[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27053-27056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11452]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Impact Statement: Multiple Counties, New York, and
New Jersey
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), USDOT.
ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent (NOI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) are issuing this Revised
Notice of Intent (NOI) to advise the public of modifications to the
environmental review process for the Cross Harbor Freight Movement
Program (Project Identification Number: X500.19). These revisions
include a change in project sponsorship to the PANYNJ, the intent of
FHWA and PANYNJ to use a tiered process to facilitate project decision-
making, and the intent of FHWA and PANYNJ to utilize the environmental
review provisions afforded under Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). This notice revises the NOI that was published in the
Federal Register on June 7, 2001.
The greater New York/New Jersey region is the financial center of
the U.S. economy and the nation's largest consumer market. The regional
economy relies on a goods movement system overwhelmingly dependent on
trucking and an aging and congested highway network. Regional forecasts
of truck growth vary depending on the source, year, and geography, but
available sources agree that truck tonnage is anticipated to increase
substantially, with some forecasts calling for a 36% increase in
tonnage by 2035. In the absence of network or system improvements, this
growth and the region's dependence on trucking for freight distribution
will result in serious regional highway congestion and extended travel
delays--a trend which could threaten the economic vitality of the
greater New York/New Jersey region.
The EIS will analyze alternatives that would provide short-term and
long-term strategies for improving the regional freight network,
reducing traffic congestion, enhancing modal diversity and system
redundancy, improving air quality, and providing economic benefits. The
FHWA and PANYNJ are serving as joint-lead agencies for the preparation
of the EIS and are issuing this notice to solicit public and agency
input into the scope of the EIS and to advise the public that outreach
activities will be conducted by FHWA and PANYNJ. New York State and New
Jersey Departments of Transportation (NYSDOT and NJDOT) are serving as
cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EIS.
The EIS analyses will be conducted using ``tiering,'' as described
in 40 CFR 1508.28, which is a staged process applied to the
environmental review of complex projects. Tier I of the EIS will allow
the agencies to focus on general transportation modes and alignments
for the proposed project, including logical
[[Page 27054]]
termini and regional economic and transportation effects. Tier I of the
EIS will include: A logistics and market demand analysis; a rail and
highway operations and multimodal networks analysis; an economic and
financial analysis; a capital investment estimation; an operations and
maintenance cost estimation for each alternative; a transportation
analysis; conceptual design criteria; general environmental impact
assessments; and a data needs list for the preparation for Tier II
analyses and preliminary design. Tier I of the EIS will result in a
Record of Decision (ROD) that will identify the transportation mode or
a combination of modes and alignments for the proposed project, with
the appropriate level of detail for corridor-level decisions, or select
the NEPA ``No Action Alternative.''. The ROD will also outline measures
that are intended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts from
the build alternatives. Tier II of the EIS will then further explore in
greater detail those alternatives which fulfill the project purpose
within the mode and alignment chosen in Tier I and will include
analysis of refined engineering designs and their site-specific
environmental impacts, development of site-specific mitigation
measures, and cost estimates for the preferred alternatives. Input from
the public and from reviewing agencies will be solicited during both
tiers.
The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) of
1969 and all applicable regulations implementing NEPA, as set forth in
23 CFR part 771. The EIS will also address the provisions of Section
6002 of Public Law 104-59, ``The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey W. Kolb, Division
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, New York Division, Leo
W. O'Brien Federal Building, 7th Floor, Clinton Avenue and North Pearl
Street, Albany, NY 12207, Telephone: (518) 431-4127; or Ms. Laura
Shabe, Manager, Cross Harbor Freight Program, Port Commerce Department,
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 225 Park Avenue, South, 11th
Floor, New York, NY 10003, Telephone: (212) 435-4441.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Several previous studies have been conducted
to examine possible alternatives to improve freight movement across the
Hudson River and New York Harbor. The Cross Harbor Freight Movement
Major Investment Study (MIS) commissioned by the New York City Economic
Development Corporation (NYCEDC) and completed in the spring of 2000,
identified alternatives and strategies to improve regional freight
mobility, expand shippers' choices of route and mode, enhance the
region's environmental quality, and promote regional economic
development. Fifteen alternatives, involving highway, rail, waterborne,
and air systems, were initially evaluated, and the most promising
strategies were advanced to a subsequent phase of refinement and
evaluation. Four alternatives were advanced for study in a Draft EIS,
which was published in April 2004 by FHWA and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), acting as co-lead agencies, and the NYCEDC,
acting as the project sponsor. The 2004 Draft EIS considered: A No
Action Alternative; a Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
Alternative; an Expanded Float Operations Alternative, which involved
the expansion of capacity for the existing railcar float system across
New York Harbor; and a Rail Freight Tunnel Alternative with two
possible alignments. Following publication of the 2004 Draft EIS, the
PANYNJ, as the region's bi-state transportation agency, and the agency
that controls most of the east-west connections between New York and
New Jersey, accepted the role of project sponsor. The PANYNJ's mission
to identify and meet critical, bi-state transportation infrastructure
needs uniquely positions the agency to direct the Cross Harbor Freight
Movement Program.
Scoping: To assure that the full range of issues related to the
proposed action is addressed and all significant issues are identified,
the PANYNJ will undertake an extensive public scoping process that will
invite the public and affected agencies to provide comments on the
scope of the environmental review process. A Draft Scoping Document
will be prepared that will outline the project purpose and need, the
primary and secondary study areas, alternatives that will be studied in
Tier I of the EIS, and the methodologies by which environmental impacts
will be assessed. The PANYNJ will lead outreach activities during the
public scoping process and will conduct a series of meetings to discuss
the Draft Scoping Document and the proposed scope of the EIS. To
encourage public participation, public scoping meetings will be held in
New York and in New Jersey. The public scoping meetings will be
advertised separately. To adhere to the requirements of SAFETEA-LU, the
lead agencies will send letters inviting agencies with an interest in
or jurisdiction over the project to become involved as participating or
cooperating agencies.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project: The greater New York/New
Jersey region is the financial center of the U.S. economy, the nation's
largest consumer market, and a major hub of entertainment, services,
fashion, and culture. Consequently the region receives, processes, and
distributes a significant amount of goods from all over the nation and
the world. In 2007, an estimated 1.1 billion tons of freight were moved
by truck into, out of, within, and through the 54-county region
surrounding New York City and Long Island (including northern and
central New Jersey, western and southern Connecticut, and portions of
southern New York and eastern Pennsylvania). By 2035, this demand is
projected to increase to more than 1.5 billion tons as a result of
forecasted growth in employment, personal income, and economic
activity, creating unprecedented pressure on the region's
transportation infrastructure.
The region's ability to serve its markets is increasingly
threatened by its heavy reliance on trucking goods over an aging and
congested roadway network, while non-highway freight modes,
particularly rail and waterborne, remain underdeveloped and
underutilized. In addition, the flow of freight in the region is
complicated by the historic physical barrier of the Hudson River and
New York Harbor, which separates the large consumer markets of New York
City, Long Island, and New England (east of the Hudson River) from the
nation's major centers of agricultural and industrial production, and
the region's major freight facilities and distribution centers (west of
the Hudson River).
Given the existing system, forecasted increases in freight demand
translate directly into increased truck traffic in the freight
distribution network. This will result in serious highway congestion,
particularly on a number of regionally important and heavily used
network connectors including the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge between
Brooklyn and Staten Island, and the George Washington Bridge between
Manhattan and New Jersey. Currently, the George Washington Bridge
carries an average of approximately 300,000 vehicles per day, and the
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge carries an average of 195,000 per day.
According to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council's (NYMTC)
Draft 2009 Congestion Management Process Status
[[Page 27055]]
Report, current vehicle demand on these two major east-west crossings
already outweighs capacity, and their level of service will continue to
worsen through 2035.
Tier I of the EIS will focus on goods movement throughout the
greater New York/New Jersey region, including the major freight
movement corridors leading to the Hudson River crossings identified
above. Routes I-278, I-495, I-95, a number of highways serving northern
New Jersey (such as New Jersey Turnpike/I-95, I-78, I-80, and I-287),
and many state and local routes that are critical for local pickup and
delivery activities, will be included in the EIS study area. The EIS
will also investigate major freight rail lines and facilities west of
the Hudson River (such as a variety of lines within the Conrail Shared
Assets Area, the CSX River Line, the Norfolk Southern Lehigh Line,
Chemical Coast Line and important rail yards at Croxton, Kearny, Oak
Island, Greenville, Port Newark/Elizabeth in New Jersey) and strategic
rail assets east of the Hudson River which may require improvements
and/or capacity enhancement. Conditions at area marine terminals and
airports will also be included in the Tier I EIS study area.
The primary purpose of the project is to improve the movement of
freight in the region by enhancing freight movement across New York
Harbor between the east-of-Hudson and west-of-Hudson sub-regions.
Project goals, which will be refined during scoping with input from the
public, elected officials, interested agencies and organizations will
support the primary purpose and could include: A reduction in travel
time for freight movement between the sub-regions; an increase in
cross-harbor freight movement capacity; congestion relief on the major
freight corridors associated with the Hudson River crossings; and an
increase in the modal diversity of regional freight movement. Secondary
purposes could include enhanced economic efficiency of the greater New
York/New Jersey region through improved goods movement; a more
environmentally beneficial and sustainable goods movement system; and
the addition of strategic redundancy to existing Hudson River and
interborough crossings.
Project Alternatives: A comprehensive set of alternatives will be
developed and refined during the public scoping process, with input
from stakeholders. Each alternative will then be evaluated for its
ability to meet the project's goals, which are derived from the
project's purpose and need. The EIS will consider a No Action
Alternative, a TSM Alternative (which could include the repair or
upgrade of existing float bridges and scheduling improvements to allow
both freight traffic and passenger service to utilize the region's rail
lines), and several build alternatives that will be designed to take
advantage of under-utilized freight movement modes, such as regional
and local rail networks and waterborne transport. The No Action
Alternative will include planned upgrades to existing infrastructure,
such as the full acquisition of the Greenville Yard Rail Float
Facility, the rehabilitation of New York New Jersey Rail Float
Operations and Assets, and committed and programmed improvements to New
York City and Long Island rail lines and rail yards. The basic build
alternatives may include an expanded railcar float alternative, several
versions of a tunnel alternative, and a combination railcar float/
tunnel alternative. In addition to evaluating multiple build
alternatives, the EIS will consider variations of each build
alternative that will analyze locating new or expanded rail yards that
may be required for the proposed project.
Probable Effects of the Project Alternatives: The FHWA and PANYNJ
will evaluate potential impacts from the proposed alternatives on:
Transportation and traffic engineering; land use and social conditions;
economic conditions; cultural and visual resources; air quality; noise;
water and natural resources; energy and greenhouse gases; contaminated
and hazardous materials; coastal zone management; environmental
justice; section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
Act of 1966; and any indirect, secondary, or cumulative impacts. The
Tier I of the EIS will include a general qualitative assessment of each
of these environmental issues.
Environmental Review Procedures: The EIS will be prepared in
accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) of 1969 and applicable FHWA regulations
implementing NEPA, as set forth in 23 CFR part 771. In addition, the
EIS will comply, as necessary, with Federal Transportation Conformity
regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 93); the National Historic
Preservation Act; Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303); Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations;'' the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 to 1387); Executive
Order 11990 (``Protection of Wetlands''); the Clean Air Act of 1970;
and other applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.
Tiered EIS: ``Tiering,'' as described in 40 CFR 1508.28, is a
staged process, applied to the environmental review of complex
projects. A tiered EIS will allow the lead agencies to focus on broad,
overall corridor issues, such as mode choice, general alignment,
logical termini, and regional effects, within the Tier I EIS.
Tier I of the EIS will include the following:
The development of comprehensive alternatives, designed to
meet the goals of the Cross Harbor Freight Movement Program;
Logistics and market demand, including the locations and
capacities of intermodal facilities and warehouse/distribution clusters
that could potentially benefit from the proposed project;
Rail and highway operations and multimodal networks,
including potential impacts on regional rail networks;
Economic and financial analysis, including: economic
impact analysis; market feasibility analysis; railroad financial
analysis; cash flow analysis; and funding needs analysis;
Capital investment estimation, to determine costs
associated with the construction of the infrastructure required for
each proposed alternative;
Operations and maintenance cost estimation for each
proposed alternative;
Traffic screening analysis to determine whether the
proposed project may result in significant traffic impacts on the road
network leading to and from any proposed or existing rail yard site;
Conceptual design criteria, such as right-of-way
requirements, engineering requirements, and potential permits and
approvals;
Environmental impact assessments, including transportation
and traffic engineering; land use and social conditions; economic
conditions; historic, cultural and visual resources; air quality; noise
and vibration; water and natural resources; energy and greenhouse
gases; contaminated and hazardous materials; construction impacts;
coastal zone management; environmental justice; Section 4(f) of the
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966; and any
indirect, secondary, or cumulative effects; and
A general assessment of site conditions to identify gaps
in the coverage and the need for additional data in preparation for
Tier II analyses and preliminary design.
Tier I of the EIS will result in a Record of Decision (ROD) that
will
[[Page 27056]]
identify the transportation mode and alignment for the proposed project
with the appropriate level of detail for corridor-level decisions, or
select the No Action Alternative. The Tier I EIS will also include a
discussion of measures that could be implemented to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate potential adverse impacts of the build alternatives. These
measures would be developed to mitigate both short-term (construction
phase) and long-term (operational) adverse impacts of the proposed
build alternatives. The mitigation strategies that will be examined
will be designed to specifically minimize any potential adverse effects
on the local communities where new or expanded infrastructure is
proposed or where the operational effects of increased freight movement
are expected. Tier II will then further explore the selected
alternative in greater detail to evaluate regional and localized
environmental impacts and outline site-specific mitigation measures in
project-level environmental documentation. The PANYNJ and FHWA intend
to engage the community in devising mitigation measures for potential
adverse impacts at both tiers of the EIS. The scope of the Tier I and
Tier II analyses will be commensurate with the level of detail
necessary for those documents. Input from the public and from reviewing
agencies will be solicited during both tiers.
SAFETEA-LU: SAFETEA-LU provisions and NEPA regulations, in general,
call for public involvement in the EIS process. Section 6002 of
SAFETEA-LU requires that agencies: (1) Extend an invitation to other
Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have an
interest in the proposed project to become ``participating agencies;''
(2) provide an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies
and the public in helping to define the purpose and need for the
proposed project, as well as the range of alternatives for
consideration in the impact statement; and (3) establish a plan for
coordinating public and agency participation in and comments on the
Scoping Document. Letters will be sent to any agency with a fiduciary,
regulatory, or permitting authority over the program as an invitation
to be part of the coordination process. Any interested Federal or non-
Federal agency or Indian tribe that does not receive an invitation to
become a participating agency can notify the contact persons listed
above.
A Coordination Plan will be developed to facilitate and document
the lead agencies' structured interaction with the public and other
agencies, and to inform the public and other agencies of the manner in
which the coordination will be accomplished. The Coordination Plan
prepared for the Cross Harbor Freight Movement Program will include:
The Plan Purpose and Identification of Lead Agencies; Program History;
List of Participating and Coordinating Agencies; Roles and
Responsibilities of the Lead, Participating, and Coordinating Agencies;
Agency Contact Information; Coordination Points; and the Program
Schedule.
Comments or questions regarding this Notice of Intent should be
directed to the FHWA or PANYNJ contacts identified above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Research Planning and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372, regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Issued on: April 23, 2010.
Jeffrey W. Kolb,
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New
York.
[FR Doc. 2010-11452 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P