Comment EI-19681
Received or sent (printed as 1/9/2013)
The environmental impact statement for the proposed Tongue River Railroad should analyze the following: Public convenience and necessity: This proposed railroad is not for the “public convenience and necessity” which is what is required in order for a body to exercise the power of eminent domain and condemnation authority. This railroad would serve only one coal company, which intends to sell the coal to China and other Asian countries. Impacts on property values: The project would devalue property and infring on property rights. Like any railroad, this one will cause fires, spread weeds, devalue property (especially riverfront property), make ranching and farming more difficult and expensive, split ranch land in half and separate fields from the river, and shift the liability of train crossings to the landowner. Wildlife: The Tongue River Valley is rich in wildlife habitat and home to outstanding elk and mule deer populations as well as upland birds. Industrializing this valley with a railroad and the coal strip mine it serves will seriously degrade this excellent sportsman resource. Flooding: The railroad bed will act as an earthen dam and potentially worsen the flooding problems now experienced in Miles City in the winter with ice jams. Infrastructure and traffic: Taxes will rise for the residents of communities, like mine, along the rail lines as the coal heads to coastal ports for shipment. This railroad will increase coal train traffic substantially causing traffic delays, noise, and diesel pollution. The only way to live with this increased traffic will require expensive over passes and safety crossing which are paid for primarily by local taxpayers. Respectfully,
Submitted by: Tyrrell Hibbard · Helena, Montana
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-19681 · back to the docket sheet