Comment EI-31028
Received or sent (printed as 1/27/2021)
I support the no-action alternative for the proposed Uinta Basin Railway. The draft EIS does NOT assess the harm this oil railway could have on the environment, wildlife, wildlife watching, angling, rafting, & enjoying the values of wild places. Traversing roadless areas, steep canyons and rugged terrain, the railway will degrade more than 10,000 acres of habitat for migratory wildlife and will harm important habitat needed by the threatened Greater Sage Grouse. In Colorado, the project could mean reopening a rail line through Tennessee Pass, despoiling scenic lands and wildlife habitat to get oil trains to the Gulf Coast. These trains would pass through Browns Canyon National Monument with the Gold Medal waters and rafting expeditions on the Arkansas River put at risk from oil spills due to derailments. This stretch of the Arkansas River is visited by threatened Bighorn Sheep, Peregrine Falcon, Mexican Spotted Owl, and other unique and imperiled birds. The idea of an oil spill in their habitat is appalling. New oil production resulting from the railway expansion will contribute irreversibly to increased greenhouse gas emissions. The Uinta Basin in Utah, already exceeds federal standards because of existing oil and gas development. Why would we want to further contribute to devastating climate change? The preferred project route would run almost the entire length of Utah's Indian Canyon Creek, crossing and degrading more than 400 streams and important wetlands along the Price River. How can that be an acceptable alternative? The No Action alternative is the only sensible course of action.
Submitted by: Peg Rooney · Penrose, CO
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-36284/comment/EI-31028 · back to the docket sheet