PROJECT: Union Pacific Railroad Bahia Yard Expansion Project
PUBLIC NOTICE NUMBER: SPN-2024-00097
PUBLIC NOTICE DATE: January 10, 2025
COMMENTS DUE DATE: February 8, 2025
PERMIT MANAGER: Shannon Morgan TELEPHONE: 916-326-9130 E-MAIL: shannon.r.morgan@usace.army.mil
INTRODUCTION:
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) (POC: Steve Cheney, (402) 544-3227), 1400 Douglas Street, Stop 0910, Omaha, Nebraska 68179, through its agent, Jacobs Engineering (POC: Michael Clary, (510) 610-3007), 2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 600, Sacramento, California 95833, has applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), San Francisco District, for a Department of the Army Permit to discharge fill material in Suisun Marsh, located in Solano County, California. This Department of the Army permit application is being processed pursuant to the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.), and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 403 et seq.).
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Project Site Location: The proposed Bahia Yard Expansion Project (Project) is located in the city of Benecia, Solano County, California, within Suisun Marsh, and extends from approximately 1,860 feet (0.35 mile) north of Lake Herman Road on the southern end to the southern side of Morrow Lane on the northern end; centered at latitude 38.09647°, -122.10305°.
Project Site Description: The proposed Project would occur within and adjacent to Suisun Marsh. Suisun Marsh is a large estuarine marsh comprised of several islands, most of which are ringed with large exterior levees. Managed wetlands are contained within the exterior levees and are managed primarily to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and it also provides valuable wetland habitat for resident and migratory wildlife.
A number of habitat types were identified within the Project’s biological survey area, including: alkali grassland; developed, disturbed ruderal, emergent wetland; scrub-shrub wetland; pond; and riverine habitat. Boundaries between these community types were generally distinct and easily identifiable on the basis of composition, inundation, and topographic breaks.
Project Description: As shown in the attached drawings, the applicant proposes to discharge fill material in 3.52 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (1.40 acres of temporary fill and 2.12 acres of permanent fill) within Suisun Marsh. The Project proposes to construct a 6,406-foot-long second siding track parallel to an existing siding track adjacent to the existing UPRR mainline track from Mile Post (MP) 37.5 to MP 38.8. The second siding track would be constructed on the eastern side of the existing track. The siding track would extend from approximately 1,860 feet (0.35 mile) north of Lake Herman Road, and on the northern end the track would terminate on the southern side of Morrow Lane. Construction would involve cut and fill activities, with approximately 20,000 cubic yards of cut material to be removed for off-site disposal.
Basic Project Purpose: The basic project purpose comprises the fundamental, essential, or irreducible purpose of the project, and is used by USACE to determine whether the project is water dependent. The basic project purpose is to provide transportation of commerce, which is not water dependent.
Overall Project Purpose: The overall project purpose serves as the basis for the Section 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis and is determined by further defining the basic project purpose in a manner that more specifically describes the applicant's goals for the project while allowing a reasonable range of alternatives to be analyzed. The overall project purpose is to enhance interstate commerce and to support safe and efficient existing rail service for customers in the Northern California megaregion.
Project Impacts: The proposed project would involve the placement of 10,525 cubic yards of fill material (8-inch ballast, 12-inch subballast, and class I riprap at culvert inlet/outlets) in 3.52 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. for site grading and installation of siding track and culverts. Permanent impacts would occur to 2.12 acres and temporary impacts would occur in 1.40 acres. Table 1 of the Project Description provides a summary of proposed impacts to wetlands and waters and Figure 3 shows the proposed impact areas/types.
Proposed Mitigation: The applicant proposes avoidance and minimization measures, as identified in the project description. The proposed project footprint was minimized by using 15-foot track centers for the length of the project rather than the typical track offset spacing of greater than 20 feet and with a proposed embankment slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The siding track would allow cargo rail traffic to move out of the way of other rail service such as passenger rail, reducing associated delays.
To offset unavoidable impacts, the applicant states compensatory mitigation would be satisfied via partnership with Solano Land Trust. Terms of the compensatory mitigation would be negotiated with UPRR, Solano Land Trust, and participating agencies.
Project Alternatives: The applicant states the proposed second siding track and associated improvements would need to be collocated with the existing mainline and yard track to minimize aquatic resource footprints and be logistically and economically feasible. Additionally, for public safety, UPRR strives to locate second siding track in an area without public road crossings, thereby limiting the potential for public interaction and delays to motorists. For these reasons, the applicant has not proposed off-site alternatives. On-site alternatives include:
1. No Project Alternative – The project would not proceed, and existing rail service would be maintained in its current condition. The applicant states significant shipping delays of interstate commerce, compromised passenger service due to capacity limits, delays for trains entering and exiting industrial facilities, and shortages of storage capacity would continue.
2. Alternative A includes construction of two parallel siding tracks, adjacent to the existing UPRR mainline track from MP 38.15 to approximately MP 39.5 north of the current project location. This alternative includes construction of two parallel support tracks, an access road and four hand-throw turnouts. Estimated aquatic resource impacts are 1.94 acres of permanent wetland impacts, 0.58 acre of lake impacts, and 0.02 acre of riverine impacts. Alternative A would not locate the support track within and adjacent to the existing yard and delays to mainline freight and passenger traffic would likely increase because yard traffic would be traveling on the mainline track in order to store cars and build trains.
3. Alternative B includes construction of two parallel siding tracks, adjacent to the existing UPRR mainline track from MP 40.23 to MP 42.08 north of the current project location. This alternative includes construction of two parallel support tracks, a construction access road and four hand-throw turnouts. Estimated aquatic resource impacts are 1.86 acres of permanent wetland impacts and 0.003 acre of riverine impacts. Alternative B would not locate the support track within and adjacent to the existing yard and delays to mainline freight and passenger traffic would likely increase because yard traffic would be traveling on the mainline track in order to store cars and build trains.
4. Alternative C is the original design developed in late 2023, which includes an 8,000-foot-long access road and construction of a 6,952-foot-long support track, resulting in 4.5 acres of permanent aquatic resource impacts. Alternative C was not selected due to costs and aquatic resource impacts.
USACE has not endorsed the submitted alternatives analysis at this time. USACE will conduct an independent review of the project alternatives prior to reaching a final permit decision.
STATE AND LOCAL APPROVALS:
Water Quality Certification: State water quality certification or a waiver thereof is a prerequisite for the issuance of a Department of the Army Permit to conduct any activity which may result in a fill or pollutant discharge into waters of the United States, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq.). The applicant is hereby notified that, unless USACE is provided documentation indicating a complete application for water quality certification has been submitted to the RWQCB within 30 days of this Public Notice date, the District Engineer may consider the permit application to be withdrawn. No Department of the Army Permit will be issued until the applicant obtains the required certification or a waiver of certification. A waiver can be explicit, or it may be presumed if the RWQCB fails or refuses to act on a complete application for water quality certification within 60 days of receipt, unless the District Engineer determines a shorter or longer period is a reasonable time for the RWQCB to act.
Water quality issues should be directed to the Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612, by the close of the comment period.
Coastal Zone Management: Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1456(c) et seq.), requires a non-federal applicant seeking a federal license or permit to conduct any activity occurring in or affecting the coastal zone to obtain a Consistency Certification that indicates the activity conforms with the state’s coastal zone management program. Generally, no federal license or permit will be granted until the appropriate state agency has issued a Consistency Certification or has waived its right to do so.
Coastal zone management issues should be directed to the Executive Director, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 375 Beale St., Suite 510, San Francisco, CA 94105, by the close of the comment period.
COMPLIANCE WITH VARIOUS FEDERAL LAWS:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Upon review of the Department of the Army permit application and other supporting documentation, USACE has made a preliminary determination that the project neither qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion nor requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the purposes of NEPA. At the conclusion of the public comment period, USACE will assess the environmental impacts of the project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 1500‑1508, and USACE regulations at 33 C.F.R. § 325. The final NEPA analysis will normally address the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that result from regulated activities within the jurisdiction of USACE and other non-regulated activities USACE determines to be within its purview of Federal control and responsibility to justify an expanded scope of analysis for NEPA purposes. The final NEPA analysis will be incorporated in the decision documentation that provides the rationale for issuing or denying a Department of the Army Permit for the project. The final NEPA analysis and supporting documentation will be on file with the San Francisco District, Regulatory Division.
Endangered Species Act (ESA): Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to consult with either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally-listed species or result in the adverse modification of designated critical habitat. As the Federal lead agency for this project, USACE has conducted a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base, digital maps prepared by USFWS and NMFS depicting critical habitat, and other information provided by the applicant to determine the presence or absence of such species and critical habitat in the project area. Based on this review, USACE has made a preliminary determination that the following Federally-listed species and designated critical habitat are present at the project location or in its vicinity and may be affected by project implementation.
Soft bird’s beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. Molle), endangered.
Northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), proposed threatened.
California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), endangered.
Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), endangered.
Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) critical habitat.
To address project related impacts to Federally-listed species and designated critical habitat, USACE will initiate formal consultation with USFWS, pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Act. Any required consultation must be concluded prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army Permit for the project.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA): Section 305(b)(2) of the MSFCMA of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on all proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. EFH is designated only for those species managed under a Federal Fisheries Management Plan (FMP), such as the Pacific Groundfish FMP, the Coastal Pelagics FMP, or the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP. As the Federal lead agency for this project, USACE has conducted a review of digital maps prepared by NMFS depicting EFH to determine the presence or absence of EFH in the project area. Based on this review, USACE has made a preliminary determination that EFH is present at the project location or in its vicinity and that the critical elements of EFH may be adversely affected by project implementation. The proposed project is located within mapped EFH for Chinook salmon. The Project would result in the temporary disturbance of 1.36 acres and permanent fill of 2.05 acres of riverine/wetland habitat considered EFH for Chinook salmon. This habitat does not currently contribute to the waters and substrate necessary for Chinook salmon spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity since the action area lies within a managed wetland complex with management restrictions to avoid entry by this species and potential entrainment. To address potential project related impacts to EFH, USACE will initiate consultation with NMFS, pursuant to Section 305(5(b)(2) of the Act. Any required consultation must be concluded prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army Permit for the project.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA): Section 302 of the MPRSA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1432 et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, in part, to designate areas of ocean waters, such as the Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay, as National Marine Sanctuaries for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values. After such designation, activities in sanctuary waters authorized under other authorities are valid only if the Secretary of Commerce certifies that the activities are consistent with Title III of the Act. No Department of the Army Permit will be issued until the applicant obtains any required certification or permit. The project does not occur in sanctuary waters, and a preliminary review by USACE indicates the project is not likely to affect sanctuary resources. This presumption of effect, however, remains subject to a final determination by the Secretary of Commerce or his designee.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to consult with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of the Act further requires Federal agencies to consult with the appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or any Indian tribe to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, trust resources, and sacred sites, to which Indian tribes attach historic, religious, and cultural significance. As the Federal lead agency for this undertaking, USACE has conducted a review of the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places, survey information on file with various city and county municipalities, and other information provided by the applicant to determine the presence or absence of historic and archaeological resources within the permit area. Based on this review, USACE has made a preliminary determination that historic or archaeological resources are not likely to be present in the permit area and that the project either has no potential to cause effects to these resources or has no effect to these resources. USACE will render a final determination on the need for consultation at the close of the comment period, taking into account any comments provided by the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Native American Nations or other tribal governments.
If unrecorded archaeological resources are discovered during project implementation, those operations affecting such resources will be temporarily suspended until USACE concludes Section 106 consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to take into account any project related impacts to those resources.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES:
Projects resulting in discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must comply with the Guidelines promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344(b)). An evaluation pursuant to the Guidelines indicates the project is not dependent on location in or proximity to waters of the United States to achieve the basic project purpose. This conclusion raises the (rebuttable) presumption of the availability of a less environmentally damaging practicable alternative to the project that does not require the discharge of dredged or fill material into special aquatic sites. The applicant has submitted an analysis of project alternatives which is being reviewed by USACE.
PUBLIC INTEREST EVALUTION:
The decision on whether to issue a Department of the Army Permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the project and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts requires a careful weighing of the public interest factors relevant in each particular case. The benefits that may accrue from the project must be balanced against any reasonably foreseeable detriments of project implementation. The decision on permit issuance will, therefore, reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. Public interest factors which may be relevant to the decision process include conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS:
USACE is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Native American Nations or other tribal governments; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of the project. All comments received by USACE will be considered in the decision on whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a Department of the Army Permit for the project. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, and other environmental or public interest factors addressed in a final environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest in the project.
SUBMITTING COMMENTS:
During the specified comment period, interested parties may submit written comments to:
Shannon Morgan
San Francisco District, Regulatory Division
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 4th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-3404
shannon.r.morgan@usace.army.mil
Comment letters should cite the project name, applicant name, and public notice number to facilitate review by the Regulatory Permit Manager. Comments may include a request for a public hearing on the project prior to a determination on the Department of the Army permit application; such requests shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. All substantive comments will be forwarded to the applicant for resolution or rebuttal. Additional project information or details on any subsequent project modifications of a minor nature may be obtained from the applicant and/or agent or by contacting the Regulatory Permit Manager by telephone or e-mail (cited in the public notice letterhead). An electronic version of this public notice may be viewed under the Public Notices tab on the USACE website: https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory