Comment EI-19177
Received or sent (printed as 1/3/2013)
The environmental impact statement for the proposed Tongue River Railroad (Docket No. FD 30186) should analyze the following: Public convenience and necessity: The proposal would only serve a single company (Arch) with primary benefits to the energy security of China as opposed to energy security of the United States. This contradicts current US energy policy and makes the environmental impacts non-necessary. The EIS must study the impacts on the following: 1) property values decreasing due to visual impacts, sound impacts and air quality impacts of the rail line. 2) Property values decreasing due to traffic impacts of the rail line. 3) economic impacts on ranching and farming in the valley. Including assessment of impacts on local food security, and the health impacts on range animals and crops duet to coal dust and diesel particulate increases. 4) economic cost of the increased number of livestock deaths due to rail/livestock collisions. 5) the health impact measured in number of lives lost due to increased rail-pedestrian and rail-automobile collisions. 6) the economic costs to taxpayers compared to costs born by rail operators of making rail crossing safety improvements. 7) the economic impacts due to noise disturbance on recreational users and tourism. 8) the economic and environmental impacts of flooding and hydrological changes due to the rail line, including ice dams. 9) the economic impacts due to decreased recreational and subsistence hunting of elk and mule deer populations as well as upland birds. The impact of this on out of state hunters and tourism. 10) the impact of decreases in elk and mule deer populations as well as upland birds on Native American tribal treaty rights to subsistence hunting. 11) the impact of runoff on stream fish populations. 12) the impact of declining fish populations on tribal subsistence fishing rights. 13) the hydrological impact to surface and sub-surface water sources for both human use and irrigation. 14) the economic impact of changes to hydrological changes in surface and sub-surface water sources for both human use and irrigation. 15) assessment of changes in the tax burden born by Arch and local property owners. Changes in property values and associated impacts on local government revenue. 16) the impacts of coal dust on track and local environments, according to BNSF 500 pounds to a ton of coal can escape from a single loaded car.” Coal dust accumulates in the ballast between the rails, undermining the track structure and causing derailments. And coal dust deposits sometimes even cause fires. 17) the impact of future fires (or the risk of fires) in coal dust along tracks, and coal lost due to derailments in the future. 18) the risk to the environment of derailments. 19) the economic burden of emergency response to coal train derailments. 20) the human health risk due to coal train derailments. 21) the environmental risk to wildlife and water due to coal train derailments. 22) the global impacts that the new rail line will have in increasing access to a specific volume of coal and the impact on the rate of combustion of this coal as it impacts global CO2 levels, other greenhouse gas levels and global warming. Thanks for your time and attention to these matters. Paul James"
Submitted by: Paul James
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-30186/comment/EI-19177 · back to the docket sheet