Bridge blame spans state, federal offices
By KEN MIDKIFF
Published Friday, May 23, 2008
(http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/May/20080523Comm001.asp)

Is the U.S Coast Guard avoiding compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act by asking Union Pacific to "divorce" the Boonville lift bridge issue from the Osage River bridge?
Apparently so.

As reported in this newspaper May 11 ("Bridge for Sale?"), Union Pacific had previously submitted (in 2005) an application to the Coast Guard in which Union Pacific made it clear that materials - entire spans, actually - from the Boonville bridge would be used to construct the much-needed railroad bridge over the Osage River. Then, in response to a request by the Coast Guard that the application be resubmitted addressing only the Osage River bridge, Union Pacific did so. In the second application, there is no mention of the source of the materials. The Coast Guard insists it has no authority over the source of the materials and that was the reason for the "divorce."

But this is pure poppycock. A casual reading of NEPA and NHPA reveals the Coast Guard is clearly required to become involved in the removal of a bridge that is eligible for listing on the National Historic Register. All other federal agencies and a private entity that was under contract for bridge removal and construction also think so.

The Army Corps of Engineers in a letter said the Coast Guard was the lead agency regarding the Boonville bridge. OCCI, the company that was to demolish the bridge and move segments downriver, was awaiting Coast Guard action.

Although various Boonville bridge and Katy Trail advocates have asked for a full environmental impact statement to be completed regarding the removal of the Boonville bridge, the corps says it will "consider" this and notes again that the Coast Guard is the "lead agency." But the Coast Guard, rather than taking into account the public interest in this matter, has instead chosen to take into account only that of Union Pacific.

Our own Missouri Department of Natural Resources is complicit in this matter. Before the Army Corps of Engineers will issue a permit (called a 404 Permit, referring to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act), DNR must issue a statement/certificate that water quality will not be degraded. This certification has been issued and is being challenged. How is it possible to drop a large bridge - probably with lead-based paint - into the Missouri River and claim that water quality will not be harmed?

Not only that, but DNR Director Doyle Childers, in a sworn statement to a Missouri court, said the bridge is not on the National Register of Historic Places. Technically and legally, this is true. But the Boonville bridge, although not actually on the list, is eligible for such, and, by law, that eligibility requires that it be treated the same as if it were on the list. Childers is the state historic preservation officer and clearly knows that the Boonville bridge is historic and certain procedures must be observed. By saying it is not on the list, his statement was a misleading half-truth. He further attested that the bridge is not on the Register of Historic Places and hence no "loss" will be suffered. This is simply not so, and his statement might amount to perjury - which can be ascertained by the court to which this statement was made.

Attorney General Jay Nixon lost in state courts, so the matter is out of Missouri hands. The issue of the Boonville bridge has now been elevated to the federal level, where every agency seems to be shirking its responsibilities and pointing at every other agency.

It is a shame that this matter - so important to the future of the Katy Trail and the residents of Boonville - will be settled in federal court or in Congress. But with federal agencies refusing to observe federal law, it seems to be heading in that direction.