Decision ID No. 47317 Service Date: November 5, 2019

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

DOCKET NO. FD 34936

Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Grant County, Washington

 

Lead Agency: 

 

 

 

 Surface Transportation Board 

Office of Environmental Analysis

Victoria Rutson, Director 

Project Manager:

Adam Assenza

Surface Transportation Board 

395 E St. SW

Washington, DC 20423

Cooperating Agency:

Federal Railroad Administration
Surface Transportation Board, Office of Environmental Analysis. 2019. 

Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project. Final Supplemental 

Environmental Assessment. November. Washington, D.C. 
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Office of Environmental Analysis

Washington, DC 20423

November 5, 2019

Dear Reader:

The Surface Transportation Board’s (STB’s) Office of Environmental Analysis 

(OEA), and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are pleased to provide you with 

the enclosed Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (FSEA) for the proposed 

acquisition and construction of an approximately 11-mile-long railroad route in Grant 

County, Washington (Project). The applicant or Project proponent is the Port of Moses 

Lake (Port), which would own and construct the rail lines. Columbia Basin Railroad 

Company (CBRW) would operate over the proposed rail lines. The purpose of the 

proposed Project is to provide rail service to lands and properties designated for 

industrial development in the northern area of the City of Moses Lake, as well as to the 

eastern side of the Grant County International Airport (GCIA), to enhance opportunities 

for economic development, and to attract new rail-dependent businesses to those 

areas.

This FSEA reflects OEA’s and FRA’s independent analysis of the Port’s 

proposed modifications to the project; consultations with agencies; and careful 

consideration of all comments received on the Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Assessment (DSEA) from agencies, organizations, and members of the public. This 

document includes comments received on the DSEA and responses from OEA and 

FRA. The document also sets forth changes to the analysis and conclusions of the 

DSEA and OEA’s final recommended mitigation measures to mitigate anticipated 

adverse environmental impacts should the STB approve the project.

Issuance of this FSEA completes the STB’s environmental review process. STB 

now will make a final decision on the proposed modifications to the rail line project. In 

making its final decision, STB will consider the entire environmental record, including all 

public comments, the 2008 Preliminary Environmental Assessment, the 2009 Final 

Environmental Assessment, the 2019 DSEA, this FSEA, and OEA’s final recommended 

mitigation measures. If STB should approve the project modifications, it will also 

determine what, if any, environmental mitigation measures to impose. FRA, as a 

cooperating agency, will also issue a decision, with conditions as needed, considering 

the entire environmental record under their own governing statutes.
OEA and FRA have distributed this FSEA to all parties of record and the 

environmental distribution list, which includes key governmental agencies, federally 

recognized tribes, and other appropriate entities. The FSEA is also available on the STB 

website (www.stb.gov). A hard copy of the FSEA is also available for review at the City 

of Moses Lake Public Library and at the Port’s office in Grant County, Washington. 

OEA and FRA appreciate the effort of all interested parties who reviewed and

commented on the DSEA. Thank you for your interest and participation in the 

environmental review process.

 

Sincerely,

Victoria Rutson

Director
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page i 

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................... iii

Glossary......................................................................................................................... v

Chapter 1. Introduction........................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need.......................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 1-3

1.4 Project Setting ................................................................................................ 1-3

1.5 Supplemental Environmental Review Process ............................................... 1-3

1.6 Alternatives..................................................................................................... 1-3

1.6.1 Alternatives Analyzed in the Prior EA ............................................. 1-3

1.6.2 Modified Alignment Alternatives Analyzed in the Supplemental EA1-4

Chapter 2. Public Involvement............................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Prior Environmental Assessment (Prior EA)................................................... 2-1

2.2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (DSEA)................................ 2-2

Chapter 3. DSEA Comments and Responses.................................................... 3-1

3.1 Alternatives..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation ....................................................................... 3-4

3.3 Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 3-5

3.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ............................................... 3-6

3.5 Traffic and Transportation............................................................................... 3-7

3.6 Water Resources........................................................................................... 3-8

3.7 Wetlands...................................................................................................... 3-10

Chapter 4. Port’s Response to the DSEA........................................................... 4-1

Chapter 5. Conclusion......................................................................................... 5-1

Chapter 6. Final Recommended Mitigation........................................................ 6-1

Exhibits

Exhibit 1.1 Location of Original and Proposed Modified Alignments ............................ 1-6

Exhibit 3.1 Segment 1 Commenter Proposed Route.................................................... 3-3

Exhibit 4.1 Road I NE Plan (Modification 2C)............................................................... 4-2

Exhibit 5.1 Modification 1B........................................................................................... 5-3

Exhibit 5.2 Modification 2C........................................................................................... 5-5
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page ii Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Appendices

Appendix A Comments 

Appendix B Programmatic Agreement (PA)
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BMP Best Management Practice

Board Surface Transportation Board

CBRW Columbia Basin Railroad Company, Inc.

CEQ Council on Environmental quality

CWA Clean Water Act

DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeological and Historic

Preservation

DSEA Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment

EA Environmental Assessment

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

EL East Low (canal)

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FASTLANE Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for 

Long -term Achievement of National Efficiencies

FD Finance Docket

FR Federal Register

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FSEA Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

GCIA Grant County International Airport

Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

NCBRP Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project (see Project)

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Services

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OEA Office of Environmental Analysis (see SEA)

Port Port of Moses Lake

Project Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project (see NCBRP)

RCD Rocky Coulee Diversion (canal)
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page iv Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

RCW Revised Code of Washington (state)

SEA Section of Environmental Analysis (see OEA)

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office (or Officer)

SPCC Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (Plan)

STB Surface Transportation Board

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (Plan)

U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UTC Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WQC Water Quality Certification

WQS Water Quality Standard

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page v 

Glossary 

Alternative 1A: The NCBR project Segment 1 route studied in the Prior EA and was 

authorized by the STB in 2009; the route crossed Crab Creek rather than Parker Horn 

to the south. 

Alternative 2A: The NCBR project Segment 2 route studied in the Prior EA but was not 

authorized by the STB in 2009; the route was east of the Segment 2 route authorized by 

the STB. 

at-grade crossing: Where a railway line intersects/crosses a road at the same level, 

rather than crossing via an overpass or a tunnel.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): A combination of practices that is determined to 

be an effective and practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution. 

candidate species: Animals and plants for which sufficient information exists to list 

them as endangered or threatened, but the listing has not yet occurred.

Clean Water Act Section 401/Water Quality Certification: A process that provides 

states with the authority to ensure that federal agencies will not issue permits or 

licenses that violate the water quality standards of a state or tribe.

Clean Water Act Section 402/NPDES Permit (for construction stormwater): Requires 

that all construction sites on an acre or more of land must obtain authorization under a 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit identifying the 

sources of pollution conducted at the site and the stormwater control practices that will 

be used to prevent pollutants from making their way into stormwater runoff.

Clean Water Act Section 404/USACE Permit: Regulates the discharge of dredged or 

fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. 

critical habitat: Specific areas within a geographic area, occupied by a species at the 

time it was listed under the Endangered Species Act, that contains the physical or 

biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may need 

special management or protection.

Hydrologic Project Approval (HPA): An approval by the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife for construction or other work activities conducted in or near state 

waters that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any of the salt 

or fresh waters of the state.

liquefaction: A phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of soil is reduced by 

earthquake shaking, and commonly occurs in loose soils that are saturated with water.

listed species: Plant and animal species listed as endangered or threatened by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or by a state. Endangered species are in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened species are 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page vi Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Modified Alignment: Proposed changes to the 2009 STB-approved NCBRP alignment. 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): (for construction 

stormwater): Requires that all construction sites on an acre or more of land must obtain 

authorization under a NPDES permit identifying the sources of pollution conducted at 

the site and the stormwater control practices that will be used to prevent pollutants from 

making their way into stormwater runoff. The permit will contain limits on what can be 

discharged, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other provisions to ensure that 

the discharge does not hurt water quality or people's health.

Operation Lifesaver: A program that seeks to educated drivers and pedestrians about 

making safer decisions at crossings and around railroad tracks. Information is available 

online at the Operation Lifesaver, Inc. website. 

Original Alignment: The NCBRP alignment approved by the Surface Transportation 

Board in 2009.

Prior EA: Collectively, the NCBRP’s 2008 Preliminary EA and 2009 Final EA

2008 Preliminary EA: The NCBRP’s initial EA prepared for public comment prior to 

release of the 2009 Final EA.

2009 Final EA: The NCBR project’s final EA prepared after public comment on the 

2008 Preliminary EA. 

FASTLANE: Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term 

Achievement of National Efficiencies; a 2017 grant program under the U.S. Department 

of Transportation.

right-of-way: Legal ownership or easement over the land for transportation purposes 

such as highways, railroads, and oil and gas pipelines. 

spurs/spur sidings: A type of secondary track to allow customers at a location to load 

and unload railcars without interfering with other railroad operations.

Superfund/Superfund Program: A U.S. federal government program designed to fund 

the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants.

turbidity: An important indicator of the amount of suspended sediment in water, which 

can have negative effects on aquatic life. 

vacate: In terms of a public road, it means the right "to abandon" or "to give up" the 

public's right to use the road or road right-of-way for transportation and access; it

releases public liability and any question of maintenance. 

Yuma myotis: A small bat native to western North America that usually forages over 

water.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 1-1 

Chapter 1. Introduction

This chapter summarizes information from the July 2019 Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Assessment (DSEA) for the Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project 

(NCBRP or Project), including the key elements of the development of the DSEA, the 

proposed action and the need for alignment modifications, and major conclusions 

regarding potential environmental impacts. This Final Supplemental Environmental 

Assessment (FSEA) builds on the analysis and information included in the DSEA and 

responds to comments received on the DSEA. 

1.1 Background

In 2008, the Port of Moses Lake (Port) filed a Petition for Exemption seeking the 

authority of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to construct approximately 7.6 

miles of new rail line in two separate segments (Segments 1 and 2) and to acquire 

approximately three miles of an existing rail line in a third segment (Segment 3), in a 

project known as the NCBRP. After environmental review by STB’s Office of 

Environmental Analysis (OEA), STB authorized construction and acquisition of the rail 

lines (Original Alignment) in a decision issued August 27, 2009, in docket numbers FD 

34396 and FD 34396 (Sub-No.1).1

STB’s authorization of the construction and acquisition necessary for the NCBRP 

coincided with a severe economic downturn which, according to the Port, was one of 

several factors that delayed the Project and complicated the Port’s efforts at securing 

the financing necessary for the Project. In 2017, the Port was awarded a grant from the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), which in combination with earlier funding 

sources, enables the Port to proceed with the Project. To minimize impacts on existing 

land uses, including land development that has occurred in the project vicinity since the 

2009 Authorization Decision, the Port is requesting that STB authorize certain limited 

route modifications (the Modified Alignment) so that the Port can fulfill the economic 

development objectives of the NCBRP.

On November 2, 2018, the Port filed a Petition to Reopen the STB proceeding in Docket 

No. FD 34936 (Petition to Reopen). To ensure STB compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed Modified Alignment, OEA prepared a 

DSEA and this FSEA to address changes in the Project since the Board issued its 2009 

Authorization Decision. The DSEA and FSEA do not include a re-evaluation of project 

components that are unchanged from those evaluated in the 2008 Preliminary 

Environmental Assessment and the 2009 Final Environmental Assessment (collectively 

“Prior EA”), including the potential environmental impacts from the proposed acquisition 

of Segment 3, and any associated mitigation or conditions imposed in the 2009 

Authorization Decision. 

 

1 See Port of Moses Lake—Construction Exemption—Moses Lake, Wash., FD 34936 

and Port of Moses Lake—Acquisition Exemption—Moses Lake, Wash., FD 34936 

(Sub-No. 1) (STB served August 27, 2009) (2009 Authorization Decision). 
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 1-2 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

1.2 Purpose and Need

The project purpose is to provide rail service to lands designated for industrial 

development in the northern part of the City of Moses Lake and east of the Grant 

County International Airport (GCIA), to enhance opportunities for economic 

development, and to attract new, rail-dependent businesses to those areas. The project 

purpose and need has not changed since the 2009 Authorization Decision, in which 

STB stated the Port’s position that “the Project will allow trains to bypass downtown 

Moses Lake, leaving that area available for possible future development as a waterfront 

park, boardwalk, and bicycle/pedestrian trail.” The Project would also provide rail 

service to land and properties designated for industrial development that currently have

no access to rail service, which would enhance opportunities for economic development 

and attract new rail-dependent business to the area.2

According to the Port, the Project would restore vital rail service to the City of Moses 

Lake and adjacent to the GCIA and allow rail traffic to and from the GCIA industrial area

to avoid passing through downtown City of Moses Lake. According to the Port, the 

Project would eliminate a major impediment to retaining and attracting new industries by 

providing a cost-effective rail connection to the BNSF Railway Company mainline (via 

the CBRW track) for existing businesses, agricultural producers, and new industries to 

ship to and from Pacific Northwest ports and the Midwest.

STB has the authority to authorize the construction and acquisition proposed by the Port 

as part of the NCBRP, either through application filed under 49 U.S.C. § 10901, or by 

granting an exemption from the prior approval requirements of the statutory framework 

under 49 U.S.C. § 10502. Section 10901(c) is a permissive licensing standard. It directs 

the Board to grant rail line construction proposals “unless” the Board finds the proposal

“inconsistent with the public convenience and necessity.”3 Thus, Congress made a

presumption that rail construction projects are in the public interest unless shown

otherwise. See Mid States Coalition for Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d 520, 552 (8th Cir.

2003); Alaska R.R. - Constr. and Operation Exemption – Rail line Between North Pole

and Delta Junction, Alaska, FD 34658, slip op. at 5 (STB served January 5, 2010).

Under 49 U.S.C. § 10502, the Board must exempt a proposed rail line construction from

the detailed application procedures of 49 U.S.C. § 10901 when it finds that: (1) those

procedures are not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy (RTP) of 49

U.S.C. § 10101; and (2) either (a) the proposal is of limited scope, or (b) the full

application procedures are not necessary to protect shippers from an abuse of market

power. See Alaska Survival v. STB, 705 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2013).

 

2 See 2009 Authorization Decision, slip op. at 2. 3 Although the statute does not define the term “public convenience and necessity,”

historically a three-part test has been used to evaluate that term: whether an applicant

is financially fit to undertake proposed construction and provide the proposed service;

whether there is public demand or need for the proposed service; and whether the

proposal is in the public interest and will not unduly harm existing services.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 1-3 

1.3 Proposed Action

The proposed action is the request by the Port for authority to construct the Project with 

minor modifications to Segments 1 and 2 of the Original Alignment, to reduce the impact 

of rail line construction on the human and natural environment and to increase the 

effectiveness of the rail line as a form of transportation. No changes are proposed to the 

Segment 3 Original Alignment. Exhibit 1.1 shows the general vicinity of the Project and 

the Segments. 

1.4 Project Setting

The NCBRP is located in central Washington, approximately 8.5 miles north of 

Interstate 90, and lies partially in the City of Moses Lake and partially in unincorporated 

areas of Grant County. The Project extends west from the community of Wheeler (east 

end of the rail corridor) to the Crab Creek water crossing, and then north to GCIA (north 

end of the rail corridor). The project area is a mix of agricultural, industrial, commercial, 

and residential lands. The Project is situated on the upland Columbia River Plateau and 

the climate in the project vicinity is semi-arid. Local topography consists of relatively flat 

uplands broken by the Crab Creek and Parker Horn drainages, where the topography 

slopes downward to the creek.

1.5 Supplemental Environmental Review Process

The DSEA and this FSEA were prepared by the STB as the lead agency. FRA is a 

cooperating agency. OEA independently analyzed environmental data and is making 

environmental recommendations to the Board as part of STB’s authorization process. 

FRA will use the DSEA and FSEA to inform its NEPA compliance responsibilities 

regarding the Port’s 2017 request and subsequent selection to receive a $9.9 million 

USDOT Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term 

Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) grant program. FRA will separately 

consider the entire environmental record and may, if appropriate, issue a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI).

OEA considered all comments received on the DSEA. Responses to comments are 

included in Chapter 3, DSEA Comments and Responses and in Chapter 4, Port’s 

Response to the DSEA, and comments are included in Appendix A, Comments. This 

FSEA also includes OEA’s selected environmentally preferred alternative and final 

recommended environmental mitigation. STB will consider the entire environmental 

record, including the Prior EA, the 2019 DSEA, this FSEA, all comments received, and 

OEA’s final recommendations in making its final decision on the Port’s request for 

authority to construct the proposed modifications to the rail line.

1.6 Alternatives

1.6.1 Alternatives Analyzed in the Prior EA

In November 2008, OEA and the Washington State Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT) prepared a Preliminary EA that analyzed a Build Alternative and a No Build 

Alternative, along with two alternative water crossings (Parker Horn and Crab Creek) for

Segment 1, and two alternative routes for Segment 2. Two additional alternatives were 
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 1-4 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

discussed but rejected primarily because they did not meet the purpose and need of the 

Project.

4

OEA and WSDOT issued a Final EA in May 2009 that developed and analyzed five 

additional alternatives for Segment 1, including one alignment modification proposed by 

the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) known as the Ecology 

Modification. OEA and WSDOT rejected these additional alternatives, except for the 

Ecology Modification, as not meeting the project purpose and need or because they 

were determined to be unfeasible due to economic, technical, or constructability issues. 

OEA and WSDOT selected an environmentally preferred alternative in the 2009 Final 

EA that included the Segment 1 Alternative 1A crossing of Crab Creek and the option to 

use the Ecology Modification, the standard version of Segment 2 without Alternative 2A, 

and the acquisition and rehabilitation of Segment 3.

5

STB issued a final decision in August 2009, specifically authorizing construction of 

Segment 1 with Alternative 1A (with or without the Ecology Modification), construction of 

Segment 2 (without Alternative 2A), and acquisition of Segment 3 (collectively “Original 

Alignment”).6 

1.6.2 Modified Alignment Alternatives Analyzed in the Supplemental EA

After STB’s authorization of the Project in 2009, a severe economic downturn delayed 

the Port’s implementation of the Project. As noted previously, the Port was selected to 

receive a $9.9 million grant from USDOT under the 2017 FASTLANE program. In 

combination with earlier funding sources, the federal funds will enable the Port to 

proceed with the full Project. 

To fulfill the economic development objectives of the NCBRP and to minimize impacts 

on existing land uses, some of which include land development that has occurred in the 

Project vicinity since the 2009 Authorization Decision, the Port is requesting that STB 

authorize the proposed Modified Alignment. The proposed modifications, together with 

the USDOT FASTLANE grant funding, require additional environmental review by STB 

and FRA under NEPA and other applicable environmental laws through preparation of 

this Supplemental EA. 

Following are summaries of design changes contained in the proposed Modified 

Alignment alternatives for Segment 1 (Modification 1B) and Segment 2 (Modifications 

2B and 2C):

 

4 See Preliminary Environmental Assessment (Preliminary EA), FD 34936, Northern 

Columbia Basin Railroad Project, at pages ES-3 and ES-5 (Nov. 7, 2008).

5 See e.g., 2009 Authorization Decision, slip op. at 5-7. See also Final Environmental 

Assessment (2009 Final EA), FD 34936, Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project, at 

pages ES-5 and ES-9 (May 8, 2009) (showing maps of the various alternatives). 

6 See 2009 Authorization Decision, slip op. at 4-7. The STB adopted the environmental 

preferred alternative described in the 2009 Final EA. See id. at 6-7. 
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 1-5 

Modification 1B is designed to: 

• Avoid crossing primary access driveways to several industrial tenants

• Avoid the Grant County Public Works facility and adjacent buildings

• Minimize impacts to an irrigation system and cropland

• Construct a safer, perpendicular rail crossing at Wheeler Road

• Minimize property take and avoid newly constructed buildings

• Avoid crossing Hamilton Road NE and construct a safer, perpendicular crossing at 

Industrial Street

• Minimize impacts to utilities along Hamilton Road NE

• Minimize wetland impacts and avoid rock outcrops

Modification 1B would also use culverts instead of bridges to cross historic earthen 

irrigation and drainage ditches at Rocky Coulee Diversion Canal 180+182 (RCD 

180+182) and at East Low Lateral Canal 20 (EL 20).

Modification 2B is designed to:

• Straighten a curve and reduce the amount of track construction

• Better reach existing and future development areas

• Avoid a newly constructed building

Modification 2C is designed to:

• Straighten a curve and reduce the amount of track construction

• Better reach future development areas

• Avoid a newly constructed building

• Avoid crossing Randolph Road and construct safer, perpendicular crossings at 

lesser-traveled roads

• Minimize impacts to utilities along Randolph Road

• Avoid crossing primary access driveways to several industrial tenants

OEA evaluated these alternative modifications proposed by the Port. OEA incorporated 

information from technical reports and memoranda (Appendices B, C, D, E, and F in the 

DSEA) and considered input from agencies and the public. OEA first determined that 

the Port’s initial proposed modifications represented reasonable alternatives that could 

meet the Project’s stated purpose and need. OEA then analyzed the alternatives using 

criteria that focused on the key impact issues of wetlands, water resources, land uses

and land development, historical sites, and traffic and transportation, and selected an 

environmentally preferred alternative (see Chapter 5 Conclusion). 

The following Exhibit 1.1 shows the locations of the Original Alignment and proposed 

Modifications 1B, 2B, and 2C.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 1-6 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Exhibit 1.1 Location of Original and Proposed Modified Alignments

PROJECT: Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

CLIENT: Port of Moses Lake (POML)

LOCATION: Moses Lake, Washington

COUNTY: Grant

PLSS: Segment 1: T19N R28E S14, 13, 24 and T19N R29 E S19, 20

Segment 2: T20N R38E S 22, 27, 33, 34

QUADRANGLE: Moses Lake North and Wheeler

BASE MAP:ESRI USA Topo Maps 2018

DATE OF FIGURE:9/26/19, rev. 6/17/20

FIGURE BY:M. Indrebo

LOCATION OF ORIGINAL AND PROPOSED MODIFIED ALIGNMENTS

EXHIBIT 1.1

±

0 2,600 5,200 Feet 0 875 1,750 Meters

SEGMENT 2

Legend

Segment 1

Original

Segment 1

Mod. 1B

Segment 2

Original

Segment 2

Mod. 2B

Segment 2

Mod. 2C

Segment 3

SEGMENT 1

Washington State

(!

Project Location

Modification 2B

Modification 2C

SEGMENT 3

±

Modification 1B
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 2-1 

Chapter 2. Public Involvement

2.1 Prior Environmental Assessment (Prior EA) 

As part of the environmental review process for the Prior EA, OEA and WSDOT held 

public open houses and posted information on their websites throughout 2007 to solicit 

comments prior to preparing a Preliminary EA. Additionally, OEA, and WSDOT sent 

consultation letters soliciting comments from the following agencies, groups, and Tribes 

in 2007:

Federal Agencies

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

• U.S. Bureau of Land Management

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

• NOAA Fisheries Service

• National Park Service

• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

State Agencies

• Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) or 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

• Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development

• Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)

• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)

• Washington State Department of Natural Resources 

• Washington State Department of Transportation, North Central Region (WSDOT)

• Washington State Parks

• Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC)

Local Agencies

• Grant County Community Development Department

• Grant County Economic Development Council

• Grant County Public Utility District

• Port of Moses Lake

• City of Moses Lake Community Development Department

• Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District

• TransCo, via the Washington State Potato Commission

• Quad-County Regional Transportation Planning Organization
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 2-2 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Tribes

• Colville Confederated Tribes

• Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

• Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation

• Wanapum Tribe

The Preliminary EA was made available to the public in November 2008 for a 30-day 

comment period and was served on all parties to the proceeding; the federal, state, and 

local agencies and Tribes noted above; and any party requesting copies of the 

document. STB also solicited comments on the Preliminary EA via their website and a 

Notice in the Federal Register. 

STB and WSDOT issued a Final EA for the Project in May 2009 that responded to 

public and agency comments, presented and analyzed new alternatives and modified 

routes, added to information that was in the Preliminary EA, and modified mitigation 

measures that were in the Preliminary EA. The 2009 Final EA was made available for 

review at the City of Moses Lake Public Library, the Port, and on the WSDOT project 

website. STB subsequently issued their Authorization Decision for the Project in August 

2009, which became effective in September 2009. 

2.2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (DSEA)

On November 2, 2018, the Port filed a Petition to Reopen Docket No. FD 34936 seeking 

Board authorization for proposed changes to the Project since STB issued its 2009 

Authorization Decision. OEA and FRA determined that these circumstances warranted

creation of a Supplemental EA in accordance with NEPA.

As part of the DSEA environmental review process, OEA consulted with and solicited 

comments from the following agencies and Tribes prior to release of the DSEA for 

public comment:

• DAHP/SHPO

• WDFW

• WSDOT, North Central Region 

• East Columbia Basin Irrigation District

• City of Moses Lake

• Colville Confederated Tribes

• Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

• Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation

• Wanapum Tribe

On July 11, 2019, STB issued the DSEA for public review and comment and published 

a Notice of Availability of the DSEA in the Federal Register (84 FR 33114). OEA

provided notice of the DSEA to all parties of record for this proceeding, parties that 

submitted comments for the Prior EA, as well as to federal, state, and local agencies

and officials, and Tribes served in 2007 for the Prior EA, in addition to those noted 

previously. The DSEA was made available on STB’s website and printed copies were
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 2-3 

made available for review at the City of Moses Lake Public Library and at the Port of 

Moses Lake office in Grant County, Washington. 

STB encouraged the public and any interested parties to submit written comments on all 

aspects of the DSEA. The comment period closed on August 12, 2019. STB received

six comments on the DSEA; five comments were received from state and federal 

agencies and one comment was received from the Port. Additionally, one letter with 

environmental comments was received from an individual before the DSEA was served 

(see Appendix A Comments). STB considered all comments received and has 

responded to all substantive comments in this FSEA. The points raised in each of these 

comments and STB’s responses are provided in Chapter 3, DSEA Comments and 

Responses, and in Chapter 4, Port’s Response to the DSEA.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 3-1 

Chapter 3. DSEA Comments and Responses 

STB received six comments regarding the environmental review of the Port’s proposed 

modifications to the Project: one submitted prior to issuance of the DSEA and four 

submitted after its service (see Appendix A Comments). The specific matters raised in 

the comments, followed by responses to each group of comments, are captured below

by topic. The topics for which STB received comments are fish, wildlife, and vegetation; 

hazardous materials; socioeconomics and environmental justice; traffic and 

transportation; water resources; wetlands; and alternatives. OEA received no comments 

on the following eight topics analyzed in the DSEA: air quality; cultural, historic, and 

archaeological resources; energy; land use; Section 4(f) properties7; noise and 

vibration; soils and geology; and visual quality. Accordingly, OEA’s analysis of those 

resource areas remains unchanged, and are not discussed in detail in this chapter.

3.1 Alternatives

Comment: One comment from a private landowner asked that further consideration be 

given to an alternative Segment 1 route north of Wheeler Road, which the commenter 

suggested would be shorter and straighter. 

Response: This commenter proposed a route that is very similar to an alternative that 

STB addressed and evaluated in the 2009 Final EA, known as the Piercy Alternative. 

Though OEA (formerly SEA) determined that the Piercy Alternative would meet the 

purpose and need of the proposed project, and was feasible, OEA rejected the 

alternative in 2009 as not reasonable or practical due to a variety of technical and 

economic factors.8 Key factors that OEA considered in 2009, and OEA confirmed are 

still applicable today, include the following: 

• The alternative would connect to the existing CBRW Scalley Lead track, as 

illustrated in the following Exhibit 3.1. The Scalley Lead track is 1.5 miles long and 

contains 3 percent grades and 12-degree curves. The lead track also has limited 

clearances with existing industries. These factors are not acceptable for through 

railroad track.

9

 

7 Section 4(f) stipulates that USDOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from 

publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and 

private historical sites unless there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to

the use of land, the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 

property resulting from such use, or the use of the property will have a de minimis 

impact (USDOT 2019). OEA evaluated Section 4(f) properties in the DSEA at FRA’s 

request. While FRA is a USDOT agency, STB is not and, thus, Section 4(f) does not 

apply to the Board.

8 See Final EA (May 8, 2009) at pages 3-3, 3-14, and 3-15.

9 Through track, or mainline track, is used for trains operating between points with few 

stops in between. Lead track or industrial track is typically used as switching track to 

serve industries off the mainline. 
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 3-2 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

• The alternative would require the acquisition and demolition of at least three 

industrial buildings.

• The alternative could present a safety hazard to workers and disruption of existing 

industrial operations because it would cross through an existing busy industrial area 

where goods and materials would actively cross the tracks between buildings.

• The alternative would require coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) because of the route’s proximity to the south side of the Moses Lake 

Municipal Airport.

There is one variation between the Piercy Alternative proposed in 2009 and the route

the commenter is proposing in 2019 relating to Bonanza Street. In 2009, the Piercy 

Alternative ran parallel to Bonanza Street. The route being proposed in the comments

here appears to locate the track directly on Bonanza Street, thereby eliminating it from 

all non-rail use. The removal of Bonanza Street would disrupt traffic in the area south of 

the municipal airport. In addition, this area is an industrial area and the proposed 

alignment would require demolition of industrial buildings. Exhibit 3.1 shows the 

commenter alternative proposed in 2019. 

OEA finds again that this alternative is not reasonable or practical due to technical

issues associated with the Scalley Lead Track, coordination with FAA, economic factors

associated with acquisition and demolition of industrial buildings, location of the track on 

Bonanza Street, and safety issues associated with existing industrial operations. 
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 3-3 

Exhibit 3.1 Segment 1 Commenter Proposed Route
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 3-4 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

3.2 Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation

Comment: USEPA recommended that information be included regarding consultation 

and coordination with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), and WDFW, including measures to reduce risks and protect biota and 

habitat since there are federal- and state-designated protection statuses for several 

species within the project area. 

Response: As noted in the DSEA, there are no federally-listed threatened, endangered, 

or candidate fish, wildlife or plant species in the project area, and there is no federallydesignated critical habitat.

10 Therefore, no further consultation or coordination with 

USFWS and NMFS is required. OEA included both agencies on the DSEA distribution 

list and did not receive comments from either agency. Consultant Jacobs Engineering 

Group Inc. (Jacobs)11 subsequently contacted USFWS and confirmed that OEA’s "no 

effect" determination does not require concurrence (see Appendix A Comments). 

Regarding state-listed threatened, endangered, or candidate fish, wildlife, or plant 

species, the DSEA notes the presence of four candidate wildlife species (burrowing owl, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, western grebe, and Clark’s grebe) and that the stateendangered northern leopard frog is no longer present in the project area. The DSEA 

also notes that since the Prior EA the bald eagle has been removed from the state’s 

threatened species list, walleye, bass, and mink have been removed from the state’s 

priority species list, and that construction of the rail crossing over Crab Creek rather 

than Parker Horn would result in fewer impacts to biological resources.12

Consultant Jacobs consulted with WDFW to confirm the current status of state fish, 

wildlife, and plant species and to review and develop appropriate measures to avoid, 

minimize and/or mitigate potential impacts to biota and habitat.13 These measures 

include limitations on construction activities, in-water and near-water work timing 

restrictions to protect fish spawning and grebe nesting, burrowing owl nesting surveys 

and potential artificial burrow installations, installation of bat boxes, and preservation 

and replanting of vegetation. After consultation and coordination with WDFW, five

measures were revised, and one measure was deleted since the Prior EA. The deleted

measure is associated with the northern leopard frog that is no longer present in the 

project area (see Chapter 6 Final Recommended Mitigation – Fish, Wildlife, and 

Vegetation – Measures 7 through 14).

Comment: WDFW commented that during communications and coordination with 

Jacobs regarding minimizing or avoiding potential impacts to nesting Clark’s grebes, a 

state candidate species, WDFW recommended that Project-related construction

 

10 See Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (July 11, 2019) at pages 4-7 

through 4-10 (DSEA).

11 Contractor Jacobs is working under OEA’s direction in the preparation of this 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment .

12 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at pages 5-5 and 5-6.

13 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) Appendix C.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 3-5 

activities remain outside 300’ of the stream channel from June 1st to September 1st and 

requested that this specified information be included in the Final EA. 

Response: A revision has been made to Mitigation Measure 8 (formerly Measure 9 in 

the DSEA) to specify that construction activities remain 300’ outside of the stream 

channel from June 1 to September 1 to minimize or avoid impacts to nesting Clark’s 

grebe (see Chapter 6 Final Recommended Mitigation – Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation).

3.3 Hazardous Materials

Comments: USEPA made the following comments regarding existing and potential 

contaminated sites: 

• Because of the existence of contaminated sites in the project area and the possibility 

that more contaminated sites could be discovered during construction of the project, 

we recommend that the STB coordinate with the USEPA Superfund Program as the 

project is implemented so that the STB actions are consistent with agreed upon 

remedies for the contaminated sites cleanup.

• We also recommend the final EA include a monitoring program designed to assess 

both impacts from the project and effectiveness of mitigation measures for the 

impacts. Please indicate how the program would use an effective feedback 

mechanism, such as through adaptive management, so that any needed 

adjustments can be made to the projects to meet environmental objectives during 

this project operations and maintenance. For example, monitor emerging 

contaminants and take corrective action if pollutant levels exceed standards or pose 

risk to human health and the environment. 

Response: The DSEA notes that hazardous materials mitigation measures imposed by 

STB in its 2009 Authorization Decision would avoid or minimize potential impacts from 

hazardous materials, and that OEA proposes to impose these same mitigation 

measures at the newly identified sites in Segment 1 and in Modifications 2B and 2C.

14 

OEA outlined five mitigation measures in the DSEA, one of which was revised to 

incorporate newly identified sites15, and continues to recommend these mitigation 

measures in this FSEA (see Chapter 6 Final Recommended Mitigation – Hazardous 

Materials – Measures 15 through 19). Additionally, revisions have been made to 

Mitigation Measure 15 in this FSEA (formerly Measure 17 in the DSEA) to include 

coordination with the USEPA Region 10 Superfund program to maintain consistency 

with remedies agreed upon by USEPA for contaminated sites, and to incorporate any 

new sites that may be encountered during construction. 

Regarding a monitoring program, Mitigation Measure 17 in the DSEA requires the Port 

to coordinate with USEPA regarding existing available information and the need to 

conduct additional investigations (known as Phase II Environmental Site Assessments 

 

14 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at pages 5-7 and 5-8.

15 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at pages 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 3-6 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

or ESAs)16 in areas of known or potential contamination prior to initiating construction 

activities.17 If additional site investigations are conducted, additional measures and a 

monitoring program, to be implemented during construction activities, may be 

recommended. The additional mitigation measures and monitoring program, if needed, 

would be developed for specific sites or locations in coordination with USEPA. 

Principals of adaptive management,

18 which encourage continuous re-evaluation and 

management prioritization of site activities to account for new information and changing 

site conditions, would be employed during implementation of the mitigation measures 

and monitoring program.

Additional revisions have been made to Mitigation Measure 15 in this FSEA to include a 

monitoring program, if USEPA determines that it is warranted, and to incorporate 

adaptive management (see Chapter 6 Final Recommended Mitigation – Hazardous 

Materials). 

3.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Comments: Several comments were received from the Washington State Utilities and 

Transportation Commission (UTC) reiterating their concerns about safety at a nondesignated pedestrian crossing of Segment 3 near the Longview Elementary School. In 

its comment letter, UTC continues to express the following concerns from their 2009 

comment letter on the Prior EA: 

• Citizens, including students, were crossing over the tracks to reach Longview 

Elementary School and crossing them again when they returned home. There is no 

designated pedestrian crossing at this location, making it particularly hazardous for 

students.

• At the time, multiple ideas were discussed including construction of a pedestrian 

crossing or underpass, redirecting students to an existing crossing, installing fencing 

to channel student to a single crossing site, or replacing existing fencing to keep 

students off the tracks.

• UTC recommends that the Port focus particular attention on this issue during the 

acquisition and rehabilitation of Segment 3. UTC staff is available to provide 

additional guidance to the Port on this matter. 

Response: Because the Port is not proposing to modify Segment 3 from what was 

originally approved by the STB in 2009, a re-evaluation of the acquisition of Segment 3 

was not part of the DSEA, and discussion concerning Segment 3 was minimal. The 

Prior EA noted that UTC, a State representative, the CBRW, and school officials met in 

2008 to discuss options for a designated pedestrian crossing or other safety device, 

including the options noted in the previous bulleted list.

19 At that time, a pedestrian 

 

16 A Phase II ESA tests subsurface soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater and evaluates the 

presence or absence of petroleum products or hazardous substances.

17 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at page 6-3.

18 See Final EA (May 2009) at page 2-10.

19 See Final EA (May 2009) at page 2-10.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 3-7 

underpass/tunnel was determined to not be practicable. However, the use of fencing or 

other means to channel students to a single crossing site was noted as a reasonable 

suggestion, along with the Prior EA’s recommended Mitigation Measure 30 (rail safety 

program such as Operation Lifesaver) and Mitigation Measure 31 (coordination with the 

Port, CBRW, and Moses Lake School District to identify and implement practicable and 

safe crossings).20

OEA recommended these mitigation measures in the DSEA21 and continues to 

recommend them in this FSEA. A revision has been made to Mitigation Measure 28

here (formerly Measure 30 in the DSEA) to include coordination with UTC (see Chapter

6 Final Recommended Mitigation – Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice).

3.5 Traffic and Transportation

Comments: The following comments were received from UTC regarding the Modified 

Alignment, new at-grade crossings and proposed warning devices, and petitions

required for UTC approval of the crossings: 

• UTC supports the proposed Modification 1B with at-grade crossings perpendicular to 

roadways. 

• UTC prefers Modification 2C instead of Modification 2B because it involves 

construction of fewer new at-grade rail crossings, avoids the possibility of blocked 

crossings, and utilizes safer perpendicular crossings rather than skewed crossings 

contained in Modification 2B and the Segment 2 Original Alignment. 

• A description of the proposed warning devices at these crossings was not provided.

• The Port will need to formally withdraw its Original Alignment crossing petitions 

approved by the UTC in 2010 and file a revised petition for approval to construct 

crossings in Modification 1B, and Modification 2B or 2C, including any changes to 

previously-approved warning devices. UTC notes that the Port's petitions at that time 

did not indicate the potential for crossing blockages (associated currently with 

proposed Modification 2B). 

• Prior to petition filing, UTC recommends that the Port convene diagnostic review 

meetings with affected parties, including the appropriate road authority, the railroad, 

and UTC staff. The diagnostic review team would appropriately evaluate the 

proposed crossings and surrounding areas with input from all parties and agree on 

the appropriate levels of protection.

Response: The Port has represented to OEA that it intends to formally withdraw its 

2010 petition to the UTC and file a revised petition that includes all new proposed atgrade crossings for the Modified Alignment, pending STB’s final decision. The Port 

states that the revised petition would describe whether passive warning devices 

(signage only, no lights) or active warning devices (lights and/or gates and lights) would

be constructed at each crossing based on updated traffic counts and federal, state and 

 

20 See Final EA (May 2009) at page 2-11.

21 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at page 6-6.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 3-8 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

local guidance, requirements, and laws. 

Project design to-date includes the following proposed warning devices:

• Modification 1B - active devices at Wheeler Road and Road L NE, and a passive 

device at Industrial Street.

• Modification 2B – active devices at Randolph Road, Road 7 NE, and Tyndall Road, 

and passive devices at Turner Road and Graham Road. 

• Modification 2C – active devices at Road 7 NE and Tyndall Road, and a passive 

device at Road 6.7 NE.

In addition to requiring the Port to consult with appropriate federal, state, and local 

transportation agencies to determine the final design of the grade crossings and 

associated warning devices, Mitigation Measure 36 (formerly Measure 38 in the 

DSEA22) has been revised to address the submittal and contents of new crossing 

petitions and convening of diagnostic review meetings to evaluate appropriate levels of 

crossing protection (see Chapter 6 Final Recommended Mitigation – Traffic and 

Transportation). 

Comment: One comment from a private individual (on the Petition to Reopen) 

expressed concerns about the proposed alignment in Segment 1 crossing Wheeler 

Road twice at a 45-degree angle.

Response: There is an existing 45-degree angled/skewed crossing of Wheeler Road

near the starting point/east end of Segment 1. This skewed crossing is owned by the 

Columbia Basin Railroad Company, Inc. (CBRW) and is not part of the Port’s NCBRP. 

Rather, the Project joins/starts at the existing CBRW track after it crosses Wheeler 

Road.23 Additionally, the DSEA notes that the second crossing of Wheeler Road in the 

Modified Alignment (between Road L NE and S. Hamilton Road), which is part of the 

NCBRP, would be a safer, perpendicular crossing.24 

3.6 Water Resources

Comments: USEPA submitted the following comments regarding impacts from 

construction activities, compliance with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and state 

water quality standards (WQSs), permitting requirements, and overall protection of 

water resources: 

• Construction activities may impact water resources, particularly from increased 

turbidity and sedimentation of downstream waters at crossings of Crab Creek and 

irrigation canals.

 

22 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at page 6-7.

23 See DSEA (July 11, 2019), Exhibit ES.1 at page ES-5.

24 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at pages ES-4, 2-2, 3-1, 3-3, 5-12, and 7-1. 
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 3-9 

• Include information to demonstrate that the proposed action would comply with antidegradation provisions of the Clean Water Act to prevent deterioration of water 

quality within waterbodies that currently meet water quality standards.

• Discuss the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

application process and measures to protect water quality; project construction 

would disturb a land area of one or more acres, subjecting it to the NPDES 

permitting requirements and a related Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) and construction best management practices (BMPs).

• Provide the most current information regarding the status of the State of 

Washington’s CWA Section 401 water quality certification (WQC) and any conditions 

of the certification that assure the project would meet state WQSs especially for 

temperature, dissolved oxygen and turbidity within the affected waters in the project 

area.

• Coordinate with the Washington State Department of Ecology and all affected tribes 

to assure that state and tribal water resources are protected from impacts 

associated with the proposed project’s construction and operation activities.

Ecology also submitted several comments regarding discharges of sediment or other 

pollutants to state waters, erosion and sediment control measures, and BMPs.

• Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the State 

without a permit violates RCW 90.48-Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A. 

Even on projects that do not require a permit, the applicant shall not discharge 

polluting matter into Waters of the State of Washington or Municipal Separate Storm 

Sewer System.

• The applicant must utilize adequate erosion and sediment control measures 

throughout the project. 

• Implement and maintain BMPs throughout the entirety of the project. 

• Comments made do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations 

you may need to obtain, nor legal requirements you may need to fulfill in order to 

carry out the proposed action. Applicants should remain in touch with their Local 

Responsible Officials or Planners for additional guidance. 

Response: The DSEA notes that the proposed Modified Alignment would not change 

construction or operational impacts on water resources identified in the Prior EA, and 

mitigation measures that were imposed by the 2009 Authorization Decision and 

included in the DSEA would avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts.25 

OEA believes that the water resource-related mitigation measures in the DSEA and this 

FSEA sufficiently address the issues raised in USEPA’s comments regarding 

sedimentation, anti-degradation, pollutants, and planning requirements. There are 10 

water resource-related mitigation measures in the DSEA and this FSEA that mandate 

compliance with federal, state and local stormwater management requirements; 

 

25 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at page 5-15.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 3-10 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

preparation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan, a 

Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESC) and a SWPPP; implementation 

of erosion and sediment controls and BMPs; compliance with CWA Section 402 

NPDES, Section 404, and Section 401 WQC and permitting requirements; and other 

related items (see FSEA Chapter 6 Final Recommended Mitigation – Water Resources, 

Measures 39 through 48).

Specifically, Mitigation Measure 40 (Measure 42 in the DSEA) requires the Port to 

comply with federal, state, and local stormwater management regulations, including 

Ecology’s Stormwater Manual for Eastern Washington and the federal NPDES program 

for construction stormwater, which are also required by the City of Moses Lake’s 

stormwater regulations to prevent unauthorized discharges into the City’s municipal 

storm system or into surface waters. 

There are no water resources present in Segment 2 and no water resources present in 

either proposed Modification 2B or Modification 2C.

26 As required by Mitigation 

Measures 7, 40, 45 and 47, the Port will submit water resource-related permit 

applications for Segment 1/Modification 1B after STB issues its authorization decision 

on the Modified Alignment and associated environmental mitigation. Should the STB 

authorize the Project, the Port would consult and coordinate with USACE for submittal 

of a Section 404 permit (Mitigation Measures 45 and 47), with Ecology for submittal of a 

NPDES permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) (Mitigation Measures 

40, 45, and 47), and with WDFW for a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) (Mitigation 

Measures 7 and 47), as required by federal and state laws and STB’s final imposed 

mitigation measures for the Project (see Chapter 6 Final Recommended Mitigation). 

The Port would comply with requirements of the NPDES and Section 404 permits, the 

Section 401 WQC, and the HPA (Mitigation Measure 47), and would include all permit 

conditions in any construction documents that the Port provides to contractors

(Mitigation Measure 55) (see Chapter 6 Final Recommended Mitigation – Water 

Resources and - Permit Conditions). A Section 401 WQC and any included conditions

would ensure that the Project complies with the anti-degradation provisions of the CWA 

and with state WQSs.

Regarding coordination with all affected Tribes to assure that state and tribal water 

resources are protected, the affected Tribes were included on the distribution list for the 

DSEA, and OEA notes that no comments were received. However, USACE and 

Ecology are required to notify and consult with the affected Tribes regarding water 

resource protection during the future CWA Section 404, Section 401 WQC, and Section 

402 NPDES permitting processes for the Project.

3.7 Wetlands

Comments: USEPA requested updated information on the CWA Section 404 permit 

application process and any proposed mitigation measures for impacts to aquatic 

 

26 See DSEA (July 11, 2009) at page 5-14.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 3-11

resources resulting from wetlands that could be filled in the project area.

Response: The DSEA notes that mitigation measures imposed in the 2009 

Authorization Decision that are included in the DSEA, along with new and/or different 

mitigation measures reflecting current regulatory agency guidance, would result in no 

significant adverse impacts to wetlands.27

There are six mitigation measures in the DSEA and this FSEA that address

minimization and avoidance of wetland impacts (Mitigation Measures 50, 51, 52, and 

54), compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts (Mitigation Measures 52 and 53), 

and compliance with additional mitigation measures that may be required by federal, 

state and/or local agencies (Mitigation Measures 52 and 53) (see Chapter 6 Final 

Recommended Mitigation – Wetlands, Measures 49 through 54). 

There are no wetlands present in Segment 2, and no wetlands present in either 

proposed Modification 2B or Modification 2C.28 The Port will submit wetland-related 

permit applications for Segment 1/Modification 1B after the STB issues its authorization 

decision on the Modified Alignment and associated environmental mitigation, and after 

additional field work and analysis can be conducted for properties previously 

unavailable for wetland assessment (Mitigation Measures 47 and 49). 

Should the STB authorize the Modified Alignment, the Port would consult and

coordinate with USACE for submittal of a CWA Section 404 permit and with Ecology for 

submittal of a CWA Section 401 WQC (Mitigation Measures 45 and 47), and with the 

City of Moses Lake for permits associated with the City’s Shoreline Management Master 

Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance (Mitigation Measures 52 and 53) in accordance with 

federal, state and local laws and STB’s imposed mitigation measures for the project 

(see Chapter 6 Final Recommended Mitigation – Wetlands and - Water Resources). 

 

27 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at page 5-16.

28 See DSEA (July 11, 2019) at page 5-15.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 4-1 

Chapter 4. Port’s Response to the DSEA

After OEA issued the DSEA, the Port submitted a comment in which it outlined design 

changes that would affect certain roadways in proposed Modification 1B and 

Modification 2C (see Appendix A Comments). The Port stated that the design changes 

were prompted by continued design refinement and the review of comments to the 

DSEA, including comments by UTC regarding crossings and roadways. The Port’s 

comments include the following design change descriptions, which are followed by

OEA’s response.

1. In Segment 1, Modification 1B, the design in the DSEA included closing off 

Industrial Street and extending Silva Street. Under the design change, the Port 

would construct a new, perpendicular at-grade crossing of Industrial Street to 

maintain access to industrial properties, rather than closing off Industrial Street 

and constructing an extension of Silva Street. The Port stated that this design 

edit would have no environmental impact, including no impact to traffic and 

transportation.

2. In Segment 2, Modification 2C, additional design work revealed the need to 

avoid utilities and construction of two long, skewed (and less safe) crossings of 

Road I NE located south of the GCIA industrial area. To avoid these negative 

impacts, Modification 2C would need to be constructed over a portion of Road I 

NE. That portion of the road would need to be vacated (or closed) with Grant 

County. 

To maintain access for three residences located on other portions of Road I NE, 

the Port would change the existing Road I NE by constructing a cul-de-sac on 

the road and a new, perpendicular at-grade crossing of Road 6.7 NE, and Road 

I NE would be closed between the cul-de-sac and Road 6.7 NE. The Port stated 

that the perpendicular crossing of Road 6.7 NE would be a safer design than 

the skewed (not perpendicular) crossings of Road I NE in the previous design. 

The Port also stated that it would consult with Grant County and other 

applicable parties when seeking UTC approval of the Road 6.7 NE at-grade 

crossing, and approval to vacate a portion of Road I NE. The Port stated that 

this design edit would have only a minor impact on vehicle traffic from rail 

construction and operation, and no other environment impacts.

The following Exhibit 4.1 shows the revisions planned for Road I NE. 
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 4-2 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Exhibit 4.1 Road I NE Plan (Modification 2C)
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 4-3 

Response:

1. The Port’s proposed Modification 1B, analyzed in the DSEA, would require 

closing off Industrial Street and extending Silva Street to maintain access to 

industrial properties. Under the Port’s proposed design change, the Port would 

construct a new, perpendicular at-grade crossing of Industrial Street to maintain 

access to industrial properties, rather than closing off Industrial Street and 

constructing an extension of Silva Street. OEA concurs with the Port’s statement 

that the perpendicular crossing would be safer than a skewed one because 

perpendicular crossings generally have less impediments to visibility for train 

and road traffic. After carefully reviewing the Port’s minor proposed design 

change to Modification 1B, OEA has determined that any potential 

environmental and transportation impacts would be comparable to those 

previously analyzed in the DSEA and discussed in DSEA Chapter 3, and, 

accordingly, sufficiently addressed in the mitigation measures set forth in DSEA 

Chapter 5. 

2. The Port’s proposed design change for Segment 2, Modification 2C, would 

replace a skewed crossing with a safer perpendicular crossing. The Port asserts 

that this change would not impact any residence directly, but would change the 

road access for three residences located nearby the closure of Road I NE 

between the cul-de-sac and Road 6.7 NE. After carefully considering this design 

change, OEA has concluded that it would have a minor impact on vehicle traffic 

from rail construction and operation and construction of the cul-de-sac. Any 

potential environmental and transportation impacts resulting from the Port’s 

minor proposed design change to Modification 2C would be comparable to 

those previously analyzed in the DSEA and discussed in DSEA Chapter 3 and 

are sufficiently addressed in the mitigation measures set forth in DSEA Chapter 

5. OEA is further revising Mitigation Measure 36 in this FSEA to require 

consultation with the three nearby residential owners in the grade crossing 

petitions with UTC and to require notice of the road closure process with Grant 

County

 
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 5-1 

Chapter 5. Conclusion

Based on an independent analysis of all information available to date, including the 

Prior EA, DSEA, and all comments received, OEA and FRA conclude that the 

construction of approximately 7.6 miles of rail line in Grant County, Washington would 

not result in any significant environmental impacts if the mitigation measures 

recommended in this FSEA are implemented.29 

OEA and FRA have determined that the environmentally preferred route for the 

Modified Alignment to the rail line is Modification 1B for Segment 1 and Modification 2C 

for Segment 2, incorporating the design changes proposed by the Port in its comment

discussed in Chapter 4 of this FSEA. Modification 1B for Segment 1 and Modification 

2C for Segment 2 are similar to the Original Alignment approved by STB’s 2009 

Authorization Decision, with minor adjustments that minimize impacts on existing land 

uses, including land development that has occurred in the project vicinity since 2009.30 

Segment 1/Modification 1B would still involve construction of approximately 4.5 miles 

of new track from a connection with a rail line of the Columbia Basin Railroad Company, 

Inc. (CBRW) in the community of Wheeler on the east side of the City of Moses Lake, to 

a connection with CBRW’s rail line just west of the Crab Creek water crossing. 

However, the following modifications would be made:

1. Redesign a curve and industrial and other driveway crossings at the 

beginning/east end to accommodate the existing topography. 

2. Shift the rail line approximately 86 feet southward at the eastern end, south 

of/along Wheeler Road, to avoid the Grant County Public Works facility, a buried

gas line, and three buildings. 

3. Shift the rail line slightly to the north near EL 20, south of Wheeler Road, to 

avoid an irrigation pivot and to maximize cropland usability. 

4. Add a new curve south of Wheeler Road to make a safer, perpendicular rail 

crossing at Wheeler Road, and to minimize property needed along the frontage 

of Wheeler Road. 

5. Add a new curve north of Wheeler Road to cross Industrial Street, rather than 

Hamilton Road NE, to avoid removal of a newly constructed building and 

impacts to utilities in Hamilton Road NE (Hamilton Road NE and Industrial 

Street did not exist when the Project was originally designed). 

 

29 Any discussion regarding potential environmental impacts associated with the 

acquisition of the approximately three miles of track in Segment 3 was incorporated 

into the DSEA by reference to the Prior EA.”

30 Segment 3 involves acquisition and rehabilitation of approximately 3 miles of CBRW 

track that connects Segments 1 and 2. Because the Port is not proposing to modify 

Segment 3, it remains as approved by the STB in its 2009 Authorization Decision.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 5-2 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

6. Construct a new, perpendicular at-grade crossing of Industrial Street to maintain 

access to industrial properties, rather than closing off Industrial Street and 

constructing an extension of Silva Street. 

7. Deviate the rail line slightly to the west between Hamilton Road NE and 

Broadway Avenue to minimize impacts to a wetland, avoid rock outcrops, and 

enable the rail line to better follow existing topography. 

8. Install culverts instead of bridges for the crossings of historic, earthen irrigation/ 

drainage ditches at RCD 180+182 and EL 20.31

This numbered list of modifications corresponds to numbered locations shown on the 

following Exhibit 5.1; the exhibit illustrates the Segment 1 Original Alignment and the 

Modification 1B alignment.

 

31 See Preliminary EA, at page 5-5. Crossings were generally mentioned in the 2009 

Authorization Decision, slip op at 19. See also 2009 Final EA, at pages ES-20 and 

5-16.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 5-3 

Exhibit 5.1 Modification 1B
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 5-4 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Segment 2/Modification 2C would still involve construction of approximately 3 miles of 

new track from the existing CBRW line to the eastern side of the GCIA as in the Original 

Alignment. However, the following modifications would be made: 

1. Remove a curve and straighten the alignment at the beginning/south end 

immediately northeast of the connection with the existing CBRW rail line. 

2. Reduce the length of track construction by approximately 2,000 feet. 

3. Eliminate rail crossings of Randolph Road immediately south of and within the 

GCIA industrial area. 

4. Shift the alignment further east and away from Randolph Road to minimize 

conflicts with utilities (storm drain, sewer, power, natural gas) that emanate from 

and/or parallel the road. 

5. Continue north with the eastern alignment shift, bisecting undeveloped portions 

of existing industrial parcels to allow for future spur sidings and turnouts that 

would avoid existing buildings and serve both existing and future industrial 

tenants. 

6. Avoid crossing primary access driveways to existing industrial tenants along 

Randolph Road and substantially reduce the amount of grading.

This numbered list of modifications corresponds to numbered locations shown on the

following Exhibit 5.2; the exhibit illustrates the Segment 2 Original Alignment and the 

Modification 2C alignment.

Additionally, Modification 2C is preferable to Modification 2B because it involves 

construction of fewer new at-grade rail crossings, avoids the possibility of 

simultaneously blocked crossings contained in Modification 2B, and utilizes safer 

perpendicular crossings rather than skewed crossings contained in Modification 2B and 

the Segment 2 Original Alignment. 
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 5-5 

Exhibit 5.2 Modification 2C
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 5-6 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

The Port would construct the rail line within a 100-foot-wide right-of-way32 during 

daytime hours over a period of 14 to 20 months, depending on project phasing, 

contractor scheduling, material availability, and environmental constraints (WSDOT 

2008). The following new features would be constructed:

• A bridge crossing over Crab Creek.

• At-grade rail crossings of the following public roads:

– Segment 1 – Road L NE, Wheeler Road, and Industrial Street.

– Segment 2 Modification 2C - Tyndall Road, Road 7 NE, and Road 6.7 NE.

• Culvert crossings of four irrigation canals/drainage ditches.

The Port anticipates one round-trip train weekly increasing to a maximum of one roundtrip train daily as the need for future freight rail develops, and trains consisting of up to 

10 cars traveling at a maximum of 25 mph, with a normal operating speed of 15 to 20 

mph (WSDOT 2008). 

 

32 The right-of-way may be wider at certain locations along the rail corridor to 

accommodate laydown and staging areas and other construction needs, and/or 

depending on condemnation or property purchase negotiations with current 

landowners. The Port will be negotiating property acquisitions needed for the Project 

right-of-way. 
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 6-1 

Chapter 6. Final Recommended Mitigation

Based on the information available to date, the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) 

Office of Environmental Analysis’ (OEA) independent analysis of the proposed rail line, 

the Prior Environmental Assessment (EA), the Draft Supplemental EA (DSEA), all 

comments received, and mitigation requested by various federal, state, and local 

agencies, OEA recommends that any final decision by STB authorizing the Port of 

Moses Lake’s (Port) proposed rail line Modified Alignment be subject to the following 

mitigation measures.33

The following final mitigation measures recommended by OEA are organized by 

environmental resource area. If a measure imposed by the 2009 Authorization Decision 

has been revised, it is followed by notes in parentheses indicating whether it was 

revised in the DSEA and/or in the Final Supplemental EA (FSEA). Measures imposed in 

2009 and recommended again here without changes have no notes. Some minor 

editorial changes that do not affect the substance of the mitigation imposed in 2009

have been made for clarity. 

The measures listed here are the same as those included in the DSEA except for 

revisions to what are now mitigation measures 7, 8, 11, 15, 28, 36, and 53. Numbering 

has been changed to be consecutive.

Air Quality

1. The Port34 shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and appropriate

fugitive dust suppression controls, such as spraying water on haul roads adjacent 

to construction sites and exposed soils, street sweeping, covering loaded trucks, 

and washing haul trucks before they leave the construction site.

2. The Port shall comply with the requirements of all applicable federal, state, and 

local regulations regarding open burning and the control of fugitive dust related to 

rail line construction activities. 

3. The Port shall revegetate areas disturbed during construction with native grasses 

or other appropriate native habitat as soon as possible after construction 

activities are completed, to minimize windblown dust.

 

33 If there are conflicts between the measures in this Chapter and any federal, state, or

local requirements for the Project that are not preempted under the Interstate 

Commerce Act, such federal, state, or local requirements shall prevail and supersede 

these measures.

34 It is understood that the Port may utilize contractors, in which case the Port shall 

ensure that its contractors implement the mitigation measures imposed in this 

proceeding. The Port must also ensure that its operator of the line complies with all 

mitigation measures, including the Programmatic Agreement (PA), applicable to line 

operators.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 6-2 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

4. The Port shall shut off construction equipment when it is not in use to reduce 

idling emissions.

5. The Port shall verify that construction equipment is properly maintained and 

regularly inspected and that required pollution control devices are in good 

working condition.

Cultural, Historic, and Archaeological Resources

6. The Port shall comply with the terms of the June 2009 Programmatic Agreement 

(PA), as amended on July 3, 2019, which sets forth the steps for the identification 

and evaluation of historic properties, including archaeological sites, as well as the 

mitigation of any adverse effects. The PA addresses unanticipated historic or 

cultural properties, archaeological sites, human remains, funerary items, or 

assorted artifacts if discovered during Project construction. (Originally revised

in the DSEA; the DSEA revision combined Measures 6 and 7 of the 2009 

Authorization Decision.) 

Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation

7. The Port shall abide by construction timing and guidelines stipulated by the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) through the Hydraulic 

Project Approval (HPA). If there are differences between other mitigation 

measures for this Project and the conditions of the HPA, the HPA shall take 

precedence. (Originally revised in the DSEA as Measure 8. Revised in the 

FSEA to clarify that the HPA takes precedence if there are other conflicting 

mitigation measures.) 

8. The Port shall consult with WDFW and comply with its applicable laws and 

regulations so that project-related construction activities are conducted in a 

manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to birds and bats (e.g., roosting bald 

eagles, over-wintering waterfowl, migrating shorebirds, foraging bats, and nesting 

birds). Such measures include, but are not limited to, avoidance of work that 

could impact these species, such as construction activities, within 300 feet of the 

Crab Creek stream channel from June 1 to September 1. (Originally revised in 

the DSEA as Measure 9. Revised to add last sentence regarding distance 

and timing restriction in the FSEA.)

9. To minimize disturbance to wildlife and vegetation to the maximum extent 

possible, the Port shall limit construction activities, including staging areas and

vehicle turnaround areas, to the rail right-of-way or within previously disturbed 

areas to the maximum extent possible. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to 

the maximum extent possible. The Port shall replant disturbed areas with native 

flora and vegetation unless it would impair rail operations or maintenance.

(Originally revised in the DSEA as Measure 10.)
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 6-3 

10. To preserve water quality in aquatic or wetland habitat, the Port shall implement 

measures to prevent uncured concrete from coming into contact with surface 

waters, and all refueling shall occur more than 200 feet from a water body or 

wetlands.

11. The Port shall minimize the impacts that could result from over-water structures, 

such as the bridge crossing Crab Creek. To minimize or avoid impacts to walleye 

spawning, the Port shall comply with measures specified by WDFW. Such 

measures include, but are not limited to, avoidance of work within the waters of 

Crab Creek/Parker Horn between March 1 and early July. (Originally revised in 

the DSEA as Measure 12. Further revised for clarity in the FSEA.) 

12. To minimize or avoid impacts to nesting burrowing owls, the Port shall:

a. Conduct a directed survey for burrowing owl nests within 0.5 miles of the 

areas to be disturbed by construction. Surveys shall be done during the 

breeding season (April to June) and shall abide by a WDFW-approved 

protocol. Survey results shall be submitted to WDFW prior to the start of 

construction. If active nests or nests that could become active are located 

within the track alignment footprint, WDFW may require artificial burrow 

installations. Artificial burrows would be provided by WDFW and may be 

installed within the project right-of-way. (Originally revised in the DSEA

as Measure 13.a.) 

b. Avoid new construction work in areas within 200 meters of identified 

nesting areas close to Segment 1 and Segment 2 between February 15 

and September 25. If construction activities take place during this period, 

then the Port shall consult with the WDFW to ensure that construction 

activities are conducted in a manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to 

burrowing owls. (Originally revised in the DSEA as Measure 13.b.)

13. To minimize or avoid impacts to bald eagle roost trees, the Port shall locate the 

project alignment and support areas, such as staging areas, away from roost 

trees. If clearing of any roost trees is required, the Port shall create artificial 

roosts in an appropriate location near the existing roost.

14. To minimize or avoid impacts to Yuma myotis and Townsend’s big-eared bats, 

the Port shall install bat boxes (alternative bat roosting structures) to allow bat 

roosting near the Crab Creek crossing.35

Hazardous Materials

15. Prior to initiating any construction activities, the Port shall consult and coordinate 

with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Region 10 Office, 

USEPA Superfund program, and the Washington Department of Ecology

 

35 Measure 15 in the 2009 Authorization Decision was deleted in the DSEA because the 

northern leopard frog and its habitat are no longer present in the Project area. 
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 6-4 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

(Ecology) concerning any necessary additional investigations of identified 

contaminated sites and the remedies that may be required for those

contaminated sites. The Port shall also consult and coordinate with the USEPA 

Region 10 Office, USEPA Superfund program, and Ecology concerning any 

necessary additional investigations of contaminated sites encountered during 

construction and the remedies that may be required for those newly encountered

sites. If USEPA determines it is warranted based on the results of site 

investigations, a monitoring program will be developed and implemented during 

construction activities. The Port will employ principals of adaptive management 

during implementation of the mitigation measures and any monitoring program. 

Site-related consultation, investigation, and monitoring shall be conducted by a 

qualified environmental professional as defined by ASTM International and 

USEPA. The following contaminated sites have already been identified: (Revised

in the FSEA to add Superfund program, new sites encountered during 

construction, monitoring, and adaptive management; formerly Measure 17 

in the DSEA.)

a. On Segment 1 and Alternative 1A, the Bernard Cattle Company site at the

southwest corner of Broadway and Road 4 NE (Cherokee Road).

b. On Segment 1 and Alternative 1A, the Francis J. Jenny UST site north of 

Road 4 NE between the Bernard Cattle Company site and Crab Creek. 

(Originally recommended in the DSEA as a new item under Measure 

17.)

c. On Segment 1, the Grant County Road District No. 2 facility on the south 

side of Wheeler Road (Road 3 NE) just east of Road L.

d. On Segment 2, the Randolph Road Base Dump (EPA Site No. 8), and the 

Paint Hangar Leach Pit (EPA Site No. 22).

 e. On Modification 2B, Moses Lake Industries Inc. (Originally

 recommended in the DSEA as a new item under Measure 17.) 

f. On Segment 2, the Boeing polychlorinated biphenyl cleanup area located 

on Tyndall Road.

g. On Modification 2C, the Grant County Shooting Range, the Dumpster 

Wash Area, and the Base Closure Landfill. (Originally recommended in 

the DSEA as a new item under Measure 17.) 

16. The Port shall coordinate with the operator of the rail line to develop a Spill 

Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan and an emergency 

response plan. In a manner consistent with applicable legal requirements, the 

SPCC plan and emergency response plan shall address the following:

a. Definition of what constitutes a reportable spill.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 6-5 

b. Requirements and procedures for reporting spills to appropriate 

government agencies.

c. Equipment available to respond to spills and where the equipment will be 

located.

d. Training of personnel and training records.

e. List of government agencies and response personnel to be contacted in 

the event of a spill.

f. Measures to address the transport of hazardous materials by rail.

17. The Port shall observe the requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and other federal, state, and local applicable requirements concerning the 

handling and disposal of any hazardous waste or hazardous materials and cleanup in the event of a spill during construction.

18. The Port shall ensure that the operator of the rail line observes the requirements 

of FRA and other federal, state, and local applicable requirements concerning the 

handling and disposal of any hazardous waste or hazardous materials and cleanup in the event of a spill during rail operation.

36

19. The Port shall ensure that locomotives associated with project operations are 

checked regularly for leaks.

Land Use

20. To the maximum extent practicable, the Port shall advise businesses and the 

public of construction schedules in advance to minimize disruptions.

21. The Port shall abide by all requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

§ 4601 et seq.). Relocation assistance shall be provided for any commercial 

properties acquired for the Project.

22. To the extent practicable, the Port shall negotiate with affected property owners 

to minimize any project-related severance impacts, including impacts to irrigation 

systems. 

23. The Port shall submit form 7460 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) 

to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prior to construction.

 

36 The requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Hazardous 

Materials Regulations, 49 C.F.R. Parts 171-180, apply to the transportation by rail of 

hazardous waste and other hazardous materials, and are subject to enforcement by 

FRA.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 6-6 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Noise and Vibration

24. During construction, the Port shall ensure that manufacturer-recommended 

mufflers have been installed on all diesel-powered equipment and that all 

equipment is kept in good operating condition.

25. The Port shall ensure that construction within the boundaries of the City of Moses 

Lake will not occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. without prior approval by 

the City Council.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

26. During Project construction, the Port shall comply with applicable state, county, 

and city regulations or requirements regarding detour signs and the routing of 

construction vehicle traffic. The Port shall also provide proper notification of the 

construction schedule to the public and the nearest fire department and 

emergency response units.

27. The Port shall work with the operator of the rail line, the City of Moses Lake, 

community organizations, and Longview Elementary School to arrange for a rail 

safety program, such as Operation Lifesaver,37 to be offered at least once per 

year for as long as the Port operates trains over the rail line. (Originally revised 

in the DSEA as Measure 29.) 

28. The Port shall coordinate with the operator of the rail line, the Washington State 

Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC), and the Moses Lake School 

District, to help identify and implement practicable safe crossings and other 

potential rail safety measures. (Revised in the FSEA to add UTC.)

29. On Segment 3, the Port shall upgrade the existing crossing gate structures and 

signs to help provide better advance warnings of approaching trains for

pedestrians and drivers.

Soils and Geology

30. The Port shall construct the proposed Project in accordance with the American 

Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association guidelines.

31. The Port shall mitigate the potential liquefaction of loose or soft alluvium or other 

soils during an earthquake by designing foundation elements for reduced soil 

strength, accounting for potential ground displacements, and/or implementing 

ground improvements.

 

37 Operation Lifesaver seeks to educate drivers and pedestrians about making safer 

decisions at crossings and around railroad tracks. Information is available online at the 

Operation Lifesaver, Inc. website (https://www.oli.org/). 
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 6-7 

32. The Port shall minimize sedimentation and erosion in the project area by 

employing BMPs during construction.

33. The Port shall revegetate disturbed areas with native grasses as soon as 

practicable after Project construction ends.

Traffic and Transportation

34. The Port shall ensure, to the extent possible, that all construction vehicle activity 

associated with the construction of the proposed Project occurs during daytime 

hours. (Originally revised in the DSEA as Measure 36.)

35. The Port shall consider school bus schedules in planning and executing the 

necessary road work.

36. The Port shall consult with appropriate federal, state, and local transportation 

agencies, and the three residential landowners near Road I NE, and convene 

diagnostic review meetings to evaluate appropriate levels of crossing protection 

and to determine final design of the grade crossings and associated warning 

devices prior to submitting new crossing petitions to UTC. 38 In addition, the Port 

shall include notice to the three residential landowners near Road I NE in any 

road closure process with Grant County. (Revised in the FSEA to add the three 

residential landowners, diagnostic review meetings, and submittal of new 

crossing petitions to UTC.) 

37. The Port shall comply with applicable FRA track maintenance and inspection 

standards or ensure that the operator of the rail line does so. 

Visual Quality

38. To the extent practicable, the Port shall be responsible for the following:

a. Ensuring that only the vegetation that needs to be cleared for construction 

purposes is removed.

 

b. Using native flora and vegetation when replanting disturbed areas.

c. Adding compost to the soil before seeding or planting in order to increase 

plant establishment.

d. Ensuring that cut-and-fill slopes are blended with the form and line of the 

existing landscape through grading practices to enhance visual quality.

 

38 As part of the administration of the USDOT 2017 FASTLANE grant, which is being 

used to fund final design and construction of the Project, the Port shall submit 

engineering design sets to FRA for review and approval.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 6-8 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

e. Ensuring that vegetative buffers, such as trees or bushy shrubs, are 

located near residential areas to help screen the railroad corridor from 

viewers. These buffers should be located where additional vegetation 

would not impair visibility at road crossings. 

Water Resources

39. The Port shall ensure that any bridge constructed over Crab Creek is designed 

such that stormwater runoff does not enter the water body.39

40. For project-related construction, the Port shall comply with the stormwater 

management requirements of all federal, state, and local regulations regarding 

stormwater management, including Ecology's Stormwater Manual for Eastern 

Washington and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

requirements.

41. The Port shall prepare an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) and a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plan prior to 

construction. The temporary erosion control measures shall be inspected 

regularly by the Port and maintained as necessary to ensure that these 

measures are functioning properly.

42. Consistent with applicable legal requirements, the Port shall coordinate with the 

operator of the rail line to prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) plan to minimize any impacts associated with 

accidental spills of hazardous materials. The SPCC plan will require the 

development of a spill contingency plan and will provide for the implementation of 

containment and other countermeasures that could prevent spills from reaching 

navigable waters or wetlands.

43. The Port shall implement the following erosion and sedimentation controls:

a. Installing silt fencing with geotextile material along the proposed project 

area perimeter to filter sediment from unconcentrated surface water runoff.

b. Placing catch basin inserts in all new and existing catch basins receiving 

runoff from the disturbed areas of the Project.

c. Placing straw bales in paths of concentrated runoff to filter sediment.

d. Preserving existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible.

 

39 As part of the administration of the USDOT 2017 FASTLANE grant, which is being 

used to fund final design and construction of the Project, the Port shall submit 

engineering design sets to FRA for review and approval.
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 6-9 

e. Revegetating areas disturbed during construction with native grasses, 

where practicable. These areas shall be reseeded as soon as practicable 

following construction to prevent erosion.

f. Covering exposed soils with plastic or straw in the event of a major storm.

g. Constructing temporary ditches, berms, and sedimentation ponds to 

collect runoff and prevent discharge of sediment into drainages, streams, 

or wetlands.

h. Installing stabilized construction entrances and exits40 for truck access to 

the construction site to protect existing roadways and railroad tracks.

i. Cleaning any storm sewer facilities affected by project construction to 

prevent sediment from leaving the site after construction is completed and 

erosion control measures are removed.

44. If the erosion and sediment control measures described above are not adequate 

to control erosion and sedimentation, all work shall cease, and the Port shall 

consult with Ecology regarding additional erosion control or restoration measures 

to protect adjacent properties.

45. To avoid or minimize impacts to water resources during construction, the Port 

shall implement the following measures:

a. Consulting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and 

complying with the requirements of the Section 404 permitting process 

(Segment 1/Alternative 1A only).

b. Consulting with Ecology and complying with the requirements of the 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) process (Segment 

1/Alternative 1A only).

c. Locating equipment staging areas further than 200 feet from water bodies 

(Parker Horn, Crab Creek, or wetlands).

d. Leaving in place erosion control measures at culvert construction sites 

until the permanent culvert construction process is completed.

e. Coordinating with farmers and/or agricultural businesses regarding 

drainage issues that might arise.

 

40 A stabilized construction entrance involves placing blacktop or gravel along the edge 

of the roadway to avoid erosion or displacement of soil where trucks access and leave 

the roadway.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 6-10 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

f. Applying noxious weed control measures by an appropriately licensed 

contractor, using herbicides approved by the USEPA’s Region 10 Office. 

Herbicides shall not be applied during periods of high wind.

46. To prevent non-sedimentation pollutants (such as hazardous materials) from 

entering water bodies, the Port shall implement the following measures:

a. Handling and disposing of all pollutants used on-site during construction in 

a manner that does not contaminate stormwater, wetlands, irrigation 

canals, Parker Horn, or Crab Creek.

b. Establishing staging areas for equipment repair and maintenance at least 

200 feet from all wetlands or water bodies.

c. Inspecting all construction equipment regularly for any fuel, lube oil, 

hydraulic fluids, or antifreeze leaks. If leaks are found, the Port shall 

immediately remove the equipment from service and repair or replace it 

and remediate the spill.

d. Disposing any washout from concrete trucks in a manner that avoids 

dumping it into storm drains or onto soil or pavement.

e. Ensuring that thinners and solvents are used at least 200 feet from 

wetlands or water bodies. Capturing, containing, and properly disposing of 

thinners and solvents.

f. Requiring that fuel trucks maintain a minimum distance of 200 feet from 

water bodies and fueling construction vehicles away from sensitive areas, 

such as areas of permeable soils where a spill could more easily migrate 

to surface water. 

g. Designing staging areas to capture all runoff and/or spills.

h. On-site excavated material, and/or clean structural rock from local 

commercial quarries that meets the engineering design criteria for use in 

railroad construction, may be used for fill. On-site excavated materials 

used for fill shall be tested before it is placed into surface water to ensure 

it is free of polluting materials. On-site excavated material shall not be 

used for fill if polluting materials are found and shall be removed from the 

site using BMPs. (Originally revised in the DSEA as Measure 48.h.) 

47. The Port shall implement the following construction-related mitigation measures 

at the Crab Creek crossing:

a. Isolating cast-in-place concrete bridge piers or abutments from water in 

Crab Creek for seven days to allow the concrete to cure and to avoid 

toxicity to aquatic life. Uncured or wet concrete shall not come into contact 

with flowing waters. Any isolated water that comes into contact with wet 
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment Page 6-11

concrete and that has a pH greater than nine shall be pumped out and 

disposed of appropriately. (Originally revised in the DSEA as Measure 

49.a.) 

b. Consultation with USACE, Ecology, and WDFW, and compliance with the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, the Section 401 

WQC, and the HPA. 

48. To minimize the operational effects of the proposed Project on water resources, 

the Port shall implement the following railroad practices, or ensure that the 

operator of the rail line does so: 

a. Develop a bridge maintenance plan in compliance with FRA regulations.

b. Regularly check locomotives associated with the proposed operations to 

identify and repair fluid leaks or discharges.

Wetlands

49. Prior to submittal of wetland permit applications to appropriate federal, state, and 

local agencies, the Port shall perform additional field work and conduct analysis 

for the properties that were previously unavailable for wetland assessment.

50. The Port shall avoid or minimize disturbance to wetland areas whenever possible

during construction.

51. The Port shall not allow construction staging areas in wetlands, including 

wetlands located within the project right-of-way. (Originally revised in the 

DSEA as Measure 53.) 

52. The Port shall prepare a Wetland Mitigation Plan to describe measures to avoid 

and minimize impacts to wetlands. The following measures shall be included:

a. Compensating for unavoidable impacts by creating, restoring, or 

enhancing existing wetlands, or by purchasing compensatory wetland 

mitigation credits at an approved Wetland Mitigation Bank. (Originally 

revised in the DSEA as Measure 54.a.) 

b. Adhering to current agency guidance on wetland mitigation, Wetland 

Mitigation in Washington State41, as well as guidance in the City of Moses 

Lake’s Shoreline Management Master Plan and the Critical Areas 

Ordinance (for wetlands within the city), and complying with replacement 

 

41 Ecology, USACE Seattle District, and EPA Region 10. 2006. Wetland Mitigation in 

Washington State: Part 1 and Part 2. Version 1. Washington State Department of 

Ecology Publications #06-06-011a and #06-06-011b. Olympia, WA. March 2006.
November 2019 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project

Page 6-12 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment

ratios, buffer width, site selection criteria, and other criteria presented in 

this guidance.

c. Identifying a suitable off-site mitigation site.

d. Designing bridge span widths, fill slope angles, and the alignment to 

minimize impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources.

e. Restoring disturbed areas in native plant communities near Wetland A and 

in the Crab Creek area to improve habitats and buffer wetlands. 

(Originally revised in the DSEA as Measure 54.e.) 

f. Including habitat restoration to the extent practicable in the design of the 

proposed Crab Creek bridge to offset loss of wildlife habitats.

53. The Port shall mitigate wetland impacts at an available and approved Wetland 

Mitigation Bank if this is the preferred mitigation method of USACE and Ecology 

and shall comply with additional mitigation measures, if any, required by these 

agencies and the City of Moses Lake. If using a Wetland Mitigation Bank, the 

Port shall prepare a Mitigation Bank Use Plan that describes the appropriate 

categories, functions, and acreage of each impacted wetland and buffer and 

describes cost, credit ratio calculations, and available number of credits for 

purchase. The following impacted wetlands in Segment 1 shall be mitigated at an 

approved Wetland Mitigation Bank if the Port is required to do so by USACE, 

Ecology, or the City of Moses Lake: Wetland A, Wetland B, Wetland C and 

Wetland E. (Originally revised in the DSEA as Measure 55. Further revised

in the FSEA for clarity.) 

54. The Port shall ensure that irrigation ditches and canals are either avoided by 

spanning both banks with the crossing structure, or that a culvert is installed to 

allow water to flow beneath the rail fill.

Permit Conditions

55. Conditions of all permits shall be included in any construction documents that the 

Port provides to contractors. 
Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project November 2019 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

APPENDIX A 

COMMENTS 

 Ronald S. Piercy

 Port/Thompson Hine LLC Response to Ronald Piercy Comments

 State of Washington, Utilities and Transportation Commission

 State of Washington, Department of Ecology

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

 State of Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife

 Port/Thompson Hine LLC Regarding Road I

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Correspondence
Ronald S Piercy 

12319 Rd 4 NE 

Moses Lake WA 98837 

February 13, 2019 

Surface Transportation Board 

Washington RECEIVED FEB 15 2J19 DC 20423-0001 

Docket#: FD34936 

I am glad that the railroad plan for segment one of the Northern Columbia Basin Railroad project is being reviewed. 

I believe that there is a substantially better route for the railroad to take other then the one presently proposed. 

I have attached a map drawn by me of my proposed route compared to the NCBRR proposed route. My route is shorter 

resulting in less tract to build and less track for trains to have to transverse resulting in savings In fuel and wear on trains 

and tracks. 

My proposed route ls almost straight and takes out the twists and turns. It may require some fill on the East end. 

Wheeler road is a busy four lane road the proposed tracks cross wheeler in two places at a 45 degree angle. My 

proposed route stays North of Wheeler Road. 

My proposed route will serve industrial customers on the north side of wheeler road. In my proposal the county would 

vacate Bonanza road. The tracks would be built on this roadbed. Going west the south wing of one building would have 

to be removed and the now vacant building that was Commercial Tire would have to be removed. 

In this area agriculture is only possible with irrigation. This whole Columbia Basin Project was developed in the S0's by 

millions offederal dollars. Without the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project there would be no agriculture here and thus 

very little economy. The NCBRP proposed tracks are very disruptive to agriculture. In the eastern half of the United 

States there is sufficient rainfall to support agriculture. If you build a railroad through the middle of a field it is OK you 

can still farm on both sides of the railroad. By cutting across an irrigated field the irrigation systems are destroyed 

making it nearly impossible to continue farming the piece of property. If I was a farmer and the Railroad wanted to pass 

through one of my fields I would demand that the railroad purchase the whole property because I could no longer farm 

that property efficiently. 

I own two access just north of the proposed railroad and road 4. I have nothing to gain or loose depending on where i:he 

tracks are built except that I travel the roads in the area. I don't like to see wheeler road crossed twice. I think there is a 

better way. 

~ncerely, 

Ronald S Piercy 

cc: Port of Moses Lake 

Representative Tom Dent 

Congressman Dan Newhouse 

Senator Judy Warnick 
\-

_, 

iI 

··· --~~---,

\.iJ ..__~\.;_ 

:1---

"""g 1 

<:le" - . " . ··-- 1_.,• . 

··,.,_ 

~~---•· 
THOMPSON ATLANTA CLEVELAND DAYTON WASHINGTON,D.C - HINE _______ c_1_Nc- ,-N-NA_T_1 _____ co_L_UM- Bu_s ____ N_Ew_ v_o_RK_ ~~~~.:::.:..:;:; 

via electronic filing 

March 11, 2019 

Cynthia Brown 

Chief, Section of Administration 

Office of Proceedings 

Surface Transportation Board 

395 E Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20423 

Re: STB Finance Docket No. 34936, Port of Moses Lake - Construction 

Exemption - Moses Lake, Washington 

Dear Ms. Brown: 

On February 19, 2019, Ronald Piercy filed a letter in the above-captioned proceeding 

requesting that the Surface Transportation Board ("Board" or "STB") consider an alternative 

alignment for Segment 1 of the rail construction project that was approved by the Board in 

2009. The Board recently reopened this proceeding in order to consider minor project 

modifications proposed by the Port of Moses Lake ("Port"), and the Board invited comment 

"on the transportation merits ofthe proposed project as modified." 1 We note that Mr. Piercy's 

· letter is not limited to the transportation merits of the proposal. Mr. Piercy's letter focuses on 

requesting that the Board consider a wholly different route for Segment 1 of the project- a 

route, we note, that the Board already thoroughly evaluated in 2009 but found not reasonable 

due to a variety of technical and economic factors.2 The remainder of the February 19th letter 

then focuses on asserted impacts of the project on agriculture, irrigation, and local roads; these 

concerns are more appropriately considered by the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis 

("OEA"). 3 

Despite these issues and in case the Board deem any portion of Mr. Piercy's letter relevant to 

the transportation merits, the Port will briefly respond to the substance of Mr. Piercy's 

comments in the remainder of this reply. The most salient point is that the Board previously 

considered and rejected an alternative routing almost identical to that proposed now by Mr. 

Piercy. That earlier routing-which was also proposed by Mr. Piercy-was known as the 

"Piercy Alternative" and was addressed at length in the Final Environmental Assessment 

1 See Board reopening decision, slip op. at 3 (served January 28, 2019). 

2 See Final Environmental Assessment (May 8, 2009) at page 3-15. 

3 See Board reopening decision, slip op. at 3 (n. 7) ("The environmental review process, 

which is undertaken by OEA, is separate from the agency's consideration of the 

transportation merits of the proposed modified project. Correspondence commenting on the 

environmental impacts of the proposed route modifications may be submitted to OEA ... "). 

THOMPSON HINE LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

1919 M Street, N.W. 

Suite 700 

Washington, D.C. 20036-3537 

www.ThompsonHine.com 

Phone 202.331.8800 

Fax 202.331.8330 
T- HHOMPSON INE ____________________ _ 

March 11, 2019 

Page-2-

("Final EA") published in May 2009.4 In the recent letter, there appears to be only one minor 

update in the routing previously promoted by Mr. Piercy: whereas in 2009, the "Piercy 

Alternative" was said to be parallel and adjacent to Bonanza Street, Mr. Piercy now states that 

his offered routing would be built on top of the Bonanza Street roadbed, meaning that the road 

would be permanently closed. 5 

This minor update to the Piercy Alternative does not change the findings previously made by 

the Board, which still apply to the routing promoted by Mr. Piercy. After a thorough review, 

the Board rejected the Piercy Alternative as not reasonable "based on technical and economic 

factors." See Final EA at page 3-15. Assertions in Mr. Piercy's recent letter do not change 

these facts, as shown below: 

Feb. 19th assertion Board determination in 2008 

alternative requires rebuilding industrial track at east end, thus 

alternative is shorter requiring 5 .1 7 miles instead of 4. 7 miles for selected route 

(Final EA at p. 3-3 and 3-15) 

alternative is better alternative "could present a safety hazard to workers and 

because it avoids disrupt existing industrial operations" because it is routed 

crossing Wheeler Road across several roadways in: the midst of a busy industrial area 

twice (Final EA at p. 3-15)6 

thorough consideration was given to the alternative in light of 

alternative is better possible irrigation impacts, but the Board found the alternative 

because it avoids harm to "not practical based on technical and economic factors" (Final 

agriculture and irrigation EA at p. 2-4 and 3-15); the Port is required to negotiate with 

systems affected property owners to minimize any impacts to irrigation 

systems (Final EA at p. 2-2 and 5-9)7 

alternative is better alternative relies on industrial track at its eastern end; this because it is almost 

straight and removes 

industrial track has excessively tight turns typically not seen on 

turns through railroad track (Final EA at p. 3-15) 

4 The Piercy Alternative was examined thoroughly by the OEA staff, as described on pages 

ES-9, ES-11, ES-14, ES-15, 2-2, 2-4, 3-3, 3-11, and 3-14 through 3-18 of the Final EA. 

5 Compare Final EA at page 3-14 ("the alternative would parallel the south side of Bonanza 

Street") to Mr. Piercy's 2019 letter ("the county would vacate Bonanza road [sic]. The 

tracks would be built on this roadbed."). 

6 Additionally, the newly-revised Piercy Alternative would require wholesale elimination of 

another public street - Bonanza Street. 

7 Additionally, the modifications now being considered by the Board include adjustment of 

Segment 1 to avoid an irrigation pivot. 
THO - HINE MPSON _________________ _ 

March 11, 2019 

Page-3-

The Port has diligently endeavored to develop the project in a manner that would least impact 

existing land uses in the Moses Lake area, including agriculture and its supporting irrigation 

· infrastructure. Indeed, one of the main goals of the route modification is to reduce and 

minimize the impacts of the project on current land uses in the project area. 

In his recent letter, Mr. Piercy does discuss one issue that could be considered related to the 

transportation merits of the project. Specifically, he states that his alternative route would 

serve industrial customers on the north side of Wheeler Road. The alignment approved by the 

Board in2009 already enables service to the vast majority of industries north of Wheeler Road 

(as would the modified route now proposed by the Port) due to the preexisting industrial track 

at the east end of the project area. It is true that the Piercy Alternative could also provide rail 

access to a few small commercial buildings just west of L Street NE, which the approved 

alignment does not do. However, it is unlikely that any of these businesses would utilize the 

rail option, as they consist of very small, service-oriented "light industrial" zoned buildings 

which typically do not make use of freight rail service. · Furthermore, the Piercy Alternative 

requires demolition of several industrial and commercial buildings along Wheeler Road 

(including some west of L Street NE), not to mention elimination of the public Bonanza Street. 

The Port appreciates Mr. Piercy's interest in developing the best rail line for Grant County and 

the Moses Lake area, as that is identical to the Port's goal. The Port looks forward to working 

with area stakeholders as this project moves forward. Please do not hesitate to contact the 

undersigned if you have any questions. 

Best regards, 

Sandra L. Brown 

David E. Benz 

Thompson Hine LLP 

1919 M Street NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20036 

Attorneys for the Port of Moses Lake 

cc: Adam Assenza, Office of Environmental Analysis 
STATE OF WASHINGTON 

UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 

621 Woodland Square Loop S.E. • Lacey, Washington 98503 

P. O. Box 47250 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7250 

(360) 664-1160 • TTY (360) 586-8203 

August 9, 2019 

Adam Assenza 

Docket No. FD 34936 

Surface Transportation Board 

395 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 20423 

RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment - Northern Columbia Basin Railroad 

Project (FD 34936) 

Dear Mr. Assenza: 

The Washington Utilities and Transpo1iation Commission (UTC) submits the following 

comments in response to the Surface Transpmiation Board's (STB) draft supplemental 

environmental assessment (DSEA) for Docket No. FD 34936, published on July 11, 2019. 

The UTC has responsibility under Washington State law for regulating, inspecting, and 

establishing standards for safety at more than 2,800 public railroad crossings. The UTC also 

reviews and approves construction ofnew crossings and alteration, modification, or closure of 

existing crossings. 

Background 

In 2008, the Port ofMoses Lake (Pmi) filed a Petition for Exemption with the STB for authority 

to construct a new rail line and acquire an existing rail line for the No1ihern Columbia Basin 

Railroad Project (NCBRP). The project has three components: Segment One will construct 

approximately 4.5 miles ofnew track from Wheeler to Moses Lake, Segment Two will construct 

approximately 3 .1 miles ofnew track from an existing rail line to the east side ofthe Grant 

County International Airport (GCIA), and Segment Three involves acquisition and rehabilitation 

of approximately three miles of existing track that connects Segments One and Two. The Port of 

Moses Lake will own and construct the rail lines and the Columbia Basin Railroad Company will 

be the railroad operator. The purpose ofthe project is to provide rail service to lands and 

Respect. Professionalism. Integrity. Accountability. 
Adam Assenza 

August 9, 2019 

Page 2 

properties designated for industrial development in the no1ihern area ofMoses Lake, as well as 

the east side ofthe GCIA. 

The UTC did not offer specific comments on the Port's 2008 preliminary environmental 

assessment, but provided a copy ofa Jan. 9, 2009, letter from the UTC to a state legislator 

regarding rail safety issues at an elementary school located in the area of Segment Three ofthe 

project. 

The STB authorized construction and acquisition ofthe rail lines in 2009. In 2010, the P01t 

submitted petitions to the UTC to construct four new at-grade railroad crossings and reconstruct 

one existing crossing in the project area. The UTC approved these petitions with specific 

conditions; however, to the UTC's knowledge, the Port has not commenced construction or 

modification of these crossings. 

According to the DSEA, the NCBRP was delayed due to regional economic downturn and lack 

of funding. However, in 2017, the Port received grant funding to proceed with the project. 

Proposed Modifications 

To minimize impacts on existing land uses and otherwise fulfill the economic development 

objectives ofthe project, the Po1t requested that the STB approve modifications to the original 

petition for the NCBRP. The UTC limits its comments to these proposed modifications. 

• Modification 1B: This proposed modification involves construction of new at-grade 

crossings at Wheeler Road and Industrial Street. The proposed alignment for each crossing 

would be perpendicular with the roadway, instead of a skewed track alignment as originally 

proposed. No new crossing would be constructed at Hamilton Road NE. 

UTC comments: The UTC supp01ts the proposed modification. Whenever possible, 

crossings should be constructed with an alignment perpendicular to the roadway at or 

near 90 degrees, to improve safety and line ofsight for crossing users. A description of 

the proposed warning devices at these crossings was not provided. The P01i will need to 

file petitions with the UTC to receive approval for the construction ofthese new 

crossings. 

• Modification 2B: This proposed modification involves consh·uction oftwo new at-grade 

crossings at Randolph Road with skewed track alignment and one new at-grade crossing each 

at Turner Road, Graham Road, and Tyndall Road with perpendicular track alignment. The 

crossings at Turner, Graham, and Tyndall could potentially be blocked simultaneously for 
Adam Assenza 

August 9, 2019 

Page 3 

short periods oftime due to their proximity (approximately 500 to 1,000 feet apmt). 

Crossings would be protected with flashing lights but no gates. 

UTC comments: The UTC granted approval for construction of at-grade crossings at 

Graham, Tyndall, Turner, and a single at-grade crossing on Randolph Road in 2010; 

however, the P01t's petitions at that time did not indicate the potential for crossing 

blockages. The UTC approved the Tyndall and Randolph crossings to be constructed 

with a skewed track alignment, but the proposed perpendicular track construction is 

preferable. The UTC also approved installation ofpassive warning devices (signage only, 

no lights) at Graham, Tyndall, and Turner, and active warning devices (lights and gates) 

at Randolph Road. 

IfModification 2B is selected, the Port will need to submit revised petitions to the UTC 

articulating the changes proposed for each crossing and receive approval for those 

changes. The Port will also need to petition the UTC for approval for the construction of 

the second crossing on Randolph Road. 

• Modification 2C: This proposed modification reduces the number ofnew at-grade crossings 

from four to two. New crossings would be constructed at Tyndall Road and Road 7 NE, with 

perpendicular track alignment. Crossings would not be constructed at Randolph Road, Turner 

Road, and Graham Road. 

UTC comments: The UTC prefers Modification 2C, because it involves construction of 

fewer new at-grade crossings. The perpendicular track alignment is also preferred. In 

addition, this modification avoids the possibility for blocked crossings. 

IfModification 2C is selected, because the UTC has already approved new crossings at 

Randolph, Turner, and Graham, the P01t will need to fo1mally withdraw its petitions from 

the UTC to construct these crossings. The Port will also need to submit a revised petition 

for Tyndall Road to reflect the proposed modifications, and file a petition to construct the 

new at-grade crossing on Road 7 NE. 

Prior to petition filing, UTC staff recommends that the P01t convene diagnostic review meetings 

with affected parties, including the appropriate road authority, the railroad, and UTC staff. The 

diagnostic review team would appropriately evaluate the proposed crossings and surrounding 

areas with input from all parties and agree on the appropriate levels ofprotection. 
Adam Assenza 

August 9, 2019 

Page 4 

UTC staffreiterates the concerns expressed in its 2009 letter, which involve an area ofpedestrian 

trespass over the railroad tracks located in Segment Three ofthe project area. At the time, 

citizens including students were crossing over the tracks (not at a crossing) to reach Longview 

Elementary School and crossing them again when they returned home. There is no designated 

pedestrian crossing at this location, making it particularly hazardous for students. At the time of 

the letter, multiple ideas were discussed for improving safety at this location, including 

construction of a pedestrian crossing or underpass, redirecting students to existing crossings, 

installing fencing to channel students to a single crossing site, or replacing existing fencing to 

keep students off ofthe tracks. UTC staff recommends that the Port focus paiticular attention on 

this public safety issue during the acquisition and rehabilitation ofSegment Three ofthe project. 

UTC staffis available to provide additional historical information and guidance to the Port on 

this matter. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DSEA. For questions, please contact Betty 

Young, Rail Safety Program Advisor, at betty.young@utc.wa.gov or (360) 664-1202. 

Executive Director and Secretary 

cc: Jeffrey Bishop, Executive Director, Po1t ofMoses Lake 

Fred Snoderly, Municipal Services Director, City ofMoses Lake 

Tim Marshall, General Manager, Columbia Basin Railroad Company 

Ron Pate, Director, WSDOT Rail, Freight and Ports Division 
 

 

OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 

4601 N Monroe Street• Spokane/ Washington 99205-1295 • (509)329-3400 

August 9, 2019 

Adam Assenza 

Surface Transportation Board 

395 “E” St. SW 

Washington, DC 20423 

Re: Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project, Docket No. FD 34936 

Dear Adam Assenza: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the National Environmental Policy ActEnvironmental Assessment regarding the proposal analyze the potential environmental impacts 

of route modifications to an 11-mile rail line providing service to the northern area of the City of 

Moses Lake and eastern side of the Grant County International Airport (Proponent: Port of 

Moses Lake). The Department of Ecology (Ecology) has reviewed the documents and submits 

the following comments: 

Water Quality Program-Shannon Adams (509) 329-3610 

RCW 90.48.080 prohibits the discharge of polluting matter to Waters of the State of 

Washington. Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the 

State without a permit violates RCW 90.48-Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-

201A-Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington and may 

be subject to enforcement action. 

Even on projects that do not require a permit, the applicant shall not discharge polluting 

matter into Waters of the State of Washington or Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

System. The applicant must utilize adequate erosion and sediment control measures 

throughout the project. 

Please implement and maintain Best Management Practices throughout the entirety of the 

project. 

For technical assistance or additional information, please contact Shannon Adams at 

(509) 329-3610 or via email at Shannon.Adams@ecy.wa.gov. 
 

Adam Assanza 

August 9, 2019 

Page 2 

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 

Ecology bases comments upon information submitted for review. As such, comments 

made do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations you may need to 

obtain, nor legal requirements you may need to fulfill in order to carry out the proposed 

action. Applicants should remain in touch with their Local Responsible Officials or 

Planners for additional guidance. 

To receive more guidance on or to respond to the comments made by Ecology, please contact the 

appropriate staff listed above at the phone number or email provided. 

Department of Ecology 

Eastern Regional Office 

(Ecology File #: 201904396) 

cc: Richard Hanover, Dir of Business Development, Port of Moses Lake 
From: Mbabaliye, Theogene <Mbabaliye.Theogene@epa.gov> 

Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 7:50 PM

To: Assenza, Adam <Adam.Assenza@stb.gov> 

Cc: Martin, Bradley <martin.bradley@epa.gov> 

Subject: Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project - DOCKET NO. FD 34936

Dear Mr. Assenza:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the draft supplemental environmental 

assessment for the proposed Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project in Grant County, Washington 

(EPA Region 10 Project Number 19-0042-STB). Our comments are provided pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508), and 

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

The DSEA assesses potential environmental impacts associated with construction, operation and 

maintenance of an 11-mile-long railroad line in Grant County. This route would provide rail service to 

lands and properties designated for industrial development in the northern area of the City of Moses 

Lake, as well as to the eastern side of the Grant County International Airport (GCIA), to enhance 

opportunities for economic development, and to attract new rail-dependent businesses to those areas. 

After the initial analysis of the project in 2009, new circumstances and information led to the decision to 

analyze the project further and disclose the most current environmental impacts. We note that the original 

line segments 1 and 2 would be modified, resulting in a 0.5-mile reduction in the length of the route. 

We believe the DSEA includes analysis of specific resources that would be impacted by the proposed 

action, nature of the potential impacts, and measures that would be followed to minimize impacts. We find 

that most of the potential impacts from the project appear to be related to construction activities, which 

would result in long-term noise and land use impacts, but also impacts on other resources including water 

and biological resources. Although mitigation measures would be applied to keep the impacts from 

becoming significant, we believe that it would be important to coordinate with other federal and state 

agencies throughout the implementation of the project to ensure that activities are conducted in a manner 

protective of human health and the environment. We recommend that the Final EA include additional 

clarifying information as discussed below:

Potential impacts on contaminated sites

 Because of the existence of contaminated sites in the project area and the possibility that more 

contaminated sites could be discovered during construction of the project, we recommend that 

the Surface Transportation Board coordinate with the EPA Superfund Program as the project is 

implemented so that the STB actions are consistent with agreed upon remedies for the 

contaminated sites cleanup. The EPA Manger for the Site is: Martin Bradley and he may be 

reached at 206-553-4029 or at martin.bradley@.epa.gov. 

 We also recommend the final EA include a monitoring program designed to assess both impacts 

from the projects and effectiveness of mitigation measures for the impacts. Please indicate how 

the program would use an effective feedback mechanism, such as through adaptive 

management, so that any needed adjustments can be made to the projects to meet 

environmental objectives during this project operations and maintenance. For example, monitor 

emerging contaminants and take corrective action if pollutant levels exceed standards or pose 

risk to human health and the environment.

Potential impacts to water quality

As construction activities may impact water resources, particularly from increased turbidity and 

sedimentation of downstream waters at crossings of Crab Creek and irrigation canals, we recommend 

that the Final EA:

 Include information to demonstrate that the proposed action would comply with anti-degradation 

provisions of the Clean Water Act to prevent deterioration of water quality within waterbodies that 

currently meet WQSs;

 Discuss the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or NPDES permit application 

process and measures to protect water quality. The DSEA indicates that the project construction 

would disturb a land area of one or more acres, which would subject it to the NPDES permitting 
requirements for discharges to waters of the United States and related Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan, as well as construction best management practices; 

 Provide the most current information regarding the status of the State of Washington Clean Water 

Act Section 401 certification and any conditions of the certification that assure the project would 

meet the state water quality standards; especially for temperature, dissolved oxygen and turbidity 

within the affected waters in the project area, e.g., the Crab Creek;

 Including the updated information on the CWA Section 404 application process with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. The final EA should include any proposed mitigation measures for 

impacts to aquatic resources as a result of this project. The draft EA indicates that there wetlands 

in the project area that could be filled; and 

 The STB coordinate with the Washington State Department of Ecology and all affected tribes to 

assure that state and tribal water resources are protected from impacts associated with the 

proposed project’s construction and operation activities. 

Potential impacts to biological resources

Since there are federal- and state-designated protection statuses for several species within the project 

study area, we recommend that:

 The Final EA include information on work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and as appropriate, with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

including recommended measures to reduce risks and protect biota and habitat. The draft EA 

indicates there are fish-bearing creeks and other threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive 

species occurring within the project area, which could be impacted by the proposed project 

activities. Thus, the Final EA should include outcomes of consultations and coordination with the 

services and agencies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this DSEA and look forward to reviewing the Final EA when it will 

be available. If you have questions about our comments, please contact us for assistance.

Theo Mbabaliye, Ph.D.

USEPA Region 10

Regional Administrator’s Division (RAD)

Policy & Environmental Review Branch (PERB)

1200 6th Ave., Suite 155, 14-D12

Seattle, WA 98101-3140

Phone: (206) 553-6322
State of Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Mailing Address: 1550 Alder St. NW, Ephrata, WA 98823 

Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. SE Olympia WA 

August 27, 2019 

Surface Transportation Board 

Attention: Adam Assenza 

395 E. St., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20423-0001 

Dear Mr. Assenza: 

SUBJECT: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, SURFACE 

TRANSPROTATION BOARD DOCKET NO. FD 34936

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) apologizes for submitting its 

comments for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (DSEA) after the close of the 

comment period due to a notification error. WDFW hopes that its recommendations will be 

considered and added to the Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for this project. 

Revised Measure 9 in Chapter 6, page 6-2 states “The Port shall consult with the WDFW and 

comply with its applicable laws and regulations so that Project-related construction activities are 

conducted in a manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to birds and bats (e.g., roosting bald 

eagles, over-wintering waterfowl, migrating shorebirds, foraging bats, and nesting birds). 

WDFW’s District 5 Wildlife Biologist, Sean Dougherty, consulted with representatives from 

Jacobs regarding potential impacts to nesting Clark’s Grebes. During those discussions, Biologist 

Dougherty recommended remaining outside 300’ of the stream channel from June 1st to

September 1st to lessen or avoid potential impacts to nesting Clark’s Grebe. WDFW would ask 

that this specified information be included in the Finalized Environmental Assessment for the 

protection of Clark’s Grebe, a Washington State Candidate Species. 

 

If you have any questions, please call me at (509) 754-4624 ext. 215.

Sincerely, 

Eric D. Pentico

Area Habitat Biologist 
THOMPSON ATLANTA CINCINNATI COLUMBUS NEWYORK 

- HINE ________ C_H-IC-A-GO ____ C_LE-VE_LA_N_D ____ DA_YT_ O_N ____ W_AS_H_IN_G_T_ON- .-D-.C. 

October 24, 2019 

Via Email Adam.Assenza@stb.gov 

Adam Assenza 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Office of Environmental Analysis 

Surface Transportation Board 

395 E Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20423 

RE: Docket No., FD 34936, Port of Moses Lake - Construction Exemption- in Grant County, 

WA.; Design Edits 

Dear Adam: 

The Port of Moses Lake (Port) has continued refinement of the design of the proposed 

acquisition and construction of an approximately I I-mile-long railroad route in Grant County, 

Washington (Project). In conjunction with the design refinement and reviewing comments to the 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (DSEA), including comments by Washington 

State Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) regarding crossing and roadways, there are 

two design edits needed for certain roadways in Segment 1 and Segment 2, Modification 2C. 

The first design edit is in Segment 1. In the DSEA, the Port design included closing off 

Industrial Street and extending Silva Street. Under the design edit, the Port would construct a 

new, perpendicular at-grade crossing of Industrial Street to maintain access to industrial 

properties, rather than closing off Industrial Street and constructing an extension of Silva Street. 

The Port analysis found that this design edit will have no environmental impact, including no 

impact to traffic and transportation. 

The second design edit is in Segment 2, Modification 2C. Additional design work revealed the 

need to avoid utilities and the construction of two long, skewed crossings ( and less safe 

crossings) of Road I NE located south of the GCIA industrial area. In order to avoid these 

negative impacts, Modification 2C would need to be constructed over a portion of Road I NE. 

That portion of Road I NE would need to be vacated (or closed) with Grant County. To maintain 

access to Road I NE for three residences that are located on other portions of Road I, the Port 

would change the existing road by constructing a cul-de-sac on Road I NE and a new 

perpendicular at-grade crossing of Road 6.7 NE, and Road I NE would be closed between the 

cul-de-sac and Road 6.7 NE. The perpendicular crossing is a safer design then the skewed (not 

perpendicular) crossings in the prior design. The Port would consult with Grant County and 

other applicable parties when seeking UTC approval of the Road 6.7 NE crossing and Grant 

Sandra.Brown@ThompsonHine.com Fax: 202.331.8330 Phone: 202.263.4101 

THOMPSON HINE LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT l.Aw 

1919 M Street, N.W. 

Suite 700 

Washington, D.C. 20036-3537 

www.ThompsonHine.com 

0: 202.331.8800 

F: 202.331.8330 

sb 484 J-8022-0022.1 
THOMPSON - HINE _________________ _ 

Adam Assenza 

October 24, 2019 

Page2 

County approval to vacate the portion of Road I. The attached exhibit illustrates the revisions 

planned for Road I NE. The changes involving Road I NE would have a minor impact on 

vehicle traffic from rail construction and operation associated with Modification 2C. No other 

environmental impacts were found in the analysis of this design edit. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Sandra L. Brown 

CC: Lydia Kachadoorian, FRA lydia.kachadoorian@dot.gov 

Valarie Kniss, FRA valarie.kniss@dot.gov 

Jeannie Becket jbeckett@thebeckettgroup.org 

Diane Williams Diane.Williams@jacobs.com 
 

-- 

From: Franks, Sierra 

To: Williams, Diane M. 

Cc: Sarensen, Katherine; Michelle Eames; Katy Fitzgerald 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for Information and Concurrence, STB Finance Docket No. 34936, Rail Line Construction 

and Operation in Grant County, WA 

Date: Monday, October 28, 2019 3:51:44 PM 

Hi Ms. Williams, 

We received your request and additional information regarding the upcoming completion of 

the Final Supplement EA for the above mentioned project. The implementing regulations of the 

Endangered Species Act do not provide us a mechanism to concur with a "no effect" determination. This email serves as a 

receipt of your request. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

Sierra E. Franks (she/her) 

ESA Consultation Branch Manager 

Diversity Change Agent 

215 Melody Ln. Suite 103 

Wenatchee, Washington 98801 

Office #: 509-665-3508 ext. 1880 

Work Cell #: 509-393-5882 
 

From: Williams, Diane M. 

To: "katherine_sarensen@fws.gov" 

Subject: Request for Information and Concurrence, STB Finance Docket No. 34936, Rail Line Construction and Operation 

in Grant County, WA 

Date: Thursday, October 24, 2019 12:35:00 PM 

Importance: High 

Dear Ms. Sarensen, 

I am writing to following up on a Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (DSEA) that was 

issued on July 11, 2019 regarding proposed modifications to the Port of Moses Lake’s Northern 

Columbia Basin Railroad (NCBR) that will be constructed and operated in Grant County, WA. 

The rail line was originally authorized by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) in August 2009. In 

December 2008, we received communication from Suzanne Audet, Section 7 and Recovery 

Programs Branch Chief, Upper Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Office in Spokane, WA, that if STB 

concluded that the project would have “No Effect” on listed species, there is no requirement for 

consultation with the USFWS nor do the Section 7 consultation regulations specifically provide for 

USFWS concurrence for such agency determinations. 

The STB’s Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) has independently reviewed the Port’s proposed 

modifications to the NCBR original alignment, and as concluded in the July 2019 DSEA for the 

project, OEA has again determined that the project and the proposed modifications would have “No 

Effect” on federally-listed threatened, endangered or candidate species or designated critical 

habitat. 

A postcard notice was sent to the USFWS Eastern Washington Office in Spokane, WA noting the 

availability of the 2019 DSEA on the Surface Transportation Board website (www.stb.gov under 

“Decisions” and “FD 34936”) and the comment period ended on August 11, 2019. No comments 

were submitted by the USFWS. 

Since we are currently preparing the Final Supplemental EA for the project, would you confirm that 

consultation is not required? Or, if consultation is required, could you confirm whether the USFWS 

concurs with the determination that the construction and operation the rail line, as well as the 

proposed modifications to the rail alignment, will have “No Effect” on federally-listed threatened or 

endangered species or designated critical habitat? 

If you need additional information, please let me know. 

Thank you, 

Diane M. Williams 

Jacobs – Environmental Services 

Environmental Planner | Project Manager 

101 N. Fourth Ave., Suite 203 | Sandpoint, ID 83864 | 208.263.9391 ofc | 208.920.6042 direct 

Diane.Williams@jacobs.com www.jacobs.com 
APPENDIX B 

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 

Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project October 2019 

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment 
NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 

AMONG 

THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD, 

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 

THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION, AND 

THE PORT OF MOSES LAKE 

REGARDING STB FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34936, PORT OF MOSES LAKECONSTRUCTION EXEMPTION - MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON 

AND 

STB FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34936 (SUB-NO. 1 ), PORT OF MOSES LAKE -

ACQUISITION EXEMPTION - MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON 

AND 

STB FINANCE DOCKET NO. 34936 (SUB-NO. 2), NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN 

RAILROAD-OPERATION EXEMPTION-MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON 

AND 

FRA'S ADMINISTRATION OF FY17 INFRASTRUCTURE FOR REBUILDING 

AMERICA GRANT FUNDS 

WHEREAS, the Port of Moses Lake (Port) is proposing the Northern Columbia Basin 

Rail Project located in Grant County, Washington (hereinafter, "the Project"), which is 

an undertaking as defined in 36 C.F.R. § 800.16(y) with the potential to adversely affect 

historic properties; and 

WHEREAS, on August 27, 2009, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued a 

decision authorizing construction of two segments of rail line and acquisition of a third 

segment of rail for the Project that was then proposed by the Port, subject to 

environmental mitigation measures, including compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C § 306108; and 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 1 of 16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
WHEREAS, the Port is now seeking authorization from STB for modifications to the 

route of the rail construction previously authorized as part of the Project; and 

WHEREAS, the Port applied for and is receiving funding from the US Department of 

Transportation under its Fiscal Year 2017 Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) 

Grant Program for the Project and the USDOT's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

is administering the INFRA grant and the Port intends to use INFRA funds to pay for 

right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, final design, and construction of the Project; and 

WHEREAS, STB is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Assessment 

(Supplemental EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

for the proposed modified route for the Project and FRA is participating in the 

preparation of the Supplemental EA as a cooperating agency; and 

WHEREAS, a Programmatic Agreement (hereinafter Agreement) to govern compliance 

with Section 106 of the NHPA for the Project was previously executed among STB, the 

Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (which serves as the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)), the Port, the Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Columbia Basin Railroad Company, Inc. (CBRW) 

on June 10, 2009 and due to modifications to the Project, the Agreement is being 

amended to (1) extend the time period set forth in the Duration Clause (Section X), (2) 

to add FRA as a Signatory, (3) to update the Agreement to align with guidance and 

policies issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) since 2014, 

and (4) address additional Section 106 compliance requirements that are necessary as 

a result of the proposed route modifications. This executed version shall supersede the 

June 10, 2009 version; and 

WHEREAS, the Project, with the proposed modifications and as illustrated in Appendix 

A, consists of the following three segments and associated activities: acquire ROW 

through purchase, design, and construct approximately 4.5 miles of new rail line along 

the Wheeler Industrial Corridor, between the area known as Wheeler and Parker Horn, 

and reroute rail traffic from the existing aging rail infrastructure to this new route 

(Segment 1 ); acquire ROW through purchase, design, and construct approximately 3.1 

miles of new rail line to access industrial lands adjacent to the Grant County 

International Airport (Segment 2); and acquire existing rail line through donation from 

CBRW and rehabilitate approximately three miles of existing track between Parker Horn 

and the Airport, restoring rail service to the Port and Airport and connecting Segments 1 

and 2 (Segment 3); and 

WHEREAS, STB, as the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 

106 for the Project, has consulted with SHPO, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 800; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(a)(2), FRA, in correspondence dated July 

25, 2018, designated STB to serve as the lead federal agency to fulfill the agencies' 

collective Section 106 compliance responsibilities and participated in the preparation of 

this Agreement and is a Signatory; and 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 2 of16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
WHEREAS, the Port as the Project Applicant is an Invited Signatory to this Agreement; 

and 

WHEREAS, STB consulted with the following federally-recognized Native American 

tribes and invited them to participate in this Agreement: the Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of the Yakama Nation; the Colville Confederated Tribes; and the Confederated 

Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. However, those Tribes have not 

elected to participate; and 

WHEREAS, STB consulted with the non-federally recognized Wanapum Tribe and 

invited it to participate in this Agreement, and the Wanapum Tribe has not elected to 

participate; and 

WHEREAS, STB has consulted with the WSDOT Rail, Freight, and Ports Division and 

invited WSDOT to sign this Agreement as a concurring party, and WSDOT has agreed; 

and 

WHEREAS, once the Project has been constructed, CBRW shall operate service over 

the line, and was invited by STB to sign this Agreement as a concurring party, and 

CBRW has agreed; and 

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2008, STB invited the ACHP to participate in the 

development of this Agreement, and the ACHP declined to participate; and 

WHEREAS, STB, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(a)(1 ), established the Area of Potential 

Effects (APE) for the Project as it was originally proposed by the Port in 2009 (Original 

APE), which encompassed a 200-acre area extending 50 feet on either side of the 

proposed rail corridor centerline. Analysis of potential noise and vibration impacts 

considered historic buildings or structures within this 100-foot-wide corridor. SHPO 

concurred with the Original APE in a November 2, 2007 letter; and 

WHEREAS, the APE has been adjusted to cover the proposed modified route for the 

Project (Modified APE). Generally, the Modified APE for the proposed alignment 

modifications is 100-feet-wide (50 feet on either side of the proposed track centerline). 

The Modified APE for Segment 1 has been expanded at certain locations, ranging from 

90 feet to 120 feet on either side of the modified track centerline, to accommodate 

construction, staging, and/or laydown areas. Likewise, the Modified APE for Segment 2 

has been expanded to include review of two alternative modifications to the originally 

proposed route, and ranges from 100 feet wide to approximately 325 feet wide, 

including a staging area at the north end of the alignment. STB's Office of 

Environmental Assessment (OEA), FRA, and SHPO approved the Modified APE in 

August 20181 and November 20182

; and 

1 August 22, 2018 letter from SHPO to OEA 2 November 6, 2018 letter from SHPO to OEA 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 3 of16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
WHEREAS, a cultural resource survey to identify historic properties in the APE and 

evaluate whether the historic properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) was conducted in 20083

; and 

WHEREAS, a supplemental resource survey was conducted in 2019 to investigate the 

surface and subsurface of the Modified APE that included previously unsurveyed 

parcels4; and 

WHEREAS, STB has determined that some areas within the APE are not currently 

accessible and cannot be adequately investigated prior to the Port's acquisition of the 

ROW, and may contain NRHP-eligible historic properties; and 

WHEREAS, a phased process for compliance with Section 106, as provided for in 36 

C.F.R. § 800.4(b)(2), is appropriate because historic and archaeological investigations 

are still in process and cannot be completed on all land within the APE until the Port 

acquires the property for the Project; and 

NOW, THEREFORE, STB, FRA, the Port, and SHPO (collectively referred to as the 

Signatory Parties or Signatories) agree that the Project is subject to the following 

stipulations in order to take into account the effects of the Project on historic properties 

and further agree that these stipulations shall govern the Undertaking and all of its parts 

until this Agreement expires or is terminated. 

STIPULATIONS 

I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS 

A. All work carried out under this Agreement shall be conducted by or under the 

direct supervision of a person or persons meeting, at a minimum, the Secretary 

of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (36 C.F .R. Part 61 ). 

B. All work carried out under this Agreement shall meet the Secretary of the 

Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

(48 Fed. Reg. 44716) as well as standards and guidelines for historic 

preservation activities as established by SHPO. 

C. Timeframes and Notification 

1. All time designations in this Agreement are in calendar days unless otherwise 

stipulated. If a review period ends on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, 

3 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2008. Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project Draft Cultural Resources Report 4 Jacobs. 2019. Port of Moses Lake Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project Supplemental Cultural Resources 

Investigations for Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment. Historic canals in the original and modified APE 

were also looked at further and are discussed in Jacobs. 2017. Historic Canals Effects Assessment for the Northern 

Columbia Basin Railroad Project. 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT- Page 4 of16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
the review period shall be extended until the first business day following the 

Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. 

2. All review periods stipulated by this Agreement start on the day the 

documents are sent to the relevant parties which constitutes notification 

unless otherwise stipulated in this Agreement. 

3. All notifications required by this Agreement shall be sent by email and/or 

other electronic means unless a recipient requests a hard copy notification. 

D. Document Review 

1. Where required under this Agreement, STB, in coordination with the Port, 

shall submit documentation to the Signatory Parties, any interested or 

affected Native American tribes, and other consulting parties for review, 

comment and/or concurrence. 

2. If the appropriate parties do not provide written comments to STB as 

specified during the specified review period, it is understood that the nonresponding parties have no comments on the submittal, and STB shall 

proceed to the next step of the consultation process. 

3. If the Signatory Parties, any interested or affected Native American tribes, or 

other consulting party objects or recommends extensive revisions to 

submissions, STB, in coordination with the Port, shall work expeditiously to 

respond to objections and resolve disputes. STB may elect to follow the 

dispute resolution process identified in Stipulation VI to resolve any such 

dispute. 

11. ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED APE 

A. The Port shall notify STB of any changes in Project plans and the following 

shall occur if those changes are not major changes to the Project that 

require reopening F.D. 34936 for new or additional authorization from STB: 

1. STB, in consultation with FRA, shall review the changes in Project plans 

to determine if they necessitate revisions to the approved APE. 

2. If the APE requires revision, the Port, in coordination with STB, shall 

prepare a written justification with accompanying graphics, as 

appropriate, for the proposed revised APE, which STB shall submit to 

SHPO for review. 

3. Following SHPO concurrence on the revised APE, STB shall promptly 

notify the Signatories, any interested or affected Native American tribes, and 

other consulting parties of the revised APE. 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 5 of 16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
4. As appropriate, the Port shall update or perform additional cultural 

resources work in accordance with Stipulation Ill or IV of this Agreement. 

The Port shall not commence ground disturbing and/or construction 

activities within the revised APE prior to the completion of the Section 

106 process required by this Agreement until such time as Approval to 

Proceed is received in accordance with Stipulation V. 

111 . PHASED SECTION 106 IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND 

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS 

A. The Port shall conduct cultural resource survey work on parcels contained within 

the Modified APE that were not part of previous investigations, and any 

previously inaccessible parcels that are included in the Supplemental EA. 

8 . Once access to a previously inaccessible area within the Modified APE has been 

obtained, the Port shall: 

1. Provide written notification to ST8, Signatories, interested and affected Native 

American tribes, and other consulting parties of the survey methodology and 

Project schedule at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to initiating the 

cultural resources survey. 

2. Conduct a cultural resources survey and produce a Draft Survey Report with 

associated Historic Property Inventory (HPI) forms to identify archaeological 

resources and historic structures that are 45 years old or older. Any identified 

resources shall be inventoried per Stipulation 1.8 and evaluated for their 

eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The 

Draft Survey Report shall: a) summarize the findings; b) make 

recommendations regarding any resources' eligibility for listing in the NRHP; 

and c) assess effects to historic properties applying the criteria for adverse 

effects (36 C.F.R. §§ 800.5 (a)(1) and (2)) as a result of the Project. 

3. Specify any resources within the Draft Survey Report that were not fully 

identified, evaluated, and/or assessed for effects and the reasons why, and 

provide recommended actions for further investigation of those resources. 

C. The Port shall provide the Draft Survey Report and any associated HPI forms to 

ST8. The ST8 shall review and provide written comment to the Port on the Draft 

Survey Report and HPI forms within fourteen (14) calendar days. The Port shall 

revise the Draft Survey Report consistent with ST8's comments and submit the 

revised Draft Survey Report to ST8 within fourteen (14) calendar days of the 

receipt of comments for finalization. 

D. The ST8 shall consult with the Signatories, any interested or affected Native 

American tribe, and other consulting parties on the findings by providing the Draft 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 6 of 16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
Survey Report to them for review and comment. All parties shall review and 

provide written comments within thirty (30) calendar days. 

E. Once STB receives concurrence from SHPO and FRA on the Draft Survey 

Report's sufficiency, the Survey Report shall be finalized by the Port, taking any 

comments received into account, and submitted to STB, SHPO, FRA, and any 

interested or affective Native American tribe and/or consulting parties that 

requested a copy during the comment period. 

F. The STB, in consultation with the Signatories, any interested or affected Native 

American tribes, and other consulting parties, may determine that further 

investigation is necessary. The STB may require the Port to conduct additional 

fieldwork, including a pedestrian survey and/or subsurface testing, as necessary. 

All subsequent work shall be reported in additional Survey Reports following the 

processes outlined in this Stipulation. 

IV. RESOLUTION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS - TREATMENT OF HISTORIC 

PROPERTIES 

A. If STB determines, through the process laid out in Stipulation Ill, that the Project 

shall adversely affect a historic property(ies), it shall address the effects through 

the development of a treatment plan(s), rather than through the development of a 

Memorandum of Agreement or other Section 106 agreement document. A 

treatment plan may address one or multiple historic properties in the same plan. 

B. After taking into consideration the significance of the historic property(ies) affected 

and the severity of the adverse effect(s), STB shall develop a treatment plan that 

proposes to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the historic property(ies). 

The treatment plan shall include a curation plan for any artifacts that are recovered, 

as applicable. 

C. The treatment plan, and all associated treatment measures, shall be developed and 

implemented by cultural resource professionals that meet the Secretary of the 

Interior's Standards as referenced in Stipulation I.A. 

D. The STB shall submit the proposed treatment plan to the Signatories, any 

interested or affected Native American tribe, and other consulting parties in 

writing for review and comment. All parties shall review and provide written 

comments within thirty (30) calendar days. 

E. If STB receives an objection to the proposed treatment plan, it shall notify all the 

Signatories, any interested or affective Native American tribe, and other consulting 

parties within fifteen (15) calendar days. STB, in consultation with SHPO and the 

objecting party, shall work expeditiously to address the objection. The final version 

of the treatment plan requires SHPO concurrence prior to implementation. 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 7 of16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
F. Unless SHPO, the Signatories, any interested or affected Native American tribe, 

or another consulting party objects within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the 

proposed treatment plan, STB shall take into account any comments timely 

submitted. STB shall summarize the comments, provide written notification to the 

Signatories, any interested or affected Native American tribe, or other consulting 

parties, and proceed with the implementation of the treatment plan. 

G. The Port shall implement the treatment plan. 

V. APPROVAL TO PROCEED 

The Port shall not proceed with construction of any portion or segment of the Project 

until notified in writing by STB's OEA that all Section 106 requirements are satisfied 

for that specific segment of the Project. This includes all identification , evaluation , 

assessment of effects, and resolution of adverse effects to any identified historic 

properties within the Modified APE for each segment. 

VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

A. Any party to this Agreement or any tribe or other consulting party may object to 

any proposed action(s) or the manner in which the terms of this Agreement are 

implemented by submitting its objection in writing to STB. If STB receives an 

objection, it shall notify the Signatories of the objection and consult with the 

Signatories and objecting party to resolve the objection. If STB determines that 

the objection cannot be resolved through consultation, STB shall: 

1. Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the ACHP (with a copy to 

the Signatories). Such documentation shall include STB's proposed 

resolution to the objection. STB shall request that the ACHP provide STB 

with its comment on the resolution of the objection within thirty (30) calendar 

days of receiving documentation. STB shall take into account any timely 

comments received regarding the dispute from the ACHP and the Signatories 

when making its final decision on the dispute. 

2. If the ACHP does not provide comment regarding the dispute within thirty (30) 

calendar days, STB shall make the final decision on the dispute and proceed 

accordingly. 

3. STB shall document this decision in a written response that and provide 

ACHP and the Signatories with a copy of the response. 

4. STB shall then proceed according to its final decision. 

B. Any recommendation or comment provided by the ACHP shall be understood to 

pertain only to the subject of the dispute, and STB's responsibility regarding 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 8 of 16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
actions outside the dispute shall remain unchanged. The parties may continue 

all actions under this Agreement that are not the subject of the dispute. 

C. Each party reserves any and all rights it may otherwise have to enforce its rights 

or seek resolution of the dispute under applicable law. 

VII. AMENDMENTS 

Any signatory to this Agreement may propose that it be amended, whereupon the 

parties shall confer and consider the amendment. Any resulting amendment requires 

the agreement of all Signatory Parties and shall be executed in writing. 

VIII. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES 

In the event that any unanticipated historic or cultural properties, archaeological sites, 

human remains, funerary items, or assorted artifacts are discovered during Project 

construction, the Port shall immediately cease all work and notify STB, the Signatories, 

interested federally-recognized Indian tribes, and other consulting parties, to determine 

if additional consultation and/or mitigation is necessary. In the event that human 

remains are discovered, the Port shall also notify appropriate law enforcement 

agencies. (See the Plan and Procedures for the Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural 

Resources and Human Skeletal Remains in Appendix B). 

IX. TERMINATION AND WITHDRAWL 

A. Should STB find that the terms of this Agreement shall not or cannot be carried 

out, STB shall immediately consult with the other Signatories to develop an 

amendment per Stipulation VII. If within thirty (30) calendar days (or another 

time period agreed upon by all Signatories) an amendment cannot be reached, 

any Signatory may terminate this Agreement upon written notification to the 

other Signatories. 

1. Any discovery of historic or cultural properties, archaeological sites, human 

remains, funerary items, or assorted artifacts in process under the terms of 

this Agreement at the time of the termination shall be processed to its 

completion by the Port. 

B. If at any time, FRA disagrees with the manner in which the terms of the 

Agreement are carried out, FRA may object in writing to STB. STB shall follow 

Stipulation VI in resolving the objection. If STB and FRA are unable to come to 

agreement, FRA may withdraw its participation in this Agreement entirely upon 

30-days written notification to all Signatories, leaving the Agreement in full force 

and effect with respect to STB's Section 106 compliance responsibilities. If FRA 

withdraws from this Agreement, FRA shall be responsible for satisfying its own 

Section 106 compliance responsibilities. 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 9 of16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
C. In the event of termination of this Agreement or FRA withdrawal under 

paragraph B of this stipulation, the Port cannot continue work on the Project until 

STB and/or FRA, as appropriate, executes a new agreement pursuant to 36 

C.F.R. § 800.14(b); requests, takes into account, and responds to comments of 

the ACHP under 36 C.F.R. § 800.7; or otherwise complies with Section 106 per 

36 C.F.R. Part 800. The STB and FRA shall provide written notice to the other 

Signatories as to the course of action pursued. 

D. If the Port withdraws from participation in this Agreement, then the Agreement is 

terminated. 

X. DURATION 

Unless terminated pursuant to Stipulation IX, this Agreement shall terminate 

automatically within ten (10) years after the date of any STB decision authorizing or 

declining to authorize the proposed modifications to the Project in Grant County, 

Washington. 

XI. EFFECTIVE DATE 

This Agreement shall be effective on the date of the last signature by the Signatories. 

Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(c)(2), the effective date of this document is not contingent 

upon the signature of Concurring Parties. 

XII. EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION 

Execution and implementation of this Agreement evidences that STB and FRA have 

taken into account the effects of this undertaking on historic properties, have afforded the 

ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment, and STB and FRA have satisfied their 

responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations. 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 10 of 16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
ACCEPTED AND AGREED 

SIGNATORY PARTIES 

 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 11 of16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
By: 

~a~/2itAcL Date :JJy ~dolq 

Marlys Osterhues, Chief, Environment and Project Engineering Division, Office of 

Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 12 of 16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
Date: -6/ 2 -r-) )~ 

f Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

Dr. Allyson Brooks, Washington State Historic Preservation Officer 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 13 of16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
The Port of Moses Lake 

Date: 07Jo3} !9 By ~---,-:;--

Jeffrey Bishop, Executive Director 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 14 of 16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
CONCURRING PARTIES 

Washington State Department of Transportation 

By: -------L;Z_ · rlf ________ a_~--- Date:

Ron Pate, Director, Rail, Freight, and Ports Division 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 15 of 16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
Columbia Basin Railroad Company I 

By: z;;,I ~ Date:¥;/7 

Brig Temple, President 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 16 of16 

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
APPENDIX A 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT -

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 

PROJECT: Norlham Columbia Basin RaHroad Project 

a.Pe# Pol1 ,ot U1urll1c t•ke (1"014) 2,600 i1!t:'°~=t.h C®Nl'f; 0,,""1 

JIU$( t 10N ~ S i ,, 13, 1'1#ff/ld T19N R29ES19, 20 

QUADRANGLE: Mos6S Lalla North and IM,1111/ar 

BASE MAP: ESRI Digits/ GlobB 2018 

Original Alignment APE --- Hisloric Canal Segmenls 375 750 1,500 Meters 

Modific:alion 18 APE --- Segment 3 OAJE OFnGU/Uc ,_19 JAr,oas· r:1cW~E 8 'r.M..-.cbllrO 14'-
Segment 2 - APE Overview 

Originial Alignment APE 

Modification 28 APE 

Modification 2C APE 

-segment3 

1,000 2,000 Feet 0 350 700 Meters 

I I I I I 

PROJECT: Northern Columbia Basin Railroad Project 

CLIENT: Port of Moses Lake (POML) 

LOCATION: Moses Lake 

STATE: Washington N 

COUNTY: Grant 

PLSS: 

QUADRANGLE

BASE MAP: 

T20N 

ESRI 

R38E 

: Moses 

Digital 

S 22

Lake 

, 

Globe 

27, 

North 

33, 

2018 

34 A

DATE OF FIGURE:4/30/ 19 

FIGURE BY: M. lndrebo JACOas· 

0 
PROJECT: Northern Columbia Basin RoiJrosd Project f~,g:;;::..rl~~s::k;al<e (POML) STATE: Washing/on "" COUNTY: Gran/ 

P'-SS: T19NR2BE S14, 13, 24and THJN R29E S19, ZQ --- Segment 3 Modified APE QUADRANGLE: MosBS Lake North and Wheeler 0 375 750 1,500 Meters BASE MAP: ESRI Digital Globe 2018 

Originial Alignment APE DATEOFFIGURE:4130/19 J i A r ,oes

· FIGUR t! O~.ld ....,.,!IO; :14,,... 
APPENDIX B 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT -

AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 
PLAN AND PROCEDURES FOR THE UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF 

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT, 

IN GRANT COUNTY, WASHING TON 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The following Unanticipated Discovery Plan (UDP) outlines procedures for the Port of 

Moses Lake (Port) to follow, in accordance with state and federal laws, if archaeological 

materials or human remains are discovered. 

2. RECOGNIZING CULTURAL RESOURCES 

A cultural resource discovery could be prehistoric or historic. Examples include: 

• An accumulation of shell, burned rocks, or other food related materials, 

• Bones or small pieces of bone, 

• An area of charcoal or very dark stained soil with artifacts, 

• Stone tools or waste flakes (i.e. an arrowhead, or stone chips), 

• Clusters oftin cans or bottles, logging or agricultural equipment that appears to be 

older than 50 years, 

• Buried railroad tracks, decking, or other industrial materials. 

When in doubt, assume the material is a cultural resource. 

3. ON-SITE RESPONSIBILITIES 

ST P I: STOP WORK. Ifany Port employee, contractor, or subcontractor conducting grounddisturbing activities encounters human skeletal remains during construction, then all activity 

will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area ofthe find will be 

secured and protected from further disturbance until the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) provides notice to proceed. Ifhuman remains are encountered, treat them with dignity 

and respect at all times. Cover the remains with a tarp or other materials (not soil or rocks) for 

temporary protection in place and to shield them from being photographed. Do not speak with 

the media. 

STEP 2: NOTIFY ON-SITE RESPONSIBLE PARTY. Ifthere is an archaeological monitor 

for the project on-site, notify that person, otherwise notify the Project Manager, Foreman, Chief 

Engineer, or whomever is supervising on-site activities. The finding of human skeletal remains 

will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most 

expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. 

The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains 

and make a determination ofwhether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. Ifthe county 

medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 1 of5 

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY PLAN 
finding to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) who will then 

take jurisdiction over the remains. The DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all 

affected tribes ofthe find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of 

whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate 

cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the 

affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition ofthe remains." 

STEP 3: NOTIFY THE FEDERAL AGENCY. Contact the Surface Transportation Board's 

Office ofEnvironmental Analysis (OEA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

Contact Information for OEA: 

Victoria Rutson 

Director, Office ofEnvironmental Protection 

Federal Preservation Officer 

202-245-0295 

Adam Assenza 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

202-245-0301 

Adam.Assenza@STB.gov 

Contact Information for FRA: 

Katherine Zeringue, FRA Federal Preservation Officer 

202-578-4115 

katherine.zeringue@dot.gov 

4. FURTHER CONTACTS AND CONSULTATION 

A. Project Manager's Responsibilities: Stop Work In the Area ofthe Discovery 

• Protect Find: The Port is responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the 

discovery site. All work will stop in an area adequate to provide for the total security, 

protection, and integrity ofthe resource. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized 

personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. Work in the immediate 

area will not resume until treatment ofthe discovery has been completed following 

provisions for treating archaeological/cultural material as set forth in this document. 

• Direct Construction Elsewhere On-site: The Port may direct construction away from 

cultural resources to work in other areas prior to contacting the concerned parties. 

B. Identification and Consultation 

• Identify f ind: The Port will ensure that a qualified professional archaeologist examines 

the find to determine if it is archaeological and will provide findings to SEA. 

o If it is determined not to be archaeological, work may proceed with no further 

delay. 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 2 of5 

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY PLAN 
o If it is determined to be archaeological, the Port and OEA will continue with 

notification. 

o Ifthe find may be human remains or funerary objects, the Port will ensure that a 

qualified physical anthropologist examines the find. Ifit is determined to be 

human remains, the procedure described in Section 5 will be followed. 

• Notify DAHP: OEA will contact the Department of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation (DAHP). 

• Notify Tribes: Ifthe discovery may relate to Native American interests, OEA will also 

contact any federally-recognized tribes with ancestral connection to the area. 

Contact Information for DAHP: 

Dr. Allyson Brooks 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

360-586-3066 or 

Dennis Wardlaw 

Transportation Archaeologist 

360-586-3085 

.GOV 

C. Further Activities 

• Archaeological discoveries will be documented as described in Section 6. 

• Construction in the discovery area may resume as described in Section 7. 

5. SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN SKELETAL 

MATERIAL 

Any human skeletal remains, regardless of antiquity or ethnic origin, will at all times be 

treated with dignity and respect. 

The Port will comply with applicable state and federal laws, and the following procedure : 

A. Notify Law Enforcement Agency or Coroner's Office: 

In addition to the actions described in Sections 3 and 4, the Port will immediately notify 

the local law enforcement agency or coroner's office. 

The coroner (with assistance of law enforcement personnel) will determine ifthe remains 

are human, whether the discovery site constitutes a crime scene, and will notify DAHP of 

its determination. 

B. Participate in Consultation: 

Per RCW 27.53.030, RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60, DAHP will have jurisdiction over 

non-forensic human remains. Port personnel, as well as OEA and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), will participate in consultation. 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 3 of 5 

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY PLAN 
C. Further Activities: 

• Documentation of human skeletal remains and funerary objects will be agreed upon 

through the consultation process described in RCW 27.53.030, RCW 68.50, and RCW 

68.60. 

• When consultation and documentation activities are complete, construction in the 

discovery area may resume as described in Section 7. 

6. DOCUMENTATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS 

Archaeological deposits discovered during construction will be assumed eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. 

The Port will ensure the proper documentation and assessment of any discovered cultural 

resources in cooperation with OEA, DAHP, affected tribes, and a contracted consultant (if 

any). 

All prehistoric and historic cultural material discovered during project construction will be 

recorded by a professional archaeologist using standard techniques. Site overviews, features, 

and artifacts will be photographed; stratigraphic profiles and soil/sediment descriptions will be 

prepared for subsurface exposures. Discovery locations will be documented on scaled site 

plans and site location maps. 

Cultural features, horizons and artifacts detected in buried sediments may require further 

evaluation using hand-dug test units. Units may be dug in controlled fashion to expose 

features, collect samples from undisturbed contexts, or interpret complex stratigraphy. A test 

excavation unit or small trench might also be used to determine if an intact occupation surface 

is present. Test units will be used only when necessary to gather information on the nature, 

extent, and integrity of subsurface cultural deposits to evaluate the site's significance. 

Excavations will be conducted using state-of-the-art techniques for controlling provenience. 

Spatial information, depth of excavation levels, natural and cultural stratigraphy, presence or 

absence of cultural material, and depth to sterile soil, regolith, or bedrock will be recorded for 

each probe on a standard form. Test excavation units will be recorded on unit-level forms, 

which include plan maps for each excavated level, and material type, number, and vertical 

provenience (depth below surface and stratum association where applicable) for all artifacts 

recovered from the level. A stratigraphic profile will be drawn for at least one wall of each 

test excavation unit. 

Sediments excavated for purposes of cultural resources investigation will be screened 

through 1/8-inch mesh, unless soil conditions warrant 1

/4-inch mesh. 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 4 of5 

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY PLAN 
All prehistoric and historic artifacts collected from the surface and from probes and 

excavation units will be analyzed, catalogued, and temporarily curated. Ultimate disposition 

of cultural materials will be determined in consultation with OEA, DAHP, and any affected 

tribes. 

Within 90 days of concluding fieldwork, a technical report describing any and all resultant 

archaeological excavations will be provided to OEA, DAHP, and any affected tribes. 

If assessment activity exposes human remains (burials, isolated teeth, or bones), the process 

described in Section 5 above will be followed. 

7. PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION 

Project construction outside the discovery location may continue while documentation and 

assessment ofthe cultural resources proceed. A qualified professional, or a person who 

meets, at a minimum, the Secretary ofthe Interior's Professional Qualification Standards 

(36 C.F.R. Part 61), must determine the boundaries ofthe discovery location. In consultation 

with DAHP, FRA, and any affected tribes, OEA will determine the appropriate level of 

documentation and treatment ofthe resource. OEA will make the final determinations about 

treatment and documentation. Construction may continue at the discovery location only 

after the process outlined in this plan is followed and OEA and FRA determine that 

compliance with state and federal laws is complete. 

NORTHERN COLUMBIA BASIN RAILROAD PROJECT - Page 5 of5 

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY PLAN