From the Surface Transportation Board, this document concerning the attempt to abandon the Amador Foothills RR between Martell and Ione, CA: Fwd: STB 'Abandon Ship' dept. - Sierra Pacific/ AFRR, Ione to Martell CA (cont'd) 35317 SERVICE DATE - FEBRUARY 25, 2005 EB SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION AND NOTICE OF INTERIM TRAIL USE OR ABANDONMENT STB Docket No. AB-512X SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES –ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION– IN AMADOR COUNTY, CA STB Docket No. AB-880X SIERRAPINE –DISCONTINUANCE EXEMPTION– IN AMADOR COUNTY, CA Decided: February 23, 2005 By petition filed on November 12, 2004, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) and SierraPine (collectively, petitioners) jointly seek exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903. SPI seeks to abandon, and SierraPine seeks to discontinue service over, a line of railroad extending from milepost 0.0 at Ione to milepost 12.0 at Martell, in Amador County, CA. Notice of the filing was served and published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2004 (69 FR 70169). The Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) filed a request for imposition of a public use condition and issuance of a notice of interim trail use (NITU) under the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) (Trails Act). Protests and comments were filed by ACTC, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Amador, California (County), the California Department of Transportation (Cal DOT), and the Martell Industrial Center, LLC (MIC) (collectively, protestants). Petitioners filed a reply to the protests and comments. We will grant the exemptions, subject to public use, trail use, and environmental conditions. PRELIMINARY MATTER On January 10, 2005, petitioners jointly filed a motion for leave to file a reply to the comments received in opposition to their petition for exemption. Petitioners included with their motion the reply itself. None of the other parties replied to petitioners’ motion. Similarly, MIC requests that we accept its January 7, 2005 filing, a late-filed protest. We will accept MIC’s protest and grant petitioners’ motion. These filings provide a more complete record and their acceptance does not prejudice any party. Furthermore, the pleadings were filed in time for us to adequately consider them without jeopardizing our ability to meet our statutory deadline. BACKGROUND In 1997, SPI acquired the line, associated tracks, and a mill complex located near the end of the line at Martell. See Sierra Pacific Industries -Acquisition and Operation Exemption– Amador Central Railroad Company, STB Finance Docket No. 33378 (STB served Apr. 9, 1997). All mill operations except for a particle board plant were shut down at that time. According to petitioners, SierraPine bought the particle board plant (also referred to as the Ampine plant) in May 1997. SierraPine then entered into an agreement with SPI to lease and operate the line and associated yard and spur tracks. See SierraPine–Lease and Operation Exemption–Sierra Pacific Industries, STB Finance Docket No. 33679 (STB served Dec. 11, 1998). SierraPine began to operate the line in 1999. According to petitioners, there have been problems with rail operations as a result of the poor track conditions. In November 2003, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) advised SierraPine that inspections had identified 123 defective track conditions, based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) track standards, on 5 miles of the line. SierraPine then met with representatives of CPUC and FRA and proposed a 5-year remediation plan. According to the petitioners, the CPUC and FRA representatives approved this plan and advised that compliance with it would be required for SierraPine to continue operating and avoid civil penalties. Following two major derailments, in February and March of 2004, SierraPine concluded that the risk of future derailments was too high, and it ceased operations on June 3, 2004. On July 7, 2004, SierraPine formally embargoed the line. While the line was in service, SierraPine primarily served its Ampine plant. Between 1999 and 2004, SierraPine transported approximately 2,100 cars to and from its facility. SierraPine also provided some rail service to a facility near the end of the line at Martell. SierraPine transported 17 inbound cars during 1999 and 2000 to the first owner of the facility, Fiberform. In 2000, Fiberform apparently sold the facility to MIC, which then leased the facility to Landmark Trim USA (Landmark Trim). Between 2000 and June of 2004, SierraPine transported 183 carloads to Landmark Trim. Landmark Trim ceased operating at MIC’s facility in October 2004. MIC’s facility now houses two new tenants: MidValley Trust (which began operations in June 2004) and GlobalMolding (which began operations in December 2004). While the line was in service, however, the shippers also used truck transportation to meet their shipping needs, and they now rely on it exclusively. According to SierraPine, before the line was embargoed, most of the transportation needs of its Ampine plant were met by trucks, using two state highways that serve the Martell area. Petitioners state that the operating, maintenance, and capital costs of the line have far exceeded the revenues generated from operating it. According to petitioners, from 1999 through June 2004, costs have totaled at least $1,628,649, exceeding total revenues ($596,881) by $1,031,768. Petitioners believe that the financial situation will only worsen, given that SierraPine has decided to ship by truck, and that there is no reasonable alternative to discontinuing rail service and abandoning the line. The petitioners estimate that the operating, maintenance, and capital costs incurred between June 2004 and 2010, which would include the costs associated with the CPUC/FRA required remediation plan, would amount to more than $6 million. They further estimate that, even if SierraPine were to resume shipments by rail during the forecast period (2004-2010), the costs would exceed revenues by more than $4.8 million. ACTC opposes the petition for exemption. ACTC contends that the exemption criteria are not met here and that the petitioners should be required to file a formal application. ACTC basically argues that the Board’s rail transportation policy requires a more probing examination of the effects of abandoning and discontinuing service over the line. In particular, ACTC would have us require the petitioners to explain the effects of the proposed abandonment and discontinuance on the potential for restoration of passenger service on the line, one of ACTC’s long-term goals. ACTC further argues that the petitioners should be required to explain how the proposed abandonment and discontinuance would affect the Martell Business Park (SPI’s proposed business park which was to be served by the line) and why petitioners no longer wish to serve it. ACTC also asserts that the line is important to the economic development of Amador County, and it would have us require the petitioners to explain more fully how the proposed abandonment and discontinuance would affect the area. MIC also filed a protest. According to MIC, the availability of rail service is important to attracting new business to the undeveloped portions of its facility and keeping current business. It asserts that future tenants could bring increased traffic onto the line. Additionally, MIC points to a letter it sent to SierraPine while Landmark Trim was leasing MIC’s plant in which MIC stated that the cessation of rail service substantially hurt Martell’s plant and its tenant. In the same vein, the County opposes the proposed abandonment and discontinuance of service because it believes these actions would hurt the commercial life of Amador County. The County argues that rail service is important to some existing and prospective businesses. Moreover, the County fears that abandonment and discontinuance of service would detrimentally affect a connecting segment of track operated by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). The County also suggests that allowing the petitioners to abandon and to discontinue service over the line would increase automobile emissions. Similarly, CalDOT states in its comment that granting the abandonment and discontinuance could hurtMartell’s economy and increase truck traffic on state highways. [...] Full Text of Decision at: http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/51d7c65c6f78e79385256541007f0580/dee0869c59a7a05b85256fb1004e555e?OpenDocument or http://tinyurl.com/59pdv
For you fans of the Amador Central/Amador Foothills RR, here's an email I got today with the latest development: Mr. Barnhill...My name is Larry Bowler. I am a co-founder and President of Recreational Railroad Coalition Inc., RRC is a consortium of speeder car owners/operators who became concerned with the plethora of closures of historic rails formerly available to the speeder folks to operate their historic track inspection vehicles. After incorporating in California as a 501(c)7 we began negotiations with short line railroads with the focus on leasing the rails exclusively for recreation & education activities. Currently we hold leases on the Linden Branch of the ST&E and the Amador Foothill Railroad. We have designated these corridors as "recreational railroads". This is our attempt to preserve rails with historic value. You are welcome to review our website at http://www.handcar.net/rrc It's a work in progress but it has documented history as to our development and our purpose.
Well, it seems to be good news! The rails stay in place. And active. Let's hope it's the best deveopment for future survival of those lines. Boxcab E50
