**The Medina County Environmental Action Association, Inc.**

202 CR 450, Hondo, TX 78861 Phone 830-741-5040 www.dontmesswithquihi.com
Fax 830-426-2060

Dr. Robert T. Fitzgerald, President Jacque Conrad, Secretary

Lester landrum, Vice-President mary walpole, Treasurer

Archie gerdes, Director Ted Portenier, Director

Joe Balzen, Director Dwight Biediger, Website

Alyne fitzgerald, communications erna balzen, membership

February 22, 2007

Surface Transportation Board

Attn: Victoria Rutson

Section of Environmental Analysis

1925 K Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20423-0001

Re: Finance Docket #34284

Dear Ms. Rutson:

The Board of Directors of Medina County Environmental Action Association
wish to submit the following comments relating to the Steptoe and
Johnson LLP letter of January 29, 2007. As you are aware, this letter
relates Vulcan Materials/SGR comments on the SDEIS urging the STB to
reinstate the SGR original proposed rail route and also asking for
modification of certain mitigation measures previously contained in the
DEIS and additional measures and modification of mitigation measures in
the SDEIS.

STB should note that the Vulcan/SGR requested changes in these
mitigation measures would make them ineffective in protecting the
environment that they were originally designed to protect and again
points out the fact that these projects were conceived without proper
environmental research. What is being asked of the STB is to lower their
standards, for example, of adding phrases to "the extent feasible" after
the word "ensure" in mitigative measure 5A.

In measure 15A, SGR is concerned that the use of lubricants "in the
vicinity of the Edwards Recharge Zone may raise its own set of potential
adverse impacts of such lubricants on the Recharge Zone." However, SGR
is not at all concerned about placing ten one-thousand gallon fuel
storage tanks on the very border of the Recharge Zone. This again, shows
Vulcan's callous disregard, ignorance and lack of planning for the
environmental safety of the Recharge Zone. If Vulcan wishes to truly
protect the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, it should locate the fuel
storage and maintenance area at the southern terminus where it would not
be environmentally hazardous to the Edwards Aquifer. Hopefully, this
issue will be resolved in the FEIS, should a permit be granted.

Voluntary Mitigation Measure #3 deals with welded rail. Some seven years
after this project was began, Vulcan now submits information from HDR
Engineering firm that is "may not be practical or economical to use
welded rail in the quarry loading area. SGR is asking that this noise
controlling measure (welded rail) as well as track lubricates now be
omitted, inferring that there will not be much noise created by slow
moving trains. We object to these callous assertions. Are the
inhabitants living near the quarry being told that their peaceful
environment that they sought is no longer possible so that Vulcan's
"economical and practical way of doing things" takes precedence over
their peace and quiet?

In Mitigation Measure #6, we strongly object to any changes in dealing
with highway crossing. What Vulcan seeks here is gaining the approval of
STB that grade separations over FM2676 and CR 4516 can be omitted. The
assumption in the DEIS being that there will be at-grade crossing with
appropriate warning devices. Inserting words and phrases such as
"consistent with recognized highway safety standards taking into account
the level of highway traffic at that crossing", and the term "where
appropriate", would allow Vulcan to never build grade separations. This
can not be allowed by STB. MCEAA firmly believes that grade separation
crossings are the only acceptable type of crossing for the above roads.
Vulcan has agreed to provide grade separation crossing at their expense
when required to so. It is up to STB to make this requirement
[now]{.underline} for the safety of the traveling public and to prevent
loss of life and property. We have reviewed your data concerning the
probability of accidents and/or deaths. But what is not taken into
account are the local conditions and the type of traffic that would
utilize these roads (which has been previously related to STB), and the
fact that this area is growing rapidly as San Antonio expands westward
into Medina County, less than twenty-five miles away. Medina County
Commissioners Court has previously stated that it wants the safest type
of crossings for its' county roads crossed by the railroad. Since CR4516
is the main road from Quihi to Castroville and Highway 90, a grade
separation should be required by STB. Do not allow Vulcan to escape its'
rightful duty by changing Mitigation #6.

Mitigation #24---SGR wishes to change the STB directive concerning
obtaining flood plain crossing permits from FEMA so as to make
mitigation #24 meaningless and/or unenforceable. MCEAA strongly objects
to allowing this change. SGR wants to cross flood plains (particularly
the Quihi Creek at CR365 location), utilizing trestle type bridges (as
is their intention for the proposed route and alternatives 1,2 and 3).
This is certain to cause more than a 12" rise in the flood plain when
debris is impounded by the trestle type bridges during heavy rainfall.
MCEAA has previously proven to STB in the publication concerning
flooding caused by trestle type bridges in Los Angeles County
California, and in the documentary "Texas Flash Flood Alley", that
debris in trestle bridges causes flooding. As STB is aware, its
selection of one of two eastern routes was made to prevent flooding,
coupled with the fact that the Historic landscape of the Quihi area
would be bypassed. Now SGR is again struggling to get the proposed
route, with all its severe environmental impacts, reinstated. SGR even
threatens that it will seek to use its right of preemption, if
mitigation measure #24 is not altered. MCEAA is adamant that this Vulcan
measure must not be altered or weakened. Vulcan's planned use of trestle
type bridges, which they claim are adequate, to ford streams and
floodplains, are based on annual and *[average]{.underline}* rainfall
calculations. However, ten inch, or even six inch rainfalls are common
in this area. We have even had a 22 in rainfall event in 24 hours in
recent years. Thus calculations by a licensed engineer, based on annual
or average rainfalls, will misled FEMA, STB, and the Corp of Engineers.
To be more accurate, calculations based on a ten-inch rainfall would be
more accurate in predicting a worst-case scenario. It must be remembered
that this rainfall amount would fall on an18,301-acre watershed above
the quarry's plant site and rail loop within the quarry should be
required by STB.

Mitigation #30---MCEAA understands SGR's concerns on this measure which
STB mitigation states that there should be avoidance of placing fill or
structures in the creek channel that would be crossed. This is
particularly true because the rail loop within the quarry lies between
two branches of the Polecat Creek and cannot be constructed in this
location without being in the creek channels. This means trestle type
bridges would be in some portions of the Polecat Creek. This sets the
stage for flooding into the quarry's plant site when debris from the
upland watershed clogs the trestle bridges. Vulcan's permanent berm
along the northern plant site will not be able to withstand floodwaters.
This is yet another example of poor planning and lack of research of the
area. Has the Corp. of Engineers approved this plan and reviewed the
placement of the rail line loop on trestle bridges in the Polecat Creek?
This must be done prior to FEIS so that this data can be reviewed and
challenged if necessary.

Mitigation #32---MCEAA would like to comment on the proposed change by
SGR from a 4:1 berm to a 2:1 berm. Since SGR has all but conceded that
it will not manage the rail line if it is even built, and instead will
seek another rail line to operate and manage the line. The new operator
should comment on this suggested change in berm rations. MCEAA believes
that SGR's desire to "pinch pennies" in building a rail line and then
disappearing from the responsibility of managing what it has created is
unwise at best. We would like reassurance that a rail line, if
permitted, would be safe and not one subject to derailments. We, in the
San Antonio area, have experienced enough of these in the recent past.
Please respond to this comment in the FEIS.

Mitigation #33---SGR requests to change this measure again demonstrating
its desire to circumvent environmental protection by clinging to "let us
do it our way" not STB's recommended way. Unless STB's recommendations
for preserving natural buffers contiguous to flood plains are honored,
Vulcan will destroy them with their version of "Best Management
Practices". MCEAA's recommendation is to leave #33 as written.

Mitigation #31---We strongly disagree with SGR's request to remove the
words "to the design of the rail line" from this mitigation measure.
Without it, well structures such as windmills, electric lines, above
ground water storage tanks and troughs and other structures could be
torn down or damaged by the rail line construction and for operation.

Mitigation #45---We agree with SGR in its opinion that much of the work
for the programmatic agreement has been done on the cultural resources.
STB's choice of an eastern route, such as the MCEAA variation of the
Medina Dam route, with only minor rail alignment change such as
avoidance of crossing CR 461, could be achieved by moving the rail line
50 feet to the west. This route change would bypass almost all of the
three historic areas noted in the DEIS and also would also eliminate the
increased flooding potential by crossing less flood plain distance than
any other eastern proposed route. We would like to comment on the
programmatic agreement once it is completed. Or better still, prior to
its completion as we have been informed by our telephone conversation on
February 22, 2007.

In closing, MCEAA wishes to thank STB for its time and patience in
considering the above responses to SGR comments. We believe that after
due consideration STB should maintain its opinion that an eastern route
is the least environmentally disruptive route, coupled with the
mitigation clauses that will best protect the adjacent environment and
issue the permit accordingly. If Vulcan is serious about building this
railroad and quarry, it will accept the permit and abide by the imposed
mitigations. If not, they can withdraw the permit application and start
trucking. We can live with that if they can.

Sincerely,

Dr. Bob Fitzgerald, President

Medina County Environmental Action Association

# 

**MCEAA, Inc., for your Home, Health, and Heritage**