Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34859 

The information to be collected for 

this program is used to determine 

eligibility for funding and to monitor 

the grantees’ progress in implementing 

and completing project activities. The 

information submitted ensures FTA’s 

compliance with applicable Federal 

laws and OMB Circular A–102. The 

Federal Register Notice with a 60-day 

comment period soliciting comments 

was published on April 23, 2009. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

before August 17, 2009. A comment to 

OMB is most effective if OMB receives 

it within 30 days of publication. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sylvia L. Marion, Office of 

Administration, Office of Management 

Planning, (202) 366–6680. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: 49 U.S.C. Section 5317—New 

Freedom Program. 

Abstract: 49 U.S.C. Section 5317, the 

New Freedom Program, authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation to make 

grants to States for areas with a 

population of less than 200,000 and 

designated recipients in urbanized areas 

of 200,000 persons or greater to reduce 

barriers to transportation services and 

expand the transportation mobility 

options available to people with 

disabilities beyond the requirements of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) of 1990. Grant recipients are 

required to make information available 

to the public and to publish a program 

of projects which identifies the 

subrecipients and projects for which the 

State or designated recipient is applying 

for financial assistance. FTA uses the 

information to determine eligibility for 

funding and to monitor the grantees’ 

progress in implementing and 

completing project activities. FTA 

collects performance information 

annually from designated recipients in 

rural areas, small urbanized areas, other 

direct recipients for small urbanized 

areas, and designated recipients in 

urbanized areas of 200,000 persons or 

greater. FTA collects milestone and 

financial status reports from designated 

recipients in large urbanized areas on a 

quarterly basis. The information 

submitted ensures FTA’s compliance 

with applicable Federal laws and OMB 

Circular A–102. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

122,374 hours. 

ADDRESSES: All written comments must 

refer to the docket number that appears 

at the top of this document and be 

submitted to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: FTA Desk Officer. 

Comments Are Invited on: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 

the Department’s estimate of the burden 

of the proposed information collection; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Issued on: July 14, 2009. 

Ann M. Linnertz, 

Associate Administrator for Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–17077 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 35095] 

Alaska Railroad Corporation— 

Construction and Operation 

Exemption—a Rail Line Extension to 

Port MacKenzie, AK 

AGENCY: Lead: Surface Transportation 

Board. Cooperating: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Alaska District; Federal 

Railroad Administration; and United 

States Coast Guard. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final 

Scope of Study for the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). 

SUMMARY: The Alaska Railroad 

Corporation (ARRC or Applicant) 

petitioned the Surface Transportation 

Board (Board) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

10502 for authority to construct and 

operate a new rail line from MatanuskaSusitna Borough’s (MSB) Port 

MacKenzie to ARRC’s existing main line 

between Wasilla and north of Willow, 

Alaska. The project would involve the 

construction and operation of 

approximately 30 to 45 miles of new rail 

to the main line track. Figure 1 shows 

ARRC’s existing track and the proposed 

rail line extension from Port MacKenzie 

to ARRC’s existing main line (All figures 

are available for viewing on the Board’s 

Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov by 

going to ‘‘Environmental Matters,’’ then 

selecting ‘‘Key Cases’’ in the dropdown; 

and then when the next page appears, 

clicking ‘‘Alaska Railroad—Port 

MacKenzie Rail Extension). 

Because the construction and 

operation of 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. For 

further information about the Board’s 

environmental review process and the 

EIS, you may also visit a Boardsponsored project Web site at http:// 

www.stbportmacraileis.com. 

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 and 

mailed to the public on February 12, 

2008, the Notice of Availability of Draft 

Scope of Study for the EIS, Notice of 

Scoping Meetings, and Request for 

Comments. SEA also prepared and 

distributed to the public a fact sheet that 

introduced ARRC’s Port MacKenzie Rail 

Extension, announced SEA’s intent to 

prepare an EIS, requested comments, 

and gave notice of six public scoping 

meetings to citizens; elected officials; 

Federal, state, and local agencies; tribal 

organizations; and other potentially 

interested stakeholders. SEA held six 

public scoping meetings in Knik, Big 

Lake, Willow, Houston, Wasilla, and 

Anchorage, Alaska on March 3, 4, 5, 6, 

10, and 11, 2008, respectively. 

The scoping comment period 

concluded March 21, 2008. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska 

District (USACE); Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA); and United 

States Coast Guard (USGC) requested 

and were granted cooperating agency 

status in preparation of the EIS. After 

review and consideration of all 

comments received, this notice sets 

forth the final scope of the EIS. The final 

scope reflects any changes to the draft 

scope as a result of the comments, 

summarizes and addresses the principal 

environmental concerns raised by the 

comments, and briefly discusses 

pertinent issues concerning this project 

that further clarify the final scope. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Navecky, Section of 

Environmental Analysis, Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001, 

202–245–0294, or call SEA’s toll-free 

number for the project at 1–888–257– 

7560. Assistance for the hearing 

impaired is available through the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. The Web 

site for the Surface Transportation 

Board is http://www.stb.dot.gov. 

Serena Sweet, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers—P.O. Box 6898, Elmendorf 

Air Force Base, AK 99506, 907–753– 

2819. 

John Winkle, Passenger Programs 

Division, Federal Railroad 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34860 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

202–493–6067. 

James Helfinstine, Seventeenth District, 

U.S. Coast Guard, P.O. Box 25517, 

Juneau, AK 99802–5517, 907–463– 

2268. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Port MacKenzie is a deepwater facility 

on the west side of the Knik Arm in 

upper Cook Inlet in south-central 

Alaska. At present, freight truck is the 

only available surface mode of 

transportation to and from Port 

MacKenzie. The Applicant has stated 

that the proposed rail line would satisfy 

the need for an additional mode of 

transportation for the movement of bulk 

materials, intermodal containers, and 

other freight to and from Port 

MacKenzie. The proposed project is 

consistent with the MSB’s economic 

development plans and with ARRC’s 

statutory goal to foster and promote 

long-term economic growth in the State 

of Alaska. The project would support 

the Port’s continued development as a 

multi-modal and bulk materials export 

and import facility. ARRC plans to 

support commercial freight rail service 

needs with the proposed project. 

Major elements of the project would 

include: 

• Approximately 30 to 45 miles of 

new railroad track depending on the 

alternative; 

• A 200-foot wide right-of-way 

(ROW); 

• Crossings (depending on the 

alternative) of the Little Susitna River, 

Lake Creek, Goose Creek, Little Willow 

Creek, Fish Creek, Rogers Creek, Lucile 

Creek, Little Meadow Creek, and Willow 

Creek, along with many other small 

stream crossings; 

• Crossings of local roads and streets, 

including grade-separations; 

• Pipeline, utility, and recreational 

trail crossings, including the Iditarod 

National Historic Trail; 

• Road closures and relocations; 

• Track sidings along the existing 

ARRC mainline; 

• A terminal reserve area (consists of 

yard sidings, storage areas, and a 

terminal building to support train 

maintenance); and 

• Ancillary railroad support facilities 

including, but not limited to, 

communications towers and facilities, 

maintenance, power, signals, and access 

road. 

Environmental Review Process 

The Board is the lead agency, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.5. SEA is 

responsible for ensuring that the Board 

complies with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. 4321–4335, and related 

environmental statutes, and for 

completing the environmental review 

process. The NEPA review process is 

intended to assist the Board, the 

cooperating agencies and the public in 

identifying and assessing the potential 

environmental consequences of a 

proposed action and the reasonable 

alternative before a decision is made. 

ICF International is serving as an 

independent third-party contractor to 

assist SEA in the environmental review 

process. SEA is directing and 

supervising the preparation of the EIS. 

The USACE, FRA, and USCG are 

cooperating agencies, pursuant to 40 

CFR 1501.6. 

The Federal agency actions 

considered in this EIS will include 

decisions, permits, approvals and 

funding related to the proposed action. 

The Board will decide whether to grant 

authority to ARRC to construct and 

operate the rail line pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 10901 and 10502. The USACE 

will decide whether to issue permits 

pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251–1376, as 

amended) and/or Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 

U.S.C. 403). The USCG will decide 

whether to issue authority to construct 

bridges over navigable waters of the 

United States pursuant to the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 (49 U.S.C. 1651–1659). The FRA 

could provide funding to ARRC; 

however, the FRA would not provide 

funding for a Board-authorized 

alternative, if any, that would require 

the use of resources protected under 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) Act (23 CFR 

774) if there is a prudent and feasible 

alternative that does not use Section 4(f) 

resources, unless the Secretary of 

Transportation determines that the 

impacts to the protected resources 

would be de minimis in accordance 

with Section 6009(a) of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) amendment to 

the Section 4(f) requirements, which do 

not require avoidance. The EIS should 

include all of the information necessary 

for the decisions by the Board and the 

cooperating agencies. 

SEA and the cooperating agencies are 

preparing a Draft EIS for the proposed 

action. The Draft EIS will address those 

environmental issues and concerns 

identified during the scoping process 

and detailed in this final scope. It will 

also discuss a reasonable range of 

alternatives to the proposed action, 

including a no-action alternative, and 

recommend environmental mitigation 

measures, as appropriate. 

The Draft EIS will be made available 

upon its completion for public review 

and comment. A Final EIS will then be 

prepared reflecting further analysis by 

SEA and the cooperating agencies and 

the public and agency comments on the 

Draft EIS. In reaching their decisions on 

this case, the Board and the cooperating 

agencies will take into account the full 

environmental record, including the 

DEIS, the Final EIS, and all public and 

agency comments received. 

Purpose and Need 

The Applicant has stated that the 

purpose of the Port MacKenzie Rail 

Extension is to establish a rail link 

between Port MacKenzie (or Port) and 

the ARRC rail system, providing Port 

customers and shippers with rail 

transportation between the Port and 

Interior Alaska. The Port is a deepwater 

facility on the west side of Knik Arm in 

upper Cook Inlet, in south-central 

Alaska. At present, freight truck is the 

only available surface mode of 

transportation to and from the Port. 

The Applicant has also stated that the 

proposed rail line would satisfy the 

need for an additional mode of 

transportation for the movement of bulk 

materials, intermodal containers, and 

other freight to and from the Port. 

According to ARRC, the proposed 

project would support ARRC’s statutory 

goal to foster and promote long-term 

economic growth and development in 

the State of Alaska and would be 

consistent with the Port’s economic 

development plans, which include the 

continued development of the Port as a 

multi-modal and bulk materials export 

and import facility. 

Port Activities 

The proposed rail line extension 

would end at a terminal reserve (rail 

yard) approximately 2 or 3 miles, 

depending on the route, from the 

existing Port docks. Rail facilities the 

Port might construct to connect to the 

rail line extension would be particular 

to the specific traffic needs and would 

be expected to be generally consistent 

with Port master planning documents. 

These facilities might include buildings, 

roads, industrial spurs, sidings, loading/ 

unloading tracks, and other ancillary 

facilities throughout the upland port 

district. These facilities would be 

developed as the Port continued to 

grow, but would be independent of the 

planned rail extension. At present, the 

MSB is developing a bulk materials 

facility at the Port to accommodate the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34861 

1Based on Port planning and development 

information and additional field data collected 

during the summer of 2008, ARRC has revised the 

proposed location for the terminal reserve area to 

serve Mac East. This terminal reserve area is shifted 

slightly to the west relative to the previous location. 

This change occurred after issuance of ARRC’s 

Preliminary Environmental and Alternatives Report 

and the scoping period for the EIS. 

need for expansion of Port facilities to 

handle bulk material cargo to be 

transported to the Port by truck, 

independent of the planned rail line 

extension to the Port. The MSB has 

stated that as it continues to plan for the 

bulk materials facility and future Port 

development, it will consider the 

location of ARRC’s proposed rail 

extension in its decision making. The 

bulk material facility is not part of the 

proposed action, and a detailed 

environmental review of the bulk 

material facility is not within the scope 

of this EIS. The bulk materials facility, 

however, will be addressed in the 

cumulative impacts section of the EIS. 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The NEPA regulations require Federal 

agencies to consider a reasonable range 

of feasible alternatives to the proposed 

action. The President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ), which 

oversees the implementation of NEPA, 

has stated in Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ’s National 

Environmental Policy Act Regulations 

that ‘‘[R]easonable alternatives include 

those that are practical or feasible from 

the technical and economic standpoint 

and using common sense * * *.’’ In this 

EIS, SEA and the cooperating agencies 

are considering a full range of 

alternatives that meet the purpose and 

need of the project, as well as the noaction alternative. The reasonable and 

feasible alternatives included for 

detailed analysis and alternatives 

considered but not included in detailed 

study are discussed in more detail 

below. 

A. Alternatives 

Based on agency consultations, 

feedback from stakeholders, and a 

constraints analysis based on 

engineering and environmental studies, 

in January 2008 ARRC developed the 

Preliminary Environmental and 

Alternatives Report, which presented 

eight possible alignment configurations. 

All alignments start at a terminal reserve 

area near Port MacKenzie at the 

southern end and connect to the 

existing ARRC mainline to the north. 

The alignments are composed of a 

southern and northern segment with a 

possible connector tying the segments 

together. The southern segments, Mac 

West or Mac East, run either east or west 

of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural 

Project. Just north of the Point 

MacKenzie Agricultural Project, there 

are three main northern segments— 

Willow, Houston, and Big Lake—with 

Houston having a north or south variant. 

Connector segments link the north and 

south segments together to create eight 

possible alignment configurations as 

listed below and depicted in Figure 1. 

After reviewing the eight ARRCproposed alignments and considering 

all comments received during the 

scoping period, SEA and the 

cooperating agencies have decided to 

carry all eight alignments forward as 

alternatives for detailed analysis in the 

EIS. The no-action alternative will also 

be considered. The eight alternatives are 

listed below. Each would consist of a 

200-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the 

railroad and associated facilities. 

1. Mac West—Connector 1—Willow. 

This alternative would be 44.8 miles 

long and contains the segments farthest 

west. 

2. Mac West—Connector 1— 

Houston—Houston North. This 

alternative would be 35.1 miles long, 

and is geographically one of the middle 

alignments. 

3. Mac West—Connector 1— 

Houston—Houston South. This 

alternative would be 34.5 miles, and is 

geographically one of the middle 

alternatives. 

4. Mac West—Connector 2—Big Lake. 

This alternative would be 35.8 miles. It 

includes the southern segment along the 

west side of the Point MacKenzie 

Agricultural Project and the most 

eastern north segment going towards Big 

Lake. 

5. Mac East—Connector 3—Willow. 

This alternative would be 45 miles and 

is the longest. It includes the southern 

segment along the east side of the Point 

MacKenzie Agricultural Project and the 

most western north segment going 

towards Willow. 

6. Mac East—Connector 3— 

Houston—Houston North. This 

alternative would be 35.3 miles, and is 

geographically one of the middle 

alternatives. 

7. Mac East—Connector 3— 

Houston—Houston South. This 

alternative would be 34.7 miles long, 

and is geographically one of the middle 

alignments. 

8. Mac East—Big Lake. This 

alternative would be 31.8 miles long 

and is the shortest alternative. It 

includes the southern segment along the 

east side of the Point MacKenzie 

Agricultural Project and the most 

eastern north segment going toward Big 

Lake. 

Descriptions of the individual 

segments that complete the eight build 

alternatives for the EIS are provided 

below. 

Southern Segments 

Mac West Segment 

The Mac West Segment would begin 

in the terminal reserve area and would 

proceed northwest across relatively flat 

terrain toward the southwest corner of 

the Point MacKenzie Agricultural 

Project. The segment would continue 

west of the agricultural area, traversing 

along the eastern boundary of Susitna 

Flats State Game Refuge. The terminal 

reserve area is proposed along the 

southern side of Mac West. 

Mac East Segment 

The Mac East Segment would begin in 

the terminal reserve area and would 

proceed north along the side of a ridge 

along the east side of the Point 

MacKenzie Agricultural Project. Near 

Mile Post 4.7, the segment would cross 

a ravine and then curve to the northeast 

along the top of another ridge. North of 

Mile Post 6, the segment would follow 

the alignment of Port MacKenzie Road, 

offset 200 feet or more to the west. The 

segment would continue along 

undulating terrain before reaching its 

junction with the Big Lake Segment or 

Connector Segment 3. The terminal 

reserve area is proposed along the north 

side of Mac East.1

See Figure 2 for a detailed map of the 

southern segments and terminal reserve 

area. 

Connectors 

Connector Segment 1 

This 4.1-mile-long segment would 

connect the Mac West Segment to the 

Willow or Houston segments. From Mac 

West, this connector segment would 

continue north along the eastern 

boundary of the Susitna Flats State 

Game Refuge on level terrain. The 

segment would cross a tributary of the 

Little Susitna River. 

Connector Segment 2 

This 3.7-mile-long segment would 

connect the Mac West Segment to the 

Big Lake Segment. At the northwestern 

end of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural 

Project, this connector segment would 

turn due east and travel along the 

southern boundary of the Point 

MacKenzie Correctional Farm. 

Connector Segment 3 

This 4.5-mile-long segment would 

connect the Mac East Segment to the 

Willow or Houston segments. At the 

northeastern end of the Point 

MacKenzie Agricultural Project, this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34862 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

2Based on environmental impact associated with 

the original proposed connection with the main line 

as presented in the Preliminary Environmental and 

Alternatives Report and considered during the 

scoping period, ARRC shifted the connection point 

approximately 1 mile southeast to its present 

location. 

connector segment would shift to the 

northwest and cross Ayrshire Avenue 

and Farmers Road at grade. The segment 

would continue north of My Lake and 

cross an adjacent ravine. The remaining 

mile of the segment is nearly level. 

See Figure 3 for a detailed map of the 

connector segments. 

North Segments 

Willow Segment 

From Connector Segment 1 or 3, the 

Willow Segment would continue 

northwest where it would immediately 

cross the Little Susitna River (see Figure 

4). Over the next 7 miles, the segment 

would continue north through rolling 

terrain. The segment would cross Fish 

Creek, the outlet for Red Shirt and Cow 

lakes. The Willow Segment would then 

proceed north, generally following the 

west-facing slope of a glacial moraine 

west of Red Shirt Lake. It would 

continue north through the Nancy Lake 

State Recreation Area for approximately 

0.5 mile. The Willow Segment would 

cross the outlet for Vera Lake, continue 

over rolling terrain, and cross Willow 

Landing Road at grade. The segment 

would then continue through the 

Willow Creek State Recreation Area, 

where it would cross Willow Creek. The 

segment would curve to the east and 

cross Parks Highway with a grade 

separation, before connecting to the 

existing ARRC main line near Mile Post 

188.9 along the proposed rail line. 

Houston Segment 

From Connector Segment 1 or 3, the 

Houston Segment would proceed 

northeast, traveling through slightly 

undulating terrain with areas of wetland 

(see Figure 5). The segment would pass 

between Papoose Twins Lakes and 

Crooked Lake, traversing an area of hilly 

terrain. The remaining 4 miles of the 

Houston Segment would be in a 

gradually rising wetland area to a point 

near Muleshoe Lake and Little 

Horseshoe Lake, where it would connect 

to either the Houston North Segment or 

the Houston South Segment. 

Houston North Segment 2

From the Houston Segment, the 

Houston North Segment would continue 

north (see Figure 5), crossing over the 

Castle Mountain Fault. The Houston 

North Segment would cross the Cow 

Lake Trail, which is part of the Houston 

Lake Loop Trail. It would continue 

through the Little Susitna Recreation 

Area, where it would cross the Little 

Susitna River. The segment would 

continue north on rolling terrain along 

the east side of Houston and Little 

Houston lakes, descending gradually to 

lower terrain adjacent to Lake Creek. 

The Houston North Segment would tie 

into the existing ARRC main line near 

Mile Post 178 without crossing the 

Parks Highway. 

Houston South Segment 

Also beginning between Muleshoe 

Lake and Little Horseshoe Lake, this 

proposed segment would traverse 

northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake 

(see Figure 5). The segment would 

traverse several gravel ridges that 

parallel the lakes in this area. The 

segment would tie into the existing 

mainline near Mile Post 174.0 without 

crossing the Parks Highway. 

Big Lake Segment 

From the Mac East Segment or 

Connector Segment 2, the Big Lake 

Segment would run northeast for 

approximately 3 miles, crossing Burma 

Road at grade (see Figure 6). It would 

continue on rolling terrain, crossing 

over Goose Creek, Fish Creek, Lucille 

Creek, and tributaries of Lucille Creek 

and Little Meadow Creek. The segment 

would cross Burma Road at grade and 

Big Lake Road, where it would be gradeseparated above Big Lake Road. The Big 

Lake Segment would continue north 

through a residential area before 

crossing under Parks Highway. The Big 

Lake Segment would connect with the 

existing ARRC main line near Mile Post 

170.3 along the proposed rail line in a 

wetland area surrounding a stream that 

feeds into Long Lake. 

The refined information collected 

during the 2008 summer field season 

provided ARRC with better data to 

consider the tie-in location for the Big 

Lake Segment. The following 

information supplements the 

Preliminary Environmental and 

Alternatives Report (see Figure 6). These 

refinements of the Big Lake Segment 

will be addressed in the EIS. 

• Construct an approximately 430- 

foot bridge on the Parks Highway over 

the proposed rail line and an unnamed 

anadromous fish stream. 

• Relocate approximately 2,400 feet 

of unnamed anadromous fish streams 

adjacent to the proposed rail line. 

• Relocate approximately 1,000 feet 

of Hawk Lane on the south side of the 

Parks Highway (because of the new 

Parks Highway bridge). 

• Close approximately 865 feet of 

Cheri Lake Drive where it crosses the 

existing main line and intersects with 

the Parks Highway. 

• Extend Ray Street approximately 

1,405 feet from Loon Street to the Parks 

Highway, which would include an atgrade crossing of the existing ARRC 

main line. 

• Acquire eight recreational/ 

residential parcels along Loon Lake 

because access to the parcels would be 

permanently blocked due to lack of 

access from the relocated road crossing 

(Cheri Lake Drive) and the new siding. 

• Relocate the business on the 

southwest corner of the Parks Highway 

and Cheri Lake Drive due to the Hawk 

Lane relocation. 

B. Alternatives Considered But Not 

Included in Detailed Study 

Following review of scoping 

comments received and the potential 

route alignments presented by ARRC in 

the Preliminary Environmental and 

Alternatives Report, SEA asked ARRC to 

consider the feasibility of making 

adjustments to the Willow, Big Lake, 

Mac West, and Houston North 

Segments, and to consider a new 

segment to reduce potential 

environmental impacts. The 

adjustments were proposed to reduce 

potential impacts to state recreation 

areas and game refuges, a road crossing, 

and wetlands. The proposed new 

segment would have utilized already 

existing corridors. ARRC considered 

SEA’s proposed changes and explained 

that making these adjustments would 

create additional impacts or the terrain 

would be unsuitable for railroad 

construction. For example, SEA 

proposed shifting the Willow Segment 

west to avoid Willow Creek State 

Recreation Area, but ARRC explained 

that this approach would require closing 

or relocating the Willow Airport. In 

response to ARRC’s concerns about the 

feasibility of SEA’s proposed changes, 

and based on its own independent 

analysis, SEA determined that its 

proposed modifications to the routes 

were not feasible. 

SEA also notes that rail across the 

proposed Knik Arm crossing connecting 

Port MacKenzie to the ARRC main line 

in Anchorage was considered, but 

determined impractical for several 

reasons. The Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) determined 

this option to be financially infeasible in 

the Knik Arm Crossing Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. The 

nearly $1 billion cost (in 2005 dollars) 

estimated for constructing this rail 

crossing would have exceeded the $600 

million limit for the Knik Arm Crossing 

project. In addition, a route to Interior 

Alaska via the Knik Arm crossing would 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34863 

have been considerably longer than the 

alternatives being analyzed and would 

not meet the Applicant’s stated purpose 

of providing a rail connection suitable 

for shipment of bulk materials from 

Interior Alaska to Port Mackenzie. 

C. Public Participation 

As part of the environmental review 

process to date, SEA has conducted 

broad public outreach activities to 

inform the public about the proposed 

action and to facilitate public 

participation. SEA consulted with and 

will continue to consult with Federal, 

state, and local agencies; affected 

communities: and all interested parties 

to gather and disseminate information 

about the proposal. SEA and the 

cooperating agencies have also 

developed and implemented a 

Government-to-Government 

Consultation and Coordination Plan to 

seek, discuss, and consider the views of 

federally recognized Tribal 

Governments regarding the proposed 

action and alternatives. 

D. Response to Comments 

SEA and the cooperating agencies 

reviewed and considered the comments 

received on the draft scope (130 

comments with approximately 1,332 

signatures) in preparing this final scope 

of the EIS. The final scope reflects any 

changes to the draft scope as a result of 

comments. Other changes in the final 

scope were made for clarification or as 

a result of additional analysis. 

Additions and modifications reflected 

in the final scope include: 

• Analysis of impacts on fisheries and 

fish habitat, specifically anadromous 

streams. Federal and state agencies 

provided comments on the potential 

impacts on fish and fish habitat. As a 

point of clarification, the EIS will 

consider project-related effects on fish 

resources including impacts from rail 

and road construction, types and 

locations of water crossings and the 

accommodation of ice formation. 

• Analysis of impacts on nesting 

waterfowl and eagles. Comments stated 

concerns about the potential impacts on 

nesting waterfowl and eagles, as well as 

migrating waterfowl, including cranes 

and grebes. As a point of clarification, 

the analysis in the EIS will consider the 

locations of eagle nests and migrating 

waterfowl near proposed alignments. 

• Analysis of impacts on moose and 

other wildlife. Comments stated that 

moose strikes by trains are among the 

greatest wildlife concerns. Comments 

also indicated that other mammals that 

reside in the area could be affected. To 

clarify, the EIS will address wildlife 

habitat impacts, including potential 

impacts to moose. 

• Analysis of socioeconomic impacts. 

Comments recommend that the EIS 

consider the impacts of the proposed 

project on property values, land access 

and use (i.e., agricultural), and quality of 

life. Comments also stated concerns 

about the potential negative affects on 

income generated from recreation 

tourism. The EIS will consider potential 

project-related effects on local services 

as potential land use impacts. 

• Analysis of impacts on water 

resources. Comments requested that the 

EIS evaluate the potential loss of 

wetland habitat. Comments also stated 

concerns regarding the potential project 

impacts on watersheds (i.e., rail 

embankment acting as a barrier that 

would disrupt natural drainage 

systems). Comments also recommended 

the study of possible impacts of the 

Little Susitna River overflowing its 

banks and the compounded effect of a 

possible spill on this interconnected 

hydrologic system. The EIS will 

consider these potential impacts. 

• Analysis of impacts on cultural 

resources. Comments stated concerns 

over potential impacts to known and 

unidentified cultural resources (e.g., 

Iditarod Trail and native sites). 

Comments also stated concerns over 

loss of subsistence resources. The EIS 

will address cultural resources and 

subsistence. 

• Analysis of rail safety. Comments 

stated concerns over rail and highway 

safety related to hazardous materials 

transport, at-grade crossings, fire 

hazards, and crossing seismic zones 

(i.e., crossing fault lines). In addition, 

comments stated concerns about the 

safety of potential rail crossings at 

recreational trails. The EIS will examine 

the potential safety impacts of the 

proposed action. 

• Analysis of noise and vibration 

impacts. Comments stated concerns 

over noise and vibration impacts near 

residential and wilderness areas. The 

EIS will consider noise and vibration 

impacts including potential projectrelated impacts to sensitive receptors. 

• Analysis of recreation and access. 

Comments requested that the EIS 

address the potential impacts on 

recreation areas, access to these areas, 

and safety. Concerns specifically 

addressed the potential loss of access to 

recreational trails including the 

Iditarod, Junior Iditarod, and Iron Dog 

trails. Comments noted that many trails 

are unmarked through most recreation 

areas. Concerns were also raised about 

undisturbed state and Federal parks. 

Analysis of these issues will be 

included in the EIS. 

• Analysis of land use impacts. 

Comments stated concerns about 

impacts to private properties as well as 

Federal, state and borough public lands. 

Analysis of these issues will be 

included in the EIS. 

• Analysis of geology and soils. 

Comments stated concerns about the 

Castle Mountain fault, which would be 

crossed by one of the proposed 

alternatives. This issue will be 

addressed in the EIS. 

E. Environmental Impact Analysis 

Proposed New Construction 

Analysis in the EIS will address the 

proposed activities associated with 

construction and operation of new rail 

facilities and their potential 

environmental impacts, as appropriate. 

Impact Categories 

The EIS will analyze potential 

impacts from construction and 

operation of new rail facilities on the 

human and natural environment for 

each alternative, or in the case of the noaction alternative, the potential impacts 

of these activities not occurring. Impact 

areas addressed will include the 

categories of geology and soils, water 

resources including wetlands and other 

waters of the U.S., biological resources, 

cultural and historic resources, 

subsistence, air quality, noise and 

vibration, energy resources, 

transportation safety and delay, 

navigation, land use, socioeconomics as 

they relate to physical changes in the 

environment, and environmental 

justice. 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 

described as follows: 

1. Geology and Soils 

The EIS will: 

a. Describe the geology, soils, and 

seismic conditions found within the 

project area, including unique or 

problematic geologic formations or soils, 

prime farmland, prime and unique soils, 

and hydric soils and analyze the 

potential impacts on these resources 

resulting from the various alternatives 

for construction of a new rail line. 

b. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts to geology and soils, and 

seismic hazards, as appropriate. 

2. Water Resources 

The EIS will: 

a. Describe the existing surface water 

and groundwater resources within the 

project area, including lakes, rivers, 

streams, ponds, wetlands, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

34864 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

floodplains and analyze the potential 

impacts on these resources resulting 

from each alternative. 

b. Describe the permitting 

requirements applicable to wetlands, 

stream and river crossings, water 

quality, floodplains, and erosion 

control. 

c. Propose mitigative measures to 

avoid, minimize, or compensate for 

potential project impacts to water 

resources, as appropriate. 

d. Identify and evaluate potential 

impacts to the Su-Knik Mitigation Bank 

along the Big Lake Segment. 

Note: The Big Lake Segment would go 

through two mitigation bank parcels that are 

part of the Su-Knik Mitigation Bank. Use of 

these two mitigation bank parcels for the 

proposed rail line could require concurrence 

from the entities that created the mitigation 

bank or ROW acquisition by ARRC through 

eminent domain. 

3. Biological Resources 

The EIS will: 

a. Evaluate 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 each 

alternative. 

b. Describe any wildlife sanctuaries, 

refuges, national or state parks, forests, 

or grasslands and evaluate the potential 

impacts to these resources resulting 

from each alternative. 

c. Propose mitigative measures to 

avoid, minimize, or compensate for 

potential impacts to biological 

resources, as appropriate. 

4. Cultural and Historic Resources 

The EIS will: 

a. Analyze the potential projectrelated impacts to historic structures or 

districts previously recorded and 

determined potentially eligible, eligible, 

or listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places within or immediately 

adjacent to the right-of-way for the 

proposed rail alignments. 

b. Evaluate the potential impacts of 

each alternative to archaeological sites 

previously recorded and either listed as 

unevaluated or determined potentially 

eligible, eligible, or listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places 

within the right-of-way for the 

alternative rail alignments and the noaction alternative. 

c. Analyze the potential impacts to 

historic structures or districts or 

archaeological sites identified by ground 

survey and determined potentially 

eligible, eligible, or listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places 

within or immediately adjacent to the 

right-of-way for the alternative rail 

alignments. 

d. Evaluate the potential general 

impacts to paleontological resources in 

the project area due to project 

construction, if necessary and required. 

e. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts to cultural and historic 

resources, as appropriate. 

5. Subsistence 

The EIS will: 

a. Analyze the potential impacts of 

the project alternatives on subsistence 

activities in the project area. 

b. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts on subsistence activities, as 

appropriate. 

6. Air Quality 

The EIS will: 

a. Evaluate air emissions from rail 

operations, if the alternative would 

affect a Class I or non-attainment or 

maintenance area as designated under 

the Clean Air Act. 

b. Describe the potential air quality 

impacts resulting from new rail line 

construction activities. 

c. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts to air quality, as appropriate. 

7. Noise and Vibration 

The EIS will: 

a. Describe the potential noise and 

vibration impacts during new rail line 

construction. 

b. Describe the potential noise and 

vibration impacts of rail line operations 

over new and existing rail lines. 

c. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts to sensitive noise receptors, as 

appropriate. 

8. Energy 

The EIS will: 

a. Describe and evaluate the potential 

impact of the new rail line on the 

distribution and use of energy resources 

in the project area for each alternative, 

including petroleum and gas pipelines 

and overhead electric transmission 

lines. 

b. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts to energy resources, as 

appropriate. 

9. Transportation 

The EIS will: 

a. Evaluate the potential impacts of 

each alternative, including new rail line 

construction and operation, on the 

existing transportation network in the 

project area, including vehicular delays 

at grade crossings. 

b. Describe existing road/rail grade 

crossing safety and analyze the potential 

for an increase in accidents related to 

the new rail operations, as appropriate. 

c. Describe existing rail operations 

and analyze the potential for increased 

probability of train accidents, as 

appropriate. 

d. Evaluate the potential for 

disruption and delays to the movement 

of emergency vehicles due to new rail 

line construction and operation for each 

alternative. 

e. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts to transportation systems, as 

appropriate. 

10. Navigation 

The EIS will: 

a. Identify existing navigable 

waterways within the project area and 

analyze the potential impacts on 

navigability resulting from each 

alternative. 

b. Describe the permitting 

requirements for the various alternatives 

concerning navigation. 

c. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential impacts 

to navigation, as appropriate. 

11. Land Use 

The EIS will: 

a. Evaluate potential impacts of each 

alternative on existing land use patterns 

within the project area and identify 

those land uses that would be 

potentially impacted by new rail line 

construction. 

b. Analyze the potential impacts 

associated with each alternative to land 

uses identified within the project area. 

Such potential impacts could include 

incompatibility with existing land uses 

and conversion of land to railroad uses. 

c. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential impacts 

to land use, as appropriate. 

d. Evaluate existing conditions and 

the potential impacts of the alternatives 

on recreational opportunities in the 

project area. 

e. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts on recreational opportunities, 

as appropriate. 

f. Identify and evaluate potential 

impacts to resources protected under 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) regulation known as ‘‘Section 

4(f).’’ (Note: The STB is an independent 

agency and is not subject to Section 4(f) 

requirements). 23 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 774 and 49 U.S.C. 

303 mandate that the Secretary of 

Transportation shall not approve any 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34865 

transportation project requiring the use 

of publicly owned parks, recreation 

areas or wildlife and waterfowl refuges, 

or significant historic sites, regardless of 

ownership, unless there is no prudent 

and feasible alternative to using that 

land, and the program or project 

includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm to the public park, 

recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl 

refuge, or significant site, resulting from 

that use. Because FRA is a USDOT 

agency, they could not provide funding 

for the project if the Board authorizes 

construction and operation of an 

alternative that requires the use of 

resources protected under Section 4(f) of 

the USDOT Act if there is a prudent and 

feasible alternative that does not use 

Section 4(f) resources, unless the use 

would result in de minimis impacts to 

Section 4(f) resources, which do not 

require avoidance. 

Note: The Willow-Connector 1–Mac West 

alternative would traverse the Willow Creek 

State Recreation Area, Nancy Lake State 

Recreation Area, Little Susitna Recreation 

River, and Susitna Flats State Game Refuge. 

The Houston North Segment would cross the 

Little Susitna Recreation River. These 

recreation and refuge areas are all Section 4(f) 

resources and FRA funding for any rail line 

alternative affecting these resources could be 

prohibited. 

g. Identify sites in the proposed 

project area that are known to or might 

have been contaminated by hazardous 

materials, identify sites that are 

regulated hazardous waste facilities, and 

describes the potential impacts of 

constructing and operating the proposed 

rail line on or near known hazardous 

materials and waste sites. 

12. Socioeconomics 

The EIS will: 

a. Analyze the effects of a potential 

influx of construction workers and the 

potential increase in demand for local 

services interrelated with natural or 

physical environmental effects. 

b. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

adverse impacts to social and economic 

resources, as appropriate. 

13. Environmental Justice 

The EIS will: 

a. Evaluate the potential impacts of 

each alternative, including construction 

and operation of the rail lines, on local 

and regional minority populations and 

low-income populations. 

b. Propose mitigative measures to 

minimize or eliminate potential project 

impacts on environmental justice issues, 

as appropriate. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The EIS will analyze cumulative 

impacts for the alternatives for the 

proposed construction and operation of 

new rail facilities on the human and 

natural environment, or in the case of 

the no-action alternative, of the lack of 

these activities. SEA will analyze the 

potential additive effects of the 

proposed action and alternatives to the 

effects on applicable resources of 

relevant past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects or actions in the 

area of the proposed action. SEA will 

determine appropriate time and 

geographic boundaries for applicable 

resource-specific analyses in order to 

focus the cumulative impacts analysis 

on truly meaningful effects. Resources 

addressed may include the categories of 

geology and soils, water resources 

including wetlands and other waters of 

the U.S., biological resources, cultural 

and historic resources, subsistence, air 

quality, noise and vibration, energy 

resources, transportation safety and 

delay, navigation, land use, 

socioeconomics as they relate to 

physical changes in the environment, 

and environmental justice. The EIS will 

review all relevant past, concurrent, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions that 

could result in collectively significant 

impacts to each of the categories of 

impacts listed above, and to any other 

categories of impacts that may be 

addressed as a result of comments 

received during the scoping process or 

the Draft EIS comment period. 

By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, 

Section of Environmental Analysis. 

Kulunie L. Cannon, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. E9–17018 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

Office of Thrift Supervision 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Renewal of a Currently 

Approved Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of 

the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System (Board); Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and 

Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Joint notice and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the OCC, the OTS, the 

Board, and the FDIC (the agencies), may 

not conduct or sponsor, and the 

respondent is not required to respond 

to, an information collection unless it 

displays a currently valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. The agencies have approved 

the publication for public comment the 

proposal to extend, without revision, 

the Advanced Capital Adequacy 

Framework information collection, 

which is a currently approved 

information collection. At the end of the 

comment period, the comments and 

recommendations received will be 

analyzed to determine the extent to 

which the agencies should modify the 

report. The agencies will then submit 

the report to OMB for review and 

approval. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 15, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments to 

any or all of the agencies. All comments, 

which should refer to the OMB control 

number(s), will be shared among the 

agencies. 

OCC: Communications Division, 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, Public Information Room, 

Mail Stop 2–3, Attention: 1557–0234, 

250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20219. In addition, comments may be 

sent by fax to (202) 874–5274, or by 

electronic mail to 

regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. You may 

personally inspect and photocopy 

comments at the OCC, 250 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. For security 

reasons, the OCC requires that visitors 

make an appointment to inspect 

comments. You may do so by calling 

(202) 874–4700. Upon arrival, visitors 

will be required to present valid 

government-issued photo identification 

and submit to security screening in 

order to inspect and photocopy 

comments. 

Board: You may submit comments, 

which should refer to FR 4200, by any 

of the following methods: 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the http://www.federalreserve.gov/ 

generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES