Comment EI-19809
Received or sent (printed as 1/10/2013)
Dear Mr. Blodgett: 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,” and the Tongue River Railroad Company should not get the power of eminent domain and condemnation for a railroad that does not serve the public interest. This railroad would serve only one huge coal company, Arch Coal, and its customers in China and other Asian countries. None of the coal would benefit U.S. utility customers or the U.S. public interest. Impacts on property values: The project would devalue property and infringe on property rights. The proposed railroad would 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 could shift the liability for accidents and livestock losses at train crossings to landowners. 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 would serve would seriously degrade this excellent outdoor resource. Flooding: The railroad bed would act as an earthen dam and could worsen the flooding problems that can occur in the area in winter with ice jams. Noise: The loud trains would ruin the quiet enjoyment of nearby recreation areas. Infrastructure and traffic: Taxes will go up for residents of communities 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 would require expensive overpasses and safety crossing, which are paid for primarily by local taxpayers. The Surface Transportation Board should determine what safety and railroad traffic improvements would be needed if 40 million tons or more of coal are shipped from the proposed Otter Creek mine, along the proposed railroad, and through Montana and on to west coast ports -- and how much, if any of these costs would and should be borne by taxpayers, and how much by the railroad and its overseas customers. The Tongue River Railroad would allow coal that should stay in the ground to be burned in dirty Chinese plants and will fuel intolerable, decades-long increases in carbon dioxide emissions. The greenhouse gas costs of Otter Creek coal go far beyond just burning the coal. It must be mined, hauled by trains fueled by diesel to West Coast terminals, shipped overseas by ships fueled by diesel, and then hauled in China to the plants. Sincerely, Linda Wilson 809 Herrick St. Gary, SD 57237
Submitted by: Linda Wilson · Gary, South Dakota
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-19809 · back to the docket sheet