R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.-Construction and Operation Exemption-In Clearfield County, PA, 38256-38259 [E9-18276]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38256
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices
Estimated Number of Respondents:
10.
Estimated Number of Responses: 10.
Annual Estimated Burden: 10 hours.
Frequency of Collection: An
applicant’s filing of an EEO employment
complaint is solely voluntary.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is reasonable for the proper performance
of the EEO functions of the Department,
and (b) the accuracy of the Department’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection, including the
validity of methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including the use of
appropriate, automated, electronic,
mechanical or other technology.
Comments should be addressed to the
address in the preamble. All responses
to this notice will be summarized and
included in the request for Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval. All comments will also
become a matter of public record.
Issued in Washington, DC on July 24, 2009.
Patricia Lawton,
DOT Paperwork Reduction Act Clearance
Officer, Office of the Chief Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–18238 Filed 7–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Notice of Applications for Certificates
of Public Convenience and Necessity
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed
Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q)
During the Week Ending July 18, 2009
The following Applications for
Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier
Permits were filed under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department
of Transportation’s Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et.
seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to
Modify Scope are set forth below for
each application. Following the Answer
period DOT may process the application
by expedited procedures. Such
procedures may consist of the adoption
of a show-cause order, a tentative order,
or in appropriate cases a final order
without further proceedings.
Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009–
0163.
Date Filed: July 17, 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:38 Jul 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
Due Date for Answers, Conforming
Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: August 7, 2009.
Description: Application of TAP
Portugal (‘‘TAP’’) requesting an
amendment to its foreign air carrier
permit so that the authority granted by
such permit will reflect the full extent
of the rights of Community airlines
under the Air Transport Agreement
between the United States and the
European Community and the Member
States of the European Community
specifically, TAP seeks blanket open
skies authority to enable TAP to engage
in: (i) Scheduled and charter foreign air
transportation of persons, property and
mail from any point or points behind
any Member State of the European
Union via any point or points in any
Member State and via intermediate
points to any point or points in the
United States and beyond; (ii)
scheduled and charter foreign air
transportation of persons, property and
mail between any point or points in any
member of the European Common
Aviation Area and any point or points
in the United States; (iii) scheduled and
charter all-cargo foreign air
transportation between any point or
points in the United States and any
other point or points; (iv) other charters
subject to the Department’s regulations;
(v) and transportation authorized by any
additional route rights made available to
European Community airlines in the
future. TAP also requests exemption
authority to the extent necessary to
enable it to engage in the above
described operations pending issuance
of an amended foreign air carrier permit.
Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9–18291 Filed 7–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
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
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
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.
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).
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices
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, https://
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:38 Jul 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 openhouse/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 audiencewide 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
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38257
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
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
38258
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices
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.
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
PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
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.
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:38 Jul 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 noaction 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 projectrelated 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.
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 146 / Friday, July 31, 2009 / Notices
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 projectrelated impacts to air quality, as
appropriate.
PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
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 projectrelated 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:38 Jul 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 MultiUse 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38259
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
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 146 (Friday, July 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38256-38259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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, https://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
