From where is this "investment" you speak of going to come? The County is investing, in a trail. They gave the CMRR 30 years to make a return on the rail line. It didn't work. Now CMRR has a small, manageable piece to use in Kingston and are making a go of it.

We will have to see what happens at or by March 21.

The only thing which may or may not happen by March 21st is that Mr. Heffner may or may not file various motions in response to the County's pleading.

If someone could give me a bit of summary on this, my 56k and STB's server still gives a rucuss and 28 megs makes it impossible to get.

The Board should strike certain portions of Ulster County's Reply The Board's rules of practice provide that the Board may strike material that is redundant or irrelevant. 49 CFR § 1104.8. The four inches of exhibits attached to the verified statement of County witness Christopher White fit those criteria and should be stricken. Specifically, U&D asks the Board to strike the following exhibits:

Exhibit E, Annual report (1977). 41 years old and of no relevance.

Exhibit F, Environmental Assessment (1991). 27 years old and of no relevance.

Exhibit H, CE Maguire Report (1978). 40 years old and of no relevance.

Exhibit I, TAD Report (1979). 39 years old and of no relevance.

Exhibit K, Notice of Default (2013). Irrelevant as it pertains to litigation between CMRR and the County, a matter outside the STB 's jurisdiction.

Exhibits L through N, HDR Report. Pictures of the deterioration of the Line. Unnecessarily redundant. Not necessarily indicative of abandonment in a legal sense but could support an adverse abandonment application.

Exhibit 0, Pictures. Redundant and irrelevant. Not necessarily indicative of abandonment in a legal sense but could support an adverse abandonment application.

Exhibit P, Rail Trail Project pictures. Irrelevant on the issue of abandonment and, if abandoned, irrelevant on the issue of whether the NTA applies.

Exhibit Q, Washout pictures. Redundant and irrelevant.

Exhibit R, New York State Attorney General eminent domain letter. Irrelevant. Indication that New York is providing funding for property acquisition. Has no bearing on abandonment or NTA eligibility.

Exhibit S, Pictures. Redundant and irrelevant. Not necessarily indicative of abandonment in a legal sense but could support an adverse abandonment application.

Exhibit T, Alta Trail Study (2006). Irrelevant.

Exhibit U, Camoin Report (2013). Irrelevant.

Exhibit W, Numerous county resolutions. Irrelevant.

Exhibit Z, New York State SHPO correspondence. Irrelevant.

These documents should be stricken because they are either very old (as much as 40 years old) or have no bearing on the basic issues of whether the Line has been "abandoned" in the legal sense or, if abandoned, it is eligible to be converted to trail use under the NT A. Also they should be stricken as they are voluminous and highly redundant. In addition, Mr. White's testimony contains repeated page references to unidentified documents such as White V.S. at 2. U&D does not know what that means and the Board may not too.

If someone could give me a bit of summary on this, my 56k and STB's server still gives a rucuss and 28 megs makes it impossible to get.

IV. CONCLUSION
U&D requests that the Board strike numerous exhibits accompanying the County's Reply as redundant and irrelevant to the issues presented by U&D's petition. It urges the Board to accept its response to the County's Reply in order to provide a complete record and correct a distorted presentation of the facts. It further asks the Board to find that the Line has not been fully abandoned and to order the County to cease its salvage activities absent Board authorization. Should the Board conclude that the Line has been abandoned, it asks the Board to rule that the Line is not eligible for designation for trail use pursuant to the NTA.