APPENDIX A
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Appendix A
Summary of Comments and Responses to Comments
Regarding the Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service
Restoration Environmental Assessment
NJ TRANSIT
September 2009
1
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
The following section presents the comments regarding the Supplemental Environmental Assessment
(Supplemental EA) for the New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service.
Due to the inter-related nature of an environmental document, the categorization of comments and
organization of the response to comments can be complex. It is often the case that one issue may apply to
multiple subject areas of study. In addition, correspondence received during the public comment period
often addresses more than one issue of concern.
For the purpose of organization, it is important to relate each comment back to the individual,
organization, or resource agency that provided it, and it is also important to present together all comments
on a particular issue so that the responses to the remarks address the full scope of the concern. To
accomplish this, an index has been provided to associate each comment with the party who provided it.
Each piece of correspondence is given an identification number, which is repeated, along with the
commenter’s name or agency, in the response to comments section.
In the instances where one piece of correspondence contains only one issue, that issue is identified with a
number identifier, even if the issue applies to more than one subject area. For example, a letter from Joe
Smith containing only one comment about railroad horn noise would be identified as “Smith (1)” and
would be addressed in both the noise and safety sections of the response portion of this chapter.
Conversely, if Sue Jones’ letter presented three unrelated issues about cost, traffic congestion, and habitat
protection, these comments would be identified as “Jones(2A), Jones(2B), and Jones(2C),” respectively.
The number refers to the order in which the comments were received and logged. The letters identify the
order of the issues as raised in each correspondence. See the example index below.
Example:
ID#
Date
1
7/10/2008
2
7/11/2008
Name
Joe Smith
Affiliation
Resident
Comment Form
Letter
Sue Jones
Resident
Letter
Subject Area
Noise
Safety
Cost
Traffic
Habitat
Comment ID
Smith(1)
Smith(1)
Jones (2A)
Jones (2B)
Jones (2C)
Eighteen pieces of correspondence (emails, faxes, or letters) were received, eight contained general
support for the project and ten raised issues warranting a specific response in this document.
The full text of the comment letters are provided at the end of this section. Each individual comment
within the comment letters are highlighted and identified with their unique identification code to facilitate
the association between the response section and the comments as provided.
The responses address only comments pertaining to issues with the EA text or EA development process.
General remarks expressing support or disapproval, but not containing issues warranting additional
explanation, are discussed immediately below.
NJ TRANSIT
September 2009
2
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Table 1 Summary of Comments
Correspondence
ID #
1
Date
7/1/09
2
7/21/09
3
Name
Affiliation
Comment
Form
Fax
Area of Concern
Ron
Popowski
Frank J.
Cianfrani
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service
Department of the Army,
Philadelphia District, Corps of
Engineers (USACOE)
7/17/09
Grace
Musumeci
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2
(USEPA)
Letter
4
7/21/09
Brian Quinn
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
(NJDEP)
Letter
5
7/8/09
Charles Scott
NJ DEP, SHPO
Email
 Regulatory Jurisdiction
 Wetlands
 Ecology
 Ecology
 Air Quality
 Ecology
 Hazardous Materials
 Wetlands
 Water Quality
 Process
 Cultural Resources
 Ecology
 Wetlands
 Wetlands
Cultural Resources
6
7/14/09
Eileen Swan
NJ Highlands Council
Fax
Process
7
7/17/09
Joseph
Sabatini
Township of Byram Council
and Environmental
Commission, Byram, NJ
Letter















NJ TRANSIT
Letter
Comment ID
Ecology
Data Standards
Development
Data Standards
Development
Traffic
Data Standards
Traffic
Station Sites
Trails
Trails
Ecology
Ecology
Alternatives
Data Standards
Ecology
USFWS(1)
 USACOE(2A)
 USACOE(2B)
 USACOE(2C)
 USACOE(2D)
 USEPA(3A)
 USEPA(3B)
 USEPA(3C)
 USEPA(3D)
 USEPA(3E)
 USEPA(3F)
 NJDEP(4A)
 NJDEP(4B)
 NJDEP(4C)
 NJDEP(4D)
NJDEP-HPO(5)
Highlands(6)















Byram(7A)
Byram(7B)
Byram(7C)
Byram(7D)
Byram(7E)
Byram(7F)
Byram(7G)
Byram(7H)
Byram(7I)
Byram(7J)
Byram(7K)
Byram(7L)
Byram(7M)
Byram(7N)
Byram(7O)
August 2009
3
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI




Ecology
Water Quality
Ecology
Previous Comments/
Non-Applicable
General Support




 Hiscano(9A)
 Hiscano(9A)
 Hiscano(9B)
 Hiscano(9C)
 Hiscano(9D)
 Hiscano(9E)
Smollin(10)
Byram(7P)
Byram(7Q)
Byram(7R)
Byram(7S)
8
6/22/09
Fred Wertz
Penn Jersey Rail Coalition
Fax
9
6/17/09
Peter
Hiscano
Resident, Andover/Byram
Area, NJ
Email
10
6/17/09
Resident, Maywood, NJ
Email
11
Resident, location not provided
Voicemail
General Support
Grovin(11)
12
June,
2009
6/18/09
Keith
Smollin
Mike Grovin
 Development
 Traffic
 Rail Operations
 Freight
 Data Standards
 Cost
General Support
Resident, Syracuse, NY
Email
General Support
Maloney(12)
13
6/18/09
Email
General Support
Talmadge(13)
14
6/18/09
Resident, Wantage Township,
NJ
Resident, Moscow, PA
Email
General Support
Kern(14)
15
6/17/09
Email
General Support
Greenland(15)
16
6/23/09
Resident, Tobyhanna
Township, PA
Resident, Blairstown, NJ
Email


17
7/13/09
Resident, Blairstown, NJ
Email
18
7/13/09
Resident, Western NJ
Email
 General Support
 Freight
General Support
Keith
Maloney
Bill
Talmadge
Donald Kern
Debra
Greenland
Richard and
Rosemary
Amon
Glenn
Habrial
Steve P.
NJ TRANSIT
Cost
Rail Operations
Wertz(8)
 Amon(16A)
 Amon(16B)
 Habrial(17A)
 Habrial(17B)
SteveP(18)
August 2009
4
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Comments Expressing Support, Technical Revisions, or Non-Applicable Remarks
The purpose of the response to comments chapter is to address matters of concern raised by the reviewing
resource agencies and public and demonstrate how the Supplemental EA addresses these concerns. The
sections following the Table of Contents provide responses to comments addressing the technical content of
the Supplemental EA, such as inquiries regarding historic resources, air quality, and ecology. In addition to
these comments, for which a technical response is required, the project team also received a variety of
comments that were not pertinent to the content of the Supplemental EA. All comments received during the
comment period must be logged, but only those comments that can be answered by reference to the
Supplemental EA or the environmental process are addressed. Comments that do not require a technical
response are described below.
General Comments Expressing Support
During the public comment period, 18 resource agencies and interested parties provided comments on the
Supplemental EA. Of these 18 individuals, 8 expressed unconditional support for the Project, citing a
variety of quality of life issues that would be improved through the implementation of the Lackawanna CutOff Project. Supportive comments include: Smollin(10), Grovin(11), Maloney(12), Talmadge(13),
Kern(14), Greenland(15), SteveP(18) and, Wertz(8).
An additional comment expressed support for the project but also suggested that the local economy could
be improved by allowing freight service to operate on the restored alignment (Habrial(17A)). The issue of
freight service (Habrial(17B)) is addressed in the technical responses that follow this section.
Other Remarks
The Township of Byram resent a letter of comments originally submitted to the EA in July, 2008 (Byram
(7S)). This letter contains comments that were addressed in the response to comments section of the FONSI
for the MOS and are not re-addressed below.
All other comments received were applicable to the content of the Supplemental EA.
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
5
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Comments by Subject Area
The remaining comments have been sorted by subject area. The following table of comments identifies the
starting page of each subject area.
Table of Contents
Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Cost ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 8
Data Standards ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Development ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Ecology .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Environmental Assessment Process ................................................................................................... 12
Freight ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Hazardous Materials........................................................................................................................... 14
Rail Operations .................................................................................................................................. 15
Regulatory Jurisdiction ...................................................................................................................... 15
Station Sites........................................................................................................................................ 15
Traffic................................................................................................................................................. 16
Trails .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Wetlands............................................................................................................................................. 21
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
6
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Air Quality
Comment 1:
We are puzzled by the statement that Morris County was delisted as a nonattainment area for PM2.5 ; please
revisit such statements in the document. USEPA(3A)
Response 1:
At the time of the preparation of the Environmental Assessment in 2008, Morris County was not listed as a
nonattainment area for PM2.5 . It would have been accurate to state that Morris County is not listed. We are
aware that subsequent to the publication of the EA, Morris County has been listed as a nonattainment area
for PM 2.5.
As the portion of the project within Morris County does not significantly increase the number of diesel
vehicles, the project would not cause or contribute to any CO, PM10, or PM2.5 violations, and a hot-spot
analysis is not required.
Cost
Comment 2:
And taxes will no doubt have to be raised to accommodate all of the new students, as well as fire and police
and infrastructure needs. Hiscano(9E)
Response 2:
This issue was addressed in the June 2008 EA and the FONSI for the MOS as follows:
The EA evaluated the compatibility of the proposed action with the long range development plans of the
various counties and municipalities within the corridor and concluded that the proposed passenger rail line
is consistent with those locally developed plans. As described in Section 3.1 of the June 2008 EA, projectinduced development will not occur. Predicted growth would occur independent of the proposed project;
however it is possible that new growth will occur in areas closer to proposed stations.
Comment 3:
Under the ‘no-build’ options, this EA still does not examine alternative transportation modes that might
better and more cheaply serve our area, especially bus-lines, which are more flexible and far less costly.
Additional and improved bus routes could be a far better use of public funds. Byram(7M)
The estimates I saw for the cost of the project, the price of the tickets, the time it would take (for example)
to get into New York from Blairstown, and the minimal positive impact it would have on Route 80’s traffic
- lead me to believe that the money would be much better spent improving conditions on Route 80 - and
focused on the area from Route 206 to Route 287. Amon(16A)
Response 3:
Consistent with FTA procedure, The Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania Major Investment
Study, dated December 2000, assessed the cost effectiveness, including capital cost and operating and
maintenance, of the short-listed alternatives, which included the bus alternative and the rail alternative. The
MIS makes the following conclusion in reference to the rail alternative: “Given the level of population and
economic activity within the study area, the project is an excellent candidate for transportation investment
in the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The use of federal aid for the project within the guidelines of
TEA-21 is consistent with federal policies encouraging a balanced, multimodal approach to transportation
investments.”
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
7
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Cultural Resources
Comment 4:
…The responsibility to identify, delineate, and protect the Morris Canal right-of-way should be
acknowledged in Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Cultural Resources (3.4 and
3.5), Historic Resources, (Build Alternative, page 14 and MOS Portion of Build Alternative, page 15) of the
June 2009 Supplemental Environmental Assessment as well as Table 3.20-1 Summary of Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts, Historic and Archaeological Resources, page 76. NJDEP-HPO(5)
The Morris Canal Historic District, listed on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places, is
not identified in either the original (June 2008) or the Supplemental (June 2009) Environmental Assessment
as a historic property that crosses, and is this potentially affected by the restoration of railroad service on
the “Lackawanna Cut-Off.” NJDEP(4A)
Response 4:
The following additional language has been added to the Supplemental EA to recognize the Morris Canal:
Although not included in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) due to it being located outside of an area where
constructive activity is anticipated, the Morris Canal is worth noting due to its listing as a National Historic
Landmark, listed on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places. Completed in 1837, the
Morris Canal was an engineering landmark that relied on canals, locks and inclined planes to lift and carry
canal boats from Phillipsburg on the Delaware River to Jersey City, the Hudson River and New York
Harbor. Port Morris yard was built along the Morris Canal as a storage point for anthracite coal. When the
DL&W began operations, the tracks ran within a few hundred feet of the canal. Until the demise of the
Morris Canal, the Port Morris Coal Docks served as one of eight transshipment facilities along the
waterway. As noted in the Historic Architectural Resources Background Study (HARBS) (Appendix C of
the Environmental Assessment), the former right-of-way of the Morris Canal is currently filled in and has
been reused as Canal Street, which borders the Port Morris Rail Yard along its northwest boundary. The
right-of-way of the Morris Canal also crosses beneath the alignment northeast of the Port Morris Yard, east
of Center Street.
As such, to protect the Morris Canal right-of-way during construction, NJ TRANSIT will require that
contractors not use the right-of-way for temporary construction areas or laydown areas. Additionally,
should any subsurface work be required in the vicinity of the Morris Canal right-of-way, NJ TRANSIT and
the SHPO shall consult to address: 1) the effects of the proposed plan or design modification; 2) the actions
needed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects; and 3) a mitigation plan, if necessary.
Data Standards
Comment 5:
And I have not even broached the subject of environmental impact, despite the cursory report. Hiscano(9D)
Once again this Environmental Assessment documents what appear to be minimal environmental impacts
from this project and once again these conclusions are achieved by looking through the narrowest possible
window at the effects of the construction and operation of Cut-Off rail service on the environment.
Byram(7A)
Response 5:
The Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to share with the study area communities
the findings of additional field work performed regarding wetlands and threatened and endangered species.
As such, the analysis contained in the Supplemental EA supplements the earlier EA work and focuses on
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
8
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
these areas of concern. A detailed environmental analysis for the entirety of the Lackawanna project (MOS
and Non-MOS portions) can be found in the June 2008 EA, circulated for public review in July 2008 and in
this SEA. All documents in this series of environmental analyses have been prepared in accordance with:









National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Land and Water Conservation Fund
The Federal Clean Water Act,
The Federal Clean Air Act
The Rivers and Harbors Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act
The Executive Orders pertaining to the protection of wetlands, flood plain management, and
environmental justice.
The proper level of technical analysis has been performed to identify any potential environmental impacts
from the Project and appropriate mitigation has been identified and committed for those identified impacts.
The analyses undertaken have been performed in accordance with the prescribed methodologies adopted by
many federal and state agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), and the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) of New Jersey and Pennsylvania,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), New Jersey Department of Environment Protection (NJ DEP),
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission. The USACE has determined the level of analysis to be sufficient in determining potential
impacts upon wetlands and Waters of the United States. In addition, a Programmatic Agreement addressing
cultural resources within the corridor has been executed with the NJ SHPO, PA SHPO, NJTRANSIT and
FTA.
The EA and SEA has thoroughly analyzed the effects of the Project on the natural and built environments
and has committed mitigation measures to ensure that the Project will not have significant environmental
impacts.
Comment 6:
Notably missing from the assessment is the carbon footprint of the construction and operation of this
project, including any such new development and its local and commuter traffic. Byram(7C)
Any thorough EA should have a carbon footprint analysis, measuring the carbon costs of both construction
and operation of the project on a per-capita basis, so that the carbon costs per passenger are fully reviewed.
The lack of a carbon footprint analysis leaves this proposal without legitimacy when it is seen within
context as part of the future of transportation and energy planning in New Jersey and the nation. Byram(7F)
Response 6:
Climate change is a global problem caused by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from every
conceivable source in every nation of the world. Carbon footprint is a measure of these GHG. A study by
the American Public Transportation Association titled "Public Transportation's Contribution to Greenhouse
Gas Reduction" by Todd Davis and Monica Hale of Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC), September 2007, suggests that investments in transit generally lead to long-term reduction in the
growth of GHG emissions. However, the impact of any one transit project on GHG emissions is miniscule
within the global context of the problem, and although improvement of all transit across the United States
may have a measurable impact on the environment from the overall reduction in GHG emissions, a single
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
9
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
transit project by itself will not. Therefore, FTA does not view climate change, or the calculated carbon
footprint, as a useful consideration in choosing a preference from among the alternatives considered during
the NEPA review of a single proposed transit project.
Development
Comment 7:
What will actually happen is the onslaught of more mass development- more houses, and more crowding on
Rt. 80. Hiscano(9A)
Notably missing from the assessment [is] the impact of the development that could be promoted along the
route of this project, especially in Highlands Preservation Areas and in rural/environmentally sensitive
SDRP PA’s surrounding the proposed Andover station area… Byram(7B)
Nowhere in this or prior EA’s for this project is any attempt made to quantify such new development,
particularly in the Byram-Andover area where a new station is proposed on narrow rural Roseville Road,
surrounded by undeveloped forests and fields. Although development here would be promoted as ‘Transit
Oriented Development,’ this Smart Growth designation would not apply, as there are inadequate roads,
undisturbed lands, and no water or sewer lines to serve Center-oriented development. Rather, this would be
classic sprawl development in areas best described as rural Environs. Byram(7D)
Response 7:
This issue was addressed in the June 2008 EA and in the FONSI for the MOS as follows:
In the June 2008 EA, sections 3.1, Land Use, Zoning and Consistency with Local Plans, and 3.20,
Cumulative Effects and Indirect Impacts, evaluated the Project’s potential impacts upon land use and
development within the corridor and region. As noted within those sections of the EA, land use and zoning
authority is controlled at the local municipal level. The NJ State Municipal Land Use Law NJ 40:55D-1
et.seq. clearly legislates that Comprehensive Master Planning and Zoning Regulations are developed and
enforced by local municipalities. Development in this portion of New Jersey is further guided by the
Highlands Planning Act.
Warren and Sussex Counties experienced growth rates of 12% and 10%, respectively between 1990 and
2000. This growth is expected to continue, with NJTPA forecasting a 30% and 32% growth by 2030,
respectively for Warren Sussex Counties, without the rail project in place. The reported and projected
growth rates for these counties are among the highest rates in the State, along with those of Monmouth and
Ocean Counties. Similarly for Pennsylvania, although Carbon and Lackawanna Counties experienced
minimal change in population between 1990 and 2000, with similar changes expected between 2000 and
2030, the counties of Monroe, Pike and Wayne experienced increases of 20 to 65% between 1990 and 2000,
with their future change expected to range between 10 and 101% over the next 30 years. Most of these
counties have limited rail service yet remain as the fastest growing areas within the State. Conversely there
are a number of other factors that contribute to a strong real estate market including the provision of
infrastructure beyond transportation, for example, the availability of sanitary sewers and potable water
systems.
The EA evaluated the compatibility of the proposed action with the long range development plans of the
various counties and municipalities within the corridor and concluded that the proposed passenger rail line
is consistent with those locally developed plans. As described in Section 3.1, project-induced development
will not occur. Predicted growth would occur independent of the proposed project; however it is possible
that new growth will be allocated to areas closer to proposed stations. There has been no change subsequent
to the EA.
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
10
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Ecology
Comment 8:
The Service has no further comments or recommendations to offer at this time other than incorporating into
project planning the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife’s timing restrictions for wildlife species
found in the Guidance Manual for the Protection of Fish and Wildlife Resources Relative to the Land Use
Regulation Programs Permits (CAFRA, Tidal Wetlands, Waterfront, Upland Waterfront & Federal
Consistency). USFWS(1)
The Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has reviewed the SEA for the Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger
Rail Service Restoration Project. The DFW’s Endangered and Non-game Species Program has reviewed
Appendix T – Supplemental Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment on the Non-MOS and found
that as long as the outlined conservation measures are followed the DFW is comfortable with the
assessment. NJDEP(4B)
Response 8:
As discussed in the Supplemental Threatened and Endangered Species Assessments for the MOS and the
Non-MOS, the Project would not impact or disturb preferred habitat areas of state-listed threatened or
endangered species, the timing restrictions referenced in the NJ DFW Guidance Manual would not apply to
this project.
Comment 9:
It is hard to calculate impacts to areas such as Lake Lackawanna or to calculate scenic and habitat/wildlife
impacts, since there is insufficient information in the EA about how much of the mature forest on the slopes
of the Cut-Off embankments would be removed. The removal is certain to impose environmental and scenic
harm, with the amount of harm depending on how much of those forested slopes are to be denuded. We
need details about this. Byram(7L)
Response 9:
Tree clearing would not be required along the slopes of the Cut-Off embankments. The extent of mature
vegetation requiring removal is mainly that which has grown along the track bed since operations ceased in
the 1970’s.
Comment 10:
Two sizable (several square miles) Natural Heritage Priority Sites are located in Byram immediately to the
north of the Cut Off right-of-way in the area of Roseville Pond and the Roseville Tunnel and immediately
south along the Cut-Off in the Wolf Lake/Roseville Road area. These sites are neither mapped nor
referenced within the EA. We believe they should be and that the impacts of the project upon these sites
should be examined in the EA. Byram(7R)
Response 10:
As described in Section 3.16 of the EA and the Supplemental EA, as the corridor crosses through the New
Jersey Skylands region, it traverses four Natural Heritage Priority sites: Wolf Lake in Byram Twp.,
Greendell Powerline Site in Green Twp., Johnsonburg in Frelinghuysen Twp. and Green Twp., and
Limestone Ridge Marsh in Blairstown Twp. Natural Heritage Priority sites consist of critical habitat areas
that have been designated in an effort to preserve their unique biological diversity. These areas often
contain an abundance of threatened and endangered flora and fauna species.
As described above, habitat surveys and surveys for individual threatened and endangered species have
been performed for the Project. Restoration of service on the former and current railroad right-of-way
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
11
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
under consideration for this Project will not have any unmitigated impact on habitats for threatened and
endangered species.
Comment 11:
Since the EA doesn’t address the finalization of consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (the Service) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Corps is unable to provide
final ESA concurrence on this aspect of the project review. The FONSI should address resumption of
informal consultation with the Service in order to finalize the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The EA addresses the intent of New Jersey Transit to implement mitigative measures
recommended by the Service, and the recommendations are consistent with what the Philadelphia District
normally considers during its own Section 7 consultation with the Service. It is the Corps’ recommendation
that resumption of the informal consultation process begin with the development of preliminary design
plans for the project. USACOE(2C)
Response 11:
During the development of the preliminary design plans of the project, NJ TRANSIT will resume informal
consultation with the USFWS in order to finalize the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA.
Comment 12:
The FONSI should clearly indicate that the bald eagle (Laliaeetus Leucocephalus) has been delisted from
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Throughout Section 3.16 of the EA (Endangered
Species), the bald eagle is discussed in conjunction with other species that are still listed on the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The FONSI should clearly indicate that the bald eagle is subject to
protection under the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and that the Services “National Bald
Eagle Management Guidelines” will be utilized in order to provide the requisite protection. USACOE(2D)
Response 12:
The FONSI for the Project reflects this suggested revision to the description of the bald eagle and the
measures that provide for its protection.
Comment 13:
To more fully appreciate the overall impacts, it would be helpful to have a complete set of tentative project
designs and layouts which include the potential placement locations for the staging areas as well as station
designs. USEPA(3B)
Response 13:
Preliminary plans for the proposed stations, yard, and connection to Port Morris can be found in Appendix
O of the June 2008 EA, previously circulated for public review. The station locations are anticipated to be
used for staging during construction. The potential for environmental impacts associated with development
of the stations, yard, and connection are assessed in the June 2008 EA and the July 2009 Supplemental EA
relative to these plans.
Environmental Assessment Process
Comment 14:
[The project is likely exempt from the Highlands Act, but a Highlands Applicability Determination is
required]… To initiate the Highlands Applicability Determination exemption process, applicants should
submit to both agencies [NJDEP and the Highlands Council], as applicable, the form title: Highlands
Applicability and Water Quality Management Plan Consistency Determination Application Form…
Highlands(6)
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
12
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Response 14:
The project will comply with all applicable environmental regulations and review, including those
regulations pertaining to development within the Highlands Planning and Preservations areas. As
recognized by the Highlands Council, the EA documents do not contain sufficient site-specific detail to
enable the Council to make a finding of applicability. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:38, et seq., a
determination of applicability will be sought during the phase of project development in which the
environmental land use and water permits are prepared for review by the NJDEP.
Comment 15:
EPA would like to use this opportunity to encourage the NJ TRANSIT and developers to implement
greener practices and techniques during the construction and operation of the project. [Several examples of
green processes cited, please refer to letter]. USEPA(3F)
Response 15:
Mitigation measures, which include construction practices, refer to best management practices (BMP),
which are continually updated and revised to reflect the current state of the art in terms of environmental
protection and efficiency. Insofar as green measures are incorporated in BMPs and guidance regulations,
they will be implemented in the construction and operation of the Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail
Service.
Freight
Comment 16:
Freight trains, some with deadly cargo, will soon be using this line. It only takes one mishap, one spill, to
affect thousands of people. Hiscano(9C)
To make it more cost effective, I think freight should be allowed to use this line too. It would help remove
noisy trucks from Interstate Route 80 as well. If Delaware Lackawanna, Norfolk Southern or CSX were to
use this line then they would pay NJT for trackage rights; saving taxpayers money. Habrial(17B)
Response 16:
Although the two comments entered above express opposite views regarding the operation of freight service
on the Lackawanna alignment, the response is the same as the potential for freight service is significantly
constrained for several reasons. As presented in the FONSI for the MOS, the response to concerns
regarding freight service on the Lackawanna Cut-Off is provided by NJ TRANSIT in correspondence with
the Morris County Freeholder Director on February 17, 2006:
“The Lackawanna Cut-Off project scope being developed by NJ TRANSIT only includes railroad
infrastructure for passenger rail service. While there are no absolute guarantees that freight service
will never run on the Lackawanna Cut-Off, the prospect of freight service on the line is highly
unlikely for a number of reasons.
Generally speaking, freight railroads would find it both operationally difficult and cost prohibitive
to operate on the Lackawanna Cut-Off Line.

The line is not well connected to the national freight network and NJ TRANSIT knows of
no freight operator interested in this market. Most port-related freight either utilizes the
Lehigh Valley Line along I-78 to connect to points south and west, or the West Shore Line
in Bergen County to connect to points north and west.
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
13
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
-
-
Non-MOS FONSI
On the east, the Lackawanna Cut-Off connects with the NJ TRANSIT Morristown
Line. This rail line carries a very high volume of commuter train traffic and has
numerous clearance obstacles (bridges and overhead electric catenary system) that
would limit the utility of this route for freight service. The Morristown Line does
not serve the Port areas of New Jersey
On the west, the Lackawanna Cut-Off route continues to Scranton, PA. Along the
way there is another low clearance tunnel and a significant grade to crest the
Pocono Mountains.

The height limitation on the Morristown Line is 15 feet, 6 inches, while modern double
stack container cars normally used to handle port-related traffic require 20 feet, 2 inches of
clearance. Double-stacked container cars cannot fit under our overhead electrical system
that provides power to our electrified passenger trains.

Presently, NJ TRANSIT operates nearly 200 of its own trains on the Morristown Line at
Summit each weekday. Freight train operations would need to be restricted to a very short
time window making major freight service operation difficult and expensive.

The freight companies would need a trackage rights agreement from NJ TRANSIT and
approval from the Surface Transportation Board to operate on the Lackawanna Cut-Off,
both of which are complex processes.

NJ TRANSIT’s lines are limited to handling freight cars weighing up to 263,000 pounds.
Most freight cars today carry up to 286,000 pounds. Consequently, freight railroads prefer
routes with no restriction on the operation of the heavier cars.
The facilities and service being planned for the project are intended to accommodate passenger
service only. There is no freight service being planned for this project by NJ TRANSIT. NJ
TRANSIT does not and cannot operate freight service. Also, the Environmental Assessment
document being prepared by NJ TRANSIT for the Federal Transit Administration will not include
an evaluation of the impacts related to the operation of freight service on the line.”
Hazardous Materials
Comment 17:
If there are any hazardous substances in the proposed project areas, it would be helpful to identify the types
of hazards/substances that have been found and detail the plans for any necessary remediation. USEPA(3C)
Response 17:
Hazardous materials are discussed in detail in the text of the June 2008 EA. Appendix M of the June 2008
EA contains a discussion of previously identified and potential hazardous materials sites within or adjacent
to the areas proposed for construction. Previously identified locations are described in terms of the known
contaminants. Remediation will be necessary should pre-construction testing or construction phase activity
encounter hazardous materials. The steps taken will depend on the contaminant type encountered, the
extent of contamination, site conditions (including the presence of groundwater), and other site- and
contaminant-specific details unknown at this time. The EA states that, should remedial activity be required,
all activity will occur pursuant to the applicable state and federal regulations and best management practices
will be followed.
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
14
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Rail Operations
Comment 18:
It has also been suggested that said commuters, on their way to PA., will get off in Andover to shop and eat
dinner. This is highly unlikely. It's already going to take 2 1/2 hours from NY as it is. It is doubtful anyone
will want to add another hour to the trip Hiscano(9B)
The time to get from Scranton to New York (no one would travel from Scranton to Stroudsburg by rail)
would be about 3 hours. Add 10 - 15 minutes at each end to get to the train and final destination - and you
have a 7 hour commute. As a society - is this something we want to promote? Amon(16B)
Response 18:
As detailed in Section 2.2 of the June 2008 EA, the travel time between Scranton and Hoboken is 3 hours
and 20 minutes, the travel time between Andover and Hoboken is 1 hour and 29 minutes, and the travel
time between Andover and midtown Manhattan is approximately 2 hours. Neither the EA or Supplemental
EA suggest that riders would get off in Andover to shop or eat. This project is proposed to offer a
transportation alternative to travel within the region either on a daily basis, weekly basis, or recreationally
to make trips east to New Jersey or New York, or west to points in Pennsylvania. How the system is
ultimately used will depend upon the choices made by the riders.
Regulatory Jurisdiction
Comment 19:
The FONSI should address the final determination by the United States Coast Guard (USCG), District 5
whether that agency has regulatory jurisdiction over work that will take place on the Columbia Bridge over
the Delaware River. The Delaware River is a navigable water of the United States, and is subject to the
regulatory authority of the Corps of Engineers under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The USCG
should make a final determination as it relates to their regulatory authority under Section 9 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act. USACOE(2A)
Response 19:
We will continue to contact the USCG to determine whether the USCG has regulatory jurisdiction over
work that will take place on the Columbia Bridge.
Station Sites
Comment 20:
Please see in the attached July 28, 2008 letter, our objections to the unnecessary environmental harm that
will result from the proposed Andover (Roseville Road) station and the recommendation that this station
should be located along the Route 206 corridor in Andover Borough, to promote the much-needed
revitalization of that existing Center and to avoid the destruction of rural lands and roads in the Roseville
Road area. Byram(7H)
The Cut-Off proposal remains a poorly examined project, particularly, from our point of view, with regard
to the proposed location of the Andover Station on Roseville Road and the errors and omissions noted
below. Byram(7N)
Response 20:
Several alternatives were analyzed and discussed with the municipalities for the location of the Andover
Station, including a station between Tranquility Road (CR 517) and Route 206. This site would have
access from Tranquility Road, along an existing residential driveway, and would require the partial taking
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
15
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
of this residential property, as well as full taking of an additional property adjacent to the alignment, next to
a hiking trail, the Sussex Branch Trail. The approximate 75-foot difference in elevation between the
roadway and the trackbed would necessitate complex and costly station facilities. The current station
location on Roseville Road was chosen instead of the Route 206/Tranquility Road site since it is one of the
few places where the rail bed and road are at similar grade, minimizing the amount of infrastructure
necessary to access the rail alignment. The selected location does not create traffic problems or significant
environmental impacts, as further discussed under the Traffic subject area of this Appendix. Additionally,
the property proposed for the Andover Station is currently owned by the State of New Jersey and does not
require any property acquisition.
Andover Township has fully endorsed the proposed station site off Roseville Road. The site lies within
Andover Township’s borders.
Traffic
Comment 21:
What will actually happen is the onslaught of more mass development – more houses, and more crowding
on Rt. 80. Hiscano(9A)
Estimates in the EA of projected increases in commuting and automobile traffic on Route 80 and other
routes should be revisited, as they were calculated before the recent reductions in such traffic and before
many towns in the area of the Cut Off route revised their planning to reduce development. Byram(7G)
Response 21:
Highway traffic is an issue discussed in the June 2008 EA and the Supplemental EA. The response to
comments regarding traffic on Route 80 is provided in the FONSI for the MOS, and repeated here as
follows:
The EA does not include an evaluation of the potential traffic reductions on Interstate Route 80 since this is
beyond the scope of the traffic analysis performed under NEPA. The purpose of the Project is in part to
provide an alternative to Route 80 for travelers within the corridor.
Based on the socioeconomic and transportation trends and projections, previous feasibility studies, and
results of the Project scoping process activities, it was determined that the major transportation issues that
need to be addressed include:







Weak links between activity centers and attractions;
Poor accessibility to New Jersey and New York City work destinations;
Underutilized transportation right-of-way;
Disruption of communities and environment from transportation improvements;
Lack of corridor mobility;
Uncoordinated modal network of private and public transportation services that are segregated by state
boundaries rather than market boundaries; and,
Untapped economic development potential in the region.
Further discussion of these Project needs can be found starting in Section 1 of the June 2008 EA, Purpose
and Need.
The Major Investment Study (MIS) completed in 2000 addressed the traffic situation within the region
including the Route 80 corridor. The travel demand forecasting effort calculated the reduction in vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) resulting from the project (see Section 3.8 of the EA, Air Quality).
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
16
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Comment 22:
The station itself and potential new development would have serious adverse effects on local roads and on
traffic through one of Byram’s largest neighborhoods, Forest Lakes, which is contiguous to the proposed
Roseville Station site. Byram(7E)
Response 22:
Local traffic is an issue discussed in the June 2008 EA. The response to comments regarding local traffic is
provided in the FONSI for the MOS EA, and repeated here as follows:
The traffic analysis results presented in Section 3.7 of the June 2008 EA determined that the intersections
affected by the proposed Andover Station would not result in significant traffic impacts over the No Build
Condition. The new intersection of Roseville Road and the proposed station access driveway will have an
LOS of A in the AM Peak Hour and A/B in the PM Peak Hour, indicating that Roseville Road will not be
impacted by commuters accessing or leaving the station. Therefore there will be no need for any mitigation
related to the station and/or to Roseville Road.
Additional roadways within Byram Township were not analyzed for the following reasons:
1. NJDOT Access Code defines 100 or more peak hour trips as a significant increase in traffic
requiring analysis on the State system. While this is not a State roadway, the concept is still
applicable. Peak demand is projected to be 45 vehicles per hour.
2. Based upon the residential distribution of the potential station users, virtually all of the vehicle trips
accessing the station are expected to originate from points north, and will utilize US Route 206 for
access to the station, traveling along Andover-Mohawk Road and Roseville Road. Key
intersections along this route that represent the control points for traffic flow were analyzed, with
the analysis results indicating acceptable operations under future conditions.
3. Both Andover-Mohawk Road and Roseville Road are two-lane rural roadways. This category of
roadway typically has a carrying capacity of between 1,400 and 1,600 vehicles per lane hour.
Future traffic volume projections indicate a maximum one-way traffic volume of 130 vehicles per
hour along Andover-Mohawk Road east of Route 206. Even if all of this traffic were to utilize
Roseville Road, these 130 vehicles per hour represent less than 10 percent of the carrying capacity
of this roadway, or a volume-to-capacity ration of less than 0.10. Traffic operations do not present
a concern with this level of activity. Therefore, no formal operational analysis was required along
these roadways.
Trails
Comment 23:
Please also see in that same letter Byram’s concerns with the obstruction of our local trail network that will
be caused by the current Cut-Off proposal. This is also an environmental impact and should be addressed.
Byram(7I)
Response 23:
As noted in the comment, this remark was originally submitted for consideration during the public comment
period for the MOS portion of the New Jersey-Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service
Restoration Environmental Assessment. The response to this comment is the same now as it was at the time
of the preparation of the FONSI for the MOS, as follows:
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
17
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
During public comment, Byram Township noted a trail that is currently being developed through the
community within the vicinity of the project. Upon further research it was determined that this trail, the
Highlands Trail, currently follows County Route 607, crossing the railroad alignment through an existing
tunnel, although no formal agreement is in place with the County for use of this road. Presently, Byram
Township has no specific plans for rerouting the trail and has requested that NJ TRANSIT work with the
community to identify a permanent location for the trail’s crossing of the alignment. NJ TRANSIT has
committed to working with the community. The alignment’s crossing of County Route 607 and the trail
will not change as a result of this project, and the trail will not be affected by implementation of the MOS.
The Highlands Trail is under the stewardship of the New York-New Jersey Trail Conference. The Higlands
Trail is an estimated 150-mile long distance hiking trail connecting the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. This
trail is not publicly owned and thus is not subject to Section 4(f).
Through consultation with Byram Township and the Sussex County Planning Department, it was
determined that no adopted plan is currently in place relative to the Highlands Trail and any potential
crossing or interface with the Lackawanna Cut-Off. There are a number of trails identified within the
Byram Trail and Bikeway Plan, an element of the municipal Master Plan; however, the Highlands Trail is
the only trail within the vicinity of the proposed Lackawanna Cut-Off project. The planning process has not
progressed to the point of identifying a location where the Highlands Trail may cross the Cut-Off.
Comment 24:
A related environmental issue is the failure to include within the Cut-Off proposal a trail route that also uses
the right-of-way. This route could provide local alternative transportation and also a spectacular eco-tourist
attraction for Sussex and Warren Counties. Byram(7J)
Response 24:
This remark was originally submitted for consideration during the public comment period for the June 2008
EA. The response to this comment is the same now as it was at the time of the preparation of the FONSI
for the MOS, as follows:
Restoration of passenger rail service on the Lackawanna Cut-Off has been the subject of study in the EA
and is the result of a number of comprehensive transportation studies completed over a number of years,
including:




Morris and Sussex Counties, Lackawanna Cut-Off Right-of-Way Use and Extension Study (1989);
New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), Interstate 80 Corridor Needs Assessment Study
(1991);
Lackawanna and Monroe Counties, Transportation Options in the Pocono Corridor (1995);
Morris County, Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania Major Investment Study (MIS) (2000).
These studies conducted by the region’s planning agencies were all conducted with extensive community
and stakeholder outreach. During the development of these studies the regional transportation needs were
evaluated to determine what are the current and projected future conditions of the region as a whole; from
that point Goals and Objectives for the project were developed. Based on the socioeconomic and
transportation trends and projections, previous feasibility studies, and results of the project scoping process
activities, it was determined that the major transportation issues that need to be addressed include:




Weak links between activity centers and attractions;
Poor accessibility to New Jersey and New York City work destinations;
Underutilized transportation right-of-way;
Disruption of communities and environment from transportation improvements;
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
18
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration



Non-MOS FONSI
Lack of corridor mobility;
Uncoordinated modal network of private and public transportation services that are segregated by state
boundaries rather than market boundaries; and,
Untapped economic development potential in the region
Further discussion of these goals and objectives can be found in Section 1 of the EA, Purpose and Need.
Throughout all of these studies the corridor was evaluated considering all modal alternatives including a No
Build alternative. The most recent Major Investment Study (MIS) completed in 2000 resulted in a
determination that the above stated Goals and Objectives were best served by advancing a transportation
strategy that included reestablishing passenger rail service between Scranton, PA and Port Morris NJ
utilizing the former Lackawanna Cut-Off alignment. This alternative was selected as the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) and adopted by the North Jersey Transportation Authority (NJTPA) in July 2008 for
inclusion within the Region’s Transportation Plan. The costs and benefits of the various alternatives
studied were presented in the MIS. While it is acknowledged that Byram Township would like to see a
regional trail established within the corridor, the use of the Lackawanna Cut-Off as a recreational trail does
not satisfy the stated goals and objectives of the project. In addition the use of the Cut-Off as a trail will
not adequately serve the transportation needs of the region.
Water Quality
Comment 25:
On page I-l1, the June 2008 Cut-Off EA notes: “Run-off containing oil/fuels (hydrocarbons) could
potentially contaminate surface waters and wetlands by direct contact resulting from increased rail service
and from automobiles utilizing the parking lots. Overland flow of these contaminants will help to filter the
majority of contaminants before they reach waterways or wetlands. It is expected that adverse impacts to
surface water quality and quantity would be minimal due to the various technological advancements and
regulatory constraints in existence today. Contamination from volatile organic compounds associated with
rail transit operations is always a possibility. Minor insignificant amounts of grease, fluids, oils and other
contaminants will be released during daily rail transit operations along the right-of-way.” We believe this
issue needs more attention. Byram(7Q)
Response 25:
This issue was raised in association with the analysis presented in the June 2008 EA, and addressed as
follows in the September 2008 FONSI for the MOS:
At present the rail roadbed located within NJ, including that which is within Byram Township, contains the
remains of what was an operating railroad abandoned in the mid 1970’s. This rail bed was constructed as
all rail roadbeds were, utilizing various infrastructure components including stone ballast as a stabilizing
subsurface. While this stone ballast is not completely impervious, as is a paved surface, it does allow only a
limited amount of absorption due to the years of natural compaction that have taken place. When the
original Lackawanna Cut-Off was constructed in the early 1900’s no stormwater or water quality
management measures were put in place. Stormwater from the railroad was directed as overland flow to
drainage swales along the right of way and ultimately to downstream receiving waters, i.e. streams, rivers
and lakes. Stormwater was not managed or controlled in any manner and in the case of the Lackawanna
Cut-Off it remains this way today.
The project calls for the rehabilitation of the former Lackawanna Cut-Off including reestablishing the
abandoned railbed to meet current standards. This rehabilitation will consist of removal of the former
ballast and subsurface replacing it with a new roadbed including stone ballast. The overall amount of
“impervious” surface resulting from the rehabilitation of the railroad will not increase. In addition the
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
19
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
project will include stormwater management and water quality provisions as required by the NJDEP. Since
the project will not result in additional impervious surface coverage and will meet all current NJDEP
criteria for stormwater management the June 2008 EA has correctly concluded that there will be no impact
to water quality resulting from railbed rehabilitation.
The design calls for the construction of one parking lot and station platform outside of Byram Township in
neighboring Andover Township. This is the only prospective construction of additional impervious
surfaces in the vicinity of Byram Township. It is necessary to provide for parking at the proposed station
and therefore a new paved parking area will be constructed. The parking area is proposed to accommodate
65 vehicles for the MOS and 125 vehicles for the full Build Alternative. This represents approximately
19,500 and 37,500 square feet of impervious surface coverage, respectively. The conceptual design plans
for the station incorporate a stormwater management/water quality basin. This basin will be designed to
meet all applicable regulations as required by NJDEP. These basins are utilized to accomplish two
purposes: (1) stormwater management that is controlling the rate of runoff to ensure that runoff leaving the
site is at a rate equivalent to the post construction rate; and (2) for water quality improvements. The basin
and the stormwater water drainage infrastructure is designed to collect/detain/retain stormwater collected
from impervious surfaces allowing oils and other potential contaminates to be filtered out prior to the water
being released from the site. This system will protect all receiving waters from contaminants and will result
in no project impacts to water quality.
The design and construction of all project drainage infrastructure within New Jersey falls under the
regulatory oversight of the NJDEP. The design and construction of the project is regulated under the
NJDEP Flood Hazard Control Program. This facility will be designed and constructed in accordance with
all applicable storm water treatment requirements, as noted above and in the June 2008 EA .
Consequently, there will be no “excess storm water runoff” resulting from the project. Furthermore,
improvements to the Lackawanna Cut-Off railroad drainage features will comply with applicable New
Jersey State regulations as enforced by the NJDEP.
The EA analyzed all of the potential impacts to surface and groundwater resources including the potential
impacts to Germany Flats Aquifer. The Germany Flats Aquifer is an important groundwater resource
located within this part of New Jersey. The most important areas of this aquifer are those recharge areas
consisting of subsurface geology containing extensive sand and gravel compositions. These areas allow for
significant groundwater recharge and serve as the primary recharge areas for this aquifer. In these areas
particular concern is warranted related to potential point source pollutants or the storage of large quantities
of potential pollutants such as fuel tanks or other storage facilities.
The EA properly notes that the mapped sand and gravel recharge areas are distant from both the right of
way and the stations. The nearest recharge area is located more than 1500 feet from the Andover Station.
In addition the project does not involve the handling, carrying, or storage of large amounts of potential
pollutants. All vehicle fueling will be performed at either Port Morris or Scranton Yards in approved
fueling facilities. NJ TRANSIT has in place an approved Spill Prevention Control and Containment Plan
for all of its operations including train operations.
The EA has evaluated the potential impacts of the project on water quality and has determined that there
will be no impacts. The results of the water quality analysis are found in Section 3.13 of the June 2008 EA,
as well as within Appendix I.
Comment 26:
…please provide more detail about work to be completed on the Delaware River Bridge and include plans
demonstrating that there will be no in-water construction. USEPA(3E)
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
20
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Response 26:
Discussion of the work proposed for the Delaware River Bridge can be found in the June 2008 EA,
circulated previously for public review and comment. Bridge work will be confined to refurbishment and
strengthening of the structure and will include the replacement of smaller arch components and replacement
of the bridge deck. No improvements are proposed for the footings or foundation. As such, there will be no
in-water construction.
Wetlands
Comment 27:
The same letter [Byram’s July 28, 2008 letter previously submitted as a comment on the July 2008 EA] also
recommends that any wetlands destruction within Byram also be mitigated within Byram, namely as
stormwater improvements at Lake Lackawanna. This Lake will be directly impacted by the Cut-Off
construction and operation; this impact is made more serious by the fact that the Lake is the source of a C-1
stream segment, flowing from the outlet dam downstream for approximately 1.25 miles along Lubbers Run.
This segment is home to the very rare Triangle Floater. Byram(7K)
Response 27:
As noted in the comment, this remark was previously submitted for review during the public comment
period for the June 2008 EA. The response to this comment was published with the FONSI for the MOS
portion, as follows:
In accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations, the project design and construction in and
adjacent to wetlands in the specified area as well as the full project footprint are subject to permitting
requirements under those Federal and State programs. NJ TRANSIT has developed a prospective design
and construction strategy that will fulfill permitting and regulatory requirements in consultation with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers and the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program. This program
requires NJ TRANSIT to avoid, minimize or mitigate any unavoidable impacts. The USEPA determined in
their letter dated August 28, 2008 (refer to Appendix E) that the additional analyses and commitment to
implement appropriate mitigation is acceptable and that a FONSI for the MOS seems appropriate. The
USEPA further emphasized in their letter that onsite compensatory wetlands mitigation is the preferable
remedy for wetlands impacts, followed by off-site mitigation within the same watershed. They also noted
that should the five-acre threshold for impacts be exceeded, USEPA will review and comment on the New
Jersey Major Discharge Permit application to ensure that impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent feasible. The USACOE stated in their letter dated September 5, 2008 (refer to Appendix
E) that based upon the FTA’s more extensive analysis of the wetlands to be impacted in the MOS, that they
concur that no further analysis under the existing EA is warranted for the MOS project. Additionally, the
NJDEP met with NJ TRANSIT in August 2008 to discuss the information. The NJDEP requested that NJ
TRANSIT continue consultation with NJDEP during project design to minimize wetland impacts and to
agree to mitigation measures.
In the event that certain wetland impacts are not avoidable, NJ TRANSIT will be required to mitigate such
impacts under an agency approved wetland impact mitigation plan. With regard to potential mitigation
efforts, both the Federal and State agencies have developed an order of preference relative to potential
mitigation sites. In the event that onsite restoration of an area to preconstruction conditions is not feasible,
mitigation activity in adjacent or within the same watershed is preferred. Remaining potential mitigation
sites may include offsite and/or wetland mitigation banking. Therefore, and in response to the request that
project wetland impacts be mitigated at Lake Lackawanna, NJ TRANSIT will commit to incorporating
mitigation at Lake Lackawanna and along the Lubbers Run corridor as a first priority, pursuant to approval
by the Federal and State regulatory authorities during the permit application process.
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
21
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
Comment 28:
The wetlands map contained within the Supplemental EA for the Andover station area differs considerably
from the wetlands delineation maps submitted to NJDEP for review (GTS Consultants, April 2009 LOI).
The wetlands shown on the delineation maps are considerably larger (probably twice as large) and more
contiguous than those shown on the map from the EA. We have noted this discrepancy in our comments to
NJDEP regarding the Letter of Intent (LOI). Byram(7O)
Response 28:
Since new material for the Supplemental EA was focused only on the Non-MOS portion of the project, the
wetland maps for the Andover Station area were not revised. The wetland delineation maps for the
Andover Station are included in Appendix C of the FONSI for the MOS. These maps are the same as those
submitted to NJDEP for the LOI of the MOS portion of the project.
Comment 29:
Also, the maps submitted to NJDEP by GTS (Map #1) show Kymer Brook (also called Andover Junction
Brook) coming to this wetlands area but fail to designate it on the maps as a State-classified C-1 stream.
This brook also appears on Map #3 as Andover Junction Brook, where it is shown originating in wetlands
along the Cut-Off but is again not marked as a C-1 and is not shown connecting with the segment called
Andover Junction/Kymer Brook on Map #1, where it crosses the proposed Andover station site. Since both
the construction and operation of the Cut-Off project will generate disturbance, erosion, runoff, and
potential contamination, we believe this EA should examine how these intimate connections between a C-1
stream and the railbed and station site could affect this pristine, protected waterway. Byram(7P)
The proposed Andover Station is located within freshwater wetlands and the 300-foot riparian zone and
Special Water Resource Protection Area (SWRPA) of a Category 1 stream. As currently proposed, the
Station does not appear to comply with either the Flood Hazard Area or Stormwater Management Rules.
NJDEP(4C)
Response 29:
Byram’s comment refers to the wetland delineation maps that were submitted to NJDEP for an LOI on the
MOS portion of the project, designating the boundaries of the state open waters and freshwater wetland
complexes, not for identification of state water quality designations. The comments on the maps do not
relate to this Supplemental EA or the June 2008 EA.
NJ TRANSIT is aware of the classification of Andover Junction Brook/Kymer Brook as a Category 1
stream, which according to the Stormwater Management Rules, has a 300-foot Special Water Resource
Protection Area (SWRPA) within which construction should not occur. The conceptual design currently
shows the Andover Station within the SWRPA. NJ TRANSIT would coordinate with NJDEP Land Use
Program to determine if the project could qualify for a waiver for the C1 waterbody development
regulations. During final design, and in coordination with NJDEP, the layout of the parking area could be
modified to reduce the area within the SWRPA, and to maintain or improve the overall function and value
of the SWRPA. To comply with the Flood Hazard Area and Stormwater Management Rules, NJ TRANSIT
will mitigate for any impacts within the SWRPA and the riparian zone. Mitigation would be developed
with NJDEP and may include conservation easements, removal of pavement, and planting trees.
Comment 30:
Page 50, Paragraph 3, states; “…mitigation will consist of wetland creation that is determined to be
practicable and feasible or the purchase of wetland credits from an accredited USACE approved mitigation
bank.” Please be advised that there are no wetland mitigation banks that have been approved by the
Philadelphia District that could be used to compensate for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
22
New Jersey – Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-Off Passenger Rail Service Restoration
Non-MOS FONSI
resulting from the project. It is recommended that this portion of the FONSI indicate that unavoidable
impacts to aquatic resources will be compensated for per applicable Federal and State regulations.
USACOE(2B)
Response 30:
The FONSI reflects this suggested revision to the mitigation strategy for wetland impacts.
Comment 31:
Per the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, wetland impacts need to be avoided and
minimized. It may be helpful to include information on the functions and values of delineated wetland
areas, especially if this EA is going to be used to support future CWA Section 404 permits. Wetlands and
aquatic resources along the right-of-way path should be clearly defined in terms of size, type, location
relative to the right-of-way and amount of proposed impact. USEPA(3D)
Response 31:
Appendix S of the Supplemental Environmental Assessment contains wetlands delineation data, including
mapping and summaries of on-site conditions observed during the delineation. Table 3.14-1 in the
Supplemental EA text provides the approximated acres delineated. The value and function of the wetlands
delineated will be determined with input from the NJDEP during the review of the project’s LOI during the
permit process which occurs during final design. CWA Section 404 permits will not be sought until
preliminary design is completed and the extent of impact to the delineated areas is more accurately known.
Comment 32:
The Division advises NJ TRANSIT to apply for LOI’s for the remaining ROW of the project. This will
allow the Division to assess the regulated areas and determine permitting requirements for the remainder of
the project. NJDEP(4D)
Response 32:
A Letter of Interpretation (LOI) was submitted to NJDEP for the MOS portion of the project as this portion
had funding secured, which allowed final design to commence. During the final design phase of the NonMOS portion, an LOI for the remaining portion will be submitted to NJDEP.
NJ TRANSIT
August 2009
23
USFWS(1)
USFWS(1)
USACOE (2)
USACOE (2A)
USACOE (2B)
USACOE (2B)
continued
USACOE (2C)
USACOE (2D)
USEPA(3)
USEPA(3A)
USEPA(3B)
USEPA(3C)
USEPA(3D)
USEPA(3E)
USEPA(3F)
NJDEP(4)
NJDEP(4A)
NJDEP(4B)
NJDEP(4C)
NJDEP(4D)
NJDEP-HPO(5)
From: Charles Scott [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 3:16 PM
To: Brian Quinn
Cc: Dan Saunders; Kate Marcopul; Patty Chrisman; Callender, Dara (CEDCDXC);
Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB)
Subject: Lackawanna Cut-Off Supplemental EA
Importance: High
** High Priority **
You are correct in noting that previously the HPO commented that a Programmatic
Agreement was signed and that the requirements of Section 106 (National Historic
Preservation Act) were satisfied. This is still correct with one recently discovered caveat.
The Morris Canal Historic District, listed on the New Jersey and National Registers of
Historic Places, is not identified in either the original (June 2008) or the Supplemental
(June 2009) Environmental Assessment as a historic property that crosses, and is thus
potentially affected by the restoration of railroad service on, the "Lackawanna Cut-Off."
The right of way of the former Delaware, Lackawanna, and Western Railroad New Jersey
Cut-Off crosses the right of way of the (former) Morris Canal at a point approximately
1,000 feet northwest of the Port Morris Interlocking Tower, a historic property identified
in both the Environmental and the Supplemental Environmental Assessments. Although
the Morris Canal is filled at the point where it crossed beneath the Cut-Off (the railroad
originally crossed over the canal on a steel bridge immediately east of where the Cut-Off
still crosses Center Street on a concrete arch bridge), the responsibility to identify,
delineate, and protect the Morris Canal right of way should be acknowledged in Table
ES-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Cultural Resources (3.4 and 3.5),
NJDEPHistoric Resources, (Build Alternative, page 14 and MOS Portion of Build Alternative,
HPO(5)
page 15) of the June 2009 Supplemental Environmental Assessment as well as Table
3.20-1 Summary of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts, Historic and Archaeological
Resources, page 76.
HPO-G2009-069
Log # 04-1517-13
July 8, 2009
Highlands(6)
Highlands(6)
Byram(7)
Byram(7A)
Byram(7B)
Byram(7C)
Byram(7D)
Byram(7D)
continued
Byram(7E)
Byram(7F)
Byram(7G)
Byram(7H)
expansion could encourage urban-dwelling commuters to migrate to some of the
state’s largest and most environmentally sensitive undeveloped tracts.”
The Andover station proposal on Roseville Road is an example of failed
regional transit planning and will force upon our area failed land use planning,
while at the same time passing up a critical opportunity to re-invigorate an
existing historic and State-designated center in Andover Borough. The costs to
move the station site to the Route 206 corridor immediately beside the Cut-Off
would be paid back many fold in far superior transit and land-use planning.
o
o
o
o
o
Please also see in that same letter Byram’s concerns with the obstruction of our
local trail network that will be caused by the current Cut-Off proposal. This is
also an environmental impact and should be addressed. A related environmental
issue is the failure to include within the Cut-Off proposal a trail route that also
uses the right-of-way. This route could provide local alternative transportation
and also a spectacular eco-tourist attraction for Sussex and Warren Counties.
Since trains will run almost exclusively at rush hours, any conflict between rails
and trails would be minimized; the rail bed is wide enough to safely permit both
uses.
The same letter also recommends that any wetlands destruction within Byram also
be mitigated within Byram. namely as stormwater improvements at Lake
Lackawanna. This Lake will be directly impacted by the Cut-Off construction
and operation; this impact is made more serious by the fact that the Lake is the
source of a C-i stream segment, flowing from the outlet dam downstream for
approximately 1.25 miles along Lubbers Run. This segment is home to the very
rare Triangle Floater.
It is hard to calculate impacts to areas such as Lake Lackawanna or to calculate
scenic and habitat/wildlife impacts, since there is insufficient information in the
EA about how much of the mature forest on the slopes of the Cut-Off
embankments would be removed. The removal is certain to impose
environmental and scenic harm, with the amount of harm depending on how
much of those forested slopes are to be denuded. We need details about this.
Byram(7I)
Byram(7J)
Byram(7K)
Byram(7L)
Under the ‘no-build’ options, this EA still does not examine alternative
transportation modes that might better and more cheaply serve our area, especially
bus-lines, which are more flexible and far less costly. Additional and improved
bus routes could be a far better use of public funds.
Byram(7M)
The Cut-Off proposal remains a poorly examined project, particularly, from our
point of view, with regard to the proposed location of the Andover station on
Roseville Road and the errors and omissions noted below.
Byram(7N)
o Errors and omissions:
Wetlands at Andover station site: The wetlands map contained within the
Supplemental EA for the Andover station area differs considerably from the
Byram(7O)
Byram(7O)
continued
Byram(7P)
Byram(7Q)
Byram(7R)
Byram(7S)
Byram(7S)
continued
Wertz(8)
Wertz(8)
Hiscano(9)
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:39 PM
To: Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB); duffy; Douglas Hiscano
Subject: Lackawanna Cutoff
To Whom it May Concern:
Regarding the Lackawanna Cutoff "revival". It has been suggested that the rail way will
alleviate the daily traffic snarls on route 80. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Commuters will never abandon their cars in large numbers for many reasons. For
example, more and more jobs are being decentralized. Those days of nearly the entire
town boarding a train to take them to a work destination, that is, a large city, are long
past. What will actually happen is the onslaught of more mass development- more
Hiscano(9A)
houses, and more crowding on Rt. 80.
It has also been suggested that said commuters, on their way to Pa., will get off in
Andover to shop and eat dinner. This is highly unlikely. It's already going to take 2 1/2 Hiscano(9B)
hours from NY as it is. It is doubtful anyone will want to add another hour to the trip.
And perhaps most important, despite worthless denials from the authorities, freight trains, Hiscano(9C)
some with deadly cargo, will soon be using this line. It only takes one mishap, one spill,
to affect thousands of people. And I have not even broached the subject of environmental Hiscano(9D)
impact, despite the cursory report.
In sum, there is absolutely nothing positive about this development for the residents of
Andover and Byram Township, unless you are a developer. Most of us moved out here
to get away from development. And taxes will no doubt have to be raised to
Hiscano(9E)
accommodate all of the new students, as well as fire and police and infrastructure needs.
It is a lose/lose situation for the area.
Peter Hiscano
Smollin(10)
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:53 PM
To: Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB)
Subject: Lackawanna cutoff-Comment
This project needs to be completed. This 30 day period can't end soon enough. We need it to
reduce traffic from our roads and carbon emissions. Please get funding ASAP...for the economy, Smollin(10)
for the environment..It is needed NOW.
Keith Smollin
623 Palmer ave
Maywood, NJ 07607
201-983-9231
Grovin(11)
Voicemail Comment
From: Mike Grovin (sp)
Location: Netcong
Comment: build the project now.
______________________
Jeremy Colangelo-Bryan
NJ TRANSIT
One Penn Plaza East
Newark, NJ 07105
tel. (973) 491-7743
fax (973) 206-6297
Grovin(11)
Maloney(12)
From: Keith Maloney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:04 PM
To: Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB)
Subject:
More,ȱreasonablyȬpricedȱrailȱpassengerȱserviceȱisȱneededȱinȱtheȱ
Northeastȱinȱgeneral,ȱandȱinȱWesternȱNJȱandȱNortheasternȱPAȱinȱ
particular.ȱȱIȱwholeheartedlyȱsupportȱeffortsȱtoȱrestoreȱpassenger,ȱasȱ
wellȱasȱfreightȱserviceȱtoȱtheȱLackawannaȱCutoffȱbetweenȱPortȱMorrisȱ Maloney(12)
andȱScranton,ȱatȱtheȱearliestȱopportunity.ȱȱPerhapsȱitȱwillȱinȱtimeȱleadȱ
toȱScrantonȬBinghamton,ȱNYȱserviceȱasȱwell.ȱȱSincerely,ȱKeithȱ
Maloney,ȱSyracuse,ȱNY.
KeithȱF.ȱMaloney
Talmadge(13)
From: Bill Talmadge [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:16 PM
To: Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB)
Subject: Lackawanna Cut-off Project
Please push this project as hard as you can. As a Sussex County native that has to deal Talmadge(13)
with all the "interesting" commuters on RTs 15 & 80, I would love to see most of these
people off the road completely (on a train) so my service van and I can have a less
stressful ride on the days I have no choice but to use those roads. Thank you for any and
all effort you put into seeing this project through. Bill Talmadge, Wantage Twsp. NJ
Kern(14)
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 5:13 PM
To: Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB)
Subject: NJ Cut Off
I avidly Support and Intend to Use Trains on this line regularly as Soon as it gets at least Kern(14)
as far west as Stroudsburg though I would Prefer to board as Close to my "Camp House"
near Moscow PA id also love it if I could commute from Philipsburg or Washington to
and from Morris Plains where I currently work. traffic on I78 and 287 and 80
IS DISGUSTING and wish I had a choice!
This Message Sent by Donald Kern
Greenland(15)
From: Debra Greenland [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:21 AM
To: Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB)
Subject: Lackawanna Cutoff Project
IjustreceivedaletterregardingtheSupplementalEAandwillbereadingitwithmuchinterest!
IliveandhavemyofficesinTobyhannaTownshipandcareverymuchabouttheenvironment
hereinthePoconos.Ialsocareaboutpublictransit,sinceI’vebeeninthebusinessfor20years
andhavebeenanactiveadvocate.
IthinktheprojectcouldbeaveryexcitingonenotonlyforNJTandtheregion,buttohelp
Greenland(15)
promotepublictransportationasaviableoptiontoRoute80(andnotamomenttoosoon!).
Thankyou!D
DebraJ.Greenland,CSI
GreenlandTechnicalWriting&Consulting,LLC
POBox86
PoconoLake,PA18347
Phone:570Ͳ643Ͳ1570
FAX:570Ͳ643Ͳ1521
www.greenlandtwc.com
Amon(16)
-----Original Message----From: Rich Amon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 6/23/2009 10:06 AM
To: Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB)
Subject: Lackawanna Cutoff
To whom it may concern -
I doubt if my opinion matters much on this issue but - I attended the
meetings in Blairstown, New Jersey on the proposed Lackawanna Cutoff Rail
Service.
The estimates I saw for the cost of the project, the price of the tickets,
the time it would take (for example) to get into New York from Blairstown,
and the minimal positive impact it would have on Route 80's traffic - lead
me to believe that the money would be much better spent improving conditions
on Route 80 - and focused on the area from Route 206 to Route 287.
As another example, if memory serves, the time to get from Scranton to New
York (no one would travel from Scranton to Stroudsburg by rail) would be
about 3 hours. Add 10 - 15 minutes at each end to get to the train and
final destination - and you have a 7 hour commute. As a society - is this
something we want to promote?
Based on these - and a number of other issues - my wife and I are
wholeheartedly against the proposal.
Sincerely,
Richard & Rosemary Amon
Blairstown, NJ
Amon(16A)
Amon(16B)
-----Original Message----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 4:26 PM
To: Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB)
Subject: Lackawanna cutoff beyond Andover.
Habrial(17)
Hello NJT
I live in Blairstown and am looking forward to taking the train to Scranton and Binghamton. The
train will run less than one mile from my house.
Habrial(17A)
In the future I hope to be able to use it to commute to work also.
To make it more cost effective, I think freight should be allowed to use this line too. It would help
remove noisy trucks from Interstate Route 80 as well. If Delaware Lackawanna, Norfolk Southern
or CSX were to use this line then they would pay NJT for trackage rights; saving taxpayers
Habrial(17B)
money.
Also by shipping by rail, existing business along the route could expand production giving more
residents of NJ good paying jobs.
And industrial parks in the area could connect to the cutoff and then new business can ship
freight by rail a lot cheaper and cleaner than by truck. This too will add jobs to the tax base of NJ.
How long will I have to wait for this to happen?
Glenn Habrial
53 Union Brick rd
Blairstown NJ 07825
Work phone. 201-541-4760
SteveP(18)
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 5:57 PM
To: Colangelo-Bryan, Jeremy C. (CPLNJCB)
Subject: cutoff support
I'm emailing you in support of the Cutoff Service to East Stroudsburg or the Pa. border...
I believe it is imperative that the final segment west of Andover get completed. I live in SteveP(18)
western, NJ and commute to Denville so a stop west of Blairstown would help me with
continuing increased gas prices... It would also reduce congestion a great deal and create
other modes of transportation!!
You have my full support on finding subsequent funding sources!!
I thank you kindly on this important matter!
Regards,
Steve P.