CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyControl and Operating Leases/AgreementsConrail, Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33388]

CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern

Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company--Control and Operating

Leases/Agreements--Conrail, Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of final scope of environmental impact statement (EIS).

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

SUMMARY: On June 23, 1997, CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc.

(CSX), Norfolk Southern Corporation, and Norfolk Southern

[[Page 51501]]

Railway Company (NS), and Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail

Corporation (Conrail) filed an application (primary application) with

the Surface Transportation Board (Board) under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25. NS,

CSX, and Conrail are jointly seeking authority for NS and CSX to

acquire control of Conrail and for the subsequent division of some of

Conrail's assets and for the joint operation of other Conrail assets.

The proposed transaction involves more than 44,000 miles of rail lines

and related facilities covering a large portion of the eastern United

States. To evaluate and consider the potential environmental impacts

that might result from the proposed transaction, the Board's Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA) is preparing an environmental impact

statement (EIS). The Board has determined that an EIS is warranted due

to the nature and scope of environmental issues that may arise. SEA

published the draft scope of the EIS in the Federal Register on July 7,

1997, a 30-day public comment period on the draft scope ended August 6,

1997, and the final scope of the EIS is included as part of this

notice. Changes made to the draft scope are detailed in the Response to

Comments section of this notice.

DATES: SEA expects to distribute the Draft EIS for public review and

comment in November 1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, STB Finance

Docket No. 33388, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20423-0001.

In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, include: Attention:

Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of Environmental Analysis,

Environmental Filing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Dalton, SEA Project

Manager, Conrail Control Transaction, (202) 565-1530; or Ms. Dana

White, SEA Environmental Specialist, at (202) 565-1552. (TDD for the

hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The proposed transaction, also referred to as the proposed action,

would result in the individual assignment of certain existing Conrail

facilities and operations to either CSX or NS through operating

agreements or other mechanisms, and the sharing and operation of other

existing Conrail facilities and operations for the benefit of both CSX

and NS. This would result in an expanded CSX rail system, an expanded

NS rail system, and certain areas of joint ownership and operation.

According to CSX, NS, and Conrail (collectively, Applicants), CSX and

NS would continue to compete with each other in providing rail freight

services and would expand their competition to areas in which Conrail

is currently the only major rail carrier. Each of the two railroads

would utilize its existing lines, would operate certain Conrail lines

independently of the other, and would jointly operate certain Conrail

lines.

Applicants anticipate that the proposed transaction would provide

benefits that include: reduced energy usage, enhanced safety, reduced

highway congestion, reduced system-wide air pollutant emissions,

expanded competition, and a more efficient rail transportation system.

The proposed transaction includes changes in railroad operations such

as increases and decreases in train traffic, changes in activity at

rail yards and intermodal facilities, rail line abandonments and rail

line connection construction projects. The proposed transaction is

detailed in the primary application, and is discussed in specific terms

in the operating plans and the environmental report (ER) that are part

of the application. The ER describes the physical and operational

changes that would be associated with the proposed transaction and

discusses the potential environmental impacts of those changes.

Applicants also filed corrected and supplemental information in the

Errata and Supplemental ER on August 28, 1997.

Applicants served the ER, the Errata and the Supplemental ER on

appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies. Applicants also served

these documents on affected cities with populations of more than

50,000, as well as on counties and regional planning organizations that

could be affected.

Environmental Review Process and Alternatives

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is intended to

assist the Board and the public in identifying and assessing the

potential environmental consequences of a proposed action before the

Board may make a decision on a proposed action. During scoping, the

first phase of the NEPA process, the Board's environmental staff, SEA,

published a draft scope in July 1997, soliciting information and

comments on the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the

EIS for the proposed transaction. Under the NEPA process, SEA will

evaluate the potential environmental impacts of operational and

physical changes that are related to the proposed transaction. Existing

rail operations are the baseline against which the potential

environmental impacts of the proposed transaction will be evaluated.

SEA will not propose mitigation of environmental impacts relating to

existing rail operations and existing railroad facilities.1

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

\1\ In merger and control cases, the Board's practice

consistently has been to mitigate only those environmental impacts

that result from the transaction. The Board, like its predecessor,

the Interstate Commerce Commission, has not imposed mitigation to

remedy preexisting conditions such as those that might make the

quality of life in a particular community better, but are not a

direct result of the merger (i.e., congestion associated with the

existing rail line traffic, or the traffic of other railroads).

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

In making its decision in this proceeding, the Board will consider

public comments and SEA's environmental analysis contained in the EIS,

including any proposed environmental mitigation. The alternatives SEA

will consider in the EIS are: (1) Approval of the transaction as

proposed; (2) disapproval of the proposed transaction in whole (No-

Action alternative); and, (3) approval of the proposed transaction with

conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions.2

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

\2\ The Board has broad authority to impose conditions in

railroad control transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 (c). However,

the Board's power to impose conditions is not limitless; the record

must support the imposition of the condition at issue. Moreover,

there must be a sufficient relationship between the condition

imposed and the transaction before the agency, and the condition

imposed must be reasonable.

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

Other parties may file inconsistent or responsive applications

requesting modifications to the proposed transaction, such as requests

for trackage rights or the acquisition of particular rail lines. The

EIS will address potential environmental impacts and rail system

changes proposed in the inconsistent and responsive applications.

Relationship With Other Agencies

The authority of the Board is broad and extends to all matters

affecting change in rail operations resulting directly from the

proposed transaction. Conditions may be imposed to mitigate adverse

environmental impacts that are the result of the proposed transaction,

or any alternative considered and approved by the Board. In determining

appropriate conditions for the transaction, the Board will exercise its

authority with due regard for the jurisdiction and expertise of other

Federal agencies (e.g., the Federal Railroad Administration, the

Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

[[Page 51502]]

Related Activities

NS and CSX requested, and the Board allowed, the proposed

construction of seven small rail line connections (Seven Connections)

totaling approximately four miles to be filed and reviewed separately

from the primary application. This separate environmental review

process will address only the potential environmental impacts of the

physical construction of these Seven Connections and Applicants'

proposed operations over these individual lines. The operational

implications of the transaction as a whole, including proposed

operations over these Seven Connections, if authorized, will be

examined in the context of the EIS that is being prepared for the

proposed transaction.3

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

\3\ Board Decision No. 9 in this proceeding, issued June 12,

1997, granted Applicants' petition for waiver related to the Seven

Connections and explained what the environmental review process for

those projects would be. Specifically, SEA intends to prepare a

separate Environmental Assessment for each of these small

construction projects. However, if SEA determines that any one of

the construction proposals could potentially cause, or contribute

to, significant environmental impacts, then the project will be

incorporated into the EIS for the overall proposed transaction, and

will not be separately considered. Also, no rail operations can

begin over these Seven Connections until completion of the EIS

process, and issuance of a further decision.

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

Public Participation

SEA encourages broad participation in the EIS process during

scoping and review of the Draft EIS. Interested agencies and persons

were invited to participate in the scoping phase by reviewing the draft

scope of the EIS. Due to the broad geographic scope of the proposed

transaction, SEA did not conduct public scoping meetings. However, in

addition to publication of the draft scope of the EIS in the Federal

Register on July 7, 1997, SEA implemented an extensive public outreach

program to notify the public that SEA was soliciting comments on the

draft scope of the EIS and to encourage public participation in the

environmental review process.

SEA distributed information about the proposed transaction and

SEA's intent to prepare an EIS through the following outreach

activities:

On July 3, 1997, a scoping package that included the draft

scope of the EIS was distributed to approximately 1,900 Federal, state

and local elected and agency officials. In this package, the Board also

announced its intent to prepare an EIS and requested comments on the

draft scope.

On July 7, 1997, SEA published a notice in the Federal

Register to announce the Board's intent to prepare an EIS, to publish

the draft scope of the EIS, and to request comments on the proposed

scope.

In July 1997, a press release detailing this same

information was distributed to the media in the 24 affected states, and

a legal notice was placed in the newspapers with the highest

circulation for each of the potentially affected counties.

During July and August 1997, SEA also prepared and widely

distributed a Fact Sheet describing the proposed transaction to 7,000

elected officials, agencies and organizations for cities and counties

potentially affected by the proposed transaction.

To further assist SEA in receiving input from the public,

SEA established a toll-free environmental hotline (1-888-869-1997),

established a website (www.conrailmerger.com), and initiated media

monitoring services that involved a weekly review of newspaper

articles.

The SEA study team established a comprehensive database to record

and maintain all comments received in writing and via telephone and the

website. Written comments on the draft scope of the EIS were due to the

Board within the 30-day comment period, which ended on August 6, 1997.

All comments have been placed in the Public Record for this proceeding.

In preparing the final scope of the EIS, SEA has considered all the

environmental comments.

Response to Comments: SEA received more than 170 comments

concerning the draft scope of the EIS. Twenty-one comments were

received from Federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of

Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and

Transportation; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Coast Guard;

and the Environmental Protection Agency. Forty-eight comments were

received from state agencies in AL, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MA,

MI, MS, MO, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, VT, VA, and WV. Seventy-

eight comments were received from local, county, and regional agencies

from the states of AL, DE, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, NC,

NJ, NY, OH, PA, TN, and VA. Nine comments were received from citizens

in DE, GA, and OH. Five businesses--including Interstate Commodities,

Inc., Johnson Environmental Consulting Group, Inc., Newark (DE) Center

for Creative Learning, Newark (DE) Day Nursery, and Port Richmond

Community Council, Inc., provided comment, as did a rail carrier,

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). Seven comments were

received from other interested parties, including the League of Women

Voters of New Castle County, DE; the American Public Transit

Association; The Waterfront Historic Area League, New Bedford, MA;

Indianapolis Power & Light Company, IN; Downtown Newark, DE; University

of Delaware, DE; and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School

of Law. The comments covered a broad range of topics, including air

quality, water resources, noise, at-grade highway safety, rail

accidents, emergency vehicle response times, hazardous materials

transportation and spills, environmental justice, and current and

future commuter rail service.

SEA reviewed and considered all comments received in its

preparation of the final scope of the EIS. The final scope reflects

changes made because of comments on the draft scope of the EIS. Other

changes in the final scope of the EIS were made for clarification.

Specifically, the Safety Section of the final scope of the EIS

provides that grade crossing safety generally will be considered for

at-grade highway crossings with average daily traffic levels of 5,000

or more vehicles. In applying this threshold for the review of at-grade

crossings in past environmental documents, SEA found it to be a

conservative baseline.

SEA received several comments concerning hazardous waste. In

response, section 1(D)(7) of the final scope of the EIS was added to

indicate that the Draft EIS will assess the locations and types of

hazardous waste sites and spills on the rights-of-way of proposed

construction projects and rail line abandonments. SEA notes, however,

that other Federal and state agencies have primary jurisdiction for

investigation, clean-up, and remediation of hazardous waste sites.

SEA received approximately 20 comments related to potential impacts

on commuter rail service. In response, Section 2 of the final scope has

been expanded to include an analysis of potential passenger diversions,

and reasonably foreseeable commuter rail inception or expansion plans

(i.e., where capital improvements are planned, approved, and funded).

Section 2 also addresses comments requesting that SEA discuss the

potential impacts of increased train traffic on movable (draw) bridges

over navigable channels.

Section 4, Energy, has been clarified in the final scope to address

estimated system-wide changes in energy efficiency (fuel use),

including the impact of truck-to-rail diversions. Section 4(C)

addresses the overall

[[Page 51503]]

estimated changes in energy efficiency resulting from rail-to-truck

diversions subject to the Board's regulatory thresholds in 49

CFR.1105.7(e)(4)(iv).

Section 5, Air Quality, has been expanded to include the

calculation of net increases of emissions from the proposed transaction

for counties where increases in locomotive emissions are projected to

be 100 tons or more per year. Section 6, Noise, has been modified to

reflect the actual data that are available to analyze noise impacts.

Estimates of receptors will be developed where noise levels are

predicted to rise to 65 decibels Ldn or greater as a result

of rail traffic increases related to the proposed transaction.

Section 9, Environmental Justice, has been expanded in the final

scope to include a report on the demographics in the vicinity of rail

line segments with projected rail traffic increases of eight (8) trains

or more per day. The portion of Section 3 of the final scope of the

EIS, involving Socioeconomic Issues, includes a consideration of

socioeconomic impacts to the extent that they result directly from

changes to the physical environment due to the proposed transaction.

That approach is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766

(1982). Those most directly and immediately affected by the proposed

transaction, the employees of the consolidating carriers, will be

covered by the labor protection afforded by the Board in considering

the merits of the proposed transaction. Therefore, these impacts need

not be addressed in the EIS. Section 3 also has been expanded to

specifically state that the EIS will address the potential

environmental impacts of proposed rail line construction and

abandonment activities on Native American reservations and sacred

sites.

Several comments on the draft scope of the EIS suggested there be

an analysis of the cumulative impacts of certain environmental effects

related to the proposed transaction. The final scope of the EIS

indicates the Draft EIS will undertake cumulative effects analyses

related to the proposed transaction where such effects could have

regional or system-wide impacts. The effects to be analyzed will

include air quality and energy. Cumulative effects also may be analyzed

for other projects or activities related to the proposed transaction

where information is provided in a timely fashion to the Board

describing those projects, their interrelationship to the proposed

transaction, and the type and severity of the potential environmental

impacts, and SEA determines that there is the likelihood of significant

environmental impacts.

Parties of Record

The Board received 228 notices of designation as a Party of Record

(POR). As stated in Board Decision No. 6 in this case,4

copies of Board decisions, orders, and notices will be served only on

persons designated as PORs, members of Congress, and governors on the

Board's official service list. All other interested persons who wish to

receive copies of Board decisions, orders, and notices served in this

proceeding are encouraged to make advance arrangements with the Board's

copy contractor, DC News & Data, Inc., at (202) 289-4357.

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

\4\ Board Decision No. 6 was issued May 30, 1997, and published

at 62 FR 29387-29391.

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

For Additional Information

Contact Mr. Michael Dalton, SEA Project Manager, Conrail Control

Transaction, (202) 565-1530; or Ms. Dana White, SEA Environmental

Specialist, at (202) 565-1552 (TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 565-

1695). Summary information about the proposed transaction and the final

scope of the EIS can be found at the following Internet web site:

http://www.conrailmerger.com. Requests for summary environmental

information on the proposed transaction and the EIS process can be made

through SEA's toll-free Environmental Hotline at (888) 869-1997.

Environmental Review Schedule

The Board has adopted a 350-day procedural schedule for this

proceeding,5 and has determined that preparation of an EIS

is warranted in this case. The 350-day schedule will permit SEA to

prepare an EIS that fully considers the potential environmental

consequences of this proposed action. Below is a discussion of how SEA

plans to conduct the environmental review process in this case.

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

\5\ See Decision No. 6. This schedule is based on the filing

date (F) of the primary application, which was June 23, 1997.

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

On June 23, 1997, Applicants filed an ER containing the information

specified in the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.7(e), as

part of the primary application. The ER was served concurrently on the

agencies listed in the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.7(b),

and other appropriate entities. The ER describes the physical and

operational changes in the rail systems and facilities anticipated as a

result of the proposed transaction. In the ER, Applicants also discuss

the potential environmental impacts that would be associated with the

anticipated changes. The Applicants have provided, and continue to

provide, SEA with supplemental information to the ER. Also, as

previously discussed, on August 28, 1997, the Applicants filed an

Errata and Supplemental ER.

Based on the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations,

the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105, the ER, the draft

scope, the comments received on the draft scope, and all other

information available to date, SEA has prepared this final scope of the

EIS. This final scope of the EIS will be distributed to all PORs,

interested parties, and appropriate agencies.

Based on SEA's independent environmental analysis, review of all

information available to date, and consultations with appropriate

agencies, SEA will prepare a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will address

relevant environmental concerns, as described in the final scope of the

EIS, and will recommend appropriate environmental mitigation. In

addition, the Draft EIS will include environmental impacts associated

with any inconsistent or responsive applications or settlement

agreements.6 SEA intends to serve the Draft EIS in November

1997. SEA will serve the Draft EIS on all PORs to this proceeding, all

interested parties, appropriate Federal, state, and local government

agencies, and any other parties specifically requesting a copy of the

Draft EIS. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency will

publish a notice of the availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal

Register. There will be a 45-day comment period on the Draft EIS, as

required by CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.10(c).

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

\6\ Under the procedural schedule previously established for

this proceeding in Decision No. 6, inconsistent and responsive

applicants must provide a description of the proposed inconsistent

or responsive application by August 22, 1997. Inconsistent and

responsive applicants must file Responsive Environmental Reports or

verified statements indicating that there are no potentially

significant environmental impacts by October 1, 1997. They must file

inconsistent and responsive applications by October 21, 1997. SEA

anticipates that the issues addressed in the final scope of the EIS

will be similar to issues that may be raised in any subsequent

filing of inconsistent or responsive applications.

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

After considering comments on the Draft EIS, SEA will issue a Final

EIS. The Final EIS will address comments on the Draft EIS and will

include SEA's final recommendations, including appropriate

environmental mitigation. Environmental comments not received in

accordance with the 45-day comment period for the Draft EIS will not be

incorporated into the Final EIS. The Final EIS and SEA's final

environmental

[[Page 51504]]

recommendations serve as the basis for the Board's disposition of

environmental issues.

SEA plans to serve the Final EIS in late March or early April 1998,

prior to the Board's voting conference, which currently is scheduled

for April 14, 1998. At the voting conference, the Board will announce

whether it will grant or deny the application, or grant it with

appropriate conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions.

The Board intends to serve a written decision in this case by June 8,

1998. In that decision, the Board will address both environmental and

transportation issues and impose any conditions deemed appropriate.

Parties who wish to file an administrative appeal of the Board's

written decision (including any environmental conditions that the Board

might impose) may do so within 20 days from the service date of the

Board's written decision, as provided in the Board's rules. Any

interested party will have approximately two months to consider the

Final EIS prior to commencement of the aforementioned period for filing

administrative appeals. The schedule will provide adequate time to

pursue administrative review of the Board's June 1998 decision after it

is issued. Any administrative appeals will be addressed in a subsequent

decision. This process is consistent with CEQ rules (40 CFR

1506.10(b)).

Projected Schedule 7

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

\7\ Actual dates for environmental documents may vary slightly.

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

Preliminary Environmental Report 8 submitted to

SEA. (F-30). 9--May 16, 1997.

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

\8\ The Preliminary Environmental Report contained preliminary,

descriptive information on the proposed transaction.

\9\ ``F'' is the filing date of the primary application. The

Board established the time periods related to the filing date in the

procedural schedule set out in Decision No. 6 in this proceeding.

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

Primary Application and Environmental Report filed.--(F).

June 23, 1997.

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Notice issued.

(Federal Register Notice).--July 7, 1997.

Comments on the Draft Scope of the Environmental Impact

Statement due (end of 30-day comment period).--August 6, 1997.

Descriptions of Inconsistent and Responsive Applications

filed. (F + 60).--August 22, 1997.

Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessments for the Seven

Separate Construction Projects referenced in Decision No. 9.--September

5, 1997.

Final Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement

issued.--September 1997.

Responsive Environmental Reports and Verified

Environmental Statements due. (F + 100).--October 1, 1997.

Inconsistent and Responsive Applications due. (F + 120).--

October 21, 1997.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement served.--November

1997.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement comments due (end of

45-day comment period).--January 1998.

Final Environmental Impact Statement served.--Late March

or Early April 1998.

Oral Argument.--April 9, 1998.

Voting Conference.--April 14, 1998.

Final Decision served.--June 8, 1998.

Administrative Appeals filing deadline.--June 29, 1998.

Final Scope of the EIS

Proposed Action and Definition of Alternatives

The proposed action is Applicants' proposed acquisition and

control, jointly or individually, of Conrail's rail lines and

facilities, as explained in the primary application's operating plan

and ER. The proposed transaction includes changes in railroad

operations such as increases and decreases in train traffic on rail

lines, changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal facilities, and

rail line abandonment and construction projects.

Reasonable or feasible alternatives that will be evaluated in the

EIS are: (1) Approval of the proposed transaction; (2) the No-Action

alternative; and (3) approval of the proposed transaction with

conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions. Proposed

modifications to the proposed transaction as requested by other parties

in their inconsistent or responsive applications also will be addressed

in the EIS.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Analysis in the EIS will address proposed activities and their

potential environmental impacts, as appropriate. The scope of the

analysis will include the following types of activities:

1. Anticipated changes in level of operations on rail lines (e.g.,

an increase in average trains per day) for those rail line segments

that meet or exceed the Board's thresholds for environmental review in

49 CFR 1105.7. In circumstances where the Board's environmental rules

do not provide a threshold, the EIS generally will use increases of

eight trains per day or more as the threshold for addressing

environmental impacts.

2. Proposed rail line abandonments.

3. Proposed changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal

facilities to the extent such changes may exceed the Board's thresholds

for environmental analysis in 49 CFR 1105.7.

4. Proposed requests for trackage rights or rail line acquisitions

that meet or exceed the Board's thresholds that may be included in

inconsistent and responsive applications.

5. Proposed physical construction of rail line segments other than

the Seven Connections discussed above and in Decision No.

9.10 Subsequent references to construction projects in this

scoping document do not include these Seven Connections. Alternatives

to construction may include feasible alternate alignments that may be

environmentally preferable.

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

\10\ As noted in Decision No. 9, in reviewing the Seven

Connections separately, the Board will consider the regulatory and

environmental aspects of these proposed constructions and

Applicants' proposed operations over these lines together in the

context of whether to authorize each individual physical

construction project. The operational implications of the proposed

transaction as a whole, including operations over the four or so

miles embraced in the Seven Connections, will be examined in the

context of the EIS for the overall proposed transaction.

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

Environmental Impact Categories

The EIS will address potential impacts on the environment that will

include the areas of safety, transportation systems, land use, energy,

air quality, noise, biological resources, water resources,

socioeconomic effects related to physical changes in the environment,

environmental justice, and cultural and historic resources, as

described below.

1. Safety

The EIS will:

A. Consider at-grade rail crossing accident probability and safety

factors. This will generally include grade crossings with average daily

traffic levels of 5,000 or more trips.11 Accident

probability analysis will address the potential for rail and vehicle

accidents.

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

\11\ Previous SEA environmental analyses have used the 5,000

average daily traffic level threshold.

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

B. Consider increased probability of train accidents and

derailments due to increased traffic on a system-wide basis.

C. Address potential effects of increased freight traffic on

commuter and intercity passenger service operations.

D. Discuss the potential environmental impacts of the proposed

transaction on public health and safety with respect to the

transportation of hazardous materials, including:

[[Page 51505]]

(1) Changes in the types of hazardous materials and quantities

transported or re-routed;

(2) Nature of the hazardous materials being transported;

(3) Applicants' safety practices and protocols;

(4) Applicants' relevant safety data on derailments, accidents and

hazardous materials spills;

(5) Contingency plans to address accidental spills;

(6) Probability of increased spills given railroad safety

statistics and applicable Federal Railroad Administration requirements;

and

(7) Location and types of hazardous substances at hazardous waste

sites or hazardous materials spills on the right-of-way of any proposed

connection or rail line abandonment site.

E. Address local truck traffic increases attributable to increased

intermodal activities.

F. Address safety issues associated with the integration of

differing rail operating systems and procedures.

2. Transportation Systems

The EIS will:

A. Describe system-wide effects of the proposed operational

changes, constructions, and rail line abandonments, and evaluate

potential impacts on commuter rail service and intercity passenger

(Amtrak) service. Estimates will be made of the number of passengers

who may be diverted from commuter rail to other modes of transportation

due to constraints resulting from the proposed transaction that limit

the number of passenger trains.

B. Evaluate those commuter rail line segments that would experience

increased freight traffic as a result of the proposed transaction for

the capability of the rail line segments to accommodate the reasonably

foreseeable addition of commuter trains.

C. Discuss potential effects on proposed passenger rail service

where such future rail operation inception or expansion is reasonably

foreseeable (i.e., where capital improvements are planned, approved,

and funded).

D. Discuss potential diversions of freight traffic from trucks to

rail and from rail to trucks, as appropriate.

E. Address vehicular delays at rail crossings and intermodal

facilities due to increases in rail-related operations as a result of

the proposed transaction. Estimates of typical delays at grade

crossings will be made for crossings that have vehicle traffic levels

of 5,000 ADT or more and that exceed train traffic increases of three

trains per day for non-attainment areas or eight trains per day for

attainment areas.

F. Discuss potential effects of increased train traffic on railroad

bridges that cross navigation channels to the extent that such bridges

allow only one mode of transportation to pass at a time.

3. Land Use and Socioeconomics

The EIS will:

A. Describe whether the proposed rail line construction and

abandonment activities are consistent with existing land use plans.

B. Describe environmental impacts associated with the proposed

construction of new rail lines or expansion of facilities as to acres

of prime farmland potentially removed from production.

C. Discuss consistency of proposed rail line construction and

abandonment activities with applicable coastal zone requirements.

D. Address potential environmental impacts of proposed rail line

construction and abandonment activities on Native American reservations

and sacred sites.

E. Address socioeconomic issues shown to be related to changes in

the physical environment as a result of the proposed transaction.

4. Energy

The EIS will:

A. Describe the potential environmental impact of the proposed

transaction on transportation of energy resources and recyclable

commodities to the extent that such information is available.

B. Discuss estimated changes in energy efficiency from truck-to-

rail diversions.

C. Discuss the effect on energy efficiency (fuel use) from rail-to-

truck diversions based on estimates of diversions which are subject to

the Board's thresholds in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(4)(iv).

5. Air Quality

The EIS will:

A. Evaluate air emissions increases where the proposed post-

acquisition activity would exceed the Board's environmental thresholds

in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5)(i), in an air quality attainment or maintenance

area as designated under the Clean Air Act as it existed on the date

the primary application was filed.12 Thresholds are as

follows:

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

\12\ Air quality attainment areas are areas that comply with

national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter,

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead.

Non-attainment areas are areas that do not comply with one or more

ambient air quality standards. Maintenance areas are areas that were

non-attainment in the past but have air quality that complies with

standards at present. All of these areas are designated by EPA.

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

(1) A 100 percent increase in rail traffic (measured in gross-ton

miles annually) or an increase of eight trains a day on any segment of

rail line affected by the proposal; or

(2) An increase in rail yard activity of at least 100 percent or

more; or

(3) An increase in truck traffic at an intermodal facility of more

than 10 percent of the average daily traffic or 50 vehicles a day.

B. Evaluate air emissions increases where the proposed post-

acquisition activity would exceed the Board's environmental thresholds

for a non-attainment area as designated under the Clean Air Act as of

the date the application was filed. Thresholds for non-attainment areas

are as follows:

(1) An increase in rail traffic of at least 50 percent (measured in

gross-ton miles annually) or an increase of three trains a day or more;

or

(2) An increase in rail yard activity of at least 20 percent; or

(3) An increase in truck traffic at intermodal facilities of more

than 10 percent of the average daily traffic or 50 vehicles a day.

C. Discuss the net increase in emissions from increased railroad

operations associated with the proposed transaction. Net emissions

changes will be calculated for counties with projected transaction-

related emissions increases of:

(1) 100 tons per year or more of any pollutant in attainment areas;

(2) 50 tons per year or more of nitrogen oxides or volatile organic

compounds in serious 13 ozone non-attainment areas; or

(3) 25 tons per year or more of nitrogen oxides or volatile organic

compounds in severe 14 ozone non-attainment areas.

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

\13-14\ Ozone non-attainment areas are further classified as

Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme Areas. These

classifications are based on the level, in parts per million (ppm),

of ozone measured for each area. Serious Areas are defined as

containing 0.160 to 0.180 ppm, and Severe Areas are defined as

containing 0.180 to 0.280 ppm.

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

D. Evaluate potential air quality benefits of system-wide emission

reductions that would result from projected truck-to-rail diversions.

Net increases, less any estimated reductions due to truck-to-rail

diversions, will be compared to the entire emission inventory for

affected non-attainment areas. This evaluation will be based on

emission inventory data provided by the appropriate state agency.

[[Page 51506]]

E. Discuss the following information regarding the anticipated

transportation of ozone depleting materials (such as nitrogen oxide and

freon):

(1) Materials and quantity;

(2) Applicants' safety practices;

(3) Applicants' safety record (to the extent available) on

derailments, accidents, and spills;

(4) Contingency plans to address accidental spills; and

(5) Likelihood of an accidental release of ozone depleting

materials in the event of a collision or derailment.

F. Discuss potential air emissions increases from vehicle delays at

rail crossings where the rail crossing is projected to experience an

increase in rail traffic over the thresholds described above in Section

5(A) for attainment and maintenance areas, and in Section 5(B) for non-

attainment areas, and which have an average daily vehicle traffic level

above 5,000. Such increases will be factored into the net emissions

estimates for the affected area.

6. Noise

The EIS will:

A. Describe potential noise impacts of the proposed transaction for

those areas that exceed the Board's environmental thresholds identified

in Section 5A of the Air Quality discussion.

B. Identify whether the proposed transaction-related increases in

rail traffic will cause an increase to a noise level of 65 decibels

LDN or greater. If so, an estimate of the number of

sensitive receptors (e.g., schools and residences) within such areas

will be made.

C. Identify transaction-related activities that have the potential

to result in an increase in noise level of 3 decibels LDN or

more.

7. Biological Resources

The EIS will:

A. Discuss the potential environmental impacts of proposed rail

line construction and abandonment projects on federal endangered or

threatened species or designated critical habitats.

B. Discuss the effects of proposed rail line construction and

abandonment projects on wildlife sanctuaries or refuges, and national

or state parks or forests.

8. Water Resources

The EIS will:

A. Discuss whether potential impacts from proposed rail line

construction and abandonment projects may be inconsistent with

applicable federal or state water quality standards.

B. Discuss whether permits may be required under Sections 404 or

402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) for any proposed rail line

construction and abandonment projects, and whether any such projects

have the potential to encroach upon any designated wetlands or 100-year

floodplains.

9. Environmental Justice

The EIS will:

A. Report on the demographics in the immediate vicinity of any area

where major activity such as an abandonment or construction is

proposed.

B. Report on the demographics in the vicinity of rail lines with

projected rail traffic increases above eight trains per day.

C. Evaluate whether such activities potentially have a

disproportionately high and adverse health effect or environmental

impact on any minority or low-income group.

10. Cultural and Historic Resources

The EIS will address potential impacts from proposed rail line

construction and abandonment projects on cultural and historic

resources that are on, or immediately adjacent to, a railroad right-of-

way.

11. Cumulative Effects

The EIS will:

A. Address cumulative effects of environmental impacts that have

regional or system-wide ramifications. This analysis will be done for

environmental impacts that warrant such analysis given the context and

scope of the proposed transaction. The environmental effects to be

analyzed include air quality and energy.

B. Evaluate cumulative effects, as appropriate, for other projects

or activities that relate to the proposed transaction, where

information is provided to the Board that describes (1) those other

projects or activities, (2) their interrelationship with the proposed

transaction, (3) the type and severity of the potential environmental

impacts; and SEA determines that there is the likelihood of significant

environmental impacts. This information must be provided to the Board

within sufficient time to allow for review and analysis within the

schedule for the preparation of the EIS.

C. Discuss the potential environmental impacts of construction or

facility modification activities within railroad-owned property

affected by the proposed merger, and additional environmental impacts

related to the proposed transaction but not subject to Board approval,

in order to identify cumulative impacts.

By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of Environmental

Analysis.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-26039 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P