EAcomments.2ed.dh.doc

BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF CAMAS PRAIRIE RAILNET’S APPLICATION TO ABANDON THE SPALDING-GRANGEVILLE BRANCH IN LEWIS, IDAHO, AND NEZ PERCE COUNTIES. )
)
)
)
)
) DOCKET NO. 564

STATE OF IDAHO’S
COMMENTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

On June 28, 2000, the Surface Transportation Board issued an environmental analysis (EA) in the above referenced case prepared by its Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA). The State of Idaho’s comments on the EA are submitted pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1105.10(b). The EA failed to adequately address several significant environmental consequences. Idaho asserts that the abandonment and discontinuance of service on the Camas Prairie’s Grangeville line will have significant environmental impacts.
TRANSPORTATION
A. Rail-to–Truck Diversions
In the EA, SEA analyzed the potential impact of the additional truck traffic. SEA calculated the percentage increase in new truck traffic based on the origination or termination of rail cars in the 1999 base year. Consequently, SEA projected that 2,101 rail cars would be diverted to trucks. However, in its Application Camas Prairie RailNet (CSPR) estimated there would be 2,621 rail car shipments in the forecast year. Exhibit F at p. 3. In the State’s Protest, Idaho asserts there will be 2,966 car shipments in the forecast year. Idaho Protest at 8. Thus, the traffic data used as the benchmark by SEA is significantly understated.
Next, SEA inadvertently used incorrect annual average daily traffic (AADT) information for the communities of Cottonwood and Spalding when calculating truck traffic impacts contained in the charts on page 4 of the EA. The State’s Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 below use correct AADT counts for Cottonwood and Spalding from the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) average traffic Daily Traffic Volume Report for 1999. In addition, the “Estimated New Trucks/Trips” columns contained in the EA’s charts on page 4 should have included the new truck trips in both directions (roundtrips), not in just trips in one direction. This is particularly relevant if the trips are being compared to the AADT data.
The AADT counts estimated by ITD include every vehicle, regardless of load, number of passengers, etc. The number of truck trips should also be accumulated because the vast majority of the traffic is all moving northwest on US 95 towards Lewiston. Therefore, the maximum number of new trucks per day under either the 240 or 80 working-day scenario would pass Spalding, one of the terminal points for the proposed abandonment. These corrections, along with the resulting percent increases in AADT, are also shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 below.
EXHIBIT 1 240-Day Year
Community 1999 AADT Estimated New
Trucks
Percent Increase
In ADT Increase in Heavy Truck ADT Fenn 2,727 27.6 1.0% 11.5% Cottonwood 2,800 39.4 1.4% 16.0% Spalding 5,200 96.0 1.8% 21.0%
EXHIBIT 2 80-Day season

Community

1999
AADT Estimated New
Truck Trips –
4 Month Season
(80 working days)

Percent Increase
In ADT

Estimated New Daily Trucks
Increase in
Heavy Truck
ADT
Fenn 2,727 2840 1.3% 35.6 15.0% Cottonwood 2,800 4044 1.8% 50.6 21.0% Spalding 5,200 9868 2.4% 123.4 27.0% The EA also does not estimate the percentage changes in heavy truck traffic on US 95. According to data derived from an ITD permanent traffic counter at Fenn (seven miles north of Grangeville), 8.8 % of the traffic in 1999 was composed of trucks over 40 feet in length. If that percentage is used at Fenn and the other locations cited in the EA as the existing level of heavy trucks, then the increase in heavy truck traffic is substantial. The estimated increase in heavy trucks with abandonment is 11.5 % at Fenn, 16 % at Cottonwood, and 21 % at Spalding in the 240 working day scenario shown in Exhibit 1. The estimated increase in heavy trucks is 15 % at Fenn, 21 % at Cottonwood, and 27 % at Spalding in the 80 working day scenario shown in Exhibit 2.
Again, the EA and the suggested corrections above are based on the 1999 base year rail traffic data of 2,101 carloads. The estimated new truck trips, percent increase in ADT, and percent increase in heavy-truck ADT would all rise proportionally when using CSPR’s forecast year traffic of 2,631 rail carloads or the shippers’ forecast of 2,966 rail carloads.
The conclusions reached by the SEA in the EA should reflect the changes described above so that the Environmental Assessment of the impacts of the proposed abandonment on Transportation, Air Quality and Energy Consumption are not understated, and the appropriate conclusions can be drawn from the data.

B. Highway Infrastructure Impacts Will be Significant in the Area of the Abandonment
The EA states that “additional truck traffic would result in some adverse impacts to highway infrastructure.…” EA at 6. However, SEA believes that these impacts “would not be significant.” Id. Idaho asserts that the impacts of the proposed abandonment are indeed significant.
In his verified statement contained in Idaho’s Protest, Dr. Denver Tolliver used the applicant’s traffic forecast -- in conjunction with detailed highway and truck weight data and pavement deterioration models -- to estimate an incremental annual highway cost of $193,400 for highways in the Grangeville-Lewiston region. Shippers are projecting 2,966 rail carloads of traffic in the forecast year, as opposed to the applicant’s forecast of 2621 carloads. Idaho Protest at 8. Using the shippers’ traffic forecast, Dr. Tolliver estimated an annualized highway impact of approximately $219,000 in the abandonment region. V.S. Tolliver at 17.
This is a significant incremental cost that will be borne by the counties and communities in the region. Although additional fuel taxes will be generated from the incremental truck traffic, there is considerable uncertainty as to how the additional revenues will be distributed, and how much of such revenues will be available to the impacted communities.
Dr. Tolliver used financial and programming information from several ITD reports and data summaries to analyze the local revenue impact. In the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Idaho has programmed $370.4 million in federal funds for National Highway System (NHS) construction projects over the five-year period from 2001-2005. The State expects to receive a total of $1,257.3 million in federal funds over those same five years. In essence, 29.46 % of Idaho's federal funds are programmed for the NHS.
In 1998, Idaho received $1.27 for each $1.00 paid into the Highway Trust Fund, or $.3086 per gallon of fuel purchased in Idaho (1.27x 24.3 cents federal fuel tax). Therefore, the State of Idaho would receive, on average, 9.1 cents in federal-aid construction funds for use on US 95 for each gallon of fuel consumed (29.46 % x $.3086).
Over the same five-year period, Idaho has programmed $153.1 million for STIP-State projects. STIP funds are the source for any federal-aid projects on State Highway (SH)-13. STIP project funds equal 12.18 % of the $1,257.3 million in federal funds expected to be received during the period. Using the same logic as above, the State of Idaho would receive, on average, 3.76 cents in federal-aid construction funds for SH-13 for each gallon of fuel consumed (12.18 % x $.3086)
Of the 25 cents per gallon state fuel tax, the ITD receives 57 percent, or $.1425 per gallon. If the assumption is made that state revenues are distributed equally over time to all 4,953 miles of state highways, then the 73 miles of US 95 from Grangeville to Lewiston would receive $.0021 per gallon of fuel consumed (73/4953 x $.1425). The 26 impacted miles of SH-13 would receive $.0007 per gallon of fuel consumed (26/4953 x $.1425). 
However, it should be noted that only a small portion of the highway revenues raised by the State are used for highway construction. According to ITD data, about 15% of highway revenues raised by the State were used for construction in 1999. Thus, the percentage of state fuel tax revenues available for construction is only a small portion of the figures listed above.
It is not known if Nez Perce County would receive any additional federal funds for construction on county route P-3 (between Ruebens and Myrtle (on US 12)). Local governments compete for limited STIP Local funds on a discretionary basis, statewide. Under current Idaho law, the county's portion of the state highway account is based on paved road mileage, not traffic volume.
In summary, the counties and communities in the abandonment impact area have limited prospects for receiving additional highway revenues to offset the incremental highway costs. Thus, from a local perspective, the highway infrastructure impacts are significant in relation to the expected increase in revenues from the additional truck traffic. Using the shippers’ traffic forecast, Dr. Tolliver estimated a net change in annualized highway cost of more than $200,000 based on the most likely distribution of incremental revenues to the impacted communities. This is a significant annual sum in terms of local highway budgets.

C. Energy Efficiency Is Important to Transportation Cost and Policy
SEA estimates that “the new truck traffic would consume an additional 261,990 gallons of diesel fuel annually.” EA at 6. Currently, the average price of diesel fuel per gallon in Lewiston is $1.52. Using this unit price, the annual incremental cost of the additional 261,990 gallons is approximately $398,000.
It should be noted that this short-run market price may not reflect the true long-run cost of the resource. Many analysts believe that the current abundance of petroleum in the United States cannot be assured in the future. Over half of the petroleum used in the U.S. is imported, some from regions characterized by political instability. Future disruptions in world supplies could lead to steep price increases. The cost of oil dependence – such as military and strategic petroleum reserve costs – is not reflected in the current market price.
The transportation sector uses over 65 percent of all of the petroleum consumed in the United States (USDOE, 1998). In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Congress declared that it is the policy of the United States to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that “will move people and goods in an energy-efficient manner” and “reduce energy consumption and air pollution while promoting economic development.” According to SEA, the proposed abandonment will cause a traffic shift from rail-to-truck which results in 1.517 million incremental truck vehicle miles per year. EA at 6. This outcome will not advance the national transportation and energy policies of the United States.

D. Air Quality Impacts
SEA concludes that “impacts to air quality also would be insignificant.” EA at 7. The SEA’s analysis is based on a comparison of incremental truck annual average daily traffic (AADT) after the proposed abandonment, to existing AADT on US95. This comparison understates the air quality impacts for several reasons. First, all of the incremental traffic is heavy truck diesel-engine traffic, while the baseline AADT estimates are heavily weighted by automobile traffic. Heavy trucks usually generate more pollutants per mile than automobiles. Second, the potential pollution damage costs may increase at a greater rate than the percentage increase in VMT. Third, the air quality effects may vary with specific pollutants.
The State requested that Dr. Tolliver also review SEA’s conclusions regarding air quality. Based upon his review, he concludes shifting traffic from railroads to trucks will increase future emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and other pollutants. These pollutants pose serious primary and secondary risks. Volatile organic compounds such as hydrocarbons react with other compounds to form ozone. Microscopic particles smaller than 10 micrometers (PM-10) irritate the human respiratory system and are correlated with infant mortality rates in urban areas.
Dr. Tolliver also maintains the health, social, and environmental costs of air pollutants have been quantified in recent studies. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has estimated a set of air pollution damage unit costs and adjustment factors for used in the Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS). HERS is used by FHWA and states to analyze the impacts and benefits of transportation operations and improvements. The air pollution damage costs are derived from a widely-cited study by McCubbin and Delucchi (1996) entitled Health Effects of Motor Vehicle Air Pollution.
The unit costs in Exhibit 3 represent nationwide average damage costs per ton from exposure to main pollutants. The costs for particulate matter and carbon monoxide are adjusted or scaled to reflect various environmental and population settings. The adjustment factors shown in Exhibit 4 reflect the fact that emissions in rural areas are widely dispersed and population densities are relatively low.

Exhibit 3. Air Pollution Damage Costs Used in the Highway Economic Requirements System (Dollars per Ton) Moderate High NOX $ 1,569 $ 3,730 PM $ 2,492 $ 4,961 VOC $ 1,084 $ 2,834 SO2 $ 1,647 $ 8,644 CO $ 21 $ 103 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Economic Requirements System: Technical Report, Version 3.1, March , 1999.

Exhibit 4. Air Pollution Damage Cost Adjustment Factors Used in the Highway Economic Requirements System Urban Rural NOX 1.5 1.0 PM 1.0 0.5 VOC 1.5 1.0 SO2 1.5 1.0 CO 1.0 0.5 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Economic Requirements System: Technical Report, Version 3.1, March, 1999

In Exhibit 5 below Dr. Tolliver shows average emission rates for truck and rail. The rail emission rates are EPA estimates for 2000 for the railroad locomotive fleet. They reflect a mixture of line-haul and switching duty cycles, and a mixture of older and new units. The truck emission rates are maximum standards for heavy-duty diesel-cycle engines manufactured in 1998 or later. Actual truck emission rates may be higher than the ones shown in Exhibit 5, if older trucks are used to haul the traffic. To the extent that older locomotives are used on the line, the 2000 rail average may also be an optimistic estimate. Nevertheless, the estimates shown in Exhibit 5 should provide for a reasonable comparison between modes.

Exhibit 5. Average Emission Rates of Rail and Truck Modes Grams per Gallon Rail Truck NOX 276.7 83.2 PM 6.8 2.08 VOC 10.7 27.04 CO 27.4 322.4

Exhibit 6 below shows estimates of the incremental pounds of pollutants emitted by each mode. The truck values reflect the SEA’s estimate of 261,990 incremental gallons consumed by the new truck traffic as a result of the abandonment of the Grangeville line. EA at 6. The rail estimates reflect the SEA’s assumed rail-to-truck fuel efficiency ratio of 4:1. Id.

Exhibit 6. Estimated Pounds of Emissions for Incremental Traffic Rail Truck NOX 39,871 47,955 PM 980 1,199 VOC 1,542 15,585 CO 3,948 185,824
In Exhibit 7 Dr. Tolliver estimated pollution damage costs for each mode using the moderate unit costs shown in Exhibit 3, while Exhibit 8 shows the estimated air quality impacts using the high pollution damage unit costs shown in Exhibit 3. Both sets of estimates reflect the rural adjustment factors shown in Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 7. Moderate Pollution Damage Cost Estimates Rail Truck NOX $ 31,280 $ 37,622 PM $ 610 $ 747 VOC $ 836 $ 8,451 CO $ 20 $ 956 $ 32,747 $ 47,776
Exhibit 8. High Pollution Damage Cost Estimates Rail Truck NOX $ 74,355 $ 89,430 PM $ 1,215 $ 1,487 VOC $ 2,184 $ 22,081 CO $ 102 $ 4,780 $ 77,856 $ 117,778
As the tables show, the estimated incremental pollution damage costs range from $15,000 in the moderate case (Exh. 7: $47,776-$32,747), to approximately $40,000 per year in the high-cost case (Exh. 8: $117,778-$77,856).
These estimates are conservative for several reasons. First, the shippers’ traffic forecast is 41% higher then the applicant’s 1999 base year traffic (2,966 cars vs. 2101 cars), which is the basis for SEA’s fuel estimates. Second, highway grade and curvature are not reflected in the numbers. Trucks may be operating down and up significant grades in the Lewiston area, thus increasing fuel consumption and emissions. In particular, there is a 3% grade for 13 miles of the Grangeville line, or an increase in elevation of more than 2,600 feet in 23 miles. Application at 8, Exh. E.
In summary, significant energy and air quality impacts will result from the proposed abandonment. These outcomes are not consistent with national transportation policies. The pollution damage costs will be borne primarily by local communities.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In the EA, SEA notes that the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) and the Idaho Department of Fish & Game indicated that the federally protected steelhead trout is present in Lapwai Creek. As Fish & Game Biologist Gregg Servheen states in his verified statement, a significant portion of the rail line runs along and at times crosses Lapwai Creek. He indicates that there are 18 miles of steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in Lapwai Creek. V.S. Servheen at 1. He also notes that the Grangeville line crosses Lapwai Creek and its tributaries no less than nine different times. The steelhead is a protected threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. Recognizing the presence of an endangered species and its critical habitat, SEA recommended that the Railroad be prohibited from salvaging or disposing of the right-of-way (ROW) until completion of the Section 7 consultation. EA, Condition 1.
The State maintains that given the presence of the steelhead, the Board must conduct a biological assessment. Completion of the biological assessment is necessary to protect the steelhead and its critical habitat from any salvage or maintenance operations. Salvaging track, other track materials (OTM), and the dismantling of any bridges crossing Lapwai Creek or its tributaries may harm a protected species or significantly degrade its habitat. NMFS has identified several activities that may harm the steelhead. These activities include: (1) removing or altering soil, gravel, or other physical structures that are essential to the integrity and function of the listed habitat; (2) altering stream flow; (3) salvaging bridges on stream bank or crossing stream habitats; (4) conducting earth moving or other operations which substantially increase the sediments going into the stream; and (5) otherwise disturbing stream banks. See V.S. Servheen at 2; NMFS Citizen’s Guide to the 4(d) Rule for Threatened Salmon and Steelhead on the West Coast at 5 (June 20, 2000).
To protect and recover federally listed steelhead and other fish species and their habitats, the Department of Fish & Game recommends that the Board require a Track Salvage and Stream Restoration Work Plan (Work Plan) be prepared to protect stream habitats during salvage operation and restore in-stream habitats. The Work Plan should include the requirement that the railroad utilize best management practices (BMPs) during any salvage operations and reverse the negative effects of rail construction and maintenance on Lapwai Creek and its fishery. Moreover, Lapwai Creek has been identified as a 303(d) listed waterway. See CSPR Environmental & Historical Report, App. 18; V.S. Morse, Exh. EM-1 at ii, ¶7.
The Work Plan should also address the salvaging and removal of cross ties and bridge timbers which may have been treated with creosote or Pentachlorphenol (Penta) as a preservative. Both these substances are considered toxic. According to correspondence recently sent to SEA by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) both of these substances are listed or controlled by the Resource Conservation Recovery Act of 1996 (RECRA). In addition, BLM asserted that Penta contains PCPs, which are carcinogenic. Because a significant portion of the right-of-way is immediately adjacent to Lapwai Creek should be reason enough for the Board to require the recommended Work Plan.

CONCLUSION
As set out above, the State believes that the abandonment of the Grangeville line will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. SEA has not made a convincing case that the impacts caused by abandonment are insignificant. Consequently, the State believes that it is appropriate for the Board to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to complete its Section 7 ESA obligation before deciding this matter.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 26th day of July 2000.

ALAN G. LANCE
ATTORNEY GENERAL

DONALD L. HOWELL, II
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
PO Box 83720
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
[phone]

Attorneys for Protestant, State of Idaho

DATED: July 26, 2000

Apparently, SEA used AADT data from a location west of Spalding that included traffic from another state highway.
SH 13 runs from Grangeville to Kooskia, where it inersections with US 12.
USDOT, Transportation Air Quality, Publication No: FHWA-PD-96-006
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Economic Requirements System; Technical Report, Version 3.1, March 1999.

McCubbin, D. and M. Delucchi. Health Effects of Motor Vehicle air Pollution. Institute for Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 1996.

STATE OF IDAHO’S COMMENTS ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2