U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, Maine

June 2014

   

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1

II. Purpose and Need for the Project: ....................................................................................................... 1

III. Project History ..................................................................................................................................2

IV. Site Selection and Alternatives Considered...................................................................................... 3

V. Environmental Considerations.............................................................................................................. 5

A. Air Quality: ........................................................................................................................................5

B. Water Resources:.............................................................................................................................. 5

C. Floodplains:.......................................................................................................................................6

D. Noise: ................................................................................................................................................6

E. Vibration: ..........................................................................................................................................7

F. Geology and Soils:............................................................................................................................. 8

G. Ecosystems:.......................................................................................................................................8

H. Wetlands:..........................................................................................................................................8

I. Threatened or Endangered Species:................................................................................................. 8

J. Fisheries: ...........................................................................................................................................9

K. Wildlife Habitat:................................................................................................................................9

L. Rail Transportation: .......................................................................................................................... 9

M.    Highways and Roads: ........................................................................................................................ 9

N. Prime Farmland:................................................................................................................................9

O. Coastal Zone Management:............................................................................................................ 10

P. Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste:.................................................................................... 10

Q. Utilities:...........................................................................................................................................10

R. Public Health and Safety: ................................................................................................................ 10

S. Visual and Lighting: ......................................................................................................................... 11

T. Land Use and Zoning:...................................................................................................................... 11

U. Socio Economic and Environmental Justice:................................................................................... 12

V. Cultural and Historic Resources:..................................................................................................... 12

W.    Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:...................................................................................................... 13

X. Construction Impacts:..................................................................................................................... 13

Y. Indirect Effects: ............................................................................................................................... 13
Z. Cumulative Impacts: ....................................................................................................................... 14

VI. Agency and Public Involvement...................................................................................................... 14

A. EA Public Comment Period: ............................................................................................................ 15

B. Summary of EA Public Comment and Response:............................................................................ 15

VII. Commitments and Minimization Measures: .................................................................................. 16

VIII. Conclusion:......................................................................................................................................17

Figures

Figure 1: Sites Considered for Analysis...................................................................................................................3

Figure 2: Proposed Site Location.............................................................................................................................4

Attachments

Attachment 1: Public Comments/Responses

Attachment 2: Letters from Maine Governor Paul R. LePage and Maine State Senator Stan Gerzofsky and

NNEPRA Responses

Attachment 3: Booz Allen Hamilton Independent Reviews, January 9, 2014 – Noise, Vibration, and Air

Analysis
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    1

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

I. Introduction

The Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) proposes to construct a passenger rail

equipment layover facility (Project) in Brunswick, Maine to support expansion of the Amtrak

Downeaster passenger rail service.  The Project will consist of a main building, adjoining crew building

and connecting tracks at the site of the Brunswick freight rail yard located between Church Road and

Stanwood Street on property now owned by NNEPRA.  The Project site is approximately 0.6 miles west

of Brunswick Station, the eastern terminus of Amtrak Downeaster service.  The layover facility is

intended to accommodate the overnight storage of a maximum of three (3) diesel locomotive‐powered

passenger train sets used for the Downeaster service.  Approximate dimensions of the single story main

building are 655 feet long by 70 feet wide with a maximum height of 37 feet.  Offices, locker rooms,

wash rooms and storage facilities will be incorporated in a 180 feet long by 26 feet wide structure

attached to the north side of the layover facility.

In its role providing possible funding for or administering funds for the Project and as the federal agency

that oversees Amtrak’s programs, the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) is the lead federal agency

for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) and applicable

regulations and agency guidance (40 CFR Parts 1500 ‐1508; 64 FR 28545) (collectively, “NEPA”). FRA

must satisfy the requirements of NEPA and other applicable environmental and historic review

requirements, including Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations” (59 FR 7629) (“Executive Order 12898”), Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act and corresponding regulations (36 CFR Part 800) (collectively,

“Section 106”), and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 303).

FRA and NNEPRA have prepared the Brunswick Layover Environmental Assessment dated September

2013 (the “EA”) (which is attached) in order to develop information that would assist FRA in satisfying

these environmental and historic review requirements. The EA includes a detailed review of the

potential environmental impacts of the Project, a Section 106 analysis, and an environmental justice

analysis prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12898.1

Based on the EA and other documents attached and discussed below, FRA finds that the Project will

result in no significant impact on the environment or adverse effect on historic resources and, therefore,

is issuing this Finding of No Significant impact (“FONSI”) pursuant to NEPA.

As the Project sponsor, NNEPRA is responsible for ensuring all environmental commitments identified in

this FONSI are fully implemented.  

II. Purpose and Need for the Project:

The layover facility will be comprised of a main building for storage and servicing of equipment, an

attached crew building, and ancillary track, access road and parking improvements.  The purpose of the

                                                            

1 Because no parks or recreational resources are located at the Project site, no Section 4(f) evaluation is required.  
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    2

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

layover facility is to store and provide routine servicing of Amtrak Downeaster passenger train sets near

Brunswick Station, which in 2012 became the eastern terminus of the Amtrak Downeaster rail service.  

The Project is needed for several reasons:  

 Amtrak requires a facility to store, restock and perform routine light maintenance such as

cleaning and refueling of passenger rail equipment used for Amtrak Downeaster service.  

 A layover facility in Brunswick is required to allow Amtrak train sets to power down during

midday periods, reducing fuel consumption, emissions, vibration and noise otherwise produced

by idling trains between scheduled service runs of the Amtrak Downeaster.  

 An enclosed facility is needed to reduce wear and tear on Amtrak rolling stock and allow

Amtrak’s contractor to service and restock equipment overnight, particularly during harsh

Maine winter months. The safety, efficiency and security of this operation will be significantly

improved by providing an enclosed, climate‐controlled facility. Such a facility will also facilitate

snow and ice melt off of equipment during the winter.  

 Crew quarters are needed to provide accommodations for Amtrak workers and contractors,

such as a break room, restroom, briefing room, commissary and similar workplace amenities.  

 A layover facility located near the terminus of Amtrak Downeaster service (Brunswick Station) is

needed to reduce train movements between Brunswick and the current layover location in

Portland that are required now to position equipment for the morning runs. These trips back to

Portland from Brunswick at night and then back from Portland to Brunswick in the morning

carry very few passengers, increase fuel use and operating costs, and create additional night‐

time disturbances to abutters along the 28‐mile Portland – Brunswick route.  

III. Project History

NNEPRA is a public transportation authority created in 1995 by the Maine State Legislature to develop

and provide passenger rail service between Maine and Boston, Massachusetts.    In December 2001,

following a $60 million investment to upgrade tracks, signal systems and build stations throughout the

corridor, Amtrak began operating Downeaster rail service linking Portland, Maine with Boston,

Massachusetts.  Various State and local agencies and Amtrak have made continuing investments in the

corridor since 2001 to improve service reliability and reduce travel times.    Currently, ten scheduled

Downeaster passenger trains (five roundtrips) operate daily between Portland and Boston.  Ridership in

fiscal year 2012 was over 528,000 passengers, a 111 percent increase since 2005.  

Included in the original plan for the Downeaster service, but not possible until additional funding was

secured, was the extension of the service beyond Portland to Freeport and Brunswick, Maine (Exhibit 1).  

In the spring of 2009, FRA awarded NNEPRA $35 million in funds from the High Speed Intercity

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Grant Program for construction of improvements enabling the extension of

Downeaster service to Brunswick.  The State of Maine also agreed to cover any funding shortfalls.  In

June 2009, the FRA and NNEPRA prepared an EA covering improvements needed to extend Downeaster
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    3

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

Service to Freeport and Brunswick.    The FRA issued a FONSI in July 2009 and Downeaster service to

Brunswick was initiated in November 2012, with four of the ten daily Downeaster trains extended from

Portland to Brunswick.    In addition, because equipment is currently stored and serviced in Portland

overnight, two additional train trips are required to position equipment at the start and end of the day.

IV. Site Selection and Alternatives Considered

NNEPRA considered a total of six sites for a layover facility (See Figure 1).  NNEPRA eliminated all sites

except the Brunswick rail yard (Brunswick West) from further examination in the EA as the Build

Alternative because the other sites did not adequately address the Project’s purpose and need with

respect to having the operational or functional characteristics (size, topography, location) necessary to

support the facility, and/or because they would create additional adverse environmental and cost

impacts.  The examination of sites is discussed in the EA and in more detail in the document entitled

“Amtrak Downeaster Layover Facility Project Siting Report,” which was included with the EA as Appendix

B.  See http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04774.  Following public comments expressing concerns

about the site selection, FRA conducted an additional review of the Siting Report and an in person site

visit to Brunswick West.   

Figure 1: Sites Considered for Analysis

FRA determined that the Brunswick West site is an acceptable Build Alternative because it would best

meet the operational requirements of the Amtrak Downeaster, would fully address all the Project’s

purpose and needs, and would have the least environmental impact. The Brunswick West site is zoned

as an Intown Railroad Corridor, has favorable topography and site conditions, would not require

significant grading or fill, would not impact waterways, would minimize the duration of train

movements, and would minimize the number of grade crossings because it is the closest site to the

Brunswick Station. As such, the Brunswick West site would likely minimize environmental impacts while

also providing the greatest operational benefits.  
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    4

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

In the EA, FRA and NNEPRA considered in depth the environmental consequences of two alternatives:  

the Build Alternative and a No Build Alternative.  As noted above, the Build Alternative proposes

construction of a layover facility at the Brunswick rail yard (Brunswick West Site). Under the No Build

Alternative, the proposed enclosed layover facility would not be constructed. Instead, Amtrak would

continue to service and park Amtrak Downeaster trains overnight in Portland. To position equipment at

the start and end of the service day, a train would continue to operate from Portland to Brunswick in the

morning, with another returning to Portland at the end of the day (a distance of approximately 28 miles

each way). Between scheduled service runs during the operating day, trains would continue to idle

outdoors in the Brunswick rail yard or on tracks between the rail yard and Brunswick Station. Brief

daytime servicing activities such as restocking supplies in food service cars and coach cleaning would

also take place out in the open at these locations during these times. The No Build Alternative does not

meet the Project’s purpose and need, but is included in the EA to provide a basis for evaluation and

comparison of the Build Alternative.  

The Build Alternative at the Brunswick West Site is comprised of a portion of the former Brunswick rail

freight yard located on the north side of the railroad corridor between Church Road and Stanwood

Street (See Figure 2). This site is long and linear in shape and located on level ground. It has been used

for railroad activities for more than a century and is zoned Mixed Use 2 – Intown Railroad Corridor

(MU2). The property is owned by NNEPRA, and is adjacent to the rail corridor currently used by the

Amtrak Downeaster, which is owned by the Maine Department of Transportation. The site is easily

accessed from the existing street network and is located close to Route 1. Trains would travel 0.6 miles

through two existing grade crossings to access the site.   

Figure 2: Proposed Site Location

Design restrictions based on current track layouts at the site led to small design changes over the course

of the project. As the plan evolved, the fourth proposed track (referred to in the EA as the holding or

siding track) was eliminated from the design. The main entrance road from Church Road was changed to

Lombard Street. Lighting for this road was changed from the length of the Church Road entrance to only
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    5

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

the access road attached to Lombard Street. In addition, the building was shifted approximately 10‐12

feet west and 10‐12 feet south from the original site design. This allowed for the natural tree line to the

north of the facility to largely remain.

V. Environmental Considerations

The EA assesses the potential environmental impacts of the Project resulting from the construction and

operation of the Project in the following twenty‐six technical areas: air quality; water resources;

floodplains; noise, vibration; geology and soils; ecosystems; wetlands; threatened or endangered

species; fisheries; wildlife habitat; rail transportation; highways and roads; prime farmland; coastal zone

management; contaminated sites and hazardous waste; utilities; public health and safety; visual and

lighting; land use and zoning; socio economic and environmental justice, including impacts to

communities directly adjacent to the Project; cultural and historic resources; Section 4(f) and 6(f)

resources; construction impacts; indirect effects; and cumulative impacts.  Based upon the EA and

supporting studies, FRA has concluded that the Build Alternative, including proposed minimization

measures, is not likely to incur significant, adverse environmental impacts.  

A. Air Quality:

The EA included a screening level air quality assessment due to the potential for air quality impacts

resulting from locomotive emissions, including health impacts of exhaust components. The assessment

demonstrates that locomotive emissions will not cause air quality in the vicinity of the Layover Facility to

approach EPA established thresholds for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria

pollutants evaluated (PM10, PM2.5 and NO2).  Analysis of both long‐term and acute (short‐term) health

risks associated with carcinogenic and chronic non‐carcinogenic toxins was conducted and show

concentrations well below applicable standards.  The results show that the overall cancer impacts from

all pollutants combined is less than one‐in‐19 million (5.2E‐08), which is well below the applicable EPA

Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol significance threshold of one‐in‐one million (1E‐06).  As a result

of public concerns about air quality impacts from the Proposed Action, Booz Allen Hamilton,

Incorporated (Booz Allen Hamilton) conducted an independent review of the air quality analysis

presented in the EA and concurred with the conclusion that the Build Alternative would not generate

significant, adverse impacts to ambient air quality.

Although the construction and operation of the layover facility will not approach EPA established air

quality thresholds, NNEPRA has made a commitment that Downeaster train sets will not idle outside the

layover facility, apart from incidental idling associated with the movement of train sets into and out of

the layover facility.  Additionally, the proposed facility’s roll‐up doors are expected to be closed while

engines are running in the building, except to allow trains to enter and exit or to occasionally augment

ventilation.

B. Water Resources:

An assessment of the temporary and permanent impacts to surface and groundwater associated with

the Build Alternative was included in the EA.  Some local community members expressed concern that
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    6

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

the proposed building could affect groundwater and may cause formerly dry basements to become wet.  

A geotechnical investigation has been conducted on the Brunswick West site and the proposed facility

will be designed and engineered to meet any parameters or specifications determined through this

investigation and will not have an impact on the ground water table.  NNEPRA will institute a spill

containment plan at the site according to Federal regulations – EPA Spill Prevention, Control and

Countermeasure (SPCC) Rules 40 CFR Part 112 and state regulations Title 38 MSRA s570 K(5) to ensure

that there is no potential for surface and groundwater contamination. During construction of the Build

Alternative, best management practices for erosion and sediment control will be used to protect off‐site

surface waters from runoff. Since release of the EA, the project has received a Maine Department of

Environmental Protection stormwater permit, which demonstrates that the project meets applicable

stormwater management requirements.  The Build Alternative will not have any temporary or

permanent impacts to surface or groundwater.   

C. Floodplains:

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires that all federally‐funded projects determine

whether a proposed project will occur in a floodplain and to consider alternatives to avoid adverse

effects and incompatible development in floodplains. The Build Alternative site is not located within a

mapped 100‐year floodplain and therefore will not impact floodplains.  

D. Noise:

The EA included a noise analysis due to the potential for noise impacts and additional material

submitted by the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition (BWNC) which purported to demonstrate

noise impacts was also reviewed by FRA.  The noise analysis within the EA followed Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) /FRA procedures, which confirmed no moderate or severe impacts, will result from

operations associated with the Build Alternative.  As a result of public comment questioning the noise

analysis, FRA had an independent and objective review completed by Booz Allen Hamilton.  The review

by Booz Allen Hamilton of the noise analysis presented in the EA concurred with the analysis’s

conclusion that the Build Alternative will not create significant, adverse noise impacts. This independent

analysis also confirmed that the initial noise analysis was conducted in accordance with all relevant FRA

and FTA guidance on performing operational noise analyses. See Attachment 3 for further information

related to this study.

Although the proposed facility will not exceed federal noise regulations, local residents have expressed

concern related to noise impacts associated with the facility. Therefore, NNEPRA has agreed to design

the facility to include additional noise minimization features including enhanced insulation, the use of

double sets of trackway doors (to achieve an Sound Transmission Class (STC) level of 44) and low noise

fans.  The facility’s roll‐up doors will be closed while engines are running in the building, except to allow

trains to enter and exit or to occasionally augment ventilation.  In addition, tracks will be of welded rail

construction to reduce rail joint noise and switch heaters will be installed to prevent delays to trains

passing through switches during winter.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    7

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

There were also public comments expressing concern that the noise analysis was done based upon an

earlier design of the facility which might change the noise impacts to nearby receptors. Because of the

design changes, the noise impacts were recalculated. Because of the lack of the fourth, outdoor track,

noise impacts would mostly be reduced or stay the same for the three noise receptors, except for

Receptor 2, which would experience a 1‐dB increase over what was modeled in the EA for the current

service level scenario. However, all new noise levels would still be below the moderate impact

thresholds. As such, no new impacts are anticipated based on the design changes. New noise levels can

be seen in Table 1, below.

Receptor EA Projected

Noise Level

New Design Projected

Noise Level

1 49 49

2 48 49

3 43 40

Table 1: Current Service Level Noise Changes

Construction activities would be limited to the time period between 7:00 am to 7:00 pm daily in order to

limit impacts on surrounding residential areas, and normal best practices would be followed to minimize

noise impacts. With best practice measures in place, no significant, adverse noise impacts are

anticipated from construction activities from the Project.

E. Vibration:

The EA included a vibration analysis due to the potential for vibration impacts.  The vibration analysis

followed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) /FRA procedures, which confirmed no moderate or severe

impacts, would result from operations associated with the Build Alternative. The proposed layover

facility is expected to generate negligible vibration of its own. No heavy earth‐moving equipment will be

used at the facility, nor will any drilling, blasting or impact‐type work be performed. As such, the only

notable potential vibration generating source to consider is the movement of Amtrak Downeaster trains

in/out of the layover facility at slow speed. The predicted vibration associated with project‐related train

operations are generally similar to that experienced currently when Amtrak Downeaster trains pass by

on the mainline, but well below applicable FRA/FTA vibration criteria.  An independent and objective

review of the vibration analysis was conducted by Booz Allen Hamilton and concurred with the analysis’s

conclusion that the Build Alternative will not create significant, adverse vibration impacts.

There were also public comments expressing concern that the vibration analysis was done based up an

earlier design of the facility which might impact the results of the study. The design changes do not

impact the size or type of facility being built or operation levels at the facility. The new design does

move the facility slightly to the southwest. Since no major sources of vibration, such as blasting or pile

driving, will occur during the construction of the facility, there would be no new, significant, adverse

impacts based on the design changes that occurred during the study period.   

   
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    8

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

F. Geology and Soils:

A geotechnical investigation has been conducted on the Brunswick West site.  The facility will be

designed and engineered to meet any parameters or specifications determined through this

investigation.  The Build Alternative will disturb existing soils, covering them with a structure. The soils

are not unique or regionally important. During construction of the Build Alternative, best management

practices for erosion and sediment control will be used to protect off‐site surface waters from runoff.  

Concerns have been expressed regarding the coal ash and stockpiled soils with contaminants that are

present on the site. These will be managed in accordance with provisions specified by the Maine

Department of Ecology.  Best management practices to be employed during construction include the

installation sedimentation and erosion control measures prior to the start of any construction activities

and dust control measures throughout the project. Further, the action plan is specifically designed to

remediate the contaminates on site.  The plan was developed by qualified professionals for MaineDOT,

and was reviewed by NNEPRA’s consultant team, which included environmental and site remediation

experts.  The Build Alternative will not impact geology or soils.

G. Ecosystems:

The site is part of a pre‐existing rail corridor with two siding tracks and a mainline track. Previous

construction of the rail corridor included grading and ditching, which altered site vegetation. Shrubs and

saplings have grown up along the perimeter of the right‐of‐way and unmanaged areas within the

corridor.  Therefore, there are no substantially large, pristine unique ecoystems within the project area

that will be disturbed by the project.  Construction of the Build Alternative will disturb only small

quantities of vegetation that have regrown within the existing footprint of past railroad activities.  The

Build Alternative will not have significant impacts to ecosystems.   

H. Wetlands:

Reviews of the Build Alternative site conducted on October 21, 2011 and April 20, 2012 found that no

wetlands or potential vernal pools occur within the site. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

National Wetlands Inventory did not identify any wetlands within the site. Small areas of wetland occur

off‐site to the south and a ditched perennial stream crosses the rail corridor to the east of the site.  The

Build Alternative will not impact wetlands or streams.   

I. Threatened or Endangered Species:

There are no federally‐listed or proposed threatened or endangered species and/or designated critical

habitat for listed species within the site.  Due to the disturbed nature of the site, rare, threatened and

endangered species are not likely to occur on the site and therefore will not be impacted by the

construction or operation of the Build Alternative. Best management practices for erosion and sediment

control will be utilized during construction of the proposed project to protect off‐site habitats within the

Androscoggin River.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    9

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

J. Fisheries:

There are no fisheries resources on the Build Alternative site; therefore, the Build Alternative would

have no impacts to fisheries. Best management practices for erosion and sediment control will be

utilized during construction of the Project at the Build Alternative site to protect off‐site resources.

K. Wildlife Habitat:

A small amount of wildlife habitat will be lost and wildlife displaced as a result of the Build Alternative.

However, the site has low wildlife value due to past vegetation management activities and rail

operations. The Build Alternative will not cause impacts to wildlife habitat.

L. Rail Transportation  

NNEPRA, working with MaineDOT and Pan Am Railways, has determined that the existing rail

infrastructure between Brunswick and Portland can support six daily passenger train trips. Under the

Build Alternative, the two Brunswick – Portland trains needed to position equipment at the start and

end of each operating day could be eliminated, enabling two additional Portland – Boston Amtrak

Downeaster trains to be extended to Brunswick.  This would expand passenger rail options and expand

opportunities for passengers travelling between Brunswick, Boston and points in between.    

M. Highways and Roads

Under the Build Alternative, access to the site will be provided from Lombard Street and Church Road,

which connect to nearby US Route 1. Daily trip generation at the site is expected to include two to four

truck trips for delivery of fuel and supplies or garbage/recycling pick up, as well as occasional visitor

trips. Three shifts of employee arrivals and departures typically consisting of approximately ten to

twelve vehicle trips each are expected. The Project will not adversely affect traffic operations on area

roadways.  

The project will enable two additional Boston – Portland Amtrak Downeaster trips to be extended to

Brunswick, replacing two trips that only operate between Portland and Brunswick today. The additional

service is expected to result in increased ridership, which could attract additional automobile trips to

Brunswick Station (likely on the order of 15 to 20 vehicles per day). Conversely, some decrease in auto

travel between Brunswick and Portland on the I‐295 corridor could be realized if the additional service

results in drivers shifting to rail travel.

N. Prime Farmland:

An evaluation was conducted as required under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981.   The

Build Alternative would not impact Prime or Unique Farmland, but is located over Farmland Soils of

Statewide Importance.  As the site is within a highly developed area, the FPPA considers these lands as

“committed to other uses.” Therefore, the Build Alternative will not impact farmland soils of any type.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    10

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

O. Coastal Zone Management:

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the federal consistency provision, provides a

mechanism for states to manage the use of coastal resources and to facilitate cooperation and

coordination with federal agencies. In Maine, activities affecting the coastal zone that are proposed by

federal agencies require federal licenses or permits, or are conducted in a manner consistent with the

enforceable policies of the Maine Coastal Program (MCP). The enforceable policies of the MCP are

contained in various state laws and implementing regulations. Although the project is within the Coastal

Zone, it is not required to file for federal consistency review as the activity is not listed in the MCP.

P. Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste:

Concerns have been expressed regarding the coal ash and stockpiled soils with contaminants that are

present on the site. The Build Alternative would remediate existing contamination as specified by a

recommended action plan, which the MaineDEP concurred with.  Activities conducted at the site would

not further contribute to contamination of the site. Trains will be refueled on site by fuel trucks. Fuel for

trains will not be stored on site. Small quantities of gasoline may be stored on site for incidental use (e.g.

– lawnmower) or if an emergency generator is provided. Floor drains will be installed inside of the main

building to catch any materials that drip, melt or fall from the train sets. These will be collected into a

containment tank and removed from the site as necessary. No heavy maintenance, external washing, or

painting of train sets will occur on site.

Q. Utilities:

Temporary impacts and local disruptions may be necessary to splice into existing services during

construction of the Build Alternative.  Proposed water connections will be made under Church Road.

Electric connections will be made to existing overhead service on Turner Street. Sewer connections to

existing service lines will be made under Lombard Street. Impacts to utility services would be temporary

in nature, and would not significantly affect long‐term services.

R. Public Health and Safety:

The Build Alternative will not have significant adverse impacts on public health or safety. The proposed

facility will not alter the safety of the railyard and neighboring mainline track.  Instead, it will move

maintenance and storage of train sets currently stored outside during the daytime hours to an inside

area secure from the environment and access by the public.  However, some public concerns were

expressed about the safety of the proposed facility to the immediately surrounding area.  In particular,

commenters requested that the site be fenced.  The corridor is an active rail corridor today, none of

which is currently fenced.   Despite this, NNEPRA has agreed to install fencing on the north side of the

layover facility. The land on the south side of the proposed site is owned by Maine DOT, and NNEPRA

does not have the legal authority to install fencing on that side of the layover facility.

As discussed above, no negative air quality impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project.  
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    11

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

S. Visual and Lighting:

The public submitted comments regarding negative visual and lighting impacts on surrounding

residences. The Build Alternative will construct an approximately 655‐foot long by 70‐foot wide main

building, with an attached 180‐foot by 26‐foot crew building. The main building will have a peaked roof

of approximately 37 feet maximum height and will not exceed local height restrictions. The building will

be constructed in an area that is largely cleared of vegetation today. However, existing vegetation on

the north side of the facility will screen some views of the building from most neighboring areas,

especially when deciduous plants have leaves during spring, summer and autumn.  

The size of the building – particularly its length – will create a visual impact to those neighbors with

property having a direct line of sight view of the building; this includes up to eight residential properties

on Bouchard Drive with property fronting or near the railroad corridor.  The impact is not considered

significant because of the existing lack of visual character of the rail yard, presence of other industrial

uses in the area, distance from abutters to the proposed building (over 200 feet), partial screening

provided by existing and proposed vegetation, and small number of affected  residences.  NNEPRA will

plant vegetation (arborvitae or similar) along an approximate 240‐foot section of the access road to

Church Road to further provide vegetative cover for the Project. Based on comments about safety, a 6‐

foot high chain‐link fence with visual screens will be constructed along the north side of the project,

within the existing tree line. While this will have some small visual impacts on the residences to the

north, the fence should be blocked by existing natural cover for most of the year.

External lighting at the facility will be provided for the roadway and parking areas, as well as on the

exterior of the building where activity is expected (doorways, walkways) and will not have an adverse

impact. Lighting will be mounted on poles and/or the side of the building and will be designed to direct

light downward. NNEPRA’s contractor will design a lighting plan that illuminates these exterior areas as

required for safety, and will utilize cut‐off lighting fixtures to avoid or minimize light spillover from the

site.  Overall, the analysis within the EA concludes that the Build Alternative will not significantly

degrade the visual appearance of the site, nor will lighting of the property at night impact neighbors.

T. Land Use and Zoning:

The site is currently functioning as a rail yard, has two siding tracks located in the rail yard that are in use

today, and borders the State of Maine owned Brunswick Branch mainline tracks. There were some

community comments that questioned the compatibility with Town zoning and nearby residential areas.  

The Project site is zoned Mixed Use 2 – In‐town Railroad Corridor (MU2). This type of zone encourages a

mix of non‐residential uses, including industrial uses.  Several existing industrial and commercial uses

are located adjacent to or near the proposed site to the north, including a fuel storage facility and large

warehouse. A railcar layover facility is not specifically identified as a by‐right use, but is consistent with

industrial uses and/or the transportation facility category.   

The layover facility does exceed the maximum square footage allowed in the MU2 zone.  The size of the

building is a physical requirement for housing the Downeaster trainsets. However, because Federal law
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    12

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

preempts the Town of Brunswick’s zoning ordinance no use or dimensional variance under that

ordinance is necessary for the Project.   

Because the layover facility is consistent with industrial uses zoning in the area, will be built on an

existing rail yard surrounded by other industrial sites and railroad tracks to the south, the Build

Alternative will not have a significant impact on land use or zoning in the area.

U. Socio Economic and Environmental Justice:

The Build Alternative will be located adjacent to the north side of an active rail line on property which

has been used for railroad purposes since the late 1850’s. The site contained numerous tracks and

buildings through the late 1980’s and currently serves as a freight car storage and interchange location

for Pan Am Railways and Maine Eastern Railroad, as well as a day‐time hold‐over location for Amtrak

Downeaster trains.  

Neighboring community concerns were expressed that property values will be adversely affected by the

construction and operation of the layover facility.  Property values are influenced by many market

variables in addition to local considerations.  Home values in the area have decreased in recent years for

factors unrelated to the Project, including closure of the Brunswick Naval Air Station and

regional/national market conditions.  In addition, homes located near the Project site already border an

active rail corridor with freight and daily passenger train service and the Brunswick rail yard, which is

actively currently used for freight and passenger car storage.

Additionally, the Project will support ongoing efforts to improve mobility by rail for residents of

Brunswick and neighboring communities, as well as support efforts to improve access to the Brunswick

region for business, recreational and educational activities. The Build Alternative will create short‐term

work opportunities during the construction period, as well as support long‐term employment positions

involving train maintenance activity and train operating personnel. Operation of the Build Alternative

will result in the purchase of consumables from local suppliers, including cleaning supplies, fuel and food

service supplies.  

Based on the assessment of socio economic conditions and associated impacts in the EA, the Build

Alternative is not anticipated to cause any significant adverse impact to the local residential or business

economic community.   

There are no minority or low income populations near the Project site. Therefore, the Build Alternative

would also not disproportionately affect minority or low income populations.

V. Cultural and Historic Resources:

There are no archeological or historic resources on the Project site; therefore, the Build Alternative will

have no adverse effects to cultural or historic resources.  The Maine State Historic Preservation Office

concurred with this finding.  The Build Alternative will not affect any cultural or historic resources.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    13

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

W. Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources:

There are no Section 6(f) public lands or recreation areas within the project site; therefore, the Build

Alternative will not impact these resources.  The Build Alternative will not affect any Section 4(f) State,

Federal or private conservation lands, refuges, parks, or other national, state or locally significant

publically owned lands or any historic properties. Therefore, a 4(f) statement for this Project is not

required.

X. Construction Impacts:

Temporary impacts associated with construction of the Build Alternative are expected, including noise,

dust, and emissions from operation of equipment for the construction of the building, access road, new

tracks, utility connections, and pavement of the Project site. Disturbance to existing roads and utilities

will be minimal, primarily localized where the new access roads meet Church Road and Lombard Street.  

A perimeter fence with visual screening will be installed around the entire site during construction. New

tracks will be installed to connect the main building to the railyard, including grading, and installation of

ballast, ties and rails. No impact to services operating on the mainline are expected. The Project would

not impinge on any party’s access to their property, as it is located in the interior of the Project site and

the site access from Church Road and Lombard Street would be new access roadways that would not

interfere with others’ access to their properties. Best management practices that will be employed by

NNEPRA’s contractor during construction to minimize impacts include: prior to the start of any

construction activities, sedimentation and erosion control measures will be installed; dust control

measures will be used; the contractor will be required to fence in the site during construction to secure

the site; and construction activities will only take place between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.  

Y. Indirect Effects:

Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but

are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects

related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related

effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.  Because the site for the Build

Alternative is an existing rail yard, it is not anticipated that the Project will have any long term indirect

negative impact on the surrounding pattern of land.  The potential for beneficial indirect effects under

the Build Alternative includes improved mobility by rail for residents of Brunswick and neighboring

communities, as well as access to the Brunswick region for business, recreational and educational

activities. The Build Alternative will improve transportation mobility to and from Brunswick under

current service levels by allowing two additional revenue service Amtrak Downeaster trips. To the extent

that the Build Alternative improves transportation mobility to and from Brunswick, it may contribute to

a more favorable environment for economic development and potential to induce some additional

residential or commercial growth. In addition, over time, a greater share of employees who work at the

layover site or are otherwise associated with operating the Amtrak Downeaster service may choose to

reside in Brunswick or nearby communities, slightly increasing demand for housing.  
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    14

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

Z. Cumulative Impacts:

“Cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what

agency (Federal or non‐Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.  No other

planned or proposed projects have been identified near the Project site. NNEPRA plans to construct a

second mainline track section at Royal Junction in Yarmouth, Maine, establishing a double track section

that would allow trains traveling in opposite directions to pass at speed. The Royal Junction project

would provide the passing capacity to increase the number of scheduled daily Amtrak Downeaster trains

to Brunswick from six to ten. No funding is yet identified for this Royal Junction Project.  Overall, the

Build Alternative would not result in any significant, adverse cumulative impacts.   

VI. Agency and Public Involvement

Throughout the development of the proposed Project prior to the public release of the September 2013

EA, NNEPRA coordinated with the individual members of the public, neighborhood member groups, and

federal, state and local agencies.  This public contact included NNEPRA Board meetings and three public

meetings held in Brunswick to describe the proposals and solicit public feedback. The public meetings

were well attended and publicized in the local media (i.e., newspaper, cable television). In addition, an

advisory group comprised of officials from the Town of Brunswick, the Brunswick Town Council, the

MaineDOT, Amtrak, and members of the Brunswick community was convened in December 2011 and

has met on three occasions.  As part of the Alternative Analysis, NNEPRA conducted a series of public

meetings, between June 23, 2011 and August 18, 2011, to give the public information about these

alternatives.  The public and agency meetings included the following:

April 21, 2011 – Brunswick Zoning Board Meeting

April 25, 2011 – NNEPRA Board Meeting

May 23, 2011‐ NNEPRA Board Meeting

June 23, 2011 – NNEPRA Hosted Public Meeting, Brunswick, Maine

June 27, 2011 – NNEPRA Board Meeting

July 14, 2011 – Public Meeting, Brunswick, Maine

August 17, 2011 – Press Conference

August 18, 2011 – Special NNEPRA Board Meeting, Brunswick, Maine

August 22, 2011 – Regular meeting of the NNEPRA Board of Directors, Portland, Maine

September 8, 2011 – NNEPRA meeting with Brunswick residents, Portland, Maine

September 2011 – Brunswick West Neighborhood notification of noise receptors placement

December 2, 2011 – Brunswick Building Advisory Group Meeting

December 29, 2011 – Building Specification Outline released

January 12, 2012 – Brunswick Building Advisory Group Meeting

February 6, 2012 – Brunswick Town Council Meeting

February 23, 2012 – Release of Noise Impact Analysis Technical Memorandum

February 27, 2012 – Brunswick Town Council Meeting

March 2, 2012 – Brunswick Building Advisory Group Meeting

May 14, 2012 – Brunswick West Neighborhood residents noise measurement opportunity
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    15

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

December 2012 – January 2013 – MaineDOT investigation of Industrial Site Alternative

July 9, 2013 – Brunswick Layover Advisory Group Meeting

July 23, 2013‐ Brunswick Layover Advisory Group Meeting

A. EA Public Comment Period:  

The FRA, in cooperation with Project sponsor NNEPRA, released the Brunswick Layover EA for public

review and comment on September 14, 2013.  The comment period initially was from September 14,

2013 through October 13, 2013 and was advertised in three local newspapers.  The EA and all associated

documentation were available on the NNEPRA and FRA websites and at the NNEPRA office, the

Brunswick Town Hall and the Brunswick public library throughout the comment period.   

Following the lapse in Federal funding and shut down of certain Federal government functions that

occurred between October 1 and October 17, 2013, including the FRA offices responsible for the NEPA

process, FRA reviewed the NEPA public commenting process for this EA.  FRA conducted this review in

relation to the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Guidance, dated October 18, 2013, suggesting

that Federal agencies review their NEPA public and agency participation processes in relation to the

shutdown. FRA determined that there was no need to reopen and extend the 30‐day comment period

for this EA.    

The Project studies in the EA clearly show that Federal and State coordination occurred throughout the

development of the EA process and based on this coordination and impacts identified, FRA had no

expectation that any additional Federal comments concerning this project were required or

anticipated.  In addition, the Brunswick Layover Facility EA was published, the comment period was

initiated, and the public hearing was held prior to the start of the furlough on October 1, 2013.   The

availability of the EA and the need to submit comments during the comment period to NNEPRA (and not

FRA) was clearly communicated through advertisements and at the public hearing.  NNEPRA was not

closed during the Federal Government furlough and was available to receive these comments or answer

questions about receipt of comments.  Importantly, FRA made this NEPA decision only following the

receipt and consideration of all the comments collected by NNEPRA (or FRA) during the EA comment

period and during the public hearing or more recently, as practicable.

B. Summary of EA Public Comment and Response:  

A Public Hearing was conducted on September 26, 2013 where twenty‐three individuals provided oral

testimony.  A total of 53 comment letters or emails were submitted to NNEPRA from 44 individuals

throughout the comment period expressing support and opposition of the proposed Project.  In

addition, a neighborhood group submitted five binders of materials.  Of comments expressing concerns,

a large majority were related to ten general issues:  noise/vibration, air quality, size of building/visual

impacts, zoning and land use compatibility, federal preemption, property value impacts, groundwater,

safety, alternate sites, and request for EIS.  Detailed responses to individual comments are provided in

the attached memo entitled “Response to Comments Received In Regard to the Brunswick Layover

Environmental Assessment (EA), September 2013” and reference that the EA was conducted in
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    16

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

accordance with the NEPA and applicable federal guidelines and that the assessments conducted for the

EA do not identify any significant impacts.

In March 2014, NNEPRA received letters from Maine Governor Paul R. LePage and State Senator Stan

Gerzofsky expressing concerns with the project. These concerns relate to the impacts of the design

changes that occurred during the EA process, the handling of public comments, the preemption of state

and local laws, and a call for a full environmental impact statement study to be conducted by NNEPRA.

These letters and their responses from NNEPRA can be found in Attachment 2.

VII. Commitments and Minimization Measures:

NNEPRA will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local permitting requirements

during the implementation of the Project, which will include:

 Public Law 95‐217, Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC § 1251‐1376  

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC § 470  

 Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1344  

 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42

USC § 4601 et seq.  

 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, signed May 24, 1977  

The following commitments and minimization measures have been identified to further reduce impacts

of the Project and are agreed to by NNEPRA.  Additional measures may also be implemented as

necessary and as identified.

Air:  

 NNEPRA has made a commitment that Downeaster train sets will not idle outside the layover

facility, apart from incidental idling associated with the movement of train sets into and out of the

layover facility.    

 The proposed facility’s roll‐up doors are expected to be closed while engines are running in the

building, except to allow trains to enter and exit or to occasionally augment ventilation.

Noise:  

 In response to concerns expressed by the Building Advisory Group, the Project specification for the

building will be established requiring an overall net STC of 44 or greater.  

 The Project will employ low‐noise generating fans or similarly quiet ventilation apparatus.  

 Tracks will be of welded rail construction to reduce rail joint noise.  

 Switch heaters will be installed to prevent delays to trains passing through switches during winter.  

 The building’s roll‐up doors will be closed while engines are running in the building, except to allow

trains to enter and exit or to occasionally augment ventilation.

 Downeaster train sets will not idle outside the layover facility, apart, from incidental idling

associated with the movement of train sets into and out of the layover facility.

   
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT    17

Brunswick Layover Facility

Brunswick, ME

June 2014

Visual, Lighting, and Safety:  

 On‐site lighting will be designed to illuminate the Project area sufficiently for safety and security

purposes, but will to the extent practical employ fixtures and light placement that limits light

spillover onto adjacent parcels.  

 The Project will plant vegetation (arborvitae or similar) along an approximate 240‐foot section of the

access road to Church Road.  

 Fencing will be installed on the north side of the layover parcel.   

Construction:  

 The Project will follow the action plan specified by the State Department of Environmental

Protection for management of hazardous materials.  

 The Project will employ construction best practices, including:  

o Prior to the start of any construction activities, sedimentation and erosion control measures

will be installed.  

o Dust control measures will be used.  

o The contractor will fence in the site prior to starting construction to secure the site.  

o Construction activities will only take place between 7:00am and 7:00pm.  

VIII. Conclusion:

FRA finds that the Brunswick Layover Facility Project, as presented and assessed in the attached EA,

satisfies the requirements of NEPA (42 USC § 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500‐1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999), and FRA’s Update to NEPA Implementing Procedures (78 FR 2713, January 14,

2013), and the Project will have no foreseeable significant impact on the quality of the human or natural

environment provided it is implemented in accordance with the commitments identified in this FONSI.

As the Project sponsor, NNEPRA is responsible for ensuring all environmental commitments identified in

this FONSI are fully implemented. The EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for FRA to determine

that an environmental impact statement is not required for the Project as presented.