# Site Specific

Environmental Assessment for Hawaiian Waste System ’ s LLC

. Proposal to Transport Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii to Roosevelt Regional Landfill

Environmental Assessment December 2009 United States Department of Agriculture Marketing and Regulatory Programs Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

# Site Specific Environmental

Assessment for Hawa iian Waste System ’ s LLC

. Proposal to Transport Municipal Solid Waste from Haw aii to Roosevelt Regional Landfill
Env ironmental As sessment December 2009

Ag encyContact: Shannon Hamm Assistant Deputy Administrator Policy and Program Development Animal Plan t Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd. Unit 20 Riverdale, MD 20737

________________________________ __________________________ The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720

–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326

–

W, W hitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washingt on, DC 20250

– 9410 or call (202) 720

– 5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

________________________________ __________________________ Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information.

## Table of Contents
I. Purpose and Need

................................ ................................ ........ 1 II. Alternatives

................................ ................................ .................. 2 A. No Action

................................ ................................ ............... 3 B. Proposed Action

................................ ................................ .... 3 III. Affected Environment

................................ ................................ .. 6 IV. Environmental Impacts

................................ ............................... 8 A. No Action

................................ ................................ ............... 8 B. Proposed Action

................................ ................................ .... 8 C. Cumulative Effects

................................ .............................. 11 D. Threatened and Endangered Species

................................ . 12 V. Listing of Agencies and Persons Consulted

.............................. 13 VI. References

................................ ................................ ............... 15 Figures 1. Highway transportation routes for Hawaiian MSW to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill

................................ .................. 4 2

. Railroad t ransportation routes for Hawaiian MSW to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill

................................ .................. 5
App endices A. The Risk of Introducing Pests to Klickitat County, Wa shington via Hawaiian Plastic

- Baled Municipal Solid Wa st e B. Movement of Plastic

- baled Garbage and Regulated (Domestic) Garbage from Hawaii to Landfills in Oregon, Idaho, and W ashington. Final Bio logical Assessment, February 2008 1. Concurrence Letter from Fish and W ildlife Service 2. Concurrence Letter from National Marine Fisheries Service1 

## I. Purpose and Need The State of Hawaii has limited landfill space. The regulations governing the interstate transport of garbage (7 CFR 330.400 et. seq.) were amended in August 2006 to provide the State of Hawaii with an additional waste disposal option to move municipal solid waste (MSW) from Hawaii to the continental United States. The movement of MSW from H awaii to the continental United States is only approved if compliance agreements have been negotiated and signed between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the petitioners intending to move MSW

. The regulations allow MSW from Hawaii to be moved to the continental United States if it is compressed, packaged, shipped, and disposed of in a manner that the APHIS Administrator determines is adequate to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests in the mainland United States . In addition, it is the responsibility of the petitioners to ensure that MSW is moved in compliance with all applicable laws for environmental protection , and any other relevant federal, state and local laws

. In December 2006, APHIS prepared a site specific environmental assessment (EA) for movement of baled MSW from Honolulu, Hawaii to Roosevelt Regional Landfill (USDA , APHI S , 2006). At the time of that assessment, H awaiian W aste S ys tems LLC (HWS) and another petitioner were seeking compliance agreements to move a total of 400,000 tons of baled MSW annually

from Hawaii via barge to the continental U.S. and continue transport via barge up the Columbia River to Roosevelt, Washington, where the baled MSW would hav e been off loaded at an approved docking facility

. A compliance agreement was negotiated and signed between USDA and HWS for this in January 2007 . Since the signing of that agreement, HWS failed to obtain the required permits for the construction of an a

pproved docking facility

at Roosevelt, Washington, as contemplated b y the compliance agreement. In November 2009, APHIS received a revised petition from HWS to transport 150,000 tons of MSW annually in plastic airtight bales that would either be placed on pallets and loaded on to flatracks or containerized in 20 foot and 40 foot shipping containers from the S tate of Hawaii to Roosevelt Regional L andfill in Washington State by any of three methods:

 Barge to Rai nier , Oregon followed b y truck or rail tran sportation ;

 Barge to the Port of Longview , Washington, followed by truck or rail transportation ; and

 Barge to the Port of Portland , Oregon , followed by truck or rail transportation.2 This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of movement of containerized baled MSW to the three existing ports listed above on the Columbia River via barge from Hawaii and the transfer and transportation of containerized baled MSW via truck and rail to Roosevelt Regional Landfill.
In March 2008, APHI S prepared a regional progr amm atic environmental assessment titled “ Regional Movement of Plastic

- baled Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii to Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: Environmental Assessme nt, March 2008 (REA) (USDA , APHI S, 2008) .” The REA evaluated the environmental effects of transporting baled MSW by tug boat and barge across the Pacific Ocean and up the Columbia River. This assessment included a general analy sis of existing landfills that could accept MSW in the various states as well as an analy sis of environmental effe cts of transportation via rail or truck from a port or an approved docking facility on the Columbia River to a MSW landfill. A Finding of No Significant Impact for the March 2008 REA was issued by USDA , APHI S in June 2008. This environmental assessment i s tiered to the REA ; incorporates b y reference the previous anal ys es for HWS’s movement of MSW to Roosevelt Regional Landfill (USDA , APHI S , 2006) and anal y z es the site

- specific environmental effects of HWS’s revised petition. This site specific anal ys is i s being made available to the public for a 30

- day public comment period and will be followed by a decision document that summarizes our final determination of the potential for environmental impacts associated with entering in to a compliance agreement that approv es such movement . This site specific anal ysis is consistent with the National Enviro nmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

. seq.), the Council on Enviro nmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1 508, and APHI S’ NEPA implementing procedures (Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 372) for the purpose of evaluating how the proposed action, if implemented, may

affect the quality

of the human enviro nment. 

## II. Al ternati ve s
This environmental assessment analyze s two different alternatives: (1) the no action alternative and (2) the proposed action (preferred alternative )

. Under the no action alternative , APHI S would deny the petition and would not enter into a compliance agreement allow ing HWS to move MSW from Hawaii to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill. Under the proposed action , APHI S would enter into new a compliance agreement with HWS for the movement of MSW from Hawaii to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill.3 

### A. No Ac tion
Under the no ac tion alternative, APHI S would not enter into a compliance agreement for HWS’s revised request for movement of containerized and/or palletized baled MSW from Hawaii to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill via barge, rail and truck

. A denial of the revised reque st would leave in place HWS original compliance agreement and EA (USDA , APHI S , 2006) , allowing the movement of baled MSW directly to Roosevelt. Inaddition, the no action alternative would also allow the movement of baled MSW from Hawaii to the Columbia Ridge Regional Landfill in the State of Oregon as anal yz ed under a previous environmental assessment (USDA , APHI S, 2008 ). 

### B. Proposed Action
Under the proposed action , APHI S would enter into a compliance agreement with HWS to allow for the movement of 15 0 ,000 tons of baled MSW annually

from Hawaii to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill. The proposed action is the preferred alternative. Under the proposed action, HWS will :
 bale MSW at the Hon o lulu , Hawaii facility ;
 place the bales in a staging area in Hawaii that includes an impervious substrate for a minimum of 5 consecutive days ;
 place baled MSW on pallets to be loaded in flatracks or place in 20 or 40 foot shipping containers;

 place containers or flatracks on barges to be barge d across the Pacific Oce an and up the Columbia River;

 offload containers or flatracks of baled MSW at three potential locations: o The primary

location for off loading will be the Teevin Terminal located in Rainier, Columbia County , Oregon. From the Teevin Terminal , baled MSW will be off loaded and transferred on to either trucks or rail and transported to Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County , Washington

. o Under an alternative route, container s or flatracks of baled MSW will be off loaded at the Port of Lo ngview in Cowl itz County , Washington and will then be hauled either via truck or rail approximately 180 miles to Roosevelt Regional Landfill and ; o Under another alternative route, container s or flatracks of baled MSW will be offloaded at the Port of Portland, Multnomah County , Oregon and hauled via truck or rail approximately

135 miles to Roosevelt Regional Landfill.

 All truck and rail routes will utilize existing highway s and railway s within the State s (see Figure s 1 and 2 ).4

Figure 1. Highway Transportation Routes for Hawaiian MS W to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill5

Figure 2. Railroad Transportation Routes for Hawaiian MSW to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill6 

## III. Af fected Env ironment
A. Teevin Terminal, Rainier , Oregon
The Teevin Term inal is located in the city of Rainier, in Columbia County , Oregon. In 2008, the Teevin Terminal handled approximately 494,000 tons of barge cargo. The Teevin Terminal is served by an 800 foot barge dock and two private rail spurs connecting to the Portl and and Western Railroad and the B urlington N orthern S anta F e (BNSF) and Union P acific (UP) Railroads. The Teevin Terminal is located within three miles of Interstate 5, the main north

- south highway running from Mexico to Canada, and within 45 miles of US

- 84, the main East/West highway in Oregon. Columbia County

receives approximately

48 inches of precipitation annually . Precipitation occurs primarily as rainfall with the average annual of 19 inches of rainfall and 18 inches of snowfall. Average high temperatures are in the mid 60’s to upper 70’s o F arenheit (F) occuring in July and August and low temperatures primaril y occur in January with lows in the mid 30’s o F

. 

### B. Port of Longview , Longview , Washington The Port of Longview is a deep

- water port a uthority located on the Columbia River. The Port district occupies the northern two

- thirds of Cowlitz County, from just north of Kalama, Washington to the Lewis County line. The Port manages and operates a marine terminal complex where domestic and international ships and barges arrive and depart. Transportation routes connecting to the Port include the Columbia River shipping channel, the BNSF Railway and UP railroads, and Interstate 5. The BNSF Railway

and UP railroad main lines run parallel to Inters tate 5 approximately

five miles from the Port. The Longview Switching Company switches trains from the railroad main lines into the Port. From there, Port locomotives move trains and rail cars to the marine terminals and industrial locations. The Port of Longview is located in Cowlitz County , in the southwestern corner of the S tate of Washington. In 2008, the port handled more than 1.25 million tons of cargo. Average annual rainfall is 38 inches . Average high temperature in January is 45 o F with an average low of 33 o F compared to July

which has an average high of 77 o F and average low of 51 o F. Elevations range from 12 to 4,965 feet above sea level.7 

### C. Port of Portland, Multnomah County , Oregon The Port of Portland's marine terminals handled approximately 14.1 million tons of cargo in 2008 (http://www.portofportland.com/SelfPost/A_2009120154841AnnualHistor yf rom1978web.pdf

). It is the largest exporter of wheat in the United States. Marine terminals that are located along the Willamette and Columbia Rivers Terminals are served b y rail (UP and BNSF) , river barges and interstate cargo carriers. The port is within 4 miles of Interstate 5 and 10 miles of US

- 84. Multnomah County is one of 36 counties in the state of Oregon. Though smallest in area, it is the most populous having the city of Portland within its bounds; it is also home to the county seat. Among the crops grown in significant quantiti es are tree fruits, nuts, berries, mint, grains, and hay

. Livestock operations are also common, including the dairy and poultry industries. The climate is relativel y mild throughout the year, characterized by cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Grow ing seasons are long, and moisture is abundant during most of the ye ar (although summer irrigation is common). Precipitation typical ly occurs from December through February , with lesser amounts in the spring and fall

. Extreme temperatures are rare. Day s w ith maximum temperature above 90 o F occur infrequently (5

- 15 times per ye ar on average ) and temperatures below zero temperatures occur rarel y ( once every 25 years )

. 

### D. Columbia River and Roosevelt Regional Landfill Ar ea Roosevelt Regional Landfill is located in Klickitat County , Washington. Klickitat County

is located along the Columbia River in south Central Washington. Situated on the eastern end of the south slope of Mt. Adams, Klickitat County

is in the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountains. Top ograph y in the County varies from relativel y flat expanses to steep, mountainous terrain (Klickitat County , 2000). Annual precipitation varies according to aspect and elevation, the county is considered an arid area with average annual rainfall of 6 to 9 inches. The surrounding countryside is mostly used for dryland farming , primaril y wheat and orchards, with some cattle grazing and pasture. Most of the solid waste received b y Roosevelt Regional Landfill is transported on UP and B NSF rail lines . The UP rail line connects to the BNSF rail in Vancouver, Washingtion where the BNSF rail line connects to the intermodal yard at Roosevelt Regional Landfill. Baled MSW will8 be loaded onto trucks , and travel approximately 0.5 miles on Roosevelt Grade Road and then turn onto the RDC Haul Road for the remaining 3.5 miles to the landfill

. Trucks make over 300 round trips per day between the intermodal facility

and the landfill (Klickitat County Planning Department, 2002 and USDA, APHI S, 2006 ). 

## IV

. Env ironme ntal Imp acts A. No Action Under the no action alternative, APHI S would not enter into a compliance agreement for the movement of MSW from Hawaii to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill by HWS

. A denial of the revised request would leave in place H WS original co mpliance agreement and EA (USDA , APHIS , 2006), allowing the movement of baled MSW directly to Roosevelt. Baled MSW may

still be moved to Columbia Ridge Landfill in Oregon as anal yz ed under the envi ronmental assessment entitled “Movement of Plastic Baled W aste from Honolulu, Hawaii to Columbia Ridge Landfill, Oregon ” (USDA , APHIS, 2008 b ). There would be no significant impacts to the environment if APHI S denied the request to enter into a compliance agreement from HWS to move MSW from Hawaii to the Roosevel t Regional Landfill.



### B. Proposed Action Under the p roposed action (p referred alternative ) APHI S would enter into a compliance agreement for the movement of MSW from Hawaii to Roosevelt Regional Landfill as outlined in the revised HWS petition

. The petitioners will sort the garbage and bale MSW in Honolulu Hawaii as anal yz ed in the 2006 Roosevelt EA and the REA. The bales will remain in a staging area on an impervious surface for at least 5 day s as analyzed in the REA

. The bales will then be either palletized or containerized in 20 and/or 40 foot shipping containers and transported from Honolulu across the Pacific Ocean and up the Columbia River via tug boat and barge in accordance with the conditions specified in the REA. Therefore, the environmental effects of the sorting, baling, and transportation across the Pacific Ocean and up the Columbia River are consistent with the environmental effects already analyzed in detail in the 2006 Roosevelt EA and the 2008 REA and thus are incorporated here by reference (USDA, APHI S, 2006 and USDA , APHI S, 2008). However, the REA onl y examined programmatically the potential train and tr

uck routes. The site

specific route considered in this petition is examined further below.9 As discussed above, the petitioner s have a primary proposed route and two alternate route s to transport waste by either train or truck from existing port facilities . The transportation of baled garbage will occur by barge and by truck or train over highway s and railroads that are used eve ryday for a multitude of transportation needs. Annually , the Columbia River sy stem moves over 54 million tons of cargo. Ports considered in this assessment currently move more than 15.8 million tons of cargo annually

. The addition of 150,000 tons of MSW annually represents a 0.9 percent increase in cargo tonnage

. The Teevin Terminal in Rainier, Oregon annuall y receives and processes approximately

494,000 tons of cargo via barge (pers. comm. Paul Langner, Teevin Bros. 2009). In 2008, the Teevin Terminal handled over 50 barges, of which 17 currentl y service Hawaii. The se 17 barges are ty picall y return from Hawaii empty or carrying empty shipping containers. Currently , the barges servicing the Teevin Terminal have the capacity to carry 11,000 and 17 ,500 tons of cargo respectively . Thus, the movement of the proposed 150,000 tons of MSW annually could be handled b y the existing return service without increasing existing barge traffic. The annual arrival of 150,000 tons of baled MSW at the Teevin Termi nal would increase the terminal’s incoming tonnage by approximately

30 percent, well within facility ’s existing capabilities without the need for further construction or expansion in terminal infrastructure. (Pers. comm. Jeff Browning, Sause Bros. 2009). In 2008, the Port of Longview handled over 1.25 million tons of cargo from 121 ship calls and 16 barge calls. The addition of 150,000 tons of baled MSW could potentially result in 9

- 13 barges per year from Hawaii, or a 56 to 81 percent increase in barge traffic through the Port of Longview. The Port has existing barge terminals capable of handling barge traffic that exceeds HWS’ proposed annual number of barges that could service this port. Historically , the Port handled over 20 million tons of cargo via barge; however, recentl y, operations have been geared more towards deep draft vessels (container ships). The addition of 150,000 tons of baled MSW would result in approximately a 12 percent increase in annual cargo tonnage, well within the Port’s capacity

. In 2008, the Port of Portland handled over 14.1 million tons from all forms of conveyance. Barges handle approximately 20

- 25 percent of cargo brought into the Port of PortlandAssuming the above barge capacity, the amount of barge traffic at Port of P ortland would increase 4

- 5 percent annually and the total annual tonnage would increase by approximately

1 percent.10 If all the MSW currentl y proposed for movement ( 150,000 tons annually) is transported solely

by rail once it has been off

- loaded from oc ean going barges, it would add a total of 2,143 rail cars a ye ar 1 to existing rail traffic in Oregon and Washington . In Oregon, 67.8 million tons of cargo w as transported b y rail in 2006 (AAR , 200 7 )

. This translates into approximately 970,000 railcars per year. In 2008, the State of Washington recorded over 116 million tons of cargo transported by rail (pers. comm. T. Graham, WSDOT 2009). This translates into approximately 1.7 million railcars per ye ar in 2008

. Based on these figures, the proposed trans port of 150,000 tons of baled MSW by rail would result in a less than a 0.2 2 and 0.13 percent increase in the number of railcars per year in Oregon and Washington, respectively

. Therefore, the environmental effects of the increase in rail cars due to the preferred alternative would be minimal. If all of the MSW is transported solely by truck, the preferred alternative would increase truck traffic by 4,411 trucks annually2

. In 1998, 220 million tons of freight was transported b y highway in Oregon which translates to approximately 6,470,588 truckloads (USDOT, 2002). In 2008, approximately 336 million tons of freight was transported b y highway in the State of Washington (pers. comm. T. Graham, WSDOT, 2009) which translates to approximately 9,894,117 truckloads. Based on these numbers, the increase in truck traffic is expected to be less than 0

. 068 and 0.045 percent in Oregon and Washington respectivel y
. Therefore the environmental effects of the increase in truck transportation due to the preferred alternative are anticipated to be minimal. The Roosevelt Regional Landfill is an approved MSW facility permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cooperation with the State of Washington (see http://wvvw.emggy /gaoswer/ non hw/muncpl/landfill/ implemen/index.htm) pursuant to EPA’s authority under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. As such, the landfill meets the Federal and State requirements to ensure that no further impacts to the environment are likely as a result of this action. The Roosevelt Regional Landfill currently accepts over 6,800 tons of MSW per day ( an average of 2.5 million tons per year) from various cities in Oregon, Washington, Alaska and British Columbia pri marily

. It is estimated that the Roosevelt Regional Landfill’s remaining life is approximately 50 years based on receiving 6 ,8 00 tons per day

. The addition of 150,000 tons of MSW annually will result in a 6 percent increase in g arbage annually to the landfill . This increase is unlikely to result in any

environmental effects to the existing landfill. Inaddition to

1 This is based on 70 tons per railcar. 150 ,000 tons of MSW / 70 tons per rail car = 2,143 rail cars 2 This is based on transport weight of 34 tons per truck. 150 ,000 tons of MS W / 34 tons per truck = 4,411 trucks.11 the fact that the 150,000 tons of Hawaii MSW represents a small fraction of the annual amount of MSW the landfill accepts, the garbage has b een baled to prevent any leakage of MSW into the landfill. Based on our review of the HWS ’s revised petition to move containerized and/or palletized baled MSW from Hawaii to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Roosevelt, Washington , APHIS finds that the revised proposal is consistent with the REA and therefore any environmental effects of the proposed action have already been anal yz ed and determined to not have a significant impact on the environment (USDA , APHI S, 2008)

. By placing baled MSW on pallets, f

latracks and in containers , the potential for punctures is reduced, thus further reducing the accidental introduction of non - native pests. Therefore, b ased on our evaluation in this site specific anal ys is and the pest risk assessment (Attachment A) of the potential for environmental impacts from the proposed action , APHI S has determined the proposed action will not result in a significant increase in the potential for the introduction of non

- native pests, nor result in a significant increase in traffic alo ng barge routes, the interstate or rail lines , or a significant increase in garbage to be disposed of annuall y in the Roosevelt Regional Landfill, or cause impacts not previously considered in the REA. 

### C. Cumulative Effects
The REA considered the move ment of 500,000 tons of baled MSW annually . In their r evised re quest , the petitioner is requesting to move 150,000 tons of MSW annually to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill. The preferred alternative would not add any additional tug boat / barge trips sinc e the petitioners have stated they will utilize already

existing barges that would have been sent to the mainland empty

. If all the MSW is transported solel y b y rail , this would add a total of 2,143 rail cars a year to rail freight traffic. If all the MSW is transported solely by truck, this would increase the truck traffic b y 4,411 trucks annually . The proposed action will result in an annual increase of less than 0. 2 2 percent of rail cars and less than 0

. 0 6 8 percent of truck traffic in the S tate of Oreg on and an increase of less than 0.13 percent of rail cars and less than 0 .0 45 percent of truck traffic in the S tate of Washington, and therefore will have little, if any , environmental impact. The 150,000 tons of MSW annual tonnage, approximately 410 tons per day , is minimal compared to th e amount of garbage deposited in the landfill on an annual basis, approximately 2 .5 million tons annually

or 6, 800 tons per day

. Thus, there should be minimal, if any , environmental impact s from the annual disposal of th e proposed additional 150,000 tons of MSW at Roosevelt Regional Landfill, since the landfill must comply with both EPA and Washington state requirements for maintaining landfills in an environmentally safe manner. Therefore the proposed action will have n egligible cumulative impacts on the environment.12 

### D. Threatened and Endangered Species The biological assessment entitled “ Movement of Plastic

- baled Garbage and Regulated (Domestic) Garbage from Hawaii to Landfills in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Final Biological Asse ssment ” (Attachment B ) considered the potential impacts of the movement of baled garbage from Hawaii across the Pacific Ocean and up the Columbia River on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and fishery resources and federall y listed threatene d and endangered species and designated critical habitat.
APHI S has completed consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see concurrence letter from Fish an d Wildlife Service (Attachment B .1)) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (see concurrence letter from National Marine Fisheries Service (Attachment B .2)) on the potential impacts of the movement and disposal of baled MSW during its consideration of the total environmental impacts asses sed in the REA. This petition and the associated compliance agreement are within the scope of the existing consultation and therefore no further consultation is required.
APHI S has evaluated the specific route considered in this petition including the number of barge, truck and rail trips necessary to intern the proposed 150,000 tons of baled MSW at Roosevelt Regional Landfill

. APHI S has also evaluated the potential impacts to federally listed species along those routes and determined the impacts assoc iated with the movement and internment of baled MSW associated with this proposed action are consistent with the anal ys is completed for the REA and BA. All associated terms and conditions regarding the protection of listed species and sensitive habitats along these routes are incorporated in full into the compliance agreement for this action.13 

## V. L isting of Ag encies and Persons Consulted
Listed below are offices that were consulted and/or provided review during the development of this document

. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Des Moines, WA U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Riverdale, MD U.S. Department of Agri culture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Portland, OR U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Pl ant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Washington , DC U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Honolulu, Hawaii U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Ins pection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Raleigh, NC U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of General Counsel Washington, DC14 Friends of the Columbia Gorge Portland, OR Teevin Brothers Rainier, OR Port of L ongview Longivew, Washington Port of Portland Portland, OR Sause Brothers Rainier, OR Washington State Department of Transportation Vancouver, WA Oregon Department of Transportation Portland, OR15 

## V I

. References

American Association of Railroads, 2007. Annual Rail Statistics by State for 2007.

OD O T

– See Oregon Department of Transportation
Oregon Department of Transportation, 2002 . Oregon Rail Plan. 161 pages. http: //www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/railplan01.pdf last accessed July 10 , 2008. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2006. Movement of Plastic Baled Waste from Honolulu, Hawaii to Roosevelt Regional Landfill, Washington, Environmental Assessment, December 2006. 79 pages. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2008. Regional Movement of Plastic

- baled Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii to Washington, Oregon, and Idah o: Environmental Assessment, April 2008. 78 pages. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2008 b . Site Specific Environmental Assessment for Off Island Transport to Transport Municipal Solid Waste from Hawaii to Columbia Ridge Landfill, Oregon. July 2008. 17 pages.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2002c. State Profile

– Oregon: 1998, 2010, 2020 6 pp. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_anal ys is/state_info/oregon/profile_ or.htm last accessed July 10 , 2008. USDA, APHI S

– See United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
USDOT

– See United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
WSDOT

– Washington State Department of Transportation16 

## Ap pendix A. The Risk of Introducing Pests to Klickitat County, Washington vi a Hawa iian Plastic - Baled Municipal Soli d Waste17 

## Ap pendix B. Movement of Plastic - baled Garbage and Regulated (Domestic) Garbage from Hawa ii to Landfills in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Final Biological As sessment, February 200818 

## Ap pendix B.1. Concurrence Letter from Fish and Wildlife Serv ic e19 

## Ap pendix B.2. Concurrence Letter from National Marine Fisheries Serv ice