Submission Number: MBTL-EIS-0001971 

Received: 11/12/2013 12:16:47 AM
Commenter: Paul Neubauer
State: Montana

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
Submission Text
Me and everyone I know are opposed to the export of Montana Coal to Asia. The notion that NEPA review would not include consideration of the impacts of increased coal train traffic through Montana is absurd. Montanans will pay for increased infrastructure at rail crossings, over and underpasses, and suffer increased emergency response time, depreciation of land values and water sheds, all so that shareholders can get rich. A true EIS would not only include the impacts to Montana due to increased rail traffic, but would also include the obvious impact of the burning of all that coal in power plants throughout Asia with little or no pollution controls. It may take a while to get here, but THAT IS THE AIR WE BREATHE. There is a reason that Arch Coal want to build a port in Washington...the market for that dirty power source is drying up here in the U.S. INFORMED PEOPLE WANT THEIR POWER TO COME FROM CLEANER SOURCES. So rather than work with power generators and the public good to fund research into cleaner ways to use coal or harness alternatives, Arch just wants to send it to where it will get used up the Asia. Cowlitz County, Washington State, and Army Corps need to get realistic. We all know that an EIS that includes all these issues will be costly to complete, take a great deal of time, and likely conclude that this port is not a good idea. The planet will get warmer by burning this coal. The ocean will get more acidic from burning all this coal. How much diesel will get burned to get this coal to its destination? That will heat the planet and acidify the ocean as well. Property values will drop. Kids will get more asthma, police and firemen will be stopped at rail crossings, water quality will be diminished at Otter Creek and Tongue River. All of these impacts NEED to be included in the scope of the analysis. Anything less is flagrantly ignoring your responsibilities to the people to accommodate the desires of big business. Represent the people. Do a legitimate EIS that addresses all of the concerns above, and you will conclude that this new port is a BAD IDEA for the people of Montana and everywhere else. Thank you. Paul Neubauer