Rails-To-Trail Plan Must Include A Proper Survey

A critical issue is being overlooked as the union pacific railroad pursues plans to abandon its 72-mile right of way between Plummer and Mullan in the Idaho Panhandle.

There are concerns about cleaning up decades of contamination and there is excited talk of a recreational trail along the route. Overlooked, however, are the consequences track removal could have on maintaining accurate property lines.

Railroad right of way, as a rule, is defined as extending a fixed distance - 100 feet, for example - to each side of the track center line. A century or more ago, when these corridors were granted, it was left to the railroads to determine by field survey where they would go. Construction of the railroad tracks would be along this surveyed alignment. The right of way for the grant was then measured parallel with, and at right angles to, the center line of the constructed rails.

Therefore, no right of way monuments (the physical objects surveyors use to mark property corners) are established along the railroad as they are along a state highway. The only monument established to perpetuate the location of the surveyed railroad right of way is the tracks themselves.

Before the Union Pacific can abandon the Plummer-Mullan line, it will have to achieve a minimum level of cleanup that includes complete removal of both the rails and ties.

If those 72 miles of track are removed, the only survey monument controlling 144 miles of public and private property corners will be destroyed.

Identifying the property line that separates this new trail from the adjoining public, private and tribal property will be substantially more difficult and much more costly. Destruction of the tracks without a proper survey of their position by the state would be irresponsible and in direct violation of Idaho law governing surveying monuments.

One solution would be to utilize satellite technology to map the existing center line of the tracks every couple of hundred feet and to set permanent survey control monuments at convenient locations (road crossings, for example) approximately every half mile.

The resulting coordinate positions and map would then be recorded as a record of survey in all three counties affected. A surveyor surveying along the right of way after the rails were removed could then use the survey control monuments to identify the historic position of the tracks.

Otherwise, the only way to locate the right of way when the tracks, ties and gravel are removed would be to map enough of the remaining bed, culverts and bridges to recreate what had been there. This often requires resurveying a mile or more of railbed - at the client’s expense.

The railroad between Enaville and Kellogg already has been dismantled. The current decontaminated railbed through parts of this area is over 50 feet wide. Who knows, with any certainty, where those tracks were?

The rails to trails cause may be noble but the involved agencies’ response to the survey issue - namely, to ignore it - is irresponsible and unforgivable. The average citizen who owns land alongside the railroad will have no idea of the ramifications of this decision to destroy the tracks until he needs a survey and sees his survey bill. Even properties that don’t abut rail rights of way could be affected because railroad lines are often used to recover 19th century section markers that have long since disappeared.

I don’t believe the public is being protected. Although my firm would be more than happy to perform the necessary survey work, it is much more important to ensure that it gets surveyed by someone.

I am not aware of any valid reason why the Union Pacific can’t be required to survey the right of way before being released from control. There is no reason to allow the destruction of this survey monument.

I support the trail and would like to see this corridor managed for the benefit of local residents and our local economy. However, the survey question must be addressed before the tracks are removed. Once they are gone, local landowners will have to shoulder the additional costs, due to the shortsightedness of agencies that should know better.