FD 35116

Entries

1. 13 Jul 2012 (printed as 7/13/2012)
   Comment
   EI-18936Headwaters Charitable Trust

   J. Alan Stewart, Jr.
2. served 21 May 2012 (printed as 5/21/2012)
   Decision
   42047Entire Board

   DECISION AUTHORIZES R.J. CORMAN RAILROAD COMPANY/PENNSYLVANIA LINES INC. (RJCP) TO PROVIDE RAIL SERVICE OVER 20 MILES OF RAIL LINE IN PENNSYLVANIA, SUBJECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN APPENDICES AND THE CONDITION THAT RJCP BUILD THE ROUTE DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD AS ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE.
3. 30 Dec 2011 (printed as 12/30/2011)
   Comment
   EI-18853US EPA

   Barbara Rudnick
4. 28 Dec 2011 (printed as 12/28/2011)
   Comment
   EI-18780County of Centre Board of Commissioners

   Jon Eich
5. 28 Dec 2011 (printed as 12/28/2011)
   Comment
   EI-18767People Protecting Communities

   JoAnn Gillette
6. served 18 Nov 2011 (printed as 11/18/2011)
   Decision
   41994Director, Office Of Environmental Analysis

   DECISION PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IN THIS PROCEEDING.
7. 22 Aug 2011 (printed as 8/22/2011)
   Comment
   EI-18668Robert B. Jacobs
8. 4 Aug 2011 (printed as 8/4/2011)
   Comment
   EI-18653JoAnn Gillette
9. 25 Jul 2011 (printed as 7/25/2011)
   Comment
   EI-18649Darryl Farber
10. 3 May 2011 (printed as 5/3/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18554Michael Holmes
11. 2 May 2011 (printed as 5/2/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18552Alfred Morris
12. 27 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/27/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18546Mark Rusnak
13. 27 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/27/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18542Lynne Heritage

    It's a very poor plan to haul ethanol by rail through remote forested areas and villages where houses are near the rail bed. An emergency event would become a horror story when a fire is beyond the of reach of fire fighting equipment.

    Bellefonte, PA
14. 27 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/27/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18541Linda M. Padisak
15. 26 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/26/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18540Geoffrey L. Hosband
16. 25 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/25/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18539Centre County Planning and Community Development Office

    Robert B. Jacobs
17. 25 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/25/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18538Linda Padisak

    Attached are signature collected at a Snow Shoe Rails to Trails event and the Avondale Hotel. The signers will be affected either as residents or visitors and not only oppose the rail line proposal, they are concerned about the negative environmental and economic impacts to the area.

    Snow Shoe, PA
18. 25 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/25/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18537People Protecting Communities

    Attached are comments from People Protedcting Communities regarding the SDEIS for Environmental Filing FD 35116.

    JoAnn Gillette · Clarence, PA
19. 25 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/25/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18536EPA

    comments on Supplemental Draft EIS for RJ Corman RR Co.

    Barbara Rudnick · Philadelphia, PA
20. 25 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/25/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18535Fletcher & Sippel, LLC

    Ronald A. Lane
21. 25 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/25/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18534Cate Lysienek
22. 25 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/25/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18533Anne Darthell
23. 25 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/25/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18532Snow Shoe Rails to Trails

    Dear Miss Gosselin, I live in Quakertown, Pa which is about 3-4 hours drive from Snow Shoe, Pa. We only get a chance to come ride our atvs out there 5-6 times a year but it is a trip I always look forward to. I was sickened by what your board wants to approve out there to bring in trains and trash and hazardest materials to ruin the land and poison the people. I see the trash dump off of route 78 in Bethlehem every day and it looks horrible, is an eyesore, and it smells and you people want to ruin what is a beautiful place to ride and enjoy and is historical in nature. Please as an individual and as part of a large group of riders dont take away this fantastic area and all the revenue it brings to the area because if you dont you will destroy not only the land but the people who have built their lives and homes there, dont rape them like that because so much of our government already has. Thankyou for your time and for reading this.

    Nate Morris · Quakertown, Pa
24. 21 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/21/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18531PA DEP

    James E. Miller
25. 18 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/18/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18528Snow shoe rails to trails

    I have just discovered that there are certain interests who are attempting take away one of my favorite privledges. Why should a few people prosper from exploiting a pristine environment by opening a trash dump? The Snow Shoe Rails to Trails has 3000 members who bring hundreds of thousands of green dollars to the Centre County region. Why should we suffer? Why should we lose our privledges? Why should an eco system be destroyed to enrich a few? Why would Pennsylvania suffer New York and New Jersey trash? Stop the Dump

    Terry Louer · Middletown, pa
26. 18 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/18/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18527cathy louer

    We are opposed to the proposed trash train. You would be taking away regulated riding trails from atv riders. We finally have a nice, clean, safe place for us to ride. WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO DESTROY OUR SCENIC RIDING AREA.

    middletown, pa
27. 14 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/14/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18521Headwaters Charitable Trust

    J. Alan Stewart
28. 7 Apr 2011 (printed as 4/7/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18518PA Game Commission

    Tracey Librandi Mumma
29. 21 Mar 2011 (printed as 3/21/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18505PA DCNR

    Rebecca Bowen
30. served 4 Mar 2011 (printed as 3/4/2011)
    Decision
    41420Director, Office Of Environmental Analysis

    PROVIDED NOTICE OF THE BOARD'S ISSUANCE OF A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE R.J. CORMAN/PENNSYLVANIA LINES, INC. PROPOSED RAIL LINE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND REACTIVATION IN CLEARFIELD AND CENTRE COUNTIES, PA.
31. 20 Jan 2011 (printed as 1/20/2011)
    Comment
    EI-18457Trilby Elizabeth Mayes
32. 14 Dec 2010 (printed as 12/14/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18440Resource Recovery, LLC

    Troy E. Abel
33. 6 Dec 2010 (printed as 12/6/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18432PA DCNR

    Rebecca Bowen
34. 1 Dec 2010 (printed as 12/1/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18428Keystone State Railroad Association

    Joseph H Gerdes III
35. 30 Nov 2010 (printed as 11/30/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18427JoAnn Gillette

    November 29, 2010 Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20423 Attention: Danielle Gosselin Section of Environmental Analysis Environmental Filing FD 35116 RE: Environmental Filing FD 35116 Dear Ms. Gosselin: I am providing additional information in regard to my earlier comments submitted September 28, 2010. In my September 28 letter I referenced an agreement between Snow Shoe Township and Resource Recovery, LLC (RRLLC) in which RRLLC agreed not to use Gorton Road, the No-Build Alternative (Local Road System Upgrade), for trash hauling. In his letter of October 26, 2010, Mr. Charles Suhr of Stevens & Lee stated this agreement was terminated. In January 2009 the Snow Shoe Township Supervisors sued RRLLC for terminating the agreement. This lawsuit is pending and will not come before the court until February 2011 (see attached). The outcome of this lawsuit may be relevant to the legitimacy of the No-Build Alternative (Local Road System Upgrade). Respectfully, JoAnn Gillette

    Clarence, PA
36. 17 Nov 2010 (printed as 11/17/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18407Fletcher & Sippel LLC

    Ronald A. Lane
37. 12 Nov 2010 (printed as 11/12/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18406On behalf of Williams Production Appalachia LLC

    Matthew I. Moses
38. 2 Nov 2010 (printed as 11/2/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18402Resource Recovery LLC

    E.B. Abel Jr.
39. 2 Nov 2010 (printed as 11/2/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18401Stevens & Lee

    Charles M. Suhr
40. 22 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/22/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18387Darryl Farber
41. 15 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/15/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18385Skelly & Loy, Inc.

    Karen M. Johnston
42. 14 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/14/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18384Resource Recovery LLC

    Troy Abel
43. 7 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/7/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18379Rush Township Supervisors

    Patrick E. Couturiaux
44. 5 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/5/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18377Mary Ann Williams
45. 4 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/4/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18375Sonia Lomax
46. 4 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/4/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18374Centre Region Council of Governments

    Jeff Luck
47. 4 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/4/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18373Ricky J. Ames
48. 4 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/4/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18372Joan & Caroline Guydosik
49. 1 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/1/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18371Rodney Preslovich
50. 1 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/1/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18370Ed Groft
51. 1 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/1/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18369Sylvia Wellar & David Rennigner
52. 1 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/1/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18368Phil Blazer
53. 1 Oct 2010 (printed as 10/1/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18367Joanne Blazer
54. 29 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/29/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18365Pauline H. Charnick
55. 29 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/29/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18364Harry Pionke
56. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18366Centre County Planning and Community Development Office

    Robert B. Jacobs
57. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18363JoAnn Gillette

    Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20423 Attention: Danielle Gosselin Section of Environmental Analysis Environmental Filing FD 35116 RE: Environmental Filing FD 35116 Dear Ms. Gosselin: The proposed Resource Recovery, LLC (RRLLC) landfill will not proceed without rail access. The No-Build Alternative (Local Road System Upgrade) carried forward in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) cannot be considered as a legitimate alternative. The Point of Access Study referenced in the Draft EIS clearly demonstrates that the local road network is incapable of handling the anticipated traffic and was not planned, intended, or designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic or the required improvements that would be necessary for the No-Build Alternative (Local Road System Upgrade). Given that the improvements are inconsistent with local and regional transportation plans, particularly Snow Shoe Township, the Local Road System Upgrade would not receive the approvals necessary to implement the upgrades (e.g., condemnations). There is also an agreement in force between RRLLC and Snow Shoe Township (Cooperation Agreement, February 2006) in which RRLLC agreed not to use Gorton Road for trash hauling. Because the No-Build Alternative (Local Road System Upgrade) is not a legitimate alternative, the only access that could accommodate the projected uses (1,100 truck trips per day) is one of the Build Alternatives. Without access, the proposed landfill cannot advance past its suspended status (effective October 2006) and cannot be approved, constructed, or operated. Approval of the proposed rail line project would provide access. Thus, the proposed landfill is dependent on the rail line project taking place. The approval sought by the Surface Transportation Board for the proposed rail line can reasonably be said to cause the related actions of landfill approval, and subsequently, construction and operation. Therefore the rail line and landfill should be considered a connected action and alternatives for the landfill must be considered to ensure a comprehensive and just environmental review. Thank you for considering my concerns.

    Clarence, PA
58. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18362Richard Dixon

    The scale of the combined trash train, landfill, ethanol plant, and treatment plant is far too great for this region, especially with the proposed roads to move among these facilities. The site in Rush Township is too close to a beautiful state park, Black Moshannon State Park; especially with the threat to the groundwater and streams in the park and surrounding state forest. The number of possible new jobs is far to few to justify the great environmental impact. With a vacation home near the state park, I have seen a resurgence in the use of the park and the state forest. The train and the rest of the project with irreparably damage this renewed resource. The very real possibility of Marcellus shale exploration combined with the landfill, trash train, and treatment plants will overwhelm the region as a great natural resource. Regards, Richard Dixon Littleton, MA and Philipsburg, PA

    Philipsburg, PA
59. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18361Mark Rusnak

    Submitting comments by September 28,2010 for Docket FD 35116 concerning the Draft EIS. Revisions were made to my first submittal. Affiliation : Self Individual and citizen group

    Philipsburg, PA
60. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18360Michele L. Barbin

    ATTN: Danielle Gosselin Section of Environmental Analysis Environmental Filing FD 35116

    Snow Shoe, PA
61. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18359North Run Homeowners Association

    September 24, 2010 Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20423 Attention: Danielle Gosselin Section of Environmental Analysis Environmental Filing FD 35116 RE: Environmental Filing FD 35116 Dear Ms. Gosselin: This is a follow up to the oral comments I made at the September 14, 2010, public meeting. As I stated at the meeting, I am extremely disappointed with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), most of which is based on incomplete or outdated information. Following are my concerns with the Draft EIS: 1. The assertion is made that the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), along with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) have prepared the EIS. However, there is no documentation in the Draft EIS to support this degree of involvement by the COE or FHWA. In fact, I am aware that as of September 1, 2010, the COE has officially notified the STB that they have withdrawn as a Cooperating Agency for the EIS. The FHWA will probably limit its comments to highway related matters. 2. The STB refuses to recognize that the potential environmental impacts of the rail construction, reactivation, and operation and the proposed uses are connected actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This view is shared by many of the other federal agencies and I am confident that several will make this point in their comments. I don't think anyone believes that the railroad would be built if not for the landfill and associated uses. 3. To support its analysis, the Draft EIS treats the proposed uses as though they are set in stone. On page E-1, it states: “‘these facilities are currently being developed.” Although there are proposed uses, there is NOTHING “currently being developed”—no landfill, no industrial park, no wastewater treatment plant, no 200,000 tons-per-year quarry, no coal mining operations, and no infrastructure of any kind. Resource Recovery, LLC has tried for six years without success to get the necessary permit approvals from local, state, and federal agencies to move their project forward. And now they are starting over. An article published August 31, 2010, in the local area newspaper, the Centre Daily Times, reported that: The developer who had proposed building a landfill in Rush Township said the project has changed direction and the company is now working on plans for a waste to ethanol plant. Further, the Draft EIS states that 99 rail road cars of frac water could be transported daily; however, the frac water plant that is mentioned in the Draft EIS has never been permitted. 4. No mention is made in the Draft EIS of the possibility of gas well drilling on the site. Yet, numerous wells are either planned for the area or operating in the vicinity. As we all know, mountain hydrology is not an exact science. Possible spills of frac water and piercing of underground aquifers point to the possibility of unmitigated disasters. These potential adverse consequences are not addressed in the Draft EIS. Black Moshannon State Park Lake is only three miles from the proposed site and Cooper Township’s municipal water supply is close by. These issues should be addressed in the EIS section dealing with Water Resources. Given all of the unknowns, how can the Draft EIS conclude that there are only moderate environmental impacts? I urge the STB staff to take these issues under consideration before issuing the final EIS. Thank you for considering my comments. Michael T. Savage 130 Teaberry Drive Philipsburg, PA 16866

    Mike Savage · Philipsburg, PA
62. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18358Dave Coleman

    Concerning Resource Recovery's proposal to revitalize an industrial rail link to serve a proposed landfill and associated facilities: I object to this project in that it is ill-conceived and is inappropriate for the environment in which it is being considered. It will adversely impact state park land, a high quality watershed, newly acquired recreational facilities and in general mess up a real special place of Central Pennsylvania. Our country needs much more incentive to find alternative means to deal with solid waste than to simply bury it. We need more recycling. We need more local responsibility in dealing with our waste streams. We don't need to truck, rail and otherwise haul it away from our urban areas. This is too easy and unfairly and unsustainably burdens our open areas and vanishing wilderness. It is bad enough that a new rails-to-trails recreational facility will be taken with this proposal, but to even consider a quarry and haul road right next to the high quality stream Black Moshannon Creek displays a severe lack of understanding and care on the part of the applicant. I hope to move back to this part of Central PA someday, but am afraid that if this project goes through, there will be no point. Please deny RRC's application. Thank you Dave Coleman

    Forestville, California
63. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18357Jenn Shufran

    Sarah Palin and her bridge to nowhere have nothing on this project! Per paragraph one of Virginia Rutson’s opening letter to “Dear Reader”, the Draft EIS states that the proposed rail line would serve a NEW quarry, landfill and industrial park currently being developed by RRLLC. Let us take a look at the status of these three projects so we can clearly see what that term “being developed” means: To date, there is no new quarry and there is not even an application filed with D.E.P for a quarry. Permit application #14-10-10-01 filed by Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc is for a borrow area which means the applicant intends to use a small area to remove a little material and perhaps store a little material; not ship material. Earlier this year, Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. had an exploratory permit for possible stone quarrying on the RRLLC site. When the exploratory work didn’t yield quality stone, the area was closed. At this point, the permit documentation does not support the applicant’s claim of a quarry as a viable rail user. What quarry? The landfill has been in the development phase for over four years and not one permit has been issued. The landfill application with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection was placed in “suspense” in October of 2006 and has remained there. Permit applications necessary to support the landfill permitting process have been withdrawn or denied as follows: Sewage Planning Module – submitted and withdrawn Wetlands Encroachment Permit – submitted and withdrawn Highway Occupancy Permit and Federal Highway Approval – denied by FHWA In the past four years, the access issues with developing the remote RRLLC site have presented many challenges. When the use of local roads didn’t fly, the access was then going to be a new I-80 interchange. Now that the interchange isn’t flying, the access is going to be a rail line. RRLLC never tried to pretend to the FHWA that the interchange was not a connected action to the proposed landfill. Without the proposed landfill, there would never have been a proposed I-80 interchange. And, just as with the interchange, if it were not for the proposed landfill, there would be no proposed rail activation. The prepared draft EIS treats the two projects as connected the entire way through the document. Under what technicality then is the STB making a decision that the two projects are not connected and should not be evaluated as a connected action? How can our governmental agencies justify segmenting these very connected projects instead of admitting that they are truly connected and evaluating the impact from both? To this “dear reader” of the draft EIS, these projects are clearly connected. All one needs to ask is: If there isn’t a landfill, do we need rail service to this area? Obviously not since this area hasn’t had rail service for years. The only reason this is coming up is because of the proposed landfill which remains unpermitted and thus another phantom project. In fact, RRLLC keeps changing the definition of what the rail line will serve. Although the original landfill permit has not been withdrawn, in recent press releases, RRLLC is now stating that they intend to use the site for a trash to ethanol project which is experimental at best . Are they trying to put lipstick on a pig? Is the STB really prepared to approve a rail to nowhere to serve an unpermitted moving target of a project? Now, for the big carrot, the mythical industrial park which does not show up on any material submitted by RRLLC to permitting agencies or municipalities to date. Lots of talk to the press and the citizenry about this coming industrial park on a site with absolutely no infrastructure but nothing on paper anywhere. If RRLLC has some industry to bring to the area, they need to speak to the Mo Valley Economic Development Director about locating to the already existing industrial park served by Route 322 where there are lots of empty spaces with brand new infrastructure just waiting for use. The bottom line to this discussion is that there are no permits, there are no contracts, and thus there is no need for this rail line and any of the impacts such activation would bring to the area.

    Philipsburg, PA
64. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18356People Protecting Communities

    Filing on behalf of PPC

    Robert B. McKinstry, Jr. · Philadelphia, PA
65. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18355Sierra Club Moshannon Group

    Gary Thornbloom Chair, Sierra Club Moshannon Group 702 Hall Road Julian, PA 814-353-3466 bearknob@verizon.net September 28, 2010 Attention: Danielle Gosselin Section of Environmental Analysis Environmental Filing FD 35116 Re: Draft EIS Docket No. FD 35116 Dear Danielle Gosselin; The Moshannon Group of the Sierra Club has one thousand members and on their behalf I offer the following comments. Most of our membership lives, and finds solace in the State Forest lands and rural character that is typical of Central Pennsylvania – the area that will be adversely impacted by the proposed action. As to the rational for the proposed action: RJCP has explained, however, that if there is no rail service, trucks on local roads and highways would be used to provide the transportation at issue. It is estimated that RJCP’s proposed rail line could keep up to 1,100 trucks per day (550 loaded and 550 empty) off the local road system. The rational is bogus because the 1,100 trucks per day are not on the road, and will never be there unless the actions proposed by RRLLC are facilitated by your decision. The Draft EIS is also defective in that it fails to include RRLLC plans – some would say pipedreams – in its analysis. The “No-Action Alternative” is the most reasonable alternative that addresses the concerns about impacts to the current use of the area and its surrounding rural and public lands. The Draft EIS description of what is referred to as the Eastern Segment is described in this way: …land use within the Eastern Segment is much more uniform, consisting almost exclusively of undeveloped forestland and reverting strip mine areas, including an approximate 4,400-foot section of the Moshannon State Forest. There are no public roads or private driveway crossings within; nor are there any residential, commercial, or industrial buildings adjacent to; the 9.3-mile Eastern Segment. The 9.3-mile rail banked Eastern Segment also functions as part of the Snow Shoe Multi-Use Rail Trail. The “No-Action Alternative” is the only alternative that protects current use. The section on Environmental Impacts (Transportation and Safety) fails to include the “No-Action Alternative” – why? The section on “…Hazardous Materials Transport” states “RJCP does not plan to ship any hazardous materials over the proposed rail line.” And then goes on to include “…frac water from natural gas drilling activities.” It would seem to border on total incompetence to conclude that “frac water” is not a “hazardous material”. Please document what is in “frac water” – and then evaluate whether it is hazardous or not. After stating that cumulative impacts will be considered, the “SEA’s Preliminary Environmental Mitigation Measures” is limited to RJCP actions. This is deficient and the full cumulative impacts should be addressed. The Draft EIS states RJCP responded by letter on April 28, 2009, and again on July 28, 2009, indicating that RRLLC’s proposed landfill would be developed and operated regardless of the rail line. …In sum, the two projects are not interdependent, and the rail line is not the proximate cause of the landfill; thus, the landfill should not be included as part of the proposed action in the environmental review, and it would be inappropriate to consider the landfill to be a direct or indirect effect of this rail transportation project. We strongly disagree with this – without rail access there is no evidence that the proposed landfill plans could be carried out. If it could proceed, the developers would have proceeded. Without the development schemes of RRLLC this rail line would never have been proposed for reactivation. Therefore the two are connected and the Draft EIS is deficient in not recognizing and addressing this. The section “Identification of Environmentally Preferable Alternative” fails to demonstrate why the “No-Action Alternative” is not the environmentally preferable alternative. The Moshannon Group of the Sierra Club believes that the Draft EIS is inadequate, and that it will remain so without addressing the associated cumulative impacts that will occur with the RRLLC plans. Sincerely, Gary Thornbloom Chair Sierra Club - Moshannon Group

    Gary Thornbloom · Julian, PA
66. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18354US EPA

    Barbara Rudnick · Philadelphia, PA
67. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18353Frederick Sepp

    This proposal (FD #35116) is another attempt to fill central Pennsylvania with unwanted garbage, noxious odors, noise, dusty roads, truck traffic, and all environmentally degrading side effects. The proposed quarry could create irreversible problems for the pristine trout stream just below. Black Moshannon Creek is one of the few unspoiled (acid mine drainage) streams in the area. This stream is enjoyed by many people in many ways; it would be criminal to ruin this run of clean water.

    State College, Pennsylvania
68. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18352Cooper Township Municipal Authority

    Attn: Danielle Gosselin Please see attached corrospondence forwarded upon request of the Cooper Township Municipal Authority. This attachment is intended to replace the blank attachment filed on 9/27/2010.

    K. Alan Uhler, Jr., PE, PLS · Bellefonte, PA
69. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18351Pat C Corey

    9/27/2010 Danielle Gosselin & Vicki Rutson Surface Transportation Board Section of Environmental Analysis Environmental Filing FD35116 Dear Danielle Gosselin, Vicki Rutson & STB : Please do not approve the Trash Train to the proposed dump in Black Moshannon in Central Pa. This entire dump project being located here is contingent on this railroad line of garbage being permitted. This dump is being proposed as an economic benefit to the area (maybe for the private landfill company), but to the residents of this region it is viewed as an ecological disaster. Transporting toxic garbage from out of state to and through this pristine area via railway is a moral and ecological nightmare. This is our shared watershed for the entire Centre Region. Although the business folks and politicians might think this area is undeveloped, this land has been developed and preserved for camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, biking, and boating. This area is a haven for the remaining bears, deer, eagles, bobcats, birds, and other forest creatures. It is full of Indian relics and is a sacred and holy land to many of us who live or visit here. Building a railroad to build an intrastate dump (again a private company from outside the area who bought the land under questionable circumstances) to encourage this type of long distance transportation of highly questionable toxic trash is an ecological and security threat to the preservation of many species including humans. I am surprised that the current Chesapeake Watershed Restrictions allow this to be even considered placed in the heart of the woodlands that protect our water. Please stop this insane plan of building a trash railroad to a current non-existing dump. We need to consider the big picture and respect the area’s real need, which is to develop green energy to preserve our precious water and forests. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Pat C. Corey

    State College, PA
70. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18349Keystone Trails Association

    Danielle Gosselin Section of Environmental Analysis Dear Ms. Gosselin, The Keystone Trails Association would like to comment on Environmental Filing FD 35116 concerning a proposed rail line. The Keystone Trails Association is the statewide voice of Pennsylvania’s hikers. A recent survey found that 3.5 million Pennsylvanians consider themselves hikers. Last year over 3,000 volunteer trail builders donated over 30,000 hours of their time and labor to Pennsylvania hiking trails. To learn more about the Keystone Trails Association please visit www.kta-hike.org. I am writing to you today about the negative impact of a proposed rail line to a land fill within view of the 40 mile long Allegheny Front Trail. The Allegheny Front Trail, a relatively new trail in western Centre County, Pennsylvania, was built collaboratively in the late 1990’s by Penn State Outing Club, Ridge and Valley Outing Club, Quehanna Area Trails Club and the Keystone Trails Association, the umbrella group fro trail maintainers. Today it is enjoyed by vast numbers of hikers annually for its pristine beauty. The trail provides a wide variety of forest environments, including views over valleys to the east, trout streams, and marshlands. What it does not include is a view over a landfill and a rail line delivering trash. If the proposed rail line is approved, the Allegheny Front Trail will lose its scenic and wilderness characteristics. The rail line moving unknown numbers of trains daily filled with mountains of garbage daily poses a threat of incalculable consequences to the trail. Who will want to hike the Allegheny Front Trail in future years when it becomes basically a landfill train trail hike? The answer is no one. Vast sums of tourist dollars will be lost. Hikers who now provide green economic development opportunities to nearby communities will visit more pristine trails. Additionally many people volunteered their time and labor to build this trail only 20 years ago in the belief that they were creating a scenic trail that would be enjoyed for generations. It is almost unbelievable that in the space of a single generation it may be lost forever. If the trash trains were in operation, a hiker could actually “walk with the train”. The railroad tracks, the Red Moshannon Creek and the Allegheny Front Trail, are all parallel to each other for about 2 or 3 miles. If the proposed rail line is approved the Allegheny Front Trail will lose its scenic and wilderness qualities. These qualities are vital to the success of the trail. Noise, odor and the loss of scenic vistas will kill this trail. Unique trails, such as the Allegheny Front Trail, are sought by hikers for their remoteness and solitude specifically to escape civilization. This is not an urban neighborhood running oval. The Allegheny Front Trail’s widerness characteristics must be preserved, including the vistas, in order for the trail to maintain support and attract hikers. It is not merely a want for many, it is a psychological need, a calling, to escape civilization, which the Alleghency Front Trails qualities provide. The Keystone Trails Association strongly urges you to deny this permit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Curt Ashenfelter Executive Director Keystone Trails Association 717 238 7017

    Curt Ashenfelter · Harrisburg, PA
71. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18348USFWS

    Jennifer Kagel
72. 28 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/28/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18347Cooper Township Board of Supervisors

    Wayne T. Josephson
73. 27 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/27/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18346U.S. Dept. of Interior, Office of the Secretary

    Willie R. Taylor
74. 27 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/27/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18345Ray Savel
75. 27 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/27/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18344Susan R. Stimer
76. 27 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/27/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18343Lisa Stimer

    I highly oppose the garbage dump and the trash train. The Trash Train to Nowhere will negatively impact this area. The area is established as a place to enjoy nature and to get away from it all. Why change something that thousands of people are using to accommodate ONE company and their few leaders? RRLLC’s request is not justified to change this area. Attached are pictures of the area affected. Thank you, Lisa Stimer

    Julian, PA
77. 27 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/27/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18342Erik Weiss

    We finally have a great place to spend time with our kids and also watch other famlies doing the same it would be a tremendous loss to go through with the landfill. Do not take away a good place to go and spend quality time with the family. We have to stop this in it tracks!!!

    Lititz, Pa
78. 27 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/27/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18341Thomas F. Weiss Jr.

    I finally found a great place to ride & enjoy myself along w/my family and fellow riders who respect each other and the property they have access to. Why would a Township ruin that by taking another states garbage is beyond me. Could it be GREED?

    Mountville, PA
79. 24 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/24/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18340Joe Zimmerman

    It would be a disgrace and a real slap in the face to let the Rich Man" poison this beuatifull area in the name of profits. If this is allowed to happen I may consider leaving the area. My children and other family and freinds helped to build a cabin that we thought we would enjoy for many generations. There are thousands of us with this same situation. I'll be praying for the sake of the enviroment and others that feel the way I do that the "Rich Man" will not get his way this time. Please help us!"
80. 24 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/24/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18339Stephen & Kim Norfolk
81. 24 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/24/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18338Raymond Masenheimer
82. 23 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/23/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18335Central PA CVB

    I am writing on behalf of the Central PA Convention and Visitors Bureau, the tourist promotion agency representing Centre County. Tourism is the second largest industry in Pennsylvania and continues to grow. Centre County realizes millions of dollars in travel related expenditures annually and our mission is to make sure our area remains in a position for continued tourism growth. Visitors come here for a variety of reasons, but our outdoor recreation offerings are one of the primary motivators. Outdoor recreation in Centre County infuses hundreds of thousands of dollars into the local economy from visitors through their purchases of goods and services at our grocery stores, retail stores, gas stations, lodging properties, campgrounds, etc. We are concerned about the request to industrialize a remote wilderness area at the western edge of Centre County. This area is well known for its outdoor recreation opportunities and has been used by hunters, fishermen, paddlers, hikers, bicyclists, campers, and other outdoor enthusiasts for over 100 years. The very popular and unique Snow Shoe Rail Trail traverses the project site and there are plans in the works with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to expand and connect this trail with others in the area. The Central Pennsylvania Convention and Visitors Bureau is opposed to the conversion of this area back to a rail line or any other industrial project which would have a major negative impact on the tourism product in Centre County, one that we have invested millions of dollars promoting.

    Betsey Howell · State College, PA
83. 23 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/23/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18334Randy Stimer

    As a member of the Snow Shoe Rails to Trails, I oppose the reactivation of the railroad line requested to be used by Resource Recovery LLC. The railroad in question is an outdoor recreational playground for thousands of visitors including me, my family and friends. Why change something that thousands of people are using to accommodate ONE company and their few leaders? RRLLC’s request is not justified to change this area. The economic benefits of these thousands of visitors is unmeasurable. They support the local stores, gas stations, taverns, restaurants, and other businesses. Many of them own cabins in this region and their property taxes benefit the Snow Shoe Borough and Snow Shoe Township. RRLLC’s business ventures support themselves and could not replace the economic support that visitors’ provide. Hopefully, the people who have appreciated this area for years, will have a voice in this matter. Thank you, Randy Stimer

    Julian, PA
84. 23 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/23/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18333Anne Houck

    The proposed train reactivation will NEGATIVELY/ADVERSELY effect the entire Mountaintop Region. The most damaging impact of the entire proposed project will be to our water system. It is essential that our environment be protected. It is of great importance to our lives and livelihoods that the water not be damaged and this project not move forward. It would destroy our protected species, and this is against the laws of PA. Please consider not only the impact now, but for the future. PA needs to protect this area. Please act wisely to prevent the devastation the proposed railine would cause in moving forward with the landfill, quarry, ethonol plant. The water and environment of the area would be irreparably harmed. Thank you. Sincerely, Anne Houck

    Snow Shoe, PA
85. 23 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/23/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18332SSRT

    I am writing this letter to show my concerns on the impact of this dump. We are totally against of this proposal of the dump. With private property being posted more ad more, riding our atvs on private ground is virtually impossible. With the SSRT ew can come and ride a trail system for over 30 miles of beautiful country in the Snoe Shoe area. This even keeps the young generatioon of kids occupied with something other than setting in front of a tv, computer or even away from the drugs. I have seen so many families together with there kids enjoying themselves together being a part of this trail system. I camp weekends at the trail head a I can see the benifet of this trail system. Please do not allow this dump to persue in the snoe shoe area. This would be devistated to the area and for the people living here"

    Donald Yearick
86. 23 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/23/2010)
    Comment
    EI-183149/14 Public Meeting Transcript
87. 22 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/22/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18313ed mc dade

    We don't need a trash train! Stop trashing Pa.!!

    port matilda, pa
88. 21 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/21/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18307FHWA

    Renee Sigel
89. 20 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/20/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18306Robert Lentz
90. 20 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/20/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18305Stanley M. LaFuria
91. 20 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/20/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18304Douglas Mottin
92. 15 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/15/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18303Douglas Harpster

    I am in favor of the Rail Project.

    Philipsburg, PA
93. 15 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/15/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18302J. Winston Harpster

    in favor

    crystal river, fl
94. 15 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/15/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18301John Harpster

    I believe this would be a great addition to the area. If we want to expand or grow the rail lines will help industry grow. Please consider my support of this project

    Philipsburg, PA
95. 14 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/14/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18300Ed Bowmon
96. 14 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/14/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18299Mary Whitehead
97. 14 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/14/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18298Rod Fyr
98. 14 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/14/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18297Michael Holmes
99. 14 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/14/2010)
    Comment
    EI-18295Wayne Yahn
100. 14 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/14/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18294Mark Rusnak
101. 14 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/14/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18293Michele L. Barbin
102. 14 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/14/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18292Headwaters Charitable Trust, Inc.

     J. Alan Stewart
103. 13 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/13/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18296U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

     Wade B. Chandler
104. 13 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/13/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18289Edward Bowman
105. 13 Sep 2010 (printed as 9/13/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18288Walter D. Charnick
106. 31 Aug 2010 (printed as 8/31/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18280Linda Padisak
107. 27 Aug 2010 (printed as 8/27/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18276PA DCNR

     Rebecca Bowen
108. 6 Aug 2010 (printed as 8/6/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18246Robert Klinger

     My family and I are members of the ATV club Snow Shoe Rails to trails. We love riding the trail and hope it can stay intack. It is good family fun and we have a membership of 3000. Thankyou for your help Bob

     Sunbury, PA
109. 4 Aug 2010 (printed as 8/4/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18245Payne Fuller

     Please read through the attachment. This is the outcry of the citizens of these communities. These are the reasons why we do not want this in our backyards. These companies have little regard for the hardworking, low income families that live in this rural area. It may not be much to all of them, but it is all they have. If you have never seen the beauty of this area, the bobcats, the deer,and the bear in the serenity of their home, the forest, you wouldnt understand. How dare these big corporate companies come in to an area where there is protest, ruining lives, ruining history, ruining places for our native wildlife to eat, live and sleep just because they see dollar signs. Keep New York and New Jersey's trash where it belongs. This is environmental racism, dump trash on people that they think are white trash", just because they do not have the money to keep them out. None of the executives or board members of any of these interested companies would want this in their backyards. Do on to others as you would have them do to you? Old saying, but it applies here in the purest form. We say NO to the reactivation of this rail line."

     Littlestown, Pa
110. 4 Aug 2010 (printed as 8/4/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18244Freja C. Fuller

     Ms. Rutson, I am writing in opposition of the proposed rail line reactivation. My family owns a recreational property along Gorton Road in Moshannon, Pennsylvania. Although we do not reside there, this is our home away from home, and we have come to love it with all of our hearts. It is not fair that this imposition has the ability to affect so many people, animals, and vegetation that also call this place home. We have invested money into this community, but most importantly the memories that we have here are worth more money than these corporate companies will ever earn. It is a disgrace that I should have to consider that the place where my child has learned so much about life, will be stripped of the dignity, and beauty it possesses. To think that the serenity of my wilderness be drown out by industrial noise, and the mountain air be overwhelming with the stench of garbage is unbearable. I, along with many other residents of the communities to be affected, judge this proposal to be unjust and unfair. The environmental protection apparatus is broken, and in need of fixing. We, as a people are being managed, regulated and put at risk. Please, hear what the PEOPLE are saying. The SSRTA is a wonderful organization, we spend an enormous amount of time on this trail. It would be a disgrace if the historic Peale Tunnel would be destroyed all for the sake of the almighty dollar. This is a piece of history that should be protected, built in 1884 and 1 of only 4 tunnels in Centre County. Please help us protect and preserve the beautiful place I escape to. The people in these communities need to be heard. Sincerely, Freja C. Fuller What is environmental justice? Environmental justice is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. Simply put, environmental justice means everyone (not just the people who can “vote with their feet” and move away from threats or individuals who can afford lawyers, experts, and lobbyists to fight on their behalf) is entitled to equal protection and equal enforcement of our environmental, health, housing, land use, transportation, energy, and civil rights laws and regulations.

     Littlestown, Pennsylvania
111. 3 Aug 2010 (printed as 8/3/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18243John B. Huls
112. 15 Apr 2010 (printed as 4/15/2010)
     Comment
     EO-1430Fletcher & Sippel

     Ronald A. Lane
113. 15 Apr 2010 (printed as 4/15/2010)
     Comment
     EO-1429Richard R. Wilson, P.C.
114. 8 Apr 2010 (printed as 4/8/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18084Fletcher & Sippel

     Ronald A. Lane · Chicago, Illinois
115. 25 Mar 2010 (printed as 3/25/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18081Richard R. Wilson, P.C.

     Ebensburg, PA
116. 5 Feb 2010 (printed as 2/5/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18038PA DCNR
117. 25 Jan 2010 (printed as 1/25/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18032PA State Representative

     Camille George · Harrisburg, PA
118. 12 Jan 2010 (printed as 1/12/2010)
     Comment
     EI-18027PA Field Office

     USFWS · State College, PA
119. 9 Dec 2009 (printed as 12/9/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17965RJ Corman

     Michael Wester, V.P. · Nicholasville, KY
120. 12 Nov 2009 (printed as 11/12/2009)
     Comment
     EO-1328USFWS

     Pamela Shellenberger
121. 30 Oct 2009 (printed as 10/30/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17919PA Historical and Museum Commission

     Harrisburg, PA
122. 27 Oct 2009 (printed as 10/27/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17918PA Field Office

     USFWS · State College, PA
123. 23 Oct 2009 (printed as 10/23/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17917PA Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources

     Harrisburg, PA
124. 22 Oct 2009 (printed as 10/22/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17916PA Game Commission

     Harrisburg, PA
125. 21 Oct 2009 (printed as 10/21/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17915Division of Environmental Services, Natural Diversity Section

     PA Fish & Boat Commission · Bellefonte, PA
126. 21 Oct 2009 (printed as 10/21/2009)
     Comment
     EO-1318PA Historical and Museum Commission
127. 1 Oct 2009 (printed as 10/1/2009)
     Comment
     EO-1303People Protecting Communities

     JoAnn Gillette
128. 30 Sep 2009 (printed as 9/30/2009)
     Comment
     EO-1301USFWS

     David Densmore & Recipient List
129. 28 Sep 2009 (printed as 9/28/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17881State Rep., 39th District

     David K. Levdansky · Harrisburg, PA
130. 20 Aug 2009 (printed as 8/20/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17857People Protecting Communities

     JoAnn Gillette, Coordinator · Clarence, PA
131. served 31 Jul 2009 (printed as 7/31/2009)
     Decision
     40029Chief Of Section Of Environmental Analysis

     DECISION PROVIDED NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL SCOPE OF STUDY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
132. 28 Jul 2009 (printed as 7/28/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17842Fletcher & Sippel LLC

     Ronald A. Lane · Chicago, Illinois
133. served 27 Jul 2009 (printed as 7/27/2009)
     Decision
     39098Entire Board

     DECISION GRANTED A MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART R.J. CORMAN RAILROAD COMPANY/PENNSYLVANIA LINES INC.'S (RJCP) PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF 49 U.S.C. 10901 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A RAIL LINE FOR THE EASTERN SEGMENT OF THE LINE IN THIS PROCEEDING. IN ADDITION, THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT RJCP IS PRECLUDED FROM ACTIVATING OR OPERATING THE EASTERN SEGMENT UNTIL THE NEPA PROCESS IS COMPLETED AND THE BOARD ISSUES A FINAL DECISION THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE BOARD ALSO GRANTED THE PETITION FILED BY PEOPLE PROTECTING COMMUNITIES FOR LEAVE TO LATE FILE A REPLY TO RJCP'S MOTION TO DISMISS, BUT DENIES AS MOOT IT'S PETITION TO HOLD THE RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN STB FINANCE DOCKET NO. 35143 AND DOCKET NO. AB-167 (SUB-NO. 1004N) IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE COMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.
134. 22 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/22/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17805PA Historical & Museum Commission

     Andrea L. McDonald · Harrisburg, PA
135. 16 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/16/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17798PA Game Commission

     James R. Leigey · Harrisburg, PA
136. 15 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/15/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17797PA Fish & Boat Commission

     Christopher A. Urban · Bellafonte, PA
137. 12 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/12/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17796U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

     State College, PA
138. 10 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17781PA DCNR

     Harrisburg, PA
139. 10 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17777Ballard Spahr, on behalf of People Protecting Comm.

     Robert B. McKinstry, Jr. · Philadelphia, PA
140. 9 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/9/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17782Centre County Planning and Community Development Office

     Robert B. Jacobs, AICP · Bellafonte, PA
141. 8 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/8/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17779PennDOT

     Kevin R. Kline, P.E. · Clearfield, PA
142. 5 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/5/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17780PA Bureau for Historic Preservation

     Douglas C. McClearen · Harrisburg, PA
143. 5 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/5/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17769Kenneth L. Hall

     Moshannon, PA
144. 1 Jun 2009 (printed as 6/1/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17757Cooper Township

     Board of Supervisors · Kylerton, PA
145. 14 May 2009 (printed as 5/14/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17753PA DEP

     Michael C. Welch, Asst. Regional Director · Williamsport, PA
146. 6 May 2009 (printed as 5/6/2009)
     Comment
     EO-1197Boggs Township Board of Supervisors and attached recipient list
147. 1 May 2009 (printed as 5/1/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17533Fletcher & Sippel LLC

     Ronald A. Lane · Chicago, Illinois
148. 29 Apr 2009 (printed as 4/29/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17530Fletcher & Sippel LLC

     Ronald A. Lane · Chicago, Illinois
149. 29 Apr 2009 (printed as 4/29/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17529Christian Bechdel
150. 17 Apr 2009 (printed as 4/17/2009)
     Letter
     224900Letter/Telegram

     Rex Energy Corporation
151. 17 Apr 2009 (printed as 4/17/2009)
     Comment
     EI-17240Rex Energy Corporation

     Benjamin W. Hulburt · State College, PA
152. 31 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/31/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16577Bruce Bechdel
153. 25 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/25/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16434Petition signed by citizens in opposition of proposed rail line
154. 25 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/25/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16433Kevin and Ronni Murphy

     Winburne, PA
155. 24 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/24/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16563PA House of Representatives

     Mike Hanna, State Rep. · Milesburg, PA
156. 20 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/20/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16561PA House of Representatives

     Mike Hanna, State Rep. · Milesburg, PA
157. 16 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/16/2009)
     Comment
     EO-1164Federal Highway Administration

     Jonathan Crum
158. 16 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/16/2009)
     Comment
     EO-1163Fletcher & Sippel

     Ronald A. Lane
159. 13 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/13/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16553Cooper Township

     Supervisors · Kylertown, PA
160. 13 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/13/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16552Michael T. Savage

     Philipsburg, PA
161. 12 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/12/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16554Edward T. Murphy, Jr.

     Winburne, PA
162. 12 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/12/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16551Rose-Anna Behr

     New Cumberland, PA
163. 9 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/9/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16455Teresa Davis

     Bellafonte, PA
164. 5 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/5/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16437David Thomas Roberts

     Bellefonte, PA
165. 3 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/3/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16436Harry Pionke

     State College, PA
166. 3 Mar 2009 (printed as 3/3/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16435Harry Pionke

     State College, PA
167. 25 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/25/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16425Kathi Lewis

     Evaluating the reactivation and rebuilding of the rail line between Wallaceton and Gorton by RJ Corman Railroad as a stand-alone project would be a waste of STB resources and would not give a fair overview of the environmental impacts this project will have on the land and residents in the affected areas of Clearfield and Centre Counties. The proposed reactivation of the railroad in the area and the landfill/industrial park proposed by Resource Recovery, LLC (RRLLC) are parts of the same project, without the proposed landfill and industrial park there will be no reason for the reactivation of this section of rail line. The projects should be evaluated as two parts of a connected action. The landfill is not operating, nor constructed, nor permitted. Moreover, RRLLC has no signed contracts from waste suppliers. The industrial park is not permitted, nor have any detailed plans been published. The only other source of rail freight is the quarry which is permitted for 10,000 tons per year, less than one train load. In contrast, the PA Department of Environmental Protection has approved 10 landfill permits in 2007–2008. Only one is a new landfill, nine are expansions of existing landfills. Of the four new landfills proposed, three were denied, suspended, or withdrawn. Of the nine expansions proposed, all were approved. The rate of approval for new landfills, as RRLLC is proposing, is very low. It is likely that RRLLC will never build the proposed landfill or industrial park. Thus, STB risks approving the rail line to nowhere." It seems that the only logical, prudent alternative is no action or denial."
168. 25 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/25/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16424People Protecting Communities

     Attached please find official public comment from People Protecting Communities per Environmental Filing STB Finance Docket No. 35116 Our comments will also be send via the mail.

     Joann Gillette · Clarence, PA
169. 25 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/25/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16423People Protecting Communities

     My comments are in regard to the proposed reactivation of a portion of the Beech Creek Rail Line from Wallaceton to Gorton with the resulting destruction of a popular, multi-use recreational rail trail (STB Finance Docket # 35116 Attention: Danielle Gosselin). Please know that I am adamently opposed to this rail service for an out-of-state garbage dump, which Central Pennsylvania clearly does NOT want as documented by various remarks via newspapers, town meetings, and letters to several state agencies and politicians. RRLLC has been railroading" their outlandish claims of the positive economics for our region since 2004; however,no true harms-benefit analysis could support their claims. The negative impacts of a landfill (the sole purpose for this rail line activation) whether it be noise, smells, leaking train cars or leaking liners, truck traffic, forest/water/wildlife and recreational destruction are all evils that should not be perpetrated through rail service. Thank you for considering my comments."

     Mary Ann Williams
170. 24 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/24/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16429Cooper Township Municipal Authority

     Sharon G. Josefik · Winburne, PA
171. 24 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/24/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16428Mary Vollero

     Bellefonte, PA
172. 24 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/24/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16427PA Historical & Museum Commission

     Andrea L. MacDonald, Chief · Harrisburg, PA
173. 24 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/24/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16426Centre County Planning & Community Development Office

     Robert B. Jacobs, AICP · Bellefonte, PA
174. 24 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/24/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16411Dave Mishock

     Pleasant Gap, PA
175. 23 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/23/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16409John S. Deacon

     West Decatur, PA
176. 23 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/23/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16408Tussey Mt. Outfitters

     Ed Bowman · Bellafonte, PA
177. 23 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/23/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16407Linda Padisak

     I am writing to oppose the idea to reactivate the railroad to support the proposed Centre County Dump which Resource Recovery LLC has been trying to establish for five years. There is no need for rail service in this area except to support the landfill. I've lived in this area all my life and this is not appropriate use of the land or any resources. I would recommend that all STB representatives visit this area to see what a ridiculous idea a landfill or this rail service would be in this area. Reactivating this rail service would be an extreme waste of resources, money, time, etc. and would be a disaster to this beautiful recreation area. I've wrote to Govenor Rendell many times stating the State could receive money about promoting this area as a tourist attraction...not a dump site. Many visitors to this region state that our area has replaced the tourism in the Poconos because that area has been destroyed by landfills, dumps, and other unnecessary commercialism. Please decline permission for this railroad to be reactivated. It will ruin this area with noice, pollution and unnecessary activity. Thank you. Linda Padisak

     Snow Shoe, PA
178. 23 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/23/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16406Larry Merritt

     Attn Danielle Gosselin R J Corman Railroad is attempting to reactivate an abandoned rail bed located in Centre County, PA. This is a rail trail that has received thousands of dollars in grants for the rail trail program. Hundreds of people travel from several surrounding states to use this rail trail system several times every year. This brings much needed money into a struggling economy. I travel about 200 miles each way several times every year to use this site. There are no other sites like this in PA. it would be a huge loss to PA to reactivate this rail bed.

     Edinboro, PA
179. 23 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/23/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16405Jenn Shufran

     See Attached Document

     Philipsburg, PA
180. 23 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/23/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16404Terri and Bob Burbidge

     MOSHANNON, PA
181. 20 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/20/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16410Darryl Farber
182. 20 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/20/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16401Centre County Historical Society

     Jacqueline Melander · State College, PA
183. 19 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/19/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16392FHWA- PA Division

     See attached document from the Federal Highway Administration, Pennsylvania Division requesting Cooperating Agency status.

     Jonathan Crum · Harrisburg, PA
184. 19 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/19/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16391Rod Fye

     This is in response to the proposed re-activation of the rail line from Clearfield County to Centre County PA. The area where this line will travel has been abused for more than a century by people trying to get an edge to make money. First the lumber barons, then the coal barons, and now the trash barons. The area can and will recover if WE let it; so just let it! The need to re-activate the line comes from greed not need and that has been the problem from the beginning. The bridge over the RED Moshannon; (By the way, it was not always RED), should be on the Historical Registry. Instead we will be spending millions to put it back in service. The area has value in esthetic, scenic, historic nature that will be impacted for years to come in a negative way. As a hunter, canoeist, and photographer this re-activation will only lessen the opportunities to enjoy our natural beauty that Pennsylvanians have the right to in our Constitution (Article I, Section 27).

     State College, PA
185. 19 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/19/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16390ed mc dade

     The rail reactivation request to the proposed Resource Recovery Landfill is a nightmare for the people of Central Pa.. The primary use for this reactivation would be to transport millions of tons of garbage to the proposed Rush Township Landfill. We do not want to be dumped on!!There is no need for rail service to this area without the landfill. Deny it and you will help save one of the few wild areas left on the east coast.Docket No. 35116

     port matilda, pa
186. 19 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/19/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16389Dave Corle Sr.

     I feel that rail is a cost effective way of transportation, however, in this instance, the only reason for a rail system would be to transport out of state garbage to an inappropriately sited landfill. The economic and enviromental damage to the area, not to mention the scenic beauty, caused by approval of this landfill will be a terrible blow to the citizens that live and enjoy recreation here. That approval will be one step closer if you approve reactivating this rail line. Please do not give approval to reactivate this rail line. Thank you.

     Julian, PA
187. 18 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/18/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16388People Protecting Communities

     Attached is a comment document we placed into one of the boxes at the 2-10-09 STB meeting in Philipsburg, PA. We have a concern that the comment boxes were unlocked and unattended. Perhaps this should be addressed at future STB meetings.

     Terri Burbidge · MOSHANNON, PA
188. 17 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/17/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16387Headwaters Charitable Trust

     J. Alan Stewart · Dubois, PA
189. 12 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/12/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16384Skelly & Loy

     Douglas Dinsmore
190. 12 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/12/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16383Dennis R. Etzweiler

     I oppose the reactivation of the rail line from wallaceton to gorton,due to the fact of homes being so close and the possibility of accident.

     Allport, Pa
191. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16549Public comment #100 - J. Long
192. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16546Public comment #99 - M. Savage
193. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16545Public comment #98 - T. Mayes
194. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16544Public comment #97 - S. Bierly
195. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16543Public comment #96 - D. Morgan
196. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16542Public comment #95
197. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16541Public comment #94
198. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16540Public comment #93
199. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16539Public comment #92
200. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16538Public comment #91
201. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16537Public comment #90
202. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16536Public comment #89
203. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16535Public comment #88
204. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16534Public comment #87
205. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16533Public comment #86
206. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16532Public comment #85
207. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16531Public comment #84
208. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16530Public comment #83
209. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16529Public comment #82
210. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16528Public comment #81
211. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16527Public comment #80
212. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16526Public comment #79
213. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16525Public comment #78
214. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16524Public comment #77
215. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16523Public comment #76
216. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16522Public comment #75
217. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16521Public comment #74
218. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16520Public comment #73
219. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16519Public comment #72
220. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16518Public comment #71
221. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16517Public comment #70
222. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16516Public comment #69
223. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16515Public comment #68
224. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16514Public comment #67
225. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16513Public comment #66
226. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16512Public comment #65
227. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16511Public comment #64
228. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16510Public comment #63
229. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16509Public comment #62
230. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16508Public comment #61
231. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16507Public comment #60
232. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16506Public comment #59
233. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16505Public comment #58
234. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16504Public comment #57
235. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16503Public comment #56
236. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16502Public comment #55
237. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16501Public comment #54
238. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16500Public comment #53
239. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16499Public comment #52
240. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16498Public comment #51
241. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16497Public comment #50
242. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16496Public comment #49
243. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16495Public comment #48
244. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16494Public comment #47
245. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16493Public comment #46
246. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16492Public comment #45
247. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16491Public comment #44
248. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16490Public comment #43
249. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16489Public comment #42
250. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16488Public comment #41
251. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16487Public comment #40
252. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16486Public comment #39
253. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16485Public comment #38
254. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16484Public comment #37
255. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16483Public comment #36
256. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16482Public comment #35
257. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16481Public comment #34
258. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16480Public comment #33
259. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16478Public comment #32
260. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16477Public comment #31
261. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16476Public comment #30
262. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16475Public comment #29
263. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16474Public comment #28
264. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16473Public comment #27
265. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16472Public comment #26
266. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16471Public comment #25
267. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16470Public comment #24
268. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16469Public comment #23
269. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16468Public comment #22
270. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16467Public comment # 21
271. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16466Public comment #20
272. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16465Public comment #19
273. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16464Public comment #18
274. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16463Public comment #17
275. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16462Public comment #16
276. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16461Public comment #15
277. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16460Public comment #14
278. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16459Public comment #13
279. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16458Public comment #12
280. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16457Public comment #11
281. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16456Public comment #10
282. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16454Public comment #9
283. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16453Public comment #9
284. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16452Public comment #8
285. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16451Public comment #7
286. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16450Public comment #6
287. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16449Public comment #5
288. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16448Public comment #4
289. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16447Public comment #3
290. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16446Public Comment #2
291. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16445Public comment #1
292. 10 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/10/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16386Citizens living in the townships of Rush and Snow Shoe
293. 5 Feb 2009 (printed as 2/5/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16367Marian Freed

     State College, PA
294. 26 Jan 2009 (printed as 1/26/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16288Rod Fye

     As a hunter, fisherman, canoeist, hiker, x-c skier, outdoor photographer, mt. biker, and the list goes on and on; I am concerned for OUR natural resources and refer to the PA State Constitution, Article I, Section 27(We have the right to clean air, pure water, and the preservation of natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment.) This proposal will have have a serious impact on all these items, that future generations (who at this time have no input), will have to deal with. The idea of re-establishing the rail system will be a drain on the budget of any company involved in a project of this magnitude. Without Government Grants to subsidize this project where will the money come from? We the people should not bear the burden for this project!

     State College, PA
295. 22 Jan 2009 (printed as 1/22/2009)
     Comment
     EI-16276Freja Fuller
296. 19 Jan 2009 (printed as 1/19/2009)
     Comment
     EO-1140The Honorable Jake Corman & the attached distribution list
297. served 8 Jan 2009 (printed as 1/8/2009)
     Decision
     39421Chief Of Section Of Environmental Analysis

     DECISION PROVIDED: (1) NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; (2) NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT SCOPE OF STUDY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; (3) NOTICE OF SCOPING MEETING; AND (4) REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON DRAFT SCOPE.
298. 11 Dec 2008 (printed as 12/11/2008)
     Reply
     224175Reply

     Resource Recovery, Llc
299. 9 Dec 2008 (printed as 12/9/2008)
     Comment
     EI-16209PA Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources

     Rebecca Bowen · Harrisburg, PA
300. 4 Dec 2008 (printed as 12/4/2008)
     Reply
     224113Reply

     R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.
301. 26 Nov 2008 (printed as 11/26/2008)
     Misc.
     224061Miscellaneous

     Headwaters Charitable Trust
302. 26 Nov 2008 (printed as 11/26/2008)
     Motion
     224058Motion/Petition/Request

     Headwaters Charitable Trust
303. 30 Oct 2008 (printed as 10/30/2008)
     Comment
     EI-16022U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Baltimore District

     Wade Chandler · Baltimore, Maryland
304. 7 Oct 2008 (printed as 10/7/2008)
     Comment
     EO-1079U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Baltimore District

     Wade Chandler
305. served 18 Aug 2008 (printed as 8/18/2008)
     Decision
     39289Secretary

     DECISION INSTITUTED A PROCEEDING UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10502(B).
306. 8 Aug 2008 (printed as 8/8/2008)
     Comment
     EI-8413Penn DOT

     Kevin R. Kline
307. 5 Aug 2008 (printed as 8/5/2008)
     Comment
     EI-8394Jean Ruppel
308. 25 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/25/2008)
     Reply
     223034Reply

     Resource Recovery, Llc
309. 17 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/17/2008)
     Reply
     222973Reply

     R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.
310. 11 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/11/2008)
     Reply
     222878Reply

     Pennsylvania Department Of Conservation And Natural Resources
311. 7 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/7/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7880Rowland & Sandra Wallitsch
312. 7 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/7/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7879John B. Huls
313. 3 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/3/2008)
     Reply
     222742Reply

     R J Corman Railroad Company / Pennsylvania Lines Inc
314. 3 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/3/2008)
     Statement
     222736Verified Statement/Support Statement

     Resource Recovery, Llc
315. 1 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/1/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7753Carl Woodside
316. 1 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/1/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7752Lisa Nye
317. 1 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/1/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7751David & Shirley Pryde
318. 1 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/1/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7750Ray Sletson
319. 1 Jul 2008 (printed as 7/1/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7749Richard Dixon
320. 30 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/30/2008)
     Reply
     222696Reply

     Rex Energy Corporation
321. 27 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/27/2008)
     Reply
     222679Reply

     Robindale Energy Services, Inc.
322. 23 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/23/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7583Steve Koser
323. 23 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/23/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7582Jean & Carol Koser
324. 19 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7580Robert C. Geiser
325. 19 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7579Cooper Township Supervisors

     Kylertown, PA
326. 19 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7578PA Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources

     Rebecca H. Bowen · Harrisburg, PA
327. 19 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7577Clearfield County Commissioners

     Clearfield, PA
328. 19 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7576Lee E. Fanning
329. 19 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7575Patricia A. Fanning
330. 17 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/17/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7555Marilyn A. Huffman
331. 17 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/17/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7554Kathryn E. Hood
332. 13 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/13/2008)
     Reply
     222612Reply

     People Protecting Communities
333. 13 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/13/2008)
     Motion
     222609Motion/Petition/Request

     People Protecting Communities
334. 13 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/13/2008)
     Motion
     222606Motion/Petition/Request

     People Protecting Communities
335. 13 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/13/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7533Michele L. Barbin
336. 12 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/12/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7447Anne DeHart
337. 12 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/12/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7446Martin Freed
338. 12 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/12/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7445Linda Morrow
339. 12 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/12/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7444Ed Mcdade
340. 12 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/12/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7443Deb Stewart
341. 10 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/10/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7418Federal Railroad Administration

     David Meyers · Crum Lynne, PA
342. 10 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/10/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7416Randall Earhart
343. 9 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/9/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7414Tina & Amanda Basalla
344. 9 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/9/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7413Benjamin Koser
345. 9 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/9/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7412Steve L. Szobocsan
346. 9 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/9/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7411Patricia Szobocsan
347. 5 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/5/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7410Leslie M. Shriver
348. 3 Jun 2008 (printed as 6/3/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7387Robert & Linda Andrews
349. 30 May 2008 (printed as 5/30/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7374PA Game Commission

     Kevin Mixon · Harrisburg, PA
350. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7360John & Janice Walker
351. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7359Audrey A. Mandel
352. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7358Joyce Pionke
353. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7357Gail English
354. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7356Lorrayne Martin
355. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7355Leonard L. Martin
356. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7354Robert Gretzler
357. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7353John Mandel
358. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7352Chester & Helen Defurio
359. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7351Michael J. Skripek
360. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7350Nicole Koser
361. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7349Jane E. Harting
362. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7348Harry & Dorothy Shive
363. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7347Gregory E. Harting
364. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7346Joel & Nancy Koser
365. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7345Patricia A. Fanning
366. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7344Carol Repasky
367. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7343Julie L. Verost
368. 29 May 2008 (printed as 5/29/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7342David Coulter
369. 28 May 2008 (printed as 5/28/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7341Brittany Harris
370. 23 May 2008 (printed as 5/23/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7327Mary Krisch-Zetts
371. 22 May 2008 (printed as 5/22/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7325Michael Pupach
372. 22 May 2008 (printed as 5/22/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7324Joyce Luzier
373. 22 May 2008 (printed as 5/22/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7323Frank R. Elder
374. 22 May 2008 (printed as 5/22/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7322Ronald & Genevieve Borger
375. 22 May 2008 (printed as 5/22/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7321Susan R. Stimer
376. 22 May 2008 (printed as 5/22/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7320Kristina Szobacsan
377. 22 May 2008 (printed as 5/22/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7319Steven R. Szobocsan
378. 22 May 2008 (printed as 5/22/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7318PA Senate

     State Senator Jake Corman · Bellefonte, PA
379. 22 May 2008 (printed as 5/22/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7317Mr. & Mrs. Robert Heck
380. 20 May 2008 (printed as 5/20/2008)
     Motion
     222417Motion To Dismiss Or Discontinue

     R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.
381. 20 May 2008 (printed as 5/20/2008)
     Motion
     222416Petition For Exemption

     R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.
382. 20 May 2008 (printed as 5/20/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7314Chuck Koser
383. 20 May 2008 (printed as 5/20/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7313Dawn & John Koser
384. 20 May 2008 (printed as 5/20/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7312Jennifer Koser
385. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7309Joan Guydosik
386. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7308William H. Fontes
387. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7307Jason Hall
388. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7306Eleanor Durachko
389. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7305Mary B. Casher
390. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7304Ginger Kendrick
391. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7303Larry D. Bavangardnce
392. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7302Andrew J. Pollack
393. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7301LeAnn Repasky
394. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7300Ronald E. Pollack
395. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7299William Amick
396. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7298Robert D. Ornsby
397. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7297Caroline Guydosik
398. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7296Jean E. Wiant
399. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7295Frederick A. Smith
400. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7294Ronald M. Rash
401. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7293Elmer L. Rockey
402. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7292Peggy L. Shope
403. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7291Fabio Pin
404. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7290Harry Pionke
405. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7289James Force
406. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7288Thomas Sayers
407. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7287George Verost
408. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7286PA House of Representatives

     Mike Hanna · Milesburg, PA
409. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7285Terri & Bob Burbidge
410. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7284Centre County Planning and Community Development Office

     Robert B. Jacobs · Bellafonte, PA
411. 19 May 2008 (printed as 5/19/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7282Leroy D. Hake
412. 16 May 2008 (printed as 5/16/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7278Clearfield County Planning Commission

     Jodi Brennan, Director · Clearfield, PA
413. 16 May 2008 (printed as 5/16/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7277Timothy R. Dunleavy
414. 16 May 2008 (printed as 5/16/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7276William Stugart
415. 15 May 2008 (printed as 5/15/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7274PA Fish & Boat Commission

     Christopher Urban · Bellafonte, PA
416. 15 May 2008 (printed as 5/15/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7273PennDOT

     Kevin Kline · Clearfied, PA
417. 15 May 2008 (printed as 5/15/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7272PA Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources

     Robert Merrill Jr. · Penfield, PA
418. 14 May 2008 (printed as 5/14/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7279Clearfied County

     County Commissioners · Clearfield, PA
419. 13 May 2008 (printed as 5/13/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7252USFWS

     David Densmore · State College, PA
420. 13 May 2008 (printed as 5/13/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7251Joseph Marasco
421. 13 May 2008 (printed as 5/13/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7250PA House of Representatives

     Camille George · Harrisburg, PA
422. 13 May 2008 (printed as 5/13/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7248Joseph Elslager
423. 13 May 2008 (printed as 5/13/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7245Stephen J. Heiser
424. 9 May 2008 (printed as 5/9/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7242PA Dept. of Environmental Protection

     Robert Yowell · Williamsport, PA
425. 9 May 2008 (printed as 5/9/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7241Natural Resources Conservation Service

     Tim Emenheiser · Harrisburg, PA
426. 9 May 2008 (printed as 5/9/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7240PA Bureau of Historic Preservation

     Douglas C. McLearen · Harrisburg, PA
427. 9 May 2008 (printed as 5/9/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7238Benjamin Tutolo
428. 8 May 2008 (printed as 5/8/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7231Wayne Yahn
429. 5 May 2008 (printed as 5/5/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7224Lauren A. Faye
430. 5 May 2008 (printed as 5/5/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7223Trilby Mayes
431. 5 May 2008 (printed as 5/5/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7221National Park Service

     Philadelphia, PA
432. 5 May 2008 (printed as 5/5/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7220Dominic Minichello

     PA
433. 5 May 2008 (printed as 5/5/2008)
     Comment
     EI-7219Evan Griffin

     State College, PA
434. 14 Apr 2008 (printed as 4/14/2008)
     Comment
     EO-850U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service & Attached Distribution List
435. 24 Jan 2008 (printed as 1/24/2008)
     Comment
     EO-782Fletcher & Sippel

     Ronald A. Lane
436. 24 Jan 2008 (printed as 1/24/2008)
     Comment
     EO-781Fletcher & Sippel

     Ronald A. Lane
437. 18 Jan 2008 (printed as 1/18/2008)
     Comment
     EI-3523Fletcher & Sippel

     Ronald A. Lane · Chicago, Illinois
438. 10 Jan 2008 (printed as 1/10/2008)
     Comment
     EI-3522Fletcher & Sippel

     Ronald A. Lane · Chicago, Illinois

Nothing of that kind in this docket.