Submission Number: UBR-DEIS-00282 -- Oral Comment at Public Meeting 

Received: 11/16/2020 12:00:00 PM
Commenter: Mike McAinsh
Organization: 
State: 

Agency: STB
Initiative: Uinta Basin Railway EIS
Attachments: No Attachments
Submission Text
Okay. Have I unmuted?

[pause]

Okay.· Very good.· Yes, I find it strange that the fourth possibility was not discussed in this EIS, and that is going east into Colorado.· There's less of a chance of disturbing any land that would be useful as undisturbed forest land, lands that have environmental consequences for wildlife, and any wilderness lands. · · · · · · I find that the argument that it's a little farther to connect with the railway out east in Colorado is not a logical argument.· With the amount of disruption of the lands that the three alternatives that were presented would cause, it would be much better if we went east into Colorado. · · · · · · And that is why I'm opposed to these three alternatives.· I go through that area quite often. I know that once you get into the areas where the oil, the petroleum products would be uploaded to trains and any supplies would be downloaded, that the land is relatively flat.· There is very little that would be disrupted. · · · · · · And I find it disingenuous that that fourth possibility was not discussed, and I would like to make my displeasure known. · · · · · · All right.· Thank you very much.· End of comments.

[pause]

Thank you.· First of all, I would like to congratulate the lady that just spoke as her comments were not out of order. · · · · · · Saying somebody is foolish is not -- that's quite an honest comment.· The person that spoke for Duchesne County, I believe, I think he was foolish in his comments because he -- you know, there was nothing out of order.· There was no threatening words.· There was no -- nothing that could be construed as being obscene language or anything like that. · · · · · · Now I would like to ask that man from Duchesne to, again, explain to us why the alternative of going east was not presented in these proposals.· It was dismissed out of hand.· So it makes me wonder what they are trying to hide.· It makes me wonder what they are trying to hide. · · · · · · That seems to be the most logical way, the least ecologically destructive way of dealing with this whole problem.· And if that gentleman from Duchesne County would come back and explain why this is such a bad idea, I would like to hear what he has to say. · · · · · · Thank you very much.

[pause]

Thank you very much.· This is Michael McAinsh, M-C-A-I-S-H.· · · · · · I would like to make one quick comment about the last two commenters.· California is going to be selling all electric cars by 2035.· As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. · · · · · · We need to be thinking about what's going to happen in the future.· Our future is not extractive industry.· Our future is tourism.· And if we don't do something about keeping the ground pristine, people will find other places to go. · · · · · · And Utah is a wonderful place, but it is getting really overworked in a lot of areas.· We have to decide what we value most.· Do we value the extractive industries that we dig holes in the ground, leave oil spills, leave all kinds of environmental destruction, or do we value the fresh air, the open ground, the open country that we have all come to love? · · · · · · That is my comment.· Thank you very much.