(The Clear Lake Citizen posted the following story by Mary Alys Cherry on its website on May 7.)
CLEAR LAKE, Texas — The proposed $80 million San Jacinto Railroad got the nod Friday at the federal agency that permits such projects — setting off a flurry of activity here in the Bay Area.
The Surface Transportation Board announced that its Section of Environmental Analysis had issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed 12.8 mile rail line out of the Bayport Industrial District.
The STB was to make the final decision Friday, May 9, but it was expected to rubber-stamp the FEIS review, which found no environmental problems with any of several proposed rail routes – two of which would snake around the northern edge of Clear Lake City, near Armand Bayou Nature Center and not far from several up-scale neighborhoods.
In addition to passing next to NASA’s big Sonny Carter swimming pool, where astronauts train, it would skirt by Bay Oaks, Bay Knoll, Bay Pointe, Northfork and Pine Brook, and nearby schools before connecting with the tracks along Highway 3 near Ellington Field.The STB designated Route 1C, which comes the closest to Clear Lake homes, as the preferred alternative after the Federal Aviation Agency objected to the first proposed route.
The STB said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also had reviewed the Draft EIS and had a “lack of objections” to the project.After the STB approval, there is a 30-day period for appeals.
The Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association chairman, environmental attorney Jim Blackman, promised to appeal while Congressman Nick Lampson called for a public hearing on the controversial line.
The GBCPA, Blackburn said this weekend, “thinks the Final Environmental Impact Statement, like the…draft, for the proposed San Jacinto Rail line is biased and violates federal law.
“It is clear we will not get a fair hearing from the Surface Transportation Board on this issue. For this reason, we have made the commitment to stop this project which endangers the citizens of Clear Lake and the east end of Houston.
“We expect to be filing litigation in the United States Court of Appeals as soon as a final decision is made by the SBC,” he added.Congressman Lampson, noting the “huge number of citizens and community leaders” who commented on the Draft EIS, sent a letter to the STB Friday regarding public input.
“I urge the STB to hold a public event in the local area regarding the FEIS…to provide an opportunity for the STB and other local experts to (give) critical explanations regarding the many issues surrounding…(this) project.”
Congressman Gene Green was quick to express his disappointment and frustration that the STB would likely approve the project today.”The STB did not respond to hundreds of public comments, including ones from elected officials,” he said. “They let the project slice up east Houston, and did nothing for unsafe at-grade crossings,” he added.
Green has sponsored legislation designed to require that the STB give greater weight to public comments on projects planned in residential areas.
State Rep. John Davis also has proposed legislation to tighten regulations for rail line construction in an attempt to halt the proposed San Jacinto Rail.
City Councilwoman Addie Wiseman hoped to get help while in the nation’s capital this week and Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs was looking into city ordinances that she says require city council approval before the rail can be constructed.
“This was not a surprise” she said after consuming the earlier Draft Environmental Impact Statement, adding, “we have ordinances…to regulate rail that require City Council approval.
The proposal has been met with an outcry from hundreds of residents and their homeowner associations, along with the Mayor Lee Brown of Houston, Congressmen Nick Lampson and Chris Bell, several Houston city council members, state legislators and other elected officials.
GBCPA Vice Chairman Katie Chimenti pointed out that the railroad would have transportation impacts all over the area. “There’s too many rail lines already,” she observed, adding that rail traffic blocks intersections and roads, slowing down the area’s mobility.Meanwhile, Henry de La Garza, spokesman for the partnership that proposes to build the rail line expressed pleasure that the matter was near settlement.
“We are very pleased that the environmental review of the project has been completed and commend the agencies on their hard work on a host of complex and technical issues,” he said, adding that the partnership looks forward “to the next steps in moving the project forward.”
The project, first announced in August 2001, was proposed by a partnership formed by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and four Bayport chemical companies – Lyondell Chemical Co., Equistar Chemicals, Basell USA and Atofina Petrochemicals.
The four companies say they formed the partnership because Union Pacific Railroad has a monopoly at the industrial site north of Seabrook where they are located and they are being charged nearly double the shipping costs they pay elsewhere.Union Pacific has refused to lower its rates.
“I think it’s going to be a long summer,” one source said.