WASHINGTON — Union Pacific and steelmaker Commercial Metals Co. have asked federal regulators to continue their review of a proposed 6-mile branch in the Phoenix area.
The Surface Transportation Board halted the environmental review process for the Pecos Industrial Rail Access Train Extension, or PIRATE, on Aug. 31 after the discovery of what it said were “significant ground disturbance and damage to archaeological resources in the area of the proposed right-of-way.”
The proposed line would connect UP’s Phoenix Subdivision main line to industrial properties near the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport.
CMC’s lawyers, in a regulatory filing this week, said the STB should continue its review while the disturbance matters are sorted out. The company built its mill in the industrial area in anticipation of receiving rail service via the new line.
“Based upon CMC’s review of the publicly available documents, CMC is not aware of any evidence that UP intentionally destroyed historic resources or allowed such activities for the purposes of avoiding the historic review process,” CMC’s lawyers wrote in a filing with the STB. “However, in the event the Board does find that UP engaged in anticipatory demolition, it should not be fatal to the proposed exemption. The Board can and should issue the exemption and allow the project to proceed if it ‘determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.’”
CMC said the rail line will reduce its transportation costs while reducing truck traffic and greenhouse gas emissions in the area. “In the end, the community will be stronger economically and likely healthier if cargo can be shifted from the local roads and highways to the new rail line,” CMC’s lawyers wrote.
In its filing this week, Union Pacific said that several factors — including poor communication and a lack of awareness by railroad staff — contributed to the third-party ground disturbance on UP property.
“Union Pacific deeply regrets the harm to historic and cultural resources that occurred here due to the third-party ground disturbances and is committed to cooperating with the Board and reforming its internal processes to ensure such disturbances do not occur in the future,” UP told the board.
UP said it had no intention of avoiding National Preservation Historic Act requirements and, in fact, had been working closely with the STB’s Office of Environmental Analysis for more than two years before learning that construction activity on property abutting the UP right of way had disturbed railroad property.
“Union Pacific respectfully urges the Board to resume its environmental and historic review of the PIRATE project and approve Union Pacific’s petition for exemption in this proceeding with appropriate environmental mitigation measures,” the railroad told the STB.
This is a NIMBY issue, the area is all farm land, so what ever was historic has been plowed up years ago. This about local people not wanting a railroad crossing at Ellsworth and trying to come up with any reason to prevent the railroad from crossing Ellsworth. If someone can point on the map the exact location of this “Historic” site, I will be glad to drive out an look at it.
So, I’d say there has been buildings and highways built in the vicinity of this proposed branch. Were any of them subject to the same rules and requirements?
Yes and no. I am not familiar with the Arizona Regulatory environment, so I can’t speak to local enforcement, but Section 106 requires that federal action take into account historical and archeological resources. The STB approval is a federal action so Section 106 would apply. It looks like there is a waterway to be crossed so that may require the Corps of Engineers to issue a permit for in water work, so that too would involve Section 106.
Construction of the local buildings often does directly require federal action and so is less likely to trigger a Section 106 review. Most building permits are issued by local agencies that may not be obligated to comply with Section 106, or are not fully aware of potential compliance needs.
Forgot the “not” in “Construction of the local buildings often does “not” directly require federal action…”
Yes. Anything built upon Native American currently owned land and historically settled has to conform to protections for such archeological sites. My daughter is an industrial archeologist for WSP and there are a long list of regulations and protections before digging. The entire valley was once settled by indigenous tribes and 20th century development destroyed lots of artifacts that might have been saved.
Earlier this year she rescued three intact Native peoples unearthed in a Mesa hospital expansion on leased Native land. The male, female, and infant were dated back 1600 years.
so what is the nature of the archeological site?
Indigenous peoples land. Some still owned by tribe(s) and all historically settled by tribes. See above.
So what is the nature of the archeological interests?
Putting the cart before the horse is not good business practice:
“The company built its mill in the industrial area in anticipation of receiving rail service via the new line.”
Bulldoze first, ask questions later. UP is also employing poor business practices:
“poor communication and a lack of awareness by railroad staff”
To add some clarification Gregg, the mill has had a presence at the industrial park since 2010 and has expanded over time. So this is essentially a truck served mill that is looking to get rail service, especially after a recent larger expansion.