Comment EI-19812
Received or sent (printed as 1/10/2013)
Having read the following letter, I must say that I am in total agreement with Debbie Milburn. I feel there is no need for further comments.Thank you for your consideration. Vyna Werner Individual comment detail Name: Milburn, DebbieDate: Jan. 7, 2013 City: HelenaPart: Multiple/not listedHuman environment: Air quality, Traffic or safety, Other human environment topicNatural environment: Wildlife or vegetationEIS process: Area of potential effectComment: Dear Mr. Perry: Please excuse the first comment I sent using WORC's canned response. I meant to replace it with a personal testimony, but technology confused my efforts. My husband and I own property that includes 1 mile of active rail line near Helena, MT. We have first-hand experiences with railroad traffic. As we have watched the current coal traffic run past our house, our opinions about furthering future coal production have evolved. Please consider the following issues when developing an EIS regarding the shipping of Powder River Basin coal across Montana to the proposed Cherry Point, WA, export terminal: - Invasive, noxious weeds and increased rail traffic - railroad beds are fertile sites for noxious, invasive weeds and trains are a constant vector for spreading those seeds. Adjacent property owners face a continuing battle to contain this unwanted, destructive vegetation. Annual spraying of toxic chemicals may slow the process, but those efforts never completely address the problem. - Property values and increased rail traffic - There would be significant impacts on property values all along the route. - Environmental concerns due to increased rail traffic - Consider impacts to wildlife habitat, as well as increases in noise and pollution to traditional ranch and farm lands. - Infrastructure – increased rail activity through towns will be major challenges to communities along the route. Delays, traffic disruption and new infrastructures will become new local burdens. - Jobs - the number of jobs attributed to coal development (whether miners or rail employees) can just as easily be shifted to the development of cleaner sources of energy. - Coal is a very dirty source of energy - The hidden costs of burning coal need to be taken into account when making decisions about coal production, transportation and use. Use of coal contributes to much of the exorbitant health care costs in the US. Coal causes the acceleration of climate change. To ignore global warming is to do so at our own peril in the near future. While the US is still dependent on some coal, current and future efforts and monetary resources need to be directed toward cleaner sources of energy. New technology needs to be developed to further the shift to solar, geothermal and wind power, as well as better recovery techniques for natural gas that have less impact to the environment than dirty coal. Coal needs to be phased out. Coal mining companies should be encouraged to focus their attention and resources on producing cleaner energy. - Shipping coal to China - Chinese plants have less environmental safeguards and will affect more than just the health of that country’s population. Atmospheric currents will carry the pollution right back to the US. To argue that the US might as well be the country to satisfy Asia’s demand for coal is bogus. The US should be setting a better example for the world. The US should be demonstrating leadership in the development of cleaner sources of energy and promoting more conservation here and abroad. The bottom line of any company should not be the only or most important consideration for continuing the mining and use of coal. The use of coal is NOT strictly a local concern. There is much more at stake for the US economy as a whole, when the many hidden costs are taken into account. Sincerely, Debbie Milburn
Submitted by: Vyna Werner · Point Roberts, Washington
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-19812 · back to the docket sheet