Comment EI-25441
Received or sent (printed as 10/19/2016)
I am writing to raise 3 serious issues with the revised routing for the Great lakes basin railroad. Previous routing near Sugar river to Broadhead was rejected during a fatal flaw reviw for environmental concerns. Now this new revised routing" is near the confluence of the Sugar River and the Pecatonica, a highly sensitive, valuable and protected environmental area. There are known and protected populations of species in this area such as the Blandings turtle. This new revised routing should also be rejected for it's proximity to these protected areas. In addition, the "revised routing" will cause increased flooding of the town of shirland. The railroad routing closely parallels the pecatonica river and cuts the river off from it's broad former lake bed floodplain. The elevated grade of the railroad would push flood flows to the opposite side of the the river where the town of Shirland is located. In addition, by passing so close and directly across from the confluence of the Sugar and Pecatonica rivers, the combined flood flows would have no way to spread out over the existing wide floodplain, and instead would be restricted, concentrated and forced into the town of shirland, like a big funnel. The town of shirland does not have any active flood control structures, there are some old remnant flood control levees and structures, but they have not been maintained and would not withstand flood flows from a railroad grade/levee system directly across the Pecatonica river from the town and next right next to river and also directly opposite the mouth of the Sugar river where it flows into the Pecatonica river. The entire flood flows of the Sugar river have historically flowed out across the Pecatonica river into the wide flood plain of the Pecatonica river here too. This would also be blocked by the proposed location of the railroad grade. This is just in regard to the route of the railroad track across the flood plain and does not address the equally damaging flood hazard that would be created by the "revised routes" Pecatonica river crossing just below the town of Shirland which would again, restrict the flood flows of the combined flows of the Sugar and Pecatonica Rivers adjacent to and just downstream a few hundred yards from the town of Shirland. High flood flows from the Sugar and the Pecatonica currently spread out over the Pecatonica flood plain but the GLB "revised routing" would block that natural hydrologic regime by constructing a raised railroad bed and raised approaches to the proposed crossing of the Pecatonica River. This would in effect constitute construction of a levee along the Pecatonic river and a dam across the river just below the town of Shirland. Both FEMA flood hazard assessments and USGS hydrologic studies of these contricted flood flows and increased flood levels must be made. Every detail and flood impact of any such levee and dam attributes of the proposed railroad "revised routing" must be made. All alternatives to these routings which do not increase flood hazard risk must be made. In addition, the "revised routing" is in close proximity to the town of Shirland and the Shirland public grade school. The project information previously stated that proximity to both towns and schools would be avoided. This revised routing fails to do that, the "revised routing" is just to the south of the school and town across the Pecatonica river. I think this "revised routing" was done in haste due to opposition along the Boone county routing. The previous routing along and across the Sugar river to Broadhead was rejected for environmental concerns, this revised routing also infringes on those same environmental values of both the Sugar river and the Pecatonica River. The confluence of the Pecatonica and Sugar rivers is a protected natural resource area and has wildlife and recreational values as great as any along the river near the previously rejected routing further upstream on the Sugar river. It also has species of concern like the Blanding turtle which are found in this area. Those environmental concerns, as well as altering the flood flow dynamics of both the lower Sugar river and the Pecatonical rivers should remove this "revised routing" from being considered as an alternative, no matter what the opposition to the previously considered, rejected routings may have been. This routing should also be discarded as the previous preferred routings were discarded. The loss of farmland, the environmental impacts, and the proximity to the school and town of shirland should also preclude this "revised routing". This "revised routing" should also be rejected du to the increased flooding hazard to the town of Shirland caused by disconnecting the pecatonica river from it's historic flood plain, by the constructions of an elevated railroad right of way next to the river, and the approaches to the river crossing itself. This will back up the flood flows of both the pecatonica, and the Sugar rivers, and shift those flood flows toward and into the town of Shirland which is already at the very edge of the floods. In summary, for these reasons, this revised routing is unacceptable and should not be allowed to occur. I suggest finding some other "revised routing" or revisit one of the previously discarded routings which were considered during the projects formal review and comment process. Since these issues and concerns were not addressed for this previously unknown "revised routing" the public meeting, review and comment periods should be redone. Thank you for your attention to this matter. John Cannell"
Submitted by: John Cannell
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-35952/comment/EI-25441 · back to the docket sheet