AB 914
Docket Yard · docketyard.org/d/AB-914 · entries shown: all, newest first
This docket has not yet been observed directly in the Board’s dockets table; its entries below come from filings and decisions that name it.
Caption from the Board’s record. Sub-dockets, included below: AB 914-X
37 filings, 18 decisions and 18 environmental comments observed here; last checked 11 Oct 2026, 00:36 UTC; last new entry 31 Aug 2026, 20:30 UTC.
Entries
-
served (printed as 4/29/2016)DecisionDECISION: (1) REOPENED PROCEEDING; (2) THE NOTICE OF INTERIM TRAIL USE (NITU) SERVED ON JUNE 18, 2012 WAS VACATED; AND (3) A REPLACEMENT NITU APPLICABLE TO GREAT SHASTA RAIL TRAIL ASSOCIATION WAS ISSUED, EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 29, 2016.
-
(printed as 4/7/2016)MotionShasta Land Trust, Great Shasta Rail Trail Association
-
served (printed as 6/18/2012)DecisionDECISION: (1) REOPENED THIS PROCEEDING; (2) VACATED A NOTICE OF INTERIM TRAIL USE OR ABANDONMENT (NITU); AND (3) ISSUED A REPLACEMENT NITU.
-
(printed as 5/3/2012)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 4/23/2012)MotionShasta Land Trust
-
served (printed as 10/4/2011)DecisionDECISION: (1) REOPENED THIS PROCEEDING; AND (2) ISSUED A NEW NOTICE OF INTERIM TRAIL USE OR ABANDONMENT IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
(printed as 3/7/2011)TrailMccloud Railway Company, Save Burney Falls
-
served (printed as 8/5/2010)DecisionDECISION DENIED SAVE BURNEY FALLS' REQUEST TO EXTEND THE NOTICE OF INTERIM TRAIL USE OR ABANDONMENT NEGOTIATING PERIOD IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
(printed as 7/7/2010)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 7/6/2010)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 6/28/2010)RequestSave Burney Falls
-
served (printed as 12/29/2009)DecisionDECISION REOPENED THE PROCEEDING AND IMPOSED A NOTICE OF INTERIM TRAIL USE NEGOTIATING PERIOD.
-
(printed as 12/7/2009)CertificateSave Burney Falls
-
(printed as 12/3/2009)TrailSave Burney Falls
-
(printed as 12/3/2009)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
served (printed as 11/9/2009)DecisionDECISION REOPENED THIS PROCEEDING AND REMOVED THE SECTION 106 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONDITION IMPOSED IN THE OCTOBER 14, 2005 DECISION.
-
(printed as 10/23/2009)CommentRequest Remove Section 106 Condition
-
(printed as 10/20/2009)CommentSusan Stratton with cc to Mark Beason
-
(printed as 10/15/2009)CommentTom McFarland
-
(printed as 10/15/2009)CommentSusan Stratton
-
(printed as 6/17/2008)CommentTrudy Vaughan
-
(printed as 6/17/2008)CommentDavid Byrd
-
(printed as 3/13/2008)CommentKathleen S. Moore, Forest Supervisor
-
(printed as 1/28/2008)CommentJ. Sharon Heywood
-
(printed as 12/4/2007)Comment
-
(printed as 11/30/2007)CommentStacy Smith
-
(printed as 11/20/2007)CommentDavid Byrd
-
(printed as 11/20/2007)CommentStacy L. Smith
-
(printed as 11/19/2007)CommentMilford Wayne Donaldson
-
(printed as 8/20/2007)CommentJeff Forbis
-
served (printed as 5/15/2007)DecisionDECISION DENIED SAVE BURNEY FALLS' REQUEST TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC USE CONDITION.
-
(printed as 4/16/2007)RequestSave Burney Falls
-
(printed as 4/16/2007)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 12/19/2006)CommentBob Rynearson
-
served (printed as 11/20/2006)Decision(1) REOPENED THIS PROCEEDING; AND (2) VACATED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY THE DECISIONS SERVED ON JUNE 28, 2006, AUGUST 25, 2006, AND SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 TO PERMIT THE ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION IN THIS PROCEEDING TO BECOME EFFECTIVE, AND TERMINATED THE OFA PROCESS IN THIS PROCEEDING.
-
(printed as 11/7/2006)MotionMccloud Railway Company
-
served (printed as 9/12/2006)Decision(1) AUTHORIZED SEASIDE HOLDINGS, INC. TO ACQUIRE 80 MILES OF RAIL LINE UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10904; AND (2) DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION AS TO THE 80 MILES OF RAIL LINE, UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10904 AND 49 CFR 1152.27(H)(7), EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE THE SALE IS CONSUMMATED.
-
(printed as 9/5/2006)OFASeaside Holdings Inc
-
served (printed as 8/25/2006)DecisionDECISION SET THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE OF 80 MILES OF RAIL LINE IN SISKIYOU AND SHASTA COUNTIES, CA, FROM MCCLOUD RAILWAY COMPANY TO SEASIDE HOLDINGS, INC., PURSUANT TO THE BOARD'S OFFER OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES AT 49 U.S.C. 10904.
-
(printed as 8/4/2006)ReplySeaside Holdings Inc
-
(printed as 8/4/2006)MotionSeaside Holdings Inc
-
(printed as 8/1/2006)LetterSeaside Holdings Inc
-
(printed as 7/31/2006)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 7/26/2006)OFASeaside Holdings Inc
-
served (printed as 6/28/2006)Decision(1) POSTPONED THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EXEMPTION AUTHORIZING THE ABANDONMENT TO PERMIT THE OFA PROCESS UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10904 AND 49 CFR 1152.27 TO PROCEED; (2) INSTRUCTED SEASIDE HOLDINGS, INC. AND MCCLOUD RAILWAY COMPANY IF THEY CANNOT AGREE ON THE PURCHASE PRICE, EITHER PARTY MAY REQUEST THE BOARD TO ESTABLISH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE ON OR BEFORE JULY 26, 2006; AND (3) ADVISED THE PARTIES IF NO AGREEMENT IS REACHED AND NO REQUEST IS SUBMITTED BY THAT DATE, THE BOARD WILL SERVE A DECISION VACATING THIS DECISION AND WILL ALLOW THE ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION TO BECOME EFFECTIVE.
-
(printed as 6/26/2006)OFASeaside Holdings Inc
-
(printed as 6/15/2006)LetterMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 6/14/2006)ReportMccloud Railway Company
-
served (printed as 6/1/2006)Decision(1) ACCEPTED PACIFIC UNIFIED RAILROAD CORPORATION'S (PURC) REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN THE OFA PROCESS; AND (2) DENIED PURC'S REQUEST TO TOLL THE DUE DATE FOR FILING ITS OFA.
-
(printed as 5/22/2006)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 5/19/2006)RequestPacific Unified Railroad Corporation,
-
served (printed as 5/12/2006)DecisionORDERED: (1) THAT THE PUBLIC USE CONDITION IN THIS PROCEEDING, SHOULD IT BE IMPOSED, WILL INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL SEGMENTS DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND (2) MCCLOUD RAILWAY COMPANY TO FILE A STATUS REPORT ON THE OFA PROCESS BY JUNE 12, 2006, DESCRIBING ITS PROGRESS AND THE CAUSE OF THE DELAY.
-
(printed as 5/8/2006)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 5/2/2006)SupplementSave Burney Falls
-
(printed as 1/19/2006)NoticeOregon Pacific And Eastern Railroad Company,
-
served (printed as 1/12/2006)DecisionREOPENED THIS PROCEEDING SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THIS DECISION.
-
(printed as 12/22/2005)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 12/7/2005)TrailSave Burney Falls
-
(printed as 12/5/2005)CommentMichael Hupp
-
(printed as 10/24/2005)CertificateMccloud Railway Company
-
served (printed as 10/19/2005)Decision(1) TOLLED THE TIME PERIOD FOR SEASIDE HOLDINGS, INC. (SEASIDE), TO FILE AN OFA UNTIL 10 DAYS AFTER SEASIDE'S RECEIPT OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION; (2) POSTPONED THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EXEMPTION UNTIL 20 DAYS AFTER SEASIDE'S RECEIPT OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION; AND (3) DIRECTED MCCLOUD RAILWAY COMPANY TO NOTIFY THE BOARD IN WRITING WHEN IT HAS PROVIDED SEASIDE WITH THE REQUESTED INFORMATION.
-
(printed as 10/17/2005)RequestMccloud Railway Company
-
served (printed as 10/14/2005)DecisionGRANTED MCCLOUD RAILWAY COMPANY (MCR) AN EXEMPTION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10502 FROM THE PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF 49 U.S.C. 10903 TO ABANDON, AND DISCONTINUE SERVICE OVER, CERTAIN RAIL LINES, SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND STANDARD EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE CONDITIONS. MCR PROPOSES TO ABANDON APPROXIMATELY 80 MILES OF RAIL LINE IN SISKIYOU AND SHASTA COUNTIES, CA. MCR ALSO PROPOSES TO DISCONTINUE TRACKAGE RIGHTS OVER A BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY RAIL LINE, A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 31.4 MILES IN SISKIYOU AND MODOC COUNTIES, CA.
-
(printed as 10/6/2005)NoticeSeaside Holdings Inc
-
served (printed as 8/26/2005)DecisionCONCLUDED THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS WAS UNNECESSARY AND INVITED PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
-
(printed as 8/24/2005)ReplyMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 8/4/2005)ReplyDicalite Minerals Corp.
-
(printed as 7/25/2005)NoticeMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 7/20/2005)CommentCarol Gaubatz
-
served (printed as 7/15/2005)DecisionPROVIDED NOTICE THAT MCCLOUD RAILWAY COMPANY FILED A PETITION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10502 FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF 49 U.S.C. 10903 TO ABANDON, AND DISCONTINUANCE SERVICE OVER, CERTAIN RAIL LINES.
-
(printed as 6/27/2005)MotionMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 4/18/2005)EnvironmentalMccloud Railway Company
-
(printed as 3/28/2005)CommentRichard A. Snay
Nothing of that kind in this docket.