[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9189-9192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2456]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34421]


HolRail LLC--Construction and Operation Exemption--In Orangeburg 
and Dorchester Counties, SC

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Scope of Study for the 
Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 13, 2003, HolRail LLC (HolRail) filed a petition 
with the Surface Transportation Board (the Board or STB) pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 10502 for authority to construct and operate a rail line in 
Orangeburg and Dorchester counties, South Carolina (SC). The proposed 
project would involve the construction and operation of approximately 
two miles of new rail line from the existing cement production factory 
owned by HolRail's parent company, Holcim (US) Inc. (Holcim), located 
near Holly Hill in Orangeburg County, to the terminus of an existing 
rail line of the Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), located to the 
south near Giant in Dorchester County.
    Based on consultations conducted to date, the Board's Section of 
Environmental Analysis (SEA) determined that the preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is appropriate. To help determine 
the scope of the EIS, and as required by the Board's regulations at 49 
CFR 1105.10(a)(2), SEA published in the Federal Register on July 29, 
2005, the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS; Notice of Initiation of 
the Scoping Process; Notice of Availability of Draft Scope of Study for 
the EIS and Request for Comments. The scoping comment period originally 
concluded on August 31, 2005, but due to an inadvertent omission in the 
scoping notice mailed to Federal, state and local agencies, SEA 
accepted comments from any interested agency through October 28, 2005. 
After review and consideration of all comments received, this notice 
sets forth the Final Scope of Study for the EIS. The Final Scope of 
Study reflects changes to the Draft Scope of Study as a result of the 
comments, and summarizes and addresses the principal environmental 
concerns raised by the comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Navecky, Section of 
Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, or 202-565-1593, or 
[email protected]. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available 
through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Background: By petition filed on November 13, 2003, HolRail seeks 
an exemption from the Board under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior 
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 for authority to construct and 
operate a rail line in Orangeburg and Dorchester counties, SC, 
approximately 40 miles northwest of Charleston and 60 miles southeast 
of Columbia.
    The new rail line would establish alternative rail service at the 
Holly Hill facility which is presently served only by CSX 
Transportation, Inc. (CSX). Holcim recently completed an expansion of 
the Holly Hill plant and has determined that alternative rail access is 
necessary to achieve the full benefits of the expanded production 
capacity. HolRail would arrange for a third-party operator to provide 
rail service, and would employ a contractor to provide maintenance 
service for the line, or engage the third-party operator to perform 
this service.

[[Page 9190]]

    Pursuant to the Board's responsibilities under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), SEA has begun the environmental review 
of HolRail's proposal by consulting with appropriate Federal, state, 
and local agencies, as well as HolRail, and conducting technical 
surveys and analyses. SEA has also consulted with the South Carolina 
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in accordance with the 
regulations implementing section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA) at 36 CFR part 800 and identified appropriate 
consulting parties to the section 106 process.
    Based on the nature and content of the public and agency comments 
received, SEA determined that the effects of the proposed project on 
the quality of the natural environment may be significant, and thus, 
preparation of an EIS is appropriate. For the environmental review 
process, SEA intends to analyze the potential environmental impacts of 
the proposed route, the no-action or no-build alternative (i.e., 
continuing use of the CSX line), and one alternative route that SEA has 
preliminarily determined as a reasonable and feasible build 
alternative.
    Environmental Review Process: The NEPA 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. SEA is responsible for 
ensuring that the Board complies with NEPA and related environmental 
statutes. The first stage of the EIS process is scoping. Scoping is an 
open process for determining the scope of environmental issues to be 
addressed in the EIS. For this scoping process, SEA developed a Draft 
Scope of Study for the EIS and issued the document for public review 
and written comment. In response to the Draft Scope of Study, SEA 
received written comments from four agencies and one interested party. 
After review and consideration of all comments received, this notice 
sets forth the Final Scope of Study for the EIS. The Final Scope of 
Study reflects changes to the Draft Scope of Study as a result of the 
comments.
    With the issuance of this Final Scope of Study, SEA will now 
prepare a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the project. The DEIS will address those 
environmental issues and concerns identified during the scoping 
process. It will also contain SEA's preliminary recommendations for 
environmental mitigation measures. Upon its completion, the DEIS will 
be made available for public and agency review and comment for at least 
45 days. SEA will then prepare a Final EIS (FEIS) that addresses the 
comments on the DEIS from the public and agencies. Then, in reaching 
its decision in this case, the Board will take into account the DEIS, 
the FEIS, and all environmental comments that are received.

Summary of and Response to Scoping Comments

    Written comments on the Draft Scope of Study were received from the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS), SC Department of Transportation (SCDOT), SC Office of 
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) and CSX Transportation, 
Inc. (CSX).
    The USFWS, NMFS and SCDOT offered no specific comments on the Draft 
Scope of Study. In its comment letter, OCRM certified that the proposed 
project would be consistent with the SC Coastal Zone Management Program 
provided that (1) no freshwater wetlands are disturbed or altered and 
that (2) all necessary erosion and sediment control practices are 
maintained until the entire site is stabilized. If the proposed action 
would include disturbing two acres or more of land, or if less than two 
acres but within one-half mile of a receiving water body, a stormwater 
permit application must be submitted and approved by OCRM prior to any 
land disturbing activity. If land disturbing activities will be two 
acres or less and not within one-half mile of a receiving water body 
then a ``Disturbing Less Than Two Acres Form'' must be submitted to 
OCRM. Because the Draft Scope of Study already addressed wetland and 
surface water impacts and related permitting requirements, changes to 
the Scope of Study in response to OCRM's comments were not needed.
    CSX's comments addressed the level of detail to be provided in the 
description of the alternatives and the nature of environmental impacts 
to be provided in the EIS. CSX also expressed conclusions on 
environmental impacts to be expected. Regarding the description of the 
alternatives, CSX listed the project design specifications and types of 
construction and operation activities it believes should be provided in 
the EIS. SEA will incorporate those details that SEA deems relevant and 
applicable to this EIS. SEA has clarified in the Final Scope of Study 
that the reasonable and feasible alternatives to be addressed in the 
EIS are construction and operation over Alignments A and B, and the no-
action or no-build alternative.
    In comments on environmental impacts, CSX addressed impact 
categories in general, and provided specific comments on the nature and 
types of impacts that should be addressed in the EIS in the areas of 
transportation and traffic safety; public health and worker health and 
safety; water resources; biological resources; geology and soils; and 
noise and vibration. SEA will address those impacts as appropriate 
based on the alternative descriptions and affected environment 
discussions yet to be prepared.

Final Scope of Study for the EIS

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The proposed project would provide alternative rail access to the 
Holcim facility, which is currently served only by CSX. The existing 
CSX line begins at the terminus of an NSR rail line at Giant, SC, 
passes to the immediate west of the Holcim facility, and continues to 
Creston, SC. The proposed action would involve the construction and 
operation of an approximately 2-mile rail line that would also begin at 
the terminus of the NSR line at Giant, SC, and end at the Holcim 
facility.
    HolRail proposes two potential alignments, both of which are on the 
east side of and parallel to the existing CSX line across Four Hole 
swamp, a world class heritage swamp according to comments submitted by 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SC Department of Natural Resources, 
and National Audubon Society during preliminary consultations. 
Alignment A would involve constructing the new rail line largely within 
the existing ROW of the CSX rail line. Alignment B would be constructed 
approximately 50 yards east of the CSX ROW, on property almost entirely 
owned by Holcim. Either alignment would connect with NSR to the south 
on land owned by a neighboring cement facility, over which HolRail 
intends to obtain access by easement or other arrangement.
    HolRail intends to construct and own the track, which would be a 
part of the common carrier rail network. HolRail would arrange for a 
third-party operator to provide rail service. HolRail would also employ 
a contractor to provide maintenance service for the line, or engage the 
third-party operator to perform this service.

Environmental Impact Analysis

    The reasonable and feasible alternatives that will be evaluated in 
the EIS are (1) a new rail line utilizing

[[Page 9191]]

Alignment A, (2) a new rail line using Alignment B, and (3) the no-
action or no-build alternative. Any other alternatives that were 
considered but not carried forward in the EIS and the reasons they were 
discarded will also be briefly described in the EIS.

Proposed New Construction

    The EIS will document the activities associated with the 
construction and operation of the proposed new rail line.

Impact Categories

    Impact areas addressed in the EIS will include the effects of the 
proposed construction and operation of the new rail line on 
transportation and traffic safety, public health and worker health and 
safety, water resources, biological resources, air quality, geology and 
soils, land use, environmental justice, noise, vibration, recreation 
and visual resources, cultural resources, and socioeconomics. 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 from 
the proposed project on each category, as described below:
1. Transportation and Traffic Safety
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential impacts of the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation on the existing transportation network in 
the project area.
    b. Describe the potential for train derailments or accidents from 
proposed rail operations.
    c. Describe potential pipeline safety issues at rail/pipeline 
crossings, as appropriate.
    d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to transportation and traffic safety, as appropriate.
2. Public Health and Worker Health and Safety
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe potential public health impacts from the proposed new 
rail line construction and operation.
    b. Describe potential impacts to worker health and safety from the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to public health and worker health and safety, as 
appropriate.
3. Water Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the existing groundwater resources within the project 
area, such as aquifers and springs, and the potential impacts on these 
resources resulting from construction and operation of the proposed new 
rail line.
    b. Describe the existing surface water resources within the project 
area, including watersheds, streams, rivers, and creeks, and the 
potential impacts on these resources resulting from construction and 
operation of the proposed new rail line.
    c. Describe existing wetland systems in the project area, including 
Four Hole Swamp, and the potential impacts on these resources resulting 
from construction and operation of the proposed new rail line.
    d. Describe the permitting requirements that are appropriate for 
the proposed new rail line construction and operation regarding 
wetlands, stream crossings (including floodplains), water quality, and 
erosion control.
    e. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to water resources, as appropriate.
4. Biological Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the existing biological resources within the project 
area, including vegetative communities, wildlife and fisheries, and 
Federal and state threatened or endangered species and the potential 
impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to biological resources, as appropriate.
5. Air Quality Impacts
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential air quality impacts resulting from the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to air quality, as appropriate.
6. Geology and Soils
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the native soils and geology of the proposed project 
area.
    b. Describe the potential impacts to soils and geologic features 
from the proposed new rail line construction and operation.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on soils and geologic features, as appropriate.
7. Land Use
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe existing land use patterns within the project area and 
identify those land uses that would be potentially impacted by the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation.
    b. Describe the potential impacts associated with the proposed new 
rail line construction and operation to land uses identified within the 
project area.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to land use, as appropriate.
8. Environmental Justice
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the demographics of the communities potentially 
impacted by the construction and operation of the proposed new rail 
line.
    b. Evaluate whether new rail line construction or operation would 
have a disproportionately high adverse impact on any minority or low-
income group.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts on environmental justice communities of concern, as 
appropriate.
9. Noise
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the existing noise environment of the project area and 
potential noise impacts from the proposed new rail line construction 
and operation.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to noise receptors, as appropriate.
10. Vibration
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the potential vibration impacts from the proposed new 
rail line construction and operation.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts from vibration, as appropriate.
11. Recreation and Visual Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe existing recreation and visual resources in the 
proposed project area and potential impacts to recreation and visual 
resources from construction and operation of the proposed new rail 
line.
    b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project impacts to recreation and visual resources, as appropriate.
12. Cultural Resources
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the cultural resources in the area of the proposed 
project and potential impacts to cultural resources from the proposed 
new rail line construction and operation.
    b. Describe the NHPA section 106 process for the proposed project, 
and

[[Page 9192]]

propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential project 
impacts to cultural resources, as appropriate.
13. Socioeconomics
    The EIS will:
    a. Describe the demographic characteristics of the project area.
    b. Describe the potential environmental impacts to employment and 
the local economy as a result of the proposed new rail line 
construction and operation.
    c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential 
project adverse impacts to socioeconomic resources, as appropriate.
14. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts
    The EIS will:
    a. Address any identified potential cumulative impacts of the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation, as appropriate. 
Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment which result from 
the incremental impact of the 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.
    b. Address any identified potential in direct impacts of the 
proposed new rail line construction and operation, 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: February 16, 2006.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental 
Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2456 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P