Submission Number: UBR-DEIS-00403 -- Oral Comment at Public Meeting 

Received: 12/3/2020 12:00:00 AM
Commenter: Teri Durfee

Agency: STB
Initiative: Uinta Basin Railway EIS
Attachments: No Attachments
Submission Text
Can you hear me?


Okay.· Great.· My name is Teri Durfee, and I oppose this being put through.· I don't
believe that public money should be spent on this railway at all.·And I think there should be consideration on the EIS about the increased production of fossil fuels that will be created by having this railway in.· And so it should be considered in the proposal because only focusing on the railway itself, it does not account for the impact that all of the increased exploration and drilling and all of the impacts of the fossil fuel on the environment.

Also, in the Uinta Basin, it's already very polluted.· In the winter they have a lot of fog which only keeps that in.· And by allowing this railway, it would increase the air pollution, which is already beyond the federal standards.· And it's already poisoning the Uinta Basin's air and water and harming the wildlife.· So by adding the railway and increasing the production, it's only going to make things worse.

Also, the big game habitat.· I'm worried about the animals that will be affected by this because having the railway go through will permanently change the landscape.· And it would disturb the wildlife because each if you're just using the train, I mean, you have the noise, you have diesel smoke.· And also there's a chance for derailments.· And the biggest one of spills is of a huge concern, also a chance for wildfires.· It's been extremely dry and the sparks that could be created from the train could definitely spark wildfires.

And so it is a huge threat to the community and the wildlife.· And it's also damaging to the water, besides the impact of the actual railway on the water, there would also -- because of the increased production of the fossil fuels it would also threaten the Colorado River and the wildlife.· And it is already -- the flows have already been reduced in the area because of the drought.· And so it would only harm those areas even further.· Thank you.