40088 SERVICE DATE – JULY 17, 2009
SEA
SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
NOTICE
STB Finance Docket
No. 35095
ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION
– CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION--A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, AK
Decided: July 13, 2009
AGENCIES: Lead:
Surface Transportation Board. Cooperating: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District; Federal Railroad Administration; and United States Coast Guard.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Scope of
Study for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
SUMMARY: The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC or
Applicant) petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (Board) pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 10502 for authority to construct and operate a new rail line from
Matanuska-Susitna Borough’s (MSB) Port MacKenzie to ARRC’s existing main line
between Wasilla and north of Willow,
Alaska. The project would involve the construction and
operation of approximately 30 to 45 miles of new rail to the main line track. Figure 1 shows ARRC’s existing track and the
proposed rail line extension from Port MacKenzie to ARRC’s existing main line (all
figures are available for viewing on the Board’s Web site at www.stb.dot.gov by going to “Environmental
Matters,” then selecting “Key Cases” in the dropdown; and then when the next
page appears, clicking “Alaska Railroad – Port MacKenzie Rail Extension”). Because the construction and operation of
this project has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts,
the Board’s Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) has determined that the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate. For further information about the Board’s
environmental review process and the EIS, you may also visit a Board-sponsored
project Web site at www.stbportmacraileis.com.
To
help determine the scope of the EIS, and as required by the Board’s regulations
at 49 CFR 1105.10(a)(2), SEA published in the Federal Register and mailed to the public on February 12, 2008, the
Notice of Availability of Draft Scope of Study for the EIS, Notice of Scoping
Meetings, and Request for Comments. SEA also
prepared and distributed to the public a fact sheet that introduced ARRC’s Port
MacKenzie Rail Extension, announced SEA’s intent to prepare an EIS, requested
comments, and gave notice of six public scoping meetings to citizens; elected
officials; Federal, state, and local agencies; tribal organizations; and other
potentially interested stakeholders. SEA
held six public scoping meetings in Knik, Big
Lake, Willow,
Houston, Wasilla, and Anchorage, Alaska
on March 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11, 2008, respectively.
The scoping comment period
concluded March 21, 2008. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District (USACE); Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA); and United States Coast Guard (USCG) requested and were granted cooperating
agency status in preparation of the EIS.
After review and consideration of all comments received, this
notice sets forth the final scope of the EIS.
The final scope reflects any changes to the draft scope as a
result of the comments, summarizes and addresses the principal environmental
concerns raised by the comments, and briefly discusses pertinent issues
concerning this project that further clarify the final scope.
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Navecky, Section of
Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20423-0001, 202-245-0294, or call SEA’s toll-free number for the project at 1-888-257-7560. Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1-800-877-8339. The Web site for the
Surface Transportation Board is www.stb.dot.gov.
Serena
Sweet, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 6898, Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK
99506, 907-753-2819.
John Winkle, Passenger Programs Division, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-493-6067.
James
Helfinstine, Seventeenth District, U.S. Coast Guard, P.O. Box 25517, Juneau, AK
99802-5517, 907-463-2268.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
Background: Port MacKenzie is a deepwater facility on
the west side of the Knik Arm in upper Cook Inlet in south-central Alaska. At present, freight truck is the only
available surface mode of transportation to and from Port MacKenzie. The Applicant has stated that the proposed
rail line would satisfy the need for an additional mode of transportation for
the movement of bulk materials, intermodal containers, and other freight to and
from Port MacKenzie. The proposed
project is consistent with the MSB’s economic development plans and with ARRC’s
statutory goal to foster and promote long-term economic growth in the State of Alaska. The project would support the Port’s
continued development as a multi-modal and bulk materials export and import
facility. ARRC plans to support
commercial freight rail service needs with the proposed project.
Major
elements of the project would include:
·
Approximately 30 to 45 miles of new railroad track depending
on the alternative;
·
A 200-foot wide right-of-way (ROW);
·
Crossings (depending on the alternative) of the Little
Susitna River, Lake Creek, Goose Creek, Little Willow Creek, Fish Creek, Rogers
Creek, Lucile Creek, Little Meadow Creek, and Willow Creek, along with many
other small stream crossings;
·
Crossings of local roads and streets,
including grade-separations;
·
Pipeline, utility, and recreational trail crossings, including
the Iditarod National Historic Trail;
·
Road closures and relocations;
·
Track sidings along the existing ARRC
mainline;
·
A terminal reserve area (consisting of yard sidings, storage
areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance); and
·
Ancillary railroad support facilities including, but not
limited to, communications towers and facilities, maintenance, power, signals,
and access road.
Environmental Review
Process: The Board is the lead
agency, pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.5. SEA
is responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4335, and related environmental
statutes, and for completing the environmental review process. The NEPA review process is intended to assist
the Board, the cooperating agencies and the public in identifying and assessing
the potential environmental consequences of a proposed action and the
reasonable alternative before a decision is made.
ICF International is serving as an independent
third-party contractor to assist SEA in the environmental review process. SEA is directing and supervising the preparation
of the EIS. The USACE, FRA, and USCG are
cooperating agencies, pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6.
The Federal agency
actions considered in this EIS will include decisions, permits, approvals and
funding related to the proposed action.
The Board will decide whether to grant authority to ARRC to construct
and operate the rail line pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901 and 10502. The USACE will decide whether to issue
permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376, as
amended) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.
403). The USCG will decide whether to
issue authority to construct bridges over navigable waters of the United States
pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 1651-1659). The FRA could provide funding to ARRC;
however, the FRA would not provide funding for a Board-authorized alternative,
if any, that would require the use of resources protected under Section 4(f) of
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act (23 CFR 774) if there is a
prudent and feasible alternative that does not use Section 4(f) resources,
unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that the impacts to the
protected resources would be de minimis
in accordance with Section 6009(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amendment
to the Section 4(f) requirements, which do not require avoidance. The EIS should include all of the information
necessary for the decisions by the Board and the cooperating agencies.
SEA and the
cooperating agencies are preparing a Draft EIS for the proposed action. The Draft EIS will address those
environmental issues and concerns identified during the scoping process and
detailed in this final scope. It will
also discuss a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action,
including a no-action alternative, and recommend environmental mitigation
measures, as appropriate.
The Draft EIS will
be made available upon its completion for public review and comment. A Final EIS will then be prepared reflecting
further analysis by SEA and the cooperating agencies, and the public and agency
comments on the Draft EIS. In reaching
their decisions on this case, the Board and the cooperating agencies will take
into account the full environmental record, including the Draft EIS, the Final
EIS, and all public and agency comments received.
Purpose
and Need: The
Applicant has stated that the purpose of the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension is to
establish a rail link between Port MacKenzie (or Port) and the ARRC rail
system, providing Port customers and shippers with rail transportation between
the Port and Interior Alaska. The Port
is a deepwater facility on the west side of Knik Arm in upper Cook Inlet, in
south-central Alaska. At present, freight truck is the only
available surface mode of transportation to and from the Port.
The Applicant has also stated that the
proposed rail line would satisfy the need for an additional mode of
transportation for the movement of bulk materials, intermodal containers, and
other freight to and from the Port.
According to ARRC, the proposed project would support ARRC’s statutory
goal to foster and promote long-term economic growth and development in the
State of Alaska
and would be consistent with the Port’s economic development plans, which
include the continued development of the Port as a multi-modal and bulk
materials export and import facility.
Port Activities: The proposed rail line extension would end at a
terminal reserve (rail yard) approximately 2 or 3 miles, depending on the
route, from the existing Port docks.
Rail facilities the Port might construct to connect to the rail line
extension would be particular to the specific traffic needs and would be
expected to be generally consistent with Port master planning documents. These facilities might include buildings,
roads, industrial spurs, sidings, loading/unloading tracks, and other ancillary
facilities throughout the upland port district.
These facilities would be developed as the Port continued to grow, but
would be independent of the planned rail extension. At present, the MSB is developing a bulk
materials facility at the Port to accommodate the need for expansion of Port
facilities to handle bulk material cargo to be transported to the Port by
truck, independent of the planned rail line extension to the Port. The MSB has stated that as it continues to
plan for the bulk materials facility and future Port development, it will
consider the location of ARRC’s proposed rail extension in its decision making. The bulk material facility is not part of the
proposed action, and a detailed environmental review of the bulk material
facility is not within the scope of this EIS.
The bulk materials facility, however, will be addressed in the cumulative
impacts section of the EIS.
Proposed Action and Alternatives: The NEPA regulations require Federal agencies to
consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed
action. The President’s Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees the implementation of NEPA, has
stated in Forty Most Asked Questions
Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations that
“[R]easonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from
the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense….” In this EIS, SEA and the cooperating agencies
are considering a full range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need of
the project, as well as the no-action alternative. The reasonable and feasible alternatives
included for detailed analysis and alternatives considered but not included in
detailed study are discussed in more detail below.
- Alternatives
Based on agency
consultations, feedback from stakeholders, and a constraints analysis based on
engineering and environmental studies, in January 2008 ARRC developed the
Preliminary Environmental and Alternatives Report, which presented eight
possible alignment configurations. All alignments
start at a terminal reserve area near Port MacKenzie at the southern end and
connect to the existing ARRC mainline to the north. The alignments are composed of a southern and
northern segment with a possible connector tying the segments together. The southern segments, Mac West or Mac East,
run either east or west of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project. Just north of the Point MacKenzie
Agricultural Project, there are three main northern segments – Willow, Houston, and Big Lake – with Houston
having a north or south variant.
Connector segments link the north and south segments together to create
eight possible alignment configurations as listed below and depicted in Figure
1.
After reviewing the eight ARRC-proposed
alignments and considering all comments received during the scoping period, SEA
and the cooperating agencies have decided to carry all eight alignments forward
as alternatives for detailed analysis in the EIS. The no-action alternative will also be
considered. The eight alternatives are
listed below. Each would consist of a
200-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the railroad and associated facilities.
1. Mac West – Connector 1 – Willow. This alternative would be 44.8 miles long and
contains the segments farthest west.
2. Mac West – Connector 1 – Houston – Houston North. This alternative would be 35.1 miles long,
and is geographically one of the middle alignments.
3. Mac West – Connector 1 – Houston – Houston South. This alternative would be 34.5 miles, and is
geographically one of the middle alternatives.
4. Mac West – Connector 2 – Big Lake. This alternative would be 35.8 miles. It includes the southern segment along the
west side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project and the most eastern
north segment going towards Big
Lake.
5. Mac East – Connector 3 – Willow. This alternative would be 45 miles and is the
longest. It includes the southern
segment along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project and the
most western north segment going towards Willow.
6. Mac East – Connector 3 – Houston – Houston North. This alternative would be 35.3 miles, and is
geographically one of the middle alternatives.
7. Mac East – Connector 3 – Houston – Houston South. This alternative would be 34.7 miles long,
and is geographically one of the middle alignments.
8. Mac East – Big Lake. This alternative would be 31.8 miles long and
is the shortest alternative. It includes
the southern segment along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural
Project and the most eastern north segment going toward Big Lake.
Descriptions of the individual segments that
complete the eight build alternatives for the EIS are provided below.
Southern Segments
Mac West Segment
The Mac West Segment would begin in the terminal reserve
area and would proceed northwest across relatively flat terrain toward the
southwest corner of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project. The segment would continue west of the
agricultural area, traversing along the eastern boundary of Susitna Flats State
Game Refuge. The terminal reserve area
is proposed along the southern side of Mac West.
Mac East
Segment
The Mac East Segment would begin in the terminal reserve
area and would proceed north along the side of a ridge along the east side of
the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project.
Near Mile Post 4.7, the segment would cross a ravine and then curve to
the northeast along the top of another ridge.
North of Mile Post 6, the segment would follow the alignment of Port MacKenzie Road,
offset 200 feet or more to the west. The
segment would continue along undulating terrain before reaching its junction
with the Big Lake Segment or Connector Segment 3. The terminal reserve area is proposed along
the north side of Mac East.
See Figure 2 for a detailed map of the southern segments and
terminal reserve area.
Connectors
Connector
Segment 1
This 4.1-mile-long segment would connect the Mac West Segment to the Willow or Houston
segments. From Mac West, this connector
segment would continue north along the eastern boundary of the Susitna Flats
State Game Refuge on level terrain. The
segment would cross a tributary of the Little Susitna River.
Connector
Segment 2
This 3.7-mile-long segment would connect the Mac West
Segment to the Big Lake Segment. At the
northwestern end of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project, this connector
segment would turn due east and travel along the southern boundary of the Point
MacKenzie Correctional Farm.
Connector
Segment 3
This 4.5-mile-long segment would connect the Mac East
Segment to the Willow or Houston segments. At the northeastern end of the Point
MacKenzie Agricultural Project, this connector segment would shift to the
northwest and cross Ayrshire
Avenue and Farmers Road at grade. The segment would continue north of My Lake and
cross
an adjacent ravine. The remaining mile
of the segment is nearly level.
See Figure 3 for a detailed map of the connector segments.
North Segments
Willow Segment
From Connector Segment 1 or 3, the Willow Segment would
continue northwest where it would immediately cross the Little Susitna River
(see Figure 4). Over the next 7 miles,
the segment would continue north through rolling terrain. The segment would cross Fish Creek, the
outlet for Red Shirt and Cow lakes. The
Willow Segment would then proceed north, generally following the west-facing
slope of a glacial moraine west of Red
Shirt Lake. It would continue north through the Nancy
Lake State Recreation Area for approximately 0.5 mile. The Willow Segment would cross the outlet for
Vera Lake, continue over rolling terrain, and
cross Willow Landing Road
at grade. The segment would then
continue through the Willow Creek State Recreation Area, where it would cross
Willow Creek. The segment would curve to
the east and cross Parks Highway
with a grade separation, before connecting to the existing ARRC main line near
Mile Post 188.9 along the proposed rail line.
Houston Segment
From Connector Segment 1 or 3, the Houston Segment would
proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of
wetland (see Figure 5). The segment
would pass between Papoose Twins Lakes
and Crooked Lake, traversing an area of hilly
terrain. The remaining 4 miles of the Houston
Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe Lake and Little Horseshoe Lake, where it
would connect to either the Houston North Segment or the Houston South
Segment.
Houston North
Segment
From the Houston Segment, the Houston North Segment would
continue north (see Figure 5), crossing over the Castle Mountain Fault. The Houston North Segment would cross the Cow
Lake Trail, which is part of the Houston Lake Loop Trail. It would continue through the Little Susitna
Recreation Area, where it would cross the Little Susitna River. The segment would continue north on rolling
terrain along the east side of Houston and Little Houston lakes, descending
gradually to lower terrain adjacent to Lake Creek. The Houston North Segment would tie into the
existing ARRC main line near Mile Post 178 without crossing the Parks Highway.
Houston South
Segment
Also beginning between Muleshoe
Lake and Little Horseshoe Lake, this
proposed segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake
(see Figure 5). The segment would
traverse several gravel ridges that parallel the lakes in this area. The segment would tie into the existing
mainline near Mile Post 174.0 without crossing the Parks Highway.
Big Lake Segment
From the Mac East Segment or Connector Segment 2, the Big
Lake Segment would run northeast for approximately 3 miles, crossing Burma Road at grade (see Figure 6). It would continue on rolling terrain,
crossing over Goose Creek, Fish Creek, Lucille Creek,
and tributaries of Lucille
Creek and Little Meadow
Creek. The segment would cross Burma Road at grade and Big Lake Road, where it would be
grade-separated above Big Lake
Road. The
Big Lake Segment would continue north through a residential area before
crossing under Parks Highway. The Big Lake Segment would connect with the
existing ARRC main line near Mile Post 170.3 along the proposed rail line in a
wetland area surrounding a stream that feeds into Long Lake.
The refined information collected during the 2008 summer
field season provided ARRC with better data to consider the tie-in location for
the Big Lake Segment. The following
information supplements the Preliminary Environmental and Alternatives Report (see
Figure 6). These refinements of the Big
Lake Segment will be addressed in the EIS.
·
Construct
an approximately 430-foot bridge on the Parks Highway over the proposed rail line
and an unnamed anadromous fish stream.
·
Relocate
approximately 2,400 feet of unnamed anadromous fish streams adjacent to the
proposed rail line.
·
Relocate
approximately 1,000 feet of Hawk
Lane on the south side of the Parks Highway (because of the new Parks Highway
bridge).
·
Close
approximately 865 feet of Cheri
Lake Drive where it crosses the existing main line
and intersects with the Parks
Highway.
·
Extend
Ray Street
approximately 1,405 feet from Loon
Street to the Parks Highway, which would include an
at-grade crossing of the existing ARRC main line.
·
Acquire
eight recreational/residential parcels along Loon Lake
because access to the parcels would be permanently blocked due to lack of
access from the relocated road crossing (Cheri Lake Drive) and the new siding.
·
Relocate
the business on the southwest corner of the Parks Highway and Cheri Lake Drive due to the Hawk Lane
relocation.
- Alternatives Considered But Not
Included in Detailed Study
Following review of scoping
comments received and the potential route alignments presented by ARRC in the
Preliminary Environmental and Alternatives Report, SEA asked ARRC to consider
the feasibility of making adjustments to the Willow, Big Lake, Mac West, and
Houston North Segments, and to consider a new segment to reduce potential environmental
impacts. The adjustments were proposed
to reduce potential impacts to state recreation areas and game refuges, a road
crossing, and wetlands. The proposed new
segment would have utilized already existing corridors. ARRC considered SEA’s proposed changes and
explained that making these adjustments would create additional impacts or the
terrain would be unsuitable for railroad construction. For example, SEA proposed shifting the Willow
Segment west to avoid Willow Creek State Recreation Area, but ARRC explained
that this approach would require closing or relocating the Willow Airport. In response to ARRC’s concerns about the
feasibility of SEA’s proposed changes, and based on its own independent
analysis, SEA determined that its proposed modifications to the routes were not
feasible.
SEA also notes that rail across the proposed Knik Arm
crossing connecting Port MacKenzie to the ARRC main line in Anchorage was
considered, but determined impractical for several reasons. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
determined this option to be financially infeasible in the Knik Arm Crossing
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The nearly $1 billion cost (in 2005 dollars) estimated for constructing
this rail crossing would have exceeded the $600 million limit for the Knik Arm
Crossing project. In addition, a route
to Interior Alaska via the Knik Arm crossing would have been considerably
longer than the alternatives being analyzed and would not meet the Applicant’s
stated purpose of providing a rail connection suitable for shipment of bulk
materials from Interior Alaska to Port Mackenzie.
- Public Participation
As
part of the environmental review process to date, SEA has conducted broad
public outreach activities to inform the public about the proposed action and
to facilitate public participation. SEA
consulted with and will continue to consult with Federal, state, and local
agencies; affected communities: and all interested parties to gather and
disseminate information about the proposal.
SEA and the cooperating agencies have also developed and implemented a
Government-to-Government Consultation and Coordination Plan to seek, discuss,
and consider the views of Federally recognized Tribal Governments regarding the
proposed action and alternatives.
- Response to Comments
SEA and the cooperating agencies
reviewed and considered the comments received on the draft scope (130 comments
with approximately 1,332 signatures) in preparing this final scope of the
EIS. The final scope reflects any changes
to the draft scope as a result of comments.
Other changes in the final scope were made for clarification or because
of additional analysis. Additions and
modifications reflected in the final scope include:
·
Analysis of impacts on fisheries and fish habitat,
specifically anadromous streams. Federal
and state agencies provided comments on the potential impacts on fish and fish
habitat. As a point of clarification,
the EIS will consider project-related effects on fish resources including
impacts from rail and road construction, types and locations of water crossings
and the accommodation of ice formation.
·
Analysis of impacts on nesting waterfowl and eagles. Comments stated concerns about the potential
impacts on nesting waterfowl and eagles, as well as migrating waterfowl,
including cranes and grebes. As a point
of clarification, the analysis in the EIS will consider the locations of eagle
nests and migrating waterfowl near proposed alignments.
·
Analysis of impacts on moose and other wildlife. Comments stated that moose strikes by trains
are among the greatest wildlife concerns.
Comments also indicated that other mammals that reside in the area could
be affected. To clarify, the EIS will
address wildlife habitat impacts, including potential impacts to moose.
·
Analysis of socioeconomic impacts. Comments recommend that
the EIS consider the impacts of the proposed project on property values, land
access and use (i.e., agricultural), and quality of life. Comments also stated concerns about the
potential negative affects on income generated from recreation tourism. The EIS will consider potential project-related
effects on local services as potential land use impacts.
·
Analysis of impacts on water resources. Comments requested that the EIS evaluate the
potential loss of wetland habitat. Comments
also stated concerns regarding the potential project impacts on watersheds
(i.e., rail embankment acting as a barrier that would disrupt natural drainage
systems). Comments also recommended the
study of possible impacts of the Little Susitna River overflowing its banks and
the compounded effect of a possible spill on this interconnected hydrologic
system. The EIS will consider these
potential impacts.
·
Analysis of impacts on cultural resources. Comments stated
concerns over potential impacts to known and unidentified cultural resources
(e.g., Iditarod Trail and native sites).
Comments also stated concerns over loss of subsistence resources. The EIS will address cultural resources and
subsistence.
·
Analysis of rail safety.
Comments stated concerns over rail and highway safety related to
hazardous materials transport, at-grade crossings, fire hazards, and crossing
seismic zones (i.e., crossing fault lines).
In addition, comments stated concerns about the safety of potential rail
crossings at recreational trails. The
EIS will examine the potential safety impacts of the proposed action.
·
Analysis of noise and vibration impacts. Comments stated concerns over noise and
vibration impacts near residential and wilderness areas. The EIS will consider
noise and vibration impacts including potential project-related impacts to
sensitive receptors.
·
Analysis of recreation and access. Comments requested that the EIS address the
potential impacts on recreation areas, access to these areas, and safety. Concerns specifically addressed the potential
loss of access to recreational trails including the Iditarod, Junior Iditarod,
and Iron Dog trails. Comments noted that many trails are unmarked through most
recreation areas. Concerns were also
raised about undisturbed state and Federal parks. Analysis of these issues will
be included in the EIS.
·
Analysis of land use impacts. Comments stated concerns about impacts to
private properties as well as Federal, state and borough public lands. Analysis of these issues will be included in
the EIS.
·
Analysis of geology and soils. Comments stated concerns about the Castle Mountain
fault, which would be crossed by one of the proposed alternatives. This issue will be addressed in the EIS.
- Environmental Impact Analysis
Proposed New Construction
Analysis in the EIS will address
the proposed activities associated with construction and operation of new rail
facilities and their potential environmental impacts, as appropriate.
Impact Categories
The EIS will analyze potential
impacts from construction and operation of new rail facilities on the human and
natural environment for each alternative, or in the case of the no-action
alternative, the potential impacts of these activities not occurring. Impact areas addressed will include the
categories of geology and soils, water resources including wetlands and other waters
of the U.S., biological resources, cultural and historic resources,
subsistence, air quality, noise and vibration, energy resources, transportation
safety and delay, navigation, land use, socioeconomics as they relate to physical
changes in the environment, and environmental justice. The EIS will include a discussion of each of
these categories as they currently exist in the project area and will address
the potential impacts of each alternative on each category as described as
follows:
1. 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,
prime and unique soils, and hydric soils and analyze the potential impacts on
these resources resulting from the various alternatives for construction of a
new rail line.
b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or
eliminate potential project impacts to geology and soils, and seismic hazards,
as appropriate.
2. Water
Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe the existing surface water and
groundwater resources within the project area, including lakes, rivers,
streams, ponds, wetlands, and floodplains and analyze the potential impacts on
these resources resulting from each alternative.
b. Describe
the permitting requirements applicable to wetlands, stream and river crossings,
water quality, floodplains, and erosion control.
c. Propose
mitigative measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential project
impacts to water resources, as appropriate.
d. Identify
and evaluate potential impacts to the Su-Knik Mitigation Bank along the Big
Lake Segment. Note: the Big Lake Segment
would go through two mitigation bank parcels that are part of the Su-Knik
Mitigation Bank. Use of these two
mitigation bank parcels for the proposed rail line could require concurrence
from the entities that created the mitigation bank or ROW acquisition by ARRC
through eminent domain.
3. Biological Resources
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate
the existing biological resources within the project area, including vegetative
communities, wildlife and fisheries, and Federal and state threatened or
endangered species and the potential impacts to these resources resulting from
each alternative.
b. Describe
any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, national or state parks, forests, or
grasslands and evaluate the potential impacts to these resources resulting from
each alternative.
c. Propose
mitigative measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential impacts to
biological resources, as appropriate.
4. Cultural and
Historic Resources
The EIS will:
a. Analyze
the potential project-related impacts to historic structures or districts
previously recorded and determined potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on
the National Register of Historic Places within or immediately adjacent to the
right-of-way for the proposed rail alignments.
b. Evaluate
the potential impacts of each alternative to archaeological sites previously
recorded and either listed as unevaluated or determined potentially eligible,
eligible, or listed on the National Register of Historic Places within the
right-of-way for the alternative rail alignments and the no-action alternative.
c. Analyze
the potential impacts to historic structures or districts or archaeological
sites identified by ground survey and
determined potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on the National Register
of Historic Places within or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for the
alternative rail alignments.
d. Evaluate
the potential general impacts to paleontological resources in the project area
due to project construction, if necessary and required.
e. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts to
cultural and historic resources, as appropriate.
5. Subsistence
The EIS will:
a. Analyze
the potential impacts of the project alternatives on subsistence activities in
the project area.
b. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts on
subsistence activities, as appropriate.
6. Air
Quality
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate
air emissions from rail operations, if the alternative would affect a Class I
or non-attainment or maintenance area as designated under the Clean Air Act.
b. Describe
the potential air quality impacts resulting from new rail line construction
activities.
c. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts to air
quality, as appropriate.
7. Noise
and Vibration
The EIS will:
a. Describe
the potential noise and vibration impacts during new rail line construction.
b. Describe
the potential noise and vibration impacts of rail line operations over new and
existing rail lines.
c. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts to
sensitive noise receptors, as appropriate.
8. Energy
The EIS will:
a. Describe
and evaluate the potential impact of the new rail line on the distribution and
use of energy resources in the project area for each alternative, including
petroleum and gas pipelines and overhead electric transmission lines.
b. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts to
energy resources, as appropriate.
9. Transportation
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate
the potential impacts of each alternative, including new rail line construction
and operation, on the existing transportation network in the project area,
including vehicular delays at grade crossings.
b. Describe
existing road/rail grade crossing safety and analyze the potential for an
increase in accidents related to the new rail operations, as appropriate.
c. Describe
existing rail operations and analyze the potential for increased probability of
train accidents, as appropriate.
d. Evaluate
the potential for disruption and delays to the movement of emergency vehicles
due to new rail line construction and operation for each alternative.
e. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts to
transportation systems, as appropriate.
10. Navigation
The EIS will:
a. Identify
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 concerning navigation.
c. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential impacts to navigation,
as appropriate.
11. Land Use
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate
potential impacts of each alternative on existing land use patterns within the
project area and identify those land uses that would be potentially impacted by
new rail line construction.
b. Analyze
the potential impacts associated with each alternative to land uses identified
within the project area. Such potential
impacts could include incompatibility with existing land uses and conversion of
land to railroad uses.
c. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential impacts to land use, as
appropriate.
d. Evaluate
existing conditions and the potential impacts of the alternatives on
recreational opportunities in the project area.
e. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts on
recreational opportunities, as appropriate.
f. Identify
and evaluate potential impacts to resources protected under the U.S. Department
of Transportation (USDOT) regulation known as “Section 4(f).” (Note: the STB is
an independent agency and is not subject to Section 4(f) requirements). 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 774
and 49 U.S.C. 303 mandate that the Secretary of Transportation shall not
approve any transportation project requiring the use of publicly owned parks,
recreation areas or wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or significant historic
sites, regardless of ownership, unless there is no prudent and feasible
alternative to using that land, and the program or project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the public park, recreation area,
wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or significant site, resulting from that use. Because FRA is a USDOT agency, they could not
provide funding for the project if the Board authorizes construction and
operation of an alternative that requires the use of resources protected under
Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act if there is a prudent and feasible alternative
that does not use Section 4(f) resources, unless the use would result in de minimis impacts to Section 4(f)
resources, which do not require avoidance.
Note: the Willow-Connector 1-Mac West alternative would traverse the
Willow Creek State Recreation Area, Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, Little
Susitna Recreation River, and Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. The Houston North Segment would cross the
Little Susitna Recreation River. These
recreation and refuge areas are all Section 4(f) resources and FRA funding for
any rail line alternative affecting these resources could be prohibited.
g. Identify
sites in the proposed project area that are known to or might have been
contaminated by hazardous materials, identify sites that are regulated hazardous
waste facilities, and describes the potential impacts of constructing and
operating the proposed rail line on or near known hazardous materials and waste
sites.
12. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
a. Analyze the effects of a potential influx of
construction workers and the potential increase in demand for local services
interrelated with natural or physical environmental effects.
b. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project adverse impacts
to social and economic resources, as appropriate.
13. Environmental Justice
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate
the potential impacts of each alternative, including construction and operation
of the rail lines, on local and regional minority populations and low-income
populations.
b. Propose
mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project impacts on
environmental justice issues, as appropriate.
Cumulative Impacts
The EIS will analyze cumulative impacts for the alternatives
for the proposed construction and operation of new rail facilities on the human
and natural environment, or in the case of the no-action alternative, of the
lack of these activities. SEA will analyze the potential additive effects of
the proposed action and alternatives to the effects on applicable resources of
relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects or actions in the
area of the proposed action. SEA will determine appropriate time and geographic
boundaries for applicable resource-specific analyses in order to focus the
cumulative impacts analysis on truly meaningful effects. Resources addressed may include the categories
of geology and soils, water resources including wetlands and other waters of
the U.S., biological resources, cultural and historic resources, subsistence,
air quality, noise and vibration, energy resources, transportation safety and
delay, navigation, land use, socioeconomics as they relate to physical changes
in the environment, and environmental justice.
The EIS will review all relevant past, concurrent, and reasonably
foreseeable actions that could result in collectively significant impacts to
each of the categories of impacts listed above, and to any other categories of
impacts that may be addressed as a result of comments received during the
scoping process or the Draft EIS comment period.
By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of
Environmental Analysis.
Anne K. Quinlan
Acting Secretary
Note: