1 BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT ) OF TRANSPORTATION, ) 3 ) Complainant, ) 4 vs. ) DOCKET NO. TR-961002 BURLINGTON NORTHERN ) VOLUME 1 5 SANTA FE RAILROAD, ) PAGES 1 - 27 ) 6 Respondent. ) --------------------------------) 7 A prehearing conference in the above matter 8 was held on May 7, 1997 at 9:30 a.m., at 323 Northeast 9 1st Street, Winlock, Washington, before Administrative 10 Law Judge MARJORIE R. SCHAER. 11 12 The parties were present as follows: 13 CITY OF WINLOCK, by MARK SCHEIBMEIR, City Attorney, P.O. Box 939, Chehalis, Washington 98532. 14 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 15 TRANSPORTATION, by DEBORAH L. CADE, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 40113, Olympia, Washington 98504. 16 BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD, by 17 REXANNE GIBSON, Attorney at Law, 110 - 110th Avenue Northeast, Suite 607, Bellevue, Washington 98004. 18 THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION 19 COMMISSION STAFF, by ANN E. RENDAHL, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 40128, Olympia, Washington 20 98504-0128. 21 22 23 24 Kathryn T. Wilson Court Reporter 25 00002 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 JUDGE SCHAER: The hearing will come to 3 order. This is a hearing in Docket No. TR-961002, which 4 is a filing by the Washington State Department of 5 Transportation seeking authority to close a grade 6 crossing at the intersection of State Highway 505, 7 commonly known as Walnut Street and reroute traffic along 8 Front Street to Fir Street, all within the City of 9 Winlock, Washington. The petition alleges that the 10 crossing constitutes a safety hazard. 11 Burlington Northern has filed its answer 12 waiving its hearing in this matter. The City of Winlock 13 has moved to intervene setting forth a number of 14 objections to closure of the railroad crossing. 15 This is a prehearing conference that was set 16 by a Notice of Prehearing Conference dated March 31st 17 1997. It's taking place on May 7th, 1997 at Winlock, 18 Washington. The hearing is being held before 19 Administrative Law Judge Marjorie R. Schaer. 20 We had a brief discussion off the record 21 before we went on the record this morning, and I 22 indicated we would take appearances first. After that, 23 we will take petition to intervene. Then we will go off 24 the record to discuss the current status of the 25 proceeding and which issues are before the Commission, 00003 1 scheduling, and other matters. So let's begin with 2 appearances starting with the appearance of the 3 petitioner, please. 4 MS. CADE: My name is Deborah Cade. I'm an 5 assistant attorney general representing the petitioner, 6 Washington State Department of Transportation. 7 JUDGE SCHAER: Would you give your address, 8 please? 9 MS. CADE: My business address is P.O. Box 10 40113, Olympia, Washington 98504. 11 JUDGE SCHAER: Thank you, and the respondent, 12 please? 13 MS. GIBSON: Representing the respondent, 14 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, Rexanne 15 Gibson, and my address is 110 110th Avenue Northeast, 16 Suite 607, Bellevue, Washington 98004. 17 JUDGE SCHAER: And for the Commission Staff, 18 please? 19 MS. RENDAHL: Ann Rendahl, assistant attorney 20 general, representing Commission staff. My address is 21 P.O. Box 40128, Olympia, Washington 98504-0128. 22 JUDGE SCHAER: Thank you, and for the City? 23 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: Mark Scheibmeir. That's 24 S-C-H-E-I-B-M-E-I-R. I'm substituting for Bill Hillier, 25 my partner in this matter. My address is P.O. Box 939 in 00004 1 Chehalis, 98532. 2 JUDGE SCHAER: The first order of business 3 this morning is the Motion to Intervene, and I assume 4 that everyone here has received a copy of the Motion to 5 Intervene by the City of Winlock; is that correct? 6 Mr. Scheibmeir, do you have anything to add 7 to your petition? 8 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: By way of adding, I guess 9 I'm not certain as to the scope of that question. New 10 and different issues, you mean? 11 JUDGE SCHAER: Are there any additional 12 grounds that you wish to set out for intervention? 13 Anything further that's not in your written Motion to 14 Intervene that you would like the Commission to 15 consider? 16 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: I'm sorry. I don't think 17 so. I think those are well enough laid out. The 18 Petition to Intervene incorporates the objection to the 19 DNS, the SEPA DNS, and I think those objections well 20 state the City's position on this issue. 21 JUDGE SCHAER: Is there any objection to the 22 participation of the City of Winlock in this matter? 23 Hearing no objection, I will grant the 24 Petition to Intervene. Is there any other party present 25 in this room that wishes to intervene in this matter at 00005 1 this time? 2 JUDGE SCHAER: Hearing no response, we will 3 consider the interventions closed. 4 Next, I would like to confirm that the people 5 who have been identified as counsel for each party here 6 today will be the contact person for that party and that 7 correspondence or other communications in this matter may 8 be sent to those persons, and they will communicate 9 further with their clients. Is that correct for 10 everyone? 11 Next, if you have them with you, I would like 12 to get fax numbers for each of counsel put on the record 13 so that if we do need to act quickly at any point, we may 14 reach you by fax, or you may reach each other by telefax, 15 and starting again with the petitioner. 16 MS. CADE: Deborah Cade. My fax number is 17 (360) 586-6847. 18 JUDGE SCHAER: The respondent? 19 MS. GIBSON: My fax number is (425) 625-6517. 20 JUDGE SCHAER: Ms. Rendahl? 21 MS. RENDAHL: (360) 586-5522. 22 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: (360) 748-9533. 23 JUDGE SCHAER: Thank you. At the outset, I 24 would like to hear a brief description from the parties 25 of where we are in this proceeding. I know the 00006 1 proceeding has been ongoing and that there has been some 2 kind of environmental proceeding before the DOT, and I 3 would like the parties to address the relationship of 4 that proceeding to this petition and just kind of an 5 outline of where we are, if we could do that as briefly 6 as you would wish. 7 Ms. Rendahl, would you like to start, and 8 I'll go this way? 9 MS. RENDAHL: There is no objection from the 10 Counsel. That's fine. 11 JUDGE SCHAER: Okay. 12 MS. RENDAHL: I don't think it's in any of 13 the documents that you may have in your file. I think 14 you may just have the Notice of Prehearing Conference, in 15 addition to the petitions filed and responses. 16 But the reason this whole proceeding is 17 happening is that over the past 10, 15, 20 years there 18 have been a few accidents at the Winlock crossing 19 involving trucks that have gotten caught up on the 20 crossing, and the State has been a party in lawsuits 21 arising out of those accidents. 22 The interest from the State's perspective -- 23 I guess also speaking for DOT here -- is that there is a 24 safety issue at that crossing, and it should be resolved, 25 and I think that's why DOT filed it's petition to close. 00007 1 Prior to DOT filing it's petition to close, 2 all of the parties present had a series of discussions to 3 review all of the possible options for this crossing, and 4 it's my hope that those options will be discussed in the 5 hearing and the pros and cons of those, and why the 6 Department of Transportation chose to file its position 7 to close the crossing and reroute the traffic through Fir 8 Street. 9 I see the issues from the Staff's perspective 10 as how should the Commission address this crossing to 11 promote the safest option for the traveling public, both 12 along through Winlock and also along the railroad track. 13 What's safest for the city and also what's safest for 14 those traveling along the railroad track so there are no 15 accidents occurring at that crossing. 16 And also I see from the objection of the City 17 that there is a SEPA issue. I'm not a SEPA expert, so 18 I'll leave that description of those issues to the City 19 and DOT, but it looks like there is an issue raised about 20 the DNS and whether all of the issues in SEPA have been 21 addressed. 22 JUDGE SCHAER: I'm interested in the 23 jurisdictional part of that question. Are those issues 24 that Commission should be considering, or are those 25 issues that the DOT considered in doing the checklist and 00008 1 should have been appealed from the DOT determination? 2 MS. RENDAHL: I'll defer some of those issues 3 to the DOT attorney. It's my understanding that the DOT, 4 as the party proposing this project, that as a government 5 agency making a proposal, it's the lead agency, and 6 therefore will make whatever SEPA determination should be 7 made. Beyond that, I'll let Ms. Cade describe whether 8 the DOT or whether this agency, the Commission, is the 9 appropriate agency to continue that process. 10 JUDGE SCHAER: I'd like to hear on that from 11 the City as well. I'm not sure you'll agree with what 12 the DOT has to say. When we get to you, that is one 13 issue that has been raised for me. 14 All I've seen are the petition and answer in 15 the Petition to Intervene which attaches the SEPA 16 materials, so that's the extent of information that's 17 provided to me at this point. That's why I'm trying to 18 get a little bit more familiar in where we are and why 19 the different issues are being decided. Is there 20 anything else you wanted to add? 21 MS. RENDAHL: That's all. 22 JUDGE SCHAER: Ms. Gibson? 23 MS. GIBSON: Your Honor, I wouldn't have 24 anything to add on the SEPA issues that you're interested 25 in. Ms. Rendahl mentioned the options that were 00009 1 discussed by the parties prior to the petition being 2 filed, and I think that at some point today, it might 3 behoove everyone to try another discussion of the options 4 to see if anything has changed since the time of the last 5 discussions. Otherwise, I don't have anything else. 6 JUDGE SCHAER: Okay. If those discussions 7 are not fruitful and the case goes forward, then you will 8 be here as a respondent to the DOT position? 9 MS. GIBSON: Right. 10 JUDGE SCHAER: What kind of information do 11 you foresee putting forward? 12 MS. GIBSON: Obviously, we're in support of 13 the petition. We would contemplate putting on probably 14 somewhere between four and six witnesses should this 15 matter go to hearing. 16 We would have a manager of operating 17 practices or a train master, someone like that, with 18 locomotive engineering experience from Burlington 19 Northern and a similar person from Amtrak, so that would 20 be two. 21 We would also have the Burlington Northern 22 road master who is responsible for maintenance of track 23 in this area and a representative from the engineering 24 department at Burlington Northern and probably a 25 consultant, who Burlington Northern had hired to 00010 1 investigate the prospect of making some physical changes 2 to the crossing in order to keep it open and found that 3 that was cost prohibitive and generally infeasible, so we 4 would probably put that person on. And there may be one 5 other witness, but I would think that maximum would be 6 six witnesses. 7 JUDGE SCHAER: Ms. Cade? 8 MS. CADE: Well, I would also agree with 9 Ms. Rendahl in stating that the general issue before the 10 Commission in this petition is whether this particular 11 grade crossing should be closed in the interest of public 12 safety. And again, that's based on a history of some 13 fairly significant and costly accidents at that crossing 14 which DOT has been a party to some of the torte 15 litigation. 16 With regard to the SEPA issues, this request 17 to close the crossing and the closing of the crossing 18 itself, we would consider to be a major governmental 19 action under SEPA that requires us to comply with the 20 requirements of SEPA. That generally begins with 21 completing an environmental checklist, which has been 22 done. After that checklist, the Department, as the lead 23 agency, makes a determination as to whether there are 24 significant adverse environmental impacts that require 25 the examination of alternatives. 00011 1 The Department made its threshold 2 determination that there are not significant adverse 3 environmental impacts and issued a Determination of 4 Nonsignificance. DOT is the lead agency under the SEPA 5 rules. The SEPA rules set out how the lead agency 6 determined, and when the project proponent is a 7 governmental agency, then that agency is the lead agency 8 for SEPA purposes. 9 If two private parties were coming before the 10 Commission, then the Commission's action itself might be 11 that major governmental action, and the Commission might, 12 in that circumstance, be a SEPA lead agency. In this 13 case, it is not. It's DOT that's the lead agency. 14 I don't believe that the Commission -- as 15 opposed to, say, one of the environmental hearings boards 16 -- the Commission does not have authority to review 17 compliance with SEPA, and I believe that the issue of 18 SEPA compliance is one -- that if the City of Winlock or 19 any other party wishes to challenge -- that has to be 20 done in Superior Court under the SEPA rules and under the 21 SEPA statute. 22 JUDGE SCHAER: When was that DNS issued? 23 MS. CADE: I knew that was going to be the 24 next question. July 24th, 1996, is when the DNS was 25 signed by the project engineer. 00012 1 JUDGE SCHAER: So when was the appeal period 2 on that? 3 MS. CADE: The appeal period kind of depends 4 on who the party is. If it's a party that has actual 5 notice of when the DNS has been issued, then they 6 generally have -- I believe it's 20 days. I believe the 7 statute has changed recently. 8 There's a question here as to whether the 9 governmental action has taken place yet, and it's 10 actually the governmental action that is appealed from 11 rather than the SEPA itself. SEPA documents are not 12 decision documents, and they do not independently create 13 a right of appeal. It's the governmental action that 14 creates the right of appeal. 15 JUDGE SCHAER: So it's not clear whether that 16 action is final? 17 MS. CADE: It's not clear right now. 18 JUDGE SCHAER: So in our deliberations in 19 this proceeding, that is somewhat of an unresolved 20 question. Is that the best way to view it from that 21 perspective? 22 MS. CADE: At this point, the issue of SEPA 23 compliance and when the time period begins to run or has 24 run, at least as far as my knowledge goes, is unclear. 25 That's not to say that it hasn't, that the 00013 1 time period hasn't run yet. But I don't believe that 2 it's an issue for the Commission to consider. I think 3 it's an issue that is separate from this proceeding. 4 It's a process that DOT has to comply with but which has 5 a separate appeal process outside of Commission 6 jurisdiction. 7 JUDGE SCHAER: Mr. Scheibmeir? 8 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: With respect to the SEPA 9 issues, I don't think that there's anything more to add 10 other than the Department of Transportation issued its 11 Determination of Nonsignificance last year, notified the 12 City of Winlock of that event and advised the City that 13 it had appeared in 15 days to respond, which the City 14 did, objecting to the lead agency's determination that 15 there was no significant impact upon the environment by 16 this action and itemizing fairly extensively the reasons 17 why. I'm not going to repeat everything in that 18 objection. Again, that objection was incorporated into 19 the City's petition or response in this matter as well. 20 The City is strongly opposed to the proposed 21 action here. As you may have noticed when you were 22 arriving in Winlock, if you came in from that direction, 23 (Indicating.) you would have observed that the train 24 lines bisect the City of Winlock and therefore create two 25 different portions of the town. There are only two 00014 1 existing crossings of those railroad tracks between the 2 two portions of the city. 3 The crossing proposed to be eliminated, the 4 Walnut Street crossing, has been in existence for more 5 than a hundred years. It was there when the city was 6 originally founded, and the city has been developed 7 around that crossing. 8 What makes the circumstances relatively 9 unique in this situation is that governmental services 10 are equally divided between both sides of the railroad 11 tracks, and the elimination of that crossing would have a 12 profound effect on the providing of governmental services 13 to the citizens of Winlock and the surrounding area. 14 To be a bit more specific, the police 15 department is incorporated into this building that we are 16 located right now, and so it's on this side of the tracks 17 and must get across one of those two crossings to service 18 a significant portion of the population. 19 Conversely, the fire department, the 20 emergency services department, and the ambulance service 21 are located on the other side of the tracks and again, 22 must cross those tracks to get to a significant portion 23 of the population. 24 Similarly, our school system is equally 25 divided on both sides of the track. The elementary 00015 1 school is on that side of the tracks. The upper grades 2 are on this side of the tracks. (Indicating.) So if we 3 eliminate one of the two existing crossings, we have a 4 profound effect on all of those governmental services. 5 What is problematic in this situation is that 6 the alternative crossing, the one that all traffic would 7 be funneled to, Fir Street, is often blocked by rail 8 traffic, and that makes the providing of public services, 9 the arranging for emergency services next to impossible 10 if there is only one crossing because the alternatives 11 would be to leave town. We would have this most unusual 12 effect of if the fire department was called, it would 13 have to leave the City of Winlock and come back through 14 the County in order to facilitate its citizens. 15 Conversely, if the police department was 16 called and Fir Street was blocked by rail traffic, the 17 police officer would have to leave the city, travel 18 outside the city to get around so they could go to the 19 other side of the tracks, a most unusual situation. And 20 there is empirical evidence that the Fir Street crossing 21 is frequently blocked by rail traffic. 22 So for all of those reasons, we feel that 23 this is a poor alternative to other alternatives. We 24 must point out that part of the problem we feel is 25 self-inflicted in that the rail crossing in question, the 00016 1 Walnut Street crossing, has been raised in elevation over 2 the years by changes, improvements, whatever, so the 3 steepness of that crossing isn't one that's historical. 4 It's one that's created over time, so it's not something 5 that the City did or existed originally. It's rather 6 something that has happened by changes to that rail 7 crossing by the users of that. We don't feel that that 8 self-inflicted wound should be the basis for doing away 9 with the crossing all together. 10 In addition, we're uncertain that this is not 11 simply a rail crossing closure. It's a of 12 highway traffic along what has to date been effectively a 13 one-way alley. That is, that in order to create or to 14 alternate, to transfer traffic to the Fir Street 15 interchange can only occur if what is referred to as 16 Front Street -- which is sort of this alleyway behind the 17 building we're in right now -- is turned into a 18 full-fledged street. It's currently a one-way street 19 servicing the back sides of downtown. 20 For this to occur, that one-way route must be 21 significantly widened and turned into a two-way street. 22 No one has indicated the cost of that in comparison to 23 the cost of changes to this crossing, and we're curious 24 as to those proposed costs because you can simply walk 25 out of the back of this door and make note of that 00017 1 street. It's a rather steep fall-off to the tracks below 2 it. It's held up by an abutment. All of that would have 3 to be undone and redone to effectuate this two-way 4 street, and the cost of that would be quite significant 5 on its own. 6 So I think there needs to be a much more full 7 cost comparison. We also independently need to look at 8 whether the interchange itself can be altered 9 reasonably. The petition itself makes reference to the 10 fact that the cost of elevating Karen Street -- that's 11 the highway -- would be close to a million dollars, but 12 we don't know if that's a significant amount in 13 comparison to other alternatives or not, and we don't 14 know what all that might entail. 15 So I think the comparison of alternatives 16 really hasn't taken place yet, and we need a great deal 17 more information about those comparisons to really say 18 that's truly a significant cost, or it may not be. It 19 may be a relatively insignificant cost in comparison to 20 other alternatives. 21 Under any circumstances, we simply feel the 22 closing of that crossing is too high a price to pay; that 23 it profoundly affects the entire environment within 24 Winlock and changes the whole community environment. 25 It's an opposition to Winlock's growth 00018 1 management planning which recognizes the expansion of the 2 town that direction and would have a significant impact 3 on its growth in that direction, so for all these reasons 4 we oppose the petition. 5 JUDGE SCHAER: Let me get a few specifics; 6 and again, if I'm focusing on jurisdictional questions, 7 it's because I'm trying to figure out what the shape of 8 this proceeding is going to be, but do you agree with 9 what's been said by Ms. Cade that the environmental 10 issues are really an argument before the DOT and not an 11 issue before the Commission? 12 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: I think so. 13 JUDGE SCHAER: I'd like to know what the 14 parties are going to be presenting to me. 15 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: SEPA determinations are 16 reviewed in a variety of ways depending on who are the 17 involved parties, and administrative reviews often times 18 are handled administratively. 19 Quite frankly, I'm not certain in this case 20 whether there would be further administrative review as 21 opposed to judicial review of that threshold 22 determination, and I wasn't anticipating that question 23 today. I'd like to take a little fuller research before 24 I give you an intelligent answer to that. 25 MS. CADE: DOT does not have an 00019 1 administrative review process for SEPA, so appeals of 2 DOT-SEPA determinations go directly to Superior Court. 3 JUDGE SCHAER: That's the kind of thing I 4 would like to see. I think it's fair to let you do your 5 own research on that and let me know if you agree with 6 that statement. 7 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: I have no reason to doubt 8 Ms. Cade on this issue. 9 JUDGE SCHAER: From my perspective, I don't 10 believe it's an issue that is for the Utilities and 11 Transportation Commission to decide in either case, and 12 I'm a little bit concerned because so much of your 13 petition relies on your SEPA comments. 14 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: Only because -- I didn't 15 mean to interrupt you in mid-sentence, and I apologize -- 16 only because the two were so heavily intertwined. 17 They are in there because we feel that 18 there's an environmental impact, more than moderate 19 environmental impact by this action, but those same 20 impacts are the identical ones that must be reviewed in 21 this process. 22 So yes, there's that paralleling process, but 23 really the issues are virtually mirror like. They are 24 one in the same. 25 JUDGE SCHAER: If we go to hearing in this 00020 1 matter -- which is what I believe we contemplate at this 2 point -- how many witnesses and what witnesses would you 3 be contemplating? 4 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: I would anticipate calling 5 those public services who are impacted by the closure. 6 That would include representatives from the fire, police, 7 ambulance, emergency services, school, the local city 8 government, perhaps public works, local public works. So 9 I think I've identified at least seven there. 10 There may be individual fact witnesses 11 relative to the historical use of those crossings, the 12 amount of time that the Fir Street crossing is blocked by 13 rail traffic, and its inconveniences. I guess that would 14 be in the neighborhood of ten witnesses then, and I do 15 not have names associated with those general fact 16 witnesses. 17 JUDGE SCHAER: That would be fine. Do you 18 need to do additional discovery before you present your 19 case, or where are you in that regard? 20 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: Frankly, not very far, and 21 that's probably our fault. But I would like to obtain 22 additional information either from the appropriate agency 23 or the railroad, Burlington Northern, regarding the 24 estimated cost of improvements to Walnut Street crossing, 25 the one proposed to be closed, both in terms of 00021 1 improvements to the crossing itself as well as proposed 2 improvements to Karen Street to reduce the steepness of 3 that grade. 4 Those are two independent cost studies, I 5 believe, as well as the proposed costs of the 6 improvements to Front Street if the interchange was 7 closed. I would like to see information relative to 8 that. 9 I would certainly like to gain additional 10 information from Burlington Northern, from its 11 engineering department and its road master as to 12 historical problems with this interchange and its 13 previous consultant that Ms. Gibson spoke about, and I'd 14 like to gain from the State further information on prior 15 litigation relative to this crossing. 16 JUDGE SCHAER: Now, are you calling Karen 17 Street what I'm calling Walnut Street? 18 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: No. There was attached to 19 some of the documents a map that may be of use. 20 JUDGE SCHAER: Let's see if we're looking at 21 the same map. This is marked "State Route 505 Walnut 22 Street." 23 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: That would be the Walnut 24 Street crossing that I would refer to it as. 25 JUDGE SCHAER: And that's the one that's 00022 1 proposed to be closed? 2 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: Yes. 3 JUDGE SCHAER: What are you referring to as 4 Karen Street? 5 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: Karen Street is the road 6 that comes along -- 7 JUDGE SCHAER: On the other side. 8 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: -- on a south-north, yes. 9 JUDGE SCHAER: I see. Thank you. Counsel 10 has just referred me to a map that was included with the 11 petition in this matter showing the proposed crossing. 12 With that information, I'd like to -- well, I 13 have one other question for you. Have you been included 14 by the City in these previous discussions that have taken 15 place? 16 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: Not me personally. My 17 office may have been, and I don't know -- Ms. Gibson, do 18 you know? 19 MS. GIBSON: I was not involved personally. 20 MR. SCHEIBMEIR: I think there have been a 21 number of changes. My partner has been the city attorney 22 for Winlock for a great many years up until more recently 23 when I assumed that role, and Mr. Hillier who originally 24 handled these proceedings, and I do not get that 25 information from him. I can certainly inquire of him. 00023 1 I know we have represented the City of 2 Winlock for a great many years so to the extent there 3 have been formal proceedings, our firm has been a part of 4 those. I'm not sure of the timing on those; therefore, I 5 do not know all of what may have been referred to. 6 JUDGE SCHAER: I think it might be useful to 7 go off the record at this time and have the parties 8 discuss among yourselves both information exchange and 9 whether you think there needs to be any kind of 10 triggering of discovery in this matter or whether that 11 can be handled informally, and also whether you want to 12 explore further discussions before we set a hearing date, 13 or whether we should start setting hearing dates so 14 you've got something to work against to keep you 15 motivated. Is there something you wanted to raise before 16 that point, Ms. Cade? 17 MS. CADE: Yes. Before we go off the record, 18 do you want you to know who DOT might be calling as 19 witnesses? I didn't give you that information. 20 JUDGE SCHAER: Just very briefly, about how 21 many witnesses you contemplate so I know how many days of 22 hearing we'll be looking at. 23 MS. CADE: Probably four. Jeff Schultz, who 24 is the rail branch person working on this project; Jack 25 Faulk, the project engineer; Allen McDonald, the project 00024 1 development engineer and rail liaison for the southwest 2 region for DOT, and also a repres