[ad_1]
The US Coast Guard has completed an environmental review of a proposed new railroad bridge over the Missouri River between Bismarck and Mandan, setting the stage for a formal decision next month on whether the way for the BNSF Railway to cancel the 139-year. -old structure.
A group of citizens who have worked for years to save the Bismarck-Mandan Railroad Bridge on Wednesday said they are considering a legal battle to try to stop the demolition.
Meanwhile, North Dakota’s Department of Environmental Quality said this week it wants to sign off on the project under a provision of the state’s Clean Water Act that provides information on projects related to waters within its borders.
The bridge was built in 1883 and the spans were replaced in 1905. BNSF wants to demolish and replace the bridge to accommodate new rail traffic. The Coast Guard has been evaluating proposed projects across the river for nearly three years and whether the current structure can be maintained.
People are also reading…
The Environment Agency’s final report, issued late last month, did not. The Bismarck-Mandan Rail Bridge “is nearing the end of its useful life and will need to be replaced to facilitate the movement of future rail traffic along BNSF’s northern route,” the agency said.
Officials decided the best option was to remove the existing bridge and build a new one about 20 feet upstream.
That option “would avoid the need for retaining walls on the east and west sides of the Missouri River. It also means that there would be “no net increase in the 100-year elevation of the flood.”
The next step is a “record of decision” to complete the state’s position. The Coast Guard timeline indicates that December 1st.
BNSF views the final EIS as “a good way forward,” spokeswoman Amy McBeth said.
“We need to build a new bridge — this one is at the end of its life,” he said. “Moving North Dakota grain, moving coal, this bridge is an important part of our network, and infrastructure that we need to replace. We want to get started on that.”
The protest continues
The group Friends of the Rail Bridge, which hopes to preserve the existing bridge, released a lengthy statement criticizing the Coast Guard’s decision.
“The famous 1883 railroad bridge is six years older than the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and is as important to the identity of the Bismarck/Mandan community as the Eiffel Tower is to the people of France, as shown by the more than 6,000 people signed a petition to save it shortly after BNSF announced its intention (to) replace the 139-year-old bridge,” the nonprofit company said.
FORB says the Coast Guard’s decision was wrong.
“We still have a chance to save the bridge because of the many legal shortcuts and mistakes in the EIS,” said President Mark Zimmerman.
The federal decision would allow BNSF to build a one-track bridge with the ability to carry a second track in the future if the train is the right size.
FORB says officials failed to consider “the economic, social and environmental costs of running the two-way route through Bismarck/Mandan and the rest of North Dakota,” a violation of state law. The group also states that “BNSF has denied a realistic view of any type of protection that is in the best interests of the Bismarck Mandan community and the people of North Dakota.”
According to BNSF, planning for a future two-lane system is not part of the bridge replacement process, and it disputes the claim that it prevented bridge maintenance work.
“We’ve had five years and 20 meetings involving FORB, the Coast Guard and others,” McBeth said. “This is an open and transparent process, and FORB is a group.”
According to the study the process was “allowed to take into account the preservation of the existing bridge throughout.”
The Coast Guard said efforts by the advisory groups — one of which is FORB — “to identify ways to maintain the bridge that are technically and economically feasible have not been successful because of the high costs.” of the project and the rise of the flood.”
A 2019 feasibility study conducted by North Dakota State University estimated the cost to convert the existing structure into a footbridge at less than $7 million.
FORB has not raised money for the maintenance and restoration of the bridge, Zimmerman said.
“There has been interest and support from private foundations when deciding on the bridge’s status. The North Dakota Outdoor Recreation Fund will certainly be considered for possible financial assistance,” he said. “It’s hard to raise money for something whose status is undetermined.”
Power issue
The conservation group is concerned that the issue of who owns the Bismarck-Mandan Railroad Bridge has not been properly addressed.
FORB states that the state has taken ownership of the Missouri River bed up to the high water mark from the state station, with some permanent equipment attached. The group argues that North Dakota took control of navigable rivers from Congress when it became a state in 1889, and since Congress did not give control of the bridge to the railroads before the state joined the union, the state still owned the property.
The state believes there is no way to help save the bridge because it cannot be removed without permission from the State Historical Board. State Historic Preservation Officer Bill Peterson concluded that the bridge was historically important and that its removal “would have a negative impact on a historic property.”
BNSF has called the dispute “constitutionally frivolous,” and the state Attorney General’s Office has twice this year declined to get involved in the dispute.
The environmentalist said the railroad “revealed that BNSF’s title to the bridge was fragmentary … and that title did not enter North Dakota when it became a state in 1889.”
Attorney General Drew Wrigley declined to comment on the matter in April, suggesting the courts would be the appropriate venue for the dispute.
FORB said in its statement, adding that “it intends to take legal action and the necessary steps to correct these legal errors in obtaining permission to demolish the bridge last year 1883, and to protect and preserve the bridge to the fullest extent permitted by law.”
Another barrier
BNSF is about to clear another hurdle for the bridge project. The North Dakota Department of Environmental Protection this week issued a notice of intent to issue a water quality certificate for the bridge project.
The federal government gives that authority to states and nations under the Clean Water Act so they can protect the quality of federally regulated waters within their jurisdictions.
DEQ in its notice of proposal “based on discussions and data provided by BNSF customers, building a new bridge and removing the existing bridge … is feasible and supported water quality standards and writing and procedures.”
The state agency lists more than two dozen measures, from not dumping waste from the existing bridge into the river to reporting hazardous material spills. . BNSF must also obtain a land construction permit and develop a water quality monitoring plan. And explosives may not be used to remove the existing bridge.
Dismantling the bridge instead of blowing it up will keep parts of that bridge intact if some group wants to use it for historic maintenance purposes, McBeth said. He also has examples of using stones from pillars as interpretive symbols.
The public comment period runs through November 21. Comments can be sent to: Peter N. Wax, Environmental Scientist, NDDEQ, 4201 Normandy St., 3rd Floor, Bismarck, ND 58503-1324; or emailed to pwax@nd.gov.
What’s next
Once the Coast Guard issues its formal record of decision, BNSF will work to obtain state and federal approvals.
It will take the railroad 2-3 years to build a new bridge once physical work begins, McBeth said. The current bridge will remain in operation until the new bridge is operational, he said.
The bridge will be built to handle two tracks, but if the railroad chooses to add a second track in the future — including Bismarck-Mandan — it will have to go through another regulatory approval process, he said.
BNSF estimated at the beginning of the bridge replacement process that the new construction would cost $60 million, with the removal of the existing bridge on top of another $4 million, but the costs “will undoubtedly be step up,” McBeth said.
“We never thought it would be five years later,” he said.
[ad_2]
Source link
