| SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT | |||
| Decision Information | |||
Docket Number:   | AB_1088_0_X | ||
Case Title:   | JACKSON, GORDONVILLE AND DELTA RAILROAD COMPANY--ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION--IN CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY, MO. | ||
Decision Type:   | Decision | ||
Deciding Body:   | Director Of Proceedings | ||
| Decision Summary | |||
Decision Notes:   | DECISION: (1) REOPENED THIS PROCEEDING; AND (2) MODIFIED THE NOTICE SERVED AND PUBLISHED ON JUNE 1, 2012. | ||
| Decision Attachments | |||
| 48 KB 31 KB | |||
| Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 37 Seconds | |||
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com. | |||
| Full Text of Decision | |||
|
42417 SERVICE DATE – LATE
RELEASE JULY 2, 2012 DO SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION Docket No. AB
1088X JACKSON,
GORDONVILLE AND DELTA RAILROAD COMPANY—ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION—IN CAPE GIRARDEAU
COUNTY, MO. Decided: July 2, 2012 This decision reopens the proceeding
to impose a public use condition and makes a Finding of No Significant Impact
under 49 U.S.C. § 1105.10(g). Jackson, Gordonville and Delta
Railroad Company (JGDR) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 C.F.R. §
1152 subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon approximately 13.3 miles
of rail line between its southern terminus at milepost 149.4 in the City of
Delta and its northern terminus at milepost 157.9 near Gordonville, in Cape
Girardeau County, Mo. (the line). Notice
of the exemption was served and published in the Federal Register on
June 1, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 32,714).
The exemption is scheduled to become effective on July 3, 2012. The Board’s Office of Environmental
Analysis (OEA) served an environmental assessment (EA) on June 8, 2012. In the EA, OEA recommended that three
conditions be imposed on any decision granting abandonment authority. First, OEA stated that during salvage operations,
JGDR would remove all rail appurtenances, including 22 bridges and six at-grade
crossings on the line, and would install bumpers or mounds along the top of
stream banks as a safety measure after the bridges have been removed. OEA stated that the installation of the
bumpers and mounds along the tops of stream banks may require prior
authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344) for any discharges of dredged or
fill materials into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. To ensure compliance with the Corps’
regulations, OEA recommended that, prior to commencement of any salvage
activities, a condition be imposed requiring JGDR to consult with the Corps regarding
potential impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands, and to
comply with the Corps’ reasonable requirements.
Second, OEA indicated that the installation
of the bumpers and mounds along the tops of the stream beds also may require
prior authorization from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and/or the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, Water Protection Program (MODNR), for any stormwater discharges. Therefore, OEA recommended that, prior to
commencement of any salvage activities, a condition be imposed requiring JGDR
to consult with EPA and MODNR to ensure that any concerns in the right-of-way (ROW)
are addressed regarding erosion and sedimentation and waste water discharge. Third, OEA indicated that the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Geodetic Survey (NGS) commented that two
geodetic station markers have been identified that may be affected by the
proposed abandonment. Accordingly, OEA
recommended that a condition be imposed requiring JGDR to consult with and notify
NGS at least 90 days prior to beginning salvage activities that will disturb or
destroy any geodetic station markers. Comments to the EA were due on June
25, 2012. Based on the comments
received, as discussed below, OEA finds that the three conditions previously
recommended in the EA are no longer applicable.
In comments on the EA, JGDR submitted
correspondence to OEA on June 8, 2012.
First, JGDR submitted a letter dated May 29, 2012, from Mr. Robert
Gramke, Missouri Section Chief, Regulatory Branch of the Corps. Mr. Gramke stated that a Section 404 permit
under the Clean Water Act would not be required for the proposed abandonment
because salvage operations would not impact any waters of the U.S. or
wetlands. Accordingly, because no
disturbance would occur, OEA has determined that the first condition is no
longer applicable. Accordingly, it will not
be imposed. Second,
JGDR submitted a letter dated April 18, 2012, addressed to Mr. David Stinson,
Chief, Engineering Unit, Southeast Regional Office, Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MODNR), providing a detailed account of JGDR’s salvage
procedure and the best management practices it would put into place should the
proposed abandonment be authorized. On
June 18, 2012, OEA had a follow-up discussion with Mr. Stinson regarding
whether a Section 402
permit under the Clean Water Act or a State Land Disturbance permit would be
required in accordance with the requirements of the second condition. Mr. Stinson indicated to OEA that neither of
these permits would be required because JGDR stated that its salvage procedure
would not result in any erosion, sedimentation, or stream discharges. In addition, no federal permits would be
required from EPA because MODNR has permitting authority from EPA to administer
EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater discharge
program. Therefore, based on the
information provided, OEA has determined that the second condition is no longer
applicable. Accordingly, it will not be
imposed. Lastly, JGDR
submitted email correspondence from May 7, 2012, and May 8, 2012,
exchanged among JGDR’s counsel, Mr. Simon Monroe of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NGS, Mr. Bob Adams, President of JGDR, and Mr.
Chris Kelley of Bowen Engineering and Surveying (BE&S). OEA states that, according to the correspondence,
the area of the proposed abandonment was field surveyed on April 9, 2012,
by BE&S and that the survey indicated that the two geodetic station markers
(N 141 and PTS F 4) previously identified by NGS as possibly being within the
approximate area of the proposed abandonment were not found. In the email correspondence, NGS acknowledges
this finding and indicates that it would need to be contacted only if geodetic
station markers are found. Therefore, because
the two geodetic stations markers in question were not found in the area of the
proposed abandonment and no other geodetic station markers have been identified
by NGS in the immediate area, OEA has determined that the third condition is no
longer applicable. Accordingly, it will
not be imposed. On June 21,
2012, OEA received a letter from Mr. Paul Strickland, chairman of a group of
adjacent landowners, raising several concerns about the proposed
abandonment. Mr. Strickland commented
that three waterways located near the rail line have caused erosion along the ROW. As a measure to prevent future erosion from
occurring, he recommends that, following abandonment, all railroad
appurtenances, including bridges, trestles, and roadbed, be removed and the
area appropriately restored. OEA considered the concerns of the
landowners and does not recommend any condition be imposed. OEA states that, as noted in the EA, following
abandonment, JGDR would remove all railroad appurtenances, including 22 bridges
and six at-grade crossings on the line, but would leave the roadbed and ballast
intact and grade the ROW to a relatively smooth condition. JGDR also would install bumpers or mounds
along the top of stream banks as a safety measure after the bridges have been
removed to prevent stormwater from funneling down the stream banks and thus
curtail erosion. According to OEA, JGDR’s
salvage procedure is a typical industry standard that both the Corps and MODNR
have reviewed and found to be acceptable in terms of water quality and quantity
control. Accordingly, the condition
advocated by the landowners will not be imposed.[1] There are
no remaining environmental or historic preservation issues that have been
raised by any party or identified by OEA.
Therefore, a Finding of No Significant Impact under 49 C.F.R. § 1105.10(g)
will be made pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1011.7(a)(2)(ix). In the EA, OEA states that the ROW
may be suitable for other public use following abandonment and salvage of the
line. On June 11, 2012, SEMO Greenways (SEMO)
filed a request for the issuance of a notice of interim trail use (NITU) for
the line under the National Trails System Act, 16
U.S.C. § 1247(d) (Trails
Act). SEMO has submitted a statement of
willingness to assume financial responsibility for the management of, for any
legal liability arising out of the transfer or use of (unless the user is
immune from liability, in which case it need only indemnify the railroad
against any potential liability), and for payment of any and all taxes that may
be levied or assessed against, the ROW, as required at 49 C.F.R. §
1152.29, and acknowledged that the use of the ROW for trail purposes is subject
to possible future reactivation for rail service. JGDR filed a letter on June 25,
2012, stating that JGDR’s board of directors intended to meet to determine JGDR’s
willingness to negotiate an interim trail use/rail banking agreement with SEMO. In a letter filed on June 28, 2012, JGDR
states that efforts to convene a meeting with the board of directors have been
unsuccessful. By letter filed on June
29, 2012, JGDR states that it will not negotiate with SEMO for an interim trail
use agreement. The Board’s authority to impose trail
use conditions is limited because the Board’s role under the Trails Act is
largely ministerial, see Citizens Against Rails-to Trails v. STB,
267 F.3d 1144, 1151-52 (D.C. Cir. 2001), and the trail use program is voluntary
and consensual between the railroad and the trail user, see Rail
Abans.—Use of Rights-of-Way as Trails, 2 I.C.C.2d 591, 598 (1986). Therefore, because JGDR does not agree to
negotiate trail use, a NITU will not be issued. SEMO also has requested imposition
of a public use condition under 49 U.S.C. § 10905 for the line. SEMO requests that JGDR be prohibited from
disposing of the corridor, other than the tracks, ties, and signal equipment,
except for public use on reasonable terms, and that JGDR be barred from
removing or destroying any potential trail-related structures, such as bridges,
trestles, culverts and tunnels, for a 180-day period from the effective date of
the abandonment exemption. As justification
for its request, SEMO states that the rail corridor would make an excellent
first phase of the first regional recreational trail in Southeast Missouri and
conversion of the property to trail use is in accordance with local plans,
including a regional trail plan included in the Comprehensive Plan of the City
of Jackson, Mo. SEMO states that a
second phase of the trail from Gordonville, Mo., to Jackson would have
immediate potential to connect to the existing and continually expanding
recreation trail systems of both the cities of Cape Girardeau and Jackson. SEMO states that the 180-day period is needed
to negotiate property acquisition with the railroad owners, complete a trail
plan, and secure the remaining funding for construction and maintenance. As an alternative to interim trail
use under the Trails Act, the ROW may be acquired for public use as a trail
under 49 U.S.C. § 10905. See Rail
Abandonments—Use of Rights-of-Way As Trails, 2 I.C.C.2d 591, 609
(1986). Under § 10905, the Board may
prohibit the disposal of rail properties that are proposed to be abandoned and
are appropriate for public purposes for a period of not more than 180 days
after the effective date of the decision and notice approving or exempting the abandonment. To justify a public use condition, a
party must set forth: (1) the condition
sought; (ii) the public importance of the condition; (iii) the period of time
for which the condition would be effective; and (iv) justification for the
imposition of the period of time requested.
See 49 C.F.R. § 1152.28(a)(2).
Because SEMO has satisfied these requirements, a 180-day public use
condition will be imposed, requiring SEMO to keep intact the ROW (including
bridges, trestles, culverts, and tunnels) and to refrain from disposing of the
corridor (other than tracks, ties, and signal equipment), commencing from the July
3, 2012 effective date of the exemption.
Also, a public use condition is not imposed for the benefit of any one
potential purchaser, but rather to provide an opportunity for any interested
person to acquire the ROW that has been found suitable for public purposes,
including trail use. Therefore, with
respect to the public use condition, JGDR is not required to deal exclusively
with SEMO, but may engage in negotiations with other interested persons. This
action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human
environment or the conservation of energy resources. It is ordered: 1.
This proceeding is reopened. 2.
SEMO’s request for issuance of a notice of interim trail use is denied. 3. Upon reconsideration, the notice served and
published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2012, exempting the
abandonment of the line described above, is modified to the extent necessary to
permit public use negotiations as set forth below for the ROW for a period of
180 days commencing from the July 3, 2012 effective date of the exemption
(until December 30, 2012). 4.
Consistent with the public use condition imposed in this decision, JGDR
may discontinue service and salvage track and related materials. JGDR shall keep intact the ROW, including
bridges, trestles, culverts, and tunnels, and shall refrain from disposing of
the corridor (other than tracks, ties, and signal equipment), for a period of
180 days to enable any state or local government agency, or other interested
person to negotiate the acquisition of the line for public use. 5.
Abandonment of the involved rail line will have no significant effect on
the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources or
on historic resources. 6.
This decision is effective on its date of service. By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings. [1] Mr. Strickland also commented that the landowners oppose the conversion of the ROW to trail use. He contends that the adjacent farmland is routinely sprayed (both aerially and land applied) with chemicals that could pose a hazard to anyone traversing the ROW. Further, Mr. Strickland states that the ROW should revert back to adjacent properties because of the unlikelihood that rail service would ever be restored, given the lack of demand for rail service on the line. The requests for interim trail use and public use conditions are discussed further infra. | |||