Norfolk Southern/Conrail Rail ConnectionâBucyrus, Ohio - Surface ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The seven constructions are each relatively short connections between two rail carriers and which have a total length under four miles. According to the railroads, much of the construction on these short segments would take place within existing rights-of-way. CSX and NS stated that these seven connections must be in place before the Board’s decision on the primary application in order for them to provide efficient service in competition with each other. Without early authorization to construct these connections, CSX and NS contended, each railroad would be severely limited in its ability to serve important customers. In Decision No. 9 served June 12, 1997, the Board granted CSX’s and NS’s petitions (Appendix B). The Board stated that it understood the railroads’ desire to “be prepared to engage in effective, vigorous competition immediately following consummation of the [acquisition]”. In granting the waiver, the Board noted that the railroads were proceeding at their own risk. If the Board were to deny the primary applications, any resources expended by CSX and NS in building the connections would be of little benefit to them. Both the railroads and the Board recognized that no construction could occur until the Board completed its environmental review of each of the construction projects. Thus, the Board stated that it would consider the environmental aspects of these proposed constructions and the railroads’ proposed operations over these lines together in deciding whether to approve the physical construction of each of these lines. The operational implications of the merger as a whole, including operations over the roughly four miles of line embraced by the seven connections projects, will be examined in the Environmental Impact Statement being prepared for the overall merger. That document will be available for a 45-day public comment period in late November 1997. In order to fully consider the environmental aspects of the seven proposed constructions, the Board required both CSX and NS to file certain information on the environmental effects of the construction and operation of these projects. The railroads complied with this requirement on September 5, 1997 and submitted detailed Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessments (PDEA) for each of the seven projects. SEA has independently verified the information contained in each PDEA, conducted further independent analysis, and developed appropriate environmental mitigation measures. Its findings are set forth in this EA. SEA is now seeking your comments on this EA. Comments must be submitted to the Board by October 27, 1997. 1.4 SEA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS This EA is necessary to ensure that the proposed action complies with the statutory requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Board’s environmental regulations (49 CFR 1105), and other applicable rules and/or regulations. The Board’s SEA is responsible for conducting NEPA environmental review. 1-7
The Board has adopted the former Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) environmental regulations (49 CFR Part 1105) that govern the environmental review process and outline procedures for preparing environmental documents. Section 1105.6(b) of these regulations establish the criteria which identify the types of actions for which an EA would be prepared. The construction of rail line connections, like the action proposed here, are classified under the Board’s regulations as normally requiring preparation of an EA. SEA reviewed the proposed rail construction and determined that because the connection is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts, an EA should be prepared. In preparing the EA, SEA identified issues and areas of potential environmental impact, analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed rail line construction project, reviewed public comments, and developed mitigation measures to avoid or reduce anticipated impacts on the environment. To assist it in conducting the NEPA environmental analysis and in preparing the EA, SEA selected and approved HDR Engineering, Inc. to act as the Board's independent third party consultant as provided for in 49 CFR Part 1105.10(d). NS retained the independent third party consultant who worked solely under SEA’s direction and supervision and assisted SEA in conducting environmental analyses related to the proposed merger. SEA analyzed the Environmental Report and Operating Plan that accompanied the transaction application, technical studies conducted by NS’s environmental consultants, and the PDEA prepared as a part of the waiver application. In addition, SEA conducted its own independent analysis of the proposed construction, which included verifying the projected rail operations; verifying and estimating noise level impacts; estimating air emission increases; performing land use, habitat, surface water, and wetland surveys; conducting ground water analyses; assessing impacts to biological resources; and performing archaeological and historic resource surveys. In addition, SEA and/or its independent third party consultant conducted consultations with NS and their environmental consultants and made site visits to the proposed rail line construction site to assess the potential impacts on the environment. 1-8
Page 1 and 2: STB Decision ID #28335 Service Date
Page 3 and 4: 3.5.3 Floodplain ..................
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF TABLES Page ES-1 Summary of
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Environmenta
Page 9 and 10: SEA concludes that the construction
Page 11 and 12: The proposed action at Bucyrus, Ohi
Page 13 and 14: Table 1-1 Design Specifications for
Page 15: As part of NS’ track maintenance
Page 19 and 20: esulting in a new at-grade crossing
Page 21 and 22: Table 2-1 Comparison of the “Buil
Page 23 and 24: 3.1.3 Prime Farmlands and Coastal Z
Page 25 and 26: As seen in the table below (Table 3
Page 27 and 28: 3.4.2 Transportation of Hazardous M
Page 29 and 30: Preparedness Preparedness to respon
Page 31 and 32: 3.6.2 Wildlife Wildlife habitat fou
Page 33 and 34: CHAPTER 4 Potential Environmental I
Page 35 and 36: 4.1.2.1 Evaluation Criteria The fol
Page 37 and 38: The Quinn Brothers Construction Com
Page 39 and 40: Floodplain FEMA maps for the area s
Page 41 and 42: 4.1.7.1 Evaluation Criteria The fol
Page 43 and 44: Operation Approximately eight train
Page 45 and 46: 4.1.11 Cumulative Impacts Cumulativ
Page 47 and 48: CHAPTER 5 Agency Comments and Mitig
Page 49 and 50: Comment: The Buffalo District of th
Page 51 and 52: ! Petitioner would comply with all
Page 53 and 54: Water Resources 1. NS shall obtain
Page 55 and 56: APPENDIX A PETITIONER’S REQUEST F
Page 57 and 58: APPENDIX C AGENCIES AND OTHER PARTI
Page 59 and 60: APPENDIX E REFERENCES
Page 61 and 62: STB Finance Docket No. 33388 advanc
Page 63 and 64: STB Finance Docket No. 33388 (1) Th
Page 65 and 66: STB Finance Docket No. 33388 The Co
Page 67 and 68:
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 over t
Page 69 and 70:
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 conser
Page 71 and 72:
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 Prime
Page 73 and 74:
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 • Na
Page 75 and 76:
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 Nation
Page 77 and 78:
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 Air Qu
Page 79 and 80:
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 Operat
Page 81 and 82:
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 It was
Page 83 and 84:
STB Finance Docket No. 33388 The SE
Page 85 and 86:
Event Speed Duratio Time (mph) n (s
Page 87:
APPENDIX E REFERENCES Cowardin, Lew
show all

Norfolk Southern/Conrail Rail ConnectionâBucyrus, Ohio - Surface ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

Norfolk Southern/Conrail Rail ConnectionâBucyrus, Ohio - Surface ...