct, indirect, and cumulative 
impacts on the environment for the Proposed Action, each reasonable 
alternative, and other parts of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.\1\ 
The EIS will also analyze the impacts of the No-Action Alternative. 
Impact areas assessed will include freight rail safety; grade crossing 
safety and delay; roadway safety and capacity; noise and vibration; air 
quality and climate change; energy; geology and soils; cultural 
resources; hazardous materials release sites; biological resources; 
water resources (including wetlands and other waters of the United 
States); land use; socioeconomics; visual resources; environmental 
justice; cumulative impacts; and transboundary impacts, as described 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NEPA requires the Board to consider direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impacts. Direct and indirect impacts are both caused by 
the action. 40 CFR 1508.1(i)(1) and (2). A cumulative impact is the 
``incremental effects of the action when added to the effects of 
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 
undertakes such other actions.'' 40 CFR 1508.1(i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Impact Categories

1. Freight Rail Safety
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe projected rail operations and analyze the potential for 
changes in the probability of train accidents, including derailments, 
as appropriate.
    B. Identify hazardous materials that could be transported and the 
likelihood of an accidental release of hazardous materials and its 
consequences.
2. Grade Crossing Safety
    The EIS will:
    A. Evaluate potential impacts on road/rail grade crossing safety 
and analyze the potential for a change in the rate of accidents related 
to the proposed rail operations, as appropriate.
3. Grade Crossing Delay
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe existing crossing delays and analyze the potential for 
changes in delays related to the proposed rail operations, as 
appropriate.
    B. Evaluate the potential for disruptions and delays to the 
movement of emergency vehicles.
4. Roadway Safety
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe and analyze changes in crash frequencies for relevant 
roadway segments and intersections, as appropriate.
5. Roadway Capacity
    The EIS will:
    A. Evaluate the effect of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB 
Project on affected roadway segments, as appropriate. The EIS will 
analyze the volume to capacity ratio of each of the roadway segments 
and levels of service at relevant intersections.
6. Noise and Vibration
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe the potential noise and vibration effects of the Line 
and other parts of the PVGTB Project during construction, as 
appropriate.
    B. Describe the potential noise and vibration effects of the Line 
and other parts of the PVGTB Project during operation, as appropriate.
    C. Determine, as appropriate, whether the Line and other parts of 
the PVGTB Project 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, 
the EIS will 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 
using applicable thresholds defined by the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA).
7. Air Quality and Climate Change
    The EIS will:
    A. Quantify emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases 
resulting from construction and operation of the Line and other parts 
of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.
    B. Analyze the potential impacts of climate change on the Line and 
other

[[Page 56000]]

parts of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.
8. Energy
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe the effects of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB 
Project on the transportation of energy resources, as appropriate.
    B. Describe the effects of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB 
Project on recyclable commodities, as appropriate.
    C. State whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project 
would result in an increase or decrease in overall energy efficiency 
and explain why, as appropriate.
9. Geology and Soils
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe geology, topography, and soils within the project area.
    B. Evaluate potential effects on geological, topographical, and 
soil conditions from the construction of the Line and other parts of 
the PVGTB Project, as appropriate.
10. Cultural Resources
    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 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.
11. Hazardous Materials Release Sites
    The EIS will:
    A. Identify known hazardous waste sites or sites where there have 
been known hazardous material spills within 500 feet of the Line and 
other parts of the PVGTB Project, as appropriate; identify the location 
of those sites and the types of hazardous waste involved.
    B. Assess the risk from construction associated with each 
identified site.
12. Biological Resources
    The EIS will:
    A. Based on consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
identify whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project would be 
likely to adversely affect endangered or threatened species or areas 
designated as a critical habitat, as appropriate, and if so, describe 
the effects.
    B. Evaluate biological resources within the project area, including 
vegetative communities, wildlife, aquatic resources, wetlands, and 
federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species (including 
candidate species).
    C. Assess qualitatively the effects of the Line and other parts of 
the PVGTB Project on wildlife, as appropriate. Effects may include 
displacement, habitat fragmentation, and vehicular collisions as well 
as behavioral and noise-related impacts.
13. Water Resources
    The EIS will:
    A. Identify whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project, 
as appropriate, would require permits under section 404 of the CWA and 
whether any designated wetlands or 100-year floodplains would be 
affected.
    B. Identify whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project, 
as appropriate, would require permits under section 402 of the CWA.
    C. Identify whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project, 
as appropriate, would require permits under sections 9 and 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Act.
    D. Evaluate the effects of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB 
Project, as appropriate, on surface waters, water quality, wetlands, 
floodplains, and groundwater resources, including 303(d)-listed 
impaired surface waters, if any.
14. Land Use
    The EIS will:
    A. Evaluate the effects of the Line and other parts of the PVGTB 
Project on land use, as appropriate. Such impacts may include 
incompatibility with existing land uses; conversion of land to railroad 
use; and compatibility with conservation easements and other 
encumbrances on privately owned land, as applicable.
15. Socioeconomics
    The EIS will:
    A. Analyze economic effects of constructing and operating the Line 
and other parts of the PVTGB Project, including direct and induced job 
creation, as appropriate.
16. Visual Resources
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe the potential effects of the Line and other parts of 
the PVGTB Project on the existing visual character of, and quality of 
views from, the vicinity of the project area, as appropriate.
    B. Include visualizations illustrating how the Line and other parts 
of the PVGTB Project would affect views from select locations, as 
appropriate.
17. Environmental Justice
    The EIS will:
    A. Evaluate whether the Line and other parts of the PVGTB Project 
would adversely or beneficially affect low-income or minority 
populations, as appropriate.
    B. Determine whether adverse impacts would be disproportionately 
borne by minority and low-income populations.
18. Cumulative Impacts
    The EIS will:
    A. Evaluate the cumulative effects of the Line and other parts of 
the PVGTB Project, when added to other past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable future actions, as appropriate.
19. Transboundary Impacts
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe the impacts of constructing the Line and other parts of 
the PVGTB Project on resources located across the Mexico/United States 
border, as appropriate.
20. Mitigation Measures
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe any measures that are proposed to mitigate adverse 
environmental or historic impacts, indicating why the proposed 
mitigation is appropriate.

    By the Board, Danielle Gosselin, Director, Office of 
Environmental Analysis.
Stefan Rice,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2024-14740 Filed 7-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P