[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 146 (Friday, July 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38256-38259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18276]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35116]
R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.--
Construction and Operation Exemption--In Clearfield County, PA
ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Final Scope of Study for the
Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 20, 2008, R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania
Lines Inc. (RJCP) filed a petition with the Surface Transportation
Board (Board) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502 for authority to construct
and operate an abandoned 10.8-mile rail line between Wallaceton
Junction and Winburne in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the Western
Segment) and to reactivate a connecting 9.3-mile line between Winburne
and Gorton in Clearfield and Centre Counties, Pennsylvania (the Eastern
Segment) that is currently being used for interim trail use, subject to
the possible restoration of rail service (rail banking) pursuant to the
Trails Act, 16 U.S.C. 1247(d). In total, the proposed project would
involve the construction, rebuilding, and operation of approximately 20
miles of the former Beech Creek Rail Line to serve a new quarry,
landfill, and industrial park being developed by Resource Recovery,
LLC, near Gorton, Pennsylvania.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On July 27, 2009, the Board issued a decision finding that
RJCP does not need construction authority under 49 U.S.C. 10901 or
49 U.S.C. 10502 to reactivate the rail banked Eastern Segment.
Nevertheless, the environmental review process will encompass the
entire 20 miles of proposed rail line (i.e., both the Eastern and
Western Segments), for the reasons discussed in the Draft Scope of
Study and the Board's July 27th decision. See R.J. Corman Railroad
Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.--Construction and Operation
Exemption--In Clearfield County, PA, STB Finance Docket No. 35116
(STB served July 27, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this project has the potential to result in significant
environmental impacts, the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA) has determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is appropriate pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). On
January 8, 2009, SEA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an
EIS in the Federal Register announcing the start of the scoping
process, the availability of the Draft Scope of Study, and the date/
time/location for a public scoping meeting. Invitation letters for the
public scoping meeting were mailed to 31 federal, state, and local
agencies, as well as local elected officials. Additionally, an
advertisement was placed in two local area newspapers, the Centre Daily
Times and the Progress News, to announce the public scoping meeting.
Approximately 130 individuals attended the open-house scoping
meeting held on February 10, 2009 at the Philipsburg-Osceola Area
Senior High School in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. In total, SEA
received:
100 comments from individuals attending the open house
meeting;
13 comment letters; and
17 individual comments filed electronically on the Board's
Web site/e-mail.
[[Page 38257]]
Based on the comments received and further analysis, SEA has
prepared the Final Scope of Study for the EIS, which is included in
this notice.
Address for Further Information: Written requests for further
information on the proposed project should be directed to: Danielle
Gosselin, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20423.
Electronic requests may be made via the Board's Web site, http://www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on the ``E-FILING'' link. Please refer to
STB Finance Docket No. 35116 in all correspondence, including e-
filings, addressed to the Board.
Environmental Review Process: The NEPA environmental review process
is intended to assist the Board and the public in identifying and
assessing the potential environmental consequences of a proposed action
before a decision on the proposed action is made. Based on the
information provided in RJCP's filing, and the project's potential to
result in significant environmental impacts, SEA (the office within the
Board responsible for preparing the Board's environmental documentation
under NEPA, and related environmental statutes) has decided to prepare
a full EIS. The EIS will include all of the environmental information
necessary for the Board to take the hard look at environmental
consequences required by NEPA.
On January 8, 2009, SEA issued a NOI to individuals and agencies
potentially interested in or affected by the proposed project informing
them of the Board's decision to prepare an EIS and to initiate the
formal scoping process. In the NOI, SEA also made available the Draft
Scope of Study and requested comments. A public scoping meeting was
held and comments were received between January 8, 2009 and February
24, 2009. After carefully reviewing the public comments, SEA is issuing
this Final Scope of Study for the EIS.
The Draft EIS will address the environmental issues and concerns
identified during the scoping process and detailed in this Final Scope
of Study. It will also include an analysis of project alternatives and
preliminary recommendations for environmental mitigation measures.
The Draft EIS will be made available upon its completion for review
and comment by the public, government agencies, and other interested
parties. A public meeting will be held during the comment period for
the Draft EIS. The details of the public meeting, including the
specific format, location, and date, will be available in the Draft
EIS. SEA will then prepare a Final EIS that considers comments on the
Draft EIS, sets forth any additional analyses, and makes final
recommendations to the Board on appropriate mitigation measures. In
reaching its decision in this case, the Board will take into account
the full environmental record, including the Draft EIS, the Final EIS,
and all timely environmental comments that are received.
Discussion: The principal issues raised by commenters during
scoping are briefly outlined and responded to below. Many of the
comments submitted raised the same or similar issues. Thus, SEA has
used the plural term, ``commenters'' to refer to all persons submitting
comments, including individuals.
Nature of the Public Scoping Meeting
A number of comments were submitted relating to the format of the
public scoping meeting held on February 10, 2009. Several commenters
expressed disappointment in the open-house/plans display meeting format
used for the public scoping meeting. At the meeting, project personnel
were staffed at display boards, and formal comment sheets were
available. However, commenters indicated that they would have preferred
a public meeting format with a formal project presentation followed by
an audience-wide question and answer session. Many commenters noted
that they did not feel as if they were able to effectively voice their
concerns about the project.
The open-house/plans display style of public meeting that was held
in this case is often used in the early stages of project development
to allow more individual interaction between the project study team and
the public. The format used here is particularly appropriate for public
scoping meetings, where one of the primary reasons for the meeting is
for the project study team to gather important project-related
information from the public, rather than to present the findings of
detailed studies, which would not have occurred yet in the early stages
of a project. SEA recognizes the importance of providing opportunities
for public comment. All interested parties, agencies, government
entities, and members of the general public will have the opportunity
to submit written comments upon release of the Draft EIS and prior to
issuance of the Final EIS and to participate at the additional public
meeting that will be held in the project area when the Draft EIS has
been issued. Therefore, attendees at the public scoping meeting who
were disappointed with the scoping meeting format will have additional
opportunities to express their views and concerns about this project as
the environmental review process proceeds.
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Connected Action Issue
Many of the concerns that emerged through the scoping process
involved Resource Recovery's proposed landfill, quarry and industrial
park development near Gorton in Rush Township, Centre County, and the
nature of the materials that would be transported by RJCP over the
proposed rail line. In fact, the vast majority of comments received
were related to Resource Recovery's proposed landfill itself.
Commenters indicated that they oppose the proposed landfill. In
addition, a number of commenters requested that the Board expand the
scope of the EIS to include the development of the landfill. These
commenters argued that the proposed rail line and the landfill
development should be considered connected actions under 40 CFR
1508.25. Commenters maintained that without the landfill, the rail line
would not be commercially feasible.
Based on the available information to date including additional
information submitted by RJCP and information provided by the public,
SEA has determined that expanding the scope of the EIS to include the
landfill development as a connected action is not warranted. As
indicated in the Draft Scope of Study, however, the landfill, quarry
and industrial park will be appropriately examined in the Draft EIS as
part of the cumulative impacts analysis for the proposed project. The
Draft EIS will include further detailed discussion of this connected
action issue as well.
Alternate Route to Munson
One commenter at the public scoping meeting suggested that an
alternate route to Munson was available that would potentially avoid
and minimize many of the socioeconomic, transportation and safety,
noise, and land use impacts associated with RJCP's proposed Western
Segment, which stretches 10.8 miles between Wallaceton and Winburne.
The alternate alignment, known as the Munson Alternative, would utilize
approximately 7 miles of the former Conrail right of way last referred
to as the Philipsburg Industrial Track. This route would extend south
from Munson to a point near Philipsburg. Like the rest of the Western
Segment, the Philipsburg Industrial Track was also part of the
``Clearfield Cluster'' abandoned by Conrail in 1995
[[Page 38258]]
pursuant to ICC Docket No. AB-167 (Sub-No. 1146X). The alternate
alignment follows the Western Segment west from Winburne to Munson, but
then heads south over the former Philipsburg Industrial Track. At the
southern end of the Philipsburg Industrial Track, a new 2,500-foot
connection would be constructed to tie into RJCP's existing Wallaceton
Subdivision line at or near milepost 24.62.
It appears that this alternate route would avoid and minimize a
number of the potential environmental issues associated with RJCP's
Western Segment by impacting significantly fewer adjacent homes and by
crossing fewer public roads and private drives. According to RJCP, this
alternate route would provide rail service to several new shippers.
Operationally, this alternative alignment would require approximately
4.5 miles of additional travel over RJCP's active Wallaceton
Subdivision (i.e., Wallaceton Junction to milepost 24.62 outside
Philipsburg), but would involve slightly less construction activity (8
miles from Wallaceton to Munson reduced to 7 miles from Philipsburg to
Munson plus \1/2\ mile of new connecting track). Therefore, the Munson
Alternative will be included for detailed study as part of the EIS
alternatives analysis process.
Environmental Impact Categories
Transportation and Safety
Some commenters expressed concern about RJCP's planned transport of
municipal solid waste over the proposed rail line, raising issues
related to containment during transport, leakage during transport, and
environmental damage/degradation associated with potential derailment.
These issues will be included and evaluated as part of the
transportation and safety section of the EIS.
Air Quality
Some commenters expressed concern about the potential for odors
emanating from rail cars hauling municipal solid waste. To address
these comments, the air quality scope of work has been revised to
include a qualitative assessment of this issue.
Biological Resources
Some commenters expressed concern regarding the potential for
vermin/vectors and disease associated with the transport of municipal
solid waste. Based on these comments, the biological resources scope of
work has been revised to include an evaluation of this issue.
Socioeconomics
Some commenters raised concerns about quality of life issues for
residential property owners adjacent to the proposed rail line. Quality
of life issues for adjacent property owners will be evaluated and
presented as part of the study of potential socioeconomic impacts of
the project in the EIS.
Final Scope of Study for the EIS
Proposed Action and Alternatives
The Proposed Action is the construction and operation of an
abandoned 10.8-mile rail line between Wallaceton Junction and Winburne
and the reactivation of 9.3 miles of currently rail banked line between
Winburne and Gorton. The approximately 20 miles of track would allow
RJCP to provide rail service to a proposed new landfill, quarry and
industrial park being developed by Resource Recovery, LLC, near Gorton
in Rush Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania. The anticipated train
traffic would be two trains daily, with one train per day traveling in
each direction. In addition to the Proposed Action, the EIS will
analyze the potential impacts of two non-rail transportation options
for the no-build alternative and a no-action alternative set forth
below. Additionally, the Munson Alternative using the abandoned line of
Conrail's former Philipsburg Industrial Track will be evaluated in the
EIS.
Specifically, the reasonable and feasible alternatives that will be
evaluated in the EIS are: (1) Construction and operation of the
proposed rail line along the former Beech Creek line (including the
alternate route to Munson using Conrail's former Philipsburg Industrial
Track), (2) the no-build alternative option 1 involving the
construction of a new interchange on Interstate 80, (3) the no-build
alternative option 2, involving improving the existing local road
system (i.e., road paving, bridge replacement etc.), and (4) the no-
action alternative (i.e., status quo, no rail construction and
reactivation or roadway improvements).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Proposed New Construction and Reactivation and Operation of Rail Banked
Line
The EIS will address the proposed activities associated with the
construction of new rail line, the reactivation of rail banked line and
the operation of approximately 20 miles of rail line and potential
environmental impacts, as appropriate.
Impact Categories
The EIS will analyze the potential impacts associated with the
proposed project on both the human and natural environment, or in the
case of the no-action alternative, the lack of these impacts. Impact
areas to be addressed will include the following: Transportation and
safety; land use; energy resources; air quality; noise; biological
resources, including threatened and endangered species; water
resources, including wetlands and other jurisdictional waters of the
U.S.; socioeconomics as it relates to physical changes in the
environment; recreation; environmental justice; geology and soils; and
cultural/historic resources. The EIS will include a discussion of each
of these categories as they currently exist in the project area and
will address the potential impacts of each alternative on each
category, as outlined below.
1. Transportation and Safety
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate potential pedestrian and motor vehicle safety concerns
at each public and private at-grade road crossing.
b. Include a ``level of service'' (LOS) analysis, focusing on
average vehicle delay time for all grade crossings having an average
daily traffic volume of 5,000 or more vehicles.
c. Include an assessment of any appropriate safety measures that
should be erected at each crossing.
d. Assess the project's operational safety (including the potential
for derailments), taking into account the proposed line's close
proximity to residential structures.
e. Evaluate the project's consistency with local and regional
transportation planning goals.
f. Assess the potential for increased wildfires in remote forested
areas as a result of daily rail operations.
g. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project-related impacts to safety, as appropriate.
2. Land Use
The EIS will:
a. Identify existing land uses that would be potentially impacted
by the project.
b. Evaluate potential changes to property values of adjacent
property owners that could result from the proposed project.
c. Evaluate the project's consistency with local and regional land
use planning goals.
d. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential
impacts to land use, as appropriate.
[[Page 38259]]
3. Energy Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe the potential effects of the project on energy
resources, recyclable commodities, and overall changes in energy
efficiency.
b. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential
impacts to energy resources, as appropriate.
4. Air Quality
The EIS will:
a. Quantitatively evaluate rail operation air emissions, if the
project would affect a Class I or non-attainment or maintenance area as
designated under the Clean Air Act.
b. Qualitatively evaluate the potential temporary air quality
impacts that would result from the proposed rail line construction
activities.
c. Qualitatively evaluate the potential for ambient odors that
would be associated with the transport of municipal solid waste.
d. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project-related impacts to air quality, as appropriate.
5. Noise/Vibration
The EIS will:
a. Quantitatively evaluate potential noise impacts, including the
use of any auditory warning devices at public road crossings that would
result from the proposed rail operations.
b. Qualitatively evaluate the temporary noise impact that would
result from the proposed rail line construction activities.
c. Qualitatively evaluate potential vibration impacts to residences
and businesses immediately adjacent to the proposed rail line.
d. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project-related impacts to sensitive noise receptors, (locations where
people may be adversely affected by project-related noise), as
appropriate.
6. Biological Resources
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the existing biological resources within the project
area, including vegetative communities, terrestrial and aquatic
habitats, and known wildlife species.
b. Evaluate potential impacts of this project on any Federal or
state threatened and endangered plant or animal species.
c. Describe the proposed project's impact on any wildlife
sanctuaries, refuges, national and state parks/forests, or state game
lands.
d. Evaluate the potential for vermin/vectors for disease that would
be associated with the transport of municipal solid waste, as a result
of this project.
e. Document all coordination and consultation that has been
conducted with Federal and state agencies having jurisdiction over
biological resources.
f. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for
potential impacts to biological resources, as appropriate.
7. Water Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe the existing surface water resources that have been
identified within the project area, including all jurisdictional
wetlands and waterways and their regulatory floodplains.
b. Evaluate project-related impacts to all jurisdictional surface
water resources.
c. Evaluate project-related impacts to all groundwater resources
and public water supplies.
d. Document the necessary Federal and state water resource/
encroachment permitting requirements that would apply to the proposed
project.
e. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for
potential impacts to water resources, as appropriate.
8. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
a. Summarize the existing local and regional socioeconomic
conditions in the project area, including long-term population, housing
and employment metrics.
b. Document the locations of existing community facilities and
services that have been identified within the project area.
c. Evaluate the proposed project's potential impact to
socioeconomic conditions/community facilities and services within the
project area, including a discussion of any issues, such as employment
gains and losses that would result from the proposed project.
d. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for
potential impacts to regional socioeconomic factors, as appropriate.
9. Recreation
The EIS will:
a. Identify existing public and private recreational facilities
within the project area (including the Snow Shoe Multi-Use Rail Trail),
and evaluate the proposed project's impact to these recreational
facilities.
b. Propose mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate
for potential project-related impacts to recreational facilities, as
appropriate.
10. Environmental Justice
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the potential project impacts on local and regional
minority and low-income populations.
b. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on environmental justice populations, as appropriate.
11. Geology and Soils
The EIS will:
a. Describe the geologic and soil conditions within the project
area, including the status of past and present coal mining operations.
b. Evaluate potential ways to avoid or construct through active
surface mined areas, to the extent practicable.
c. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to geology and soils, as appropriate.
12. Cultural/Historic Resources
The EIS will:
a. Document all historic resource eligibility and effect studies
that have been conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
b. Document all coordination and consultation related to this
project that has taken place with the state historic preservation
officer.
c. Propose mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to cultural/historic resources, as appropriate.
13. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts
The EIS will:
a. Address any identified potential cumulative impacts of the
project, as appropriate. Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the
environment which result from the incremental impact of the proposed
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or
person undertakes such actions (for example, Resource Recovery, LLC's
proposed new landfill, quarry and industrial park).
b. Address any identified potential indirect impacts of the
project, as appropriate. Indirect impacts are impacts that are caused
by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but
are still reasonably foreseeable.
Decided: July 28, 2009.
By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental
Analysis.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9-18276 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P