Are we the only ones who feel it would be wrong to short-circuit the Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS process?
After years of hard work costing the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project sponsors many millions of dollars, and now that the EIS is 80% complete, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering a request by the Lummi Nation to cut the process short and deny the project's permits based upon the tribe's opinion that the project can't be done without interfering with their treaty fishing rights.
Does this seem wrong? It seems that most people think so.
Washington-based SSA Marine (GPT's sponsor) asked well-known pollster Elway Research, Inc. of Seattle to find out how the public feels about this matter, using standard objective survey methods. In late July,
502 randomly selected Washington voters from across the state were asked the following:
"This [Gateway] proposed bulk export terminal is undergoing a multi-year environmental assessment by the federal, state, and local governments. This effort is costing SSA Marine over $10 million and is nearly 80% completed. The Lummi Nation has asked the Army Corps of Engineers to stop the process and deny the project permits because of potential impacts on their treaty fishing rights. In your opinion:
"Should the environmental assessment be completed?"
61% said YES
"Should the Lummi's request be granted and the environmental assessment be stopped?"
25% said NO
[Don't know/Not applicable- 14%]
"If the Corps of Engineers grants this request and stops the environmental assessment before it is completed, do you think that would have impact on other trade-related projects?"
, those surveyed answered:
Definitely--29% Probably--39% Probably not--11% Definitely not--7% Don't Know--15%
the Northwest Jobs Alliance and thousands of Washingtonians who have already asked the Corps
to finish the job
it started and to get the GPT EIS done in a fair, objective, and timely manner