Submission Number: MBTL-EIS-0001944
Received: 11/11/2013 3:00:44 PM
Commenter: Ajamian John
Agency: Cowlitz County, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Initiative: Millennium Bulk-Terminals Longview EIS
Attachments: No Attachments
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed construction of a marine terminal in Cowlitz County for the purpose of exporting coal. Among the many reasons I am opposed to this project are the following:
am writing to express my opposition to the proposed construction of a marine terminal in Cowlitz County for the purpose of exporting coal. Among the many reasons I am opposed to this project are the following:
Coal dust from coal piles can be blown miles away. This has already been observed at the Point Roberts terminal.
Coal dust contains toxic metal and has negative respiratory effects.
The same toxic metals can accumulate in soils near coal trains.
Portions of the Puget Sound area, a popular tourist destination, will be impacted by a coal port.
Farm animals near the mines, tracks and terminals will ingest coal-based toxins. Heavy metal toxins such as arsenic, present in coal dust, accumulate in animal tissue and will be ingested by humans consuming these animals.
Coal ships burn bunker fuel, one of the dirtiest fuels available.
Eel grass beds near Cherry Point, a source of habitat for an abundance of marine life will be severely and negatively impacted by clearing, coal dust and ship traffic.
Groundwater under and near the terminal will be contaminated and become unusable for any life-giving purpose.
The ever-dwindling population of harbor porpoises would have their food supplies negatively impacted putting even more pressure on an already diminishing species.
Carbon dioxide emissions from coal transport will increase oceanic acidification destroying sealife.
Finally, (so far as these comments are concerned) it is my understanding that the applicants have violated the Clean Water Act by engaging in illegal clearing of federally protected wetlands. Legally, this should result in a minimum of a 6-year development moratorium.
There are innumerable responsible objections to the burning of any coal at all, much less to participating in the development of a shipping terminal that will increase coal consumption.
Thank you for taking my comments.