EIS Home > EIS Library > Scoping Report > Appendix G - All Scoping Comments > Public (B - C)

B Davis (#5372)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

B Halliday (#1265)

Date Submitted: 10/13/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

B. Prem (#8319)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am a property owner in San Juan County. I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

I am especially concerned about oil and coal spill risks. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:
How will GPT's marine vessel traffic increase collision risks with tankers and other cargo ships in the area?
What would be the effects on our region of a catastrophic oil and/or coal spill?
If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.

Sincerely,

Prem

B. Prem (#8321)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am a home owner on Lopez Island. I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

I am especially concerned about the impacts to orca, marine mammals and birds. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:
How would the noise, pollution and physical presence of the additional huge vessels affect our orca populations (including the endangered Southern Residents)?
How would construction and operation, including the vessel noise, of the coal port and the continuous transiting of coal ships affect other marine mammals, fish, birds, and the food web that supports them?
If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.

Sincerely,

B. Prem

B. Prem (#8541)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am (describe your relationship to San Juan County). I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

I am especially concerned about increased likelihood and potential consequences of introduction of Asian invasive species from ballast water discharges as well as from organisms attached to the ships. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:
What invasive species could be introduced because of the release of ballast water, and how would these species impact the Salish Sea ecosystem?
What invasive species could be introduced as a result of organisms attached to the outside of the ships, and how would these species impact the Salish Sea ecosystem?
What will be the cost of the introduction of invasive species on our regional economy (tourism, commercial/recreational fisheries and property values)?
If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.

Sincerely,

Prem

B. Prem (#9460)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am a shoreline home owner on Lopez Island. I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

I am especially concerned about the impacts of shipping on air pollution. An objective, rigorous and comprehensive study should be undertaken to see what impact of air pollution associated with increased vessel traffic will have on our region and what impact these increases will have upon air quality standards.

If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.

Sincerely,

Prem

B. Prem (#9827)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am a home owner on Lopez Island. I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

I am especially concerned about the impacts of coal dust emissions from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal on the marine environment. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:
What will be the rate of coal dust emissions from stock piles, in addition to other local sources, such as conveyor belts, as well as emissions from rail sources within the terminal (e.g., unloading)? This study should focus upon an understanding of factors that influence coal dust emission rates including wind strength, averages and extremes.
What will be the impact of coal dust in the marine environment, and upon vulnerable species and ecosystems in particular?
If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.

Sincerely,

Prem

B. A. Davidson (#8620)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
I am a grandmother and a world citizen. The area of potential effect of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and other terminals proposed on the Pacific coast is mind boggling. From the mining areas to the Pacific Ocean it would cause far reaching damages.
Please address them all.
Please note the concerns of citizens along the proposed routes. I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on public health and the environment from the various proposals to transport coal from Montana and Wyoming to terminals on the Pacific Coast for export to Asia.  The proposal to build a coal-hauling railroad line through the Tongue River Valley seems especially misguided for two main reasons: 1) it would have negative impacts on the residents, the quality of life, and the environment in the Tongue River Valley; and 2) it would contribute to similar negative impacts for the residents, the quality of life, and the environment in the Pacific Northwest in general.
I heartedly support San Olson’s comment of October 27, 2012, which succinctly lists all elements a thorough Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment (VTRA) must include (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/1567), with an emphasis on emergency prevention and response.  A subsequent comment submitted January 5, 2013 (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6044), notes that the safety issues that must be so thoroughly studied should not be limited to the Salish Sea but consider all areas of potential impact if there were a significant spill along the entire Great Circle Route.
All vessels that enter the Salish Sea bound for ports in Washington and British Columbia go through the Straits of Rosario or Haro around the San Juans, and return, exiting at the Strait of Juan de Fuca to follow the Great Circle Route. San notes a thorough VTRA must consider all potential increases in the numbers of vessels calling at Washington and BC ports, as well as those that may be added if proposed terminals on the Columbia River are permitted .
This issue is one of the most critical for the GPT EIS (and those of all other proposed terminals) and will probably be the subject of the most litigation. The VTRA currently being conducted for the GPT EIS does not address impacts beyond the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is wholly inadequate. There is already great concern in the marine safety community about the minimal procedures in place at Unimak Pass, including the fact that there is no rescue tug there. Our area rescue tug is at Neah Bay, and according to San's research, a runaway bulker can travel 7.5 miles after it loses its engine and/or rudder with no influence of winds or tides. With coal bulkers carrying an average of 470,000 gallons of bunker fuel, a single collision, allision, or grounding resulting in a significant spill of fuel and cargo would be catastrophic.
Your EIS is not a small task, but perhaps one of the most important studies in history.
Please, please include all the impact concerns.
Thank you,

B. Jean Shea (#4579)

Date Submitted: 11/29/12
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Baba Kofi Weusijana (#2901)

Date Submitted: 11/11/12
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I, a homeowner in Seattle, WA, strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I demand that the Army Corps of Engineers conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals!




Baba Kofi Weusijana
7543B 11th Ave. N.E.
Seattle
Seattle, WA 98115

Bailey Bauhs (#3993)

Date Submitted: 12/06/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Hello. Please study the impacts of coal transport through Seattle and the eventual burning of this coal overseas on the Puget Sound region's ability to meet clean air standards. The few times Seattle fails to meet clean air standards each year are due to air pollution from overseas. Please consider to what extent coal burning abroad will increase because of the greater exports made possible by this port.

Bailey de Iongh (#330)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Vashon, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

This is a lovely area. Please do not ruin it!

Bailey Vallee (#11274)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Hello my name is Bailey, I am writing to inform you about the pollution the coal stored in the BP Cherry Point plant would cause. This dirty fossil fuel would pollute our air, oceans and risk our family’s health. Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel. Why would we let this be a part of our ecosystem? Especially when the area we live in has worked so hard to become a successful green society. We’ve taken two steps towards living more ecofriendly lives and the coal trains would take us back to what we have been working so hard against. For example, the construction of the facility and rail loops on wetlands and uplands can affect fragile ecosystems. Along with that addition coal ships will further crowd already busy waters. Filling our oceans with oil tankers and coal transporters which would result in possible spills, collisions and definite pollution. I would hate to see Bellingham deteriorate.

Barb Chessler (#13863)

Date Submitted: 01/06/13
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barb Drake (#5460)

Date Submitted: 12/24/12
Comment:
Dear Jeannie Summerhays:

Please forward my message to the appropriate staff person/work unit.

I have lived in Washington State since 1985 and there has never been a more serious environmental issue to me than the Hanford Nuclear Waste Facility and the proposed Coal Train Plan through beautiful regions of the northwest. The only difference is that one is semi-contained and the other is not. This means deadly toxins pouring out of train cars, catching a ride on the wind, and dispersing over wide areas of our region and throughout the world. This means more environmental damage to an already highly stressed and fragile world environment.

I'm still scratching my head over how this plan ever came to the surface in this day and age. Luckily more people have more access to information these days and have an opportunity to voice their concerns.

The COAL GIANTS and their supporters would like it if an EIS was performed in very limited areas. This makes no sense when the environmental impact is along the full stretch of land and water that they are proposing. I hope the WA. State Dept. of Ecology will keep the politics out of this issue and the money potential, and perform comprehensive Environmental Assessments along the ENTIRE route, not just limited sections of the route.

Please read the following message I sent to 9 of the counties in our region that will be affected by this plan that stress some of my key feelings about this issue:

Dear Council Members:

Please fight hard against coal trains coming through any part of Washington and other states in our region.

If you look at our history since 1850, there has been on-going devastation of the natural environment. Seattle is NOW 50% impervious surfaces at the sake of "progress". We keep on gouging out precious pieces of land that do not serve our people and region in deep meaningful ways and in ways that future generations will detest and despise us for (some already do). People come to live in and visit our region because of it's natural beauty - this IS the best Trade that our region has to offer. Buildings and hard surfaces are replacing our natural environment at an alarming rate and we can not afford to let the Coal Giants come through and add further destruction. Just size up all of the volunteers and employees that are working everyday around our region to undo the destructive actions of the past - planting trees, cleaning waterways, doing their part at home and work.

In a day when global warming is a real threat and there are greater epidemics than ever before in human recollection, it seems insane that some Coal Giants and their interest groups would support coal trains coming through that will only pollute our land and water, affect the health of millions of people over time, increase fossil fuels (CO2) in our air and oceans taking us further down the path of serious ocean acidification and deadening of our waters, and destruction of green spaces affecting people and wildlife. How completely insane.

The Coal Giants are about money. It's really not about jobs or improving people's lives. It's not about becoming a bigger Trade region. It's about $$$$$$$$$$ and money means power and control for businesses like this. These Giants are desperate because coal is on the way out in America and they need new markets. If this plan goes forward, we will not be a progressive region but a digressive one. It's time for these Giants to wake up and support a world that desperately needs a gentler touch on our land and seas, and move to a Trade that supports all life, not depletes it.

We will not be doing the people of Asian countries a favor by supporting coal through our areas. We will fail them if we don't stop this. We will fail ourselves as people of the earth.

The Coal supporters said at the Convention Center the other night that people should just put their emotions aside and look at the Trade potential. These folks are so out of touch and so condescending - they have no right to tell people to not express their feelings about something they feel so passionate about.

PLEASE do everything in your power to influence a decision to stop this insanity. Please do not fail our region, our people, the world, and yourselves.

Sincerely,
Barb Drake
Seattle Resident


WA. State Dept. of Ecology, please do your part and do the right thing to protect the people, the oceans, the land, all living things, and our natural beauty in our state and send a big message to the Coal Industry that we are behind people and the earth - not money.

Sincerely,
Barb Drake

Barb Drake (#5524)

Date Submitted: 12/26/12
Comment:
Message:

Please forward my message to the appropriate staff person/work unit.

I have lived in Washington State since 1985 and there has never been a more serious environmental issue to me than the Hanford Nuclear Waste Facility and the proposed Coal Train Plan through beautiful regions of the northwest. The only difference is that one is semi-contained and the other is not. This means deadly toxins pouring out of train cars, catching a ride on the wind, and dispersing over wide areas of our region and throughout the world. This means more environmental damage to an already highly stressed and fragile world environment.

I'm still scratching my head over how this plan ever came to the surface in this day and age. Luckily more people have more access to information these days and have an opportunity to voice their concerns.

The COAL GIANTS and their supporters would like it if an EIS was performed in very limited areas. This makes no sense when the environmental impact is along the full stretch of land and water that they are proposing. I hope the US Army Corps of Engineers will keep the politics out of this issue and the money potential, and perform comprehensive Environmental Assessments along the ENTIRE route, not just limited sections of the route.

Please read the following message I sent to 9 of the counties in our region that will be affected by this plan that stress some of my key feelings about this issue:

Dear Council Members:

Please fight hard against coal trains coming through any part of Washington and other states in our region.

If you look at our history since 1850, there has been on-going devastation of the natural environment. Seattle is NOW 50% impervious surfaces at the sake of "progress". We keep on gouging out precious pieces of land that do not serve our people and region in deep meaningful ways and in ways that future generations will detest and despise us for (some already do). People come to live in and visit our region because of it's natural beauty - this IS the best Trade that our region has to offer. Buildings and hard surfaces are replacing our natural environment at an alarming rate and we can not afford to let the Coal Giants come through and add further destruction. Just size up all of the volunteers and employees that are working everyday around our region to undo the destructive actions of the past - planting trees, cleaning waterways, doing their part at home and work.

In a day when global warming is a real threat and there are greater epidemics than ever before in human recollection, it seems insane that some Coal Giants and their interest groups would support coal trains coming through that will only pollute our land and water, affect the health of millions of people over time, increase fossil fuels (CO2) in our air and oceans taking us further down the path of serious ocean acidification and deadening of our waters, and destruction of green spaces affecting people and wildlife. How completely insane.

The Coal Giants are about money. It's really not about jobs or improving people's lives. It's not about becoming a bigger Trade region. It's about $$$$$$$$$$ and money means power and control for businesses like this. These Giants are desperate because coal is on the way out in America and they need new markets. If this plan goes forward, we will not be a progressive region but a digressive one. It's time for these Giants to wake up and support a world that desperately needs a gentler touch on our land and seas, and move to a Trade that supports all life, not depletes it.

We will not be doing the people of Asian countries a favor by supporting coal through our areas. We will fail them if we don't stop this. We will fail ourselves as people of the earth.

The Coal supporters said at the Convention Center the other night that people should just put their emotions aside and look at the Trade potential. These folks are so out of touch and so condescending - they have no right to tell people to not express their feelings about something they feel so passionate about.

PLEASE do everything in your power to influence a decision to stop this insanity. Please do not fail our region, our people, the world, and yourselves.

Sincerely,
Barb Drake
Seattle Resident


US Army Corps of Engineers, please do your part and do the right thing to protect the people, the oceans, the land, all living things, and our natural beauty in our state and send a big message to the Coal Industry that we are behind people and the earth - not money.

Sincerely,
Barb Drake



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Barb Drake (#12266)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

I have lived in Washington State since 1985 and there has never been a more serious environmental issue to me than the Hanford Nuclear Waste Facility and the proposed Coal Train Plan through beautiful regions of the northwest. One of the main differences is that one is semi-contained and the other is not. This means deadly toxins pouring out of train cars, catching a ride on the wind, and dispersing over wide areas of our region and throughout the world. This means more environmental damage to an already highly stressed and fragile world environment.

I'm still scratching my head over how this plan ever came to the surface in this day and age. Luckily more people have more access to information these days and have an opportunity to voice their concerns.

The COAL GIANTS and their supporters would like it if an EIS was performed in very limited areas. This makes no sense when the environmental impact is along the full stretch of land and water that they are proposing. I hope the US Army Corps of Engineers will keep the politics out of this issue and the money potential, and perform comprehensive Environmental Assessments along the ENTIRE route, not just limited sections of the route.

If you look at our history since 1850, there has been on-going devastation of the natural environment. Seattle is NOW 50% impervious surfaces at the sake of "progress". We keep on gouging out precious pieces of land that do not serve our people and region in deep meaningful ways and in ways that future generations will detest and despise us for (some already do). People come to live in and visit our region because of it's natural beauty - this IS the best Trade that our region has to offer. Buildings and hard surfaces are replacing our natural environment at an alarming rate and we can not afford to let the Coal Giants come through and add further destruction. Just size up all of the volunteers and employees that are working everyday around our region to undo the destructive actions of the past and present - planting trees, cleaning waterways, doing their part at home and work, etc, etc, etc.

In a day when global warming is a real threat and there are greater epidemics than ever before in human recollection, it seems insane that some Coal Giants and their interest groups would support coal trains coming through that will only pollute our land and water, affect the health of millions of people over time, increase fossil fuels (CO2) in our air and oceans taking us further down the path of serious ocean acidification and deadening of our waters, and destruction of green spaces affecting people and wildlife. How completely insane.

The Coal Giants are about money. It's really not about jobs or improving people's lives. It's not about becoming a bigger Trade region. It's about $$$$$$$$$$ and money means power and control for businesses like this. These Giants are desperate because they want new markets. If this plan goes forward, we will not be a progressive region but a digressive one. It's time for these Giants to wake up and support a world that desperately needs a gentler touch on our land and seas, and move to a Trade that SUPPORTS ALL LIFE, not depletes it.

We will not be doing the people of Asian countries a favor by supporting coal through our areas. We will fail them if we don't stop this. We will fail ourselves as people of the earth.

The Coal supporters said at the Convention Center in Seattle that people should just put their emotions aside and look at the Trade potential. These folks are so out of touch and so condescending - they have no right to tell people to not express their feelings about something they feel so passionate about.

US Army Corps of Engineers, please do your part and do the right thing to protect the people, the oceans, the land, all living things, and our natural beauty in our state and send a big message to the Coal Industry that we are behind people and the earth - not money.

Barb Drake (#12854)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

I have lived in Washington State since 1985 and there has never been a more serious environmental issue to me than the Hanford Nuclear Waste Facility and the proposed Coal Train Plan through beautiful regions of the northwest. One main difference is that one is semi-contained and the other is not. This means deadly toxins pouring out of train cars, catching a ride on the wind, and dispersing over wide areas of our region and throughout the world. This means more environmental damage to an already highly stressed and fragile world environment.

I'm still scratching my head over how this plan ever came to the surface in this day and age. Luckily more people have more access to information these days and have an opportunity to voice their concerns.

The COAL GIANTS and their supporters would like it if an EIS was performed in very limited areas. This makes no sense when the environmental impact is along the full stretch of land and water that they are proposing. I hope the US Army Corps of Engineers will keep the politics out of this issue and the money potential, and perform comprehensive Environmental Assessments along the ENTIRE route, not just limited sections of the route.

Please read the following message I sent to 9 of the counties in our region that will be affected by this plan that stress some of my key feelings about this issue:

Dear Council Members:

Please fight hard against coal trains coming through any part of Washington and other states in our region.

If you look at our history since 1850, there has been on-going devastation of the natural environment. Seattle is NOW 50% impervious surfaces at the sake of "progress". We keep on gouging out precious pieces of land that do not serve our people and region in deep meaningful ways and in ways that future generations will detest and despise us for (some already do). People come to live in and visit our region because of it's natural beauty - this IS the best Trade that our region has to offer. Buildings and hard surfaces are replacing our natural environment at an alarming rate and we can not afford to let the Coal Giants come through and add further destruction. Just size up all of the volunteers and employees that are working everyday around our region to undo the destructive actions of the past and present - planting trees, cleaning waterways, working tirelessly on environmental issues, fighting pollution, doing their part at home and work (the list goes on and on).

In a day when global warming is a real threat and pollution / CO2 / world population levels are "off the chart" and there are greater epidemics than ever before in human recollection, it seems insane that some Coal Giants and their interest groups would support coal trains coming through that will only pollute our land and water, affect the health of millions of people over time, increase fossil fuels (CO2) in our air and oceans taking us further down the path of serious ocean acidification and deadening of our waters, and destruction of green spaces affecting people and wildlife. How completely insane.

The Coal Giants are about money. It's really not about jobs or improving people's lives. It's not about becoming a bigger Trade region. It's about $$$$$$$$$$ and money means power and control for businesses like this. These Giants are desperate because coal use is in great debate in America and around the globe and they need new markets. If this plan goes forward, we will not be a progressive region but a digressive one. It's time for these Giants to wake up and support a world that desperately needs a gentler touch on our land and seas, and move to a Trade that supports all life, not depletes it.

We will not be doing the people of Asian countries a favor by supporting coal through our areas. We will fail them if we don't stop this. We will fail ourselves as people of the earth.

The Coal supporters said at the Convention Center weeks ago that people should just put their emotions aside and look at the Trade potential. These folks are so out of touch and so condescending - they have no right to tell people to not express their feelings about something they feel so passionate about.

PLEASE do everything in your power to influence a decision to stop this insanity. Please do not fail our region, our people, the world, and yourselves.

To the US Army Corps of Engineers, PLEASE do your part and do the right thing to protect the people, the oceans, the land, all living things, and our natural beauty in our state and send a big message to the Coal Industry that we are behind people and the earth - not money.

Barb Kearney-Schupp (#3561)

Date Submitted: 11/20/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barb Kehl (#2312)

Date Submitted: 11/05/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the effects of ships hauling coal increasing ship traffic to the entire northwest, Salish sea past Alaska. More ship traffic brings more opportunity of collisions.

Please study the effects on our air from the coal being burned in China. We already had pollution from fires in China.

Please study the effects on our future when we discover that we should have saved the coal for the United States.

Thank you,
Barb Kehl

Barb Rupers (#12735)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Sheridan, OR
Comment:
I lived in Bellingham for two years and found it my favorite spot in the Northwest. Building a terminal in this area will adversely affect the beautiy and the biota of the area.

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Barb Scavezze (#11125)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the coal dust that is going to blow off the coal trains and get into the air and water, and affect human health and the environment.

Barb Scavezze (#11129)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the impact of the coal trains on traffic, which can affect human health when emergency vehicles have to wait a long time to cross the tracks.

Barb Scavezze (#11133)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
I am concerned that shipping the coal to be burned in Asia will significantly contribute to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We are already seeing the effects of climate change, with severe drought and intense storms like hurricane Sandy. We can expect severe deterioration of our environment if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.

Burning coal in Asia is also going to release pollution into the atmosphere, which will drift over to Washington state, affecting both human health and the natural environment.

Barb Whiton (#2810)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Burlington, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barb Wignall (#3121)

Date Submitted: 11/13/12
Location: Beaverton, OR
Comment:
Nov 13, 2012

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

I want Oregon to have fresh air and clean water period. My grandchildren deserve to have the same quality of life that I inherited.

The Koch Brothers can ship their coal up to Canada or just sit on it.
They do not care about the environment or people or the future...they are in it for the money. Perhaps that money that they spent on fighting the environment and President Obama could have been spent on investing in clean energy.

Sincerely,

Barb Wignall
7910 SW 184th Ave
Beaverton, OR 97007-6752
(503) 649-0190

Barbara Barbara Snapp (#12107)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Mercer Island, WA
Comment:
Noooooo Coal on the Seattle waterfront, no coal at all!

Barbara Barton (#13793)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Our country should be in the forefront in reducing the use of fossil fuels, the cause of Climate Change, not perpetuating their use. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would also negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Barbara Bate (#3119)

Date Submitted: 11/13/12
Location: Ocean Park, WA
Comment:
Nov 13, 2012

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
I know the power of starting up a project that will make other such ventures more likely. Coal is not a good option for our communities!

Sincerely,

Barbara Bate
24908 Park Ave
Ocean Park, WA 98640-4018
(360) 665-4421

Barbara Boden (#13329)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
TO ALL WHOM THIS CONCERNS:

I attended the Clark College scoping meeting on December 12th and heard many thoughtful comments. I have just reread the comments form and all of the topics listed, all of which are of major concern – all of which would have major impacts in every area of this project from the mines, to the ports, to the very air when the pollution drifts back in the atmosphere from China.

Why must this country take it in the chops – again – so a few mine owners can reap huge profits? It is neither ethical nor morally acceptable, under any circumstances, to destroy the quality of life millions of people. Just look at your own list of topics.

Waving the “jobs” flag is short-sighted tunnel vision. Long-term, sustainable jobs are what is needed. Do you think the increasing forest fires would hide the coal dust? Do you think the noise pollution would help people work better and think more clearly? What would you tell the people who already are struggling with respiratory aliments? Stop breathing? There is no research into the potential multitude of other illnesses, either. Have you not noticed the increased, horrific derailments that dump toxic materials into our environment? And what about the natural environment? How much more pollution can the wildlife, vegetation, marine life, wetlands, streams, and waterways sustain?

In all good conscience, the only viable solution I can recommend is to stop this project now. Leave the coal in the ground where it will do no harm. Let China skip the destructive phase of its industrial development and figure out how to do sustainable, green processes instead.

In fact, we should be doing more of the sustainable, green processes ourselves.

The alternatives are deadly.


Barbara Boden

Barbara Bristol-Treat (#9902)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I have mixed feelings about "all" of it. The outcome that i would like to see is an increase in the cost of selling coal to China. To me, it would make China more environmentally responsible for overall global health of land, and sea.

Barbara Bristol-Treat (#9906)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I fear that the coal miners are being squeezed out of a decent wage by selling the coal to China so cheaply... I have never known a large company to be consciencious about caring for the environment. Rather big coal companies have been more concerned with making money for the stockholders. i understand those dynamics. The railroad is in the same boat with the coal companies.. China contaminates their immediate environment and all of that travel from West to East and the contaminants end up on the West coast. China needs to find/develop another source of energy besides coal.

Barbara Brock (#6639)

Date Submitted: 01/06/13
Location: Camano Island, WA
Comment:
Please consider this email as my official comments on the issue of scoping for the EIS for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal project in Washington State. Many people have already made eloquent comments re concerns over this proposal so I will just highlight a few issues.

First of all, I urge you to consider the cumulative impacts, not only of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project, but also of all the affects of other proposed coal mining/shipping projects. From the initial mining of the coal, through the affects on communities all along the proposed rail route, to the increased danger to marine life on the shipping route, to the affects of the burning of this coal on the air quality, which is recirculated in the atmosphere and returns to affect the US. These can not be considered as separate issues.

More specifically, the EIS should carefully examine:

l. The impact on herring spawning at the proposed Cherry Point site.
Herring are an important part of the food web. A decline in herring has already been noted, as well as the affect on endangered Chinook Salmon, and the Orca Whale which depend on them.

2. The impact of greatly increased numbers of very large ships on the fragile, narrow, rocky Puget Sound routes through which ships would pass on the way to markets. The increased size and number of ships greatly increases the danger of grounding/collisions, which in turn would severely impact the marine ecosystem. An important part of the Puget Sound economy depends on this ecosystem, including tourism.

3. The impact of increased rail traffic;
-The impacts on traffic at crossings and the affect on commerce and safety;

-The impacts on first responder time;

-The impacts on communities efforts to revitalize downtown/waterfront/
rail corridor areas; This could easily outweigh the economics of
building the terminal;

4. The impact on health:
-The impact from mining;

-The impact of coal dust from shipping and storage;

-The impact on the environment from shipping the coal to China;

-The impact on the world's atmosphere from the burning of the dirty coal in China;

-The impact on air quality when the dirty air returns to the US.

I look forward to following this proposal as the EIS process continues. I trust that serious consideration will be given to community concerns.

Barbara Brock, member of Island Co. Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC), and Salmon Technical Advisory Group

Barbara Brown (#1977)

Date Submitted: 10/29/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara Brown (#10658)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I live in the San Juan Islands adjacent to the proposed coal export port.

The impacts and potential impacts of the Gateway Pacific terminal/ Custer spur:

• In the San Juan Islands:
1– Ship sound: Orca whales and other sea mammals and creatures communicate by sound. The current level of sounds from ships and boats is already impacting their ability to communicate.

2– The potential for grounding on a reef in narrow channels and releasing diesel oil and oiling the coasts of these islands and impacting sea creatures.

3– The potential of collisions with other ships: ferries, tugs with tows, American and Canadian military vessels, whale watching vessels and private boats, etc.

4– By the time the port would be built, the market for coal may be substantially diminished. China has coal deposits of its own and Beijing is presently subject to thick smog. China is also building alternative sources of energy, as are many other countries.

• On the mainland:

1– The impact of building a port on local lad and waters.

2¬¬– The impact of many trains travelling through cities and towns on their route through Washington State, their noise and obstruction of traffic.

3– Potential train accidents spilling coal and coal dust.

4– See 4 above.

• On the planet:

Climate change: Burning fossil fuel anywhere, whether in China, the U.S. or elsewhere increases the impact on the earth’s climate which is already occurring in the Arctic and Antarctic and elsewhere.

Barbara L. Brown
Orcas, WA

Barbara Clark (#12681)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Pendleton, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

You only have to go to coal routes Northeastern India and to the coal mining areas of Australia to see the damage to the environment and the lives of many people to know that we need to be thoughtful about what we do in our country.

Barbara Courtney (#10692)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Orcas Island. Our region is shared by thousands each year who visit this area from around the world for the amazing marine wildlife watching, sport fishing, kayaking and boating. Our local economy depends on this tourism. Those of us that choose to live here do so for these activities and many more that are unique to the character and quality of these islands. My husband and I recently purchased a home that we love, with an active waterway view. What we are wary of is an active water highway that would potentially pollute the calm character of these special islands, harm the wildlife and disrupt the natural processes that we depend upon for tourism and for the quality of life that we have chosen.

Specifically, I request the following issues be carefully studied:
--the impacts of increased coal-carrying freighter traffic through the Salish Sea waterways waters and their impact on recreational boating, sailing and kayaking, and commercial wildlife watching operations.
--the economic impacts of any negative effects of increased coal-carrying freighter traffic to these visitor activities
--the economic impacts on property values of homes with views of waterways that will be heavily used by coal-carrying freighters.

Barbara Courtney (#10699)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Orcas Island. Our region hosts richly diverse marine and nearshore habitat for species of concern, threatened and endangered species. Out of concern for those non-human species that share our region, I respectfully request that the impacts of increased coal transport freighter traffic be studied as it relates to the health of marine wildlife and fish.

Barbara Cox (#8773)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
I believe the terminal in Whatcom Co is vital to the economy of our area. It will bring good-paying jobs to the region. Those who oppose coal being shipped to China are out of touch with reality. China will get the coal whether it is shipped from Washington or some other port.

Barbara Craner (#13864)

Date Submitted: 01/02/13
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Curtis (#13788)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

It also encourages more strip mining which explodes the tops off mountains and dumps the residue into local streams and rivers, damaging the surrounding environment.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Barbara Daugert (#7940)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Comment:
I live very close to both the Cherry Pt terminal site and am impacted by traffic congestion which will be caused by increased train traffic crossing Slater Rd. I was stopped at the crossing last week by a freight train and noticed the traffic was backed up to the I 5 freeway entrances and exits. The noise of these trains going day and night will be very disruptive and probably reduce our farms resale value as well.

Barbara Davenport (#12316)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
Dear Sir:

Perhaps the issue of our Pacific Northwest image in the world is beyond the scope of the EIS; However, to me as a long time resident of this area, I pride myself in our environmental ethics and our commitment to preserving of beauty of our land and sea. I would like us to consider the global cost o coal , in terms of the lives of coal miners and their families, the destruction of the land at Powder River Basin, and the fact that we ( Whatcom Country) would export, through what would be the largest coal terminal in North America, the most polluting fossil fuel to China and other countries to the detriment of it's citizens and particularly to their children. It's a tragic irony that Whatcom County would support such an endeavor while the rest of the U.S is committed to reducing its use of coal burning plants due to it's polluting properties.


Thank you,


Dear Sir:

I hope during the scoping analysis you will evaluate the long term effects of jobs related to the Coal terminal. It is my feeling that in all likelihood, rather than create sustainable jobs over the next decade, construction of a coal terminal will result in a net loss.
I believe that tourism, one of our best resources for jobs will decline due to train noise and most likely degradation of marine life. SInce the water which will return in the coal ships will most likely contain invasive species which will wipe out our eel grass and herring, thereby impacting salmon and Orcas which in turn will lessen Bellingham's desirability as a tourist destination. In addition the increased noise factor of 18 more trains a day will be a disincentive for tourists to stay in hotels located near our beautiful waterfronts.

Thank you,







Barbara Davenport

Barbara Davidson (#5904)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The railroad intrusion has increased over recent years to the point it had decreased quality of living in Bellingham. Bellingham has been recognized over and over for its quality of life and being an excellent place to live. Its economy has blossomed based on this reputation. Accepting more railroad traffic will cause future companies with their jobs to not come to Whatcom County. And I fear, some of our local companies will decrease and eliminate many exitsting good jobs.

Barbara Davidson (#5905)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Comment:
I feel this proposal has few long term merits.
We are being asked to destroy much our country for a short term project that will produce little profit at an endless future cost to us and the world.
I agree with Clair Dole's comments on Jan. 2.

Barbara Davidson (#6049)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Comment:
Today, we received the Annual report from the Whatcom Land Trust. "Protecting the Nature of Whatcom County" That quote should be used in every part of the EIS study.

Barbara Davidson (#6995)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Comment:
I agree with Mr McGowen, please carefully study the impact of adding hundreds of tankers. Consider their anchors, their fuel use, emissions and/or spillage, and the impact on our environment, and quality of life.

Barbara Davidson (#7395)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Comment:
This whole idea is unconscionable! Our treasure of a coastline cannot even support the current rail traffic that is imposed upon it.
I heartily support the scoping comments presented by Joseph Knight of Everson on 2013 January 3rd.

Barbara Debing (#13865)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Delgiudice (#429)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Burien, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to Please consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Please Protect the Northwest from dagnerous coal exports

Barbara Dykes and Tom Ehrlichman (Center For Salish Community Strategies) (#12243)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See Attached

[NOTE FROM THE PROJECT TEAM: The attachments included with this comment letter are too large too include online. Many of the attachments are available on the project website. A list of the attachments is provided. If you would like to receive a copy of these attachments please contact the project team through the Submit a Question link on this site: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment].
Attached Files:

Barbara Ellis (#11144)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Portland , OR
Comment:
Subject: Scoping Comment on Coal-Fire Hazards at Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point WA
From: Barbara G. Ellis, Ph.D., principal, Ellis & Associates, LLC, of Portland OR
Coal fires are one of the major factors requiring significant attention in any governmental investigation or any Environmental Impact Study. As an environmentalist and journalistic scholar, I am highly concerned about Peabody Energy’s efforts to obtain permits for a terminal at Cherry Point WA unless its history indicates it has had a successful fire-prevention plan in place. As U.S. Department of Energy officials point out:
"Spontaneous combustion has long been recognized as a fire hazard in stored coal. Spontaneous combustion fires usually begin as “hot spots” deep within the reserve of coal. The hot spots appear when coal absorbs oxygen from the air. Heat generated by the oxidation then initiates the fire." [1]
Once a coal “hot spot” finally explodes from its dust, it ignites a fierce and unquenchable fire engulfing whole areas, as the still uncontained 6,000-year old fire in Australia’s Burning Mountain demonstrates. Or the 100-year-old mine fire that still burns in Glenwood Springs CO which surfaced in 2002 and set off a 12,000-acre, $6.5 million forest fire. Environmentally, a coal fire of any kind—mine, terminal, barge, train—emits “a haze of soot, carbon monoxide and compounds of sulfur and nitrogen…also releases arsenic, fluorine and selenium.” [2]
Consider that the Powder River Basin coal Peabody wants to transport to its proposed Cherry Point terminal is significantly even more volatile than coal mined east of the Mississippi River. Indeed, in weighing the speed of a coal-ignited explosion (the Kst value) leading to a fire, researchers for Western Kentucky Energy Corporation, noted:
"…Bituminous coal has a Kst value that varies from less than 80 to 130 bar m/s. Sub-bituminous coal—such as Powder River Basin (PRB)—has a much higher Kst value, varying from less than 120 to greater than 200 bar m/s. In other words , the explosibility of PRB coal can be up to two times that of bituminous coal." [3]
Indeed, so concerned about coal fires are power plant companies burning stored PRB coal that their officials have formed a group called PRB Coal Users’ Group. They felt it vital to formally produce recommendations for “safely preventing, detecting, and extinguishing coal fires.” The training and equipment for success is so sophisticated, however, that it has spawned major staff providers such as F.E. Moran Special Hazard Systems and Hazard Control Technologies. [4]
Such firms are scarcely relying on ordinary firefighters pouring water atop 25-foot mountains of stored coal. That technique not only doesn’t work, but it ruins the stored coal for marketing and the weight of the water could collapse the terminal. Worse, it may set off a “flash” explosion and additional fire because “the heat ignites float coal dust in the air.” Instead, these companies provide specialty teams who employ state-of-the-art tools such as thermal monitors and infrared scanners to check hot spots in stored coal and carbon monoxide levels, respectively. They use hazard mitigation systems that combine the new F-500 agent and water, as well as piercing rods that must be expertly guided through a coal pile to the a spot to release their contents. [5]
When coal ignites after quietly smoldering for a few weeks even in the ground—thanks to unpreventable oxygen seepage—it requires such highly trained coal-fire personnel to extinguish the blaze. Has Peabody indicated they will have a plan to provide Cherry Point with such a team, or will it be local hires expected to master such sophisticated equipment and techniques specific to coal fires? Peabody certainly cannot rely on mutual aid by firefighters from, say, Cherry Point’s 10 stations and nearby towns who helped put out the major BP oil refinery fire last February—which incidentally spiked gas prices for months in the Pacific Northwest. [6]
Covering terminal coal, as well as barges and trains, has been suggested as the prime fire-prevention schemes by other coal companies such as Ambre Energy in its current proposal to move coal through the Columbia River Gorge by barges to terminals. If covering coal to air-tightness were remotely successful, it would have been done decades ago by Eastern coal companies. They still transport and store most coal “uncovered” because of combustion and subsequent ruinously expensive fire losses and local litigation over loss of life and property damage. They’ve learned the hard way that oxygen has a way of penetrating the most ingenious man-made efforts to block its pervasive vapors, especially where coal is concerned.
The Moran Company literature states that “fires are an ongoing concern in PRB coal areas,” strongly indicating that these assuredly involve storage facilities. Before any permits are issued for Peabody Energy to construct and utilize a coal terminal at Cherry Point, one key investigation must be done by federal and state agencies on their history in fire protection for terminals and the surrounding environment. It cannot be done on the company’s promises for this proposed installation. [7]
__________________________

ENDNOTES
[1] NA (May 1993). “The Fire Below: Spontaneous Combustion in Coal.” Environment Safety & Health Bulletin. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC. 1.
[2] Krajick, Kevin (May 2005). “Fire in the Hole.” Smithsonian Magazine., http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/firehole.html
[3] Merritt, Diana; Rahm, Randy; Swanekamp, Robert (November/December 2000). “Managing silo, bunker, and dust-collector fires.” Power. 144: 6, 53.
[4] Douberly, Edward B. (October 2003). “Fire-protection guidelines for handling and storing PRB coal.” Power. 147: 8, 70-74.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Stark, John (14 September 2012). “BP Cherry Point appeals state citations in wake of fire.” Bellingham Herald. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/09/15/v-printerfriendly/2296601/bp-appeals-state-citations-in.html. Whatcom County Fire Departments (21 January 2013).
http://firedepartmentdirectory.com/location/State-Fire-Departments.aspx?state=Washington&gclid=CNfPhbmo-7QCFQLxOgodQB4ASw.
[7] F. E. Moran Special Hazard Systems. http://www.femoranshs.com/coal-handling.

Barbara Fahey (#9522)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. The United States and the State of Washington should NOT undertake ANY public project or process that would enhance or further the use of coal to produce energy. Burning coal is a losing process; it is short-sighted and ultimately self destructive.
2. The transportation of coal through the State of Washington will be damaging to our environment: it will add to the particulate pollution of the air, affecting human health and the viability of our agriculture.
3. The transportation of coal through the State of Washington will disrupt the passenger traffic on our railroads, which will discourage the use of public rail transportation just at a time when we should be encouraging it in order to protect our environment.
4. The use of ports in the State of Washington to transport coal to foreign markets will provide jobs ONLY for the short term; those jobs will gradually disappear once the building of routes and infrastructure is completed. The boom and bust of jobs will degrade rather than enhance employment in the state.
5. Approval of the plan to establish coal transportation ports in Washington will continue the destruction of the people's faith in the wisdom and integrity of the government; it will obviously serve the interests of the rich energy companies at the expense of the people. You do this at your peril...and ours.

Barbara Farnsworth (#3356)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Blaine, Wa
Comment:
My husband and I live in Birch Bay Village. We moved to this area for retirement, for a peaceful and clean enviorment. I am very concerned about the coal dust and how it will be contained well enough to keep this beautiful area a place where others would love to live. I believe studings should be completed to evaluate how much coal dust pollutes the air when the coal is traveling down the railroad but also when it is dumped into the 6-8 story high piles at Cherry Point. Studies should also be done on the run off of the coal when it is watered down but more concerning is when we have torrential rains like the one I'm hearing outside as I type this comment. Where is the coal tainted water going to go and how will it effect our herring, crab and fish population? Please do a thorough study to be sure the coal dust in the air and the tainted water from the coal will not effect our herring, crab and fish life.

Barbara Farnsworth (#3719)

Date Submitted: 12/02/2012
Location: Blaine, Wa
Comment:
Please study how the noise from the rail cars will effect those living near the railroads. I attended a meeting in Ferndale the other evening and a lady played a recording of a rail car going past her home. It was unbelievable loud and it is my understanding that more than twice as many rail cars will be running if the coal terminal project is approved. I am also concerned about the cost to the local tax payers if any new infrastructer has to be built. It is my understanding that the railroads are only responsible for 5% of the cost and the tax payers of the city have to pick up the tab for the remaining 95%. Please study the air quality when the rail cars are moving along with full loads of coal. I am very concerned about the health of those living near the railways. I'm also concerned what the traffic congestion will be with this dramatic increase in train traffic and the safety of our community. I am very scared of the impact of this project!

Barbara Farnsworth (#4932)

Date Submitted: 12/17/2012
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
Please study where the water will come from to water down the piles of coal to TRY and eliminate the coal blowing into the air. If the water is going to come from the Nooksack River is there enough for this Coal Terminal and for the surrounding communities that now use this water source? It will be unfair for the coal terminal to use our precious resources leaving the community to find less acceptable sources and/or to pay more for water.
Thank you for taking into consideration my concerns.

Barbara Ford (#5622)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Foster (#13627)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington or in any other location in the Pacific NW. Bring coal through the Pacific NW to export to the Asian market would negatively affect my community (Vancouver, WA) by increasing train traffic, polluting air and water, harming, delaying emergency vehicles at train crossings, increasing shipping traffic on the Columbia River, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal sites, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. If China burns coal the pollution won't stay in China but will circulate the globe and affect all of us. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statements related to all coal export projects.

Barbara Gilday (#7450)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It is just so out of character with this very conservationist, far-looking community. The Northwest is loved, lived in and come to by tourists for the wonderful natural environment. 18 Trains a day would have a devastating impact on our quality of life for all of these. And for the world? It is time for clean energy. Can't the coal barons put their money and research into clean energy sources and export that?

Barbara Goebel (#7759)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We think the development of a coal terminal is a GOOD idea. Most likely, the coal will be exported to China from a west coast port whether it is Bellingham or not. Any concerns of air pollution or increased rail noise or traffic will still be present. We should benefit from the increased jobs and diversification.

Barbara Guthrie (#7563)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Shoreline, WA
Comment:
The proposed Cherry Point coal export terminal sets off alarm bells to the entire community in the vicinity of the proposed terminal, as well as those communities that will be impacted by the incresed coal trains feeding the terminal.

Enivronmental concerns demand that public officials conduct a careful permitting and environmental review process for the Cherry Point coal export proposal, fully and fairly accounting for the impacts of dirty coal on our community. This coal export proposal directly threathens Native American tribal resources/recreational and commercial fishing industry/ tourism industry/ farms/ samll businesses/ property owners/ public health and the environment in Washington State.

I believe that Washington State should stand up to Peabody Energy and their investors by saying "NO" to dirty coal and its immense contribution to global warming. Hopefully a thorough envrionmental review will result in the same verdict: the short-term economic gain for Washington is not worth the environmental risk to our beautiful state, let alone the degradation to the areas where the coal will be extracted, and the continual degradation of air quality for the citizens of China.

Barbara Guthrie (#8601)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Location: Shoreline , WA
Comment:
The proposed Cherry Point coal export terminal sets off alarm bells to the entire community in the vicinity of the proposed terminal, as well as those communities that will be impacted by the increased coal trains feeding the terminal.

Environmental concerns demand that public officials conduct a careful permitting and environmental review process for the Cherry Point coal export proposal, fully and fairly accounting for the impacts of dirty coal on our community. This coal export proposal directly threatens Native American tribal resources/recreational and commercial fishing industry/ tourism industry/farms/small businesses/ property owners/public health, and the environment in Washington State.

I believe that Washington State should stand up to Peabody Energy and their investors by saying “NO” to dirty coal and its immense contribution to global warming. Hopefully a thorough environmental review will result in the same verdict: the short-term economic gain for Washington is not worth the environmental risk to our beautiful state, let alone the degradation to the areas where the coal will be mined, and the continual degradation of air quality for the Chinese populace.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Guthrie

Barbara Harwood (#13232)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Eldersburg, MD
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

As a native of Kentucky, I have seen how little Coal Companies care about the earth that gives so abundantly to them. We cannot keep treating our earth like we are not damaging it; it will fight back. It is fighting back. Are your profits worth more than the existence of your children's futures?

Barbara Ingram (#4795)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on open trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively impact my community by polluting the air and water in Puget Sound and it's tributaries with coal dust and diesel fumes. The damage from this alone is far reaching and the cumulative impacts from agreeing to this proposal would be devastating to the Pacific Northwest and beyond.
The Marine Sanctuary( aquatic eco systems) at Cherry Point would be compromised and I understand this is a Native American Burial Site (Lummi Tribe) - a sacred site. Increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, harming existing businesses, loss of jobs in shellfish and marine industires, delaying emergency responders, damaging fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change are not only big concerns but concerns that need to be considered in the scope of your environmental impact statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.




Barbara Ingram
7212 151st St. S.W.
Edmonds,, WA 98026

Barbara Ingram (#6461)

Date Submitted: 01/05/13
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. In this year alone, " Burlington Northern officials say 40 to 50 slides big enough to affect rail traffic have covered the rails this season, making it the third worst slide season in 20 years. One recent slide derailed a freight train in Everett, Wa. Others have left tons of debris from the steep hillsides along the sound piled up on the rails." Many of the slopes along the rail line that would be used by the proposed coal train are highly unstable and as Burlington Northern Sante Fe states in the quote above" this is the third worst slide season in 20 years." This statement along with the multiple slides I have seen in the area confirms my belief that the unstable slopes and cause for potential train derailments need to be studied. It is my opinion that this area should not be considered for transporting coal. The cumulative cost of continually cleaning up slides is exhorbitant and the cost of a coal trail derailment into Puget Sound would be devastating. This is only one of the issues that concerns me. The others involve the negative impacts on my community and others by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, which would impact public health, and our fishing industry, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Barbara Irgens (#2980)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Jackson (#2523)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Mt Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Barbara Jamieson (#8604)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Orcas, WA
Comment:
I have owned first a small island in West Sound of Orcas Island for 18 years, then the Orcas Hotel for five years and later two little cabins down on the rocks on the east side of West Sound, all together over 40 years in the San Juan Islands. The number and variety of fish and salmon are diminishing. The same is true of migrating birds and resident eagles. As the waters around these precious, beautiful islands become more polluted, the plant life in the water needed for food and shelter for spawning fish is also changing and depriving the undersea ecology of the right mix of nutrients the sea animals need. My concern is the potential RUIN of a rare and precious natural beauty and fascinating scenic attraction to millions of visitors from around the world that would not be restored in my lifetime if one of those massive ships spilled its cargo. How can you guarantee such an accident would not happen? Is there no other way to move the oil and coal without going through the Salish Sea? Is the immediate value worth the potential cost of the possible damage?

Barbara Jamieson (#8619)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Orcas`, WA
Comment:
In March 2007 my grand-daughter saw the seventh lionfish while snorkling off Frederiksted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Today scuba divers are killing 60 to 90 lionfish every day around the reefs of St. Croix. It is believed that these ruinous Pacific lionfish, toxic to humans and predators of baby reef fish, hitched their way from the Pacific to the Atlantic through the Panama Canal in the bilges and propeller shaft casings of cruise ships and freighters. What fresh pollutants and incompatible species from Asian Pacific waters will be brought to the San Juan Islands in the ballast tanks of the super tankers returning through the Salish Sea for fresh oil and coal deliveries to the Far East? What precautions are being taken to prevent this invasion of incompatible foreign species who have no natural enemies on our side of the Pacific? What liability will the owners of these supertankers assume for cleaning up and making whole again this precious natural environment of the San Juan Islands presently still quite pristine?

Barbara Jamieson (#8637)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Orcas, WA
Comment:
To: GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I have owned waterfront properties in the West Sound of Orcas Island for over 40 years. I am concerned about the impact on marine plant and animal life to be endangered by the 950 transits of coal ships per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were to be built. I remember reading about the death of marine mammals caused by the U.S. Navy in our waters by the noise alone a few years ago. How would the noise, pollution and physical presence of the additional huge vessels affect our orca populations (including the endangered Southern Residents)?

How would construction and operation, including the vessel noise, of the coal port and the continuous transiting of coal ships affect other marine mammals, fish, birds, and the food web that supports them?

I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Jamieson

Barbara Jamieson (#9916)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Orcas, WA
Comment:
Why do the coal and petro-chemical industries have to choose to imperil, through accident, human error or violence of nature, one of the most precious, cherished, popular natural beauty spots of the world? The San Juan Islands sit like the navel in the middle of the Salish Sea. 80 acres of loose coal lying ready for shipment just above sealevel at Cherry Point, in the event of high wind, torrential rains, earthquake or a tsunami, would ruin the surrounding waters, sea life and food resources which would take $billions to clean up and years to restore. Since 1973 I have lived in, owned property and for five years a small inn on Orcas Island. I probably would not live to see the restoration from such a devastating event.

Can you not disallow this?

Barbara Johnson (#391)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Elma, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
My granddaughter has asthsma, and I know that the coal dust would be harmful to her and other like her.

Sincerely,

Barbara Johnson

Barbara Johnson (#2455)

Date Submitted: 11/06/12
Location: Sedro Woolley, WA
Comment:
6 November 2012

Dear Sir or Madame:
Re: Scoping for EIS

As a resident of Skagit County, I have several concerns regarding the proposed SSA Marine export facility at Cherry Point in Whatcom County.

• Traffic congestion near the rail line
The proposed rail route will be along BNSF tracks that run through Skagit County affecting vehicle traffic. If there are 18 more long trains each day, that means there will be a 5-10 minute delay almost every hour. This could result in a possible life-threatening delay for emergency vehicles transporting patients to a hospital.
Local businesses may suffer from lack of customers who are frustrated by the delays and either stay home or shop elsewhere.

• Environmental effects of transporting coal
Reducing coal dust in open containers by spraying with some type of sealant may reduce coal dust. However what sorts of harms may come from the spray?
What is the effect of coal dust if a car is derailed?
Is it possible to require that the train cars be covered rather than open?

• Environmental effects of burning coal
It is proven that the burning of coal releases several harmful chemicals into the atmosphere. If this coal is transported to China, considering that the prevailing winds are west to east, many of those chemicals will affect the air quality of our area. How is this to be mitigated?

Scoping concerns
• Traffic congestion
Can this be mitigated by the SSA Marine and BNSF by requiring the companies to build overpasses/underpasses at specific crossings to allow emergency vehicles access?
• Air pollution
Can this be mitigated by using covered cars?

I realize that railroads have certain privileges that do not require them to provide infrastructure to local governments. However, both companies will be profiting from the use of the rail line. Could the companies be required to provide mitigation as part of the permit process?

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,

Barbara Johnson
22628 Mosier Road
Sedro Woolley, WA 98284
360-856-0870

Barbara Kantola (#14062)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.
STOP DESTROYING OUR MOUNTAINS! ONCE THEY ARE GONE, THEY ARE GONE FOREVER.

Barbara Keller (#1726)

Date Submitted: 10/30/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
My name is Barbara Keller. I live on the south end of Lopez Island. One of the things that first made me fall in love with the San Juan Islands was the abundant and varied wildlife, particularly our iconic orcas.

The ships calling at the Gateway Pacific Terminal will be using either Haro Strait or Rosario Strait. If Rosario Strait, they may have to park south of the islands, especially Lopez for many hours at a time. Either route they take, they will be transiting the home waters of our resident orcas and the waters necessary to transient orca populations as well.

Studies have shown that both the engine noise and the propeller noise of even small craft, let alone capesize ships, disrupt the communication systems critical to both the feeding and social structure of the orcas. Whale and also dolphin communications must be presumed to be increasingly disrupted by the high-intensity low-frequency noise from the carriers.

Please study the following as part of the Gateway EIS process: What will the noise frequencies, intensities and durations be for each type of ship calling at the Gateway Pacific Terminal? What impacts will that have on marine mammal species in terms of long-term survival? How will those effects be increased with the cumulative projected growth in area shipping around and through the waters of the San Juans? And over the entire life of the proposed development? Will orcas, dolphins and other marine mammals continue to reside in SJI waters? If not, what will be the impacts of the remainder of the local marine species? And on the economy of the SJIs?

If you cannot show that there is no risk of catastrophic impacts due to noise, alone or in combination with other other shipping impacts due to the Gateway Pacific project alone or in combination with other existing or proposed increases in shipping, you must fully consider the no-build option.

Barbara Keller (#1737)

Date Submitted: 10/30/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
My name is Barbara Keller. I live on the south end of Lopez Island. An important aspect of moving to the San Juan Islands was the quiet, both for me and the many native marine, land, and bird species that inhabit these islands.

As I sit here, with the rain pelting on our metal roof and all the multi-pane windows and doors closed, I have been bombarded by the background deep thrumming noise of a large ship parked off our shore, probably more than a mile distant from my inland home. One may assume that the larger ships and a greater frequency of ships will mean more noise more often. In the summers, without the blocking buffer of rain and closed windows, the deep gut-churning noise will after an hour or so literally drive me nuts: I want to yell, tear my hair out and sell my home instantly. I cannot imagine life with even more hours of deep-bellied ship induced vibrations.

Studies have shown that noise can induce both psychological and physical trauma. My neighbors, our Islands visitors and I should not have to deal with those potentially damaging effects just so a few people somewhere else can reap large profits.

Please do not ignore this comment only because you personally do not believe that noise can have this much effect - it can and does.

Please study the following as part of the Gateway EIS process: What will the noise frequencies, intensities and durations be for each type of ship calling at the Gateway Pacific Terminal? How long will those ships potentially, singly or in multiples, be parked and where in our island waters? How will those noises propogate through the waters, air and landmasses effected? What impacts will that potentially have on residents' and visitors' physical and psychological health? How will those effects be increased with the cumulative projected growth in area shipping around and through the waters of the San Juans? And over the entire life of the proposed development? Should there be negative human impacts due to noise, what would be the projected cost of treatment, of lost productivity and of lost tourist revenue? Who will bear those costs?

If you cannot show that there is no risk of severe and/or costly impacts due to noise, alone or in combination with other other shipping impacts due to the Gateway Pacific project alone or in combination with other existing or proposed increases in shipping, or that the proponents of the project will fully recompense, through a pre-paid bond, all related costs to the effected citizens, to the effected government agencies and to the taxpayer, you must fully consider the no-build option.

Barbara Keller (#1758)

Date Submitted: 10/30/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
After both the Exxon Valdez vessel-induced oil spill and the spill, as yet still leaking, from the BP Gulf well, I am extremely concerned about the potential for accidents of the large vessels that will be servicing the proposed terminal. The capesize ships carry large amounts of bunker fuel or diesel fuel, have restricted maneuverability, have mostly non-English speaking crews, and show an astonishingly bad history of collisions.

If you overlay the extent of the Exxon Valdez spill on our map, it extends to the north tip of Vancouver Island and south to southern Oregon - and that is without taking into account the flushing action of our tidal waters.

Please study the following as part of the Gateway EIS process:
a) the potential for coal ship to coal ship, coal ship to ferry, coal to oil or container ship, coal ship to small commercial boat, coal ship to recreational boat allisions or collisions and other accidents due to non-coal avoidance maneuvers, all over the lifetime of the terminal and given the proposed and projected increases in vessel traffic in and around the Salish Sea.
b) the potential locations along the proposed routes where such incidents might happen.
c) spread scenarios for spilled fuels and loads for each potential incident location
d) the impacts on all bird and marine species by such an incident
e) The San Juan Islands contain many protected and specially designated areas. Show the special impacts to those areas for each impact area and tidal flow scenario.
f) study the longterm impacts to our marine ecology from each scenario
g) study any human health impacts from any spill scenario
h) be sure to include a worst-case study
i) for each scenario please show all the costs, long-term and short-term of clean-up, the costs to the San Juan County economy and its effected residents, including especially the generation or more of fishers and other marine harvesters
k) show how the public will be insured (not just assured) against economic economic loss and/or cost-shifting to the public sector should an accident of any magnitude occur.
l) show the public costs associated with any incident, such as spill response, coast guard or police response, public education needs, one-time and on-going monitoring and follow-up cleanup.

If you cannot show that there is no risk of catastrophic impacts due to accident, alone or in combination with other other shipping impacts due to the Gateway Pacific project alone or in combination with other existing or proposed increases in shipping, you must fully consider the no-build option.

Barbara Keller (#3324)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Comment:
I just saw some photos of layers of coal dust on marina boats just down wind of the coal export terminal in Seward, Alaska and have previously seen photos of the coal dust on the decks of coal transport vessels. I would request that this EIS include a look at REAL coal dust pollution numbers, dispersal and human and marine environment effects. I do not want you to use just the proponents sunny assurances of what great stewards they are going to be. I want the EIS process to use real historic amounts of dust dispersed at a number of different west coast US and Canadian coal terminal sites as a basis for what realistically will be dispersed at Cherry Point. I want the EIS to use real rates of coal dust dispersal for on-site movement of coal and for the transport of coal out the dock and into the vessel. I want the EIS to use real coal dust loss rates for transoceanic vessels. I want the EIS to use wind modeling for our local area, both at Cherry Point and along the vessel routes in the Salish Sea, to tell us how much coal dust will go where and by what path. I want to know the health effects of that dust on the humans in its dispersal path and who consume the land or marine food products that with be raised in its residue areas. I want to know the health and other environmental impacts on all potentially impact marine species, plant and animal, as well as how that dust over time cumulatively impacts them and us. We have many endangered, threatened and declining species in our air and waters. I want the know if coal dust will have an additional effect that may further harm these species. Thank you.

Barbara Keller (#3373)

Date Submitted: 11/22/2012
Comment:
My name is Barbara Keller. I live on Lopez Island in the San Juans.

For the past 15 years I have given part of each year to do disaster relief work. Right this moment I am in New York doing building damage assessments on the homes of dozens of the 10,000s of homes damaged or destroyed by the storm surge flood waters resulting from Hurricane Sandy. At those homes or in the shops or restaurants here the topic of climate change often comes up. There are no climate change deny-ers here. Everyone here says they know why they were hit by an historic mega-storm and they know things will be worse in the future. And they ask why, if they know, that there leaders are not even starting to do anything about it. Occasionally we talk about coal and the raise in Asian coal-fired power plants. New Yorkers are not stupid people. They know about the issue and they ask why we would sell the Asians the tools of our own demise.

This EIS cannot legally, scientifically or in conscience omit the greater issue of global warming and the part the proposed export terminal, alone and in concert with other proposed NW coal export terminals, will play in continuing and accelerating the climb in global temperature with its resulting effects of global climate. You must look at not just the 48 MT of coal but the issue of Chinese coal plant building that results from access to our cheap coal and the following addiction it will have to coal use for the life of those plants.

Please evaluate the climate effects of the likely increase in Chinese coal plant emissions caused all plants built in China and other Asian receiving countries over the life of the terminal. Please weigh that against the same energy productivity that would be gained if those countries were to pursue alternative technologies instead of being incented by our government's subsidy of coal exports. Please project the climatological disasters likely to result from the differential rise in CO2 emissions.

Then please look at the cost to Americans personally, like those I am meeting with every day here in New York. People who have lost their homes, their transportation, their jobs and their sense of well-being. People who spent a Noreaster sitting in the cold and the dark in a moldering home. People who still sit in the cold and the dark in a moldering home weeks later. People who will not totally recover for years. Please tell us how many more of these displaced and newly impoverished people will there be, because SSA and BNSF and coal investors want a shortterm profit?

And finally - for this comment at least - please quantify the cost to the American taxpayers as they pay to rebuild the lives and infrastructure lost to these future storms caused by the increase in CO2 emissions caused by the coal exports over the lifetime of this terminal.

And yes, this is a comment. While I have a perspective, it is not an LTE. I am asking that the EIS process not shunt aside legitimate effects of the proposal before you simply because those effects are too disasterous. That is in fact the point of NEPA - to make sure we do not destroy our environment because we have not adequately investigated the consequences of our actions.

Thank you.

Barbara Keller (#3374)

Date Submitted: 11/22/2012
Comment:
Earlier this week it was learned from employees who received pink slips that the Seward Coal Export Facility owned by the Alaska Railroad and operated by Aurora Energy, a subsidiary of Usibelli Coal Mine, is laying off all but a skeleton crew and ceasing operations temporarily because they have no confirmed orders before March 2013. On November 21 Aurora management finally responded to the reporters and their general manager blamed "weak Asian markets". Knowing that the ONLY operating coal export facility on the west coast of the US is shutting down, even temporarily, sure highlights the economic gamble with all of the proposed facilities proposed in the Great NW.

Promises of jobs and tax revenues are not the only economic effects that this EIS should take into consideration. A tremendous amount of potential environmental harm and the possibility, if not the likelihood, of catastrophic environmental damage is being traded off against these two carrots. So this EIS must do a thorough analysis of the economic realities of the coal market in Asia and what costs will be off-loaded on the taxpayers, the health-effected public, and the future pink-slipped workers if/when the terminal no longer pencils out for its investors.

This EIS should consider the no-build alternative as a potentially positive option on the economic side as well. Please look into: Not building the terminal will mean that plans for the redevelopment of the Bellingham and Seattle waterfronts will not be jeopardized. Not building the terminal will mean that the environment that brings millions in tourist dollars to the San Juan Islands will not be jeopardized. Not building the terminal will mean that the taxpayer will not have to pay the clean up costs of pollution caused by the terminal operations, by trains coming to and ships servicing the terminal at any point in the future.

Barbara Keller (#3375)

Date Submitted: 11/23/2012
Comment:
I am 63. My partner is 69. The San Juan Islands have a higher than average percentage of older citizens. Many have left more urban areas because of levels of pollution in order to increase their level of health and perhaps their longevity. They contribute significantly to the economic health and social stability of the Islands.

I have included an article citing a study that links air pollution to decreased cognitive function in older adults.

I would like this EIS to look into the pollution caused by the burning of bunker fuel by the large ships that will be servicing this terminal, both by themselves and cumulatively with the other projected growth in large vessel traffic through and around the islands over the life of the terminal. Please look into the wind patterns that might carry that pollution over the Islands, by amount, type and particulate size. Please let us know how significant the concern would be and how it would relate to the health findings in this study and others like it.

Thank you.

Bad Air Means Bad News for Seniors' Brainpower
ScienceDaily (Nov. 16, 2012) — Living in areas of high air pollution can lead to decreased cognitive function in older adults, according to new research presented in San Diego at The Gerontological Society of America's (GSA) 65th Annual Scientific Meeting.
This finding is based on data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Health and Retirement Study. The analysis was conducted by Jennifer Ailshire, PhD, a National Institute on Aging postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Biodemography and Population Health and the Andrus Gerontology Center at the University of Southern California.
"As a result of age-related declines in health and functioning, older adults are particularly vulnerable to the hazards of exposure to unhealthy air," Ailshire said. "Air pollution has been linked to increased cardiovascular and respiratory problems, and even premature death, in older populations, and there is emerging evidence that exposure to particulate air pollution may have adverse effects on brain health and functioning as well."

This is the first study to show how exposure to air pollution influences cognitive function in a national sample of older men and women. It suggests that fine air particulate matter -- composed of particles that are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller, thought to be sufficiently small that if inhaled they can deposit deep in the lung and possibly the brain -- may be an important environmental risk factor for reduced cognitive function.

The study sample included 14,793 white, black, and Hispanic men and women aged 50 and older who participated in the 2004 Health and Retirement Study (a nationally representative survey of older adults). Individual data were linked with data on 2004 annual average levels of fine air particulate matter from the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality System monitors across the country. Cognitive function was measured on a scale of 1 to 35 and consisted of tests assessing word recall, knowledge, language, and orientation.

Ailshire discovered that those living in areas with high levels of fine air particulate matter scored poorer on the cognitive function tests. The association even remained after accounting for several factors, including age, race/ethnicity, education, smoking behavior, and respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.

Fine air particulate matter exposures ranged from 4.1 to 20.7 micrograms per cubic meter, and every ten point increase was associated with a 0.36 point drop in cognitive function score. In comparison, this effect was roughly equal to that of aging three years; among all study subjects, a one-year increase in age was associated with a drop 0.13 in cognitive function score.

Barbara Keller (#3436)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
Today, I am writing you from New York where I have been doing disaster relief work after Hurricane Sandy for a month now. I have been going from destroyed home to destroyed home helping to evaluate damages and get peoples damaged lives back on track. For many of them it never will be. There is no one here that does not believe that climate change is real. I can attest that the damage to them, their lives, their communities and our economy is real too.
When I was little, after WWII, we could not understand why the average German did not ask where those trains full of Jews where going. We had the suspicion that they knew very well and decided they liked their privileged lives too much to ask, let alone do anything about it.

The coal trains and ships to Asia are our current trains to Dachau.

It is imperative that this EIS process not refuse to look at the end product of the Gateway Terminal proposal. The math of its ramifications - environmental, health and economic - must be included. If for no other reason than this is the only place it can be done. And NEPA requires an evaluation of ALL the SIGNIFICANT direct and INDIRECT effects of a project.
Below I have included a beginning of that math. Please evaluate this project within the framework of this math. If you feel this study is not the most cogent, please make sure to review the scientific and economic literature and use the best analysis possible. Please weigh the true costs to others against the profits to the investors.
- - - - - - -
excerpted from an article by The Energy Collective

The debate is heating up over the transport of coal from mines in Wyoming and Colorado to West Coast ports ....
What are the real costs? There is a new study released September 2012 by DARA, an independent humanitarian organization. The Climate Vulnerability Monitor 2nd Edition is a comprehensive look at the consequences of our carbon economy and climate change that we are saddled with today and in the near future. The bottom line (and there is much more than just the bottom line in this report – so follow the link and read it!) is that right now the global community is suffering economic losses due to climate change and costs associated with a carbon based economy to the tune of about 1.6% of global GDP, increasing to 3.2% of GDP by 2030. This is a conservative report which minimizes the costs associated with dramatic natural disasters and incorporates a multitude of studies from many international experts.
If we just use the bottom line numbers, we can make some economic statements about the proposed project to ship US coal to Asia via Northwest ports. At present, the atmosphere has about 120 ppm (parts per million) more CO2 in it than before we started burning fossil fuels. Once carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, some of it will remain there for thousands of years. However, to make our calculation simple, we will assume that its lifetime is 100 years. If we take the current economic cost of the 120 ppm of CO2 at about 3% of global GDP (weighting slightly to the future since the CO2 will still be around then and the delayed consequential costs are increasing) then, with world GDP at about $70 trillion, we find that global cost of 1 ppm of CO2 can be estimated at:
Economic cost of 1ppm CO2 = World GDP x Cost of 120 ppm at 3% of World GPD/year x Lifetime of CO2 / Present concentration of CO2 = $1.75 trillion/ ppm CO2
One part per million of CO2 in the atmosphere contains about 2 GT (GT = gigaton = a billion tons) of carbon. About half of the carbon burned ends up in the atmosphere, the rest increases the acidity of the oceans.  We can conservatively estimate that cost of that atmospheric carbon is at least $1.75 trillion / 2 GT / 2 = $440 billion per gigaton or about $440 per ton of coal. The price of coal is between $50 and $100 per ton, so clearly if producers or consumers of coal had to pay the true cost of this product, the economics of coal energy would look very different: the costs would be prohibitive.
Besides economic damage, there are serious health consequences as people cope with the consequences of climate change and the pollution from carbon combustion. The Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that about 5 million excess deaths can be attributed to climate change and our carbon infrastructure.
Present plans call for shipping about 0.15 GT of coal from west coast ports to be burned in Asia. That puts the initial annual climate costs at $65 billion. The estimated coal reserves in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado and North Dakota that would be served by rail transport to the west coast ports is more than 100 GT. If the entire reserve is sent into the atmosphere, the carbon would add another 50 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere, effectively ensuring a much less habitable planet.

Barbara Keller (#3797)

Date Submitted: 12/04/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
The impacts of this project must not be assessed in isolation from other increases in transport and production in the area and on the confined waters of the Salish Sea.

From an article in the Seattle Times:
"BP has applied for permits to construct a $60 million rail car receiving and unloading facility near its Cherry Point refinery near the Canadian border in Whatcom County. The oil company hopes to have the project completed by 2014. BP said the refinery still will get the vast majority of its supply of crude oil from Alaska, but the rail yard gives the company a greater variety of sources to feed the refinery, the largest in Washington.
"On average the refinery would receive one standard train load of 40,000 barrels every other day — so about 20,000 barrels a day — less than 10 percent of the refinery's crude requirement. Cherry Point can process up to 234,000 barrels every day so North Slope and other crudes shipped by tanker will remain its primary source of oil," BP said in a statement."

This is in addition to added capacity and train shipments of oil to Tacoma refineries.

While others may also request this in more detail, please include in this EIS the cumulative impacts of this increase in oil trains to west coast refineries mostly on the same tracks as the coal trains to feed this facility.

My main concern, however, as a resident of the San Juan Islands, is with the cumulative impacts of the BP refinery project with this project, both on the nearshore environment and the additional ships that will also be servicing the increased BP production.

Please make sure that the increase in land and water activities at the BP refinery at Cherry Point is included when looking at this project's impact on marine and inland species and the concurrent impact any damage to those species would have on the economic health of the area.

Please do not fail to include in your analysis of shipping impacts the cumulative increase in accident risk, potential for additional bilge water contamination, noise and exhaust pollution especially due to increased queuing times.

If you cannot show that the additional risk posed by this coal terminal and the ships that service it are not significant or can realistically entirely mitigated over the projected life of the terminal, then you must choose the no-build option.

Barbara Keller (#4161)

Date Submitted: 12/08/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
December 7, 2012, the headlines read -
Ship crashes into dock at Westshore Terminals, spilling coal into water

METRO VANCOUVER -- A large bulk carrier docking at Westshore Terminals in Roberts Bank destroyed a coal conveyor system early Friday morning, knocking out the largest of the port’s two berths and spilling an undetermined amount of coal into Georgia Strait.
The mishap has put the berth out of service for an indefinite period of time, affected the port’s ability to export coal, disrupted customer deliveries and caused a yet-to-be-determined effect on the waters off the Fraser delta.
The loss of the berth, which handles ships with a cargo capacity up to 260,000 tonnes, is a significant blow to Westshore, which is North America’s largest coal exporting port. Westshore has one remaining berth, which can handle ships with a capacity of 180,000 tonnes.
The mishap happened at 1 a.m. when the bulk carrier Cape Apricot, with a capacity of 180,000 tonnes, slammed into a trestle, the only link between the berth and the terminal, destroying more than 100 metres of it. The ship went right through the causeway, taking a road, the coal-carrying conveyor belt, and electric and water lines with it.

- - - - -

In determining the scope of accident analysis for the Gateway Pacific Terminal, and thinking of this specific incident, please determine a) the likelihood of a shipping accident, b) the full range of accidents possible, c) the possible range of pollutants entering our waters both chemical and biological because of an accident, d) the environmental damage potentially caused by those pollutants and e) the economic damage due to destruction of infrastructure or blockage of transportation routes due to an accident.

In looking at this one small accident please note that the accident was at go-slow speeds involving a fixed object. There were no particularly adverse weather conditions. This wasn't even the biggest ship calling at this port. The guy just missed. And look what he did! Think now about storm conditions, two or more ships meeting at steaming speeds in close quarters in our normal gusty January weather in Haro or Rosario Strait. Think about the loss of control to a queuing ship in a southerly gale parked of the rocky south tip of Lopez and its lush marine nursery. Ramp up both your probability analysis and your destruction quotient - include that in this EIS.

Remember too that an fuel spill accident can happen any day. And once this terminal is built it will have 50 to 100 years of days in which to happen. One small moment of inattention or system failure could mean decades for ecological recovery or worse, the destruction of already threatened species in our enclosed waters.

Include in that analysis the full range of benefits from the no-build option including, but not limited to, less threat to our ecosystems from shipping accident spills.

Barbara Keller (#4162)

Date Submitted: 12/08/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
In all that I've read no mention has been made about whether the ships servicing the Pacific Gateway terminal would refuel at Cherry Point, either at the coal dock or one of the adjacent facilities. I would like an answer to that question. Is that currently proposed or could that be added in the future, with or without an additional EIS process?

If it is proposed or could be added in the future, how does this impact the possibility of a fuel spill directly into Cherry Point area waters? Both from ships, from a fuel depot or from a fuel line? How would the increase in carried fuel of these Panamax and Capesize ships after re-fueling increase the effects of an accident-caused spill in the enclosed waters of the Salish Sea should it happen?

Barbara Keller (#4165)

Date Submitted: 12/08/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
The proponents for the Gateway Pacific Terminal would like you to balance environmental risks with their claimed economic gain. While they minimize the potential for risks - something YOU may not do - they use false multipliers to agrandize both their jobs and tax revenue potential - something YOU should be very leery of.

But there is one economic concern you MUST put in the equation. As Governor John Kitzhaber rightly asserted, we are subsidizing Asian imports and gaining back only windborne pollutants. Most directly, it is the US taxpayer and governmental services to those taxpayers that are directly being shortchanged with every ton that leaves the country. US royalty rates were originally set with the idea that coal was the engine of US manufacturing. That is no longer the case. Not only are low coal royalty rates going to be subsidizing our Asian competitors, the companies that are going to be profiting from that coal export are undervaluing the coal for royalty purposes, twice robbing the U.S. taxpayer.

By valuing coal at domestic prices, coal producers can take advantage of high priced export markets without paying high royalties. If coal exports to Asia continue to rise, this will pad the bottom line of some of the bigger coal producers in the country. Current and former regulators are starting to look at the royalty program. While producers in the coal-rich PRB follow royalty rules to pay out the government 12.5% of revenues from coal mined on federal land, there remains an uncertainty over when the coal is valued. PRB coal goes mostly to domestic markets, but these are producers and shippers who are eyeing more lucrative international markets. PRB coal was valued at around $13/ton at the mine in 2011, and almost 10 times that amount in China. Royalty experts say that some of the profit should go back to the taxpayers. Mining companies do not report how they negotiate sales overseas, and SEC filings on give a small glimpse. Using a net-back formula, Goldman Sachs calculated that an additional $40 million could have gone back to the government in royalties in 2011. If mining giants are allowed to ship 150 MT of coal through PNW proposed terminals, the loss to the government could extend into the hundreds of millions or billions.

And all we ordinary citizens gain back are health and environmental risks.

If you are going to in any way create a balancing act between economics and the environment - not a requirement of NEPA, by the way - you MUST do so accurately. Use all the costs to the taxpayer for mitigations and for lost revenue as well as gained.

Barbara Keller (#4166)

Date Submitted: 12/08/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 the Skagit Valley Herald read:
Stalled train snarls traffic in MV (Mount Vernon), Some see incident as glimpse of coal train troubles, with the story exerpted as follows:

MOUNT VERNON — A Burlington Northern Santa Fe train stalled in the heart of Mount Vernon Thursday morning, snarling traffic along West Fir Street, Riverside Drive and College Way.
The train halted traffic for 45 minutes to an hour, said Mount Vernon Police Sgt. Peter Lindberg.
“It didn’t cause us a problem, but it had a potential to cause us a problem,” said Mount Vernon Fire Department Chief Roy Hari.
He said his engines at Station 2 on LaVenture Road could only get to the other side of the railroad tracks by using the Second Street viaduct.
“If we have to go anywhere from there and it’s blocking Kincaid, it makes it quite interesting to get around town if you have a train parked in the middle of the city,” Hari said.
...
Skagit 911 Director Bill King said emergency dispatchers were aware of the trains blocking the intersections.
“We make sure that all of our user agencies are notified” when intersections are blocked, King said. “Knowing where they can go beforehand is usually a lot of help to them.”
The 911 center attempts to figure out what is wrong with the train and a timeline for its removal, as well as if there are any hazardous materials on board that first-responders might need to know about, King said.
Skagit Transit buses also sat in the traffic jam for the duration. A notification on the agency’s Twitter account posted at 10:30 a.m. said, “All Mount Vernon buses are stalled due to trains.”

- - - - - -

What more perfect example of a number of the concerns that should be addressed when assessing the impacts of increased train traffic throughout the major urban areas of the region. Mount Vernon is a small town. Seattle a large city. In the case of each impacted area the increased risk of transportation impacts and its resultant economic, safety and health impacts for the increased probability of train incidents, not just accidents, must be addressed by this EIS. The increased length of these trains in looking at potential stoppages must also be addressed. All traffic stoppages leads to increased air pollution from idling engines, lost productivity, as well as the threat of delayed emergency response.

Barbara Keller (#4177)

Date Submitted: 12/09/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
According to the
NORTHWEST PORTS CLEAN AIR STRATEGY
2011 Implementation Report put out by the ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Vancouver they are doing very poorly at meeting their own 2015 air pollution reduction goals. Among the reasons listed in their report are:

• new emission reduction technologies not performing as anticipated,
• limitations of data collection and management systems,
• limited direct influence or functional control of the majority of emission sources (in this case referring to shippers)
• lack of funding for certain emission source sectors to fully implement the Strategy, and
• reprioritization of budgets by terminal operators due to economic conditions.

Since these concerns are known beforehand, how do the bodies making the EIS decision, if other than no-build, plan to assure that all emissions controls promised by all parties - SSA, the eventual entity controlling Gateway Terminal Operations should that responsibility be transferred, the railroads and especially the shippers and accompanying tugs if any - will indeed be put in place?

Since the current evidence suggests the inadequate ability of ports and regulators to make that assurance, please use current worst-case emission numbers for telling us the environmental impacts of transporter air fuel exhaust emissions and coal dust dispersal emissions.

Please address not just the emissions at the terminal itself. The terminal cannot exist without a series of trains supplying it and a series of ships receiving coal for export. Do not assume that these trains and ships are constantly in motion. The trains will often be parked on sidings and the ships will also be parked in queu awaiting transit through restricted waters. In the case of ships, there is no way that a ship can safely power-down while queuing, especially during our quite normally windy weather and turbulent seas.

Please do not limit yourself to the numbers of trains and ships currently prognosticated by the proponents of the Terminal. Please let us know the total potential air pollution ramifications by assuming total potential build-out of the docking area, maximum ship dockage and loading at maximum build-out and the increase in train supply capacity to match that build-out.

Please then equate that emissions amount and the directions of its dispersal to human and animal health effects.

Thank you.

Barbara Keller (#4262)

Date Submitted: 12/10/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
Large ships are noisy, and the effects of noise on whales is of particular concern. In a 2005 study, research scientists Scott and Val Veirs noted, “Approximately one ship transits Haro Strait every hour with about 30 minutes of quiet between. This puts the total shipping traffic at about 20 ships transiting Haro Strait every day of the year. The potential effects of shipping traffic on the Southern Resident killer whales are a threat and further study into this issue is needed.” The Veirs partnered with three other marine scientists in a 2008 study also detailing the impact of ship noise on killer whales.

Planned and completed growth in British Columbia shipping since those studies has already increased the number of ship transits. The growth in the size of ships has also increase the range and volume of sound these ships transmit into our air and waters. The shipping proposed to service the GPT will significantly increase both the noise and the noise impacts. It might be simple to conclude that there is a direct relationship between these numbers. However an increase in noise levels and durations might have a more complex and worse impact on both the physiology and social behaviors of the orcas.

Please measure the potential impacts from the cumulative increase in ship noise in all aspects due to the GPT on our resident and transient killer whales.

Barbara Keller (#4477)

Date Submitted: 12/12/2012
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I live at the south end of Lopez Island. At low tides I sometimes dig for clams in MacKaye Harbor. Some days I go with a neighbor as he gathers crabs, which we share for dinner. When friends come to visit their children may grab a net and catch a few shrimp to be added to the communal meal. Neighbors gather sea greens to dry or add to salads and season barbeque.

Please analyze and tell me, what may happen as a result of the numerous transit and queuing of giant coal ships immediately off the shores of Lopez. How will the normal pollutants of their presence effect the marine eco-systems and the species that are part of our sustenance? What is the potential for the spilling of bilge water containing invasive species? What species might those be and what specific consequences on our south Lopez waters would there be for each species? What is the likelihood of a fuel spill from the collision of one of these giant ships with another or with the rocky shore of our coast? How would a spill effect the species people on the islands harvest and also the species otherwise threatened on our south Lopez shores? Given different accident scenarios, how would the fuels spilled move in our complex tidal environment, where would they end up, how would they be cleaned up, and who would pay?

If the risks of irreversible damage exist, you should adopt the no-build alternative. If the scenarios of risk are too many and the tidal equations and ecosystem interactions too complex to really answer the question, you should adopt the no-build alternative. If there is no way to guarantee that damages can be rectified or that the GPT proponents will bare all the costs of that rectification, you should adopt the no-build alternative.

Barbara Keller (#6045)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
Yesterday, January 4th, there was a 7.5 earthquake in SE Alaska that triggered tsunami warnings. It should remind us of the constant threat of quakes in our area and the need to do a risk and impact analysis within the scope of this EIS.
Please include in scope:
1) a risk analysis for different sizes and locations of earthquakes and for tsunamis, whether generated by local or faraway seismic events,
2) scenarios for potential damage due to a tsunami to the coal terminal at full capacity in the Cherry Point area for distribution of and damage caused by export goods and other pollutants on site,
3) scenarios for potential shipping accidents caused by a tsunami of the ships to be serving the terminal in the enclosed waters of the Salish Sea and, in those events, the damage that could be caused by the release of toxic fuels and other chemicals and/or organisms in released bilge water to the already stressed and potentially harmed marine, freshwater and wetland animal and plant life effected,
4) If those scenarios result in potentially significant damage, explain how those effects can be remediated and how remediation expenses will be assured.
5) If those damages cannot be remediated or the remediation expenses cannot be assured without the potential for high public cost, please consider the no-build alternative.

Barbara Keller (#6069)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
The Panamax and Capesize ships servicing the proposed Gateway Pacific coal terminal will use large amounts of fuel, lubricating oils and other chemicals in order to move the coal from Powder River to China. Without this terminal, these ships would not be traversing the waters of San Juan, Skagit and Whatcom counties.

As part of this EIS please answer the following questions related to these fuels and chemicals:

1. Will these ships be refueling and re-supplying in the waters of the Salish Sea? If so where?

2. What fuels and other chemicals will this entail, in what amounts?

3. How will these be stored and how will they be transported to the ships?

4. In the event of an accident or natural disaster, what would be the potential damage to ecosystem services, plants and wildlife should a spill of these chemicals occur either at the storage facilities or the fueling transport lines?

5. Assuming that this sharp increase in demand for these products would, solely as a result of this terminal's presence, require either a large increase in capacity to existing pipelines or the construction of new pipelines, what would be the environmental and economic impacts of that construction? Should an accident or natural disaster cause a rupture of this new construction, what would be the ramifications?

6. The laws of supply and demand still exist. Given this increased demand for shipping fuels, lubricants and other chemicals, what would be the effect to other existing users in terms of cost and availability?

7. Returning to the question of spills of fuel in storage or transport in fueling to vessels: What sort of response readiness would be required, both for on-land and for in-water spills? Who will bear the cost of that response readiness? Would these spills be mitigable? If so, please delineate how, at what cost, and how we will be assured that no cost is borne by the public or citizens not involved in profiting from the terminal or its ancillary transport and mining enterprises. If not, please consider the no-build alternative as the only possible option.

Barbara Keller (#6345)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
In today's news:
"Wild fires continue to rage across Australia Tuesday and temperatures have become so hot the country's Bureau of Meteorology was forced to add a new color—deep purple—to show areas that have exceeded all-time heat records.
Previously the Bureau's heat index was capped at 48°C (118.4°F), but now recorded temperatures of over 50°C (122°F) have pushed the limit of the scale to an unheard of 54°C, which is equivalent to 129°F.
"The scale has just been increased today and I would anticipate it is because the forecast coming from the bureau's model is showing temperatures in excess of 50 degrees," David Jones, head of the bureau's climate monitoring and prediction unit, told reporters."

So this may seem to be an editorial, but wait and listen and you will see a legitimate scoping comment before I'm done.

After World War II, many of us asked, if the Germans were a moral people only lead down the wrong track by evil leaders, why did they not stop the loading of Jews on trains to Buchenwald and Dachau? When the soldiers and the stationmasters were asked their response was that their job was only to load people into cattle cars, not to ask what the final outcome of their work was to be, whether the death of millions was to be the outcome of their personally arrived at decision. They would say the killing of the Jews was blood on someone else's hands. That the larger "Jewish Question" was not theirs to ask.

So now, as the stationmasters at this end of the environmental train to a climate change Dachau, I would like you to seriously consider that here, with this EIS document, is the place to ask exactly the question, "Is the elephant in the room to be revealed?"

Without the Gateway Pacific Terminal, millions of tons of coal would not be mined every year because there would be no market for them. Those millions of tons of coal are thermal coal, their only purpose to be burned for heat, thereby creating even more millions of tons of CO2 to continue to escalate the rate of climate change in an already overheating world. There is only one outcome to the burning of these millions of tons of coal every year - the degradation of the livability of the planet for people and other living things.

There is a direct line of causation from the building of the terminal, to the mining of the coal to feed it, to the input of more CO2 on an extremely large scale into the atmosphere, to environmentally destructive climate change. Under NEPA, with such an obvious causal link, you are required to include the environmental impacts of the resultant climate change within the scope of this EIS.

My neighbors and I, our children and our grandchildren are the "Jews" on this particular train to the ovens of climate change. You are the stationmasters. You must decide to at least consider whether the actions at this station will result in our destruction at the end of the line.

Barbara Keller (#9331)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am a local resident of the San Juan Islands, a retiree struggling to pay my taxes, a person concerned about the economic situation of my neighbors.

If by chance you are including in this environmental impact process some sort of balancing act between shortterm perceived economic gains and longterm potential and actual degradation of the environment, please be sure to include the economic record of behavior of the players involved in the proposal and its future potential impact on workers and state and local taxpayers.

Over the past decade, Peabody Energy and Arch Coal, the nation's largest coal companies, offloaded large amounts of retiree healthcare obligations to new companies that now face bankruptcy. The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) says that the spin-offs were designed to fail in order to clean the companies' books of their retiree debts.

Please review these cases and other labor-related actions in the last two decades of all the players involved in the building and operation of the proposed terminal and in the shipping of coal in and out of the terminal by sea and rail. How many of these jobs will go to people currently living in Whatcom and San Juan Counties? How will the agencies making this review ensure that all promised and contractual labor obligations will be met to all workers? If those obligations are not met, what will the the impact on the taxpayers be for social services and healthcare? What would the impact on the housing market be both should new workers move into the area and should the enterprise fail or fail to meet its obligations and former workers either lose their homes or vacate homes as they move on to other places of employment?

In making a review of these companies contractual obligations and failure to meet them, please look also into their other history of legal and regulatory compliance, their creation of or contracting with other entities to evade regulation or make potentially illegal profits or unethical advantage. Then tell us what "mitigation" could be suggested to protect both the workers and the taxpayers from undue financial harm. Please be sure that all costs of supervising and regulating this "mitigation" and all bonding costs are borne by the companies involved in the proposal and not the rest of us.

Barbara Keller (#9425)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I live on Lopez Island where I have volunteered significant time to efforts to ensure a continuing vibrant marine ecosystem.
Let me ask you to look at the issue of coal dust and coal dust suppression chemicals.
We know there will be coal dust and we know it must go somewhere. Some of it will leave the trains as they travel between mine and this terminal. Others have asked you to look into the amount, dispersal patterns and health and environmental impacts of that dust. I concur that that investigation must be part of this EIS.
However here I want to ask you to look at the impacts of coal dust on the marine environment, both in the neighborhood of the terminal and throughout the shipping lanes.
Only one of many examples is Westshore terminal in B.C.
“This year has been a long, hot and dry summer which lasted into October… it pinpointed to us that there were weaknesses in our (dust suppression) system that needed addressing,” Westshore director Horgan has said.
Westshore’s dust suppression plan is governed by Metro Vancouver, which issues an air quality permit. Railcars are sprayed with a latex-water mix while roads around the terminal are sprayed with magnesium chloride. The company employs 77 ground level rain guns that will soon be replaced by 96 new units with valve control stations, a fog cannon, and six new “Big Bertha” water spray towers at the west end of the site. Westshore will spend $7 million on those upgrades.
Horgan says that owing to the peculiar wind patterns of the region, coal dust drift to Point Roberts can be a problem. Point Roberts is not that close.
So my question for you is multi-fold:
1) The components of the dust: How much dust would we be looking at at maximum buildout? What is the chemical composition of that dust? What health effects have been implicated from how much exposure to this dust?
2) The dust mitigation chemicals: What chemicals would be used in what places to minimize dust dispersal? What is their efficacy? What health effects have been implicated from how much exposure to each of these chemicals? What detrimental effects have been implicated from how much exposure to each of these chemicals to the various marine animal and plant species found in the terminal area and along the shipping routes? Are there break-down chemicals, synergistic effects with other chemicals that might be in marine waters or sediments, or accumulation levels that might prove more toxic over time or in certain conditions?
3) What would be the normal dispersion patterns through the air of the coal dust and mitigation chemicals from the unloading of the trains at the site, the loading of the conveyor belt at the site, the movement of the coal by conveyor to ships, the loading of ships and the transit of ships through the marine waters of Whatcom and San Juan Counties? Please look especially at our normally high velocity winter winds.
4) What would be the normal dispersion patterns through the water of the coal dust and mitigation chemicals from the unloading of the trains at the site, the loading of the conveyor belt at the site, the movement of the coal by conveyor to ships, the loading of ships and the transit of ships through the marine waters of Whatcom and San Juan Counties? Please consider especially at our high tidal changes washing dust on the "shore" into the water and our high velocity and complex tidal currents.
5) We have significant rains in our area, rains that are predicted to increase with climate change. Please analyze the amount of runoff of this dust and these chemicals due to ordinary and extra-ordinary rainfall and the dispersal and effects of such.
6) If retention ponds should be part of a mitigation proposal, please investigate the following: What would be the environmental or health effects due to over-flow due to flood, tsunami or pond failure at normal and at maximum possible chemical concentration levels? How would land animals and birds be protected from these chemical waters? Should these ponds dry up due to drought, water-use restrictions, plant closing or other reason, what effects might there be on human and environmental health as these chemicals become airborne? What would be the maximum allowable level of chemicals before removal would be required? At that time where would these chemicals go and by what means?
6a) Should there be removal of chemicals from this site to another for disposal, please include that additional site as part of this EIS process.
7) While we in the Pacific Northwest view our climate as one that will always provide sufficient rain, the threat of water shortage in the future is very real. How much water will it take to adequately provide dust suppression and transport and machinery clean-up? Where will that water come from? What pressures might that cause on and costs to other water users? Will that water use preclude other development of nearby lands to their "best and highest use"? What types of assurances will there be that sufficient water and waterflow will remain for the use of local species and the maintenance of current salinity levels on land, in the aquifers, in the waterways and within the waters of the Salish Sea?
8) What would the regulatory and oversight costs be to ensure that all promises of safe levels and of clean-up are attained? Who would pay them? Should there be an unforeseen or unacknowledged spill or over-exposure what clean-up would be required? What boded guarantee would there be that the effects and costs of such an event would not be paid by the taxpayers or by the effected parties themselves? What spill/disaster response capability would need to be in place to be ready to clean up a problem effectively and in a timely way? What ongoing mechanism would be put in place to assure that those costs are met and only by those planning to profit from this proposal?
9) What will assure that neither coal chemical components nor dust mitigation chemicals enter any drinking water supply and who will pay for that monitoring?
Thank you.

Barbara Keller (#9590)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
In 1966, 1969 and 1971 the Bureau of Indian Affairs conducted a number of coal sales that turned out to be grossly illegal on a number of grounds. They resulted in exploration permits covering 324,000 acres or 73 percent of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in Montana. It took a long legal fight, finally culminating in Hollowbreast v. Northern Cheyene Tribe, to secure for the Cheyenne their rights to control the minerals under their land and thereby ensure the purity of their air and water against the onslaught of large mining interests, in that case the largest interest even then being Peabody Coal.

Today the Tongue River RR Company is proposing a new 131 mile rail line for coal shipments that borders the reservation and parallels the Tongue River, linking to new development of Arch Coal's undeveloped coal tracts at Otter Creek, an area surrounded by the Custer National Forest.

Alexis Bonogofsky, manager of tribal partnerships for the National Wildlife Federation, says "If these ports get built, then southeastern Montana becomes a sacrifice area for an Asian coal export market. They don't want their cultural sites destroyed; they don't want their air quality and their water quality impacted."

This proposal to run new rail line into the Tongue River Valley in order to open up the new coal mines in that area would only come about if a new market for that coal were found. Given the decrease in US coal usage and the decrease in Atlantic exports, this new rail and coal mine development can only make economic sense if it is driven by the expectation of exporting that new coal through west coast port facilities to Asia. As the largest proposed terminal, the Gateway Pacific Terminal must be considered as a primary driver for the development of these projects, ie. without this terminal there would be no market for the coal, without this terminal the environmental impacts of both the new Tongue River rail and mining projects would not happen.

While the Surface Transportation Board has finally determined that a new EIS is required for the Tongue River RR proposal under NEPA, that is not enough. That project does not exist without the supply of Otter Creek mines at the one end and the export facility to Asia at the other. All three project drive one another and would not happen in solitude.

It is therefore necessary as part of this GPT EIS process to consider and analyze the shortterm and longterm environmental and health effects of these projects in conjunction with the terminal project. These are not discrete impacts. The direct impacts of those projects are indirect foreseeable impacts of the terminal project and therefore required for consideration under NEPA.

Barbara Kelson (#628)

Date Submitted: 10/10/12
Location: Woodinville, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Barbara Kelson

Barbara King (#9650)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Lummi Island, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. If implemented, it will have the following impacts:
• increase global warming through the burning of the fossil fuel exported from the site;
• put marine ecosystems at risk in the terminal area and damage the fishing economy through water pollution and shipping traffic;
• increase congestion, pollution and noise along the entire corridor from the additional train traffic;
• negatively impact economic development in downtown Bellingham due to nose and congestion;
• have a net negative impact on state and local revenue due to the need to invest in infrastructures (such as overpasses) to mitigate train traffic;
• result in defacto state and local government support of privately-held corporations located outside the region who have no interest or care for the populations of the Pacific Northwest.

Sincerely,
Barbara King

Barbara Kofi Weusijana (#4719)

Date Submitted: 12/11/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. There are people who will be pushed over the edge into illness if exposed to coal pollution. Furthermore the environmental impact of burning the coal later cannot be ignored.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.




Baba Kofi Weusijana
7543B 11th Ave. N.E.
Seattle
Seattle, WA 98115

Barbara Lamoureux (#304)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
I was sitting at a stoplight at the train tracks in Marysville Wa. a few weeks ago waiting for a lumbering train to go by. It was nearly 10 minutes and it wasn't a very long train. I can hardly believe that this crossing would see several trains a day go by some up to a mile long.

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

I surely hope everyone does their homework because once the "coal people" get their hooks on the rights to the tracks, I think all of us will be hugely suffering the consequences.

Barbara Larson (#6690)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Comment:
Please reconsider this project. I expect public officials to conduct a careful permitting and environmental review process for the Cherry Point coal export proposal.This proposal threatens Native American resources and commercial fishing etc. There will be huge polluting and loud coal trains passing through my community all day and night.
Barbara A. Larson

Barbara Lund (#248)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Yakima, WA
Comment:
I'm all for coal staying in the USA. When we need other sources of energy we'll have coal and even change it into liquid fuel as the Germans did in WWII. Dad worked at Fort Lewis on a plant that changed low grade coal in chips that burned cleanly until Regan shut it down.
Until brainiacs come up with room temperature superconductors or fusion is figured out we would be wise to keep our coal here.
I'd like some good coal for my two forges that I blacksmith with.

Barbara Manett (#4727)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara Mays (#7439)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara McElheny (#14007)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

It is time to consider the ill-effects of our short-term thinking.

Barbara McMichael (#11343)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Des Moines, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

First, this proposal negatively communities in the Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Second, as not only an American citizen but a global citizen, I do not want to be a party to the appalling pollution that is occurring in a rapidly industrializing China - more time must be taken to institute cleaner energy sources there. The recent 500-plus PPM readings in Beijing bear me out.

This is a great opportunity to redirect our friends in China toward a cleaner future. Thank you for your serious consideration.

Barbara Mele (#6292)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Comment:
The uncovered coal train cars will release coal dust into the air, which will then pollute anything with which it comes into contact. There must be a better way to transport this resource, such as covering the rail cars, so that if coal must be used, at least we are lessening its impact on the environment.

Barbara Mino (#770)

Date Submitted: 10/11/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara Mitchell-Szwec (#13866)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Nesmith (#13148)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
HELLO? Global Warming? The Death of the Environment so a FEW people can get rich? COME ON!!

Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Barbara Novovitch (#14056)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Virtually all environmentalists and scientists agree that this leads to further climate disasters. Please don't do it!

Barbara Perry (#7367)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
January 8, 13

Georgia Pacific Terminal/ Custer Spur
C/o CH2M HILL,
1100 112TH AVE. NE SUITE 400
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov. ; www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov.


Significant unavoidable adverse impacts

I recommend that GPT not be permitted as Global warming around the world will be worsened, both in counties where the train travels, where the mining takes place, and where the coal travels. Approving GPT FOR COAL is approving murder around the world: this is not an opinion; it is a fact.

I recommend that GPT not be approved because the huge cargo ships coming into fragile Puget Sound could potentially cause disastrous environmental effects by pouring poisons into fragile Puget Sound waters.

I recommend that any workers who help repair any disasters caused by GPT be given any fair worker compensation.

I recommend that all adverse effects of the coal terminal be acknowledged for harmful effects of pollution, noise, and carcinogens.

I recommend that any chemical used in the process and travel of coal be identified and any cure for exposure be clearly presented to all peoples.

Significant unavoidable adverse impacts:

I request a clear, easy way to report any problems. An agency and/or office to report problems would be absolutely necessary if the terminal is passed but also otherwise for things like poisons and oil spills.
I have frequented Cherry Point Beach area since living in this county in 1969. Years ago, I went to the beach for a lunch time break. I was working at Northwest Indian College at the time. I could not walk along the beach because an enormous, shocking amount of dead crabs lined both the E and W sides of the beach, 2 to 3 feet deep along the tideline, not just Folsom lay dead. Dead crabs were piled on top of each other. I tried to contact someone to report this incident and could not find a clear number or name to call to report the incident and help investigate and repair the damage done.

I request that a sign be placed on the beach with contact information for reporting any problems and for requesting information about what occurs at the beach.

I request that GPT be responsible and pay economic costs of having bridges over blocked roadways so that emergency vehicles not be blocked in aiding emergencies.

I request that the number of freight trains traveling along the sound be limited in size, length, and frequency as the Puget Sound is owned by all citizens and all citizens have the right to travel and visit the waterway.

I request that American Indian tribes treaty rights to travel to beaches be recognized, respected and granted.

Potentially affected resources and the extent of analysis for those resources:

I recommend that all living native and non-native species be studied for the impact that Coal Trains could have on them. Non-native species need study to discover if they are dominating native species.

The native species include the following:

Herring
Bald Eagles which I have frequently seen over the years
Golden Eagles -- Last year I rode by an injured Golden Eagle on the Lummi Reserve, close to Cherry Point. He was being captured by authorities and taken away. I request that any incident with a wild animal be reported to a source available for public viewing.

Orcas
Minke whales
Dall’s Porpoises
Peregrine falcon
Amphipods
Copepods – all eight types
Salmon – all types
Great Blue Heron
Seagulls – all types
Crows
Ravens
Other bird types
Crabs
clams
Eelgrass
Bull kelp
Golden Seal
Cat Tails


I request that all poisons emitted by coal or other poisons used because of coal be identified.

I request that a list of any poisons be given to all health care workers at any point along the rail line of GPT and at Cherry Point.

I request that a list of problems and their potential cures be identified.

I request that any problem affecting the health of any animal, including human or plant, be given any funding needed if necessary for physical cure and for any psychological harm.

I request and recommend that monies be provided to any non-profit or profit agency that helps with any problems caused by GPT.

I request that any volunteers who help with problems incurred be identified and fairly reimbursed for their aid.

I recommend that all religions be respected for their believes in any spiritual effects that negatively occur because of GPT.
For instance, native tribes have expressed belief in their ancestors being reincarnated as animals such as whales and eagles and other species. So haven’t Buddhists.
Stephen Michaels wrote an article

I recommend SEPA read about local beliefs in order to understand. In the last ten years, there was an incident of local native tribes trying to save their relation who was going to be shipped to a zoo. They believed an identified orca was the reincarnated spirit of their relation. An article written about the reincarnated spirit was published in many newspapers around the world. The orca was saved from leaving the wild and going to the zoo. Please read an article or view a documentary by Stephen Michaels “Saving Luna: The Santa Barbara Independent” be viewed and/or read: www.independent.com/news/2008/jan/25/saving-luna/

I request that any harm to living species be reported to the tribes in any county the GPT train passes thru as well as at the Cherry Point Terminal.

I request that any harm to living species be reported to any citizen in any county the GPT train passes thru as well as at the Cherry Point Terminal.

I request that any Buddhist sects be informed of species needing assistance as they believe that all life is sacred.

I recommend that any cargo ships coming into the sound report how their on board toilets are flushed.
This summer of 2012, there was poisonous fecal matter in the sound and no one knew from where it came. There are rules about flushing septic’s, but I recommend seafood be checked frequently so that no species are adversely affected by any spills and humans and other species may be protected.

I recommend that because GPT can potentially harm living species and pollute the waters, GPT be given a tax that pays for all government, tribal, and spiritual entities policing GPT actions.

A reasonable range of alternatives (discussed at the end of the pull-out in this edition);

Ideally, I recommend that a ferry terminal at Cherry Point be built for world tourists. Puget Sound and Cherry Point specifically is a natural treasure. If a terminal were built to transport peoples from around the world, those peoples could experience the beauty of the area. They could have one of the most beautiful train rides in the NW when going either South to Seattle or North to Alaska or E to the Cascades.
Tourism is the main industry now serving Bellingham and the whole NW area. Whereas tourism could advance employment opportunities, GPT would destroy tourism and life in the area.

I recommend a boardwalk be built for any humans so that native species are not disturbed and all peoples may walk without disturbing wild life, yet still have viewing access.

I recommend building a Spiritual House for Buddhists and Native peoples. They could help protect the area by overseeing and reporting any harm that the oil and aluminum factories have already and continue to cause. Such a house would advance the tourism already prolific in the area. The tourism could educate people to respect native life.

I recommend a conference center be built on the land N of Cherry Point, now being illegally prepared for GPT. I have been to many conferences and know participants need breaks. Cherry Point has beautiful areas for walking, thinking, and respecting nature. The area North of the beach could house restaurants and conference centers as well as a rail terminal for any peoples in the area to travel elsewhere.
Whatcom Community Transit is a wonderful bus system to transport anyone traveling.

• Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects of the proposals:

I recommend to avoid some public disappointment in not approving GPT Coal terminal, a tourist terminal be built that would create additional jobs for the area without causing the environmental harm of the Coal terminal or causing disrespect of our native treasure.

I recommend that to minimize any harm to life at Cherry Point, the beach be protected by well funded agencies, agencies funded by any developer.

I recommend neutral citizen groups be assigned to track any life changes.

I recommend that in order to protect agencies from prejudice that agencies protecting Puget Sound be hired by a citizens not employed by any developers. The agency may be funded but the workers may not be chosen by the developer.

As recommended in “How to Submit a Scoping Comment”
By Terry Wechsler, ProtectWhatcom.Org, I recommend all the following be studied:

Impacts. A comment should identify the impact one wishes scoped, which will usually relate to an activity occurring at the terminal, or because of its operation (“due to”). Examples include:

• Traffic delays at at-grade rail crossings due to increased rail traffic.
• Increased acidification of coastal waters due to fugitive coal dust from the coal pile at Cherry Point and ship loading.
• Collisions and spills in the Salish Sea due to increased vessel traffic.
• Environmental and health impacts due to diesel particulates from trains and ships.


I recommend in order to lesson the financial burden of added train traffic and costs of any reconstruction and/or improvement of the train system that financial costs be covered by GPT rather than citizens.

Introduce Self:

I am a third generation Washingtonian. My grandfather was Justice of the Peace in Lynden as well as a volunteer fireman given a Washington state award. My other grandmother and grandfather homesteaded at Moses Lake. A picture of them on horseback in front of the lake, is hung on my family home. I treasure the beauty of all native life. I live in Bellingham Wa and have used the Cherry Point Beach as my recreational and spiritual retreat. This document is meant to show many of my concerns and objections to The Gateway Pacific Terminal as it is now proposed to transport coal, adding to more world pollution and global warming. This 2012 year, hundreds of people died because of hurricane Sandy and Australia, one of the worst coal exporters in the world is burning up. My Buddhist belief is that these events are Karmic, or in Christian terms: “So as we sow, so shall we reap.” If GPT be approved for coal, we are guilty of murder of people and life of all species.

Please send me your response to my email and address above.

Thank you,

Barbara Perry


January 8, 13

Georgia Pacific Terminal/ Custer Spur
C/o CH2M HILL,
1100 112TH AVE. NE SUITE 400
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov. ; www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov.


Significant unavoidable adverse impacts

I recommend that GPT not be permitted as Global warming around the world will be worsened, both in counties where the train travels, where the mining takes place, and where the coal travels. Approving GPT FOR COAL is approving murder around the world: this is not an opinion; it is a fact.

I recommend that GPT not be approved because the huge cargo ships coming into fragile Puget Sound could potentially cause disastrous environmental effects by pouring poisons into fragile Puget Sound waters.

I recommend that any workers who help repair any disasters caused by GPT be given any fair worker compensation.

I recommend that all adverse effects of the coal terminal be acknowledged for harmful effects of pollution, noise, and carcinogens.

I recommend that any chemical used in the process and travel of coal be identified and any cure for exposure be clearly presented to all peoples.

Significant unavoidable adverse impacts:

I request a clear, easy way to report any problems. An agency and/or office to report problems would be absolutely necessary if the terminal is passed but also otherwise for things like poisons and oil spills.
I have frequented Cherry Point Beach area since living in this county in 1969. Years ago, I went to the beach for a lunch time break. I was working at Northwest Indian College at the time. I could not walk along the beach because an enormous, shocking amount of dead crabs lined both the E and W sides of the beach, 2 to 3 feet deep along the tideline, not just Folsom lay dead. Dead crabs were piled on top of each other. I tried to contact someone to report this incident and could not find a clear number or name to call to report the incident and help investigate and repair the damage done.

I request that a sign be placed on the beach with contact information for reporting any problems and for requesting information about what occurs at the beach.

I request that GPT be responsible and pay economic costs of having bridges over blocked roadways so that emergency vehicles not be blocked in aiding emergencies.

I request that the number of freight trains traveling along the sound be limited in size, length, and frequency as the Puget Sound is owned by all citizens and all citizens have the right to travel and visit the waterway.

I request that American Indian tribes treaty rights to travel to beaches be recognized, respected and granted.

Potentially affected resources and the extent of analysis for those resources:

I recommend that all living native and non-native species be studied for the impact that Coal Trains could have on them. Non-native species need study to discover if they are dominating native species.

The native species include the following:

Herring
Bald Eagles which I have frequently seen over the years
Golden Eagles -- Last year I rode by an injured Golden Eagle on the Lummi Reserve, close to Cherry Point. He was being captured by authorities and taken away. I request that any incident with a wild animal be reported to a source available for public viewing.

Orcas
Minke whales
Dall’s Porpoises
Peregrine falcon
Amphipods
Copepods – all eight types
Salmon – all types
Great Blue Heron
Seagulls – all types
Crows
Ravens
Other bird types
Crabs
clams
Eelgrass
Bull kelp
Golden Seal
Cat Tails


I request that all poisons emitted by coal or other poisons used because of coal be identified.

I request that a list of any poisons be given to all health care workers at any point along the rail line of GPT and at Cherry Point.

I request that a list of problems and their potential cures be identified.

I request that any problem affecting the health of any animal, including human or plant, be given any funding needed if necessary for physical cure and for any psychological harm.

I request and recommend that monies be provided to any non-profit or profit agency that helps with any problems caused by GPT.

I request that any volunteers who help with problems incurred be identified and fairly reimbursed for their aid.

I recommend that all religions be respected for their believes in any spiritual effects that negatively occur because of GPT.
For instance, native tribes have expressed belief in their ancestors being reincarnated as animals such as whales and eagles and other species. So haven’t Buddhists.
Stephen Michaels wrote an article

I recommend SEPA read about local beliefs in order to understand. In the last ten years, there was an incident of local native tribes trying to save their relation who was going to be shipped to a zoo. They believed an identified orca was the reincarnated spirit of their relation. An article written about the reincarnated spirit was published in many newspapers around the world. The orca was saved from leaving the wild and going to the zoo. Please read an article or view a documentary by Stephen Michaels “Saving Luna: The Santa Barbara Independent” be viewed and/or read: www.independent.com/news/2008/jan/25/saving-luna/

I request that any harm to living species be reported to the tribes in any county the GPT train passes thru as well as at the Cherry Point Terminal.

I request that any harm to living species be reported to any citizen in any county the GPT train passes thru as well as at the Cherry Point Terminal.

I request that any Buddhist sects be informed of species needing assistance as they believe that all life is sacred.

I recommend that any cargo ships coming into the sound report how their on board toilets are flushed.
This summer of 2012, there was poisonous fecal matter in the sound and no one knew from where it came. There are rules about flushing septic’s, but I recommend seafood be checked frequently so that no species are adversely affected by any spills and humans and other species may be protected.

I recommend that because GPT can potentially harm living species and pollute the waters, GPT be given a tax that pays for all government, tribal, and spiritual entities policing GPT actions.

A reasonable range of alternatives (discussed at the end of the pull-out in this edition);

Ideally, I recommend that a ferry terminal at Cherry Point be built for world tourists. Puget Sound and Cherry Point specifically is a natural treasure. If a terminal were built to transport peoples from around the world, those peoples could experience the beauty of the area. They could have one of the most beautiful train rides in the NW when going either South to Seattle or North to Alaska or E to the Cascades.
Tourism is the main industry now serving Bellingham and the whole NW area. Whereas tourism could advance employment opportunities, GPT would destroy tourism and life in the area.

I recommend a boardwalk be built for any humans so that native species are not disturbed and all peoples may walk without disturbing wild life, yet still have viewing access.

I recommend building a Spiritual House for Buddhists and Native peoples. They could help protect the area by overseeing and reporting any harm that the oil and aluminum factories have already and continue to cause. Such a house would advance the tourism already prolific in the area. The tourism could educate people to respect native life.

I recommend a conference center be built on the land N of Cherry Point, now being illegally prepared for GPT. I have been to many conferences and know participants need breaks. Cherry Point has beautiful areas for walking, thinking, and respecting nature. The area North of the beach could house restaurants and conference centers as well as a rail terminal for any peoples in the area to travel elsewhere.
Whatcom Community Transit is a wonderful bus system to transport anyone traveling.

• Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects of the proposals:

I recommend to avoid some public disappointment in not approving GPT Coal terminal, a tourist terminal be built that would create additional jobs for the area without causing the environmental harm of the Coal terminal or causing disrespect of our native treasure.

I recommend that to minimize any harm to life at Cherry Point, the beach be protected by well funded agencies, agencies funded by any developer.

I recommend neutral citizen groups be assigned to track any life changes.

I recommend that in order to protect agencies from prejudice that agencies protecting Puget Sound be hired by a citizens not employed by any developers. The agency may be funded but the workers may not be chosen by the developer.

As recommended in “How to Submit a Scoping Comment”
By Terry Wechsler, ProtectWhatcom.Org, I recommend all the following be studied:

Impacts. A comment should identify the impact one wishes scoped, which will usually relate to an activity occurring at the terminal, or because of its operation (“due to”). Examples include:

• Traffic delays at at-grade rail crossings due to increased rail traffic.
• Increased acidification of coastal waters due to fugitive coal dust from the coal pile at Cherry Point and ship loading.
• Collisions and spills in the Salish Sea due to increased vessel traffic.
• Environmental and health impacts due to diesel particulates from trains and ships.


I recommend in order to lesson the financial burden of added train traffic and costs of any reconstruction and/or improvement of the train system that financial costs be covered by GPT rather than citizens.

Introduce Self:

I am a third generation Washingtonian. My grandfather was Justice of the Peace in Lynden as well as a volunteer fireman given a Washington state award. My other grandmother and grandfather homesteaded at Moses Lake. A picture of them on horseback in front of the lake, is hung on my family home. I treasure the beauty of all native life. I live in Bellingham Wa and have used the Cherry Point Beach as my recreational and spiritual retreat. This document is meant to show many of my concerns and objections to The Gateway Pacific Terminal as it is now proposed to transport coal, adding to more world pollution and global warming. This 2012 year, hundreds of people died because of hurricane Sandy and Australia, one of the worst coal exporters in the world is burning up. My Buddhist belief is that these events are Karmic, or in Christian terms: “So as we sow, so shall we reap.” If GPT be approved for coal, we are guilty of murder of people and life of all species.

Please send me your response to my email and address above.

Thank you,

Barbara Perry



January 8, 13

Georgia Pacific Terminal/ Custer Spur
C/o CH2M HILL,
1100 112TH AVE. NE SUITE 400
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov. ; www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov.


Significant unavoidable adverse impacts

I recommend that GPT not be permitted as Global warming around the world will be worsened, both in counties where the train travels, where the mining takes place, and where the coal travels. Approving GPT FOR COAL is approving murder around the world: this is not an opinion; it is a fact.

I recommend that GPT not be approved because the huge cargo ships coming into fragile Puget Sound could potentially cause disastrous environmental effects by pouring poisons into fragile Puget Sound waters.

I recommend that any workers who help repair any disasters caused by GPT be given any fair worker compensation.

I recommend that all adverse effects of the coal terminal be acknowledged for harmful effects of pollution, noise, and carcinogens.

I recommend that any chemical used in the process and travel of coal be identified and any cure for exposure be clearly presented to all peoples.

Significant unavoidable adverse impacts:

I request a clear, easy way to report any problems. An agency and/or office to report problems would be absolutely necessary if the terminal is passed but also otherwise for things like poisons and oil spills.
I have frequented Cherry Point Beach area since living in this county in 1969. Years ago, I went to the beach for a lunch time break. I was working at Northwest Indian College at the time. I could not walk along the beach because an enormous, shocking amount of dead crabs lined both the E and W sides of the beach, 2 to 3 feet deep along the tideline, not just Folsom lay dead. Dead crabs were piled on top of each other. I tried to contact someone to report this incident and could not find a clear number or name to call to report the incident and help investigate and repair the damage done.

I request that a sign be placed on the beach with contact information for reporting any problems and for requesting information about what occurs at the beach.

I request that GPT be responsible and pay economic costs of having bridges over blocked roadways so that emergency vehicles not be blocked in aiding emergencies.

I request that the number of freight trains traveling along the sound be limited in size, length, and frequency as the Puget Sound is owned by all citizens and all citizens have the right to travel and visit the waterway.

I request that American Indian tribes treaty rights to travel to beaches be recognized, respected and granted.

Potentially affected resources and the extent of analysis for those resources:

I recommend that all living native and non-native species be studied for the impact that Coal Trains could have on them. Non-native species need study to discover if they are dominating native species.

The native species include the following:

Herring
Bald Eagles which I have frequently seen over the years
Golden Eagles -- Last year I rode by an injured Golden Eagle on the Lummi Reserve, close to Cherry Point. He was being captured by authorities and taken away. I request that any incident with a wild animal be reported to a source available for public viewing.

Orcas
Minke whales
Dall’s Porpoises
Peregrine falcon
Amphipods
Copepods – all eight types
Salmon – all types
Great Blue Heron
Seagulls – all types
Crows
Ravens
Other bird types
Crabs
clams
Eelgrass
Bull kelp
Golden Seal
Cat Tails


I request that all poisons emitted by coal or other poisons used because of coal be identified.

I request that a list of any poisons be given to all health care workers at any point along the rail line of GPT and at Cherry Point.

I request that a list of problems and their potential cures be identified.

I request that any problem affecting the health of any animal, including human or plant, be given any funding needed if necessary for physical cure and for any psychological harm.

I request and recommend that monies be provided to any non-profit or profit agency that helps with any problems caused by GPT.

I request that any volunteers who help with problems incurred be identified and fairly reimbursed for their aid.

I recommend that all religions be respected for their believes in any spiritual effects that negatively occur because of GPT.
For instance, native tribes have expressed belief in their ancestors being reincarnated as animals such as whales and eagles and other species. So haven’t Buddhists.
Stephen Michaels wrote an article

I recommend SEPA read about local beliefs in order to understand. In the last ten years, there was an incident of local native tribes trying to save their relation who was going to be shipped to a zoo. They believed an identified orca was the reincarnated spirit of their relation. An article written about the reincarnated spirit was published in many newspapers around the world. The orca was saved from leaving the wild and going to the zoo. Please read an article or view a documentary by Stephen Michaels “Saving Luna: The Santa Barbara Independent” be viewed and/or read: www.independent.com/news/2008/jan/25/saving-luna/

I request that any harm to living species be reported to the tribes in any county the GPT train passes thru as well as at the Cherry Point Terminal.

I request that any harm to living species be reported to any citizen in any county the GPT train passes thru as well as at the Cherry Point Terminal.

I request that any Buddhist sects be informed of species needing assistance as they believe that all life is sacred.

I recommend that any cargo ships coming into the sound report how their on board toilets are flushed.
This summer of 2012, there was poisonous fecal matter in the sound and no one knew from where it came. There are rules about flushing septic’s, but I recommend seafood be checked frequently so that no species are adversely affected by any spills and humans and other species may be protected.

I recommend that because GPT can potentially harm living species and pollute the waters, GPT be given a tax that pays for all government, tribal, and spiritual entities policing GPT actions.

A reasonable range of alternatives (discussed at the end of the pull-out in this edition);

Ideally, I recommend that a ferry terminal at Cherry Point be built for world tourists. Puget Sound and Cherry Point specifically is a natural treasure. If a terminal were built to transport peoples from around the world, those peoples could experience the beauty of the area. They could have one of the most beautiful train rides in the NW when going either South to Seattle or North to Alaska or E to the Cascades.
Tourism is the main industry now serving Bellingham and the whole NW area. Whereas tourism could advance employment opportunities, GPT would destroy tourism and life in the area.

I recommend a boardwalk be built for any humans so that native species are not disturbed and all peoples may walk without disturbing wild life, yet still have viewing access.

I recommend building a Spiritual House for Buddhists and Native peoples. They could help protect the area by overseeing and reporting any harm that the oil and aluminum factories have already and continue to cause. Such a house would advance the tourism already prolific in the area. The tourism could educate people to respect native life.

I recommend a conference center be built on the land N of Cherry Point, now being illegally prepared for GPT. I have been to many conferences and know participants need breaks. Cherry Point has beautiful areas for walking, thinking, and respecting nature. The area North of the beach could house restaurants and conference centers as well as a rail terminal for any peoples in the area to travel elsewhere.
Whatcom Community Transit is a wonderful bus system to transport anyone traveling.

• Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects of the proposals:

I recommend to avoid some public disappointment in not approving GPT Coal terminal, a tourist terminal be built that would create additional jobs for the area without causing the environmental harm of the Coal terminal or causing disrespect of our native treasure.

I recommend that to minimize any harm to life at Cherry Point, the beach be protected by well funded agencies, agencies funded by any developer.

I recommend neutral citizen groups be assigned to track any life changes.

I recommend that in order to protect agencies from prejudice that agencies protecting Puget Sound be hired by a citizens not employed by any developers. The agency may be funded but the workers may not be chosen by the developer.

As recommended in “How to Submit a Scoping Comment”
By Terry Wechsler, ProtectWhatcom.Org, I recommend all the following be studied:

Impacts. A comment should identify the impact one wishes scoped, which will usually relate to an activity occurring at the terminal, or because of its operation (“due to”). Examples include:

• Traffic delays at at-grade rail crossings due to increased rail traffic.
• Increased acidification of coastal waters due to fugitive coal dust from the coal pile at Cherry Point and ship loading.
• Collisions and spills in the Salish Sea due to increased vessel traffic.
• Environmental and health impacts due to diesel particulates from trains and ships.


I recommend in order to lesson the financial burden of added train traffic and costs of any reconstruction and/or improvement of the train system that financial costs be covered by GPT rather than citizens.

Introduce Self:

I am a third generation Washingtonian. My grandfather was Justice of the Peace in Lynden as well as a volunteer fireman given a Washington state award. My other grandmother and grandfather homesteaded at Moses Lake. A picture of them on horseback in front of the lake, is hung on my family home. I treasure the beauty of all native life. I live in Bellingham Wa and have used the Cherry Point Beach as my recreational and spiritual retreat. This document is meant to show many of my concerns and objections to The Gateway Pacific Terminal as it is now proposed to transport coal, adding to more world pollution and global warming. This 2012 year, hundreds of people died because of hurricane Sandy and Australia, one of the worst coal exporters in the world is burning up. My Buddhist belief is that these events are Karmic, or in Christian terms: “So as we sow, so shall we reap.” If GPT be approved for coal, we are guilty of murder of people and life of all species.

Please send me your response to my email and address above.

Thank you,

Barbara Perry

Barbara Perry (#12659)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Jan 20, 2013

EIS Comments

Dear Comments,

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Addendum to scoping comments of Barbara Perry

oxicol Ind Health. 2006 Sep;22(8):357-62.
Lead and cadmium exposure in children living around a coal-mining area in Yataan, Turkey.
Yapici G, Can G, Kiziler AR, Aydemir B, Timur IH, Kaypmaz A.
Source
Department of Public Health, Medical Faculty, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey. gulyapici@yahoo.com.tr Abstract The study was designed to determine asymptomatic lead poisoning prevalence and cadmium exposure of preschool children living in a coal-mining area in Yataan, Mugla, Turkey. The research was conducted between May and June 2002. The study included 236 children (53.4% female and 46.6% male) who were identified among the healthy children between the ages of 6 months and 6 years, using a systematic sampling method, from the records of the local medical centre of Yataan.
Assessments of the levels of blood lead and cadmium were performed by an atomic absorption spectrophotometer, in the Department of Biophysics, Cerrahpaa Medical Faculty. The mean age of females and males were 49+/-18 and 43+/-19 months, respectively. The mean blood lead level was 33.8+/-15.6 microg/dL in females and 38.8+/-16.0 microg/dL in males. The mean blood lead level of the males was significantly higher than the females (P 10 microg/dL in 95.7% and
>20 microg/dL in 87.6% of all children. The mean blood cadmium level
of all children was 1.31+/-0.72 microg/dL. The blood cadmium level was found to be >0.5 microg/dL, which is considered to be toxic, in 85% of all children. The difference in blood cadmium levels between sexes was not significant. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between blood cadmium level and age of all children (r= -0.382, P 0.001). Although it is not possible to understand from this study what proportion of the biological lead and cadmium burden results from mining waste and what proportion comes from other sources, such as paint and gasoline residue deposited in soil and air, these results do indicate that asymptomatic lead poisoning and cadmium exposure are significant problems in children living in the Yataan area. In conclusion, environmental lead measurements (house dust, soil, drinking water and air) must be performed, the results must be compared with the normal limits, and precautions must be taken if necessary in the Yataan area. Future public health research efforts should focus on reducing the excessive levels of lead and cadmium in the environment.
PMID: 17120535 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/violent-crime-lead-poisoning-british-export?intcmp=122
:

At first it seemed preposterous. The hypothesis was so exotic that I laughed. The rise and fall of violent crime during the second half of the 20th century and first years of the 21st were caused, it proposed, not by changes in policing or imprisonment, single parenthood, recession, crack cocaine or the legalisation of abortion, but mainly by ... lead.

I don't mean bullets. The crime waves that afflicted many parts of the world and then, against all predictions, collapsed, were ascribed, in an article published by Mother Jones last week, to the rise and fall in the use of lead-based paint and leaded petrol.

It's ridiculous until you see the evidence. Studies between cities, states and nations show that the rise and fall in crime follows, with a roughly 20-year lag, the rise and fall in the exposure of infants to trace quantities of lead. But all that gives us is correlation: an association that could be coincidental. The Mother Jones article, which is based on several scientific papers, claimed causation.

I began by reading the papers. Do they say what the article claims?
They do. Then I looked up the citations: the discussion of those papers in the scientific literature. The three whose citations I checked have been mentioned, between them, 301 times. I went through all these papers (except the handful in foreign languages), as well as dozens of others. To my astonishment, I could find just one study attacking the thesis, and this was sponsored by the Ethyl Corporation, which happens to have been a major manufacturer of the petrol additive tetraethyl lead. I found many more supporting it. Crazy as this seems, it really does look as if lead poisoning could be the major cause of the rise and fall of violent crime.

From google search:

1. Lead Poisoning Causes Crime? - Hit & Run :
Reason.comreason.com/blog/2013/01/04/leading-poisoning-causes-crimeJan
4, 2013 Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U ... Drum details research that shows that lead exposure causes all ..... Rolling Stone Lists " Legalization's Biggest Enemies," Somehow Omits President Obama ...
2.
3. Link Between Crime & Lead
Exposurewww.dallascriminallawyer.com/.../link-between-crime-lead-exposure/June
30, 2004. Lead exposure in early childhood may have played an important role in the national epidemic of violent crime in the late 20th century and the ...
4.
5. Lead Poisoning: Clean Air Vs. the EPA - Z
Communicationswww.zcommunications.org " ZMag " Don Fitz... lead poisoning has on violent crime and learning ability, the industry argues that .... doomed to forever roll a heavy stone uphill only to watch it roll down again .
6.
7. New Report Shows Violent Crime Rates Linked to Lead Poisoning
...goodmenproject.com " Good Feed BlogJan 6, 2013 New Report Shows Violent Crime Rates Linked to Lead Poisoning ... knew tetra ethyl lead was a danger and they can be sued back into the stone age. .... An rock and roll concert full of hipsters left me feeling oddly content.
8.
9. Results for similar searches
1. Research Links Lead Exposure, Criminal
Activitywww.washingtonpost.com " NationJul 8, 2007 The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States.
2. More results for rolling stone lead poisoning and violent crime
3. Lead In The Environment Causes Violent Crime, Reports University
...www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223145108.htmFeb 26, 2005
18 Exposure to lead may be one of the most significant causes of violent crime in young people, according to one of the nation's leading ...
4. More results for rolling stone lead poisoning and violent crime
5. Living on Earth: Lead and Violent
Crimewww.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=09-P13-00001...Jan 2,
2009 And now there is more compelling evidence linking lead exposure in the womb and early childhood with violent crime later in life. These latest ...
More results for lead paint violent crime

Please check how much lead will be added to the land and water because of coal. Please review at least the following articles:

Significant unavoidable adverse impacts

I recommend that GPT not be approved because the huge cargo ships coming into fragile Puget Sound could potentially cause disastrous environmental effects by pouring poisons into fragile Puget Sound waters.

I recommend that GPT be charged for any water used to transport Coal.

I recommend that all chemicals used in the transport of coal be identified and if toxic, any substances that prevents toxicity harm be listed as well as stocked and distributed to necessary entities.

I recommend that any workers who help repair any disasters caused by GPT be given any fair worker compensation.

I recommend that all adverse effects of the coal terminal be acknowledged for harmful effects of pollution, noise, and carcinogens.

I recommend that any chemical used in the process and travel of coal be identified and any cure for exposure be clearly presented to all peoples.

Significant unavoidable adverse impacts:

I request a clear, easy way to report any problems. An agency and/or office to report problems would be absolutely necessary if the terminal is passed but also otherwise for things like poisons and oil spills.
I have frequented Cherry Point Beach area since living in this county in 1969. Years ago, I went to the beach for a lunch time break. I was working at Northwest Indian College at the time. I could not walk along the beach because an enormous, shocking amount of dead crabs lined both the E and W sides of the beach, 2 to 3 feet deep along the tideline, not just Folsom, lay dead. Dead crabs were piled on top of each other. I tried to contact someone to report this incident and could not find a clear number or name to call to report the incident and help investigate and repair the damage done.

I request that a sign be placed on the beach with contact information for reporting any problems and for requesting information about what occurs at the beach.

I request that GPT be responsible and pay economic costs of having bridges over blocked roadways so that emergency vehicles not be blocked in aiding emergencies.

I request that the number of freight trains traveling along the sound be limited in size, length, and frequency as the Puget Sound is owned by all citizens and all citizens have the right to travel and visit the waterway. Blocking trains could kill people.

I request that American Indian tribes' treaty rights to travel to beaches be recognized, respected and granted.

Potentially affected resources and the extent of analysis for those
resources:

I recommend that all living native and non-native species be studied for the impact that Coal Trains could have on them. Non-native species need study to discover if they are dominating native species.

The native species include the following:

Herring Herring is of special importance as other species are so
dependent on them. Herring has not been studied recently, yet, it was
supposed to be. Make certain reports are updated.
Snowy Owls In the 19 75, I lived near Cherry Point. My family flew a
kite with a painted Eagle on it. A Snowy Owl came and circled the
kite to check it out. Afterwards a Bald Eagle also circled it.
Bald Eagles which I have frequently seen over the years Golden Eagles -- Last year I rode by an injured Golden Eagle on the
Lummi Reserve, close to Cherry Point. He was being captured by
authorities and taken away. I request that any incident with a wild
animal be reported to a source available to the public.

Orcas
Minke whales
Dall's Porpoises
Peregrine falcon
Amphipods
Copepods all eight types
Salmon all types
Great Blue Heron
Seagulls all types
Crows
Ravens
Other bird types
Crabs
clams
Eelgrass
Bull kelp
Golden Seal
Cat Tails

I request that all chemicals emitted by coal or other poisons used because of coal be identified.

I request that a list of any poisons be given to all health care workers at any point along the rail line of GPT and at Cherry Point.

I request that a list of problems and their potential cures be identified.

I request that any problem affecting the health of any animal, including human or plant, be given any funding needed if necessary for physical cure and for any psychological harm.

I request and recommend that monies be provided to any non-profit or profit agency that helps with any problems caused by GPT.

I request that any volunteers who help with problems incurred be identified and fairly reimbursed for their aid.

I recommend that all religions be respected for their believes in any spiritual effects that negatively occur because of GPT.
For instance, native tribes have expressed belief in their ancestors
being reincarnated as animals such as whales and eagles and other
species. So haven't Buddhists.

I recommend agencies read about local religious beliefs in order to
understand. In the last ten years, there was an incident of local
native tribes trying to save their relation who was going to be
shipped to a zoo. They believed an identified orca was the
reincarnated spirit of their relation. An article written about the reincarnated spirit was published in many newspapers around the world.
The orca was saved from leaving the wild and going to the zoo. Please
read an article or view a documentary by Stephan Michaels "Saving
Luna: The Santa Barbara Independent" be viewed and/or read:
www.independent.com/news/2008/jan/25/saving-luna/

I request that any harm to living species be reported to the tribes in any county the GPT train passes thru as well as at the Cherry Point Terminal.

I request that any harm to living species be reported to any citizen in any county the GPT train passes thru as well as at the Cherry Point Terminal.

I request that any Buddhist sects be informed of species needing assistance as they believe that all life is sacred.

I recommend that any cargo ships coming into the sound report how their on board toilets are flushed.
This summer of 2012, there was poisonous fecal matter in the sound and
no one knew from where it came. There are rules about flushing
septic's, but I recommend seawater be checked frequently so that no
species are adversely affected by any undetected spills and humans and
other species may be protected.

I recommend that because GPT can potentially harm living species and pollute the waters, GPT be given a tax that pays for all government, tribal, and spiritual entities policing GPT actions.

A reasonable range of alternatives;

Ideally, I recommend that a ferry terminal at Cherry Point be built for
world tourists. Puget Sound and Cherry Point specifically is a
natural, national treasure, especially because of the role herring
play in the life of the waterway. If a terminal were built to
transport peoples from around the world, those peoples could
experience the beauty of the area. They could have one of the most
beautiful train rides in the NW when going either South to Seattle or
North to Alaska or E to the Cascades.
Tourism is the main industry now serving Bellingham and the whole NW
area. Whereas tourism could advance employment opportunities, GPT would destroy tourism and life in the area.

I recommend a boardwalk be built along the beach front for any humans
so that native species are not disturbed and all peoples may walk
without disturbing wild life, yet still have viewing access.

I recommend building a Spiritual House for Buddhists and Native
peoples. They could help protect the area by overseeing and reporting
any harm that the oil and aluminum factories have already and continue
to cause. Such a house would advance the tourism already prolific in
the area. The house could educate tourists to respect native life.

I recommend a conference center be built on the land N of Cherry Point,
now being illegally prepared for GPT. I have been to many conferences
and know participants need breaks. Cherry Point has beautiful areas
for walking, thinking, and respecting nature. The area North of the
beach could house restaurants and conference centers as well as a rail
terminal for any peoples in the area to travel elsewhere.
Whatcom Community Transit is a wonderful bus system to transport anyone traveling. There is enough room to safely park any cars while
owners travel.

I recommend a cherry orchard be planted on Conference grounds so that Cherry Point have a fitting name and cherries may be harvested or native birds may be allowed to harvest them.. I have cherry trees in my yard at home any many bird species love them.

Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects of the proposals:

I recommend to avoid some public disappointment in not approving GPT Coal terminal, a tourist terminal be built that would create additional jobs for the area without causing the environmental harm of the Coal terminal or causing disrespect of our native treasure.

I recommend that to minimize any harm to life at Cherry Point, the beach be protected by well funded agencies, and agencies be funded by any developer.

I recommend neutral citizen groups be assigned to track any life changes.

I recommend that in order to avoid agencies from being prejudice protecting Puget Sound that those agencies hire citizens not employed by any developers. The agency may be funded but the workers may not be chosen by the developer.

I recommend studying who will update and make our railway safe.

I recommend that GPT pay costs of railway improvements, and make certain the citizens of any state do NOT fund rail improvements.

I recommend in order to lesson the financial burden of added train traffic and to develop strong rail systems, that costs of any reconstruction and/or improvement of the train system covered by GPT rather than citizens.

I am a third generation Washingtonian. My grandfather was Justice of the Peace in Lynden as well as a volunteer fireman given a Washington state award. My other grandmother and grandfather homesteaded at Moses Lake. A picture of them on horseback in front of the lake, is hung in my family home. I treasure the beauty of all native life. I live in Bellingham, Washington and have used the Cherry Point Beach as my recreational and spiritual retreat since moving to Whatcom County in 1969. This document is meant to show many of my concerns and objections to The Gateway Pacific Terminal as it is now proposed to transport coal, adding to more world pollution and global warming.
This 2012 year, hundreds of people died because of hurricane Sandy, because of the melting glaciers, and because Australia has been burning up, although it is one of the worst coal exporters in the world is burning up. The Effects of global warming are too numerous to list.
My Buddhist belief is that these events are Karmic, or in Christian
terms: "So as we sow, so shall we reap." If GPT is approved for transporting coal, the agency is guilty of murder of people and life of all species. Any person approving the coal terminal needs to be held accountable and taken to civil court if needed.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Barbara Perry

Barbara Perry (#12783)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Comment:
Please check how much lead will be added to the land and water because of coal. Already we are spending millions to clean up the mercury at the old paper mill. Looks like we should be studying how to clean up the lead too. The coal terminal may very well bring more toxic pollution that not only makes people less intelligent but also more violent according to the following articles.

Please review at least the following articles:

Addendum to scoping comments of Barbara Perry
oxicol Ind Health. 2006 Sep;22(8):357-62.
Lead and cadmium exposure in children living around a coal-mining area in Yatağan, Turkey.
Yapici G, Can G, Kiziler AR, Aydemir B, Timur IH, Kaypmaz A.
Source
Department of Public Health, Medical Faculty, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey. gulyapici@yahoo.com.tr
Abstract
The study was designed to determine asymptomatic lead poisoning prevalence and cadmium exposure of preschool children living in a coal-mining area in Yatağan, Mugla, Turkey. The research was conducted between May and June 2002. The study included 236 children (53.4% female and 46.6% male) who were identified among the healthy children between the ages of 6 months and 6 years, using a systematic sampling method, from the records of the local medical centre of Yatağan. Assessments of the levels of blood lead and cadmium were performed by an atomic absorption spectrophotometer, in the Department of Biophysics, Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty. The mean age of females and males were 49+/-18 and 43+/-19 months, respectively. The mean blood lead level was 33.8+/-15.6 microg/dL in females and 38.8+/-16.0 microg/dL in males. The mean blood lead level of the males was significantly higher than the females (P<0.05). Correlation analysis showed a statistically significant negative correlation between blood lead level and age in both sex groups (r= -0.367, P<0.001). The blood lead level was found to be > 10 microg/dL in 95.7% and >20 microg/dL in 87.6% of all children. The mean blood cadmium level of all children was 1.31+/-0.72 microg/dL. The blood cadmium level was found to be >0.5 microg/dL, which is considered to be toxic, in 85% of all children. The difference in blood cadmium levels between sexes was not significant. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between blood cadmium level and age of all children (r= -0.382, P<0.001). Although it is not possible to understand from this study what proportion of the biological lead and cadmium burden results from mining waste and what proportion comes from other sources, such as paint and gasoline residue deposited in soil and air, these results do indicate that asymptomatic lead poisoning and cadmium exposure are significant problems in children living in the Yatağan area. In conclusion, environmental lead measurements (house dust, soil, drinking water and air) must be performed, the results must be compared with the normal limits, and precautions must be taken if necessary in the Yatağan area. Future public health research efforts should focus on reducing the excessive levels of lead and cadmium in the environment.
PMID: 17120535 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/violent-crime-lead-poisoning-british-export?intcmp=122 :

At first it seemed preposterous. The hypothesis was so exotic that I laughed. The rise and fall of violent crime during the second half of the 20th century and first years of the 21st were caused, it proposed, not by changes in policing or imprisonment, single parenthood, recession, crack cocaine or the legalisation of abortion, but mainly by … lead.

I don't mean bullets. The crime waves that afflicted many parts of the world and then, against all predictions, collapsed, were ascribed, in an article published by Mother Jones last week, to the rise and fall in the use of lead-based paint and leaded petrol.

It's ridiculous – until you see the evidence. Studies between cities, states and nations show that the rise and fall in crime follows, with a roughly 20-year lag, the rise and fall in the exposure of infants to trace quantities of lead. But all that gives us is correlation: an association that could be coincidental. The Mother Jones article, which is based on several scientific papers, claimed causation.

I began by reading the papers. Do they say what the article claims? They do. Then I looked up the citations: the discussion of those papers in the scientific literature. The three whose citations I checked have been mentioned, between them, 301 times. I went through all these papers (except the handful in foreign languages), as well as dozens of others. To my astonishment, I could find just one study attacking the thesis, and this was sponsored by the Ethyl Corporation, which happens to have been a major manufacturer of the petrol additive tetraethyl lead. I found many more supporting it. Crazy as this seems, it really does look as if lead poisoning could be the major cause of the rise and fall of violent crime.

From google search:

Lead Poisoning Causes Crime? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
reason.com/blog/2013/01/04/leading-poisoning-causes-crime
Jan 4, 2013 – Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U ... Drum details research that shows that lead exposure causes all ..... Rolling Stone Lists " Legalization's Biggest Enemies," Somehow Omits President Obama ...

.




Link Between Crime & Lead Exposure
www.dallascriminallawyer.com/.../link-between-crime-lead-exposure/
June 30, 2004. Lead exposure in early childhood may have played an important role in the national 5.

Lead Poisoning: Clean Air Vs. the EPA - Z Communications
www.zcommunications.org › ZMag › Don Fitz
... lead poisoning has on violent crime and learning ability, the industry argues that .... doomed to forever roll a heavy stone uphill only to watch it roll down again .


 New Report Shows Violent Crime Rates Linked to Lead Poisoning ...
goodmenproject.com › Good Feed Blog
Jan 6, 2013 – New Report Shows Violent Crime Rates Linked to Lead Poisoning ... knew tetra ethyl lead was a danger and they can be sued back into the stone age. .... An rock and roll concert full of hipsters left me feeling oddly content.
Results for similar searches





Research Links Lead Exposure, Criminal Activity
www.washingtonpost.com › Nation
Jul 8, 2007 – The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States.





Lead In The Environment Causes Violent Crime, Reports University ...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223145108.htm
Feb 26, 2005 – 18 – Exposure to lead may be one of the most significant causes of violent crime in young people, according to one of the nation's leading ...

More results for rolling stone lead poisoning and violent crime
Jan 2, 2009 – And now there is more compelling evidence linking lead exposure in the womb and early childhood with violent crime later in life. These latest ...

Barbara Pikus (#13266)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
Stepping up the mining, transport, and burning of coal is a GIANT STEP BACK INTO THE PAST. We who live in the Northwest do NOT want to be a filthy, polluted highway for the coal industry to ship their global warming cargo to China or anyplace else. We want clean air, clean water, healthy wildlife and a healthy human population. WE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE FOR THE BENEFIT OF COAL COMPANY PROFITS!

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Barbara Powers (#13868)

Date Submitted: 01/06/13
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Purn (#13869)

Date Submitted: 01/06/13
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Quinn (#13047)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. Use of coal as a fuel significantly adds to climate change. Also the proposal would negatively affect the community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming people, existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, and increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Barbara Rider (#4326)

Date Submitted: 12/07/12
Location: Camas, WA
Comment:
Dec 7, 2012

Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology WA

Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology: Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology,

I oppose the construction of coal export terminals at Cherry Point, WA and any points along the Columbia River, in WA or OR states, as well.

In addition to the added local pollution from the physical shipment of coal trains, I object strongly that the coal will then be shipped mainly to China.

Why? Because it will then be burned and the by products will head eastward, by air and sea, to then fall back on the Pacific ocean and the Pacific Northwest.

Do not only consider the direct impact of trains loaded with coal, you must consider the impact of all that burned coal and the (previously measured in other studies) drift, as well. This impacts not only the Pacific Northwest's air, but the water, too. And this drift falls throughout the northern Pacific ocean and the northern hemisphere.

Please conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement that assesses ALL of the impacts from this proposal, not just the trains themselves.

Sincerely,

Barbara Rider
PO Box 647
Camas, WA 98607-0647

Barbara Rofk (#4496)

Date Submitted: 12/10/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara Rofkar (#4099)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara Ross Ellis (#8923)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Please see the attached letter. Thank you.
Attached Files:

Barbara Ross Ellis (#8929)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Please see the attached letter. Thank you.
Attached Files:

Barbara Sack (#5623)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Sanford (#4583)

Date Submitted: 11/29/12
Location: Lynden, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Saylor (#13089)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Kirkland, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Our orcas are already critically endangered. They dont need the risk of increased traffic and noise in their home waters. They cant risk an environmental disaster like the Exxon Valdeez or the BP Deepwater Horizon.

If you must move forward with a project that promotes a fuel like coal that threatens the earth and increases global warming, please reconsider a project like this for Gray's Harbor County. They need the jobs and the economic stimulus more than Seattle / Bellingham. Their location is not in the middle of the fragile Puget Sound / Salish Sea ecosystem. Increased train traffic from Olympia to Aberdeen would have minimum impact on vehicle traffic.

Thank you for listening,

Barbara Schumacher (#4003)

Date Submitted: 11/29/12
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Scott (#3278)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Camano Island, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Shaiman (#8528)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.

Barbara Sharp (#10727)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Please include, in your study, the possible adverse impact on water quality, particularly fish and marine mammal habitats,
as well as possible adverse impact on marine traffic safety.

Barbara Shepard (#2485)

Date Submitted: 11/01/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara Simler (#1785)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
Comment:
Hello,

I am writing to voice my opposition to the Gateway Pacific Terminal, and to urge that a comprehensive environmental and economic impact study be done that includes the impact of increased rail traffic in terms of traffic congestion and other impacts, harm to the environment (including the fisheries), health hazards from coal dust, the potential negative impact on tourism, and the health impact of the noise of that many trains going through urban areas.

It is imperative to not just look at short term job gains, but to look at the long term cost of environmental degradation, loss of quality of life (including health concerns) for people living near rail lines, and the larger costs of having this terminal go through. Numerous other cities in the Pacific Northwest have come out in opposition to the terminal and requested that a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) be done, and Bellingham should do the same.

Sincerely,

--
Barbara Simler
http://barbarasimler.com
http://moonandhare.etsy.com

Barbara Smith (#13794)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

In addition to the above, please consider the massive smog being created in China from coal use and how it will affect air quality and acid rain on our continent.

Barbara Starbuck (#9757)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and all the aspects of that project. This seems like a local issue but it has regional, national and global implications. Please study every possible environmental impact from mining the coal from the ground, shipping the coal to port via train, loading and shipping the coal onto ships, transporting on ships, and burning the coal in China. Also, study the social impacts, job loss and negative impacts on businesses and tourism nearby and along the train route and all current and proposed routes from mines to ports.
I would also like studied the effects long and short term on burning coal in China and how it effects the west coast and all parts of the United States and how it impacts climate change. Thank You

Barbara Stuart (#6387)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Comment:
As an Edmonds resident, I am very concerned about the negative impact of the coal trains. The current coal train traffic has already degraded the quality of life in Edmonds, due to additional noise and traffic backups. I am also very concerned about the negative effects of coal dust on human health. I am distressed that American citizens and communities are paying a large price in quality of life and health in order to ship coal abroad and then pay the price again as the effects of pollution and climate change affect us after the coal is burned.

Barbara Sullivan (#1365)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara Symonds (#10982)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Sedro Woolley, WA
Comment:
I am convinced that the scope of the EIS must include all counties that the open car coal trains pass through. Not only will the trains impact humans, but animals and the environment as well. Rain on the open cars potentially will cause contaminated water to leak out and run back to streams and rivers, causing water quality to deteriorate and harm wildlife. Air quality will be impacted, which will harm both humans and animals. Skagit County is a farming area. Only a broad scope EIS will look into the possibility of coal contaminating farmland. At the terminal end, coal dust may contaminate Puget Sound, already in crisis from pollution. Residents in all affected counties have the right to know how the transport of coal will impact their quality of life and that of their surrounding enviornment.

Barbara Vinson (#13889)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
As a concerned citizen, parent, and healthcare provider, I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. We must protect our vital marine ecosystems and the environment of the Pacific Northwest. Therefore, I vigorously urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Barbara Wilhite (#10371)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Bremerton, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.''

Please do not let big coal companies be the regulators of a plan such as this. Please listen to the people that live in the Pacific Northwest. We have the right to expect clean air safe from the toxics that coal would bring.

Barbara Williams (#950)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Papaikou, HI
Comment:
Oct 21, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

The project will harm imperiled wildlife species and their designated critical habitat, interfere with recreational and tribal fishing, transform the region with rail congestion, and dramatically increase carbon pollution that is driving climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Given the significant effects that proposed coal export terminals will have on our natural resources and public health, strict oversight is essential.

See also "Art for an Oil Free Coast"--------A large group of artists in British Columbia demonstrating in opposition to an oil pipeline planned to connect to the coastal B,C. Canada. (Contact Peggy Sowden on Facebook).

Sincerely,

Barbara Williams
27-1991 Kaaukai Pl
Papaikou, HI 96781-7728

Barbara Zielstra (#4004)

Date Submitted: 11/29/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barbara Zito (#6180)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Kent, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Barbara & Dennis Conrad (#1252)

Date Submitted: 10/17/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara & Elliott Woodward (#2925)

Date Submitted: 11/13/12
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara & Gerrit Trask & van den Engh (#7472)

Date Submitted: 01/05/13
Location: Concrete, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Barbara & Morris Miller (#5271)

Date Submitted: 12/19/12
Location: White Salmon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara & Ronald Mays (#4789)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
To All Involved Agencies and Individuals,

We are deeply concerned about every aspect of this proposed project. We believe the project will have very negative cumulative consequences regionally, statewide, and globally. The project's proposals should be studied as a whole addressing every issue in the most comprehensive manner. All SEPA and NEPA requirements should be met.

Most of all, we are disturbed by the thinking of those who think it is a good idea to sell coal to China for great profit in exchange for the long range and permanent, negative impacts to our global environment.

Sincerely,

Barbara and Ronald Mays

Barbara A. Davidson. (#9501)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a senior citizen who has been an active professional and an active citizen for many years. My spouse and I, our children and grandchildren live in Bellingham, WA. We have lived in and traveled in many parts of the world. This area is particularly precious and worth protecting. The earth as a whole also needs to be valued and not diminished.

The EIS study for this proposal should carefully calculate all long term effects and give estimates of just how short any short term gains might be,

I also support the request that the agencies should consider Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other pollutant emissions from the coal at its point of combustion in Asia. [*see comments from James Wells, of Bellingham , Jan 19, 2013]

Barbara and Jon Dahn (#110)

Date Submitted: 09/28/2012
Location: Bainbridge Island, wa
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Furthermore, in light of the possibly catastrophic effects of global climate change, why aren't we investing in energy sources for the future and creating new jobs along with these innovations. Please look forward, not back!

Barbara Bristol-Treat barbarabristol-treat@comcast.net (#9904)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
China does not have the means to support it's population with electricity for cooking and heating; thus the coal. I'm not opposed to selling China coal; but I am opposed to it being sold so cheaply.

Barbara Jean Garber (#10621)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Newcastle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

I also urge you to analyze in the EIS the likelihood that this proposal would encourage more coal mining in the United States, with it's attendant impacts; as well as the likelihood that it would worsen the already deadly air quality in China. The area of effect for this proposal should not be confined to just the United States and the Northwest. Environmental and health impacts in China -- and global impacts -- must also be analyzed.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Barbara Jo Gustafson (#2322)

Date Submitted: 11/05/2012
Comment:
I am Barbara Jo Gustafson. I live at 1308 south 3rd st Mt. Vernon WA
The train runs through the end of my back yard. It wakes my husband and I up at night. I cant get excited about more of them running. They will be dirty, noisy, will hold up traffic when Im trying to get to work and WE will not see much positive benefit if there any to be found.The hard thing for me right now is interrupted sleep. The horns are so piercing and loud. I might be able to sleep through the rumble but not the horns and we have alot of crossings . I hear them all the way from before burlington and conway and they are blasting right out back of my house. Bobbi

Barbara Jo Trask (#1198)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barbara Vz Howard (#9937)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I live in a community close to the BSNF rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) would travel if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) encompass the entire transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

Noise created as a result of the additional trains is an issue that must be seriously considered in the EIS study. Specifically, how will the noise and vibrations of unusually long, heavy and frequent trains impact property values and the structural integrity of homes and other buildings close to the tracks? How will chronic noise exposure affect the health and quality of life of people living, working, and playing nearby? How will noise impact the diverse wildlife of the area?

Barbara Vz. Howard (#9961)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: bellingham , wa
Comment:
I live in a community close to the BSNF rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) would travel if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) encompass the entire transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration. One issue of real concern is the impact the proposal will have on the traffic patterns in the impacted areas.

TRAFFIC PROBLEMS: Traffic safety issues and traffic connection issues created as a result of the additional trains is an issue that must be seriously considered in the EIS study. Specifically, how will the coal trains affect motor vehicle traffic, transportation, emergency vehicle response times and the flow of commerce in communities along the rail corridor?

Barbara Vz. Howard (#9972)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I live in a community close to the BSNF rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) would travel if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) encompass the entire transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration. One issue of real concern is the impact the proposal will have on the fisheries, water recreation, tourism and related ecosystems.

FISHERIES & THE SALISH SEA: How will tourism; boating; collision risks; oil/coal spill risks; salmon, crab and herring fisheries; orca whales; and the general beauty, vitality, and livability of the Salish Sea and environs be affected by coal port construction and operations, and by the over 950 annual transits of immense coal ships?

Barbara Vz. Howard (#9975)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I live in a community close to the BSNF rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) would travel if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) encompass the entire transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration. One issue of real concern is the impact the terminal will have on the health and safety of the residents of the area.

HUMAN HEALTH & SAFETY: How will cancer, heart disease, asthma and other health risks be affected by air and water pollutions associated with coal transport and export? How will additional rail and ship traffic affect accident and collision rates? Toxic air pollution crosses the Pacific Ocean from Asia to the west coast of the United States; what would be the local public health impacts of Powder River Basin coal combustion in Asia?

Barbara Vz. Howard (#9979)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I live in a community close to the BSNF rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) would travel if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) encompass the entire transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration. One issue of real concern is the impact the terminal will have on taxpayers and the city and county budgets.

COST TO TAXPAYERS: How much will we, the taxpayers, ultimately pay for costs affiliated with coal transport and export? Will such direct and indirect costs include necessary upgrades and additions to rail infrastructure; safety measures; public health expenses; the building of under- and-overpasses and other attempts at mitigating adverse impacts; lost local businesses and jobs; damaged tourism trade; and decreased property values?

Barney Baker (#263)

Date Submitted: 10/03/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
My sons, my brother and his sons all make a living working in the fishing industry. Please don't threaten their livelihood by further polluting and acidifying the ocean.
Thank you,
Barney Baker

Barney Baker (#9683)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
For the following reasons I strongly oppose the export of coal from North West ports:
 Coal combustion is a major source of mercury in our atmosphere and ocean. Asia now contributes over half of that mercury (see reference 1 (R1)).
 Thousand of commercial fishing jobs and thousands of jobs in support industries (e.g. fish processing, fish net manufacture, fishing vessel manufacture and maintenance) would surely suffer if consumers stop eating fish due to fear of mercury poisoning.
 Fugitive coal dust is a threat to communities, fish and wildlife and agriculture from the point of coal extraction, all along the transport corridor (railroad routes), at the loading terminals and through the shipping and unloading process at the final destination.
 This week in China, coal fired power plants sent their air quality index rating to 755, way over the top of the scale which is 500 (R2). The Chinese people will not benefit or profit if their industries poison their air.
R1 COAL AND MERCURY IN ALASKA
Kendra L. Zamzow, Ph.D.
Center for Science in Public Participation, August 2010
R2 http://www.slate.com

Please consider the negative impacts to our health and economy before making your decision. Commercial fishing, clean water and clean air will sustain future generations for far longer than any boom provided by a coal mining frenzy that would only last a for a few decades.
Sincerely,

Barney D. Baker

Barney Baker (#13663)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
Dear Mr. Perry,
Please see attached letter regarding the proposed coal export terminals.
Thank you.
Barney D. Baker
Attached Files:

Barry Barry Ulman (#7226)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
For the last several days we have heard on the news about the smog level in Beijing being so bad that residents have been warned to stay indoors unless absolutely necessary to go outside. TV news broadcasts have shown scenes in Beijing with virtually zero visibility. Beijing is not the only place threatened with this massive pollution. The prevailing westerlies blow these pollutants across the Pacific Ocean and spread them worldwide, contributing in a big way to global climate change. We should not be making the problem worse by shipping more coal to China. The Gateway Pacific Terminal is a bad idea all the way around.

Barry Christensen (#621)

Date Submitted: 10/10/12
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Barry Christensen

Barry Christensen (#1533)

Date Submitted: 10/24/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Barry Christensen (#3362)

Date Submitted: 11/21/2012
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
It's not about jobs,but rather big corporate profits.Now is the time to make a stand
against this binge of fossil fuels.

Barry Christensen (#3610)

Date Submitted: 11/30/2012
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
The proposed coal train shipments will have a devastating impact on property values along the rail corridor,not to mention its effect on wildlife,air quality,noise,traffic.This cost is too high.I see no benefit for the citizens of Skagit Co.

Barry Christensen (#13870)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:


Barry Christensen (#14468)

Date Submitted: 01/12/13
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barry Gadd (#7093)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I think the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal/Custer Spur is a very good idea that will provide much needed jobs and help to further diversify and stimulate the Northwest economy. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.

Barry Herman (#4518)

Date Submitted: 12/12/2012
Location: Lummi Island, WA
Comment:
My concerns are with the interaction of mile long trains and regular vehicle traffic. more specifically:

Spokane; the Bellingham terminal will add a mile long train every hour or so through downtown. There are additional trains running to ports in B.C., Longview, possibly Grays Harbor and others. All will go through Spokane. Has anyone done a traffic density study to determine "gridlock conditions" of Spokane?

Mainline closures; so far this winter, the mainline at Everett has been closed for landslides twice. Closures have been for a couple of days, and there will be many more over the course of the winter. These mile long trains will be spaced about 60 to 80 miles apart. Where will they park, without disrupting traffic, while the RR crews clear the mudslides?

Barry Mason (#6868)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
How important is the maintenance of our state's marine environment? Is its ecological health negotiable? That is, how much does coal exported through Washington State and its effect, positive or negative, on the state's ecomony balance with the healthe of the Salish Sea's flora and fauna and the economic benefits to Washington's Native Americans and other fishers?
Having come from the Chicago area ten years ago, I am familiar with what exotic species can do---the well-reported zebra mussels in Lake Michigan and Asian carp in the Des Plains River. And on coming to Bellingham I was, for a time, involved in helping monitoring the water of Wild Cat Cove for invasive green crabs.
The introduction of exotic species through the ballast water of tankers coming from the waters of China and other Asian nations to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal is a real possibility. How so? While the state has nominal control over the introduction of alien species through ballast water released from vessels into the Salish Sea, one must question the ability of its already stretched resources to do so. At present a mere two full-time Fish and Wildlife inspectors are reported to monitor the thousands of ships yearly (Crosscut.com, December 12, 2012), concentrating on those deemed high risk. Granted, foreign vessels are to exchange Asian ballast water for cooler water of the Pacific, but without effective monitoring or if extenuating circumstances like bad weather hinder such action, what will happen to the natural biological balance of our waters when Cape-size ships release up to 17 million gallons of their ballast at the Gateway Pacific Terminal? And what about foreign species that have attached themselves to these ship's hulls? Will they be monitored effectively?
Please fully study and consider the possibility of and effect of introduction of exotic species into the Salish Sea in both ecological and economic terms. Also, please include my concerns in the EIS document.

Barry Mason (#8535)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
How important is the maintenance of our state's environment? Is its ecological health negotiable? That is, how much does coal exported through Washington State and its effect, positive or negative, on the state's economy balance with the health of the Salish Sea's flora and fauna and the economic benefits to Washington's Native Americans and other fishers?
Having come from the Chicago area ten years ago, I am familiar with what exotic species can do---the well-reported zebra mussels in Lake Michigan and Asian carp in the Des Plaines River. And on coming to Bellingham, I was, for a time, involved in helping monitor the water of Wildcat Cove for invasive green crabs.
The introduction of exotic species through the ballast water of tankers coming from the waters of China and other Asian nations to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal is a real possibility. How so? While the state has nominal control over the introduction of alien species through ballast water released from vessels into the Salish Sea, one must question the ability of its already stretched resources to do so. At present a mere two full-time Fish and Wildlife inspectors are reported to monitor the thousands of ships yearly (Crosscut.com, December 12, 2012), and they must concentrate only on those deemed high risk. Granted, foreign vessels are to exchange Asian ballast water for cooler water of the Pacific, but without effective monitoring or if extenuating circumstances like bad weather hinder such action, what will happen to the natural biological balance of our waters when Cape-sized ships release up to 17 million gallons of their ballast at the Gateway Pacific Terminal? And what about foreign species that have alltached themselves to these ships' hulls? Will they be monitored effectively?
Please fully study and consider the possibility of and effect of the introduction of exotic species into the Salish Sea in both ecological and economic terms. Please also study means to insure effective and adequate monitoring is implemented and maintained. Please include my concerns in the EIS document.

Barry Mason (#10652)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a resident of the Chuckanut area outside Bellingham, WA, I am already familiar with the traffic of one and one-half mile long coal trains on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad bordering northern Puget Sound. The same sandstone rock of which the Chuckanuts are made lies beneath the homes here and the rail line as well. I am concerned about short term and cumulative effects of the vibrations caused by up to eighteen heavy, coal-laden trains per day, and I ask that the following issues be studied, considered and included in a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement relating to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal.
1. The 1 ½ mile long trains carrying coal to the GPT site clearly will carry an enormous weight, setting up significant vibrations along the sandstone extending from the shoreline and rail bed to Chuckanut/Blandchard Mountain. Will those vibrations contribute to the failure of septic tanks in the area? If the tanks fail, what will be the effect on the marine ecosystem? Who will pay for mitigation, if, indeed, there is any possible? Will the railroad be held financially accountable by the state for repair, replacement and installation of septic tanks that heretofore had served well before the advent of the coal trains’ stress upon them?
2. Will vibrations set-up by heavy coal trains cause water lines of the Bellingham water system be prone to stresses heretofore unanticipated, and will the BNSF be held accountable for repairs?
3. Likewise, will coal trains going to the proposed GPT site cause failure of natural gas lines within the Bellingham city limits? Are there provisions in place whereby damages caused to private and municipal properties as a result of vibrations initiated by such trains, both in separate and cumulative effect are assumed by BNSF?
4. Mudslides caused by train traffic along Puget Sound are well-documented, for example the slide near Everett, Washington, of December 19, 2012 which was caught on video (http://www.wivb.com/dpps/entertainment/must_see_video/mudslide-derails-moving-freight-train-nd12_5122552). Please study the likelihood of both mudslides and rockslides associated with particular, single events caused by the vibrations of heavy rail burdens, especially by one and one-half mile long coal trains up to eighteen times daily, and the cumulative effect of the traffic of such heavy burdens.
5. Although the aquatic fauna of Puget Sound have adapted through time to the natural seismic vibrations along the coastline, a new variable in their lives may be introduced by the vibrations caused by 1 ½ mile long trains carrying enormous burdens of coal to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. Please study any and all anticipated effects the introduction of such vibration might have on the animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate, living along the shores bordered by the rails of BNSF Railroad that will carry these loads up to eighteen times per day.
6. Please study the effect of vibrations initiated by heavy trains carrying coal to the proposed GPT upon old bridges, as those along SR11 (Chuckanut Drive) and other infrastructure resting on the same sandstone/bedrock over which the trains will run. I ask you again to consider both single events and cumulative.

Barry Mason (#10706)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
People often ask me why I moved ten years ago from Chicago to Bellingham. I respond that among the many reasons foremost was clean air. My wife and I had lived literally within a stone’s throw of I-55, formerly known as Route 66, just a quarter mile from a truck stop from which the truckers accelerated their hulking rigs past our balcony, belching black diesel smoke.
How ironic that now in my new home near Larrabee State Park I, and my neighbors---in fact, so many people living near the Burlington Northern line in Whatcom County, are faced with an increase in diesel particulate from up to eighteen additional trains coming from and going to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal.
Ironic too that the prevailing winds along the Chuckanuts that can freshen the air here, today don’t exist. We are currently under one of our frequent winter air stagnation alerts, so the diesel particulate emitted from the one and one half mile coal trains passing in the area just…well, you get it.
In the EIS please explore the effects of increased air pollution on the health of the human population, specifically along the Bellingham area’s tracks, and for that matter to that of all humans living all along the tracks from the coal fields to the proposed GPT site. Please determine if the effect of the increased diesel train traffic carrying GPT coal is balanced in dollars with the costs in healthcare caused by diesel particulates, well documented as a cause for cancer and asthma.
To deal with these issues, you will need to expand the Environmental Impact Statement associated with the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal beyond Bellingham and Whatcom County to those cities, villages and towns (and the rural areas as well) through which the BNSF Railway would carry its burden from the coal fields of Montana to Washington State and, even beyond, to Asia where the coal would be burnt, only to have its waste carried by the winds back to Washington. Please do so. Expand the EIS.
Please include my concerns and references to these issues in the EIS.

Barry Mason (#10832)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
After retiring from teaching middle school in Illinois, I looked for a new place to live---a place with clean air, quiet, and outdoor recreation. Bellingham, Washington, filled the bill. While my teacher’s salary didn’t give me a great nest egg, I could afford a small, comfortable home near Larrabee State Park with Chuckanut Mountain in one direction and opposite, a small view of Bellingham Bay. I felt the house---you might call it a manufactured home or if not so charitable, perhaps a doublewide---would work quite well until that time when I was too infirm to care for it and the yard, and I’d be forced to move elsewhere.
Well, surprise! The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and the necessary additional eighteen one- and one-half mile long trains carrying coal to it will have a marked impact on the value of my property. In a report by Eastman Company, experts in real estate appraisal, analysis, and consulting, Eastman stated in October 2012 (http://climatesolutions.org/nw-states/coal-train-study) that residential property values within as little as 1000 feet of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad line, that will run more than eighteen trains per day to GPT when it is fully operational, will decrease five to twenty percent. Not only will my financial well-being be directly affected, but Whatcom County’s tax base, as well.
In the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, please include the impact of necessary increased train traffic and its effect on real estate valuation and Whatcom County’s tax base.
In addition, please include my comments and concerns in the EIS.

Barry Mason (#11814)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
On retiring from teaching I moved to the Bellingham area, and while I don’t live within the city limits I call Bellingham my home. It is not just part of my postal address. Bellingham is the place where I do my banking, my shopping and my recreating---even occasionally going to a restaurant or movie.
I am concerned about Bellingham’s continued economic health, however, for if the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal north of town is permitted, the 1-½ mile long trains delivering coal there will inhibit traffic, not just in my neighborhood but also within the city. And let’s be clear---noisy, polluting trains on the tracks along our waterfront will strangle automobile traffic. Long waits will ill-serve businesses on either side of the tracks, for not only will they inhibit customers, but also suppliers.
The additional eighteen trains, each one- and one-half miles long, that are to travel daily to or from the proposed GPT site when fully operational will not only inhibit business traffic, but also potentially harm public safety. Police, fire and emergency medical assistance will be significantly slowed, endangering businesses and people on what will be the wrong side of the tracks.
Some might say there are solutions to those problems: fireboats, bridges, overpasses, etc., but who will pay? Typically railroads assume less than ten percent of the cost of such improvements, even crossings. Municipalities pay for the rest. Because of cost, the City of Bellingham got rid of its fireboat years ago. Is it to assume costs for building those crossings, bridges, and overpasses necessitated because Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad that will carry coal to the proposed GPT site will be running many long trains through Bellingham?
An additional issue is the planned development of the former Georgia-Pacific site slated for housing, business, education and park development along Bellingham’s waterfront. Such development may be thwarted for much the same reasons outlined above. How can residential developers face such obstacles as air and noise pollution and traffic obstruction caused by diesel trains? It is bad enough owners of homes already built where the mile and a half long trains now run face the prospect of late arriving fire and emergency medical services due to the trains. As for commercial/industrial/marine businesses, will they want to invest in building on the former G-P property? What will their insurance premiums be like, not to mention the inefficiencies caused by strangled traffic?
There is another threat to the economic health of Bellingham. The city has deservedly earned a reputation as tourist destination. It is a beautiful place, known for clean air. Bellingham is recognized as an environmentally aware city interested in green energy and sustainable agriculture and commerce. It is home to a strong college of environmental studies, Huxley College, at Western Washington University. Bellingham has a good reputation! And this reputation draws tourism to the city. One third of visitors to the Bellingham area visit Boulevard Park and/or Taylor Dock on the city’s waterfront. One quarter visit nearby Clayton Beach at Larrabee State Park. All three will made less accessible by slow moving, diesel-belching one- and one-half mile long coal trains. Tourism? Places for residents to recreate? Build a bridge or overpass and make it better? Who will pay, a cash-strapped municipal government that will get nary a cent from BNSF?
This is a letter primarily about Bellingham, but there are many such towns and cities along the route of the coal trains, from Montana to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal north of Bellingham. Each will face extreme financial problems, threats to their economies and the effects of noise and air pollution. That is why the questions, explicit or implied within this letter, must be dealt with in an Environmental Impact Statement that focuses not only on the small picture of Bellingham and Whatcom County, but also every place where people live, work, and recreate along that route.
Please include my concerns and questions in the EIS.

Barry McPherson (#11428)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Newport, OR
Comment:
I submitted a 5 page letter via email yesterday (and got confirmation back), but wanted to add more areas that should be scoped in the EIS:
1. Delayed and long term effects of CO2 from combustion of the coal in Asia and combustion of fossil fuels to power equipment for mining and transport of the coal to Asia as this CO2 is absorbed from atmoshere into sea water and contributes to hypoxia in coastal waters of Pacific NW (also called "dead zones"), especially during summer upwelling of sea water.
2. Increased probability of introduction of harmful invasive marine organisms into coastal waters and estuaries from hulls and ballast water of ships arriving from Asia as the ship traffic increases.
3. Increased probability of marine accidents with other ships, ferries, and other boats in US waters as ship traffic increases to transport coal.
4. Increased probability of injury and mortality to marine mammals, particularly Puget Sound orcas, from ship strikes as ship traffic increases to transport coal.

Barry McPherson (#13685)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Newport, OR
Comment:
Co-Lead agencies,
Please consider my EIS scoping suggestions and comments below. I have also attached them as a signed PDF file. Please email me confirmation that you received these comments.

Thank you,
Barry McPherson
905 NE 7th St.
Newport, OR 97365
bdmcpherson@coho.net
(503)708-8688

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
January 21, 2013

Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS Co-Lead agencies
GPT/Custer Spur EIS c/o CH2M HILL
1100 112th Avenue NE Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004
comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov

Co-Lead agencies,
As a fishery biologist who spent the last 42 years studying and managing salmon and steelhead in Oregon, I have serious concerns about the Gateway Terminal/Cooper Spur proposal for increased exports of coal through the Pacific Northwest to Asia. I am hereby providing suggestions for what should be covered in the scope of the EIS for the proposed project after first providing you information on my background.

For my 1973 Master’s Thesis at Oregon State University (OSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife), I studied the effects of methyl mercury on coho salmon smolts, particularly the impairment of their ability to adapt to sea water after exposure to methyl mercury in freshwater. I then spent 2 years working for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) studying similar impacts from cadmium and zinc with funding from the US Environmental Protection Agency (1973 – 75). I next spent over 15 years studying impacts and making recommendations for temperature and flow releases from US Army Corps of Engineer dams on the Rogue River Basin where runs of spring and fall Chinook, coho, summer and winter steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout exist. During this time I also helped ODFW prepare a document on how the agency could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to reduce risks of global climate disruption (a multi-agency effort coordinated by the Oregon Dept. of Energy), and participated in an effort coordinated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to identify fish and wildlife indicators of global climate disruption. My final 12 years with ODFW were spent in the Fish Division headquarters on management of salmon harvest regulations, hatchery programs, habitat restoration, threatened population recovery, and multi-agency coordination for the implementation of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Since retirement I have remained engaged in salmonid and broader ecological issues through membership on the Pinniped/Fishery Interaction Task Force related to sea lion predation on salmonids in the Lower Columbia River, the Advisory Committee to the joint ODFW/OSU Oregon Hatchery Research Center (OHRC), as Co-chair of the Cascades Presbytery Eco-Justice Team, and as President of the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society during 2005-06, among other endeavors. In the latter capacity, I recruited Governor Kitzhaber as a the plenary speaker at our 2005 Annual Meeting, along with Dr. Nate Mantua of the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group, who made a presentation on potential impacts of climate disruption on Oregon salmonids. For the Cascades Presbytery Eco-Justice Team, I recruited Dr. Burke Hales of OSU’s Oceanography Department to make a presentation in 2010 on effects of atmospheric CO2 on ocean acidification and its impacts on Oregon oyster culture, and recruited Dr. James Coakley of OSU to make a presentation in 2010 on the science of climate change/disruption and potential global impacts. For the OHRC, I recruited Kathy Dello, Associate Director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at OSU, to make a presentation to the Advisory Committee last March on potential climate change impacts on Oregon. So my suggestions for the scope of the EIS are based on a strong background in science fields relevant to this proposed project.

I have tried to group my comments by “topic areas” listed on your comment form. The topics are so interrelated, as is all of the human and natural world, that it is difficult to group the comments, but I’ve tried to list your comment form “topic areas” in my groupings.

Global Warming and Ocean Acidification (“Other” Human environment and Natural environment topic in broadest sense): First and foremost, and by law, the EIS must address “interdependent systems” that transcend geographic boundaries, such as the proposed project’s contribution to global warming and ocean acidification. As the only purpose of coal transport and export is to link coal mining to coal combustion, the environmental impacts of coal mining in the Powder River Basin and coal combustion in Asia should be thoroughly studied and considered. There is little doubt that the project would exacerbate global warming and the resultant global climate disruption as well as ocean acidification from increased atmospheric CO2 associated with a large increase in quantities of coal being combusted, as well as the combustion of fossil fuels to mine and transport the coal. President Obama in his inauguration speech today provided clear direction when he stated "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it."

Global warming and ocean acidification are enormous issues facing anyone alive past about the year 2040 due to cumulative impacts of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere from burning coal and other fossil fuels, as well as the delayed impacts of these gasses. Just looking at the Oregon coast alone, we are experiencing current impacts and increasing risks to ports, other infrastructure, and private property due to a continuation and acceleration of sea level rise and peak size of winter storm waves. And specifically regarding the increase in atmospheric CO2 that combustion of coal shipped to Asia will cause, we are already experiencing impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms that need to incorporate calcium in their shells to survive and grow. Commercial oyster growing operations in Oregon and Washington have been affected most so far. The EIS must recognize that upwelled ocean water causing ocean acidification is largely a delayed effect: the upwelled water has been exposed to atmospheric CO2 several decades earlier. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen sharply in recent decades, and water that will be upwelled by NW winds in future summers will very probably have higher CO2 levels and lower pH than in the last decade. The EIS must address this delayed response. The rate of change in climate predicted by current climate models exceeds the rate at which many species of plants and animals can adapt, and even the rate at which humans are likely to be able to modify infrastructure, agriculture, and culture to adapt. The potential increase in these rates and impacts attributable to the proposed increase in coal exports must be thoroughly addressed in the EIS.

Air Quality Degradation (Human and Natural environment): The EIS must address many serious air quality impacts on Oregon’s people and ecology from coal dust and from diesel fumes generated during loading, unloading, and transport to and from proposed coal terminals.

The EIS must include scientifically credible information on the amount of coal dust and coal spillage from rail cars, barges, and terminal/transfer sites, and how much these will affect air quality for people, agricultural crops and livestock, wild plants, and wildlife species, both resident and migratory. The amount of coal found along the tracks on the Washington side of the Columbia River Gorge, and the anecdotal information on coal dust falling on vegetation and personal property with just the number of coal trains passing there annually at present are clear indications of the need for the EIS to address impacts from coal dust and coal spillage on transportation routes and at terminal/transfer sites. The cumulative impacts of train after train of coal must be addressed in the EIS.

Wildfire Risk (Human and Natural environment, Air quality, Water quality, Wetlands and streams, Wildlife and vegetation, and Fish topics): The EIS must assess the increased risk of wildfires and resultant smoke level in airsheds associated with coal dust and spillage building up along the tracks and subsequently ignited by sparks from train wheels. While living in Portland during the 1990’s, I recall at least two fires ignited in brush by sparks from passing trains. It’s a certainty such fires will happen along coal train routes, and be more severe than otherwise due to the highly combustible coal spilled along the tracks. The EIS must address the extent to which Global Climate Change models predict increased risk and severity of wildfires due to dryer and hotter conditions, as well as more severe lightning storms and winds (extreme fires associated with climate change have already been occurring, such as those in Russia and in Eastern Oregon in the last few years). The remoteness of wildfires from fire suppression equipment and crews along train routes must be addressed. Clearly, the EIS must assess the probability of fires and severity of impacts area-by-area along the routes.

Toxic Contaminant Risk (Human and Natural environment, Human Health, Water quality, Wetlands and streams, Wildlife and vegetation, Marine Species and Fish topics): The EIS must address the amount of coal and its specific contaminants likely to enter water. This includes both marine and fresh water, and both surface water and ground water. The sources will be rail cars, barges, and terminal/transfer sites. Based on this loss, the EIS must address how much this will affect water quality for people, agricultural crops and livestock, wild plants and animals, and fish species (especially those listed under Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species laws), both marine and freshwater species, and bot resident and migratory species. Heavy metals contained in the coal are of particular concern, especially mercury. Mercury that enters streams will settle into sediments where it will be methylated by anaerobic bacteria. This may happen quickly or there may be years or even decades of delay before the methylated mercury enters fish and other aquatic organisms and does its damage throughout the food web, including human consumers of mercury contaminated fish and other aquatic species. I’m very familiar with warnings posted by ODFW in several waters of the State at this time to warn anglers of mercury contamination, some of which comes from mining activities dating as far back as 150 years. In California, there are serious risks from mercury in the migratory pathways of anadromous salmonids that are the result of mercury dumped in waterways far upriver while extracting gold from crushed ore during the gold rush days of the 1800s. Cumulative impacts to wildlife repeatedly exposed to contaminants such as mercury when animals revisit contaminated waters on seasonal migrations is a serious issue. Greatly delayed, cumulative, and long lasting impacts like these must be considered in the EIS.

Accidents at terminals and along train and barge routes will happen and will result in coal, diesel fuel, and other contaminants on the trains and barges entering the water. The EIS must do an adequate risk assessment of such accidents. Spills at terminals can and will happen, as evidenced by the recent one near Vancouver, British Columbia. Derailments and train wrecks of various sorts are a certainty, as are barging accidents, especially at choke points above, below, and through dam locks and under bridges. The EIS must assess the highest risk locations for such accidents and the probability of the contaminants reaching surface or underground water.

The EIS must adequately assess the readiness plans for containing the inevitable train and barge wrecks and their spills, plans for rapid and thorough clean-up, and plans to monitor the spill sites for years, if not decades, afterward to assess delayed impacts on water quality. This is especially true for mercury and other heavy metals that will be leached from the spilled coal into the water, bottom sediments, and back into the water after chemical alteration occurs in the sediments.

The EIS must particularly address risks of coal and diesel impacts on water quality parameters that affect anadromous salmonids essential to meeting government obligations to historic Treaty Tribes in the Columbia Basin. It must also assess risks of coal and diesel impacts on water quality parameters that will affect sport and commercial fisheries downriver and throughout the migratory paths of these salmonids (which extend from California to Alaska, depending on species). Contaminant levels that do not have impacts on smolts in freshwater can affect their ability to adapt to sea water (I showed this to be true for mercury in coho salmon smolts as part of my MS thesis in fisheries). And contaminant levels in the smolts that do not affect them in freshwater may affect their growth and survival later during their ocean migration. The EIS must address these risks.

The EIS must address the risk of this proposal to the very large investment of funds and human effort over the last half century in trying to reduce impacts from other human activities on fisheries and Treaty Tribe obligations in the Pacific Northwest. Increasing the export of coal will only confound and compromise this effort and likely push some species beyond the edge of recovery and sustainability.

And the EIS cannot ignore the impacts of toxics blowing back to the Pacific Northwest from the burning of exported coal in Asia. It must address that toxics from present day burning of coal in Asia is detectable even in pristine lakes of high altitude wilderness, and detectable in wildlife. While in Alaska in 2005, I learned of the accumulation of such toxics in brown bears eating salmon that picked up toxics from Asia when the toxics settled in to ocean waters off Alaska. The EIS must address this issue in human populations of the Pacific Northwest, as well as fish and wildlife populations.

Direct Impacts of Trains on Wildlife (Natural environment and Wildlife): Increased train traffic will have negative impacts on wildlife, such as deer, antelope and elk. There must be some information available on the current rate of carcass counts that will allow predictions of future mortality per train added to the flow. And there are other mammalian, avian, and reptilian species besides deer, antelope and elk that will be struck and killed by coal trains. The EIS must estimate these probable impacts. In addition, the increased train traffic is likely to interrupt or change migration patterns of animals, and nesting and feeding activities near tracks. The consequences of such changes to predator-prey relationships, growth and survival must be addressed in the EIS. The resultant impacts on the popular sports of hunting and bird/wildlife viewing also need to be addressed.

Significance of Impacts: The EIS needs to address that the probable impacts of this proposed new shipping terminal and the large increase in coal transport and export through the Pacific Northwest will be very significant to people now, and especially in the future, as global climate change and ocean acidification are exacerbated. More localized impacts will be significant to me personally because I love to travel, explore, photograph, ski, float rivers, fish and hunt, and restore my health and spirit in the remaining relatively natural areas of the Pacific Northwest. I see not one significant benefit to me in the proposed expansion of coal exports, and I see a lot of probable “costs”. I see the probable “costs” to people living close to the transport routes and terminal as very significant and exceeding any short-term economic/job benefits, and I would not purchase any property near them or ever move there. The “foregone benefits” to property owners near transport routes and terminals as their property values drop when coal exports increase will be significant. The noise and odor from trains and other fossil fuel powered equipment, the traffic delays at rail crossings, and the risk of blockage of police, fire, and ambulance vehicles for unacceptable periods of time at rail crossings would be very significant if I lived in a community on a transport route. And I see the probable “costs” or impacts to future generations from increased atmospheric CO2 alone as being extremely significant.

I want to also state that I feel it is an injustice to the people of Asia as well if we ship them fuel that we already recognize as very problematic to the human and natural environment to the extent that we have been attempting to avoid its use in the US for decades. I would hope that the EIS would incorporate the objection many of us have to such unethical business practices. As a follower of Christ’s teachings and a member of a Presbytery Eco-Justice Team in Oregon, I strongly object to the unethical nature of failing to treat our global neighbors as ourselves, and shipping our problems to them.

Alternatives: The EIS must evaluate the alternatives of energy conservation and lower-impact energy sources compared with coal. People of the Pacific Northwest and the rest of the world have barely begun to conserve energy and there is a high probability that we can and will conserve more without much loss of quality of life as people begin to see the need. The increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, wildfires, and floods in just the last year from anthropogenic causes of global warming are getting people’s attention, and we are already responding with greater energy conservation. Many non-fossil fuel energy generation systems are under further and rapidly increasing development, including electrical energy from ocean wave action right out my window off the Oregon coast. There are many other ways to generate energy with lower impacts on the human and natural environment, and the EIS must address them.

Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions for the scope of the EIS. I am very concerned about the impacts of the proposed coal exports on the people and environment of not only the Pacific Northwest, and not only in the short term, but more globally and for many generations to come. I’m convinced that a properly researched and written EIS will clearly show the costs/impacts greatly outweigh the benefits.

Barry McPherson
Fishery Biologist
905 NE 7th St Newport, OR 97365
Attached Files:

Barry Schaeffer (#663)

Date Submitted: 10/12/2012
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
I urge you to consider the entire scope of impact of multiple coal terminals on the entire Puget Sound region (traffic, cargo ship ballast water, etc) when you consider the permit for the Cherry Point coal terminal.

I am staunchly opposed to this terminal project and its impact on this state and Fidalgo Island in particular.

Barry Schaeffer

Barry Stone (#7938)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
I support the increase in the number of trains hauling coal to Cherry Point. This increased traffic will provide many jobs, not just on site, but to help maintain infrastructure along the rail lines.

Barry Ulman (#912)

Date Submitted: 10/20/12
Comment:
To Whom it May Concern:

I have many concerns about the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point, WA. Please consider these in your EIS.

The GPT FACILITY:
Damage to the Herring fishery, which supports a whole chain of wildlife.

Damage to surrounding vegetation and wetlands on the grounds of the terminal.

Coal dust and pollution from 80-100 acres of open coal heaps.

TRAINS:
Greatly increased train traffic and accompanying noise and traffic congestion.

Coal dust from the trains polluting the air and the ground. How big a health hazard is air pollution from coal dust? How much environmental damage will result from coal dust penetrating the ground?

With increased train traffic and accompanying stress on the rails, there is increased danger of train derailments, which could be disastrous.

SHIPS:
I'm concerned about increased ship traffic and danger of ship collisions. A coal spill in Puget Sound would do major damage to the marine ecology.

Invasive species in ballast water from foreign ships could wreak havoc in our ecosystem.

QUALITY OF LIFE:
Whatcom County is noted for being a green community. We take pride in our scenery and our wildlife. I'm very concerned about the degrading of our green way of life here.

GLOBAL POLLUTION:
This coal will be burned in Asian power plants and will produce tons of greenhouse gases which will adversely affect the climate throughout the world.


THE ECONOMY:
We know that Peabody Energy and the BNSF Railroad will benefit from the Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal.

And the main economy that will benefit from this endeavor will be the economy of China. This coal will power factories that will manufacture things that used to be made in the United States.

But what about our local economy? Will residents of Whatcom County be hired to build and operate the coal terminal? Or will SSA Marine import workers who specialize in building and operating such facilities?

Please consider all these factors and many more when doing your EIS.

Yours truly,
Barry Ulman

Barry Ulman (#1038)

Date Submitted: 10/20/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Oct 20, 2012

Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology WA

Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology,

and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. It would increase traffic, pollute our air and water, harm small businesses, delay emergency vehicles, and increase shipping traffic and noise. The coal export terminal would also hurt our environment by damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents, and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

This is a lose-lose proposition for Whatcom County. We would suffer from major pollution and environmental degradation, with no benefits.
The main economic benefits would be in China, where the coal would be used to power factories that would manufacture things THAT USED TO BE MADE IN THE UNITED STATES.

Sincerely,

Barry Ulman
1424 1/2 Grant St
Bellingham, WA 98225-4921
(360) 676-1349

Barry Ulman (#5489)

Date Submitted: 12/20/12
Comment:
To All it May Concern,

Will the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point really help the economy in Whatcom County? Will the hired workers be long-time residents of Whatcom County, or will they be construction specialists brought in from elsewhere? If the latter, will these "imported" workers settle down here and compete with long-time residents for already-scarce jobs?

In light of all the environmental problems cited with this project, I feel that the Gateway Pacific Terminal will not boost our economy enough to outweigh the enormous environmental destruction entailed with this project.

Yours truly,
Barry Ulman
Bellingham, WA.=

Barry Ulman (#8594)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Comment:
For the last several days we have been hearing on the news about smog levels in Beijing so high that residents have been warned to stay inside unless absolutely necessary to go outside. Views on TV of the streets of Beijing showed almost zero visibility. We should not be making the problem even worse by shipping more coal to China. The Gateway Pacific Terminal is a bad idea that should never come to fruition.

Barry Ulman
Bellingham, WA.=

Barry Wenger (#864)

Date Submitted: 10/11/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Barry Wenger (#2097)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barry Wenger (#4005)

Date Submitted: 11/29/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Barry Wenger (#11714)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please include an analysis of the effects of fugitive coal dust, bilge and ballast water discharges, diesel emissions and other black carbon pollution from GPT’s over-water operations on the following Whatcom County CAO species of local importance.
Nooksack River Longfin Smelt (the term "hooligan' is used locally for this forage fish species, Spirinchus thaleicthy).
Species Description and Taxonomy
Longfin smelt measure 9-11 centimeters (cm) (3.5-4.3 inches (in))
standard length, although third-year females may grow up to 15 cm (5.9
in). The sides and lining of the gut cavity appear translucent silver,
the back has an olive to iridescent pinkish hue, and mature males are
usually darker in color than females. Longfin smelt can be
distinguished from other smelts by their long pectoral fins, weak or
absent striations on their opercular (covering the gills) bones,
incomplete lateral line, low numbers of scales in the lateral series
(54 to 65), long maxillary bones (in adults, these bones extend past
mid-eye, just short of the posterior margin of the eye), and lower jaw
extending anterior of the upper jaw (Mcallister 1963, p. 10; Miller and
Lea 1972, pp. 158-160; Moyle 2002, pp. 234-236).
The longfin smelt belongs to the true smelt family Osmeridae and is
one of three species in the Spirinchus genus. (McAllister 1963, pp.
10, 15).

Nearly all information available on longfin smelt biology comes
from either the San Francisco Bay-Delta population (Bay-Delta)or the Lake Washington population. Longfin smelt generally spawn in freshwater and then move downstream to brackish water to rear. The life cycle of most longfin smelt generally requires estuarine conditions (CDFG 2009, p. 1).

Longfin smelt are considered pelagic and anadromous (Moyle 2002, p.
236), although anadromy in longfin smelt is poorly understood, and
certain populations are not anadromous and complete their entire life
cycle in freshwater lakes and streams. Juvenile and adult longfin smelt have
been found throughout the year in salinities ranging from pure
freshwater to pure seawater, although once past the juvenile stage,
they are typically collected in waters with salinities ranging from 14
to 28 parts per thousand (ppt) (Baxter 1999, pp. 189-192
Longfin smelt usually live for 2 years, spawn, and then die,
although some individuals may spawn as 1- or 3-year-old fish before
dying (Moyle 2002, p. 36).

Longfin smelt in the Nooksack Delta are thought to spawn as early as October and as late as January, although spawning typically occurs from November to December. Exact spawning locations in the Nooksack River are unknown and may vary from year to year in location, depending on environmental conditions. Likely spawning substrate appears to be located from the delta to just upstream of the I-5 bridge in Ferndale. Baxter found that female longfin smelt produced between 1,900 and 18,000 eggs, with fecundity greater in fish with greater lengths (CDFG 2009, p. 11). Embryos typically hatch from between 29-40 days depending on environmental factors, primarily temperature.
Larval longfin smelt less than 12 millimeters (mm) (0.5 in) in
length are buoyant because they have not yet developed an air bladder;
as a result, they occupy the upper one-third of the water column.
Longfin smelt develop an air bladder at approximately 12-15 mm (0.5-0.6 in.) in length and are able to migrate vertically in the water column. At this time, they shift habitat and begin living in the bottom two-thirds of the water column (CDFG 2009, p. 8; Baxter 2008, p. 1).
Longfin smelt larvae can tolerate salinities of 2-6 psu within days
of hatching, and can tolerate salinities up to 8 psu within weeks of
hatching

In the Bay-Delta, most longfin smelt spend their first year in
Suisun Bay and Marsh, although surveys conducted by the City of San
Francisco collected some first-year longfin in coastal waters (Baxter
2011c, pers. comm.; City of San Francisco 1995, no pagination). The
remainder of their life is spent in the San Francisco Bay or the Gulf
of Farallones (Moyle 2008, p. 366; City of San Francisco 1995, no
pagination). Rosenfield and Baxter (2007, pp. 1587, 1590) inferred
based on monthly survey results that the majority of longfin smelt from
the Bay-Delta were migrating out of the estuary after the first winter
of their life cycle and returning during late fall to winter of their
second year. They noted that migration out of the estuary into nearby
coastal waters is consistent with captures of longfin smelt in the
coastal waters of the Gulf of Farallones. It is possible that some
longfin smelt may stay in the ocean and not re-enter freshwater to
spawn until the end of their third year of life (Baxter 2011d, pers.
comm.). Moyle (2010, p. 8) states that longfin smelt that migrate out
of and back into the Bay-Delta estuary may primarily be feeding on the
rich planktonic food supply in the Gulf of Farallones. Rosenfield and
Baxter (2007, p. 1290) hypothesize that the movement of longfin smelt
into the ocean or deeper water habitat in summer months is at least
partly a behavioral response to warm water temperatures found during
summer and early fall in the shallows of south San Francisco Bay and
San Pablo Bay (Rosenfield and Baxter 2007, p. 1590).
In the Bay-Delta, calanoid copepods such as Pseudodiatomus forbesi
and Eurytemora sp., as well as the cyclopoid copepod Acanthocyclops
vernali (no common names), are the primary prey of longfin smelt during
the first few months of their lives (approximately January through May)
(Slater 2009b, slide 45). Copepods are a type of zooplankton (organisms
drifting in the water column of oceans, seas, and bodies of fresh
water). The longfin smelt's diet shifts to include mysids such as
opossum shrimp (Neomysis mercedis) and other small crustaceans
(Acanthomysis sp.) as soon as they are large enough (20-30 mm (0.78-
1.18 in)) to consume these larger prey items, sometime during the
summer months of the first year of their lives (CDFG 2009, p. 12).
Upstream of San Pablo Bay, mysids and amphipods form 80-95 percent or
more of the juvenile longfin smelt diet by weight from July through
September (Slater 2009, unpublished data). Longfin smelt occurrence is
likely associated with the occurrence of their prey, and both of these
invertebrate groups occur near the bottom of the water column during
the day under clear water marine conditions.


In Washington, within the Puget Sound Basin, longfin smelt are
known to occur in the Nooksack River, Bellingham Bay, Snohomish River,
Duwamish River, Skagit Bay, Strait of San Juan de Fuca, Twin River, and
Pysht River (Table 1). Longfin smelt are known to occur in nearby
Bellingham Bay (Penttila 2007, p. 4).

The State of Washington includes longfin smelt in a class of fish
referred to as forage fish (small schooling fish that are major food
items for many species of fish, birds, and marine mammals) (Bargmann
1998, p. 1). Both recreational and commercial fisheries exist for
forage fish in Washington, but the recreational fishery is much smaller
than the commercial fishery. A sport fishing license is not needed to
catch smelt. Smelt can be harvested recreationally using a dip net or
jig. Dip net fishing for longfin smelt is allowed in the Nooksack River
and there are approximately two hundred trips a year made to fish for
longfin smelt in this area (O'Toole 2011, pers. comm.) Sport and tribal commercial fisheries have been reported to occur on the Nooksack River longfin smelt stock (Bargmann 1998, p. 37). Longfin smelt may be caught incidentally in a medium-sized shore or pier-based recreational fishery for surf smelt in Puget Sound.
There is currently no commercial fishing regulation specific to
longfin smelt in Washington (Paulson 2011, pers. comm.). The daily
limit for smelt is 4.5 kg (10 lb) and, like Oregon, is counted as an
aggregate, which can include herring, sardines, sandlance,and anchovies (WDFW 2011, p. 27). As a forage species, longfin smelt are preyed upon by a variety of fishes, birds, and mammals (Barnhart et al. 1992, p. 44).
One of the plants that has become established is Zostera japonica, a seagrass that was introduced to Yaquina Bay as live packing material for Japanese oysters. It poses a competitive threat to the native eelgrass (Brown et al. 2007, p. 9), and longfin smelt are known to feed on fauna found on native eelgrass (Phillips
1984, pp. 1-85).

Excerpt from:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2008-0045: 4500030113]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition to List the San Francisco Bay-Delta Population of the
Longfin Smelt as Endangered or Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

Italicized portion: personal conversation with Lummi Natural Resources staff.

Barry Wenger (#12019)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Geographical Scope – The GPT project is part of a larger fossil fuel delivery system that begins in the coal mines of the Powder River Basin, transports the coal by rail to a handful of proposed port facilities on the Oregon and Washington coasts, then by bulk freighters up the Oregon-Washington-British Columbia- SE Alaskan coast, across the eastern Gulf of Alaska through Unimak Pass near Dutch Harbor, then 600 miles easterly along the Alaskan Aleutian Islands until the vessels leave US territorial waters and head to their final destination which is predominately China but may include other Asian markets. To be considered an adequate and comprehensive EIS, the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts need to be evaluated along the entire thermal coal delivery system including from airborne pollution e.g. mercury, etc generated at the destination coal furnaces and the effects returning back to the Pacific Northwest (PNW) as well as climate change factors. Direct impacts need to be analyzed for the entire coal delivery system for diesel and black carbon emissions from the mine extraction process, rail and vessel transport, and ultimate combustion. Indirect impacts need to address the effects of such emissions on climate change factors such as reduced polar ice pack, ocean acidification, and global warming. In particular, adverse impacts to the resident and migratory freshwater and marine natural resources of the PNW need to be included within the geographical scope and addressed as discussed more fully below under Cumulative Impacts.
Cumulative Impacts – The coal delivery system includes the same mines, the same rail line, the same type of regional transfer facilities, the same vessels, the same vessel route, and the same destination coal furnaces. Diesel, coal dust and black carbon emissions are unavoidable adverse impacts to wildlife, fish stocks and habitat that cannot be adequately mitigated along the entire route. Mirroring the route of the coal trains, through the coastal transfer facilities, and along the vessel route from Oregon north to the Gulf of Alaska is the migratory pathway of all five species of salmon, and a myriad of marine birds and mammals. (http://www.goldseal.ca/wildsalmon/salmon_migration.asp?pattern=summary) (see Attachments 1 & 2) For example, all coal trains entering Washington and Oregon and crossing or running adjacent to salmon-bearing streams will cumulatively adverse impact the Columbia River basin fish resources as a result of the afore-mentioned emissions. Similarly, for the same reasons the nearshore estuarine areas used for the handful of coal transfer facilities will also cumulatively adverse impact migrating salmon, especially juvenile salmon, from the Columbia River basin as well as from along the Pacific Coast. Finally, these same salmon as well as stocks from Northern California, British Columbia and SE Alaska that are migrating along the coast to and from the Gulf of Alaska, where an estimated 10 billion smolts annually enter the world’s largest salmon nursery, will be cumulatively and adversely impacted through vessel emissions and discharges but more importantly through the heighten risk of oil spills due to the greatly increased coal bulk freighters and projected tar-sands tankers. The estimated 150 million metric tonnes of coal to be exported annually from the handful of proposed coal terminals will generate approximately 1,500 additional vessel transits (497 from GPT alone) traveling each year up the coast, across the Gulf of Alaska, through 10 mile-wide Unimak Pass, east from the Bristol Bay vicinity out to the western extent of the Alaska Aleutian Islands, then to Asia. In addition, the projected Kinder-Morgan pipeline expansion in Burnaby, B.C. will annually yield approximately 500 tar-sands tankers traveling out-bound through south Georgia Strait, Boundary Pass, Haro Strait and the Strait of Juan de Fuca where they head north up the coast to Unimak Pass, AK. These tankers will join the GPT coal bulk freighters at narrow Boundary Pass, turn south through Haro Strait, and west out the Strait of Juan de Fuca where together they meet the rest of the coal bulk freighters heading north from the other Oregon and Washington coal terminals. Further north at Kitimat, B.C., an additional 500 tar-sands tankers from the proposed Enbridge Pipeline annually are projected to enter the coal-tar-sands traffic heading north to Unimak Pass, AK. ( http://www.aleutiansriskassessment.com/passing.htm) The cumulative adverse impact from these 2,500 additional coal bulker and tar-sands tankers on the marine life that utilizes the same pathway for their migration is unmistakable. These marine resources include the iconic salmon species of the PNW, particularly the vulnerable 10 - billion smolts growing up in the Gulf of Alaska Gyre, as well as migrating whales and other marine mammals, and migrating and resident seabirds that spend part of all of the life in the PNW and along the coasts of BC, SE Alaska, and the Aleutians. Several factors make the cumulative impact of these new vessel transits significant. First, the sheer size and mass of coal-laden bulkers sets these ships apart from other classes. For cost reasons, the industry trend is toward increasing usage of cape-sized vessels with the remainder in the Panamax class. Built with single hulls, and sometimes double bottoms on newer ships, they are exceptionally heavy when loaded and full of bunker fuel (up to nearly 2 million gallons) at the beginning of the transit leaving the PNW for China. At cruising speed, these behemoths make take up to 10 miles to come to a complete stop. Manuverability is poor due to aft only propulsion – no bow thrusters – and their great size and mass. Increased whale injuries and mortalities due to ship strikes needs to be studied as part of the EIS. The second class of new vessel types to join the coal bulkers transiting the Salish Sea and coast north to Unimak Pass and to Asia are the tar-sands tankers from British Columbia (see Attachment 3). These ships will be carrying the most persistent hazardous fossil fuel cargo known to mankind. Tar-sands product is from 3 – 5 times as persistent in the marine environment as the most persistent heavy crude oil. An Exxon Valdez –type crude oil keeps killing organisms conservatively 30 years from the spill date. Tar-sands products have been estimated to keep killing organisms and wreaking environmental havoc for 90 – 150 years. Although the solvents used to thin the tar-sands asphaltenes (60% in Alberta deposits) to make it viscous enough to transport by pipeline, they are thought to mostly evaporate relatively quickly after initially killing surface biota. The predominant heavier fraction will sink in marine water seeking the thermocline/halocline depth where it will spread out as a submerged toxic spill which also may very well be on the bottom. The increased risk of coal bulk freighter and tar-sands tanker accidents, allisions, collisions, groundings and spills needs to be determined along the entire shipping route. Due to the high resource value of commercial species such as crab, prawns, bottom fish, herring and salmon and the fact that their economic bases are in Seattle and other PNW ports, as well as BC and Alaska, a spill from a coal bulk freighter and/or tar-sands tanker accident would be significant and unmitigatable. The remoteness, inclement weather, extremely rough seas, lack of tug or spill response make any type of clean-up impossible. Due to the sheer size of the coal bulk freighters, no rescue tugs are capable of assistance even if they were available or within reasonable proximity. Unlike Puget Sound, there is no vessel traffic monitoring and management system along the long the Great Circle Route that these vessels transit. These vessels are operated under foreign flags, captains and crew. These issues need to be factored into the risk management determination included in the EIS. Of particular concern is the area centering on Unimak Pass, AK (see Attachment 4). This bottleneck of vessel traffic heading from the west coast to Asia currently is overtaxed and congested. Having no vessel traffic control or management, spill response capability, or adequate response tug potential, all deep draft West Coast vessel traffic including 17% of California’s vessels transit Unimak Pass on their way to Asia and environs. Currently 4,500 vessels annually transit this narrow pass. The EIS needs to determine the increased risk of accidents and spills from adding the transits of an additional 1,500 coal bulk freighters and 1,000 tar-sands tankers. Increasing the Unimak Pass transits from 4,500 to 7,000 with the combination of unmanueverable coal bulk freighters and toxic tar-sands tankers is a significant and unmitigable adverse impact. A major spill at this location would have a devastating impact upon the annual $1.5 billion seafood industry of Bristol Bay and environs. The extremely valuable and sustainable nature resources of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and the economies that depend upon them would also be adversely affected by an accident along the 600 mile reach from Unimak Pass to the outer extent of the Alaskan Aleutians. The southern portions of the Refuge bordering the Gulf of Alaska would also be similarly adversely affected, if not even more so, by these vessels transiting the 1,300 miles across the Gulf – some of the roughest and most dangerous seas in the world (see Attachment 5). As noted elsewhere in this document, extreme waves and increased storm strength and frequency coupled with common bulk freighter structural defects essentially guarantee large bunker fuel spills with no possible spill response or clean-up due to remoteness, sea conditions and lack of response tugs and spill equipment. This is also true of the tar-sands tankers that will share the same route all the way to China. The resources of the Oregon, Washington and British Columbia coasts are, of course, also at risk of coal bulk freighter accidents and catastrophic failures releasing large quantities of bunker fuel adversely affected the afore-mentioned migratory fish, mammals and birds, and their habitat. Vessel traffic from the southern-most transfer terminal at Coos Bay, OR will travel 330 miles along the Oregon-Washington Coast being met about half way by the Columbia River coal terminals vessel traffic. The GPT vessel traffic and Kinder-Morgan tar-sands vessel traffic will join the other north-bound coal bulk freighters at the Strait of Juan de Fuca to transit the next 600 miles along the BC coast. The total US-BC coastal vessel route is approximately 2,800 miles, not including the Salish Sea or Columbia River portions. The EIS needs to address the cumulative impacts on the resident and migratory marine species along this route from vessel accidents and spills, establish safety and response plans and requirements, and any feasible mitigation actions. Unlike the Columbia River and Salish Sea which have established vessel traffic management and spill response systems, the 2,800 mile coastal route is not adequately covered. What are the existing systems in place, what is their capacity to adequately address vessel accidents and spills along this coast, and what will be needed to upgrade the systems to protect the marine resources at risk? These same questions need to be addressed in the Columbia River and Salish Sea to determine vessel traffic risk and spill response as well as ecological consequences. Currently bulk freighters are not covered under WAC 173-182 requiring tug escorts, pilots, or spill response plans. Given the large quantities of bunker fuel and poor maneuverability of these vessels, an analysis of these requirements needs to be completed and such vessel traffic mitigation measures required.

Barry and Gail Hicks (#11517)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: 'Cheney, Wa
Comment:
Thank you for this opportunity to express and record our opposition to the contemplated coal export terminal and associated rail traffic that would negatively impact local communities such as ours as well as regional ecosystems and, ultimately, contribute to global climate change with negative impacts throughout our increasingly fragile and vulnerable planetary biosphere. Locally, for cities and small towns located on proposed
railway transport lines, these negative impacts would be immediate and profound, dramatically impeding local highway transportation, impairing commerce and polluting adjacent roadbeds, residential areas and natural environments. Regionally, the geometric increase in rail traffic would have similar, widespread systemic negative impacts. Globally, the concept of shipping United States natural resources such as coal to be burned as fuel and produce massive toxic emissions in China and other Asian destinations is environmentally irresponsible, morally and ethically reprehensible and, in the final analysis, a narrowly greed-driven business strategy to maximize short-term profits at the cost of human health and environmental degradation. If this proposal goes forward, it will be met with active public resistance and major civic opposition throughout the impacted northwest communities, including Spokane, Cheney, and scores of others.

Bart Arenson (#5030)

Date Submitted: 12/14/12
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals. Our current laws regarding air pollution and public health must must be considered.

Bart Dawson (#10651)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Mercer Island, WA
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,


We own homes on San Juan Island overlooking Haro Straight and near Seattle. I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.


I am especially concerned about the impacts of shipping on air pollution. An objective, rigorous and comprehensive study should be undertaken to see what impact of air pollution associated with increased vessel traffic will have on our region and what impact these increases will have upon air quality standards.



Also, I am especially concerned about increased likelihood and potential consequences of introduction of Asian invasive species from ballast water discharges as well as from organisms attached to the ships. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:


What invasive species could be introduced because of the release of ballast water, and how would these species impact the Salish Sea ecosystem?


What invasive species could be introduced as a result of organisms attached to the outside of the ships, and how would these species impact the Salish Sea ecosystem?


What will be the cost of the introduction of invasive species on our regional economy (tourism, commercial/recreational fisheries and property values)?



Also, I am especially concerned about increased likelihood and potential consequences increased greenhouse gases on the local, national, and world environment. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:


What are the quantities of greenhouse gases on the local, national, world environment, and how would these gases impact the Salish Sea ecosystem?


What could be the impact of greenhouse gases the life of the people near the Salish Sea? Would the presence Gateway Pacific Terminal, and associated trains and ships, reduce air quality and thus reduce the number of days homes could be heated with wood fires, or limit electrical power generation? How disruptive would increased greenhouse gases impact the economy of the people of the Salish Sea?


What will be the cost to mitigate the introduction of greenhouse gases on our regional economy?


If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.


Sincerely,

Bart & Marcia Dawson

Bart Haggin (#5259)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bart Rayniak (#7206)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Otis Orchards, WA
Comment:
There are currently 7 un-gated rail road crossings on Spokane Valley Union Pacific spur line, which runs parallel to the BN main line on Trent Ave. 40 additional coal trains will put additional pressure on those rail crossings by diverting rail traffic from the BN line to that spur. I live on Arden Rd. (which one of those un-gated crossings) and have noticed a significant increase in rail traffic as more and more long coal trains travel through the Spokane Valley, many times in the middle of the night. Those 40 long coal trains will also block access to the key north/south corridor routes at Pines Rd., Harvard Rd., and McKinzie Rd. in the Spokane Valley, not to mention a key rail crossing off Idaho Highway 53 in Rathdrum, Idaho. Public safety to respond to emergency fire and ambulance would be jeopardized and traffic would be greatly impacted.

Bea Acland (#9873)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am in favor of the EIS studying the impact of the project on the whole region between coal mine and terminal/s, not just one terminal at a time.

Bea Acland (#9874)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We must study the safety impact of extra trains blocking rail crossings along the route to the terminal.

Bea Acland (#9876)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We must study the safety impact of additional large cargo ships in the waters off Washington State. There is a lot of recreational use of these waters, and extra ships create a large impact on their safety.

Bea Acland (#9877)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We must study the impact on the marine environment - wildlife, vegetation and water quality - from the additional large cargo ships in the waters off Washington State.

Bea Acland (#9878)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live one mile from a rail line through Bellingham. Current rail traffic already impacts my rest at night. Additional trains will only make this worse. I'm strongly against the additional noise of additional freight trains through Bellingham.

Bea Acland (#9879)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please examine the danger of surfactants that are used to keep coal dust from spreading. What impact will these materials have on the environment through which the trains are projected to pass?

Bea Acland (#9881)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please examine the risk to our local community of increased shipping - what is the cleanup and response plan for the larger number of cargo ships?

Bea Rump (#6969)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Spokane , WA
Comment:
We already have too much train traffic passing by our house. The rail is approximately 75 feet below our house. The rails are on an incline therefore the engines have to rev up to gain speed creating very much noise pollution not to mention harmful diesel fumes emitted by the engines. When we purchased this house we were aware of the trains passing by, however we never expected the frequency to increase so much. It is very difficult to sleep at night; it has become very bothersome and we feel all the excessive noise is adversely affecting our health and interfering with our normal day-to-day activities IE: opening the windows for fresh air or watching TV or even having a normal conversation. We feel the price of our property will be drastically reduced if more coal trains will be passing by. We are requesting not to increase the train traffic in this area. Thank you.

Beate Degen (#13318)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
My name is __Beate Degen__________________ and I live in __Bellingham___Wa 98225______________________. I respectfully request that various impacts upon tribal nations be given due consideration. Please study:

1. Potential damages to the Nooksack River, to Salish Sea ecosystems and fisheries, and to Cherry Point itself; and impacts on traditional livelihoods, natural resources, food sources, culture and religion.

2. Possible infringement of international and treaty rights, and the consequences of such infringement.

3. Any disturbance of archaeological sites, burial sites, and sites of cultural importance.

As recognized in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Plan, the Lummi Nation and other tribes have treaty rights in the Salish Sea, as usual and accustomed fishing grounds. How might damaged fisheries; polluted waters, lands and air; altered ecosystems; and increasingly industrialized, crowded waterways impact traditional Native culture and spirituality; employment and livelihoods; natural resources and safe food sources? How might the construction and operations of GPT, and the transport and storage of bulk commodities, including coal, affect the full and proper observation of all relevant rights and treaties?

Xwe’chi’eXen (Cherry Point) is known to have deep spiritual and cultural significance. A burial ground and a sacred site, it is associated with the creation story of the Lummi People and the First Salmon Ceremony. For over 175 generations, Lummi ancestors lived and fished at Xwe’chi’eXen, and it was part of the (now much smaller) Lummi Reservation as established by the Point Elliott Treaty. It was the first site in Washington State to be listed on the Washington Heritage Register and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supported by the President of the United States, includes the right to maintain and protectarchaeological and historic sites. I request that a third party archaeological study of cultural significance at Cherry Point be done in accordance with Lummi tribal code, and approved and accepted by a Lummi Nation cultural commission.

As a non-indigenous person, I can't accurately articulate GPT's current and potential damages to culture and spirituality. That is why third-party studies done in collaboration with the Lummi Nation and other involved tribes are necessary. However, I do understand that the impacts would be serious, and that some would likely be irrevocable and impossible to mitigate. I do understand that we in the United States, as citizens and as a nation, have a legal obligation to uphold treaties and other accorded rights, and a moral obligation to help respect and protect the sanctity of Lummi Nation's holy ground.

Thank you,

Signed _____Beate Degen______________________________________

Beatrice Barber (#2079)

Date Submitted: 10/30/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Becca Campbell (#3761)

Date Submitted: 12/02/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

In my personal experience, this sort of activity will be horrible on the health of our citizens, and as someone with chronic health problems, I fear what this could do to me and my family. Please do not let this happen, it will cause so many problems and the solution is not to create a coal port in Whatcom County. The solution is to create green energy jobs that will continue for years and no harm our health and communities.


Becca Campbell
1320 Lakeway Drive #140
Bellingham
Bellingham, WA 98229

Beccy Bayne (#161)

Date Submitted: 10/01/2012
Comment:
What, if anything, will happen to Boulevard Park in Bellingham if the GPT requires additional rail track to ship its products? I am very concerned that the people of Bellingham will lose this beautiful park to railyard and/or additional railroad tracks.

Beckey Sukovaty (#12977)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I am strongly opposed to the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest, including through Seattle.

This proposal would negatively affect my community by: increasing congestion, potential for accidents and derailments, and noise pollution from significantly more coal train traffic; polluting our air and waterways and land by the tracks and terminals with coal dust; harming existing businesses and our port, and delaying emergency responders; damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site and along the tracks; increasing the risk of derailments and explosions from coal dust; increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents; and escalating climate change and other negative global effects such as ocean acidification from burning coal in Asia which comes back to the Northwest via prevailing winds in the jetstream.

I urge you to consider these serious impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the major cumulative impact of these proposals.

Becky Brun (#8748)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Hood River, OR
Comment:
I oppose the Gateway Pacific Terminal for many reasons:

Railways in the Gorge are already near capacity. Additional slow-moving mile-long coal trains will disrupt commerce and emergency services by blocking grade-level crossings for hours per day, isolating businesses, hospitals and people from each other.

Every summer we have wildfires caused by trains, and there have been several train derailments in the region in the last 10 years. On July 2, 2012, a coal train crashed in Mesa, Wash., just outside the Gorge. Coal trains raise the risk for derailments because coal dust accumulates in the rail ballast and softens it so that trains tip over more easily. Track fires would have extra fuel from coal accumulations on the ground.

We can’t afford to harm our tourist industry for coal trains bringing only losses, costs and pollution to our local economy. Coal exports through the Gorge would degrade the quality of your life and harm local residents and our vibrant tourist economy.

The science community already pinpoints Asian coal-burning power plants as a source of Oregon’s acid rain problem, affecting crops, fisheries and native plants in Oregon and the American west. More coal to Asia means more carbon into the global atmosphere and more warming, leading to “weather events” and climate change.

Coal exports are a net loss to Oregon. Any jobs will be in cleanup and at taxpayer expense.

Becky Clark (#10528)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
Please accept these scoping comments for the environmental impact statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project located at Cherry Point, Washington.

Polluting our scenic areas just to export our natural resources which we may actually need in the future is just totally wrong. To do it so coal companies can make higher profits without an area-wide Environmental Impact Study to see its impact on the rest of us seems insane.

The proposal to export up to 48 million tons of coal per year from the Powder River Basin, through the Columbia River Gorge to Cherry Point for export to Asia would result in significant adverse effects to the local, regional and global environment. The impacts of strip mining, transporting and burning the coal in Asian power plants must be included in the scope of analysis for the environmental impact statement (EIS).

In particular, the proposal would have severe impacts on the Columbia River Gorge, which is the most likely rail transportation route from the Powder River Basin through the Cascade Mountains to the proposed terminal. The Columbia River Gorge is world-renowned for its natural scenic beauty, diversity in plants and wildlife, cultural resources and recreation. To protect its outstanding resources, the Gorge is a federally designated National Scenic Area. This law requires protection and enhancement of scenic, natural, cultural and recreation resources and air quality. The EIS must evaluate the transportation of coal by rail in open coal cars through the Gorge, and the likely expansion of tracks and siding in the Gorge that would be necessary to accommodate up to 18 additional trains per day, for consistency with the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.

Air quality in the Columbia River Gorge is already degraded. Increased coal train traffic would worsen air quality and visibility. The human health and the environmental impacts of diesel emissions and coal dust from up to 18 trains per day must be analyzed.

Coal pollution is already a problem in the Gorge from just a few coal trains per week, with large amounts of coal polluting Gorge lands and waterways. Adverse effects of coal spilling into waterways and into sensitive plant and wildlife areas in the Gorge from open-top coal cars must be analyzed in the EIS. The threat of fugitive coal affecting agriculture and forestry must also be examined in the EIS.

Additional trains would block at-grade crossings in the Gorge, interfering with commerce, recreation, tourism and emergency services.
Wind-blown coal debris from coal trains has also been documented to be a safety threat to highway travelers. These impacts must be included in the scope of the EIS.

Existing rail traffic in the Gorge is near capacity. Approval of the GPT project would result in the need to expand rail capacity in the Gorge with new tracks and sidings. Rail lines in the Gorge follow the Columbia River and cross many tributaries and wetlands. Impacts from the construction of new tracks would cause adverse effects to water quality, fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. These impacts must be analyzed and avoided.

Train-caused fires are a regular occurrence within the Columbia Gorge, resulting in damage to native plants, sensitive wildlife habitat and property. Increased train traffic and transporting coal in open-top cars would only worsen this existing problem. Increased risk of fire from coal trains must be analyzed in the EIS.

There are five pending proposals for coal exports in the Pacific Northwest. All would transport coal from the Powder River Basin through the Columbia River Gorge to export facilities. The combined impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable uses and developments must be thoroughly explored in the EIS.

Coal-burning power plants are the primary source greenhouse gases driving global climate change. The GPT project would feed Asia's growing appetite for coal and accelerate climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from the mining, transportation and burning of coal must be analyzed in the EIS. Coal combustion in Asia releases other air pollutants, such as mercury, that are deposited in the United States.
The EIS must analyze the impacts of mercury pollution from coal powered plants receiving coal via the proposed export facility.

The purpose and need for the proposed project should be broadened to look at economic development and environmental needs for the region and for the global climate. The range of alternatives considered in the EIS should include alternatives that better address the economic and environmental needs of the region and do not expand global reliance on fossil fuels that are responsible for causing catastrophic climate change. The alternatives analysis should include alternative transportation routes that do not pass through federally protected areas like the Columbia River Gorge. Mitigation measures should include covered rail cars to reduce the amount of coal pollution from coal trains.

The Army Corps of Engineers should refrain from making a decision on any permits until an area-wide EIS is completed to analyze the impacts of all five coal export proposals in the Pacific Northwest.

Becky Cox (#10555)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Burien, WA
Comment:
I request that the EIS statement address the following:
1. The impact of this project from ore extraction to delivery to foreign ports.
2. Specific impacts I am concerned about are:
a. Noise. Recent studies are revealing that ship noise has a detrimental effect on marine life, particularly marine mammals. The many ships required to move the coal will impact the noise levels in the sound and the ocean.
3. Environment. We should not be encouraging the world to ignore pollution problems by continuing the burn coal. Case in point, the current air pollution problems in Bejing. In addition, it should be noted that there have been many slides onto the train tracks between Seattle and Everett. The film of the train cars being derailed due to a slide should be a part of your data. A coal spill would be catastrophic to the Puget Sound area. The slides are not going to stop.
4. Transportation. Seattle is an extremely narrow corridor that requires trains to travel between our waterfront and the city. Endless lengthy coal trains will paralyze the city and its ability to move goods and services through our port.
5. Economy. Job creation will not be long lasting and should not be a factor in the EIS. The economic impact will be to the advantage of the private companies that own the coal, not to the public sector.

Becky Derydox (#2244)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Location: Mt Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Becky Hage (#1206)

Date Submitted: 10/24/2012
Comment:
Please study: 1. the cumulative effect of wind blown coal dust settling on the marine floor, over the life of the terminal on the life cycle of the crabs and impact to the crab fishery. 2. The cumulative effect of 1000 ingress/egress trips of Panamax and Cape size vessels and 2000 tug boats per year on this crab fishery and the fishers gear. 3. The cumulative effects of anchoring hundred of ships and tugs per year waiting to berth at the proposed GPT on this crab fishery over the projected life span of the terminal. 4. the cumulative effect of disruption of currents on the crab population and crab fishery industry. Thank you.

Becky Hage (#1207)

Date Submitted: 10/24/2012
Comment:
Please study the impact of Emergency vehicles, or vehicles taking personnel to hospitals to respond to an emergency, and if they will be delayed at train crossings, at a time when seconds count, in the EIS for Gateway Pacific. Thank you.

Becky Hage (#2575)

Date Submitted: 11/09/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study how diesel and coal particulates showering waterways along the rail line might affect salmon and their habitat. Thank you.

Becky Hellman (#11737)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
Who I am:
I have lived in the Methow Valley or San Juans of Washington, a duration of 27 years within a 50 year span. I was born and raised in Kansas, and currently there, due to medical crisis for aging parents, where I am witnessing little winter, amid three years of drought. I also spent Summer of 2011, amid constant temperatures of 100+ to 114+ degrees, here, observing pine trees, other trees dying, as the Arkansas River, is reduced to a small trickle with grass overtaking the riverbed. In the 80’s, I use to debate Kansans that the extreme heat waves were climate change related due to fossil fuels. Now, I just refer people to NOAA’s website to get scientific confirmation from research data to prove my sensibility. Their data confirms what I see in the Plains, Rockies, and Cascades, the reality of climate change.

I taught in the public school system, and my husband worked for Habitat for Humanity. As a teacher, I am not professionally trained as a scientist, except to teach students the scientific methods, love of math and to be life-long learners . 20 years ago, due to my longing for Washington my husband and I moved our small family to Lopez Island. In 2005-2007, I created Climate Change Forums on Lopez Island to advance the conversation, as we have many accomplished people to draw from to lead this discussion.

All who choose to move to the San Juan’s are deeply attached, psychologically, emotionally and many economically to its pristine beauty. When the Cherry Point coal terminal permitting request was first publicized to our community, a group of us began researching the issue, then met on how to educate our residents and show them how to write comment letters. We held many events based on a wealth of information about coal, ships and the shipments and possible impacts.
Comments:
Though you have many comments from the San Juans, please know that for every comment there are hundreds that are in agreement with the commenter’s concern, but who do not feel they are up to the task of writing a comment letter. At our events, many verbally expressed grief about the way the San Juans are being turned into an industrial park waterway for profits of the few in the fossil fuel industry.
The pro-coal contingency’s behavior during this open comment period does not instill trust in residents that they will care about environmental issues once Coal interests have permits. As seen all over our nation, penalties to violations are cheap. When irreparable harm is done due to wreck-less behavior, I would fully expect the astute activists here to respond in full measure.

Concerns:
All the concerns and requests submitted to you for studies to be done, merit serious research.
In particular, I ask that you give attention to research Dr. Riordan, of Orcas, recently sent to you in his comment, in relation to the kinds of winds we experience here and concerns for containing coal dust. In 21 years, the San Juans have experience winds up to 100 mph.
The hundreds of acres of high mature pine forests, surrounding the 10 acre meadow my home is in, have never prevented high winds from doing damage to our windows’ seals.
I request that the EIS on Gateway Pacific Terminal and the rail lines along the waterways be included in EIS analyses to answer the following questions related to dust containment in the reality of our NW weather.
• How would pine trees, no matter how tall, prevent coal dust from being thrown into the air and water around the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal ?
• How does coal dust affect the health of herring and every species dependent on herring, aquatic and upland, including humans?
• How much heavy metals would get into land environments that rails cars would pass by, over the duration that coal shipments?
• How would deposits of coal dust into the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserves during our frequent high wind episodes, or deposits from ship accidents, or spillage, impact with irreparable harm local species livability?
• Is there a connection that Cherry Point Herring decline began after fossil fuel industry came into existence in our waters. What has been causing it?

Climate Change is evident and predicting models or current outcomes do not show that the winds will become less ferocious or less frequent. In 20 years, the San Juans have had two ‘hundred year’ ~ 100 mph wind events.

My concern is that one large ‘hundred year’ storm would end the Salish Sea marine species, that many here are trying to recover, with damaging coal dust dropped into the Aquatic Reserve at Cherry Point, let alone the constant slow degradation of dust from ongoing higher winds of 30-50, spillages which we currently have frequently, or like the accident in Canada of the past month.

Based on Prince William Sound, PAHs do irreparable permanent harm to herring. Our Cherry Point Herring are already experiencing a decline.

Please add these questions of concern to your EIS research.
Thank you for attention to this huge issue facing our state. Frankly, and as proven in Prince William Sound, there would not be enough super-fund available to pay for the loss of life, productivity for all species affected in the Salish Sea by the net negative effect of coal shipments. To that doubt, a no-build option should be selected.

There is a political term …’a friend to Coal’ Though you have much to research, there is abundance of research, information and events already done to show that Coal has not prevailed to be a “friend” to mankind.

Becky Hellman (#12003)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am a 20yr. + resident of Lopez Island. Formerly a public school teacher, I am now an event planner for environmental and political events. I have lived in close contact to nature in the Cascades and high Rockies during less environmentally stressful times than the past 20 years have been, which has caused me to gain immense appreciation for the evolving species and balances that take eons to achieve, and the health it creates in humans.
Raised in Wichita, Kansas, as well as having Cherokee great grandparents, I saw intimately how the fossil fuel industry corrupts due to its need to seize, compete and expand at all costs. My husband, son and myself have treasured the San Juans, and strive to ‘live lightly’ on our land.
Concerns:
I am deeply concern about our air quality from burning of fossil fuels and the toxins such as Chinese mercury from their coal plants found in the snows of the Cascades, hence into our streams and fish species. Having raised a son with asthma and earlier worked for the Forest Service and participated in burns, I’ve come to value clean air.

Ironically, this summer and fall of 2012, while presenting educational events on the subject of the Cherry Point proposed coal permit, all participants could see incredible crimson sunsets. Albeit beautiful, they were cause by the enormous burning of the forests of Russia, China and our own Cascades. NOAA satellite images showed a huge smoke cloud drifting over the Pacific from Asia, at low altitude. Some days I could smell smoke. I’ve never experience asthmatic symptoms in myself until this Fall.

I am concerned that allowing permitting of our natural resources to be nearly given away to big Coal, to profit from, and shipped overseas will cause a glut of cheap coal and a race between corporations to sell ‘their’ coal to China and other developing countries. Thus, hindering motivation to find cleaner energy, conserve and save coal reserves for the future when the world-wide greenhouse gases are at a reduced level.

World Health Organization has determined that a PM of 25 is a safe level for humans. This month many China cities are experiencing drifts of lethal emissions of pollution at levels above any indexes. US Embassy in Beijing recorded nearly 900 PM in one of their hourly readings in January! Recent years there have been demonstrations, numbering up to 30T at one time, against coal fired plants, as the Chinese people have learned through social media that coal burning is the main emitter of green house gases and main source of their pollution, sickening their people, killing their children. This month, the new Premier Li has admitted that pollution is a nation emergency.

www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1129943/why-beigings-toxic-smog-was-years-making

qz.com/43298/pollution-score-beiging-993-new-youk-19/1-14-13

BusinessInsider.com/Beijing-smog-natural-gas-revolution-2013-1

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-19/polution-in-beigjing-soars-for-second-weekend-as-smog-returns.html.

What is the impact for the Gateway Pacific Terminal coal shipments activity to the people of Washington?
Regarding this air/toxins contamination I see two arching concerns of impact:
1. If we build the infrastructure Gateway Pacific Terminal to sell China our coal, how much toxicity can we expect back in our air, land. How much pollution to our streams, ponds, lakes, and species in Washington State?
This does not seem unreasonable to expect China’s consistently high parts per million to drift into our side of the ocean, mountain, land & water. At what level does it make our environment too toxic or decline of thriving for all species here?

(Please ignore industry statements that someone else will sell, so it might as well be us; because a restriction on sources causes countries to conserve and adapt to other power sources. A glut of sources, as they exist now, means low motivation to reduce.)

2. If the permitting of coal for the GPT is allowed and this massive infrastructure is built to sell where the air is already un-breathable, either the people of China productivity goes down for lack of physically unable to do their tasks or the people revolt to the use of coal fired plants, so that China very shortly will be motivated to nimbly cut their use of coal. Will that make the shipping of coal from GPT unaffordable to Big Coal? Then what is the Washington people’s cost in state infrastructure expenditures to help a failed enterprise when we get less than projected revenues?

The issue of maxed out people from air pollution in China in indicative that we need to not build infrastructure here to sell more pollution causing coal to China, as the net negative impact aggregate over time will incapacitate the Chinese, as well as create permanent and irreparable harm and net negative affect to our state’s ecology.

I don’t see there is a mitigation big enough in scope to protect our land and water statewide can be instituted.

Taking measurements on our Cascade mountain snow with projections of China growth can show that the aggregate overtime of mercury and other metals/pollutions would call for a No Action determination.

Becky Knapp (#4402)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
Dec 6, 2012

Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology WA

Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology: Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology,

I oppose construction of a coal export terminal near Bellingham, and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

I understand that the proponents want jobs and a robust economy. I do too, but not at the expense of our environment. If we continue to ignore the environment which is a world-wide problem, our entire planet will suffer a huge decrease in quality of life and economic costs.

And I strongly disagree with those who say that only people in Bellingham will be effected, thus they are the only ones who should have a say about this proposal. This terminal, and others that are proposed will have huge effects on me, living in Spokane Valley, WA.
It would increase traffic, pollute our air and water, harm small businesses, delay emergency vehicles, and increase noise pollution and speed up climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.so you should listen to my thoughts also!

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Sincerely,

Becky Knapp
4330 S Locust Rd
Spokane Valley, WA 99206-8613

Becky Lippmann (#12905)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Albany, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

In addition, the location where the coal will be burned for fuel will become a polluted environment. This is a lose-lose situation for all locations involved.

There are better ways to acquire energy and use less fuel. We need to be smart about our decisions today and our future tomorrow.

Beecher Snipes (#2335)

Date Submitted: 11/05/2012
Comment:
Hello, I have one comment that I hope you will include in your study of impacts on communities from coal train transits.
The Horn Noise at crossings. Even now in our town the train horn noise at crossings wakes up half the population several times a night. With many more trains it will become a serious issue in the health category, much less a constant irritant. Many States and communities have taken advantage of the Federal program that creates “quiet zones”. With minimal additional crossing safety devices the trains are allowed to proceed without using their horns. Numerous studies have been done on the safety of this. Lots of data out there. The main requirement from the Feds is that the crossing be protected from people trying to drive around the safety arms that come down by addition set of arms on the other side of the street or a barrier down the middle keeping cars in their lanes at the crossing. Florida made an effort to make the whole state a Quiet Zone. Traditionally, the train companies do not contribute funds to crossing up grades such as bridges or underpasses. In the case of noise abatement costs would be minimal and they might be able to contribute to the cause.

Thank you. Beecher Snipes, Mount Vernon, WA.

Belinda Bail (#8469)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Seattle, wa
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am land owner in San Juan County on Orcas Island. I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

I am especially concerned about the impacts to orca, marine mammals and birds. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:
• How would the noise, pollution and physical presence of the additional huge vessels affect our orca populations (including the endangered Southern Residents)?
• How would construction and operation, including the vessel noise, of the coal port and the continuous transiting of coal ships affect other marine mammals, fish, birds, and the food web that supports them?
If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.

Sincerely,

Belinda Bail
6602 E. Greenlake Way N
Seattle, WA 98103

Bellingham Meeting Transcripts (#3266)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Attached are the transcripts from the Bellingham Meeting for the two verbal public comment areas. Transcripts for the individual verbal comments area will be posted when available. (11/20/12)
Attached Files:

Ben Broesamle (#6423)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing as a concerned and distressed neighbor of the BNSF Railroad Balmer Yard in Interbay, Seattle, WA. I live within 100 yards of the yard and less distance from the tracks the proposal intends to add additional coal train movements to.

I do not believe the quantity of coal to be shipped within 100 yards of my home is safe, nor that it will have anything but a drastic impact on my health, environment, food, and property values.

Regarding the Environmental, Food Source, and Human Safety Impacts: Coal and coal dust is subject to spontaneous combustion when covered. Coal dust is directly correlated with severe lung disease and shortened lifespans of coal miners. Uncovered rail cars as proposed would allow coal dust into the environment just by moving and stopping trains in the yard. Coal dust directly impacts air quality in my neighborhood, subjecting myself and my neighbors to increased chances of lung disease, and shortened lifespan. Coal dust escaping in a derailment could potentenially cause severe effects to soil and ground water and eventually stream and river water. Coal dust escaping in the crossing of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks nearby will directly affect the water quality of the salmon run and salmon ladder within a few hundred yards of the rail bridge. This salmon run is one of many that will be affected by the proposal. We have 15,000 fishery jobs in Puget Sound mean this proposal will put many marine livelihoods are at stake. This proposal weighs creating a few jobs based on exploiting a non-renewable resource, with killing the livelihoods of thousands based on a sustainable resource.

Regarding Noise and Property Impacts: Additional coal trains will inevitably mean additional railroad noise. It is not acceptable to endanger my health and cause additional noise. This additional noise and coal pollution will eventually affect property values in the area. Property values are the highest priority of those listed, but they do have a serious effect on the economic development of my neighborhood and I strongly oppose this or and other proposal so egregiously jeopardizing my neighborhood in such a way.

Thank you,
B Broesamle

Ben Covino (#13872)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Ben Lewis (#8374)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Lakewood, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Ben Mickle (#13858)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals. Also we must stop the insane destruction of our planet by tearing it up to retrieve coal,when we have an unlimited supply of energy sitting only 93 million miles away, that for the most "WE IGNORE"

Ben Miner (#6589)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Comment:
I am concerned with the increased dangers to boaters in the sound. The climate favors patchy fog, and many recreational boaters do not have radar. How will the increased tanker traffic affect the safety of boaters?

Ben Miner (#6590)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Comment:
I am concerned with the increased potential for non-native species that are transported by tankers in the their ballasts. Introductions via ballast water is the leading cause for marine introductions. What are the risks to native marine and estuary communities, and to the livelihoods of those that depend on a healthy marine ecosystem? How will these risks be minimized?

Ben Miner (#6591)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Comment:
I am concerned with the decrease in air quality from trains, vessels, and the site. In particular, early develop of all organisms, including humans, is a critical and sensitive stage that will impact the rest of that individuals life. How will the increased coal dust and pollution affect the health of early stages of development? Please include impacts on humans, other animals, plants, fungus, other eukaryotes, and non-eukaryotes.

Ben Miner (#6592)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Comment:
I am concerned with global impacts of digging, transporting, and burning coal. What are the short-term (< 5 years), and long-term (>5 years) risks to increased global temperature, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and the associated economic impacts via increased storms, reduction is ocean productivity, human health, and crop failures?

Ben Miner (#6593)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Comment:
I am concerned with the economic impact of the local economy in Whatcom county. What is the expected decline in revenue or value of construction, local businesses, and property due to the shipping station, and increased train and tanker traffic? How less likely will people want to move to Whatcom county or stay in Whatcom county if the terminal is built?

Ben Miner (#6594)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Comment:
I am concerned with the risk of fire associated with coal terminal and trains. What are risks associated with transporting via train or boat, and transfer and storing coal at the terminal? In particular, I am concerned with the risk to natural habitats, nearby refineries, towns, farmland, and major highways.

Ben Miner (#6595)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Comment:
I am concerned the expected impacts of coal dust on marine ecosystems. Dust that is released during transport or transfer will certainly end up in our coastal ecosystems. What impact will it have on the planktonic communities in which our fisheries depend? What are the prevailing currents near the shipping terminal and how will the dust be transported by these currents?

Ben Miner (#6596)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Comment:
I am concerned with the financial advantage that China receives by shipping them coal. How will providing China with cheap energy negatively affect the US economy? In particular, how does shipping coal to china affect the price difference between US produced products and imported products from China, and how will that impact the US economy and US jobs?

Ben Mullen (#13981)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, destroying the land by displacing the topsoil and shattering the underlying rock, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean, thus multiplying the chances for serious shipping accidents and oil spills and escalating climatic change. All of those effects must be viewed within the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from those proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative effects of the aforementioned proposals.

Instead of looking to profit from ripping up our countryside and sending more of a filthy sourse of energy to the one place on Earth that is spewing the most soot, ash, toxic fumes and heavy metals into our planet's atmosphere from the burning of that same stuff, those corporations that want to do that need to chart a new course within the scope of their business interests, diversifying into clean , green, renewable ways of generating electricity, keeping the coal underground and the earth above it intact. It's much better to make the inevitable change to better ways of powering our activities in this world before such ventures are begun -- and, like it or not, the change IS inevitable -- if we want to maintain Earth's beauty and the health of all the life on it: and that includes, not least of all, ourselves.

Ben Pfeiffer (#12831)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Seattle , WA
Comment:
An essential part of an assessment of the likely environmental impact of the proposed Gateway Pacific facility is a careful analysis of the climate change impact of the facilities' contribution to an expansion of dirty coal combustion. On the face of it, this would seem to involve a significant expansion of particulate and carbon dioxide pollution, which may have a global effect that cannot be easily mitigated. Please ensure that the final EIS addresses this issue comprehensively.

Ben Pfeiffer

Ben Poe (#4406)

Date Submitted: 12/11/2012
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I live in St Johns (North Portland), an area that has a tradition of getting the short end of the stick...Given that, it is my hope that you persue a thorough and exhaustive assessment of any health, safety, and quality of life implications this proposed coal transport
may have for community. I urge you include worst case scenarios and realistic risk assessments. And, of course, complete transparency!

Ben Strakhouse (#2068)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Ben Winkes (#10629)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Conway, WA
Comment:
I am a physician in the Skagit Valley and have had occasion to ponder, while watching the traffic grind to a halt as trains rumble along the tracks that bisect our communities, the effects of increased coal train traffic on the health of my patients. I greatly support the comments already submitted by the Whatcom and Skagit physicians scoping request submitted elsewhere. As they properly note, 911 calls will be markedly affected by the increased traffic. Increased diesel air pollution from the trains will also be significant and while the coal dust may (or may not) fall far from the tracks, it will disproportionately affect those asthmatic patients who are unfortunate enough to be sitting in cars or standing at the crossings when the trains roll by and those who live near the tracks. How many late arrivals at the emergency room too late to open a clotted artery or too late to prevent an asthma hospitalization are a few jobs in coal worth? For the patients affected, it is an easy (and hopefully not tragic) answer.

Ben & Donna Peden (#1436)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Location: Burlington, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Benjamin Sibelman (#12798)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Redmond, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transportation of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect dozens or hundreds of communities by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents, and most importantly, escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Berna Deane Blackburn (#4317)

Date Submitted: 12/07/12
Location: Worley, ID
Comment:
Dear Mr. Perry:

If permitted, the Gateway Pacific Terminal will generate a massive increase in trains traveling through the region. The environmental impact study on this project needs to consider the following questions and concerns from communities along the way.

What is the cost of infrastructure needed to prevent increased train traffic from imposing devastating impacts on local businesses and public safety?

Who will pay for that infrastructure: local taxpayers or the rail companies, coal companies and their Asian customers?

What are the air quality and public health implications of dozens of coal trains passing through communities?

How will massive increases in coal train volume on rail lines that are already at or near capacity affect other shippers, including agricultural commodities that currently move approximately 40 million tons per year to ports in Washington and Oregon for export markets?

How will increases in coal train volume affect Amtrak passenger service through the Pacific Northwest and the vital tourism economy of the region?

How will increased coal related train traffic affect existing businesses near the railroad in towns and cities along the route?

We are already getting air pollution from China on the west coast. Is it really in the best interest of the US to sell coal to China so they can burn it and pollute our air to say nothing of what will the affect be on Climate Change?

I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement that includes Montana and Wyoming to assess the cumulative impact of coal export facility proposals.

Sincerely,


Berna Deane Blackburn
32020 S Bella Vista Rd
Worley, ID 83876

Bernadette Laqueur (#298)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. At a time when we should be going full steam ahead on alternative energies, we are aiding and abetting the use of coal globally. This is the wrong direction for the US and the world. Any and all impacts locally and on the issue of global climate change must be considered.

Bernard Kirtman (#13750)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal could negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal could threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant possible impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Bernard Meyer (#6274)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bernell Walz (#849)

Date Submitted: 10/13/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Bellingham, living about one fourth of a mile from the railroad tracks. I hear & see the coal trains very day.

Proponents claim:
If GPT is not built, the coal will still be shipped thru Bellingham, to Canadian ports. This sounds like a scare tactic. The truth needs to be determined. Questions that I believe need be answered in the
EIS:

• How much increase in coal will be shipping to Canada if GPT is not built?
• How much capacity increase are the Canadian ports planning for the future?
• How much additional capacity will be available to the US Coal Mining
Companies?
• How much will the Canadian Government, Canadian Coal Mining
Companies resist US coal import into Canadian shipping ports?


Bernell Walz
132 Viewcrest Rd
Bellingham, WA 98229

Bernell Walz (#1631)

Date Submitted: 10/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
To what extent are the railroad companies regulated or not regulated?
Are they free to do as they wish?

Please study these questions in the EIS.

Bernell Walz (#4821)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the coal train going through the agricultural area of WA & MT, contaminating our food. Please study the impacts of diesel particulates & coal dust on the fields & crops along the entire train route from the coal mines to Cherry Point.

Bernell Walz (#4822)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the coal train impact on our aging transportation infrastructure. Please study this impact.

Bernell Walz (#4823)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the large vessels navigating the torturous route through the San Juan & Gulf Island and the treacherous Juan De Fuca. These are Cape size vessels with restricted maneuverability. Please study the impact of these vessels.

Bernell Walz (#4825)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the dwindling stock of the Cherry Point Herring. It is believed that these Herring are a unique from other Herring & a keystone species that feed many other forms aquatic life. It is also believed that these Herring were very abundant before any of the current piers were built at Cherry Point. Please study the impact of an increased number of piers at Cherry point.

Bernell Walz (#4843)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the many wetlands on the Gateway Pacific Terminal property. SSA Marine has a very poor record adhering to environmental regulations. A small example their disregard of regulation is the unpermitted clearing of portions of the property. County Officials imposed minimal penalty for this infraction, which was a joke. Please study SSA Marine’s environmental record and hold them accountable for their actions.

Bernell Walz (#4845)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the amount of coal dust as a result of the operation at GPT. The coal will be unloaded from the train cars, moved around to prevent spontaneous combustion. Please study coal dust impacts on humans, animals, agriculture, beaches, fish & birds.

Bernell Walz (#4846)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the net jobs gained or lost. The proponents are projecting family wage jobs for many local workers. No one has discussed the number of jobs that will not be available because of the negative image that this project & the coal train bring to this area. Please study the net gain/loss of jobs this project brings to the area. Also study the number of local works that will be employed by this project & the number of works that will be imported to fill these jobs.

Bernell Walz (#4847)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the net economic gained or lost. The proponents are projecting a windfall in tax revenue for the school districts, Ferndale City, Whatcom County. No one has discussed the negative image that this project & the coal train bring to this area. Please study the net gain/loss economic impact this project brings to the area

Bernell Walz (#5006)

Date Submitted: 12/15/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
This comment relates to: RAIL
on Human environment: AIR QUALITY & HUMAN HEALTH
I am concerned about the amount of diesel particulates produced by the coal trains. The EPA has just announced new tougher limits on airborne particulates. Please study the impacts of diesel particulates on all communities from the coal mines to Cherry Point, in the light of the new EPA proposal. I support the EPA's proposal for tougher limit on airborne particulates. Please go to link below for more info.


http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/12/14/2804069/new-soot-rules-should-reduce-disease.html

Bernell Walz

Bernell Walz (#5469)

Date Submitted: 12/23/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
If you do not read the Bellingham Herald, please read this opinion by STEVE MCMINN

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/12/21/2811747/concerned-more-rail-traffic-will.html
Bernell Walz
jacbfw@gmail.com
123 Viewcrest Rd
Bellingham , WA 98229
360-733-7488

Bernhard Masterson (#3488)

Date Submitted: 11/25/12
Comment:
Greetings Mr. Randal Perry,

I am writing to oppose increased coal shipments through the Columbia Gorge. Increased shipments run counter to global, regional, and local environmental priorities. I cannot support the profit of foreign coal shipping companies at the expense of a national geologic treasure.

More than 25 years ago, Congress passed the Scenic Area Act, a one-of-a-kind conservation model that Ronald Reagan signed into law. The uniqueness of the act indicates the value of the Columbia Gorge as more than a transportation route to be exploited by global corporations. The Scenic Area Act calls for protection of landscapes, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. It also promotes recreation enhancements and the support of local economies in ways that are compatible with the conservation measures of the Act. Increased coal shipments will have a negative impact on every one of the tenants of the Gorge Scenic Area Act.

Further the National Geographic Traveler magazine has provided the latest worldwide attention for the Gorge by ranking it 6th in the world among 133 iconic, sustainable destinations. At a time where eco-tourism is blooming shipping more coal through the Gorge will effectively be a powerful herbicide against sustainable industries.

I live in Portland, Oregon and as an avid hiker, cyclist, and kayaker I recreate in the Gorge on a regular basis. I know of its beauties first hand. I do not want to experience the degradation of the Gorge. Please do not allow an increase in coal shipments that will certainly increase pollution and environmental damage.

Sincerely,

- Bernhard Masterson


Get under a sustainable lifestyle umbrella, the carbon is going to hit the fan.

____________________________________http://bernhardmasterson.com
Natural building instruction and consultation

Bernhard Masterson (#6976)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Oak Grove, OR
Comment:
Greetings,

I write to oppose coal shipments through the Columbia Gorge. I spend many weekends each year enjoying the beauty of the Gorge by kayak, bicycle, and foot. The risks of local environmental degradation by coal dust, diesel exhaust, and rail accidents is too great to allow increased shipments of coal through the Gorge by rail or barge.

The fact that the shipments will be made by a company that is not based in Oregon means that the profit from exploiting our natural resources as an industrial transit corridor will not benefit the local economy. Degradation to the environment and one's experience of the Gorge will instead harm the local economy which greatly benefits from recreational and eco-tourism.

Further, in an era of looming disastrous climate change exporting carbon based fuels for the profit of foreign corporations represents the backwards thinking that in large part created our current climate crisis.

I urge you to not approve additional coal shipments through the geologic and environmental treasure that is the Columbia River Gorge.

Sincerely,
Bernhard Masterson

Bernice Maslan (#8503)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bernie Goncharoff (#7473)

Date Submitted: 01/04/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Bernie Walz (#2773)

Date Submitted: 11/13/2012
Comment:
Please study SSA Marine's entire history of environmental violations, from company's formation to the present. Their history of violation should be included in the EIS. An example of violation occurred in Whatcom County without the proper permits at the very site you are studying.

Bernie Walz (#2774)

Date Submitted: 11/13/2012
Comment:
Please study my concern is about the delay caused by the increasingly long and the increased number of trains at several vital crossings delaying access and egress for emergency medical, fire and police vehicles and personnel at these crossings. There are many crossings in Bellingham, Ferndale, Northern & Southern Whatcom Country.

Bernie Walz (#2775)

Date Submitted: 11/13/2012
Comment:
Please study my concern is about the delay caused by the increasingly long and the increased number of trains at several vital crossings delaying access and egress for emergency medical, fire and police vehicles and personnel at these crossings. There are many crossings in Mount Vernon & Skagit County that will be impacted.

Bernie Walz (#2777)

Date Submitted: 11/13/2012
Comment:
Please study my concern about the delay caused by the increasingly long and the increased number of trains at several vital crossings delaying access and egress for emergency medical, fire and police vehicles and personnel at these crossings. There are many crossings between the Power River Basin & the proposed Gateway Pacific terminal. All need to be included in the EIS.

Beth Award (#6443)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Comment:
As a Washingtonian and a human being, I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the Coal-Export Terminal in the planning stages for our state for all of the reasons selected above.

Beth Basabe (#2018)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Beth Call (#12957)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Walla Walla, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

The air pollution that will be produced by China burning the coal will not stay in China but will be added to the earth's atmosphere, accelerating global warming and health problems worldwide.

Instead the US should be using its resources to develop renewable energy infrastructure which would find a ready market in China and India, Beijing is quickly becoming unlivable because of out of control air pollution.

Making renewable energy technology would create many job opportunities much safer than coal mining.

Beth Cooley (#13090)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
The construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, is a terrible idea. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. My daughter has asthma, and breathing coal dust could be deadly; tracks run though much of Spokane, cutting the North side of the town from medical emergency facilities in the south side, just two reasons to deny this project. Furthermore, who benefits from coal exports to China? Only the coal companies. As a parent and friend of the environment, I beg you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Block the Cherry Point export terminal.

Beth Doglio (#918)

Date Submitted: 10/19/12
Comment:
As Director of the Power Past Coal campaign, I am providing periodic updates to a variety of people involved in the Northwest coal export issue. Many of you have not received these updates in the past, so I have attached them for your convenience. Please forward this on to others in your agency that you think would find this useful. If you prefer that I not send these to you in the future, just let me know.

Since the last update, the most significant news is that one of the six coal export proposals is off the table. In August, RailAmerica announced plans that they would not proceed with exporting coal out of Grays Harbor.

That leaves five proposals -- three in Oregon and two in Washington. Additionally, we are partnered with Canadian organizations who are working to stop expansions of current ports.

The Power Past Coal campaign continues to grow with over 100 partner organizations committed to help stop new coal exports off the West Coast. Nearly forty coal forums have occurred throughout the region, the most recent ones in West Seattle, WA, Milwaukie, NE Portland Neighborhood and Salem, OR.

Public Engagement Underway for Cherry Point and Morrow
Public comment periods are currently underway on two projects.

• Morrow Pacific Project: The Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) opened a public comment period for Ambre’s Morrow Pacific Project. This is the second DSL public comment period on the project. Our coalition submitted comments in March. To date agencies involved in this project have received 26,000 comments in opposition to coal export. This comment period closes on Oct. 31st.

• Gateway Pacific Terminal: The public comment period to determine the scope for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Whatcom County proposed facility is underway and closes on January 21st, 2012. There are seven hearings: Bellingham11 am–3 pm Sat., Oct. 27, Friday Harbor 12–3 pm Sat., Nov. 3, Mount Vernon 4–7 pm Mon., Nov. 5, Seattle 4–7 pm Tues., Nov. 13, Ferndale 3–7 pm Thurs., Nov. 29 Spokane 4– 7 pm Tues., Dec. 4, Vancouver 4 – 7 pm Wed., Dec. 12.
Transportation: The need to deeply assess the potential transportation impacts of the proposed coal export facilities has been front and center in this debate. It is important to distinguish Power Past Coal’s (PPC) concern about coal trains from the work that many PPC partners do to advocate for increased use of trains. Coal trains moving on our rail lines to transport 141 MTY of coal are very different from passenger trains and trains carrying other commodities. They are longer, heavier and dirtier. The clean energy future envisioned by the Power Past Coal campaign includes a more efficient rail system carrying many more passengers, agricultural products, solar panels, wind turbines and other clean commodities. Coal trains clogging our rail lines runs counter to that vision. Here are some recent studies and letters concerning the impacts of coal export on our rail infrastructure.

• The Western Organization of Resource Councils released Heavy Traffic Ahead: Rail Impacts of Powder River Basin Coal to Asia by Way of Pacific Northwest Terminals. The report puts a price tag of billions of dollars on upgrading rail lines, roads and other infrastructure to support proposed coal export facilities on the West Coast. Tax payers would be on the hook. In addition, the study also found that increased rail traffic will affect grain producers that need access to rail space. The producers will face increased competition, potentially delaying shipments and increasing costs.
• Senator Maria Cantwell sent a letter to the Washington State Department of Transportation to Department of Transportation on July 3, 2012, requesting its assistance in evaluating the impacts these terminals would have on our state's transportation system and communities across the state. The State Department of Transportation responded.
• The Washington State Transportation Commission sent a letter to BNSF expressing concern about BNSF’s capacity to accommodate any type of unit train without disruption to mobility and increased congestion affecting the economy and operation of the state transportation system.
• The Surface Transportation Board (STB) ruled that the Tongue River Railroad Company must start all over again with a new Environmental Impact Statement to carry coal from the isolated Otter Creek tracts in southeastern Montana. Leading to this ruling, Northern Plains Resource Council and others argued that circumstances have changed dramatically since the railroad was first proposed, because now new coal mined in Montana is destined for Asian instead of upper-Midwest markets. Further, they argued that the impacts this coal hauling railroad will have on climate change must be examined. This new ruling offers an opportunity to question whether it is in America's interest to build a railroad to ship our own coal to China, stoking their economic engine while continuing to contribute to climate change.
• Since the beginning of this year, there have been 19 coal train derailments in the United States and Canada including one near Pasco. Coaltrainfacts.org has provided a complete listing of derailments, with links to the news sources. Since coal train derailments are a fact of life, the campaign and others are asking for impact statements to include thorough examination of this potential.

The Call for An Area-Wide EIS: Elected leaders from across the region continue to call for an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement. In August, Washougal Mayor Sean Guard sent this letter to the Corps outlining the request of nearly 100 elected leaders in the region. Their press statement is here.

Since the issue of Mayor Guard’s letter, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley has called for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; six heavily impacted Washington cities have recently weighed in: Portland, Metro (OR), Bellingham, Longview, Spokane, and Vancouver. Senator Wyden recently called for more rigorous environmental reviews of each terminal proposal. You can find more of the letters and resolutions on the Power Past Coal website.

The Seattle Times, went on record calling for a look at the cumulative impacts of all the proposals, noting the “intense demand” for a look at the cumulative impacts of all five proposals. But still, the Army Corps of Engineers who would conduct such a study has yet to decide.
Tribes: The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, a nonprofit organization representing 57 Northwest tribal governments from Oregon, Idaho, Washington, southeast Alaska, Northern California and Western Montana passed this resolution delineating many concerns and calling for a comprehensive EIS looking at the cumulative impacts of all the proposals. Following passage of the resolution, they released this statement.
The Lummi Nation has held two events to voice their opposition to the Gateway Pacific Terminal in Whatcom County. The Seattle Times reported on this event in September:
“Hundreds of tribal members from the Lummi Nation gathered Friday to announce the tribe's opposition to development of a facility at Cherry Point in Whatcom County to ship coal brought by train from the Powder River Basin. They ceremonially burned a check on the beach to make a statement that no amount of money could buy their support for a project that would destroy their village and burial sites on the property. The Lummi people have used the land and waters at Cherry Point for 175 generations, tribal leaders said, and even though they no longer own it, the tribe considers it sacred ground. "No deals, thank you," said Fran James, 88, a revered tribal elder called as a witness to the ceremony. "All of our elders have always told us: 'Take care of this place.'."”
The second event united the Lummi Nation with the Puget Sound Crab Association and the Commercial Fishers of Whatcom County and The New York Times did a story, accompanied by photos from photographer extraordinaire Paul Anderson. For more information about the Lummi Nation and their plan to stop coal export on their sacred land, visit their website.
Federal Legislation: Congressman Jim McDermott introduced “The True Cost of Coal Act of 2012” to address the growing concern over coal export proposals. McDermott’s legislation would incorporate environmental pollution, traffic congestion and public health impacts into the cost of coal so that the companies, not the taxpayers, are responsible for paying for the costs of the negative impacts they produce. We also saw just this week two different national news stories in Reuters and the Washington Post about exporting coal mined from public lands.
Local Governments weigh in (or decide not to weigh in): To date twenty cities, counties and ports in Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington have passed resolutions raising concern or outright opposing coal export proposals. In addition, at least ten other local communities have written letters or made public statements of concern. In the case of Lane County, commissioners were considering a resolution to support the proposed coal export facility in Coos Bay. But, residents didn’t think that was such a good idea. So, the resolution was pulled. Here’s the scoop.
I have attached a copy of past updates for your reference. Please let me know if you would prefer I not send these updates every few weeks or so. I can be reached by phone at 360-628-0935 or beth@climatesolutions.org .

Beth Doglio | Campaign Director
Climate Solutions - Practical Solutions to Global Warming
w: 360-352-1763 x29 | c: 360-628-0935
Facebook | Twitter
Washington • Oregon • Montana • Idaho
Attached Files:

Beth Doglio (#2419)

Date Submitted: 11/07/2012
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
I live in Olympia, WA. The train tracks that move through our community are near soccer fields that my children play on. I would like to make sure that the air quality impacts of the trains both diesel - on children playing sports near the train tracks are considered in the EIS.

Beth Doglio (#8606)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Comment:
To whom it may concern – Please be sure to include the impact on Montana and Idaho in your analysis. The transport of coal needs to be considered from mine mouth to plant – this includes vessel traffic.

Thank you. Beth Doglio, Olympia, WA

Beth Flate (#5966)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Location: Hood River, OR
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Beth Hardman (#2742)

Date Submitted: 11/13/2012
Location: Edmonds, Wa
Comment:
As an Edmonds Washington resident and mother of two children, the thought of more coal trains in Edmonds is disturbing to me. I moved to Edmonds 20 years ago from Iowa. Midwestern transplants like myself realize what a treasure we have here in Edmonds with our waterfront environment and the importance it plays in our daily lives. Atmosphere is a very large part of the waterfront.
As a family we have spent hundreds of hours at the beach in all kinds of weather. We have added to the local economy by stopping at the coffee shops, restaurants and other businesses along the Edmonds waterfront. This has been a significant part of our life for us and countless other families. Putting up with the noise, the exhaust, and very fast trains within close distance to the beaches where our young children play has been part of the experience. When my children were young there was always that thought in the back of my mind of a possible accident waiting to happen. I have always been grateful that the amount of trains was limited.
Our family would use the beaches less because of the increase in noise pollution, decrease in safety, decrease in air quality and environmental damage from the coal trains. In using the beaches less we would also decrease our patronage of the local businesses. I have a feeling the business lost would significantly outweigh the increase in coal jobs. Edmonds is also trying to increase new businesses to the waterfront. Increased train traffic will jeopardize this prospect. This is why I find the idea of more trains running through this highly populated, environmentally, recreational and business sensitive area very short sighted.
I'm hoping you realize the importance an “Edmonds Kind of Day” at the beach is to my family and other families, and the ramifications coal trains would have on the local economy and our community.

Beth Helsmen (#2634)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Beth Helsmen (#2639)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Beth Kaeding (#12878)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bozeman, MT
Comment:
Attached and pasted below are comments about the above-named project.



Mr. Randel Perry, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
c/o GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
1100 112th Avenue Northeast, Suite 400
Bellevue, Washington 98004

January 20, 2013

Dear Mr. Perry:

I am submitting the following scoping comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in response to its September 21, 2012, Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the application from Pacific International Terminal, Inc. for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway’s Custer Spur rail expansion projects. These comments are submitted in an effort to aid the Corps and the other co-lead agencies in identifying issues that I believe should be addressed in the EIS. Please ensure that my comments are entered into the public record.

The proposed rail transport of Powder River Basin (PRB) coal from and through Montana to the West Coast will have real and significant impacts to Montanans and are a connected and cumulative result of what happens at Cherry Point. The EIS being prepared by the Corps and its partners for the GPT/BNSF Custer Spur expansion projects MUST include the connected and cumulative impacts that increased coal train traffic will have and cause all the way back through Montana to the PRB coal mines in Montana and Wyoming.

As a former federal compliance officer, I completely understand the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Through the Council of Environmental Quality’s NEPA implementing regulations, an agency is required to analyze any proposal in consideration of other actions that are connected (40 C.F.R. §1508.25(a)(1)) and are cumulative (40 C.F.R. §1508.7, §1508.25 (a)(2)). As I am sure your agency compliance officers know, a “connected action” is any action that is closely related to the proposal, cannot or will not proceed unless the proposal happens, or those that are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. “Cumulative impacts” are those “which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”

The GPT/BNSF Custer Spur expansion project at Cherry Point is only one part (albeit a major part) of an overall plan by coal and rail corporations. Based on PRB coal company projections, coal export will amount to at least 75 million tons of coal and as much as 170 million tons each year through Montana. This means that Montana will likely experience at least 30 more coal trains (15 loaded going west and 15 empty returning to the coal fields) and up to as many as 64 more coal trains each day – in addition to all the train traffic we currently experience. All outgoing coal trains from the PRB headed for Pacific Northwest ports pass through Billings, Montana. My community of Bozeman could experience 15 to 20 more trains each day on top of the 16 to 20 trains we currently experience.

The proposed GPT/BNSF Custer Spur project is integrally connected to this increased coal train traffic as well as increased coal mining and increased pollution from the burning of coal. There are connected health, life/safety, economic, and social costs from this project all the way back to the PRB coal mines in Montana and Wyoming. All of these connected impacts are also cumulative.
The increased number of trains in Montana will mean more noise, a greater potential that emergency responders will be delayed in reaching residents when there is a medical emergency (or a fire or the need for police) “across the tracks,” a greater potential for vehicle collisions with trains and for pedestrian accidents, an increase in the amount of airborne pollutants (particulate matter) from diesel engines as well as from coal dust. Additionally, more trains will mean more vehicles idling at train crossings when trains are passing – and adding their exhaust (containing particulate matter and other pollutants) into the air. All of these connected and cumulative impacts must be addressed and analyzed in the EIS.

The economic impacts to all the communities along the rail lines from the GPT facility to the PRB must be considered in the EIS. Federal law requires train engines to blow when approaching a crossing whether that crossing has guard arms that come down or not. There is a process that communities can go through to establish “Quiet Zones” in order to eliminate the sound of train horns. But, the citizens of any Montana community wanting a Quiet Zone generally will have to pay for the infrastructure upgrades required that allow trains to not blow their horns. Many towns and cities in Montana are bisected by rail lines. The cost for infrastructure upgrades, such as overpasses, underpasses, and bypasses, needed to facilitate vehicle traffic in those communities must be addressed and analyzed in the EIS.

The effects of coal export extend far beyond the West Coast export terminals and will result in system-wide impacts throughout the rail transportation system of the region extending back to southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming. Agricultural products, containerized shipments, passenger rail traffic will all be impacted by this proposed project, and those issues must be addressed and analyzed in the EIS.

Because the primary (or sole) reason for the GPT as well as the other proposed West Coast coal export terminals is to ship PRB coal to Asian markets, these terminal projects will lead to a significant increase in coal mining in the PRB. Thus, increased coal mining is a connected and cumulative impact of the GPT and the other proposed West Coast coal export terminals, and these impacts must be addressed and analyzed in the EIS.

The proposed Otter Creek coal mine is just one example of a connected and cumulative impact of the proposed GPT project. If fully developed Otter Creek would become one of the largest new coal strip mines in North America. Otter Creek coal is destined for the export market. Arch Coal (the corporation that wants to open the mine) has made several representations to investors and others that the Asian export markets would be the primary market for the Otter Creek coal. This coal will be shipped, primarily to China, via the proposed new coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest. Arch Coal as well as other PRB coal corporations have significant interests in these various port terminals as does BNSF.

Not only would the proposed new Otter Creek coal strip mine fundamentally change the character and quality of life in a quiet, rural, productive agricultural region of southeastern Montana; impact wildlife, native grasslands, and cultural resources; destroy aquifers; and lessen air quality, but it would also result in the building of the Tongue River Railroad (TRR). The one and only purpose of building the TRR is to haul Otter Creek coal. This railroad would destroy additional productive agricultural lands, bisect and devalue ranches, and industrialize the region. These and other impacts from increased coal mining will be the direct result of a coal export program that the GPT/BNSF Custer Spur expansion project as well as other West Coast port expansion proposals promote.

Finally, because the sole purpose of the GPT/BNSF Custer Spur expansion project is to facilitate the shipment of coal being transported from the PRB to its final destination in Asia – particularly China – where it will be burned for energy, the Corps must give full consideration to the long-term indirect effects that this federal action will have on global climate. The burning of coal is a connected and cumulative impact of the GPT/BNSF Custer Spur projects. Although all fossil fuels contribute to climate change, coal’s contribution is by far the most significant. The export of our nation’s coal resources to China and other Asian nations where it will be burned – often in plants where there are few, if any, air pollution controls in place – will result in significant consequences for Montanans and all Americans. The EIS must examine the connected and cumulative impacts of this proposal on climate change.

I believe that the Corps must give full consideration in their EIS to the long-term direct and indirect effects that the extraction, transport, export shipment, and final combustion of PRB coal present as connected and cumulative impacts of the GPT/BNSF Custer Spur expansion projects. I also believe that the connected and cumulative impacts to Montana from the proposed GPT/BNSF Custer Spur expansion projects must be included in the EIS.

I oppose the proposed GPT/BNSF Custer Spur expansion projects, but I traveled to Spokane, Washington, to speak at the public scoping hearing there in early December and I am submitting these written comments because I believe in the NEPA process. Done openly, honestly, and with solid and factual data that is objectively analyzed, I believe the EIS will show the decision makers that the social and environmental costs of the GPT/BNSF Custer Spur expansion projects far outweigh any benefits of the project, except those financial benefits that a few corporations will receive.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this scoping process.
Attached Files:

Beth Orling (#10622)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Port Ludlow, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect our area by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

The pro-coal effort is on the wrong side of history!

beth robinson (#13671)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Hello,

Please review the attached scoping letter.

Thank you,

Beth Robinson
Bellingham, WA
Attached Files:

Beth Santher (#1497)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Beth Sellars (#8056)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Beth Spadafora (#2451)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Beth Spartafora (#1334)

Date Submitted: 10/16/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Beth Stebbins (#13082)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I love Bellingham. I vacation there and have visited frequently since 2005, when my daughter began at WWU. I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Beth Wallace (#9459)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
I am a member of a farm family in Skagit County. I am concerned that the export of coal in enormous open container vessels poses a serious threat to marine life in the San Juan Islands, the Salish Sea,and all along the shipping route.

Please study the impact of possible spills of fuel and cargo on marine life all along the shipping route from Cherry Point to China, all along the Great Circle route.

Beth Wallace (#9461)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
I am a member of a farm family in Skagit County. I live approximately a mile from the BNR line in Bow. I understand that about half the population of Washington State live in close proximity to these lines. I am concerned that airborne particulates in diesel and coal dust from so many proposed trains threatens the health of people in close proximity to the rail lines.

Please study the impact of the likely increase in diesel emissions and airborne coal dust on the health of people who live along the entire train route and at the sites of coal extraction in Montana and coal export at Cherry Point and all other proposed coal ports.

Beth Wallace (#9465)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
I am a member of a farm family in Skagit County. I am also a yoga teacher dedicated to a lifestyle that promotes wellbeing for myself, my community, and the entire planet of which we are all a part. I am concerned that burning coal contributes to global climate change and air pollution. I believe global climate change and other linked environmental issues are the most serious threats facing us today.

Please study the impact of the burning of the coal proposed for export on global climate change and on air pollution in China, which has already reached levels considered hazardous to human health. Also, please study the likelihood that air pollution from these coal burning factories will travel back to us on the wind, as happened last summer when large forest fires in Siberia caused our Northwest skies to be filed with haze.

Beth Wallace (#9473)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
I am a member of a farm family in Skagit County. I am concerned that coal dust and diesel particulates from the proposed trains will contaminate valuable agricultural land and waterways all along the route, especially in Skagit County. Further, I am concerned that this may lead to loss of valuable ag. land in production and a decline in the amount of acreage available for rotation.

I am also concerned that delays at railroad crossings will cost our farm and other farmers dearly, as our vehicles sit idling for 10 or 15 minutes at a time multiple times a day waiting for these very long trains. Our farm fields are spread out over a wide area of northwestern Skagit Valley, and our farm equipment, vehicles, and freight trucks must daily cross the BNR tracks.

Please study the impact on agriculture from all aspects of this proposal, including but not limited to contamination of soils and water, loss of ag. land and acreage available for rotation, and increased costs associated with time and fuel spent waiting at crossings, for Skagit Valley and all along the route.

Beth Wallace (#9480)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
I am a member of a farm family in Skagit County. I live in Bow and frequently hike in the Larrabee State Park area. I have experienced firsthand the noise from the coal train in the mountains above Larrabee. The long, slow, heavy train squeals and screeches very loudly, producing a truly horrible sound that echoes eerily throughout the woods, causing me to stop in my tracks and cover my ears until it passes. I can only imagine how this must affect the wild species in this area. If the number of these trains drastically increases, I am concerned that increased noise pollution along the train route will be biologically disruptive to animals and humans, especially along the Chuckanut Corridor from Blanchard to Bellingham.

Please study the impact of this proposal on noise pollution all along the train route, especially along the Chuckanut Corridor from Blanchard to Bellingham, and its effects on the health and wellbeing of animal species and human beings.

Beth Wallace (#9482)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
I am a member of a farm family in Skagit County. I live in Bow. I am concerned that communities along the proposed route will have to bear infrastructural costs related to crossings, overpasses, etc. I understand that by law the railroad may only have to pay a tiny fraction of these costs, leaving citizens and small communities to foot the bill.

Please study the infrastructural upgrades likely to be required along the route and the costs that will be borne by citizens and communities.

Beth Wallace (#9489)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
I am a member of a farm family in Skagit County. I live in Bow about a mile from the BNR line and do most of my routine business, marketing, etc., in Burlington and Mt. Vernon. A brief look at the train route reveals that these communities will be heavily impacted by the proposed increase in trains, as the towns straddle the tracks at multiple points. I am concerned that the number and length of the trains will have a drastic adverse impact on our economy and on the accessibility of critical services such as emergency aid and fire vehicles, resulting in loss of life and/or property.

Please study the economic costs to these communities and to all communities along the proposed route caused by increased traffic congestion at crossings. Also, please study the impact of the increased traffic congestion on the ability of emergency aid vehicles,firefighters, etc., to go where they are needed in a timely manner.

Beth Wright Hardman (#2888)

Date Submitted: 11/13/12
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

As an Edmonds Washington resident and mother of two children, the thought of more coal trains in Edmonds is disturbing to me. I moved to Edmonds 20 years ago from Iowa. Midwestern transplants like myself realize what a treasure we have here in Edmonds with our waterfront environment and the importance it plays in our daily lives. Atmosphere is a very large part of the waterfront.
As a family we have spent hundreds of hours at the beach in all kinds of weather. We have added to the local economy by stopping at the coffee shops, restaurants and other businesses along the Edmonds waterfront. This has been a significant part of our life for us and countless other families. Putting up with the noise, the exhaust, and very fast trains within close distance to the beaches where our young children play has been part of the experience. When my children were young there was always that thought in the back of my mind of a possible accident waiting to happen. I have always been grateful that the amount of trains was limited.
Our family would use the beaches less because of the increase in noise pollution, decrease in safety, decrease in air quality and environmental damage from the coal trains. In using the beaches less we would also decrease our patronage of the local businesses. I have a feeling the business lost would significantly outweigh the increase in coal jobs. Edmonds is also trying to increase new businesses to the waterfront. Increased train traffic will jeopardize this prospect. This is why I find the idea of more trains running through this highly populated, environmentally, recreational and business sensitive area very short sighted.
I'm hoping you realize the importance an “Edmonds Kind of Day” at the beach is to my family and other families, and the ramifications coal trains would have on the local economy, our community and the environment.




Beth Wright Hardman
1029 Maple St.
Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020

Beth & Tyler Jones (#1412)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Betha Gutsche (#12521)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

In the year 2013, we are well beyond the point of looking at only the local impact of any particular action. It is true that the proposed coal export terminal will negatively impact my immediate environment as stated. However, the Environmental Impact Statement must consider the impacts all along the chain---from the point of origin of the coal to the destination of the exports and the repercussions on our global economy and environment.

1. Opening up more coal mines in our country, especially in areas previously not mined, will have significant negative impacts on landowners in those regions, on Native American tribal lands, and on the water quality of residents in the area.

2. Transporting coal across the distance from the mines and through the dense urban area of Seattle will seriously increase air pollution with coal dust and impede traffic to the detriment of the economic health of the region, in addition to interfering with emergency vehicle response.

3. While the coal terminal will reward the communities around Bellingham with a few jobs, the amount of economic vitality lost in the much larger Seattle area makes this equation end up on the negative side.

4. It is sad to see one community pitted against another because in the end of this scenario, we (the people of the United States) all lose as more and more of our jobs are outsourced to China and elsewhere.
Supplying China with coal only fuels their industry at the expense of our own. The few jobs in Bellingham will be wiped out 100-fold by the number of jobs destroyed through outsourcing to Chinese industry.

5. This terminal is a pawn in that larger game of corporate greed and indifference to the well-being of Americans or any of the world's working communities. Encouraging coal consumption in China only exacerbates their already horrendous pollution problems. The autocratic Chinese government does not care that it is killing its citizens with unbearably bad air quality. The ultimate environmental irony is that the Northwest is the primary recipient of China's polluted air via the prevailing winds.

There is ZERO merit to this proposal. It is disastrous to the human and environmental health for all involved---for the coal mine areas, for the areas proximate to the shipping & rail lines, for China, and for the parts of the West Coast of the U.S. that receive the blowback of polluted air. It is destructive to the natural environment on all
fronts: the source mines destroy land, water, wildlife and vegetation; the coal dust deposited along the transport routes impacts marine habitat, wildlife, and water quality, as well as human health; the continued reliance on coal as a fuel source increases greenhouse gases and sends the planet in a backwards spiral that is the opposite of taking informed, intelligent action to address climate change.

Please avert this terrible mistake.

Bethany Powell (#14612)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Parkland, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Betsy Darrah (#11204)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, wa
Comment:
Please include in the EIS the possibilities and cost of overpasses and underpasses to relieve traffic delays in the Puget Sound area. Also include the need and plans for covers on each coal car to prevent the spread of coal dust. Please also provide specific and detailed figures on the nature, number and location of permanent jobs to be created by this project,

Betsy Diedrick (#2746)

Date Submitted: 11/13/2012
Location: Arlington, WA
Comment:
Good morning:
Please add my name to those concerned and opposed to this project on numerous environmental and policy concerns.

Montana and Wyoming as states, have a completely opposite mindset regarding extraction of resources and ownership of their lands. While they view this as their resource to exploit, Washington State views their lands and resources as something to protect. There is an inherent conflict of interests.

We have strict marine laws, wetland protection, recycling efforts, a newly elected Governor who promotes clean energy, and a citizenry so indoctrinated into environmental concerns, that when Robert Kenndy Jr. came to speak to the Western University student body, there was an audible gasp in the audience, when he casually threw his pop can into the garbage as he approached the stage to speak. Our environment and eco-systems are important to us.

The plan of trains trraveling through the unpopulated areas of Montana of Wyoming are one thing, but then through the most heavily populated areas of WA state are quite another. Increased traffic density through train crossings will create additional gas emissions as cars idle at crossings, besides impeding traffic flow, increasing congestion and more polution.

The trains will then cross numerous waterways, then into the Skagit Valley, home of our best organic farms. None of these areas should ever be exposed to coal dust and contaminants.

For those who can't speak, the fish, ducks, birds, and ground animals, whose homes, nesting, and resting areas will be affected by this potential dust, increased cancers may occur. Consumption of these affected animals will then be in the food chain, ultimately affecting humans.

Because the trains cross numerous waterways and run next to the Sound in Edmonds where we have witnessed orcas, the Marine mammal protection laws would need to be factored in, as well as salmon recovery and protection, plus the Puget Sound recovery plans. If we, who live on top of a large hill far from the water work to protect runoff from our property into the creek that winds down the hill feeding into a salmon recovery stream, how could all this coal dust directly above the waterways not affect those who live and breathe in it.

There are additonal national policies out of your purview, but I believe it is not good national policy to first, export our natural resources, and then secondly to have them blow back on us as pollution, contributing to decreased air quality and global warming. The few jobs this may create are not worth the negative impacts this proposition may create.

Thank you for having this opportunity to voice my concerns.

Mrs. Betsy Diedrick,
Arlington, WA

Betsy Greenway (#3494)

Date Submitted: 11/24/12
Comment:
For years I have been wondering where the bits of ash that fall on our deck furniture come from. Now I think I know.

We live HIGH on the hill above Meadowdale Park north of Edmonds. We hear the trains a little, but have gradually gotten used to it. But the ash that falls on our house is another question. We moved here to see wonderful Puget Sound. The good air and the winds from the Sound reach us. I know that when we lived in Lake Forest Park, there was no ash. Now we are talking about more trains, thus more ash falling around us, not only on our decks, where it is visible, but on our roofs, yards and streets.

There is talk of compensation, but that won't help us, the homeowner. Ash isn't something the inspectors find when you buy a house in this area. But, they may talk about it more in the future, I think. Our property values are already at a low level, but the taxes don't go down. No compensation will come to the homeowner.

Please do not add more polution, noise and trouble to our lives. Do not ship coal to China.

Betsy Greenway

Betsy Harris (#5041)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

We have worked so hard to try and improve the water quality of our Puget Sound, protecting the wildlife and of course the salmon. This proposed coal terminal will have an incredible adverse effect to not only Cherry Point but also where the coal trains move the coal. It is a sad day that the money behind the coal industry can this easily destroy all the work that has been done to protect the Sound. How much sediment will be deposited into the sound with 1 million gallons of water per day washing over the coal into the Sound. Every day!!! How much coal dust will be in the air I breath at my home with 20 additional 90 car train cars going past my house every day? People who live in this beautiful part of the country value our environment and by allowing this terminal to be built, it threatens our way of life. Please do not allow this to happen! !!!

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Betsy Harris

Betsy Pope (#205)

Date Submitted: 10/02/2012
Location: San Juan Island, WA
Comment:
Dear Mr. Sturdivant,

Please insist on a full programmatic environmental impact statement for the proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point (Gateway). There are so many dire consequences to this proposal - environmentally (coal dust toxins, seabed destruction (herring, salmon, etc.), terrible risk of accidents with huge tankers navigating the Salish Sea) and socio-economically (frequent, very long trains running through towns, cutting off commerce, ambulances, police, etc., and violation of Native American rights to protect their land). Let alone the sheer idiocy of selling enormous amounts of highly-polluting coal to China so it can be burned without sufficient regulation there and contribute vastly to global warming (and respiratory/health problems there and here).

Thank you for your attention to, and influence on, this matter by insisting on a full programmatic e.i.s..

Sincerely,
Betsy Pope (San Juan Island resident)

Bette Detillion (#2945)

Date Submitted: 11/15/2012
Location: Sedro Woolley, WA
Comment:
I don't want the long trains going thru Skagit County. Coal dust from the trains is very bad for the people in our county. Burning coal is very bad for The air that we breath. Also it causes the warming of the Earth.

Bette Detillion (#8547)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Comment:
Please stop the coal trains. We should not sell coal to China as they will burn lots of coal everyday and it will add to weather Change ion the Pacific Coast as the wind will blow it back our way.

Betty Harris (#13875)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Betty Lanz (#13129)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Battle Ground, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

I and many of my family members and friends have a lot of allergy issues and respiratory problems from asthma etc. I am very concerned that this will adversly effect the health of our children and ourselves. We need to be healthy as we can to be able to work to take care of our children.

Betty Lemke (#1146)

Date Submitted: 10/23/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
The coal that has increased the rail traffic is a great concern. If this coal is being transported within approximately 300' of our property should be in sealed covered coal cars. I'm worried about coal dust which is a killer. The other big problem is the noise. We have flashing lights & gates at our RR crossings, all that I'm aware of. there are at three with in a short distance,, yet these trains will set on the horn at each crossing & they don't seem to care that it is in the wee hours of the night & mornings when people are trying to sleep.
Bellingham has made a big mistake by having the RR along the water that is lined with homes. They should have had the for sight to have built these RR underground or put the in a tunnel to cut down on the sound. If we can't stop the coal trains then lets cover them & make them safe . Make the train quieter by limiting the blasting on the horns.

Betty Lucas (#9172)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I urge you to include the very broadest scope in the EIS, including global warming and the coal trains negative impact on clean energy - in the Northwest, in Asia, and around the world. Please give the highest weight to all impacts on human health, and what this project and the coal trains would do to the environment in the West and Northwest. This project is very short-sighted and narrow, and there is no guarantee that any jobs would have a significant effect on jobs, nor for how long.
I want to have my grandchildren (2 new ones to be born in the next few months) to live in communities that are healthy and free of pollution that causes respiratory diseases; to be able to enjoy and appreciate the water, beaches, fishes, birds and other wildlife that might be damaged by coal dust, noise, and other environmental degradation.
The Northwest has been on the forefront of developing clean and renewable energy, and shipping this coal to Asia to pollute that area and other parts of the world to come, is very head-in-the-sand.
Please study public health research on air pollution and health, especially in children and those at risk for respiratory diseases. Also read reports on water quality, wetlands, bird and marine life, and see how far things have improved over the recent years - we don't want to go backwards on the state of our natural resources.
This project is short-sighted and short-term, with little regard to human and enrironmental health.

Betty Merten (#6275)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Betty Miles (#7180)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Comment:
Even a baby bird knows not to crap in its own nest.

Betty Miles (#7900)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Comment:
Even a baby bird knows enough not to soil its own nest.

Betty Peace-Gladstone (#10685)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Mountlake Terrace, WA
Comment:
I am vehemently opposed to the development of the proposed terminal and the rail line that is part of the proposal to ship coal to the west coast. Eminent Domain, in terms of claiming land from ranchers and other private property owners along the way is clearly in the interest of corporations and not citizens. The jobs to be created are minimal compared to the loss of private land and the potential coal spills in wetlands, and along the Puget Sound. The number of mudslides, alone, in this past year along that rail route in Puget Sound should preclude the shipping of anything that is toxic to marine life along that route; a spill is inevitable. Additional rail traffic will add to air pollution in several areas with air inversions that often result in warnings for sensitive groups. Climate change compels us to explore alternative sources of energy, not to mine more coal for domestic or foreign use. There is nothing about this proposal that is in the collective best interest of American citizens; it is clearly going to benefit very few at the expense of many.

Betty Pendleton (#8800)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Comment:
I have lived in bellingham over 50 years and am 81 years old.
The coal trains will destroy this city and everything it stands for.
The residents that have purchased their homes and land at a premium to be near the water or enjoy the view will be betrayed......the waterfront is the most valuable resource the city of Bellingham has. I have travelled many places in my lifetime and the most valuable land in the world is always on the water or includes a view of the water.
How ridiculous at this stage in the game someone has decided in one fail swope to destroy the integrity of Bellingham forever. Who is making these decisions?? This should not even be contemplated due to the horrendous and irreversable negative impact to this town.
It's like cutting off your nose despite your face......
B. Pendleton, Bellingham

Betty Pierce (#1872)

Date Submitted: 10/29/12
Location: Sequim, WA
Comment:
Oct 29, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

The project will harm imperiled wildlife species and their designated critical habitat, interfere with recreational and tribal fishing, transform the region with rail congestion, and dramatically increase carbon pollution that is driving climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Given the significant effects that proposed coal export terminals will have on our natural resources and public health, strict oversight is essential. Keep in mind that there is no clean coal. And even with the strictest precautions, accidents can and most often do happen.
It's just not worth the risk!

Sincerely,

Betty Pierce
150 Broadmoor St
Sequim, WA 98382-4501

Betty Van Wicklen (#13819)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas and other cetaceans, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills. Finally, it will escalate climate change due to the diesel fuel used in shipping by train and ship a fuel source which is the dirtiest climate change fuel we use.

I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. This includes some of the most valuable fisheries in the Pacific northwest. We cannot afford to risk them with pollution of any kind. Furthermore, shipping coal to China will only exacerbate air pollution in the largest air polluter in the world, which is certainly contrary to avoiding further climate change.

Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Thank you for your attention.

Betty Wells (#3269)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Comment:
See Attached
Attached Image:

Betty Wells (#3273)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Comment:
See attached
Attached Image:

Betty Wells (#13876)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Betty Whiting (#6701)

Date Submitted: 01/07/13
Location: Billings, MT
Comment:
Dear Mr. Perry:

If permitted, the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point will generate a massive increase in trains traveling through the region. The environmental impact study on this project needs to consider the following questions and concerns from communities along the way.

What is the cost of infrastructure needed to prevent increased train traffic from imposing devastating impacts on local businesses and public safety? In Billings trains go through the middle of town. How do we get over or under the tracks?

Who will pay for that infrastructure: local taxpayers or the rail companies, coal companies and their Asian customers? It should be the rail or coal companies since there is not local public good to this project.

What are the air quality and public health implications of dozens of coal trains passing through communities? I'm worried about the increase in asthma and other lung diseases. Coal profits aren't going to cover the health costs.

How will massive increases in coal train volume on rail lines that are already at or near capacity affect other shippers, including agricultural commodities that currently move approximately 40 million tons per year to ports in Washington and Oregon for export markets?

How will increases in coal train volume affect Amtrak passenger service through the Pacific Northwest and the vital tourism economy of the region?

How will increased coal related train traffic affect existing businesses near the railroad in towns and cities along the route?

I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement that includes Montana and Wyoming to assess the cumulative impact of coal export facility proposals.

Coal is dirty. There are other ways now to get energy.

Sincerely,


Betty Whiting

Bev Siegele (#11108)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I request that the EIS for the GPT project proposed for Cherry Point, WA encompass the entire transportation corridor related to this project. The impact of increased trains and the impacts associated with the expected cargo of coal on all the communities involved be they rural or urban must be given due consideration.

The practice of viewing events and consequences in an isolated and limited manner has without doubt played a critical role in the evoluton of human activiites that have in this short span of 200 years set us on a trajectory toward environmental crisis. We no longer have the luxury to behave as though our activities have isolated effects. We are out of time.

Bev Siegele (#11113)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I respectfully request that the Co-Lead Agencies throughly address in the EIS the impact of increased diesel powered rail traffic and the residue from fumes and cargo that will with the inevitability of the rainfall be washed into the marine habitats along the rail lines in much of western Washington.

Ocean acidification is a major life altering issue which is not being acknowledged or addressed in a manner that can be in any way considered adequate. However, the governor of Washington State has recognized the devastating effect that is already being felt on a major marine industry. The science is irrefutable and the effects may well be irreversible.

Bev Siegele (#11122)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
To the CO-Lead Agencies: The focus of this comment is the presence of the well documented herring spawning grounds in the deep waters off Cherry Point and my concern that increasing the human activity both on shore and off to the degree suggested by the GPT project will have insupportable negitive effects on feeder species. Nearly incalculable time, money and resources have been expended to maintain, manage, and restore the salmon runs of the Pacific Northwest. This spawning ground is not expendable. This EIS must address the impacts and the far reaching consequences of detriment to this spawning ground.

Bev Siegele (#11130)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
While social responsibility may not appear to be a scientific or appropriate issue to be addressed by an EIS, I maintain that in the case of the purposed project at Cherry Point it may well be. There is NO safe place at this juncture for coal aside from where it lies in the ground. It is reprehensible that having shut down the remaining coal fired power plant in Western Washington we are now expected to be party to the shipment of coal to China where regulation of power plant emissions is more inadequate then what has been achieved in the US. We may not be at a point in development of alternative fuels that allows the shuttering of all coal powered plants in this country but we are certainly at a place in our understanding of the contributing factors to atmoshpheric warming and climate change to address these issues in the scientific if not political community with the urgency they demand. This is as abhorrent as was regulating the use of DDT in the states but allowing its sale and use in lesser developed countries. While DDT may have been out of sight and so ignorable, the soot from coal fired power plants in China finds its way back to us in Whatcom County as has been documented on the glaciers of the Cascade mountains where lowering of the reflective properties of the glacial surface contributes to increased melt.

Beverly Anslow (#13353)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Gladstone, OR
Comment:
During high school I lived in a home built for Kaiser ship building employees. We had coal stoves and by the time I got to school my nostrils would be black with coal dust.
Loading coal may not be the same as burning it, but I know how pernicious coal dust can be

Please do not allow the exportation of coal from Bellingham, WA. I live in Oregon but coal dust becomes part of the air we breathe as it is carried by the winds to far off destinations. Our atmosphere is already filled with toxic chemicals that are responsible for more deaths than war.

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Beverly Bassett (#2723)

Date Submitted: 11/12/2012
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals ON THE ENTIRE GLOBAL COMMUNITY.

Please redirect your talents, skills and abilities into actions that will sustain life on earth as we know it... Coal mining and use take our civilization to and beyond The Tipping Point. Let's CHOOSE NOT TO TIP!

Beverly Bassett

Beverly Castner (#13874)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Location: Lake Forest Park, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Beverly Corwin (#2889)

Date Submitted: 11/13/12
Location: SEattle, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Furthermore, the tracks north from Seattle frequently are non-usuable due to landslides, causing train back-ups until fixed. There is no place for long coal trains in addition to the trains already scheduled to use those tracks.




Beverly Corwin
1227 East Newton St.
Seattle, WA 98102

Beverly Corwin (#6276)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Beverly Darnall (#12387)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Lummi Island, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. MY MAIN CONCERN is that if a loved one was in an emergency vehicle with a life threatening problem and had to wait for a train to pass - they would die. Pollution of the air and of fishing grounds are my next concerns. Escalating climate change is a huge concern also.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Beverly Faxon (#13320)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Burlington, WA
Comment:
January 21, 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to ask that the following potentially adverse effects of the Cherry Point terminal and the coal trains through our region be studied:

I live in the Skagit Valley, which is main street America—an agricultural valley, small towns struggling to get by. Mount Vernon is one of those towns: not high in income, somewhat diverse ethnically, a town trying to renew its downtown core and beginning to succeed. I work downtown at a retail business that employs almost 150 people. Our business is backed by the railroad track. Please study the potential toll those trains may take on Mount Vernon's economic and environmental health: from (1) the possibility of pollution from transported coal to (2) the economic impact on the small businesses of Mount Vernon due to potential customers discouraged by encountering increasingly long waits at railroad crossings.

On a more global level, please study (3) the impact of coal mining and of the shipped coal that will be burned in China on increased carbon dioxide emissions and global climate change. A recent University of Washington study shows that climate change projections indicate increased future flooding in the Skagit Valley—please include this impact of climate change in your studies.

Sincerely,

Beverly Faxon

Beverly Ford (#12709)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Indianola, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. In addition to the above, I am alarmed there has been no mention of environmental impacts on shoreline. I commute on the Kingston-Edmonds Ferry, having to cross the train tracks in front of the Ferry terminal. It would disrupt every ferry crossing, all day long having the coal trains running. I shudder to think of the coal dust covering the ferry terminal & the Edmonds Amtrack terminal. The Amtrack is sided frequently on trips North & South by regular freight train, making the trip 1-2 hours longer than the 3 hours it should take from Edmonds to Portland. I say NO.

Beverly Hannon (#5058)

Date Submitted: 12/14/12
Location: Post Falls, ID
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Beverly Hoeftman (#12512)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Columbia, MD
Comment:
The US already has enough pollution from Chinese coal-burning - their smog reaches our shores on a regular basis. Let's not help them cling to this filthy energy source.

And spare us the jobs-creator blather, please. US corporations can stop outsourcing overseas if they really want to do that.

Beverly Hubbard (#1437)

Date Submitted: 10/18/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Beverly Peterson (#1100)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Oct 22, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Please take steps to study the environmental impacts that a coal export terminal (and the trains bringing the coal to the port) would have on Bellingham, WA and other communities involved in the coal being transported to this area.

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

The project will harm imperiled wildlife species and their designated critical habitat, interfere with recreational and tribal fishing, transform the region with rail congestion, and dramatically increase carbon pollution that is driving climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Given the significant effects that proposed coal export terminals will have on our natural resources and public health, strict oversight is essential.

Sincerely,

Beverly Peterson
1011 E Toledo St
Bellingham, WA 98229-2109

Beverly Rogers (#6520)

Date Submitted: 01/03/13
Comment:
Dear Citizens,

I say "NO"! to the proposed project. There are already too many trains blaring through Edmonds daily. Coal dust is bad for lungs; train horns are bad for ears and blood arterioles (according to the research, makes them contract); burning coal is bad for planet survival; a derailed coal train is horrifying to consider.
It is time to GO BEYOND COAL in producing energy on our beloved Planet Earth.

Sincerely,
Beverly Rogers
Resident of Edmonds Washington

Beverly J Eckmann (#8304)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
I have environmental and personal concerns about the increasing number of coal trains passing in front of my home. I believe the coal trains will cause my property value to decrease because of the resulting pollution and noise.

When a train passes in front of my home the noise will interrupt any conversation or entertainment until the train has passed. The train vibration and rumbling also cause my house to shake and I am concerned the vibrations will cause damage to my foundation and tile inside.

I choose to not be outside because of the noise, which makes my yard and front deck unusable until the train has passed. I cannot work in my garden at that time or unless I wear ear protection.

My yard, clothesline and plants have black, oily dust from coal becoming airborne and landing on my yard decks and gardens. I am concerned about the air quality for my family's health and the tracking of coal particulate into my home. I choose not to open my windows because of the impact of the particulate on furnishings in my home.

I own tidelands in front of my home which otters, seals, crabs, clams and fish I enjoy reside as well. I eat the clams, crabs and fish. We have grey whales that occasionally come by to scrape the barnacles off their backs. Environmentally I have concern for the wildlife I so enjoy.

I am not sure of the tribal impact but I will include what I know about that. Up until now the impact was personal.

I respectfully request that various impacts upon tribal nations be given due consideration. Please study:
Potential damages to the Nooksack River, to Salish Sea ecosystems and fisheries, and to Cherry Point itself; and impacts on traditional livelihoods, natural resources, food sources, culture and religion.
Possible infringement of international and treaty rights, and the consequences of such infringement.
Any disturbance of archaeological sites, burial sites, and sites of cultural importance.
As recognized in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Plan, the Lummi Nation and other tribes have treaty rights in the Salish Sea, as usual and accustomed fishing grounds. How might damaged fisheries; polluted waters, lands and air; altered ecosystems; and increasingly industrialized, crowded waterways impact traditional Native culture and spirituality; employment and livelihoods; natural resources and safe food sources? How might the construction and operations of GPT, and the transport and storage of bulk commodities, including coal, affect the full and proper observation of all relevant rights and treaties?

Xwe’chi’eXen (Cherry Point) is known to have deep spiritual and cultural significance. A burial ground and a sacred site, it is associated with the creation story of the Lummi People and the First Salmon Ceremony. For over 175 generations, Lummi ancestors lived and fished at Xwe’chi’eXen, and it was part of the (now much smaller) Lummi Reservation as established by the Point Elliott Treaty. It was the first site in Washington State to be listed on the Washington Heritage Register and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supported by the President of the United States, includes the right to maintain and protect archaeological and historic sites. I request that a third party archaeological study of cultural significance at Cherry Point be done in accordance with Lummi tribal code, and approved and accepted by a Lummi Nation cultural commission.

As a non-indigenous person, I can't accurately articulate GPT's current and potential damages to culture and spirituality. That is why third-party studies done in collaboration with the Lummi Nation and other involved tribes are necessary. However, I do understand that the impacts would be serious, and that some would likely be irrevocable and impossible to mitigate. I do understand that we in the United States, as citizens and as a nation, have a legal obligation to uphold treaties and other accorded rights, and a moral obligation to help respect and protect the sanctity of Lummi Nation's holy ground.

Thank you,

Signed ___________________________________________


Note: In the summer of 2011, SSA Marine illegally graded and cleared land without permits on the site for their proposed Gateway Pacific coal terminal at Cherry Point. Both Whatcom County and the U.S. Corps of Engineers required SSA to reach agreement on land disturbances with local Tribes. Five months later, at the time SSA submitted the new GPT application, SSA still had not resolved these outstanding violations. A description, with appendices, of these events can be found here.

Please consider my concerns,
Thank you sincerely and with respect,
Beverly J Ecmann
Home owner Edmonds, Wa

bill affolter (#6775)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: seatte , wa
Comment:
I'm very concerned about the impact of the increased vessel traffic in the San Juan Islands. This proposal would significantly impact the risk of spills and other accidents in an amazing and precious part of the US and I don't see the value it imparts other than short term economic value. Is no one taking a long view of our planet and our environment?

Bill Archer (#7291)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Goldendale, WA
Comment:
Jan 11, 2013

Washington Department of Ecology

Please accept these scoping comments for the environmental impact statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project located at Cherry Point, Washington.

The proposal to export up to 48 million tons of coal per year from the Powder River Basin, through the Columbia River Gorge to Cherry Point for export to Asia would result in significant adverse effects to the local, regional and global environment. The impacts of strip mining, transporting and burning the coal in Asian power plants must be included in the scope of analysis for the environmental impact statement (EIS).

In particular, the proposal would have severe impacts on the Columbia River Gorge, which is the most likely rail transportation route from the Powder River Basin through the Cascade Mountains to the proposed terminal. The Columbia River Gorge is world-renowned for its natural scenic beauty, diversity in plants and wildlife, cultural resources and recreation. To protect its outstanding resources, the Gorge is a federally designated National Scenic Area. This law requires protection and enhancement of scenic, natural, cultural and recreation resources and air quality. The EIS must evaluate the transportation of coal by rail in open coal cars through the Gorge, and the likely expansion of tracks and siding in the Gorge that would be necessary to accommodate up to 18 additional trains per day, for consistency with the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.

Air quality in the Columbia River Gorge is already degraded. Increased coal train traffic would worsen air quality and visibility. The human health and the environmental impacts of diesel emissions and coal dust
from up to 18 trains per day must be analyzed. If these coal
exporters want to use areas not related to their diggings to spoil and pollute, let them post extremely high bonds in excess of fifty billion dollars to provide a fund to clean up the long range issues of their negative impact on air, water, property values and health, PLUS require them to share their profits at no less than a fifty percent rate with residents of the Gorge area.

They want to epxloit us, let's make it mutual.

Coal pollution is already a problem in the Gorge from just a few coal trains per week, with large amounts of coal polluting Gorge lands and waterways. Adverse effects of coal spilling into waterways and into sensitive plant and wildlife areas in the Gorge from open-top coal cars must be analyzed in the EIS. The threat of fugitive coal affecting agriculture and forestry must also be examined in the EIS.

Additional trains would block at-grade crossings in the Gorge, interfering with commerce, recreation, tourism and emergency services.
Wind-blown coal debris from coal trains has also been documented to be a safety threat to highway travelers. These impacts must be included in the scope of the EIS.

I've driven along rail lines in Montana where coal trains run quite often; you don't even have to see the trains to know they're running coal - you can smell it, even with your windows up. Coal is dirty, the Gorge is not, and it shouldn't be allowed to become stained with Wyoming's poison.

Existing rail traffic in the Gorge is near capacity. Approval of the GPT project would result in the need to expand rail capacity in the Gorge with new tracks and sidings. Rail lines in the Gorge follow the Columbia River and cross many tributaries and wetlands. Impacts from the construction of new tracks would cause adverse effects to water quality, fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. These impacts must be analyzed and avoided.

Train-caused fires are a regular occurrence within the Columbia Gorge, resulting in damage to native plants, sensitive wildlife habitat and property. Increased train traffic and transporting coal in open-top cars would only worsen this existing problem. Increased risk of fire from coal trains must be analyzed in the EIS.

There are five pending proposals for coal exports in the Pacific Northwest. All would transport coal from the Powder River Basin through the Columbia River Gorge to export facilities. The combined impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable uses and developments must be thoroughly explored in the EIS.

Coal-burning power plants are the primary source greenhouse gases driving global climate change. The GPT project would feed Asia's growing appetite for coal and accelerate climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from the mining, transportation and burning of coal must be analyzed in the EIS. Coal combustion in Asia releases other air pollutants, such as mercury, that are deposited in the United States.
The EIS must analyze the impacts of mercury pollution from coal powered plants receiving coal via the proposed export facility.

The purpose and need for the proposed project should be broadened to look at economic development and environmental needs for the region and for the global climate. The range of alternatives considered in the EIS should include alternatives that better address the economic and environmental needs of the region and do not expand global reliance on fossil fuels that are responsible for causing catastrophic climate change. The alternatives analysis should include alternative transportation routes that do not pass through federally protected areas like the Columbia River Gorge. Mitigation measures should include covered rail cars to reduce the amount of coal pollution from coal trains.

The Army Corps of Engineers should refrain from making a decision on any permits until an area-wide EIS is completed to analyze the impacts of all five coal export proposals in the Pacific Northwest.

Sincerely,

Mr. Bill Archer

Bill Archer (#8436)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Goldendale, WA
Comment:
Jan 11, 2013

US Army Corps of Engineers

Please accept these scoping comments for the environmental impact statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project located at Cherry Point, Washington.

The proposal to export up to 48 million tons of coal per year from the Powder River Basin, through the Columbia River Gorge to Cherry Point for export to Asia would result in significant adverse effects to the local, regional and global environment. The impacts of strip mining, transporting and burning the coal in Asian power plants must be included in the scope of analysis for the environmental impact statement (EIS).

In particular, the proposal would have severe impacts on the Columbia River Gorge, which is the most likely rail transportation route from the Powder River Basin through the Cascade Mountains to the proposed terminal. The Columbia River Gorge is world-renowned for its natural scenic beauty, diversity in plants and wildlife, cultural resources and recreation. To protect its outstanding resources, the Gorge is a federally designated National Scenic Area. This law requires protection and enhancement of scenic, natural, cultural and recreation resources and air quality. The EIS must evaluate the transportation of coal by rail in open coal cars through the Gorge, and the likely expansion of tracks and siding in the Gorge that would be necessary to accommodate up to 18 additional trains per day, for consistency with the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.

Air quality in the Columbia River Gorge is already degraded. Increased coal train traffic would worsen air quality and visibility. The human health and the environmental impacts of diesel emissions and coal dust
from up to 18 trains per day must be analyzed. If these coal
exporters want to use areas not related to their diggings to spoil and pollute, let them post extremely high bonds in excess of fifty billion dollars to provide a fund to clean up the long range issues of their negative impact on air, water, property values and health, PLUS require them to share their profits at no less than a fifty percent rate with residents of the Gorge area.

They want to epxloit us, let's make it mutual.

Coal pollution is already a problem in the Gorge from just a few coal trains per week, with large amounts of coal polluting Gorge lands and waterways. Adverse effects of coal spilling into waterways and into sensitive plant and wildlife areas in the Gorge from open-top coal cars must be analyzed in the EIS. The threat of fugitive coal affecting agriculture and forestry must also be examined in the EIS.

Additional trains would block at-grade crossings in the Gorge, interfering with commerce, recreation, tourism and emergency services.
Wind-blown coal debris from coal trains has also been documented to be a safety threat to highway travelers. These impacts must be included in the scope of the EIS.

I've driven along rail lines in Montana where coal trains run quite often; you don't even have to see the trains to know they're running coal - you can smell it, even with your windows up. Coal is dirty, the Gorge is not, and it shouldn't be allowed to become stained with Wyoming's poison.

Existing rail traffic in the Gorge is near capacity. Approval of the GPT project would result in the need to expand rail capacity in the Gorge with new tracks and sidings. Rail lines in the Gorge follow the Columbia River and cross many tributaries and wetlands. Impacts from the construction of new tracks would cause adverse effects to water quality, fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. These impacts must be analyzed and avoided.

Train-caused fires are a regular occurrence within the Columbia Gorge, resulting in damage to native plants, sensitive wildlife habitat and property. Increased train traffic and transporting coal in open-top cars would only worsen this existing problem. Increased risk of fire from coal trains must be analyzed in the EIS.

There are five pending proposals for coal exports in the Pacific Northwest. All would transport coal from the Powder River Basin through the Columbia River Gorge to export facilities. The combined impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable uses and developments must be thoroughly explored in the EIS.

Coal-burning power plants are the primary source greenhouse gases driving global climate change. The GPT project would feed Asia's growing appetite for coal and accelerate climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from the mining, transportation and burning of coal must be analyzed in the EIS. Coal combustion in Asia releases other air pollutants, such as mercury, that are deposited in the United States.
The EIS must analyze the impacts of mercury pollution from coal powered plants receiving coal via the proposed export facility.

The purpose and need for the proposed project should be broadened to look at economic development and environmental needs for the region and for the global climate. The range of alternatives considered in the EIS should include alternatives that better address the economic and environmental needs of the region and do not expand global reliance on fossil fuels that are responsible for causing catastrophic climate change. The alternatives analysis should include alternative transportation routes that do not pass through federally protected areas like the Columbia River Gorge. Mitigation measures should include covered rail cars to reduce the amount of coal pollution from coal trains.

The Army Corps of Engineers should refrain from making a decision on any permits until an area-wide EIS is completed to analyze the impacts of all five coal export proposals in the Pacific Northwest.

Sincerely,

Mr. Bill Archer

Bill Black (#3299)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Black (#13877)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Bill Bowcock (#5983)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Location: Warren, OR
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Bowman (#2665)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Bowman (#10434)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Anacortes, Wa
Comment:
Hello EIS panel,
My name is Bill Bowman, I live in Anacortes, Wa. with my wife and 14 year old son. I agree with James Wells and Terry W. in submission # 15. "I request that the agencies should consider Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other pollutant emissions from the coal at its point of combustion in Asia.

The plan is to export over 48 million metric tons of coal per year to China, where it will be burned, resulting in air pollution that will cause impacts in the United States (in addition to the effects on nearby populations in China). The pollution includes carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that also causes ocean acidification. [The combustion also releases harmful pollutants such as mercury, but this comment is focused on CO2]

In public discourse, we have repeatedly heard a defeatist and misleading suggestion that people in China will just acquire coal from elsewhere, dug out of mines that do not currently exist, and burn that coal instead, if we do not export coal to them. That may or may not occur. If it does, that other coal will cost them more than importing coal from the USA, and thus they would probably use less. But in all cases it’s never morally acceptable to be part of something harmful on the theory that someone else, somewhere else, is going to do it anyway.

Broadly, in permitting activities, agencies are required to evaluate an activity for the entirety of what it is, not as compared to some imaginary other circumstance that may or may not occur. This particular coal, if shipped to Asia to be burned, will create the pollutants. If not, then those pollutant emissions will not occur at that place and time. Therefore the full effects should be considered.

One regulatory question is whether the applicable law allows for consideration of an effect that may occur outside the US. The clear answer: Yes it can. It’s right in the applicable SEPA law:

“[A] lead agency shall not limit its consideration of a proposal's impacts only to those aspects within its jurisdiction, including local or state boundaries.” (Wash. Admin. Code sec. 197-11-060(4)(b))

Next: Can the impact of combustion emissions, including carbon dioxide emissions, be considered?

Again, Yes. The United States EPA has recognized the materials emitted from combustion, including Carbon Dioxide, as pollutants that threaten human health and the environment.

At play is the combination: Considering combustion emissions, including carbon dioxide, that originate overseas.

A key consideration is the concept of the Public Interest. The agencies should broadly consider the public interest in this case, because the project needs to use government resources rather than just private assets. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions is relevant to public interest, because global warming and ocean acidification represent a very serious threat to our environment and the livability of our planet.

In the case of GPT, there are at least three major government-controlled resources that are required for the project to go forward:

- The pier requires a shoreline lease from the WA State Department of Natural Resources
- The coal is mined from federal government land in Montana and Wyoming

- Large water withdrawals from the Nooksack River are needed for dust control and other purposes

This request to use government resources is profoundly different from meeting regulatory requirements for an activity on private land. The applicants have no title to the government resources, and so for access to be granted, the proposed activity needs to be in the public interest. This is especially applicable to the waters of the state due to the Public Trust Doctrine, as explained on the WA Department of Ecology web site: "The essence of the [Public Trust] doctrine is that the waters of the state are a public resource owned by and available to all citizens equally for the purposes of navigation, conducting commerce, fishing, recreation and similar uses and that this trust is not invalidated by private ownership of the underlying land."

In another example, leases to mine coal from public lands have been granted on the basis that the coal will provide a stable domestic energy supply. The current practice of shipping coal from federal lands to British Columbia for export to Asia is in conflict with the justification for the coal leases, and a massive expansion of such export would also be. No export terminal should be permitted prior to conducting a complete review of the basis for the lease to mine the subject coal, and coal whose lease was justified on the theory of providing for domestic energy supplies should not be allowed to be exported.

The GPT project will also require exercise of a key government power, which is: Eminent Domain. This means seizing land from other private owners, whether or not they want to sell, in order to allow the project to occur. This is another point whether the question of the Public Interest is applicable.

The project is also inconsistent with certain federal or state laws or policies.

- Copenhagen Accord

The United States is a signatory to the Copenhagen climate accord, which agrees in concept to large reductions in GHG emissions worldwide. Large new coal export schemes are clearly inconsistent with the intent of the document.

- EPA has Recognized CO2 as a Pollutant

The US EPA has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and has started to regulate CO2 emissions. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) state that any new coal-fired power plant in the US must meet a very tight standard for low CO2 emissions. If we build a new export terminal for the purpose of supplying coal to be burned in a manner that does not meet these new standards, then that undermines the entire purpose of the NSPS standards. The EPA has also commented on a different coal export proposal that resulting CO2 emissions should be considered.

- WA State GHG Reduction Standards

Washington State adopted greenhouse gas reduction standards via legislation adopted in 2008. See RCW 70.235.070(1)(a). The statute establishes that by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels. By 2035, GHG emissions are to be 25 percent below 1990 levels and by 2050, they are to be 50 percent below 1990 levels. The coal terminal, if permitted, would emit tens of millions of metric tons of CO2 per year, wiping all of those reductions, and more. Since CO2 is a global pollutant, it would be futile to reduce local emissions while facilitating an increase elsewhere. [For reference, all GHG emissions in all of WA state are about 100 million metric tons / year]

- WA State Panel on Ocean Acidification

In November of 2012, the Governor of Washington State released an executive order initiating action on ocean acidification. The executive order states, in part, “I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the state of Washington … do, effective immediately, hereby order and direct … The Office of the Governor and the cabinet agencies that report to the Governor to advocate for reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide at a global, national, and regional level.”

- SEPA Standards

The SEPA standard itself recognizes the world-wide scope of environmental issues.

SEPA considers “each person’s” right to a “healthful environment” to be “fundamental and inalienable” Rev.Code Wash. Sec. 43.21C.020(3), “[r]ecognize[s] the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems,” and directs agencies, “where consistent with state policy, [to] lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment….” (RCW 43.21C.030(1)(f).)"

This is regarding GHG emissions and ocean acidification. Obviously air and water are major components of the planet, but because the coal issue and it's resultant pollution is not a strict local matter, but is a global one, it is difficult to comprehend how it affects my family / all families' lives. So here's my personal example of local effect.
I've a friend who lives on nearby Guemes Island. He's had a water catchment system for years, delivering drinkable water to his household. However, in these past few years, the acidity level of his water has been increasing at an alarming rate. He attributes this to living downwind of the Asian continent, an ocean apart from the northwest, which to many might seem unrelated at first glance because of this distance. Yet with the emergence of the industrial Chinese economy, with such a massive population ( 1.3 Billion) in the past 20 years, their input cannot be disregarded.
The information contained in J. Wells and Terry W. submission about GHG emissions and ocean acidification, speaks to this and much more. Additionally important is the morality issue; "But in all cases it’s never morally acceptable to be part of something harmful on the theory that someone else, somewhere else, is going to do it anyway".
This also leads me to request that a thorough study of all the issues referred to by James Wells be considered by the EIS panel, and any and all governmental agencies not financially, or otherwise beholding to energy sector corporations. I base this request on my understanding of how undue mega-corporate influence abounds in national economic policy, as the free market, bottom line profit, charter of corporations directly trumps our democratic republic. Respectfully,
Bill Bowman, 360-299-3766
3809 37th drive
Anacortes, Wa. 98221

Bill Cameron (#1490)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Bill Carter (#4100)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Bill Chemnick (#8332)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Connor (#7446)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
I am OPPOSED to the Coal Train plan for a number of reasons.

First, I regularly commute between Anacortes and Bellingham for work. The increased train traffic that the Coal Train will bring to the area (along witht the additional train runs for the proposed water bottling plant in Anacortes) will make this commute slower, more inconvenient and more dangerous.

Second, I believe that any benefits of this Gateway Pacific Terminal are FAR outweighed by the environmental damage that will be caused to air quality from train and coal dust, to the marine environement due to fuels and shipping noise, and to the quality of life due to railroad noise pollution.

Finally, I am concerned about being a part of the plan to continue the increase of dirty coal buring by any country. Coal burning contributes to an already dangerous level of climate change.

Bill Dougall (#9054)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
The BNSF rail line in the Seattle area runs directly by my place of work (Interbay area, Seattle) close the Elliott Bay and then northward along the waterfront, across the ship canal and past Shilshole, etc. So it is clear that this line runs very close to a number of sensitive wetlands along with Puget Sound, not to mention that it runs within 50 yards of my place of work. The amount of coal dust that will come off of each train car is amazingly large and I can imagine how the sum total from a large train, not to mention frequent trains every day through the area, would affect both human health and impact wetlands.

Please perform a comprehensive EIS on this project. I question why the people of Seattle (and certainly anyone else who lives/works along the rail corridor) and wetland should suffer the negative impacts of coal mined in Wyoming and Montana and then shipped to Asia. We should rethink this.

Bill Duggins (#4523)

Date Submitted: 11/29/12
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Fraser (#1750)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Location: Shaw Island, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Freudenberger (#7081)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the effects of the increased rail traffic on the other "normal" rail traffic such as Amtrakk passenger service and transportation to market of agricultural products produced in the county.

The addition of massive rail traffic for hauling coal will tie up the rails and make it more difficult to operate passenger trains on schedule and unprofitable for the transportation of fresh agricultural products from Whatcom County.

Bill Freudenberger (#7083)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the long-term effects on the environment and human health of the loss of 500 pounds of coal from each railcar that traverses the train route from Wyoming to Cherry Point. This material is blown off the car and then ground to very fine dust by the cars moving over the rails then spread to the local environment.

Bill Freudenberger (#7084)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the long-term effects on the environment and on Global Warming of the burning of billions of tons of coal in China. This project will reduce the cost and prolong the burning of coal at major power plants in China.

The denial of the project (and others proposed) will encourage the responsible development of cleaner energy for power and will reduce the total amount of fossil fuel used in the long run.

This is of prime importance to the world.

Bill Freudenberger (#7085)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the manning levels claimed by the applicant in the public information about this facility.

This will be a fully automated car-unloading and ship-loading facility. Ten operators around the clock would be a very generous manning level. (That is 40 persons total.) In addition, a maintenance crew of 20-30 will be needed. That's all.

The real number of jobs is 70-100. The number is being inflated by the applicant for permit purposes.

Bill Freudenberger (#7086)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the effects of the extra trains through all the towns and RR crossings along the route from Wyoming to Cherry Point. The extra traffic in Bellingham and Edmonds will be intolerable and I'm sure most towns along the way have similar problems. The cost of mitigation of these problems must be charged to the people who profit from this project, not to the people who happen to be effected.

Bill Freudenberger (#7088)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please conduct a Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment concerning the extra 900+ ships per year that will be transiting the Salish Sea.

The risk of collisions and groundings and the certainty of diesel pollution, bilgewater exchange and interference with fishermen are not worth a few jobs until the demand for coal runs out. Our fishing industry and salt-water tourism industries employ 100 times the people and add billions of dollars to the local economy. Don't risk it.

Bill Freudenberger (#10067)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Whatcom Docs has submitted a study on relevant health issues on this project. I want them studied because I have a granddaughter with asthma sho lives one block from the main rail line. Her health concerns me very much...as well as a million other people who live near the rail line between Powder River and Cherry Point.

Bill Harris (#13551)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Winnett, MT
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Hawk (#7947)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I support the building of another industrial site at Cherry Point. I welcome the jobs and taxes it would create. However, this site should NOT get developed as proposed because the primary export would be coal. The only exports I think would be worse than coal would be hazardous or radioactive waste. Find a different product to export that doesn't threaten the health of the community's citizens and environment. Then we will have a project that most citizens can support.

Bill Henshaw (#853)

Date Submitted: 10/19/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The comments herein relate to the scoping process and we know that between the Corp of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County that this project will be thoroughly vetted as to all of the human and natural environment issues. The site has been zoned heavy industrial for at least 40 years and at least three times over this period there have been attempts to develop the site. I can attest to the fact having studied the previous attempts that this proposal is by far and away the best we have seen and deserves your careful scrutiny. It is noteworthy that this facility is not limited to one product and has a great deal of flexibility to serve Whatcom County and the rest of the country well for an extended period of time. In as much as the Growth Management Act clearly states that all projects must be evaluated utilizing all 14 of the goals. So I would want to make sure that there is sufficient evaluation of the benefits of the project affecting the human and natural environment, such as high paying jobs, significant tax revenue increases, the multiplier effect on other businesses in the area. I also think that there needs to be a section as to the impact on our area assuming that the project is not approved and the business goes to Canada.

It is definitely time to get all of the facts clearly in front of the citizens so that decisions can be made based upon the facts and not based upon scare tactics.

Bill Henshaw (#1780)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Sir or Madam:

As testimony and work begins on a thorough analysis of the impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal, I think that it is important to analyze the human and natural environment impacts both from a negative but also a positive viewpoint.
Washington cities and counties have prepared comprehensive plans for many years; however, growth management in Washington took on new meaning with the passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA) by the Washington Legislature in 1990. The GMA was enacted in response to rapid population growth and concerns with suburban sprawl, environmental protection, quality of life, and related issues. The GMA has been amended several times, and is codified in many chapters but primarily in Chapter 36.70A RCW.
The GMA requires the fastest growing counties and the cities within them to plan extensively in keeping with state GMA goals on:
• sprawl reduction
• concentrated urban growth
• affordable housing
• economic development
• open space and recreation
• regional transportation
• environmental protection • property rights
• natural resource industries
• historic lands and buildings
• permit processing
• public facilities and services
• early and continuous public participation
• shoreline management
In addition to the 13 original GMA goals, the legislature added the goals and policies of the shoreline management act as the fourteenth GMA goal. (See RCW 36.70A.480.) The shoreline goals may be found at RCW 90.58.020.
Twenty-nine counties are either required to fully plan under the GMA or have chosen to do so. These counties make up about 95 percent of the state's population. The remaining ten counties must plan for critical areas and natural resource land only under the GMA.
The GMA provides a framework for regional coordination, and counties planning under the GMA are required to adopt county-wide planning policies to guide plan adoption within the county and to establish urban growth areas (UGAs). Local comprehensive plans must include the following elements: land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, and, for counties, a rural element. Shoreline master program policies are also an element of local comprehensive plans. Implementation of required parks and economic development elements is on hold until adequate state funding is available.
The GMA establishes the primacy of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is the starting point for any planning process and the centerpiece of local planning. Development regulations (zoning, subdivision, and other controls) must be consistent with comprehensive plans (see separate page on development regulations). State agencies are required to comply with comprehensive plans and development regulations of jurisdictions planning under the GMA. For information on plan updates, see GMA Plan/Development Regulations Updates.
As a result, it is incumbent on the three lead agencies to provide within the Environmental Impact Statement not only impacts to the human and natural environment but an assessment of the benefits on a County wide basis. Since a great deal of the information of negative impacts is based on supposition, certainly the benefits should be based on similar information, providing a balance approach to all aspects of the project in question.
For instance, people need to be reminded how important the railroad has been to the development of the nation. Historically coal has been hauled by rail to and from Whatcom County. This information and the volumes should be included in the study. The Chief Executive Officer of Union Pacific was quoted in the October 29th 2012 issue of Fortune Magazine the Union Pacific Railroad “can transport a ton of material 500 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel.” Further, he spoke of two new coal plants being built on their line where they would actually capture CO 2 and compress it, put it in rail cars, and use it in the oil and gas industry. It is this kind of information, that needs to be disseminated to the public so that the information on a project such as this can be totally evaluated.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Bill Henshaw
2653 North Park Drive
Belingham, WA 98225

Bill Henshaw (#12762)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As we move forward out of the comment period associated with the Gateway Pacific Terminal, I believe it is important that those agencies empowered to review the information submitted, take a critical look at the data so as to be sure that the information submitted is based on the best available scientific data and is not based on rants of those that feel the sky is falling and that we are dooming the earth if we consider such a project.


Bill Henshaw

Bill Hinely (#12531)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

If the Cherry Point project is completed as planned, thousands, if not millions, of people will die prematurely. How can anyone possibly justify these killings? All who participate in this endeavor in any way will have blood on our hands. The only reasonable action is to drastically reduce our energy use, stop putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, go all out to create more renewable energy resources and move as rapidly as possible toward global carbon neutrality.

Anything less will be an unforgivable betrayal of the trust we have placed in you, all our children and of all generations to come.

Please do what you know is right. Thank you.

Bill Langworth (#2809)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill LaPoint (#4442)

Date Submitted: 12/07/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Bill LaPoint (#4443)

Date Submitted: 12/07/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Bill lYnch (#5796)

Date Submitted: 01/01/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Why is it that nobody addresses the obvious detriment to our economy? By selling coal to China, we are helping to power the manufacturing plants that are taking our jobs away. Now, Does this outweigh the creation of 81 or even 200 jobs at GPT? In the Army, this type of behavior was referred to S---ting in your own mess kit.
There seems to be no positive results from the whole process. Oh, wait. Maybe Warren Buffett will get richer.
If the environmental impact statement is thorough, there should be no reason to allow this shipping to occur. It is a shame that it has even begun. As a 40 year resident/ property owner/ business owner/ tax payer of Bellingham, I can't sit by and watch this happen.

Bill Lynch (#5918)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I drove to Prince Rupert with a buddy, last year, to catch a ferry to the Queen Charolottes to pick up his boat. The ferry leaves Prince Rupert B.C., and goes RIGHT PAST the Ridley Coal export terminal. I could not believe my eyes. There were MOUNTAINS of coal, right near the water. I mean HUGE! Little bulldozers were dwarfed as they plowed their way around ROADS on these 100 foot tall piles of COAL, that were maybe a half mile deep. Everything around there was BLACK! The nearby homes, the cars, the trees. I cannot believe that the export of coal to China is so important that we would degrade our health and living quality to this extent. It is hard to believe that the Canadians have already done so. What is going on? We are deficating in our Mother Earth. This needs to stop. We need to find a way to turn this around.

Bill Lynch (#13878)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill McCallum (#576)

Date Submitted: 09/29/12
Comment:
The press release from the state Department of Ecology (below) states that the public meetings will be an open house and will not have a formal presentation. Can you confirm the ecology press release about the public meetings?

The lead agencies also will host seven scoping meetings, which will include information on the proposed projects, staff available to answer questions, and opportunities to provide oral or written comments. There will be no formal presentation, and people may arrive and leave as they choose during the meeting hours.

Bill McGown (#5941)

Date Submitted: 01/04/2013
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
Please include in the eis the potential impacts of vessel wakes on shoreline erosion throughout the San Juan Islands.

Bill Miller (#2241)

Date Submitted: 11/02/2012
Comment:
Please study the impact of the terminal on access to port, retail and marina facilities in Bellingham and all affected communities. Please study impact on air quality from coal fired plants in china. Please study impact on boulevard park. Please study impact of coal dust in Bellingham and all communities trains will pass through.

Bill Moore (#9265)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Comment:
Could you provide data on the types & catagory of the 1,250 jobs to be created ?

Bill Nicholls (#12940)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Yelm, WA
Comment:
This looks a lot like it didn't get any attention from the climate or clean air people, or for that matter, the clean water people.

Coal dust in the air, in the water, in our lungs?? NOT a good idea.
The money will go to very large companies, the damage will go to the climate and the people who live in the area, including me.

If it must be done, then let's make sure the dust and coal are *fully* confined inside a strong cover, and the loader equipment and trains are covered as well.

BillN

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Bill Nierstedt (#13842)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, and damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. In addition, the proposal would threaten endangered orcas, salmon and herring, increase high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean -- and thus the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills -- and escalate climate change. I urge you to consider these significant impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

The USA does NOT need to increase its coal mining, coal shipments overseas, or its coal burning. We need to REDUCE our dependence on dirty coal and increase our reliance on clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar. and we need to do it soon. Stop this crap about creating coal terminals. It is a waste of money and environmentally destructive all around.
There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China, meaning their routes will impact the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca or the Columbia River, and then Unimak Pass along Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Bill Pierce (#3024)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Arlington, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Reger-Nash (#1115)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
Location: Morgantown, WV
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

Many of our actions have an impact on public health. This is one such case.

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.




Bill Reger-Nash
30r Dream Catcher Circle
Morgantown, WV 26508

Bill Rehberg (#13166)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

You also are aware of how many trains are not allowed to go through that coridoor now because of land slides covering the tracks. You must have also seen the pictures on all the local T.V. stations reciently of the mudslide pushing the train off the tracks. More trains, more of a chance for significant loss, both money, people, and our more or less pristeen shoreline. Truley, it's a no brainer unless you have been corupted by money from "Clean Coal" which in itself is pretty much of an advertising sloagan only.

Bill Rehberg (#14154)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
I urge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to complete a thorough and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, which would ship 48 million tons of coal per year to Asia. This EIS must consider the broad impacts of mining, transporting, and exporting coal via the proposed terminal. The proposed project, if approved, would have significant and disastrous impacts on communities, including on air and water quality, marine life (including several endangered species), and public health and safety.

Additionally, the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal is part of a greater plan to export coal from several ports in Oregon and Washington. The Gateway Pacific Terminal would be the largest, but the cumulative impacts of transporting coal to and exporting coal from all of these proposed ports must be considered. Powder River Basin coal is especially friable, and mining, transporting, and exporting this coal will lead to ocean acidification, train derailments, public health issues, and water quality impairment. Several endangered fish species, including Chinook salmon, bull trout, and Puget Sound steelhead trout, are present in the Salish Sea, and the embattled Cherry Point herring are a keystone species vital to the life of many other marine species living near the project area.

Finally, the USACE must also consider the impacts of burning coal in Asia, which is the final destination of Powder River Basin coal shipped through the Gateway Pacific Terminal. Coal is a dirty fossil fuel and accelerates the impacts of climate change. I respectfully ask that the USACE prepares a thorough and comprehensive EIS considering all of the points discussed above.
Personally, I can't see how the money you have been promised can justify the danger this posses to our states eco system. With in the last month, or so, the trains have been required to stop running countless times because of landslides...one that actually pushed the train off the tracks. With the obviouse increase in train traffic, the probability of more frequent de-railments, with "clean coal" being spewed all over the coast, and into the water also increases. Or are you willing to sacrifice our clean beaches and waterfront for money...Bad trade.

Bill Reiswig (#814)

Date Submitted: 10/18/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I urge that the Army Corps, the DOE, and Whatcom County include the Cherry Point with the other 4 export facilities proposed for the Northwest in a Area-Wide EIS that considers the effect of this massive coal exportation on greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.

Once the decision is made on these export facilities we will be stuck with the billions of investment made in them. These facilites total up to as much as 150 million tons of exported coal per year. The EIA has estimated that the Wind River coal deposits in Montana and Wyoming total 100 billion tons. This is one of the largest known remaining deposits of fossil fuels in the world. The cumulative effects of digging this coal up, processing it, shipping it thru the NW by train, exporting it from WA and OR and burning it in China (who has little regualtion of its coal power plants) will be catastrophic for our environment.

Already the arctic ice is in rapid decline, global temperatures are spiking higher and higher, and global weather is increasingly eratic. These phenomenon have been linked in scientific literature to greenhouse gas emissions and are resulting in the very real health impacts of disasters, food price inflation, water shortages, fires, drought, floods, etc.

The belief that this coal would otherwise be exported through Canada is fallicious... they do not have the current scale of facilities to export what is being suggested in these proposed export facilities.

I strongly urge the Army Corp to include in the EIS projections of these proposed projects on the global climate.

Bill Sampson (#2011)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Taylor (#13879)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bill Tramp (#12936)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Miles City, MT
Comment:
I live in Eastern Montana, the supply end of the coal that is proposed to be shipped across the country then to foreign markets. Most people don't understand that the best use for this coal is to leave it in the ground and harvest the clean methane that is produced by the microbes that eat the coal. The gas can then be distributed with low impact pipelines in this country where the energy is needed. Burning coal is a primitive and dirty practice that most power plants are walking away from.

I also live 300 feet off a busy Burlington Northern rail line and would not wish that on my anyone.

This project must be stopped for the benefit of the majority.

Bill Wheeler (#13984)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I like coal and I like the Corps. Coal export--if we don't need it here--is a wonderful idea. Go for it and ignore all the tree huggers who are contacting you. We need jobs.

Bill Williamson (#4651)

Date Submitted: 12/13/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
The scope of any environmental review should include project/proposal alternatives and reasonable mitigation measures such as requiring that hopper loads be covered during transit to reduce/mitigate windblown particulates in urban areas and known sensitive habitat areas. The Corps examination should include an analysis of existing railroad crossings and a determination of whether additional elevated crossings or tunnels (especially in Seattle urban areas) are needed to alleviate traffic congestion that is likely to be created from increased rail traffic.

Bill Wright (#1766)

Date Submitted: 10/30/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
As a retired 32yr BNSF Railroad employee, I would like to have studied the impact that the new coal train traffic on "at grade" public crossings would have on public safety responders' response times due to increased delays at rail crossings. I would like this study to include this impact all along the route from their origin to destination at the proposed shipping terminals along the Columbia river and Cherry Point Wash.

Bill Wright (#1770)

Date Submitted: 10/30/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I'm a retired 32yr BNSF Railroad employee, and I'd like studied the impact of Coal loss during rail shipments all along its route from origin to destination at the proposed terminals along the Columbia River and Cherry Point Wash. Coal loss, aka "Coal Dust", has a known destabilizing effect on track ballast and is a serious threat to the stability of the track structures which effects operational integrity and the safe transport of goods.
I've seen also news reports that Coal loss is visible along the Columbia River transportation route and not just near it's origin in the Powder River Basin.

Bill & Johanna Molloy (#11987)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Edmonds,, WA
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern,

My wife and I recently purchased our Dream View Condo, in our Dream Location of Edmonds, Washington. We are basically 2 blocks from the water and train tracks in a 23 unit complex. Edmonds is a picturesque seaside community of approximately forty thousand people. (If you are not familiar with Edmonds, please look up this unique town online.) We have been Realtors in Washington for over 23 years and were excited to finally be able to buy our home and invest in this special city. We were shocked to find out about the potential increase in coal trains that would be traveling through our neighborhood. (It is interesting that when I ask people who live in Edmonds, as well as others in the area, that so few people are aware of this serious situation. Even many who live in our condominium complex, as well as at The Waterfront Antique Mall where I have a small antique business, had not heard about the coal train issues.) I truly don't believe many people know or understand the potential ramifications these coal trains would have on our community. Those that have heard seem to have only heard that the new coal station will provide jobs...not about the jobs, businesses, residents and others that will be negatively effected by this coal train plan.

My wife and I respectfully request that the various impacts upon our city of Edmonds, along with the other coastal cities and areas that the trains would be traveling through, be studied, researched, given due consideration and that the increase in coal trains through these coastal towns be stopped or averted. The daily trains that go through Edmonds, already produce a number of serious problems.

Please study the impact the extra trains would have, not only on the businesses in downtown Edmonds, the Ferry, and other traffic (including emergency vehicles), but the marine, fish and other life near the tracks, including the underwater marine refuge park, the many beaches, parks, recreational, residential and business areas along, and in, the Puget Sound, the potential of increased accidents on the water as well as in the city with vessels that would be transporting the coal and potential oil spills,and other potential disaster issues, the extra pollution from the coal dust on the buildings and in people's lungs, the extra pollution from the trains themselves, both air quality and noise pollution, the mud and earth slides from the vibration, the potential danger for buildings that may be structurally compromised (our building "Shakes" with the trains that are already passing by...) and lastly, the decrease in real estate values in the areas that the trains will be potentially traveling through. Please do a comprehensive, thorough and professionally expert study regarding all of these issues and any other ones of concern that people may have shared.

We have an opportunity to do something that will make a difference for the future of our beautiful coastal cities and communities. Please see that the difference would be a positive one that protects all of us-not just what would appear as a quick money fix, instead of a future-forward-thinking move.

Thank you for looking into this,
Bill and johanna Molloy
PS Please forward this email to anyone to whom this may be applicable. Thank you again.

Bill & Johanna Molloy (#12024)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
Thank you for looking into the following concerns:

My wife and I recently purchased our Dream View Condo, in our Dream Location of Edmonds, Washington. We are basically 2 blocks from the water and train tracks in a 23 unit complex. Edmonds is a Picturesque Seaside Community of approximately forty thousand people. (If you are not familiar with Edmonds, please look up this uniqueand wonderful town online.)

We have been Realtors in Washington for over 23 years and were excited to finally be able to buy our home and invest in this special city. We were shocked to find out about the potential increase in coal trains that would be traveling through our neighborhood. (It is interesting that when we ask people who live in Edmonds, as well as others in the area, that so few people are aware of this serious situation. Even many who live in our condominium complex, as well as at The Waterfront Antique Mall where my wife has a small antique business, had not heard about the coal train issues.) We truly don't believe many people know or understand the potential ramifications these coal trains would have on our community. Those that have heard seem to have only heard that the new coal station will provide jobs...not about the jobs, businesses, residents and others that will be negatively effected by this coal train plan, as well as the environmental issues that we are asking your attention to investigate:

My wife and I respectfully request that the various impacts upon our city of Edmonds, along with the other coastal cities and areas that the trains would be traveling through, be studied, researched, given due consideration and that the increase in coal trains through these coastal towns be stopped or averted. The daily trains that go through Edmonds, already produce a number of serious problems.

Please study the impact the extra trains would have, not only on the businesses in downtown Edmonds, the Ferry, and other traffic (including emergency vehicles), but the marine, fish and other life near the tracks, including the underwater marine refuge park, the many beaches, parks, recreational, residential and business areas along, and in, the Puget Sound, the potential of increased accidents on the water as well as in the city with vessels that would be transporting the coal and potential oil spills,and other potential disaster issues, the extra pollution from the coal dust on the buildings and in people's lungs, the extra pollution from the trains themselves, both air quality and noise pollution, the mud and earth slides from the vibration, the potential danger for buildings that may be structurally compromised (our building "Shakes" with the trains that are already passing by...) and lastly, the decrease in real estate values in the areas that the trains will be potentially traveling through. Please do a comprehensive, thorough and professionally expert study regarding all of these issues and any other ones of concern that people may have shared.

We, as caretakers of the earth and of generations to follow, have an opportunity to do something that will make a difference for the future of our beautiful coastal cities and communities. Please see that the difference would be a positive one that protects all of us-not just what would appear as a quick money fix, instead of a future forward thinking move.

Thank you for looking into this,
Bill & Johanna Molloy
PS Please forward this email to anyone to whom this may be applicable. Thank you again.

Bill & Joy Justis (#3123)

Date Submitted: 11/13/12
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
Nov 13, 2012

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

If this terminal cannot be stopped, insist on having ALL transporting operations covered so NO coal dust is dispersed ANYWHERE.

Sincerely,

Bill and Joy Justis
6345 Cedar Flats Rd SW
Olympia, WA 98512-9410
(360) 866-8427

Billie Leonard (#13083)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Rathdrum, ID
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

We ALREADY HAVE several trains passing through Rathdrum each day. If more trains are added, this would increase the possibility of emergency vehicles not being able to get through the crossings on time and might result in trauma or death to the victim.

We do not need more air pollution. Rathdrum sits at the foot of mountains and we have enough air stagnation now , without adding to it.

Billie Watkins (#4371)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
Dec 6, 2012

Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology WA

Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology: Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology,

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. It would increase traffic, pollute our air and water, harm small businesses, delay emergency vehicles, and increase hipping traffic and noise. The coal export terminal would also hurt our environment by damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents, and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

why can't we develop energy that is healthy for people and the environment?

Sincerely,

Billie Watkins
300 W 8th St Unit 236
Vancouver, WA 98660-3465
(360) 699-1301

Billy Angus (#12947)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Hamilton, MT
Comment:
Big Coal and Big Oil can go drop dead somewhere!!
It's time to end the status quo of fossil fuel and develop solar and wind energy.
This is 2013 A.D.
The 19th and 20th centuries is ancient history and it's time to leave dirty energy back in the past where it belongs!!!

Billy LaPoints (#5251)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Billy Webb (#2808)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bison Kirkpatrick (#5654)

Date Submitted: 12/26/12
Location: Burien, WA
Comment:
see attached

bj hedahl (#6135)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: bothell, wa
Comment:
MORALS or MONEY; what runs this country and YOUR life??

BJ Stephenson (#14375)

Date Submitted: 01/06/13
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bjelava Rump (#8414)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Comment:
Enough already!!!

No more please, we need some quiet around here too many trains already!

Blaine Ackley (#5717)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Blake Allen (#2305)

Date Submitted: 11/04/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Our house is 125' from the BNSF rail line. We are directly impacted by every train that goes by. The proposed GPT project has raised many concerns for us. I will list one for now.
Please study the effect of increased diesel particulate, associated with any and all coal trains headed for Cherry Point, on human, plant and animal life as well as water quality along the entire route from Powder River Basin to Cherry Point and within 1000' of the rail line. Please include analysis of the health care costs linked to this increase in particulate exposure.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.

Blake Allen (#2306)

Date Submitted: 11/04/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Seems we have a local permit application with local, regional and global impacts.

Please do a thorough study of the ability of the lead agencies and consultants to adequately assess the impacts of a proposal of this magnitude ( ie. jobs lost vs jobs created, tax revenue lost vs tax revenue gained, financial costs to the public, health risks to the public and environment, future clean up of site, unmitigatable events such as major oil spill or total failure of other attempted mitigation resulting in irreversible loss of life, habitat and/or other environment).
Please detail any inability to adequately assess future impacts and show how this inability might limit the scope of or influence the EIS/permitting process and outcome.
Thank you for your careful consideration.

Blake Allen (#5095)

Date Submitted: 12/18/2012
Comment:
I recently heard that there is legal precedent in Washington state limiting the financial liability of BNSF in matters of infrastructure improvement (ie. crossing upgrades ) Please do a thorough study of any legal precedents that limit the liability, financial or otherwise, of BNSF, Peabody Coal Co., SSA Marine and/or all others associated with the application. Please reveal in the EIS what those limitations are and who was responsible for the remaining costs of infrastructure upgrades, environmental damage, toxic cleanup etc.
Thank you

Blanche Bybee (#7004)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a concerned citizen of Bellingham, WA where train traffic would increase with the GPT terminal t0 the tune of 18- 20 trains per day. I am very concerned about the impact this train traffic will have on the safety of citizens of Bellingham and feel that several train crossings should be improved if that kind of traffic is to happen. Namely the crossing at Boulevard park where a citizen already lost her life when she neglected to hear the train over her earphones. That increased level of traffic will mean an increased likelihood that something similar will happen again and perhaps much more frequently. I also feel like the crossings on Roeder Avenue are problematic and should be upgraded. It should not be the responsibility of the tax payers to pay for these upgrades. We don't want the trains in the first place.

Blanche Bybee (#7006)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a current resident of Bellingham and a former member of the staff at UW's marine biology laboratory, Friday Harbor Labs. While at the marine lab many researchers were studying the effects on the marine invertebrate populations from invasive species. Many of these invasive species were linked to bilge water releases from ships coming from China or other Asian countries and were having devastating effects on our native populations of marine invertebrates. I am concerned that the increased traffic to and from China from vessels associated with the GPT terminal will vastly increase the risk to our native invertebrate fauna from invasive species carried across the ocean in the bilge water of these vessels. I believe that this increased potential risk should be studied before any types of permits be granted.

Blanche Bybee (#7008)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a concerned resident of Bellingham, WA and of this planet. Every National Academy of Science in the World admits to the reality of Global Warming and it's anthropomorphic roots. I am deeply concerned that the proposed GPT coal terminal in conjunction with the 5 other proposed coal ports on the West Coast will have a Cumulative Effect on global carbon emissions and global warming. The proposed amount of coal to be shipped from the GPT terminal alone would result in, to my mind, a staggering release of about 300 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. When you add in the additional coal ports that number is increased by a factor or 3. As conscientious citizens of this planet allowing and even encouraging this level of carbon dioxide release seems reckless and irresponsible. Please study the cumulative effect of this much carbon dioxide released from the burning of the amount of coal that would be shipped from all 5 coal terminals.

Blanche Bybee (#7011)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I have been a resident of the west coast of Washington for the past 15 years. I currently reside in Bellingham, WA , but lived on San Juan Island for 9 of those 15 years. While living on the island I enjoyed the privilege of seeing the resident Orca pods and saw how the economy benefitted from their residency. I feel that these resident Orca pods could be threatened by water pollution caused by the GPT coal terminal. Wind events at the site of the coal terminal will inevitably result in large amounts of coal dust entering the water in the vicinity of the terminal. Coal dust in the water at the Westpoint Terminal in Canada has had a significant impact on the herring population in the that vicinity. Cherry Point is an important area for herring populations and coal dust in the water could significantly impact the herring population. Reduced herring populations could and would result in reduced salmon populations, the primary diet of the Orca whales. Please study the impact that the coal dust and heavily impacted herring populations would have on salmon populations, Orca populations and the economic impact of the loss of these populations on the San Juan islands.

Bliss & Farley King & McClean (#1266)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

blythe parker (#4076)

Date Submitted: 12/07/2012
Location: friday harbor, wa
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a citizen of San Juan County. I have lived here for over fifteen years and raise my family of four here because of the beauty in our natural environment. The surplus of wildlife here is what make our island home special. I am extremely concerned at the prospect of the GPT in Bellingham. The reasons this idea worries me are:
~ high risk of oil spill
~ underwater noise affecting Orca whale populations
~ scenic impact of vessel traffic
~ the introduction of invasive species in ballast water
~ocean acidification associated with the carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal
Please count my letter as one more citizen of this area who DOES NOT WANT coal exporting!
Thank You,
Blythe Parker

Blythe & Ryan Parker (#776)

Date Submitted: 10/12/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Bob Riek (#6235)

Date Submitted: 01/07/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live along the railroad tracks and I am concerned about the coal dust as well as the other toxic chemicals that are transported past our house and other houses near railroad tracks from Bellingham to Wyoming. I have been told that chlorine, hydrofluoric acid and other dangerous chemicals go past our houses on a regular basis. If this is true I would like to have this studied as part of the scoping process. It should cover the danger of this and what plans would need to be put into effect if a rail car gets hit by mudslides or rock slides as they happen often every year.

Bob Riek (#6754)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live along the railroad track and close to the sea as well. I would like the effect of coal dust falling into the sea over trestles directly into the water as well as blown by the wind into the sea water and how it would affect marine life.

Bob Riek (#6759)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the size of the ships that will be transporting coal to China. They may be too big to navigate in the San Juan Island area. What precautions would need to be in place for a problem if one of these ships were to collide or run aground. What would be the cost and who would pay for it? Would these programs be in place before an accident? These areas need to be studied before a decision is made about the coal terminal. The information that I have heard is that these ships would not have a tug escort and take over 7 miles to stop.

Bob Riek (#6984)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Bellingham and am worried about the air pollution caused by coal dust. I have seen the dust being blown into the air from coal terminals and trains and I live within 200 feet of the track. I also am concerned about burning fossil fuels. In China, where this coal is going there are days when you can't see 200 feet through the air. They are starting to be concerned about their own air pollution that they cause probably burning some of our coal. If they decide to stop taking our coal I wonder what will happen to the SSA Terminal. I would like to have the scope of this include air pollution in the U.S. as well as China. Is it worth building the terminal if their isn't a need for coal by China?

Bob Riek (#8424)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Whatcom county and live very close to the railroad line and have observed closely some of the problems with increased rail activity already. I would like the scoping to include the following topics.
1. traffic delays
2. vibration on hillsides causing mud slides and rock slides all along the track from the mines to Cherry Point.
3. who will pay and how much will the public uncompensated costs caused by SSA Marine be?
4. should a bond be provided by SSA Marine for rail and shipping accidents?
5. what happens to the coal dust and how much coal dust ends up in rivers and the bay where the trains go across on trestles?

Bob Aegerter (#55)

Date Submitted: 09/24/2012
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
Co-Lead Agencies:

BACKGROUND
The total cost to society of electricity generated from coal fired boilers is 29 cents per kilowatt hour. More than its retail value. Courts now expect climate-change consequences to be weighed under NEPA. It is clear that the officials have the authority and the obligation to consider the external costs associated with developing, transporting and burning coal.

REQUEST
Commission a definitive study on the impact of this proposal on air quality as climate change due to human increases of CO2. Include the environmental and monetary costs of mining, cleaning, site restoration, loading, shipping, including traffic disruption, storing and burning the coal including air born particulate returning to the United States from burning the coal..

REFERENCES
Mark Squillace, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado.

Very truly yours,
Bob Aegerter

Bob Aegerter (#135)

Date Submitted: 09/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Mr Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County
Mr Randel Perry, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ms Jeannie Summerhays, Washington State Department of Ecology


Re: Scoping for Draft EIS for Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, Cherry Point, Whatcom County
(MDP2011-00001, SHR2011-00009, VAR2011-00002)

Proposed Sizing of Pier

Co-Lead Agencies:

BACKGROUND

The proponent has proposed a pier with two births for cape class vessels and one birth for panamax class vessel. No justification has been provided for the size of the pier. The size of the pier has potential significant adverse environmental impacts on the near shore environment of the Cherry Point Aquatic Preserve.

REQUEST

Commission a study on the appropriate size of the pier for the given traffic conditions and the stated volume of dry commodities to be shipped.

Very truly yours,

Bob Aegerter
78 North Point Drive
Bellingham WA 98229-7931
360-671-2652

Bob Aegerter (#136)

Date Submitted: 09/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
September 29, 2012

Mr Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County
Mr Randel Perry, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ms Jeannie Summerhays, Washington State Department of Ecology


Re: Scoping for Draft EIS for Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, Cherry Point, Whatcom County
(MDP2011-00001, SHR2011-00009, VAR2011-00002)

Completion of studies stipulated in the settlement agreement with Washington Environmental Council et all.

Co-Lead Agencies:

BACKGROUND

As a condition of settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Washington Environmental Council and others the proponent agreed to initiate and complete several significant studies (see references below) that will inform the authors of this proposed Draft EIS of significant existing conditions and environmental processes that may be subject to significant long term adverse impacts. The completion of some of these studies is required as input for other studies. Some of these studies are critical to the evaluation of a suitable location for the wharf. The proponent has not made public any information that suggests any of these studies have been started. This raises serious questions about the feasibility of the estimated date you have stated for completion of the Draft EIS and the credibility of the public information you are providing.


REQUEST

As a part of the scoping report to be made public prior to significant work on the Draft EIS provide a detailed description of the scope and duration of the studies stipulated to by the proponent in the settlement agreement with Washington Environmental Council et all and agreed to be made a condition of this proposal. Provide a Critical Path Method flow diagram with dates of the relationship between and among the studies.

REFERENCES
Note: Section numbers in ( ) are from the settlement agreement.

Baseline and Annual Monitoring of Sediment, Tissue, and Water Quality (2.5) Baseline sampling can only be taken during the herring spawning period and this will require two or three years prior to final design to be of significant value.

Tidal Current Study (2.10e) This information informs the wharf location and Vessel Traffic Study.

Vessel Traffic Study (2.10a) Information from other recent Vessel Traffic studies in the immediate area make it clear that it not if but when and where significant vessel collision events with potential adverse impacts on the Salish Sea environment and associated wetlands, tidelands and aquatic resources will occur. No reasonable evaluation of a tideland lease by the Washington Department of Natural Resources for the wharf can be performed without a through study and evaluation of the conclusions of this report.

Vessel Mooring Study and Plan (2.11) This study is required for a dock and terminal operations plan. The thoroughness of the planning of operation of the terminal and wharf has significations impactions for the adequate protection of the natural environment and safety of the workers.

Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response Plans (2.9a) The proponent has agreed to prepare a plan that will adequately address construction and operations spills from collisions, earthquakes, weather incidents, human error and other unforeseen events. The experience two years ago in the Gulf of Mexico following the tragic BP oil drilling rig blow out informs us that multinational companies are not reliably self disciplined to prepare, update, practice and continue to perfect emergency response plans. The environment of the Gulf of Mexico has not recovered and the damage is estimated to last for many years. Damage to the San Juan Islands and the Salish Sea could last much longer.

Stormwater Management Plan (2.8c) Large volumes of water are requires to control coal dust and prevent spontaneous combustion. The proponent proposes to recycle water at the site. The stormwater treatment facility does not appear to be adequate in size to handle the proposed volumes especially during heavy rain storms. A detailed proposal is required and a detailed review accomplished in the Draft EIS.

Wetlands and Habitat Mitigation Plan (2.1) The careful review of the thoroughness of this plan and close coordination with the stormwater Management Plan (2.8c) is required to develop an adequate understanding of the foreseeable adverse unmitigated impacts of the proposed project in the Draft EIS.


Very truly yours,


Bob Aegerter
78 North Point Drive
Bellingham WA 98229-7931
360-671-2652

Bob Aegerter (#1148)

Date Submitted: 10/23/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
October 23, 2012

Cherry Point Tidelands - A Public Trust

INTRODUCTION

I am a citizen living in Whatcom County. I was attracted to Bellingham in 1967 because of the very high quality of life. I want that quality for my grandchildren.

DISCUSSION

The Cherry Point reach is one of the richest, most productive and sensitive marine resource sites in Washington state. The areas seaward of the tideline, have been designated as a shoreline of statewide significance. The diversity, abundance and importance of the marine ecology at Cherry Point has been extensively documented by virtually every state and federal natural resource agency. The nearshore area has been identified as especially significant in northern Puget Sound by the Marine Ecosystems Analysis Studies. Factors contributing to this designation include: algal/eelgrass biomass; benthic faunal biomass; occurrence of detritus; the use of habitat for foraging, reproduction, rearing, migration and nesting by fish, birds and mammals; and human use for resource harvesting (both commercial and recreational) and recreation. Additionally, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified the shoreline as state designated critical wildlife habitat and identified it as a significant site for marine mammals.

The significance of these resources was understood by very few when the property upland of Cherry Point was zoned for heavy industrial uses in the late 1950s. Local planning efforts based on natural resource protection followed the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in the 1960s.

The property currently under review has been the site of a number of flawed proposals. Chicago Bridge and Iron, Peter Kiewit and Sons, and Cherry Point Industrial Park/Joseph Sheckter were unable to secure permits for their proposals. By 1997 Carrix: SSA Marine > Pacific Gateway Terminals > Greater Pacific Terminal were on the verge of completing development permits for a bulk shipping terminal with wharf when Washington Environmental Council et all appealed development permits to the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board. Washington State Departments of Ecology, and Fish and Wildlife joined the appeal. In 1998 a settlement was negotiated. To the best of my research the proponents have not started any of the studies which are a condition of this application (see references below.)
As the proprietary owner of the lands underlying the proposed pier and the guardian of the state´s public trust interest in these lands, the Commissioner of Public Lands (department head of Natural Resources) has both the power and the duty to ensure that private use of the state´s submerged lands serve the overall public interest. The Commissioner of Public Lands needs to act as a wise steward of public trust resources by raising fundamental questions concerning the appropriate use of the Cherry Point shoreline.
Two broad professional scientific peer reviewed studies are needed in addition to those in the references.
A state wide economic study identifying and quantifying the internal and external economic costs and benefits of the proposed action. The fragmented information provided by the proponent does not provide an adequate enumeration of all of the costs and benefits related to the project. Loss of use of productive tideland leases from reasonably foreseeable oil spills do to predictable navigational failures of capeclass bulk ocean ships and other similar external costs must be analyzed and reported in the draft environmental impact statement.
A Salish Sea inventory of the aquatic biological resources and their vulnerability to reasonably foreseeable decline and loss due to operation of coal trains servicing the port, port operations, and capeclass bulk cargo ship spills, collisions, bilge water and CLAG - diesel particulate matter.
REQEST
The scope of the draft environmental impact statement should be enlarged to identify and quantify the external costs of the proposal in a rational manner that will enable our elected officials the best decisions for all of the people of Washington State.
REFERENCES
Note: Section numbers in ( ) are from the settlement agreement.

Baseline and Annual Monitoring of Sediment, Tissue, and Water Quality (2.5) Baseline sampling can only be taken during the herring spawning period and this will require two or three years prior to final design to be of significant value.

Tidal Current Study (2.10e) This information informs the wharf location and Vessel Traffic Study.

Vessel Traffic Study (2.10a) Information from other recent Vessel Traffic studies in the immediate area make it clear that it not if but when and where significant vessel collision events with potential adverse impacts on the Salish Sea environment and associated wetlands, tidelands and aquatic resources will occur. No reasonable evaluation of a tideland lease by the Washington Department of Natural Resources for the wharf can be performed without a through study and evaluation of the conclusions of this report.

Bob Aegerter (#1630)

Date Submitted: 10/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
October 29, 2012

Short Term Economic Gain verses Long Term Sustainability

INTRODUCTION
Mr Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County
Mr Randel Perry, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ms Jeannie Summerhays, Washington State Department of Ecology


Re: Scoping for Draft EIS for Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, Cherry Point, Whatcom County
(MDP2011-00001, SHR2011-00009, VAR2011-00002)

Co-Lead Agencies and consulting draftEIS authors:

BACKGROUND

The concept of quantifying and evaluating the contrast between the short term economic gain and the long term sustainability of the regional economy and environment is a well established principal in environmental law. This proposal entails implementing an enormous supply and handling chain for thermal coal of very limited economic value for a probable life of five to ten years maximum. Los Angeles, CA and Portland, OR both experienced economic losses because of the volatile asian coal market. There is no geographic limits to the area to be studied implied in the Environmental Policy Act or the published rules. While the narrow benefits of the proposed project including profits for coal, railroad and shipping investors and a very few permanent jobs the long term economic cost will be more difficult to evaluate. Current geographic information systems and electronic census data combined with resent medical studies of low dose toxic risks of small particulate matter in diesel exhaust emissions and the risks associated with exposure to coal dust make it reasonably feasible to conduct these studies. This is also true of real estate values, risks from exposure to noise and vibration and costs and risks of rail crossings. Environmental justice issues are at issue here. Who pays in terms of a degraded environment for the profits of the proponents? How do the proponents propose to mitigate the proposed project to compensate for these significant and quantifiable external costs?

The proponents allege in their publicity that the proposed project will be environmentally friendly but offer no substantive proof that extra ordinary care has been taken in planning and design of the proposed project.


REQUEST

Please include within the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement a through discussion and quantification of the short term economic gain of profits, taxes, jobs and balance of foreign import/exports in contrast to the long term external costs to human health, traffic delay, lost economic development opportunity, irreparable damage to significant ecological systems, loss of endangered species, collisions, spills and groundings of capeclass vessels in the Salish Sea, Puget Sound and The Strait of Juan de Fuca, loss of use of water rights of the Nooksack River, impact of the sovereign rights of the Lummi Nation, and contribution to global warming. Without a quantified rational discussion of these issues the decision makes will be unable to make a reasonably defensible decision.

Very truly yours,

Bob Aegerter
78 North Point Drive
Bellingham WA 98229-7931
360-671-2652

Bob Aegerter (#2214)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Bob Aegerter (#4852)

Date Submitted: 12/16/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The proponents declare that over 950 annual transits of coal carrying bulk cargo ships will be required to support the activities of the terminal. A majority of these will be cape class ships. I request that the scope of the Draft EIS include a definitive discussion of the impacts of these ship operations and the inevitable collisions, groundings and spills of cargo and ship fuel will have on salmon, herring and crab fisheries, orca whales, and the economic vitality of the robust San Juan Island tourist industry.

Bob Aegerter (#4871)

Date Submitted: 12/16/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Mr Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County
Mr Randel Perry, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ms Jeannie Summerhays, Washington State Department of Ecology


Re: Scoping for Draft EIS for Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, Cherry Point, Whatcom County
(MDP2011-00001, SHR2011-00009, VAR2011-00002)
Potentially Significant Adverse Impact on Aleutian Islands Natural Resources from Capeclass Bulk Shipping of Coal.

Co-Lead Agencies:

BACKGROUND
Ships from the west coast of the United States use the Northern Pacific Great Circle Route traversing through Unimak Pass and then again west of Tanaga Island in the Aleutian Island Chain south west of Alaska. Ships heading west use this route to take advantage of the counterclockwise ocean currents many ships from East Asia to to North America use a great circle route south of the Aleutian Islands. The islands and surrounding area are a valuable natural resource. The Bering Sea Salmon Fishing Industry is a unique highly productive resource. Weather conditions are often severe and unpredictable. There is significant traffic including oil tankers. “The risk posed to people and the environment by shipping in the Aleutians is greatly influenced by the region’s unique setting, harsh environment, and difficult operating conditions. Such factors as geography, climate, regulatory regime, population and its cultural base, ecology, and industrial activities all combine to define this special operating environment.” (1)

NEPA and SEPA policies do not place a time or location restraint on reasonably forceable adverse impacts. The sensitive nature of the natural resources and their high intrinsic value justify careful study under this proposed Draft EIS.

REQUEST

Include within the scope of the proposed Draft EIS a comprehensive study of the risks of shipping coal via this route including but not limited to evaluating the probability of and the estimated environmental costs of the reasonable foreseeable cape class bulk coal traffic incidents including but not limited to groundings, loss of propulsion, loss of steering, navigational errors and fuel oil spills.

REFERENCES

Risk of Vessel Accidents and Spills in the Aleutian Islands, Designing a Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Special Report 293, 2008, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington DC. Accessed at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr293.pdf on November 16, 2012.

Very truly yours,

Bob Aegerter
78 North Point Drive
Bellingham WA 98229-7931
360-671-2652

Bob Aergerter (#997)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Oct 21, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. Few projects make less sense for Whatcom County and the nation that this proposal to risk valuable natural for potential short term profits.

The project will harm imperiled wildlife species and their designated critical habitat, interfere with recreational and tribal fishing, transform the region with rail congestion, and dramatically increase carbon pollution that is driving climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
Study the health impacts of diesel CLAG from ships and trains on people and wildlife.

The China coal bubble is over.

Given the significant effects that proposed coal export terminals will have on our natural resources and public health, strict oversight is essential. Existing rules may not be adequate to control the reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts.

Sincerely,

Bob Aegerter
78 N Point Dr
Bellingham, WA 98229-7931

Bob Allen (#5394)

Date Submitted: 12/25/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
We are faced with a global climate calamity as a result of burning fossil fuels. Coal is the most toxic hydrocarbon in current use, and it is environmentally irresponsible to promote mining, transporting and burning coal. Mining coal is destructive of vital ecosystems; transporting coal threatens the health of communities en route with high levels of toxic dust and unacceptable noise levels; burning coal releases yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, threatening us with irreversible and catastrophic climate change which we are already beginning to see. I think reversing climate change trumps corporate profits. "Clean coal" is a hoax and touting it is an insult to an intelligent public.

The issue of energy in emerging societies should be seen as a challenge to the technologically advanced countries to develop clean and affordable energy sources which can be made available to a world market, rather than as a chance for coal producers to make short term profits at the cost of innocent lives and critical ecosystems.
Bob Allen
Seattle

Bob Anderson (#12648)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Lewiston, ID
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Let's move on to cleaner innovative sources of energy around the world .

Bob Apple (#5355)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Bachman (#926)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

While the list of concerns express very real issues I personally have three that concern me the most.

1) Most if not all of this coal will have to be transported thru the Columbia River Gorge -- the nations only National Scenic Area. The gorge has serious prexisting air quality problems impacting the ecosystem, scenic vistas, and sacred tribal lands. The increase in train and barge coal transport will undo a lot of progress made dealing with these air quality issues.

2) In my view climate change is the issue of the century -- it trumps everything else! Sending coal to a foreign land where we lose complete control of its use is simply wrong. We are slowly getting control of coal use in the US -- the two NW coal fired power plants are scheduled to close because of their impacts. Why would we allow that progress to be undone.

3) Among its numerous eventual impacts climate change is causing sea level rise -- currently and increasingly in the future -- impacting coastal communities all over the planet. I live on an Island. Under frequent high wind NW storm events coinsiding with high tides low bank areas will be seriously impacted -- there are some indications this has already begun in some exposed areas.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.






bob Bachman
102 Panorama Pl
Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Bob Barnes (#8990)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Bob Aegerter (#8284)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
January 17, 2013

Mr Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County
Mr Randel Perry, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ms Jeannie Summerhays, Washington State Department of Ecology


Re: Scoping for Draft EIS for Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, Cherry Point, Whatcom County
(MDP2011-00001, SHR2011-00009, VAR2011-00002)

Co-Lead Agencies:

BACKGROUND
As recognized in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Plan, the Lummi Nation and other tribes have treaty rights in the Salish Sea, as usual and accustomed fishing grounds. How might damaged fisheries; polluted waters, lands and air; altered ecosystems; and increasingly industrialized, crowded waterways impact traditional Native culture and spirituality; employment and livelihoods; natural resources and safe food sources? How might the construction and operations of GPT, and the transport and storage of bulk commodities, including coal, affect the full and proper observation of all relevant rights and treaties?
 
Xwe’chi’eXen (Cherry Point) is known to have deep spiritual and cultural significance. A burial ground and a sacred site, it is associated with the creation story of the Lummi People and the First Salmon Ceremony. For over 175 generations, Lummi ancestors lived and fished at Xwe’chi’eXen, and it was part of the (now much smaller) Lummi Reservation as established by the Point Elliott Treaty. It was the first site in Washington State to be listed on the Washington Heritage Register and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supported by the President of the United States, includes the right to maintain and protect archaeological and historic sites. I request that  a third  party archaeological study of cultural significance at Cherry Point be done in accordance with Lummi tribal code, and approved and accepted by a Lummi Nation cultural commission.
 
As a non-indigenous person, I can't accurately articulate GPT's current and potential damages to culture and spirituality. That is why third-party studies done in collaboration with the Lummi Nation and other involved tribes are necessary. However, I  do understand that the impacts would be serious, and that some would likely be irrevocable and impossible to mitigate. I do understand that we in the United States, as citizens and as a nation, have a legal obligation to uphold treaties and other accorded rights, and a moral obligation to help respect and protect the sanctity of Lummi Nation's holy ground.
 
REQUEST
I respectfully request that various impacts upon tribal nations be given due consideration.  
 Please include in the scope of the dradtEIS a comprehensive study of:
Potential damages to the Nooksack River, to Salish Sea ecosystems and fisheries, and to Cherry Point itself; and impacts on traditional livelihoods, natural resources, food sources, culture and religion of the indigenous peoples.
Possible infringement of international and treaty rights, and the consequences of such infringement.  
Any disturbance of archaeological sites, burial sites, and sites of cultural importance. 

REFERENCES

Point Elliot Treaty
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Announcement of the U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples & Initiatives to Promote the Government-to-Government Relationship & Improve the Lives of Indigenous Peoples
Information on Cherry Point
Sovereignty and Treaty Protection for the Lummi Nation
 

Thank you.

Bob Aegerter
78 North Point Drive
Bellingham WA 98229-7931

Bob Bob Aegerter (#10925)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
January 21, 2013

Mr Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County
Mr Randel Perry, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ms Jeannie Summerhays, Washington State Department of Ecology


Re: Scoping for Draft EIS for Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, Cherry Point, Whatcom County
(MDP2011-00001, SHR2011-00009, VAR2011-00002)

Co-Lead Agencies:

BACKGROUND

Chapter 3 of the GPT Application document describes 'Purpose & Need', citing several national, state and local policies, plus international commerce, as the justification.

Section 3.2.1 claims GPT would meet three principal needs;
1. The need to ship bulk cargo to and from Asia and other markets to meet current and future market demand;
2. The need for deep water, bulk marine terminals in the Puget Sound region; and
3. The need for community and economic development in Whatcom County consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan for the Cherry Point Industrial UGA.

Section 3.2.2 states we need for another Multi-Modal Deep-Water Bulk Marine Terminal in the Puget Sound Region, because the others are in urban areas, crowded and oriented to containers, not bulk.

Section 3.2.3 further describes the Need for Community and Economic Development by citing US Government and Washington State adopted policies and initiatives to expand interstate commerce and export trade.

It also claims consistency with various other plans and goals, which may or may not be exactly true.

Section 3.2.4 talks more about the need for an appropriate site to achieve GPT's goals, that is very large and able to efficiently accommodate large numbers of unit trains and large marine vessels almost without restrictions.

All of these purposes and needs are clearly meet by the first proposal for this property submitted by SSA, the proponent.


REQUEST

As a part of scoping designate the “No Action” alternative as the preferred alternative for action.

Very truly yours,


Bob Aegerter
78 North Point Drive
Bellingham WA 98229-7931
360-671-2652

Bob Boltz (#5408)

Date Submitted: 12/20/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Bob Burr (#1028)

Date Submitted: 10/22/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the effect of shipping including the probability of diesel spills on aquatic life in the Salish Sea

Bob Burr (#1029)

Date Submitted: 10/22/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the impact of additional coal burning in China on Lake Whatcom. I have read that mercury contamination in the lake directly traceable to US coal burned in China is already being observed in the lake.

Bob Burr (#3613)

Date Submitted: 11/30/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please in your scoping be aware of this recent poll data. The survey was conditioned by the American Lung Association. Coal Dust is soot and wind will release it once on the ground. And, the coal trains will release high amounts of it particularly when traveling at higher speeds than they travel in cities when inching along blocking emergency vehicles.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Mary Havell McGinty
202-715-3459
mary.havell@lung.org

New Poll Shows the Public Wants EPA to Set Stricter Soot Health Standards
Voters Support Setting Stronger Fine Particle Standards to Protect Public Health

Washington, D.C. (November 29, 2012) – As the December 14, 2012, deadline approaches for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue updated health standards for fine particle pollution (soot), the American Lung Association is releasing polling results that examine public views on updating the standards and whether now is the right time to issue them.

Earlier this year EPA finally proposed updated clean air standards that will prevent thousands of premature deaths and take steps toward clearing hazy air. The EPA’s proposal came in response to legal action filed on behalf of the American Lung Association and the National Parks Conservation Association by Earthjustice.

A new national survey of 942 registered voters conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the American Lung Association finds that American voters support a proposal to strengthen air pollution standards by placing stricter limits on the amount of soot released from industrial facilities by a better than 2-1 margin. Support for the plan is both broad and deep, crossing partisan, gender, racial, and geographic lines; the proposal maintains strong majority support even after hearing balanced messages on both sides of the debate.

At the outset, 62 percent of voters favor the proposal, compared to just 30 percent who oppose it, and 7 percent who are undecided. Nearly 4-out-of-10 voters (39 percent) strongly favor the standards, while only 20 percent express strong opposition.

After a balanced debate with messages in support of and opposition to the stricter standards on soot released by industrial facilities—including a discussion on the economic and health impacts of the proposal—a majority of Americans continue to support the plan by a large 20-point margin, 56 – 36 percent.

“This poll affirms that the public is sick of soot and wants EPA to set more protective standards,” said Peter Iwanowicz, American Lung Association Assistant Vice President. “The public also does not buy the arguments being made by big polluters and their allies in Congress that this is not the right time to update soot standards and that doing so would be bad for the economy. They believe we can have clean air and a robust economy.”

Key poll findings include:

An overwhelming 81 percent of Democrats favor the proposal, as well as 57 percent of independents; even a plurality of Republicans (48 percent) back the plan.
Voters in every region of the country express strong support for the plan. Nearly three quarters of voters (72 percent) in the Northeastern part of the country favor the proposal, with support from 6-out-of-10 voters in the Southern (60 percent support), Central (59 percent support), and Western regions (61 percent support).
Solid majorities of both men (59 percent) and women (65 percent) support the plan.
African American and Latino voters express high levels of support, with 68 and 73 percent, respectively, who favor the plan. Sixty percent of white voters also support the effort to strengthen soot standards.
“The survey clearly indicates that Americans strongly back the EPA taking action now to limit the amount of soot released by oil refineries, power plants, and other industrial facilities,” said Missy Egelsky, Vice President at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. “In fact, voters overwhelmingly believe that stronger safeguards against air pollution provide reasonable, common sense changes that will protect Americans’ health from the harmful effects of soot.”

The full survey, along with slides and a memo from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research can be found here.

Methodology: These findings are based on a national survey of 942 registered voters conducted for the American Lung Association by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, November 14-18, 2012. The margin of error for results is +/-3.19 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence interval.

About Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner is a global leader in public opinion research and strategic consulting. GQR helps elect progressive candidates in the U.S. and around the world, helps NGOs advance their issues, and helps companies understand their reputations and key audiences.

About the American Lung Association
Now in its second century, the American Lung Association is the leading organization working to save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease. With your generous support, the American Lung Association is “Fighting for Air” through research, education and advocacy. For more information about the American Lung Association, a holder of the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Guide Seal, or to support the work it does, call 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872) or visit www.lung.org.

American Lung Association • 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20004-1725
1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872) • www.Lung.org

Bob Burr (#4006)

Date Submitted: 11/29/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Burr (#4163)

Date Submitted: 12/08/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In you scoping, I ask that you review the studies underlying the enclosed article/link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/5-charts-about-climate-change-that-should-have-you-very-very-worried/265554/ .

With respect to the proposed terminals, I ask that the scoping address two questions;

a.) Does the burning of coal contribute to global climate change? and

b.) Has global climate change reached crisis proportions?

While by a stretch of the imagination and a disregard for future life on earth, I could see Whatcom County and even State Ecology saying "Not my job, Mon.", it would be totally remiss of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to punt on these issues. NATIONAL SECURITY is involved!!!!!

Bob Burr (#8008)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Burr (#8053)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Burr (#9502)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I remind you that Washington code dictates that "the lead agency shall not limit its consideration of a proposal's impacts only to those aspects within its jurisdiction, including local or state boundaries.”

This proposal is potentially the last nail in the coffin for many species including homo sapiens. I respectfully plea with you for the broadest possible scope including the effect on climate change and ocean acidification of the burning of such huge amounts of coal at its final destination. Not including this in the scoping would IMHO be dereliction of duty.

Bob Burr (#9505)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
There will be huge coal piles awaiting transit to Asia at the site. In turn, this will requires huge amounts of watering down to avoid fires and coal dust polluting the land, lungs and aquifers of those in the vicinity. The effects of withdrawing so much of the flow of the Nooksack should be scoped. Please do so. Also, please consider the consequences of potential extreme drought in our area. The climate disaster has already caused this in many parts of the country

Bob Burr (#9518)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In your examination of the contribution of this project to the climate disaster confronting us, I ask you to consider tundra. The tundra biome is huge, covering 15% more of the Earth's surface than all 50 U.S. states combined. Currently, it stores a significant proportion of the Earth's carbon in its permanently frozen soils, keeping it locked away and unable to contribute to the atmosphere's giant pool of greenhouse gases. Tundra thawing and fires caused by escaping methane gas have already begun big time and threaten to dramatically increase with further global warming. Some scientists say that this could extinguish life on earth by as early as 2050.

Do not fiddle while the earth is burning! Scope it! Please,

Bob Burr (#9529)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As you know from your scoping hearings, there is widespread opposition to the burning of coal and the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal.

If the project moves forward, there will no doubt be widespread civil disobedience by many who feel their suggestions were not heeded. There is a widespread belief that We The People are having our voices drowned out by the Corporations who have poiticians "bought and paid for".

Civil disobedience such as blocking coal trains is one thing; ecoterrorism is quite another. I have heard many comments about the potential for accidents on the transporting trains and cargo ships and the environmental damage that would wreak. Those possibilities must certainly be scoped. I also ask that you scope the potential for intentional derailments or even greater malicious acts. Our country and state is filled with people who are mad (crazy) and/or mad (angry). Please be particularly sensitive to any points along the transit path where accidents/acts of sabotage could cause the most damage,

Bob Burr (#10151)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please thoroughly read; Turn Down the Heat: Why A 4 C degree Warmer World Must Be Avoided. There is near universal scientific agreement tha "very bad things will happen" unless policy is quickly and dramatically changed.Please read this study conducted for the World Bank Also thoroughly read the recent Pricewaterhouse-Coopers study that shows the huge amount of carbon abatement needed to secure the future of our country and pl;anet.

Form your own conclusions. Mine is that the planet is doomed, because special interests will not permit the changes needed. My conclusion on the Gateway Pacific Project,should it be permitted, would become a huge part of the problem, not part of the solution

Bob Butterfield (#82)

Date Submitted: 09/26/2012
Comment:
Dear Sir:

Please see the below article from December 1, 2010, Wall Street Journal, in which they report that 29 percent of the west coast's air pollution comes from China. Surely this will increase if the US ships more coal to China.

I request that the impacts consider the following:

1. Impact of air pollution to the US from China if increased coal shipments are allowed from the west coast.
2. Impact to the Chinese population from increased coal burning from US coal, including toxic mercury releases.
3. Impacts of increased CO2 to climate change due to coal burning including ocean acidification, melting arctic and subarctic ice, sea level change, biodiversity, etc.

Sincerely,

Bob Butterfield

The Wall Street Journal
wsj.com

DECEMBER 1, 2010, 9:30 PM HKT
California Pollution: Made in China?

[IMAGE: http://online.wsj.com/media/crt_pollution_D_20101201082457.jpg]
A Chinese coking factory: How much of this exhaust ends up over Fisherman’s Wharf?
Bloomberg News

In a paper published in the latest issue of the scholarly journal Environmental Science and Technology and picked up by Chemical & Engineering News, a team of geochemists announced that they have developed a method for tracing fine airborne particulate pollution (also known as PM2.5 because the particles are less than 2.5 microns wide) with origins in East Asia by testing for a specific lead isotope, 208Pb, found in greater concentrations in coal and metal ores from the region.
Led by University of California, Berkeley, postdoctoral researcher Stephanie Ewing, the team applied the isotope filter to samples from the San Francisco Bay Area, curious to see how much of northern California’s pollution came from East Asia.
The answer? A lot.
From the Chemical & Engineering News report:
From December 2007 through May 2008, the researchers collected particulate pollution samples from two sites in the San Francisco Bay Area: an urban location, Chabot Observatory, as well as a coastal location, Mt. Tamalpais, where city pollution would be limited. They filtered out the PM2.5 from the samples and measured its lead isotope abundances with multiple-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-ICPMS).
At both sites, levels of 208Pb jumped at the same time between March and May. This isotope spike coincided with the spring, when Asian dust storms are most intense, so the researchers concluded that 208Pb isotopes are a marker for PM2.5 from eastern Asia. When they analyzed data from the entire six-month survey, Ewing and her team found that the median proportion of Asian lead in the PM2.5 was 29%.
The question now is how much of that 29% can be attributed to San Francisco’s penchant for China-made iPhones and iPads?
– Josh Chin. Follow him on Twitter @joshchin

Bob Butterfield (#843)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
Comment:
Dear Sir:

I have seen several estimates of how many jobs the coal terminal will produce locally and I wonder how accurate they are in light of GPS based Precision Automatic Guidance Systems by John Deere's NavCom. Also, Google just announced its driverless car initiative in California and Caterpillar is currently testing mining and other heavy equipment that can be run remotely from anywhere in the world.
It seems likely that the proposed coal terminal will eventually be mostly run remotely by employees that could be living very far from the Pacific Northwest. If this happens the "local jobs" at the proposed coal terminal will be greatly reduced from their original estimates.
What impact will GPS Automatic Guidance Systems have on the proposed coal terminal?
Sincerely,

Bob Butterfield

Bob Butterfield (#1051)

Date Submitted: 10/16/12
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
Dear Sir:
I have seen several estimates of how many jobs the coal terminal will produce locally and I wonder how accurate they are in light of GPS based Precision Automatic Guidance Systems by John Deere's NavCom. Also, Google just announced its driverless car initiative in California and Caterpillar is currently testing mining and other heavy equipment that can be run remotely from anywhere in the world.

It seems likely that the proposed coal terminal will eventually be mostly run remotely by employees that could be living very far from the Pacific Northwest. If this happens the "local jobs" at the proposed coal terminal will be greatly reduced from their original estimates.

What impact will GPS Automatic Guidance Systems have on the proposed coal terminal?

Also, I live near the tracks and if the terminal is built my property value will go down significantly. Will you reimburse me for the difference?

Sincerely,

Bob Butterfield


Bob Butterfield
3403 Bay Road
Ferndale, WA 98248

Bob Butterfield (#1849)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
Comment:
Dear Sir:

As you can see from the below it has been scientifically proven that 29 percent of the west coasts air pollution comes from China.

Some of that air pollution gets driven into the ocean by rain before it reached the US. As a result ocean acidification is increasing because of China burning coal.

Please assess the water quality impacts on salmon fisheries and other marine life in the northwest from China burning US coal from the proposed west coast coal terminals.

Please also assess the air quality impacts on the west coast of the US from China burning coal that is shipped or is proposed to be shipped from the US.

Please see the below article: California Pollution: Made in China?


Sincerely,

Bob Butterfield
Ferndale, WA

• DECEMBER 1, 2010, 9:30 PM HKT
California Pollution: Made in China?
SCIENTISTS HAVE LONG KNOWN THAT POLLUTION AND DUST FROM CHINA TRAVELS OVER THE PACIFIC TO THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. WHAT THEY HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE OUT IS HOW MUCH. UNTIL NOW.

Bloomberg News
A Chinese coking factory: How much of this exhaust ends up over Fisherman’s Wharf?
In a paper published in the latest issue of the scholarly journal Environmental Science and Technology and picked up by Chemical & Engineering News, a team of geochemists announced that they have developed a method for tracing fine airborne particulate pollution (also known as PM2.5 because the particles are less than 2.5 microns wide) with origins in East Asia by testing for a specific lead isotope, 208Pb, found in greater concentrations in coal and metal ores from the region.
Led by University of California, Berkeley, postdoctoral researcher Stephanie Ewing, the team applied the isotope filter to samples from the San Francisco Bay Area, curious to see how much of northern California’s pollution came from East Asia.
The answer? A lot.
From the Chemical & Engineering News report:
From December 2007 through May 2008, the researchers collected particulate pollution samples from two sites in the San Francisco Bay Area: an urban location, Chabot Observatory, as well as a coastal location, Mt. Tamalpais, where city pollution would be limited. They filtered out the PM2.5 from the samples and measured its lead isotope abundances with multiple-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-ICPMS).
At both sites, levels of 208Pb jumped at the same time between March and May. This isotope spike coincided with the spring, when Asian dust storms are most intense, so the researchers concluded that 208Pb isotopes are a marker for PM2.5 from eastern Asia. When they analyzed data from the entire six-month survey, Ewing and her team found that the median proportion of Asian lead in the PM2.5 was 29%.

Bob Butterfield (#2378)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

Dear Sir:

Please assess the negative impact that a west coast coal terminal will have on property values and city and county tax bases within a ten mile radius of the tracks from the coal sources to the proposed coal terminal.

I live a mile from the tracks. I am certain that my property value will go down if the terminal is built. When I retire and sell my home I will loose money that I need to fund my retirement.

The county will also loose money as surely property taxes will decrease for homes and businesses near the tracks.

Please address the loss of income in the EIS from the sale of property to home and business owners, and the reduced tax base to counties and cities all along the track route due to the negative impacts of coal delivery.

Sincerely,

Bob Butterfield
3403 Bay Road, Ferndale, Wa 98248





Bob Butterfield
3403 Bay Road
Ferndale, WA 98248

Bob Butterfield (#2407)

Date Submitted: 11/02/12
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Bob Butterfield (#6444)

Date Submitted: 01/06/13
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
Dear EIS Team

A vast majority of informed scientists say:

Climate change is real.
Climate change is mostly human caused.
Climate change is Very Serious.
There is hope if we take action immediately.

One big impact on climate change is burning coal.

How will the coal shipped from the proposed west coast terminals, when burned, including the one proposed for Whatcom County, impact the US, China and the rest of the world? Assume peak capacity from shipment at the terminals.

Please detail the impacts on air, the ocean and land here in the US and China.

One needs to address the entire picture of coal in the EIS, not just the shipment to Whatcom County. The EIS needs to address the entire picture from mining, to shipment, to burning of coal in China.

Sincerely,
Bob Butterfield
Ferndale, WA

Bob Butterfield (#6456)

Date Submitted: 01/05/13
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
Dear EIS Team:

Greed, environmental ignorance and not examining the whole picture led to the Great Dust Bowl in the Great Plains in the 1930’s.

Not examining the entire impacts of shipping coal to China and its subsequent burning will also lead to negative worldwide impacts.

The EIS needs to study and address in depth the entire process including:

- Mining: impacts on air, ground water, etc.
- Transport to and storage on the west coast
- Shipping to China across the Pacific Ocean
- Transport and storage in China
- Burning U. S. produced coal in China and its impact on the people' health and agricultural resources of China
- Air pollution that will blow back to the US and its impact on the air we breathe and pollution of the land as the air pollution rains down on in the U. S.
- Impacts of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by burning US shipped coal in China, needs to be studied as it relates to climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, salmon health, etc.

I request that the EIS team read a National Geographic article and include it in the EIS Appendix. It is: “World Without Ice,” October 2011, pages 92-109. It describes how rising carbon in the atmosphere about 56 million years ago caused the world’s ice to melt rising the sea level 220 feet above current levels. That source of rising atmospheric carbon is still being studied. However, the rise of atmospheric carbon today can be largely attributed, as the National Geographic article points out, to human activities - burning coal and other fossil fuels.

At peak production how much CO2 will be released into the air? How will this impact the world’s atmosphere? Is there a connection between drought in the Great Plains and burning coal in China? These issues need to be addressed in the EIS.

Please address alternative energy sources that produce less CO2 such as wind, solar, geothermal, harnessing the tides, etc.

Let’s not ignore the history lessons of the past.

The EIS needs to address the entire impacts from digging the coal in the western U. S. to the consequences of burning coal in China and the impacts of atmospheric CO2 increase and air pollution. It is time to connect all the dots, not just look at one small part.

I live a mile from the tracks in the Custer, WA area. I do not support shipping coal to China.

Bob Butterfield
Ferndale, WA

Bob Charles (#4296)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Comment:
Save our coal resources.
We should not sell our resources to CHINA.
Very soon we will all need our coal.
Coal is our natural resource which we will need to exploit in the future.
Do not build the ports.
Do not let the trains run

SAVE OUR COAL FOR US.

Bob Clarence (#2089)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Cook (#7388)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
The scoping process for the subject project should include consideration of all environmental impacts associated with the use of coal as a fuel for the production of energy, since the facility is an integral and necessary sub-part of the system which has evolved for this type of energy production.

In an analogous EIS, the consideration of alternatives for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel (projected to result from operation of nuclear power plants) were an important and controlling aspect of the environmental consequences considered in the licensing of these facilities in the 1970's. Other related "nuclear fuel cycle" impacts such as transportation, mining of uranium and manufacturing of nuclear fuel and reactor components were also considered. In particular the impacts associated with the disposal of fuel could not be determined, since there were no adequate alternatives known for this important environmental problem in the long term.

An analogous situation to the disposal of nuclear waste products exists in the normal use of coal as a utility fuel, since there are no known practical solutions to the management of the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal now and into the indefinite future. However, the implementation of the available but economically impractical solutions should be considered in the EIS process.

In light of this situation impacts identified should be estimated based on this lack of practical management of the carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of coal allowed by the subject facilities, as well as others like it in this country now and projected into the future. It is not logical to permit, license or otherwise condone the development of coal as a fuel for electrical production, when its environmental impacts are widely known, with no known practical mitigation schemes available, when exported to foreign entities outside the legal control of the United States. Such action would be "arbitrary and capricious" in terms of legal considerations for EIS's. This was the deciding concern regarding decisions of an NRC EIS for a reactor plant being licensed in the late 1970's with respect to the issue disposal of spent fuel from the plant as well as plants like it.

In summary a "coal fuel cycle" EIS should be prepared to assess all impacts of this world-wide industry with appropriate estimates of the integrated effects on the global environment. It is not acceptable to considered incremental impacts from a single component of the the system using coal as a fuel without consideration of the system as a whole.

Bob Cook (#8617)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Comment:
The scoping process for the subject project should include consideration of all environmental impacts associated with the use of coal as a fuel for the production of energy, since the facility is an integral and necessary subpart of the system which has evolved for this type of energy production.

In an analogous EIS, the consideration of alternatives for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel (projected to result from operation of nuclear power plants) were an important and controlling aspect of the environmental consequences considered in the licensing of these facilities in the 1970's. Other related "nuclear fuel cycle" impacts such as transportation, mining of uranium and manufacturing of nuclear fuel and reactor components were also considered. In particular the impacts associated with the disposal of fuel could not be determined, since there were no adequate alternatives known for this important environmental problem in the long term.

An analogous situation to the disposal of nuclear waste products exists in the normal use of coal as a utility fuel, since there are no known practical solutions to the management of the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal now and into the indefinite future. However, the implementation of the available but economically impractical solutions should be considered in the EIS process.

In light of this situation impacts identified should be estimated based on this lack of practical management of the carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of coal allowed by the subject facilities, as well as others like it in this country now and projected into the future. It is not logical to permit, license or otherwise condone the development of coal as a fuel for electrical production, when its environmental impacts are widely known, with no known practical mitigation schemes available, when exported to foreign entities outside the legal control of the United States. Such action would be "arbitrary and capricious" in terms of legal considerations for EIS's. This was the deciding concern regarding decisions of an NRC EIS for a reactor plant being licensed in the late 1970's with respect to the issue disposal of spent fuel from the plant as well as plants like it.

In summary a "coal fuel cycle" EIS should be prepared to assess all impacts of this world-wide industry with appropriate estimates of the integrated effects on the global environment. It is not acceptable to considered incremental impacts from a single component of the the system using coal as a fuel without consideration of the system as a whole.

Bob DeNeui (#4675)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Comment:
I am interested to learn the outcome of studies on the adverse effect the coal carrying trains will have on the businesses, economy, various types of transportation, including AmTrak and Sounder trains, car, bus and truck commuters, emergency and delivery vehicle road access, school access, current and future activities of the community, public health and environment, noise and quality of life from it's current status to those presented by coal carrying trains on the greater Marysville, WA community.

Since the railway runs north south through the middle of this area, there is currently no means by which I or the public can circumvent the railroad tracks to move east or west; therefore, I am also interested to know the solution which will be implemented.

I am a Tulalip resident and the businesses, church, activities, and friends live on the opposing side of the rail line, therefore these proposed trains directly impact my life.

I await your impact assessment and solution response,
Sincerely
Bob DeNeui

Bob Findlay (#7457)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Freeauf (#2589)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Gamble (#1749)

Date Submitted: 10/30/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Hicks (#57)

Date Submitted: 09/24/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My home at West North Street in Bellingham is a few blocks from the railroad tracks to be used for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. I work in Mount Vernon, immediately across the street from the same tracks. Therefore, the proposed terminal presents an immediate and serious concern to my family. The proposed terminal would increase daily traffic by eighteen coal trains (nine full, nine empty), each 1 ½ mile long. Please include in your review the study of air quality and health impacts, especially to children and the elderly, resulting from the increase in diesel particulate in the local air due to this increased rail traffic. Thank you.

Bob Hicks (#88)

Date Submitted: 09/26/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The global coal market presents a high level of volatility. For example, coal mining developed in Mongolia could make US imports to China expensively priced and unmarketable. If the subsidiary SSA Marine has formed to build the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal seeks bankruptcy – Whatcom County could be left with the clean up of a closed terminal facility. Please investigate and consider possible mitigation by SSA Marine, including their bonding of likely costs that could result from clean up and necessary management of a closed terminal.

Bob Hicks (#233)

Date Submitted: 10/02/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the impact of emissions of coal dust at the proposed Cherry Point terminal. Sprayed water, which is planned to be used for dust suppression at the proposed site, is only partly effective at reducing such emissions. For example, the Westshore coal terminal, which is in a similar location and is smaller than the proposed terminal, is estimated to emit 715 tons of coal dust emissions annually. This dust has been observed travelling up to five miles from the terminal. Please determine the health impacts to local residents and negative consequences to area businesses. Thank you.

Bob Hicks (#552)

Date Submitted: 10/07/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a Bellingham resident, I am very concerned about the viability of King Salmon as it is vital to our local economy. Please study the impact the proposed Cherry Point terminal on the health and viability of King Salmon. Four hundred or more ships will be used annually based on the forty-eight million tons of coal planned for shipping. Each ship carries more than 100,000 tons of coal. These ships may result in the discharge of coal dust into the marine environment, as well as a host of toxic materials including lead, cadmium, mercury, nickel, tin, antimony, arsenic, strontium and thorium. Coal also contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are toxic to many species of marine life. Thank you for reviewing and considering these comments.

Bob Hicks (#884)

Date Submitted: 10/20/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My home at West North Street in Bellingham is a few blocks from the railroad tracks to be used for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. I work in Mount Vernon, immediately across the street from the same tracks. Therefore, I am well aware of the concerns that the proposed terminal may present. The terminal would increase daily traffic by eighteen coal trains (nine full, nine empty), each 1.5 miles long. Eighteen crossings a day, with each train blocking a crossing for four to ten minutes, would close crossings between approximately one to three hours per day. This level of traffic of trains at grade level crossings presents a significant impact to area businesses adjacent to the tracks and/or whose potential customers would be delayed by such traffic. Ultimately, delays and inconvenience would result in a loss of customers to these businesses. Of course, a more critical concern would be limited access or delays of emergency vehicles while responding to medical, fire and crime related emergencies.

Please include a comprehensive traffic study in your efforts including economic and health/safety impacts.

Thank you.

Bob Hicks (#892)

Date Submitted: 10/21/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a Bellingham resident, I am very concerned about the fragility of area marine ecosystems, including the region potentially impacted by the proposed Cherry Point terminal. The planned terminal will have eighty to a hundred acres of open coal adjacent to an aquatic reserve. This area experiences severe weather, which will result in blown dust and run off in the water. The extent of this impact is unknown. Also, the construction of the terminal and the necessary rail access will also potentially disrupt the marine ecosystem. Especially key is Cherry Point herring, a keystone species whose status is currently fragile. Please study the impact the proposed Cherry Point terminal on the health and viability of Cherry Point herring. Thank you.

Bob Hicks (#1181)

Date Submitted: 10/24/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Although climate change is a global issue, it is clear that local actions can significantly exacerbate climate change’s global, as well as local, impacts, with devastating outcomes to our local economy, health of our citizenry and degradation of our area’s environment. As my family resides in Bellingham, I have a personal stake and responsibility in our community’s response to this developing disaster.

Economic analyses indicates the proposed Cherry Point terminal will further a long term increase in coal consumption in Asia. Providing a cheap and ready supply of coal to the continent will rapidly expand Asia’s coal infrastructure and will create a long-term commitment to the use of this fossil fuel. This commitment will create a firm barrier against China’s progress towards more efficient power generation and usage. And as China and the rest of Asia finds itself stuck with coal for decades to come, so will the rest of the world, including the US and Whatcom County.

Coal produces by far the highest level of greenhouse gases among the major fuel sources we use. Climate experts indicate that atmospheric CO2 must be maintained at 350 ppm over the long term to support civilization as we now experience it. In September 2012, the atmospheric level was at 391 ppm. A massive increase in coal infrastructure in China that will force atmospheric CO2 past the crucial tipping point which collective international action will not be able to remedy, producing overwhelming consequences to Whatcom County’s residents. Please include within the EIS scoping the study of these impacts to our local economy, health of our citizenry and degradation of our area’s outdoors.

Bob Hicks (#3013)

Date Submitted: 11/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a Bellingham resident, I am very concerned about the viability of lingcod fisheries as it is vital to our local economy. Please study the impact the proposed Cherry Point terminal on the health and viability of lingcod. Four hundred or more ships will be used annually based on the forty-eight million tons of coal planned for shipping. Each ship carries more than 100,000 tons of coal. These ships may result in the discharge of coal dust into the marine environment, as well as a host of toxic materials including lead, cadmium, mercury, nickel, tin, antimony, arsenic, strontium and thorium. Coal also contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are toxic to many species of marine life. Thank you for reviewing and considering these comments.

Bob Hicks (#3475)

Date Submitted: 11/28/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a citizen of Bellingham, I am requesting that you study, identify and include within the EIS scoping all public costs that will be likely to occur as a result of the proposed Cherry Point Terminal.

Please include not only expenditures resulting from the terminal’s construction and operation, but also the likely public costs that will result upon the closure of the facility. History has demonstrated that such facilities cost the public much funding after the life of a site – particularly regarding clean up of residual toxins.

Also, there will likely be public expenditures resulting from the terminal in terms of rail and road transport adaptations, increase in the use of public resources (health, education, law enforcement, fire, etc.), mitigation of area wetlands, and prepared response to potential spills.

Please include all of the above costs in the EIS of the proposed terminal with the requirement that the company and its partners provide the funding necessary to fully offset these costs to public funds.

Bob Hicks (#3699)

Date Submitted: 12/02/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a Bellingham resident, I am concerned the proposed Cherry Point terminal will damage the commercial vitality of our community.

Please study the impacts on our local economy of the increased railway traffic involved in coal train transport. In particular, study the impact of:

Noise and emissions that would impact waterfront development including hotels, restaurants, marinas, and other service businesses.

Bellingham is known for its beautiful environment and outdoor living. How would the above damage our growing tourist industry?

Thank you.

Bob Hicks (#4171)

Date Submitted: 12/09/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the impacts of railroad bed erosion resulting from increased railroad traffic required to transport coal shipments to the proposed Cherry Point terminal.

Gravel and silt will increasingly run off into wetlands, streams, rivers and intertidal zones due to these shipments. Particularly note sensitive wetland and stream habitats.

Thank you.

Bob Hicks (#5579)

Date Submitted: 12/30/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please include within the study of the potential Cherry Point terminal the additional risk of oil spills due to the increased traffic of ships transporting coal. This increase marine traffic will increase the risk of a collision with the predicted 200 to 400 annual vessel trips transporting crude oil and petroleum products in the same waterways. This level of traffic was determined through a vessel traffic risk assessment (VTRA). The EIS study VTRA completed for an additional pier at the BP refinery at Cherry Point determined some significant and unacceptable risks of increased tanker traffic. The geographic scope, the impact area for oil spill risk should include all of Puget Sound, southern Canada and areas within the open Pacific where risks of collisions is significantly possible.

Please include in this study the biological species potentially impacted, threatened or endangered in each location from such spills as well as the economic impacts of destruction of commercial salmon harvest, tourism, and other commercial fish.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bob Hicks (#5603)

Date Submitted: 12/31/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In my childhood home in Danville, Il, my family’s back yard butted up against a set of railroad tracks. One summer morning, a train derailed. Thankfully, no one was injured, but our family was relocated for a period of time as the train wreckage increased possibly explosive shipments of gas.

Therefore, I am asking that the study of the proposed terminal at Cherry Point include the possible risk to wildlife, vegetation and human health/safety resulting from potential train derailments. The likelihood of such derailments will increase due to the greatly increased rail traffic delivering coal to the proposal terminal. Please include within this analysis the increased risk across the entire rail route from Wyoming to Cherry Point.

Thank you for considering this request

Bob Hicks (#6565)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In your study of the impacts and possible mitigation of the proposed Cherry Point terminal, please include a comprehensive review of the economic effects to commercial, tribal, and sports salmon fishing resulting from crowding and yielding right of way due to increased large marine vessel traffic that would occur due to the transport from the terminal.

Thank you very much.

Bob Hicks (#6915)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Bellingham, I am requesting that in your study of the impacts of the proposed Cherry Point terminal, please include a comprehensive review of the harmful effects resulting from the increased air pollution, created during transport and during the periods of time vessels are at the terminal, resulting from vessel on-board power, particularly for ships using bunker or other crude fuels. This power generation will pollute the air of the region, and especially downwind in areas such as northern Whatcom County. Attendant contribution to health effects should be scoped, including cumulative increases in asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular problems and other conditions.

Thank you for considering this request.

Bob Hicks (#6917)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bellignham, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Bellingham, I am requesting that your study of the impacts of the proposed Cherry Point terminal please include a comprehensive review of the harmful effects resulting from increased sulfur dioxide emissions in the Georgia Straits basin due to coal vessel traffic. Please include the impacts scoped in terms of regional acidification of all forms of precipitation, particularly on the alpine lakes and soils and other environments of the Cascades, Vancouver Island, and the Canadian Fraser and coastal mountains, where air patterns would deposit them. I, like many local residents, spend significant amounts of times in these areas and am well aware of their crucial contributions to the vitality and health of our area environment. Increased acidification would prove deadly to many of these areas.

Thank you for considering this request.

Bob Hicks (#7127)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingahm, WA
Comment:
In your review of the proposed Cherry Point terminal, please study the risk the increased railway traffic may present to the gas pipe lines that are often parallel or under railroad tracks. I am concerned that the increase of eighteen trains daily, half with heavy coal loads, will result in increased stress on these pipelines, possibly causing a rupture, gas leak or explosion. I live near train transport and signage makes the pipe lines evident in many spots as well as stretches of exposed pipes at bridges.

Thank you for considering this request.

Bob Hicks (#7129)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In your review of the proposed Cherry Point terminal, please study the increased cumulative release into marine environments and wetlands of copper due to increased rail traffic. Please study the potential impacts of rail traffic-generated copper pollution on the local marine and wetland ecosystems.

Copper is an environmental highly toxic contaminant harmful to marine life.

Thank you for considering this request.

Bob Hicks (#7130)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My home at West North Street in Bellingham is a few blocks from the railroad tracks to be used in transport to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. I work in Mount Vernon, immediately across the street from the same tracks. Therefore, the proposed terminal presents an immediate and serious concern to my family. The proposed terminal would increase daily traffic by eighteen coal trains (nine full, nine empty), each 1 ½ mile long. The toxic metals in coal, such as arsenic, can accumulate in soils near the coal trains, resulting in exposure to people and to the environment. Please include in your scoping review such accumulation and impacts to the health of humans, wildlife, wetlands and marine life. Thank you.

Bob Hicks (#7131)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Bellingham, I am concerned regarding the possible cost burden of rail crossing improvements resulting from the increased rail traffic in transport to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. I understand that local communities are generally required to pay for at least 90% of the costs of rail crossing improvements that are needed to deal with the increased train traffic. Please mitigate this unfair local cost burden by requiring the company operating the terminal and its partners to provide the funding upfront that will be necessary to fully offset these current and future costs to public funds. Thank you.

Bob Hicks (#7132)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In your review of the proposed Cherry Point terminal, please include a comprehensive study of the potential impact of increased mud slides and landslides along the full length of railway from the mining area to the proposed terminal. Vibration from the extremely heavy coal trains has the potential to trigger landslides or land subsidence, especially when the ground is saturated. Such slides occur frequently in Washington state, at significant cost of repair and resulting in the delay in transport of crucial items and materials. These delays include economic impacts to businesses delayed in receiving materials necessary to their functions. More importantly, such slides risk harm to human life. Thank you for considering this matter.

Bob Hicks (#7133)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My home at West North Street in Bellingham is a few blocks from the railroad tracks to be used in transport to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. I am concerned that properties near the tracks will decrease in value due to the increased rail traffic resulting from the proposed terminal. Please include a comprehensive review of these impacts to individuals and businesses in your scoping study. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bob Hicks (#7134)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In your review of the proposed Cherry Point terminal, please include a comprehensive study of the potential impact upon Eel grass beds near Cherry Point. Eel grass is a crucial source of habitat for a variety of marine life. Terminal operations and the associated increased vessel traffic will threaten these habitats in a variety of ways including clearing, shade, coal dust, disturbance from ships, and other pollutants. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bob Hicks (#7136)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am writing with a concern about the impact of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal upon the regional Orca population. Not only are these Orca a spectacular form of wildlife to be treasured, they are also a key attraction to tourists drawing visitors to our area. The southern resident Orcas, which are endangered, could be driven to extinction by an oil spill, impacts on their food supply, or other marine impacts. Please include a comprehensive study of this potential impact in your scoping review. Thank you.

Bob Jackson (#5306)

Date Submitted: 12/21/2012
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about many of the same things which have repeatedly been injected into the conversation including the possible negative effects of coal dust on air and water quality across the state. I'm equally concerned about the potential disruption to normal traffic flow that uses at-grade rail crossings to access local businesses, particularly north of Everett through Marysville.

Specifically, I'm concerned about these things in a small, wooded, Everett ravine adjacent to BNSF tracks. This is the Forgotten Creek Natural Area on the western edge of downtown Everett. For 11 years volunteers from the neighborhood have worked to restore this five-acre, city-owned watershed from a virtual dump to a vibrant community asset. Its small creek and wetland are as vulnerable to coal dust contamination as any other waterways along the BNSF route.

The Forgotten Creek Trail winding through the natural area connects the Port Gardner neighborhood of Everett with the Pigeon Creek #1 Beach Trail on Port of Everett property. The two trails are joined together by an at-grade BNSF rail crossing on Bond St. It is open only to pedestrian traffic. Vehicles were prohibited several years ago by an agreement between BNSF and the City of Everett to increase safety by establishing one vehicle overpass at Everett Ave. which eliminated three at-grade crossings. The parties agreed that the Bond St. crossing would remain permanently open to pedestrian traffic.

Since that time the Bond St. crossing has been frequently blocked for lengthy periods of time by idling freight trains. This is particularly true on weekends when more people are apt to use the trails. I am concerned that the addition of many long coal trains per day will increase the frequency and duration of these at-grade blockages.

My request is that you carefully study all of these issues to get a good understanding of their effects on both the natural and the human environment. Thank you for your consideration.

Bob Jarman (#2501)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Lemon (#10857)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
National Security
I am Bob Lemon, Whatcom Co. citizen. I am asking you to consider the consequences of rapidly depleting what is probably our largest and easiest to access domestic energy source, enabling a communist competitor to build an industrial-military complex that could be turned against us.
We have seen this in the past. Through the early part of the 20th century, with oil resources far exceeded demand, oil companies sold raw product worldwide. Japan built an industrial empire on our oil; militarized the industries, and turned on us. Fortunately we still had enough domestic oil remaining to prevail, but it could have been otherwise. The impact of just the Japanese portion of that war on this country was immense. All so that a few Texans and oil executives could become very wealthy.
Please consider the wisdom of depleting our domestic energy resources enabling others to industrialize in directions we cannot control. We can, however, control the resource.
Will Peabody mitigate the next war? Highly unlikely.
The alternative is to save this (Powder River Basin) resource for domestic (strategic) use; we may need it sooner than we think.

Bob Lemon (#10867)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Ocean Acidification
I am Bob Lemon, concerned citizen of Whatcom Co. WA.
Please consider the impact of releasing additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 (from China) to be absorbed into our ocean waters.
Ocean acidification has been a benign academic problem until recently. Now the coastal waters of Oregon and Washington in particular have recently begun to suffer; we are the first to reach the tipping point. Organisms dependent on calcium carbonate shells are not developing as in the past. Commercial oyster growers can no longer use their own stock for reproduction. Salmon food sources are dying in larval stage. The economic impact on an already struggling fisheries and aquaculture industry would be devastating. The environmental impact of such a dramatically altered ocean ecosystem would be hard to predict, but could not possibly benefit humans. Jellyfish have replaced bony fin fish is some localities. Adding more atmospheric CO2 to the ocean will only further cripple if not destroy our coastal economy.
Mitigating an acidified ocean? Highly unlikely. Will Peabody pay for those lost industries?
The easy alternative would be to sequester millions of tons of carbon by leaving the Powder River coal in our ground, reserved for domestic use as needed to produce added value products. Such an idea might allow our resource to last us a hundred or more years while helping to save the oceans and all the benefits they bring us.

Bob Lemon (#10877)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Accelerated Climate Change (Global Warming)
I am Bob Lemon, a concerned citizen of Whatcom Co. WA and a member of a world full of mostly concerned people.
Nearly all of us worldwide are concerned about climate changes we are experiencing. Nearly all scientists agree that climate change is happening, and happening faster than earlier predictions, and is mostly driven by human activity, ie burning of fossil fuels.
If you can accept the above I ask that you look into the economic impact on Washington and the U.S. if our largest energy source becomes atmospheric CO2, overheating North America. The mining industry in the past assured us that the Powder River Basin held a 100 yr domestic supply; perhaps several hundred years if consumption was reduced. Now, with a China market possibility, the rail and shipping industries tell us not to be concerned about their impacts (dust etc)moving coal across the country; it will be a short term disturbance, only 20 years!!
If we are to believe these statements, what would be the impact of releasing a presently sequestered, 200yr CO2 reservoir all in 20 years??
An example of local impact: Presently Washington has the perfect climate for apple (and other fruit) growing. There is no way climate change will avoid apple orchards or the glaciers that irrigate them. I do not want my apple a day to be imported from China. Loss of our leading export will not help anyone, especially those directly engaged in that industry.
Does anyone believe Peabody will mitigate climate change by sequestering all that CO2 they profited from selling? Extremely unlikely.
There is an alternative: We cannot control what China does with their coal. We have an incredibly large amount of (Powder River Basin) carbon already sequestered on our soil. Save it for domestic (strategic) use to be incrementally (300 yr) released as part of value added products. Like we formerly did in the Great Lakes Region for 100 years.

Bob Lemon (#10881)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Marine Invasive Species
I am Bob Lemon, Whatcom Co. concerned citizen.
As ships have gotten larger and faster, invasive species introductions have increased. We all know why; larger amounts of ballast water held for shorter periods of time, released into now warmer Puget Sound Waters.
Please examine whether routinely bringing Cape size ships into the Salish sea will greatly exacerbate an already increasing problem.
Invasive species is not just an academic problem. It is economic; threatening the ecological balance that keeps our fisheries viable. You must include an examination of Japanese ports and their problems and solutions with invasive species; valuable lessons may be learned. Our State agencies appear to be unable to find the funds to monitor, let alone control invasives at present. How will a quantum leap in ballast water volume be managed?
The present management plan suggests water be dumped while at sea, but that is seldom done and not yet enforceable. Could dumping at sea or sterilization ever be accepted by the maritime industry? Ever enforced? Perhaps now is the opportunity for real action on invasives.
Mitigation in the form of extirpation of any introductions should be the minimum requirement for the shipping interests. That is extremely difficult in marine waters so might prompt the shippers to seek the easier alternative.
Alternative: is to employ, rather than dismiss, present or improved methods of exclusion.

Bob Lutz (#3788)

Date Submitted: 12/02/12
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
It is pretty simple: Coal is dirty to find, dirty to mine, dirty to transport and filthy dirty to burn! And at every one of those stages, it permanently damages the environment. We have numerous sources of alternative energy right now, and who knows how many more are out there. But only one planet on which we may put them to use. There is no such thing as "clean coal." Those two words are mutually exclusive of each other. It is time to think outside the mine and move into the future espousing the truth for all and not just the bigger bottom line for a few.

Bob Lutz
13608 NE 72nd Street
Apt. 28
Vancouver, WA 98682-5228
360-241-5050

Bob Lutz (#12484)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

It boils down to this: Coal is dirty to find, dirty to mine, dirty to transport and filthy dirty to burn! By prohibiting this one single project we can begin to send the message that we must move beyond coal.

Bob Mitch (#11291)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I live in the Fairhaven district of Bellingham, about 8 blocks from the railroad tracks.

I feel the EIS for the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point needs to include studies on the following:

1. The projected economic and jobs gain from the Bellingham waterfront development.
2. The projected gain in tourism from the Bellingham waterfront development.
3. The projected loss of suitability of development of the Bellingham waterfront from the additional coal train traffic and sidings.
4. The projected loss of jobs if the Bellingham waterfront redevelopment is scrapped due to lack of suitability because of increased train traffic and sidings.
5. The projected loss of tourism from the additional coal train traffic and sidings.
6. The economic cost and cost of additional pollution from increased vehicle idling while waiting at RR crossings for the additional trains to pass.
7. The costs of delayed access for Customers, Suppliers, and emergency and law enforcement vehicles to the facilities at the foot of Harris Street in Fairhaven to include All American Marine, Fairhaven Shipyard, the Alaska Ferry Terminal, and the small ferry and excursion business that dock there.

Bob Mottram (#13319)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
Gentlemen:

Any Environmental Impact Statement concerning the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point near Bellingham, WA, would be glaringly incomplete without a thorough and careful study of the effect of acid rain coming back to the west coast of the United States and Canada from China. Acid rain damages fisheries, agriculture and quality of life. The source of the acid rain that has damaged so much of the Northeastern U.S. has been coal-fired power plants in the Midwest. The hundreds of millions of tons of coal proposed to be exported through the Gateway Pacific facility to be burned in Chinese power plants each year ultimately will return to us in the atmosphere because of global weather patterns.

The inevitability of this became obvious during the summer of 2012 when wood smoke fouled the atmosphere over Puget Sound for an extended period and weather experts identified its source as forest fires in Siberia. We live on a shrinking planet, and we need to know what the ramifications of coal-burning on such a scale in China would be for OUR environment.

Sincerely,
Bob Mottram
http://www.rvacrosstheusa.com

Bob Mueller (#13068)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Comment:
Why should we send a dangerous (to mine and use) and old-fashioned energy source to a foreign country? Sorta like sending cigarettes to African children, once WE know they are bad for us. Let the industry die. It is a new century.
Bob Mueller

Bob Nichols (#12105)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am a resident of San Juan County, WA. I have lived on Orcas Island for 13 years. My home on the North Shore facing the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal if it were to be built.

This is a sanctuary for NW shorebirds, awesome numbers of Bald Eagles and abundant sea life in healthy tide pools. My children and grandchildren explore the beaches peer through the crystal clear water in awe of the life. It is a quiet healing spot calling me to breathe deep the fresh air and meditate on the beach.

I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

I am especially concerned about the impacts to orca, marine mammals and birds. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:
• How would the noise, pollution and physical presence of the additional huge vessels affect our orca populations (including the endangered Southern Residents)?
• How would construction and operation, including the vessel noise, of the coal port and the continuous transiting of coal ships affect other marine mammals, fish, birds, and the food web that supports them?

Reference the data located at http://www.sanjuans.org/documents/EISReport-OrcasandNoise.pdf

If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.

Sincerely, Bob Nichols

Bob Phillips (#6465)

Date Submitted: 01/04/13
Location: SAndpoint, ID
Comment:
Just think about this bullshit:

USA, a third world country exploited for its natural resources.

Crap scattered all over the land from mine to port.

Overload of the railways and their grade crossings.

Noise, death, clutter.

And all of those dirty combustion products come blowing all over the earth and settling back on USA

And we want to do this to ourselves?

No, we do not want to do this.

Bob Riek (#6123)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I would like to have the noise level investigated especially on the curves along Chuckanut Road and else where. Right now they travel too fast and with the longer trains the screeching is noticeably louder. One way of mitigating this would be to slow the trains down or enforce the speed limit that is already on the tracks. Also, excessive horn blowing by some of the train engineers is a noise problem. We have gates and flashing lights so we don't need so many horn blasts. A quiet zone should be enough for our area and we should not have to pay for it. The railroad should have to pay for it or the coal companies who are making a fortune by destroying our way of life.

Bob Robins (#7664)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bob Spitzer (#12466)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Lake Stevens, WA
Comment:
I see no reason to oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would positively affect my community. The idea that it would increase traffic, pollute our air and water, and harm existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change are false. I urge you to consider the true scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Please approve this issue immediately.

Bob Watters (SSA Marine) (#14357)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Bob Zeigler (#2695)

Date Submitted: 11/11/2012
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
To whom it may concern:

It seems the Gateway Pacific Terminal holds potential for significant site and off site impacts, secondary impacts and cumulative impacts. The Impact statement needs to explore all of these.

A. The Environmental Impact Statement should explore the total carbon footprint from construction and operation of this project:
1. From the burning of this coal at its destination estimated on total tonnage of coal shipped each year from this facility.
2. From the transport of this coal to the site by rail and the transport by ship to destinations where it will be burned.
3. From estimates of traffic delayed with engines running waiting for train to pass along the route from Vancouver to Cherry Point.

To mitigate the impacts what would it take offset this carbon footprint via methods such as acres of trees planted?

If unmitigated what are the impacts to natural environment from added increase in rate of climate change and impacts to natural resources, cultural resources and human health.

B. Estimates of the Risks from routine spills in operation from blown coal dust, coal spilled in accidents and spills of diesel from crashes or spills from increased rail and ship traffic.

1. Estimates of impacts from construction, spills and boat traffic and prop wash on eelgrass and herring and other species such as Chinook Salmon, Bull Trout, Orca's and other federally listed species.

2. Estimates of potential for impacts upon Tribal Cultural resources from Salmon to American three square bullrush to camas along the train and boat route from wind blown coal or spills of coal or oil.

Also the Environmental Impact Statement would need to explore site specific impacts from construction and use to Terrell Creek Wildlife Area and other recreation such as fishing and crabbing in this and other areas.

The Environmental impact Statement needs to explore direct impacts to human health from spilled and wind blown coal dust.

I hope you find these comments helpful,

Sincerely,

Bob Zeigler

Bob & Toni Bailey (#202)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
We strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect our community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. We urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Bob and Toni Bailey (#1356)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect our neighboring community of the San Juan Islands by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Bodie Cabiyo (#12270)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As an environmental scientist, I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Bogdan Kulminski (#10777)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
The efforts to date to protect the Orca whale and other marine life would be seriously reversed with the amount of vessel traffic through the San Juan Islands.

Bohdon Bodnarchuk (#4756)

Date Submitted: 12/14/2012
Comment:
Main objection is the rail noise at crossings, traffic backups, and air and water pollution from coal dust.

Bonita MacPhail (#9372)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Camano Island, WA
Comment:
The proposed Gateway Coal Terminal is a recipe for gradual toxic build-up and well as immediate release of coal dust. The area is too windy to keep adequate control and even when it is not windy, the amount of water needed to control the dust is unsustainable. Block this.

bonnie barker (#7948)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Deming, WA
Comment:
As a mother and as a person who grew up on a dairy farm, I am aware of the devastating effect that intermittent loud noises can have on the sleep patterns of children and on milk production in cattle. I already find the train whistles disturbing, especially at night. While the occational one might be considered nostalgic, a nearly constant barrage of train horns could have a considerably negative effect on human health, including that of developing children. I am requesting that a comprehensive study of the effects of noise pollution at each point where those train whistles will sound, along the route from mine to port, be conducted. It should include the likely effect to human health and to livestock. It should also include the economic consequences that rail noise would have on existing agriculture.

Bonnie Goss (#3443)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Extremely concerned about consequences of over 400 ships in & out of possible new port & RISKS to local fisheries, sea life - possibility of oil spills (BP DISASTER example)

Bonnie Goss (#3444)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Location: Bellingham, CA
Comment:
Concerned about 18 long ( 9 each way mile long) charging though Bellingham each day
WHO is paying for the addition work the exisiting rails will require? What about the cliffs above the tracks that are already decaying & crumbling? The impact on air quality, traffic impedment, NOISE, etc will greatly affect Bellingham's downtown businesses & proposed
waterfront.

The jobs it will ultimately create will be in the health industry to treat all the ill effects of above and more real estate agents as people want to sell their homes & flee the chaos this project will create

Bonnie Goss (#3445)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
HAve been perplexed since SSA initially went into proposed site unauthorized & built road through a protected wetlands to 'Take samples' When confronted "My bad" they claimed slap on wrist & paid a SMALL fine! This is another blatant example of BIG money coming to a small town - bullying spreading out & out lies believeing they can, once again, do as they wish with no little or no to regard environment , local Lummi traditions or true concern for the people who live in this area.

Bonnie GOss (#3446)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Find it interesting that similar ports that have been built expressly to ship coal overseas have not been successful Please explain why Los Angeles, CA CLOSED/shut down - after only 5 years ?!?!?!

And why are places like Portland Tacoma Oregon not interested, in fact, are fighting SSA
to stop this project?

Bonnie Goss (#3447)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It rains most of the year concerned about runoff from 80 acres of toxins seeping underground & the runoff into environment I live in wtaershed We don
t even use weed killer - This is madness - SSA does not care about the permanent damage to our prestine shores, wildlife, sea life, wetlands Their only concern is making more money & moving on.

Bonnie Goss (#3449)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Cherry Point has the unique distinction of being home to herring that are essential to the spring migration of Chinook salmon - tamper with their health and it has a huge riple effect up the food chain to those who make their living fishing ARE WE understanding a few (200 at best) permanent jobs (so much of Cheery Point Will be automated) will destroy so many other careers.

Bonnie GOss (#3450)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The tradeoff of 141 acres of wetlands - to accommate over 45 MILLION tons of coal is a staggering blow to the environment, wildlife & mankind!

Bonnie Goss (#5720)

Date Submitted: 01/02/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Recent editorial in Bellingham Herald highlighted Gov. Gregorio's executive order for research to study ocean acidification , it's affect worldwide & especially on our $270 million shellfish industry! The fate of the smallest marine creatures make up the foundation of an inter-connected food chain that escalates thru salmon, seals & orcas. ,
Virtually the ENTIRE ecosystem is at risk when the pillars of the food chain are threatened by potentially CATASTROPHIC water quality issues.

The proposed coal port proposed by SSA, who have little or no concern for sea life, environmental fall out OR BELLINGHAM ...the Pacific Northwest. In general - raises HUGE RED FLAGS on how this project will have directly contribute to the causes of our oceans acidification. What is wrong with us, as a nation, that we cannot see the harm that we propose dumping into this valuable life source for the sake of the Almighty buck! We should be ashamed!

Bonnie Goss (#5725)

Date Submitted: 01/02/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
The last quarter of 2012 produced multiple mud slides and rock impediments that SHUT DOWN train tracks along the western states. My concern is the future conditions of mile long coal laden trains being STUCK on tracks for days on end. Added to that concern are the compiling numbers of train derailments during the last 12 months nationwide. Adding 18 additional mile long trains coming in & out of western states demands an immense amount of serious study ...what are ramifications of POTENTIAL derailments & day long delays??????

Bonnie Goss (#5728)

Date Submitted: 01/02/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Recently reading several articles on line about China doing massive research into alternate internal fuel sources. Leads one to believe our coal being dragged across country in open transit then shipped aggressively overseas couple turn into a relative short term project leaving communities holding the bag of HUGE expenditures w/out the promised riches for the repayment at the other end.
Think looking into the disaster of the shipping of carol in Los Angeles that was killed short term so history does not repeat itself at Bellingham's expense.

Bonnie Goss (#5949)

Date Submitted: 01/04/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Fri. Jan.4, 2013 yet another article in paper about mudslides between Seattle and Bellingham that has once again caused days of delays in passenger & freight trains. This slide came ONE day after service resumed on the rial lines after a slide on Dec 17th south of Everett that HIT a freight train & DERAILED SEVEN cars!

This is a yearly event. How will this effect the transport of open cars of coal?
WHO is responsible for the damage & the cleanup?
What are the consequences of the delayed trains ??? Backups????

Bonnie Goss (#5952)

Date Submitted: 01/04/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Anchorage Alaska offshore drilling incident...Transoceans to pay $1.4B in Gulf oil spill
When we learn!?! The potential harm to our precious ocean life ( which supports numerous jobs in PNW) the disruption of coastal sealife runoff into salmon streams & breeding areas. AT WHAT COST? Seems YEARS. DECADES of research need to be done before we have our own disaster area here in WA

Bonnie Goss (#5955)

Date Submitted: 01/04/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Extremely disappointed in fact that the proposed gateway pacific terminal site is truly century year old Lummi Nation salmon fishing site and ceremonial site
When do we START honoring ours"word" with these people

The "special precautions" that SSA have taken in past have proven over & over to be a joke...a slap on the wrist... A small fine paid for IRREVERSIBLE damage

Let SSA build this monstrosity in their neighborhood , on their sacred land
BIG $$$$ DOES NOT care about the environment, the wildlife or the people of the region. Let us take a stand for the welfare off all.

Bonnie Hefty (#11719)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Dear Members of the "Scoping" Panel:
It seems so obvious that continuing to encourage the use of fossil fuels is madness.
You have already heard hundreds of the arguments regarding the environmental concerns that are so troubling to those of us who live in the Pacific Northwest, and I will not enumerate them again here. What I must say is that it is my fervent hope that
those of you who have been entrusted to make decisions about this issue act responsibly for the greater good. Please take the first step by insisting that the environmental impact of expanded shipments of coal from the U.S. to China be considered IN ITS ENTIRETY-- from point of origin in Wyoming and Montana, to final destination ---which will probably be in the form of pollution returning to our coast from
China.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Hefty

Bonnie Lawlor (#4319)

Date Submitted: 12/07/12
Location: North Bend, WA
Comment:
Dec 7, 2012

Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology WA

Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology: Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology,

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. It would increase traffic, pollute our air and water, harm small businesses, delay emergency vehicles, and increase hipping traffic and noise. The coal export terminal would also hurt our environment by damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents, and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.
It is imperative that we stop expanding the coal industry which is one of the major contributers to climate change as well as health and pollution issues. The money should be spent on investing in more clean energy forms in the Northwest. It is a question of human values vs .the greed of the coal industry.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Lawlor
14824 439th Pl SE
North Bend, WA 98045-9248
(707) 292-8202

Bonnie Mager (#5509)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Cheney, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bonnie McKinlay (#3173)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Comment:
I have lived in or near Portland, Oregon for most of my adult life. I appreciate the air quality regulations that have come from the EPA. Please study the accumulation of air-borne mercury from Asian coal-fired electrical plants in the Asian and North American continents.

Bonnie McKinlay (#9086)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
Thank you for requesting public comment on the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal/Custer Spur project. I attended both the Vancouver and Seattle Scoping Hearings, but didn't have the opportunity to speak.
My greatest concern with proceeding with the project is the increase in carbon emissions that an expansion in coal exports will bring to the global atmosphere. Here is a link to a related Ted Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pznsPkJy2x8.
Please allow much time for your study of the affects of coal's carbon emissions . This issue trumps all possible economic benefits that may appear to be gained from the development of the GPT.
Thank you,
Bonnie McKinlay

Bonnie McKinlay (#11444)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
In June of 2012, the World Health Organization of the United Nations stated that diesel exhaust is carcinogenic to humans. Here is a link to the report: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42204&Cr=cancer&Cr1. Please open the link and read it. The use of rail in delivering coal from the mines of Montana and Wyoming would vastly increase diesel exposure. Please study the diesel aspect of coal export to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal when considering the EIS.

Bonnie McKinlay (#11453)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
The online January 11, 2013 Scientific American article, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-effort-on-ocean-acidification-needs-focus-on-human-impacts , relates the serious evidence that coal contributes to ocean acidification. I urge you to study this article and add it to your evaluation on the GPT EIS.

Here are two excerpts from the article:

Ocean acidification is an "emerging global problem," according to NOAA. Over the past 250 years, about one third of the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels has ended up in oceans, according to a 2010 study. Over that time, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent, according to the National Research Council.

"Ocean acidification is one of the greatest threats to marine life and fisheries," said Matthew Huelsenbeck, a marine scientist at Oceana. "We are encouraged that the Council has suggested communicating this issue to policy makers and the public to increase awareness and hopefully lead to solutions."

The possible connections between coal emissions and acidification of the oceans send up a red flag when considering the viability of the fishing industry and sports fishing---to say nothing of the ecological balance of nature on our planet.

Bonnie McKinlay (#12324)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
The online January 11, 2013 Scientific American article, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-effort-on-ocean-acidification-needs-focus-on-human-impacts , relates the serious evidence that coal contributes to ocean acidification. I urge you to study this article and add it to your evaluation on the GPT EIS.
Here are two excerpts from the article:

Ocean acidification is an "emerging global problem," according to NOAA. Over the past 250 years, about one third of the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels has ended up in oceans, according to a 2010 study. Over that time, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent, according to the National Research Council.

"Ocean acidification is one of the greatest threats to marine life and fisheries," said Matthew Huelsenbeck, a marine scientist at Oceana. "We are encouraged that the Council has suggested communicating this issue to policy makers and the public to increase awareness and hopefully lead to solutions."

The possible connections between coal emissions and acidification of the oceans send up a red flag when considering the viability of the fishing industry and sports fishing---to say nothing of the ecological balance of nature on our planet.

Thank you, Bonnie McKinlay
Portland, OR 97219

In June of 2012, the World Health Organization of the United Nations stated that diesel exhaust is carcinogenic to humans. Here is a link to the report: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42204&Cr=cancer&Cr1. Please open the link and read it. The use of rail in delivering coal from the mines of Montana and Wyoming would vastly increase diesel exposure. Please study the diesel aspect of coal export to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal when considering the EIS.

Thank you, Bonnie McKinlay
Portland, OR 97219

Recently, the American Lung Association declared that coal use in energy production is a serious health concern. Here is a link to their study referenced in March 2011: http://www.lung.org/about-us/our-impact/top-stories/toxic-air-coal-fired-power-plants.html . With the proposed expansion of coal transport from the Powder River Basin to the Gateway Pacific Terminal and subsequent burning in Asia, my concern lies with all lifeforms exposed to air pollution from coal. Please give serious attention to this issue when evaluating the EIS.

Sincerely, Bonnie McKinlay
Portland, OR 97219

Bonnie Miller (#4750)

Date Submitted: 12/14/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
A recent article about coal loading onto a ship and then an accident where the coal went into the water points out the danger of this happening on a grander scale and the damage that would be done to our coastal waters. Coal dust from the means of digging and transporting is a danger to the clean air that we and our wildlife need in order to stay healthy. The increase in loads of coal to the proposed port increases the impact on the quality of life for all citizens who are subject to the dangers associated with the transport. If we are hoping to maintain our quality of life, we must pay attention to the quality of our natural environment. We need clean air and we need clean water. Coal will not contribute to that necessity and the transportation of that coal only adds more degredation to our health.

Bonnie Olpin (#10248)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bow, Wa
Comment:
I am a care giver for my 90 year old mother and we live on the "other " side of the tracks from both hospitals in the Skagit valley. I am concerned with 38 trains a day(with coal dust flying) that traffic will be detained.

Please do not approve coal terminal to send to More polluting coal to China.

Thank you, Bonnie Olpin

Bonnie Rohrer (#2205)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Bonnie Rohrer (#8753)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Mt Vernon, WA
Comment:
Sirs,
The negative quality of the air in China is one of the reasons I am opposed to this idea. We know that with the jet stream, what is burned in China goes up into the atmosphere and eventually makes its way back to the USA. The fallout from that will be a thousandfold, as children with lung diseases, adults with COPD, the breathing public, will be impacted. In ten years, according to Dr. Dan Kammen the Nobel Peace Prize winner, China will not even be using coal, and where will that leave the terminals and the rail lines? It will take them almost ten years to get them up and in business! It looks to be a failed mission even before it begins!
The noise will be tenfold, as ten times more trains are added to the already noisy mix; the soot that falls from the effluents, will smother the eel grasses, which feed the herring, which feed the already compromised orca whales.
In our town, automobile traffic will be tied up for hours as all the tracks are at grade, and we have to stop for 20 to 30 minutes while a train passes, each time one passes.
We are an innovative country with some of the best minds. Let's put them to use in a more positive and less environmentally damaging way.
Sincerely, Bonnie Rohrer

Bonnie Sewell (#13367)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Troutdale, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively Me, my family, my animals and will affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I moved to this beautiful clean city because of just that, it is has clean air not poisoned by the coal dust, beautiful scenery not poisoned by coal dust and clean water not poisoned by coal dust. This action will forever ruin the landscape and it KILL, Me, my family, my pets, friends and neighbors with poison everything around it forever.
THERE IS NO REASON TO TRANSPORT THIS COAL TO THE PORTLAND AND NORTHWEST AREA, NONE !!! EXCEPT TO MAKE A PROFIT FOR A COMPANY THAT HAS NO INTEREST IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. This product is useless for the USA and will be used in China to further pollute the world.
Why and how could you allow this !!!!!!!!!- DO NO DO IT ! STOP THE COAL TRAINS NOW- WE DON'T WANT THEM HERE OR ANYWHERE- USE COMMON SINCE OR HAVE YOU NO SHAME !!!!!!!!!
I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Bonnieclare Erling (#478)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Normandy Park, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community.

If this proposal would be approved it would increase traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business and delay emergency vehicles. Also shipping traffic and noise would be increased. Aquatic ecosystems would be at risk at the proposed terminal site. The potential for serious shipping accidents and climate change would be increased.

I strongly urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Our quality of live would likely be diminished if this proposal is accepted.

This dangerous proposal is not in keeping with my goals. I believe we need to say a strong NO to this idea in the interest of our neighbors, friends, family and future inhabitants of the Pacific Northwest.

Sincerely,

Bonnieclare Erling

Bosche John (#1914)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Everson, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bourtai Hargrove (#6277)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Boyd Pratt (#2574)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Boyd Pratt (#2584)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brad Braman (#13118)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Bend, OR
Comment:
I strongly support the transport of coal and the construction of the terminal. This will create jobs and contribute to the rebuilding of America.
I urge you to begin as soon as possible. I urge the Sierra Club and any other obstructionist organizations to get out of the way and stop their frivolous antics that are killing this great nation.
Thank you,

Brad Burt (#10736)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I do NOT want coal trains traveling through Washington state to provide coal for countries wo do not agree/abide by or own environemental policies, specifcaly the burning of coal for power plant electricity. We banned it here, we must not allow others to use our state to fill their pockets enabling other countried to pollute the earth and atmosphere.

Brad Conn (#7509)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
I wish that we created a system that uses more Coal Trains. I like them.

Brad Howard (#3506)

Date Submitted: 11/20/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am writing to request inclusion in the Gateway Pacific EIS scoping.

I am concerned about the political impacts of coal exports to the People's Republic of China. Specifically, I am concerned that coal exports may be an element of a communist Chinese mercantilist policy towards the United States. Elements of such a policy may include exerting political influence on American entities and political structures, subsidizing industrial production, and using the United States as a source of raw materials and a market for finished products. It is foreseeable that such a policy would be contrary to the political and economic interests of the United States. Please study if and how the People's Republic of China may be doing these things.

Please also study whether agents of the People's Republic of China are influencing or attempting to influence the political process in the United States, both nationally and at the state and local levels.

When I was a child, I was taught in school that a colony is a country or location dominated by another country that extracts natural resources for use by industry in the dominant country, and which is then used as a captive market for those industrial outputs.

Please study if, by this definition, the People's Republic of China can be understood to be colonizing the United States. If this is so, please study any implications this may have on the political independence of the United States.

Best regards,

Brad Howard
P.O. Box 651
Bellingham, WA 98227

Brad Howard (#3507)

Date Submitted: 11/20/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am writing to ask for an inclusion in the EIS on the proposed Gateway Pacific coal terminal.

I am concerned about the national security implications of exporting natural resources such as coal to the People's Republic of China. This concern takes several forms: first, coal sent abroad would no longer available for use in this country. While that coal may not currently be needed, it is foreseeable that such coal may be needed should the United States need to ramp up industrial production in the event of war or national emergency. Please study the national security implications of such a situation.

Secondly, it is also foreseeable that coal exported to communist China may be used for industrial production of military equipment, such as military aircraft, tanks, naval ships, artillery, and other weapons systems. I am concerned that such weapons could be used against the United States and/or our allies in Asia and elsewhere in the world. Please study the national security implications of this possibility.

The People's Liberation Army owns or controls many Chinese factories and corporations, such as Norinco, a notorious arms manufacturer. I am concerned that coal exported to the People's Republic of China through the Gateway Pacific Terminal may be used for the manufacture of firearms and other weapons by Norinco and other Chinese corporations. It is foreseeable that such firearms and other arms may be exported to enemy nations, terrorist organizations, and criminals in our own country. Please study the impact of coal exported from the United States on communist China's manufacture of weapons for export, and the impact of such weapons on the national security of the United States.

Moreover, it is foreseeable, coal exported to the People's Republic of China may "free-up" other resources for use by entities controlled by the People's LIberation Army. Please study the impacts such an additional availability would have on the national security of the United States.

Best regards,

Brad Howard
P.O. Box 651
Bellingham, WA 98227

Brad Howard (#3508)

Date Submitted: 11/20/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am writing to request that the Gateway Pacific Coal terminal EIS include the following:

I am concerned about the impact of that the proposed coal terminal will have on living wage industrial jobs.

Coal exported to the People's Republic of China will be used in that country for industrial purposes, and will be unavailable for industrial use in the United States. To that extent, it seems that living wage industrial jobs may in a sense be exported with every trainload of coal.

Please study the economic impact on American industry of coal exports to the People's Republic of China.

Best regards,

Brad Howard
P.O. Box 651
Bellingham, WA 98227

Brad Howard (#3509)

Date Submitted: 11/20/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of the Columbia Neighborhood in Bellingham and am writing to request a scoping of Coal Terminal operations.

My home is approximately 3 block from the BNSF railroad tracks. I am concerned about the impact of train whistles and other train noise on the ability to get regular, uninterrupted sleep at night.

Regular, uninterrupted sleep is important to human mental and physical health because people need to go through all of the various stages of sleep in order for sleep to serve its purpose. When sleep is interrupted and people are unable to go through all stages of sleep, mental function is impaired.

Existing trains already wake me up at various times throughout the late night and early morning (3:00am-5:00am) hours. If rail traffic increases as a result of the terminal, it is foreseeable that train whistles and other train noise will occur at other hours, and more frequently. It is therefore also foreseeable that increased rail traffic may have an negative impact on the ability of city and county residents to get regular, uninterrupted sleep at night.

I would like the EIS to consider the effects taking no action to address this concern.

As an alternative, I also ask that the EIS to consider the impacts of mitigation on the taxpayers of the city and county. As I understand current laws and regulations, municipalities that wish to have quiet (whistle-free) zones are required to pay to upgrade railroad crossings. I am concerned that this may amount to an indirect subsidy of the railroad company. Please also study this when considering the impacts of any quiet zone mitigation.

Best regards,

Brad Howard
P.O. Box 615
Bellingham, WA 98227

Brad Owens (#11334)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
EIS Scoping Meeting
Gateway Pacific Terminal

Intro: Brad G Owens, President of the Northwest Washington Building &
Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. Our Council represents approximately 7000 construction workers in Whatcom, Skagit, and Snohomish Counties. I am a 50+ year resident of Bellingham and Whatcom County.

Our Council is about putting people to work as well as being good stewards of our environment.

We would like the Socio-Economic effects of this project studied with equal consideration as the environmental concerns.

Please consider the following related to construction:
• 30% plus unemployment in the local construction industry.
• Approximate two year construction period.
• Approximately full time 3500 direct and indirect jobs @ half capacity
• Approximately full time 4400 direct and indirect jobs @ full capacity
• State and local tax impact over 2 years approx. $92 million dollars
• Total direct, indirect, and induced full time payroll over 2 years approx. $349 million dollars

Please consider the following related to ongoing operations:
• The family wage jobs in our community have been seriously eroded with the closure of Georgia Pacific and the decline of our economy.
• Approximately 860 full time direct and indirect jobs @ half capacity
• Approximately 1250 full time direct and indirect jobs @ full capacity
• State and local tax impact annually approx. $11 million dollars
• Average annual salary of a direct terminal employee $95K - $100K

Please consider positive impacts of the revenue put back into the community by this project.
• Wages, Benefits, Health care, for both direct and indirect workers.
• Money going towards safety in the community via Fire and Law enforcement agencies.
• Infrastructure improvements
• Profits earned by Local business

Brad Peterson (#6724)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Location: Casper, WY
Comment:
Dear Mr. Perry:

Open the ports!
Gain good jobs!
Sell to rduce deficit!
Brad Peterson

brad stoller (#8821)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
I think it essential that the impact of mining, transporting and the burning of coal - given the current concerns, and evidence of global warming - be thoroughly studied and evaluated in this context. Newer, cleaner technologies offer great energy potential, and fiscal opportunity to the country and our workers...

thank you,

brad stoller

Brad Warren (#10458)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I am writing in support of the Dept. of Ecology's request that analysis of this project should include an EIS. Specifically, this analysis should carefully consider cumulative impacts throughout the lifecycle of the coal, including the environmental and economic consequences of combustion and the ultimate deposition of resulting emissions into the North Pacific and other oceans. Those emissions place many thousands of jobs at risk in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, jeopardizing fisheries and aquaculture by fundamentally changing ocean chemistry in this region.

Coal stored in-situ in the ground performs an important sequestration service, which has benefited our society. By storing vast quantities of carbon originally removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesizers, coal has helped to provide the stable, generally favorable climate and the productive oceans that have allowed human civilization to thrive spectacularly since the Ice Ages, notably here in the coastal Pacific Northwest.

Removal and combustion of this coal lofts its carbon content into the atmosphere. More than one fourth of the resulting CO2 emissions are then absorbed by the ocean. Combustion of coal in Asia produces a well documented plume of deposition of CO2 and other substances, much of it into the North Pacific. The Pacific Subarctic Current then carries this CO2 back to the Pacific Northwest. Ocean acidification caused by CO2 emissions has already reached levels that undercut productivity of many shellfish species. This problem last year led to the creation of Washington's Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification, on which I served.

Analysis of this project should explicitly include a careful look at the risk to fisheries and marine ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska and British Columbia (a major contributor to seafood trade flows and consumption in Washington) that could result from combustion of coal shipped to Asia through the proposed facilities.

The scientific literature on ocean acidification is a strong resource for this analysis. The Washington Blue Ribbon Panel's report on Ocean Acidification represents one good place to start, providing a review of regional impacts and underlying processes. It is available here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/marine/oa/panel.html

Another very important reference in this field is "Rapid Progression of Ocean Acidification in the California Current System," by Gruber et al 2012, in Science Express, the online form of Science Magazine, 14 June, 2012. This article details modeled projections of severe changes in the chemistry of the West Coast's California Current system in the coming decades, if CO2 emissions continue to grow. The consequences for seafood production, fishery-related employment (including tourism), and marine ecosystems in this region would likely be serious. These potential consequences should be carefully reviewed in the analysis of the proposed coal shipment terminal and similar facilities.

Sincerely,
Brad Warren
Seattle WA

Bradford Little (#13202)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Furthermore, we will be first mining, then shipping away a natural filter for the earth. Instead of it acting as a filter for harmful toxins, its used to create more noxious toxins for all.

Nobody wins. We have brilliant minds that can do much better for our Earth and its inhabitants worldwide.

Bradley Smith (#1722)

Date Submitted: 10/24/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brady Davis (#4141)

Date Submitted: 12/07/2012
Comment:
My name is Brady Davis, and I am a resident of Bellingham, WA. I have lived in Bellingham since 2004 and have seen a lot of healthy developments and growth in this community. However I moved here and stayed here because of a strong focus and affinity for our natural environment. I have two children and multiple animals and as a parent to both my children and animals I am extremely concerned with the effect the coal trains could have on our health and livelihood. There are so many wonderful parks and beaches that I would no longer visit based on fear of potential health hazards.

I strongly request that GPT's EIS study the potential economic costs and risks that the project presents for Whatcom County. Specifically, please identify the current businesses and as importantly local parks that this would harm. Also think about and study the impact on water, local wildlife and sea life as I am sure it would be significant. There are potential significant impacts on traffic and that will have potential negative impact on our ability to recruit businesses to our area.

There is a well documented train bottleneck between Bow and Ferndale that must be resolved for GPT to operate. It is critical that the new rail infrastructure needed in Whatcom County for GPT is included in the EIS, as GPT's local impact cannot be adequately studied without this information.

Thank You
Brady Davis

Brady Mayson (#1823)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Custer, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brady Mayson (#9140)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Comment:
I have lived and worked in Whatcom County for 22 years. I strongly oppose the Gateway Pacific Terminal and feel it is very shortsighted to believe there will be any economic gains from this project. I am sure people felt the same way about the Hanford reactor,way back when, and we know how that turned out. This project will continue to drain our already stressed tax base because of the increased demand on our infastructure. We just have to look at how these giant coal terminals effected the citizens of rural Australia and the lack of any economic gain for those communities. We have an organic farm that borders the Custer spur and we would like to keep it in the family for generations. We have completed stream restoration on two tributaries of California Creek, Tarte Creek and Cambell Creek which are part of the Drayton Harbor watershed. These and thousands of other waterways are being crossed by the railway here in Washington and I would like the EIS to study the impact of coal dust continuely being deposited into the waterways and how the contamination of these fragile eco systems with mercury,cadmium, uranium and other elements in coal dust. How can one mitigate this situation? How can you mitigate an organic farm that is next to the tracks? Will the certification of organic farms near the tracks still be valid? I would the EIS to address these questions.


Regards
Brady Mayson

Brady Mayson (#9462)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Comment:
I am a resident of Custer Washington and have been for 22 years. I strongly oppose the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and the expansion of the Custer Spur rail tracks. I am very concerned about the effects of the coal dust and the increased diesel particulate matter on my 3 year old daughter and all of the people of Washington State. I request that the EIS determine how many excess deaths and hospitalizations would be expected across the entire State of Washington and the costs to the state from the effects of the coal dust and diesel particulate matter associated with diesel locomotion and ships from the Gateway Pacific Terminal.

Regards
Brady Mayson

Brady Mayson (#9694)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
My name is Brady Mayson and I am a long time resident of Custer Washington, I am strongly opposed to the Gateway Pacific Terminal and the expansion of the Custer spur track. I request the EIS comprehensively study the enviromental and economic impact that will take place if the Gateway Pacific Terminal is allowed to pump 1.9 billion gallons of water out of the Nooksack River. With the effects of global warming on glaciers the EIS should also study how drawning this 1.9 billion gallons will effect the salmon and other species in the summer months when the GPT dust suppression is at it's peak. Also if GPT is using 1.9 Billion where is the water going to come from for future development in Ferndale or is there an assumption that Ferndale will stop growing because no one will want to live there because of the GPT. I request that the EIS put a dollar value on the loss in property values, loss of future development in Ferndale because of the lack of water that will result from the GPT using the 1.9 Billion gallons per year.

Brady Mayson (#10098)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I live in Custer Washington and have an organic farm that we would like to pass on to our kids. I strongly oppose the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and the expansion of the Custer Spur railway tracks. I have been struggling to write a letter about the larger picture of this project in relation to global warming. I was fortunate in finding a letter that eloquently stated everything I wanted to say and is backed up with the legal arguement. If what is stated below is the basis for our law this project should never legally happen......
“Coal is the highest carbon emitter of the major fossil fuels....Scientists say emissions must peak within the next five years if the worst effects of global warming are to be avoided.” (Fiona Harvey, The Guardian, October 28, 2012)

“If the countries of the world continue burning coal the way they do today, it will be impossible to achieve the reductions in carbon emissions needed to have a reasonable chance of preventing the worst consequences of global warming.” (Union of Concerned Scientists, Options for Coal Around the World, May 1, 2009)

Please include in the scope of the EIS various statutes that fall under the category of the public trust doctrine. Under SEPA and NEPA federal and state agencies have an obligation to consider the broader implications of the GPT including climate change impacts. For example:

From SEPA: “The agency perspective should be that each generation is, in effect, a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal.” SEPA, WAC sec. 197-11-440(5)(c)(vii)

Therefore, through a cumulative analysis for the proposed GPT, determine the total amount of CO2 emissions that would result from the mining, transport by rail, export by cargo ship, and burning of 48 million tons of Powder River Basin coal over the life of the project. How will all these emissions impact and accelerate climate changes in Washington state? In particular, what will be the impacts on the glaciers of the North Cascades, on ocean acidification that is detrimental to marine ecosystems and shellfish, on precipitation that contributes to river and stream flow in the summer months that is crucial to salmon and agriculture?

What are the projections for extreme weather events in Washington that may increase due to the possible burning of coal that might be exported from Cherry Point and Longview? What would be the projected economic impacts due to climate change induced extreme weather events like landslides in the winter due to greater than normal precipitation or drought in the summer due to a decrease in precipitation in our state?

How much would the burning of the Powder River Basin coal in Asia that is proposed to be exported from both Cherry Point and the Longview Terminal offset the goals established by Washington State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as adopted by our state legislature in 2008?
“Washington State adopted greenhouse gas reduction standards via legislation adopted in 2008. (RCW 70.235.070(1)(a). The statute establishes that by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels. By 2035, GHG emissions are to be 25 percent below 1990 levels and by 2050, they are to be 50 percent below 1990 levels.” (James Wells, Don’t Pee In The Pool!, January 5, 2013)

In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, what are the health impacts from the mercury and other air pollutants that comes across the Pacific ocean from coal burning power plants in Asia? Levels of those pollutants can be detected now in our glaciers and waterways. How much worse would it be over the life of GPT if that terminal is permitted? How much worse would it be if both the GPT and the terminal at Longview are permitted?

Finally, please do a rigorous cumulative analysis of CO2 emissions from the GPT as well as the four other coal export terminals that are being proposed in Washington and Oregon. What would be the overall climate change effects due to burning approximately 150 million tons of coal over the life of the proposed export terminals?

What would be the climate change, economic, human health, and ecosystem benefits if Powder River Basin coal is not mined, transported by rail, exported by cargo ships, and burned in power plants in Asia? I would like a comparative analysis that clearly shows the detriments of the coal export terminal proposals if they are allowed and the overall benefits to people in Washington and Oregon if the five proposed terminals are not permitted.

We must not foreclose future options for our children and grandchildren by accommodating increases in coal burning in Asia or any other place on the planet. It is the responsibility of our generation to take the lead in transitioning away from coal burning and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions and toward clean, renewable energy sources. Time is of the essence.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz recently announced that he believes climate change is the most important issue facing the U.S. economy today. Certainly, climate change is serious global issue, but how exactly will it affect the U.S. economy? What follows are some statistics on climate change's impact on the U.S. economy, gathered primarily from non-governmental organizations that deal with climate-change issues.
•Climate change is projected to cost the average U.S. household $1,250 per year by 2020, $1,800 per year by 2040 and $2,750 per year by 2080.

•Climate change will likely cost the U.S. economy $3.8 billion per year by 2020, $6.5 billion per year by 2040 and $12.9 billion by 2080.


•The U.S. economy may be held back by 2% of GDP over the next 20 years because of climate change.


•Failure to act on climate change already costs the world economy 1.2 trillion dollars in lost prosperity each year, according to one study.


•Lost prosperity associated with rising temperatures and carbon-related pollution could double costs to 3.2% of world GDP by 2030.


•Climate change is a leading global cause of death, responsible for an estimated 5 million deaths each year.


•From 1980 through 2011, U.S. weather disasters caused losses of $1.06 trillion.


•In 2011, the United States broke the record for the most billion-dollar weather disasters in a year.


•Due to climate change, the timber industry is expected to suffer from an increased prevalence of pests, slower growth rates for trees and more frequent wildfires, resulting in a decrease in revenue of $1 billion to $2 billion per year.

I believe that the government has a legal responsibility to study the enviromental and economic effects of burning the coal we export. There is no skirting who will be responsible for supplying the coal.

Regards
Brady Mayson

Braedin Quigley (#3181)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brandee Era-Miller (#1055)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

I work in the environmental field and know first hand that the majority of mercury pollution in our state comes from coal burning in China and Asia. Sure, the U.S. gets money for our coal, but at what cost? Please consider our environment and the future for our children.

Thank you,
Brandee




Brandee Era-Miller
413 Central St NE
Olympia, WA 98506

Brandon Felver (#7415)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Centralia, WA
Comment:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed coal exports through our beautiful state. I am by no means an economic export nor am I an environmentalist. I do have a strong sense of pride for the northwest and our commitment to the land and resources that sustain us. I urge you to please find a way of preventing our state from unsustainable practices by opposing coal exports.

Brandon Felver
317 Latona St.
Centralia,Wa 98531

Brandon Overdorff (#5506)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brant Johnson (#2976)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brayton Ruffcorn (#11058)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I am a full time student that also works full time in the Bellingham area. My purpose for writing is to determine the impact coal dust would have on the environment.
SSA Marine’s plan is to build a coal terminal with a capacity to hold 54 million metric tons of material. A deal with Peobody Coal to ship 24 million metric tons of coal through the Cherry Point Terminal would require at least nine full loaded 1.5 mile long trains to travel through Bellingham daily. These 15,000 ton trains will lose 3% of it’s cargo as coal dust spread from the Powder River Basin, located in southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming, to it’s destination. That averages out to 1.78 million tons per year.
I would like what kinds of effects this loose coal dust would have on the environment and city of Bellingham in general. If there is no way to mitigate the amount of coal dust to near zero, there is no way I could support the GPT.

A non-environmental aspect I would like scoped:
The purpose to build a coal terminal on the west coast of “world class proportions” is to get a foothold into the international Pacific Rim coal market, specifically India and China. China’s increasing need for energy is so vast, it is having a new power plant built every week to keep up with the demands.
Before we immediately assume the US should jump on this coal train bandwagon, we must understand why the last two coal terminals built on the west coast failed (in the Port of Portland and the Port of Los Angeles) and why the proposed Cherry Point coal terminal would not. The LA terminal failed to survive because it did not meet the minimum annual guarantee required by the Port of Los Angeles. The coal terminal in Portland was built in the 1980s to take advantage of the growing market for coal in Asia. Sound familiar? Two years after the coal terminal was built, it shut down after the supposed buyers of coal “proved unstable, unreliable, and not-so-hungry”. After a five month investigation, it was determined that officials in charge of the Portland coal terminal went ahead with the construction “despite clear warnings they might never move a solitary lump of coal”. Why would I support a business venture that has many different harmful effects on my life and environment with little to no upside for me or people I care about while potentially creating a monstrosity of a terminal site that could shut down after just two years?

http://www.coalage.com/index.php/features/763-building-a-coal-terminal-on-the-west-coast.htmlhttp://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/issues/china/
http://columbiariverkeeper.org/our-work/coal-export/coal-export-a-history-of-failure/
http://www.re-sources.org/gpt/the-impacts

Breanna Sutton (#7716)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Lacey, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Bree Stevens (#13187)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Florence, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. In a time where enviromental polution is starting to effect heath world-wide, we should be down-sizing coal production & export; NOT increasing it. This proposal would negatively affect communites along the entire transport route: by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, as well as damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site.

I urge you to consider all of these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Brenda Bailey (#1048)

Date Submitted: 10/17/12
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site and downsound, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

I am terrified by what I know of coal; much of it first hand. I grew up in PA and had friends from coal country in the Appalachians. I watched mountaintops be destroyed and their fathers sicken and die from black lung. I watched the hopelessness of these teens and had direct experience with the effects - high drug, overdose, and suicide rate. I talked with these people and they all shared with me this hopelessness, resignation, and despair.

Now, I think of these precious Puget Sound and Pacific waters and all life contained in them. I know how tremendously flammable coal is; so combustible, you can't even cover it! It's a known fact that coal dust settles to the ocean floor and kills sea life. Then there's breathing second-hand coal dust from China (!) while I battle asthma. Asthma from these kinds of pollution is on the rise.

No amount of money made by the few in the coal industry is worth the risk to our planet, in every way, from every aspect of coal production. It's time to stop letting coal (and oil) lobbyists buy our politics and stop this abomination. The Army Corps can stop this before it goes any further. Please do so and save our planet.


Brenda Bailey
po box 656
Eastsound, WA 98245

Brenda Bailey (#7425)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to make scoping comments.

I am a 32 year resident of Orcas Island. Like many who live here, I cherish our natural environment's richness and its diversity. Tourism is our main industry. People come from all over the world to watch wildlife, breathe the air that is cleaner than in the city, and observe the natural beauty. We draw many eco-tourists and scientists who want to study our varied marine species. Camp Orkila brings in thousands of urban kids and gives them eco-tourism experiences that they remember for a lifetime. You're already aware of our abundant (and endangered/protected) wildlife, including resident Orca whales, bald eagles and ospreys, black oystercatchers, harbor seals, river otters, great blue herons, and many marine birds and underwater creatures such as octopuses, and much more. Our ecosystem is part of the greater web of life and the food chain. We don't take that for granted.

Many of us make our full time permanent livelihood from job positions related to stewarding this natural environment, and many of us work outdoors, year round. As a maintenance gardener, I have closely observed, over years, human impacts on our lands and waters. I have especially observed the negative human impacts to forested and sub-scrub wetlands near, or connecting to, marine waters, estuaries, and non-flushing bays such as Fishing Bay. These observations have taken place over a span of 32 years here.

Due to increased air pollution, even in the semi-clean San Juan Islands, I have developed asthma, which has become so much worse in the past several years that breathing is laborious and I cough constantly. Many days, I cannot even be outdoors to do the work that I have done, and loved, for over 30 years. The ensuing depression from the economic impacts and impacts to my soul, impacts me greatly, and I have had to deal with mental health issues as a result of my respiratory limitations and now, forced separation from the Nature i have loved my whole life. I don't know any other way of life than gardening and working outdoors, and I am untrained and inexperienced at anything else.

We get a lot of air inversions here, which traps the pollution and we must breathe bad air. We also get a lot of high winds, which blow particulates and pollution toward us and into our noses, eyes, lungs, and other mucus membranes. I now frequently get respiratory infections, despite a good diet. I attribute it to the degraded air quality, and much of that blows over to us from Bellingham and points north. Bellingham often has a layer of brown haze over it. The Cherry Point Coal Terminal expansion will exponentially increase these negative impacts. I do not want to die of COPD, due to breathing coal dust and coal burn from China, and diesel fumes from the cape ships and oil tankers.

This comment specifically addresses air quality and air pollution from burning coal, from diesel fumes emanating from both trains and cape ships, and particulate matter that drifts in air currents from existing and proposed coal terminals, cape ships, and railways.

Given the recent world headline news about the air pollution crisis in China, I am greatly concerned, since we will be receiving that air pollution here on the west coast of the USA. Much of China's pollution is caused by the burning of coal; not just by auto emissions and factories. It's known that air pollution causes heart and lung disease and earlier death. Many of the Chinese factories are coal-powered. I fail to fathom how transporting coal great distances by train and then shipping it to China is even an option - for the Chinese people who must breathe this disaster, or for us! So few stand to gain (monetarily) from this, and so few permanent jobs will be created; not enough to offset the other myriad negative impacts. those of us who live near the transportation corridor will be the most impacted. The San Juans are unique in that there are many upper-class people who will be impacted along with us lower income folks; but usually, it's lower income people who are impacted. We feel this somewhat on Orcas, where over 50% of the population must live in an "urban growth area" where our air and waters are polluted and negatively impacted.

One of our residents, Michael Riordan, (comment 5517) submitted scoping comments concerning coal dust from ship loading, and the dangers to the Salish Sea. I support, his concerns and recommendations and ask that you use them.

I add that I would like to see studies done on existing and baseline air pollution from coal dust and coal burning, including the residual after burning. What happens to it? Where is it dumped? Who is responsible for the damages?

There was some talk by Gateway about adding a chemical on the coal on the trains and ships (the piles must be open to the air, due to the fact that they are combustible!). What chemical(s) would be used? How toxic are they? Have any short or long term studies been done on these chemicals and their effects on the environment and human health? I request that they be done before any permits are given to use them.

The pollution crisis in China is having grave health impacts on the people there, and who knows what the long term impacts will be. In this latest air pollution spike, which is literally off the chart - over 700! - admissions to hospitals of people with respiratory problems increased by a whopping 30% on one day alone! Please keep in mind that the US Embassy has only been monitoring air quality since 2008. There has never been a reading in the 700s! But even more scary are the cumulative effects of this.

I thank you for this opportunity to comment My requests are as follows:

1) assess the baseline air pollution around nearby coal port terminals and the entire transportation corridor, from both burning coal, train diesel fumes, and particulate coal dust.
2) assess how far fine particulate coal dust can blow in both normal weather conditions and extreme wind conditions, which we have a lot in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and surrounding area, especially in Arctic cold dry air conditions, which blow particulates further, faster.
3) assess how the particulates and smoke affects residents nearby the entire transportation corridor; train tracks, loading stations, terminals - not just in set places far from where people live with these particulates and breathe them in cumulatively, daily.
4) assess the baseline and projected levels for increase in respiratory diseases and illnesses, including increasing rates of respiratory infections, asthma, COPD, and other heart/lung illnesses caused by air pollution, specifically as pertaining to all aspects of the coal export business.
5) assess the economic costs in treating people affected, both for physical diseases and increased psycho-social impacts when quality of life is negatively impacted.
6) determine who will pay for the increase in life threatening diseases caused by air pollution. Will Gateway pay, or the will taxpayers and government be burdened with the costs?
7) also please consider the potential negative economic impacts to our area in Puget Sound, when people will not be able to kayak, whale watch, and do outdoor activities.
8) consider the negative impacts on all affected species (anything which breathes air).

Please build on Michael Riorden's studies, questions, concerns, and recommendations regarding what breathing and ingesting particulates of such things as mercury will do to our health and brains.

If these concerns can't be satisfactorily addressed and truly "mitigated," (I don't believe that they can), I ask that the No Build option be implemented.

I also ask that any studies be done by separate academic entities, not Coal Industry-provided people. Any and all studies done need to be neutral and un-influenced by the industry.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Brenda S. Bailey
Eastsound, WA

Brenda Bailey (#9196)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
Thank you for a chance to make scoping comments. I am a longtime resident of Orcas Island. The San Juan Islands are surrounded by the Salish Sea and contain many small inland waters and non-flushing bays. Our lives, communities, activities, and economies are deeply intertwined with the natural environment that surrounds us. We are just one small piece in the whole interconnected and interdependent Big Picture.

My comment concerns earthquakes and tsunamis that could affect the entire Pacific transportation corridor, including the San Juan Islands and the Salish Sea - since this is the only route for thousands of oil tankers and, if Gateway is built as proposed, cape ships full of coal, headed to Asia for export and mega-profits for Peabody Coal.

Since the entire west coast, from California all the way up the B.C. Coast is in the Pacific "Ring of Fire," some seismologists predict increased chance of "the big one" in our area within the next 50 years (the time during which coal and tar sands exports to China will be taking place.) Many scientists surmise that this quake may be between 8 and 9 on the Richter Scale.

What is Peabody Coal offering, in the way of preparedness for such a scenario? Can any amount of preparation or insufficient safety measures offered by Peabody Coal (and if you look at how Shell is doing in the Arctic, that record does not reassure us!) prepare us for this potentiality, since we have not had anything this large in modern times? All we have for comparison is the 9.0 quake affecting Fukushima Nuclear Plants - and we already know that the Fukushima disaster will poison the planet and all life on it for hundreds, if not many thousands, of years, depending on the chemicals involved and their half-lives. We don't yet know the full extent of Fukushima and the untold damage to life it will bring, since it will be gradual and cannot be adequately measured or cleaned up.

We've had a lot of earthquake activity so far in 2013; a 3.9, and many smaller quakes and temblors in the San Juans, directly following a significant quake - M 7.5 - 94 km west of Craig, Alaska in early January. This is "normal" activity for this region, and scientists expect more geologic activity than previously.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/

Given that cape ships need about 8 miles just to stop after the motor is killed, this is not a reassuring thought. If all the coal to be loaded onto these ships is stored on the shoreline at Cherry Point, doesn't that make Cherry Point, Westport, and all shoreline terminals and their loading trestles particularly vulnerable to tsunamis? What studies and assessments have been done addressing these vulnerabilities? What assessments will be done? Who will do the assessments? I request that all studies and assessments be done by outside academic organizations and not by affiliates or shills of Peabody.

IF an earthquake/tsunami wipes out Cherry Point, Westport, or any other coal terminal at the ocean's edge, dumping an untold number of tons of coal into the sea, who's responsible? Who pays for the significant and irreplaceable loss of life, environment, wetlands, rivers, estuaries, terrestrial and marine plants and wildlife, environmental damage, economic loss, loss of the food chain, health and mental health issues, etc?

IF a cape ship goes down in a tsunami or is forced to crash into something, and if the insufficiently protective single hull hits rocks or reefs and leaks untold amounts of bunker fuel or oil, what then? (same questions as above).

Will Peabody Coal be held accountable for the full monetary and environmental amount of attempts to clean up such damages? Will people be reimbursed for economic ruin to our region? How will it be assured/insured that Peabody doesn't pass these expenses off to governments and taxpayers?

If the coal terminal(s) is not built, and these ships don't come through Rosario Strait, how would the results of these assessments differ? (comparison of build to no-build). I ask that all potential damages from all the chemicals involved in the toxic substances sold to Asia, specifically China, and transported through our Salish Sea, be assessed.

I request that every potentiality be considered. I request that data be collected for all existing damage and health effects on the entire food chain, and potential climate impacts, when earthquakes and tsunamis of this size happen and kill the marine and terreestrial animal, bird, and plant life, and even the phytoplankton on which all life on earth depends.

An assessment and listing of every trace chemical in coal and its particulates, in bunker fuel and its chemicals, in tar sands oils, and their effect on both marine and terrestrial life, needs to be done.

How many ppm it would take to damage or kill this wildlife and the food chain? How wide-ranging would the effects be? How long-term? If widespread, then all the locations affected would need to be assessed, since all locales are interconnected through our waters.

Health effects on all above-mentioned life forms need to be assessed, and results of those assessments compared with what has already happened in other countries and communities when natural disasters of this magnitude occur around toxic and polluting sources, especially oil and coal.

I also ask that you consider the scoping comments of Christopher Greacen, PhD (#2933) http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/2933
and Chom Greacen (#1311) http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/1311
I agree with their comments and request that you include their questions and requests regarding earthquakes and tsunamis. If these things can't be guaranteed, including full financial responsibility by Peabody Coal for any and all damage and loss of life, then the no-build option is the only responsible course to take.

Thank you for your consideration.
Brenda Bailey
Eastsound, WA

Brenda Bailey (#9210)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
My comment concerns shipping accidents and the ensuing potential environmental, economic, and quality of life costs in the event of an accident or collision, including oil spills, bunker fuel spills, and especially coal and coal dust particulate spills (and all the chemicals and toxins contained within both coal and its dust).

Recently, the Cape Ship Apricot crashed into Berth 1 at Westport Terminal.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ship+crashes+into+dock+Westshore+Terminals/7667184/story.html
There is an accompanying video with the article, and ten photos. It sure looks dirty to me, including the waters by the loading berth and you can see the black dust everywhere. An estimated 30 TONS (or about half of a rail car) were spilled. Nothing at all was mentioned about how much coal dust was spilled. Here is what Rick Robeson, who keeps a boat 5 miles downwind from Westport, commented, at the end of the article:
"They say it was a small amount of coal that went into the water, but every day it is being blown into the water, I keep a boat in Point Roberts marina which is 5 miles downwind from Delta Port and I and every other boat owner there know first hand that in a NW wind our decks will be covered in coal, first thing anybody does is hose the coal off before walking around on deck."

I guess you could say that this accident was "lucky" in that only tremendous amounts of coal and dust were spilled into Rosario Strait; no oil or bunker fuel from the single hull was spilled.

(YIKES.)

They have begun rebuilding Berth 1 at Westport and expect to be running coal at full capacity by March 31. http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Westshore+ready+begin+reconstruction+damaged+coal+terminal/7773185/story.html
It says in that article that coal is "inert" and that they may not clean it up, if it causes more environmental harm. (!) Still no mention of coal dust sediment or drift, so I assume there are no plans to clean that up. Also, please not the picture of the damaged loading berth.

My questions/requests are as follows:
1) Given that crashes of this sort are likely to become more commonplace with the much larger number of cape and other carrying ships that will need to pass through the San Juan Islands, what contractual, legally binding written agreements is Peabody/Gateway being held to that would absolutely assure that they will be 100% responsible for all damages, cleanup, and restitution to all affected communities and not try to wiggle out of it on a technicality? Can Peabody ever make up for loss of life, loss of the food chain, loss of our protected species, loss communities' economic balance, loss of our health and mental well being? What amount of mere money would offset those risks?
2) How many actual temporary and "permanent" jobs will be given through the Gateway expansion? Would you please assess how that measures up to jobs already existing in all potentially affected communities, along the transportation route, and all that potentially would be lost if something goes very wrong and there is a major cape ship accident? How do the numbers compare, both in actual jobs and monies that stay in our communities, rather than going to Asia with the coal profiteers?
3) How will spills of this sort affect non-flushing bays, estuaries, and wetland streams connecting with the Salish Sea?
4) Please consider and use the research done by Michael Riordan regarding coal dust loss during loading, especially noting the miniscule amounts that do substantial damage (less than a tablespoon!) and please use all his criteria and requests for determining the potential negative impacts of coal dust, both spilled through accidents and "leaked" through updrafts, wind, and loading. Here is the link to his comments on PDF file:
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/sites/default/files/comment-attachments/pdf/riordan%20LoadingCoal.pdf

Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda Bailey
Eastsound, WA

Brenda Bailey (#10000)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
My comment is about vessel traffic in the narrow passages and inland waters of the San Juan Islands. Given that there are 5 proposals, not just GPT, I ask that the EIS be area-wide and include all potential sites and their interconnected marine sensitive areas, protected species, water quality, traffic risks and hazards for the entire area within the 5 proposals and their surround - not just at the GPT site.

The ocean routes are of particular concern to myself and the residents of the San Juan Islands. Please assess all potentialities, cumulative effects, risks, worst-case scenarios, and please determine all costs of issues affecting human, terrestrial, or marine species and plant health, and determine who will pay for each of these potentialities and risks. Please weigh costs against any financial gain that might be attained by the towns in direct proximity to the Terminals, and consider the balance of the costs to our area's quality o fhuman health (including mental health), marine species and plant health, economic viability, air quality, quality of life, beauty, safety, etc.

What studies have been done on Panamax and Cape ships' ability to steer and stop in narrow straits of our inland waters, full of reefs that can easily destroy a single-hulled ship? The hull of the cape ship that hit Westport loading berth 1 did not hit anything sharp. What if it did? What studies will be done to see the feasibility of introducing 972 more trips per annuum through our waters? What would be the total of vessel traffic increases if you factor in tar sands and other toxics being exported to Asia? How many of them will have to travel through the straits in the San Juans? What training will pilots of these gigantic ships need to have?

If there are plans to expand pipelines specifically for tar sands oil to be transported to the BC coast and Anacortes, and from there, will the tar sands oil also shipped through the waters of the San Juans? How many cape and panamax ships will be added for this purpose? What are the increased risks and cumulative effects of particulates of diesel fuel, noise (affecting marine mammals) and oil leaks or spills from bitumen or other petroleum products?

Please assess all potential and cumulative heavy metals pollution from any particulates and vapors containing them.

Please assess all noise-related negative impacts, not only for resident Orcas, but for humans and other negatively impacted species.

How do diesel fumes affect birds? This area and the whole pacific coast up to the Arctic is a migratory bird flyway. What studies have been done on existing trips' effects on birds, and what studies will be done to include the effects of these increased 972 trips a year at buildout? Does the number 972 include the ships leaving from the sites of the other 4 proposals, especially the ones which will have to navigate through our waters? If not, how many total trips, at buildout, will go through Rosario Strait and our inland waters at buildout of all 5 proposals, should they be approved and permitted?

Please do a comprehensive regional vessel traffic study and predict what happens with the increases in vessel trips and traffic, regarding accidents, spills, and other potential disasters including explosions of flammable materials including coal and coal dust.

If we should run out of potable terrestrial drinking water, and need to build desalinization plants to make drinking water, please study and assess the effects of the toxins, pollution, and bacteria introduced into our waters specifically from cape and panamax vessel traffic, and their effects on our ability to have potable water.

We talk about accidents, spills, and disasters. But what of the every day blowing of coal dust into our waters? What is being monitored and measured of the existing slough-off of dust, oil, and other particulates into our marine waters? What about every day oil leaks? Diesel leaks? Introduction of exotic invasive marine species and plants from Asia? What kind of studies and assessments are being done on immediate and cumulative impacts of the above-mentioned?

Are you considering that most gray whales migrate in June through Unimak pass for their northern migration? What studies and assessments are being done to gauge immediate and cumulative effect on all endangered and protected whales, other marine mammals and birds that use this passage? I ask that you consider the entire marine migration route when considering risks to migrating marine species and birds. Also, please read this link to Aleutial Islands risk assessment, which shows that existing and increased vessel traffic through Unimak Pass is a ticking time bomb for a major oil spill.
http://www.aleutiansriskassessment.com/passing.htm

Please refer to Sanford Olsan's comment on vessel traffic;
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6044

I agree with all of his points, and ask that you consider his requests and questions.

It is my understanding that the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act have some influence decision making. It is also my understanding that Tribal Law supercedes Federal Laws. Have all affected Tribes and Bands been notified and given adequate time to make scoping comments?

If these concerns can't be adequately assessed and addressed, then please choose the no-build option.

Respectfully submitted,
Brenda Bailey
Eastsound, WA

Brenda Bailey (#10010)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I live on Orcas Island and am a longtime professional gardener. My particular area of expertise is plants and I am well aware of what terrestrial invasive plant and animal species can do to destroy ecosystems and the food chain balance.

I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along all rail and marine routes are given due consideration. I request that Unimak Pass also be considered as an important sensitive area of potential cumulative impacts and collisions.

I am especially concerned about increased likelihood and potential consequences of introduction of Asian invasive species from ballast water discharges as well as from organisms attached to the ships.

Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:

What invasive species could be introduced because of the release of ballast water, and how would these species impact the Salish Sea ecosystem?

What invasive species could be introduced as a result of organisms attached to the outside of the ships, and how would these species impact the Salish Sea ecosystem, the food chain, endangered and protective species as well as marine estuaries and salmon-bearing streams?

What will be the cost of the introduction of invasive species on our regional economy (tourism, commercial/recreational fisheries and property values, as well as quality of life including mental and physical health)? What other negative impacts do invasive marine plants and species pose?

What kinds of regular monitoring and attempted control of invasive species are planned? Better still, what kinds of specific and regular preventative measures will be taken, and who will pay for these? How often will samples be taken, at how many sites, and by whom?

I ask that any studies or assessments that are done be from separate academic entities that in no way have any affiliations with the coal or fossil fuel industries.

If there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any and all of these potentially significant impacts, please consider a no-build option.

Sincerely,

Brenda Bailey (#10079)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I am a longtime resident of the San Juan Islands, a professional gardener, and I am concerned about the health of the Salish Sea and all surrounding environments and waters. As well, I am concerned about future survival of planet Earth. I believe that the GPT project and all proposals linked with it are for monetary gain for a few and far too great a cost to the rest of us.

First and foremost, I request that the GPT EIS include not just certain fixed points such as the GPT site, but all affected communites linked with all 5 proposals, and all the populations (human and non-human, terrestrial and marine, genus and species) along the entire transportation route.

I fully stand behind all 10 of Janet Alderton's comments, and ask that you answer all question, requests, and concerns posed by her, including others' comments copied by her.
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/all?created=All&field_name_value=Alderton&field_city_value=Deer+Harbor&field_comment_value=&field_eis_primary_topics_tid=All&field_human_environment_tid=All&field_natural_environment_tid=All&field_eis_process_tid=All

I am especially concerned about these topics:

1) the chemicals that are going to be used on coal to supposedly minimize the escape of fugitive coal dust; both on the open trains and on the cape and panamax ships. Having used surfactants in gardening before I knew better about their cumulative negative impact on amphibians and humans, I would like to see a full assessment on the potential and actual cumulative negative impacts of the chemicals proposed for use, and proposed methods of use. Any species or plant on the Native, protected, and endangered lists should be included in this comprehensive assessment.

2) Economics - I see the economics of this as, profit for a few while the rest of us pay and pay for the "costs."
a) Janet Alderton brings up the issue of "employment density;" what is the specific employment density of the GPT project and the entire transportation corridors, as opposed to those jobs that many humans can do in a small concentrated area (such as a cannery or grocery store)? Please make a comparative assessment on dense vs sparse employment densities in the entire 5-proposal area and all lands and the waters linked between them and the efficiency of low-impact land uses as opposed to high-impact land uses.
b) please compile and total the number of existing jobs of all types in all the affected areas, and compare with the number of jobs that will be offered, both temporarily and "permanently" on the GPT and coal train and shipping routes. How do the numbers compare? How many local jobs and industries will be displaced by these projects, due to the land grab, destruction of natural environments, loss of fishing or tourism-related jobs such as eco-tourism, and other factors such as loss of health from breathing fugitive coal dust and other invisible pollutants?
c) Please assess how much of the profits made by sale of coal to Asia actually goes into the hands of the workers - what percentage?
d) What are the health risks to the GPT & corridor workers, besides the risks to surrounding communities' workers?
e) If a large oil or bunker spill, or another ship collision should occur, what are your projections on how - in what specific ways - this will affect local economies, livelihoods, and the availability of services and food (due to, ie, tourism drop-off if the waters become oil-polluted).
f) How (in what specific ways) will Tribal economies and Tribal fishing rights be affected?

3) Who will pay for the upsurge in diseases and health issues that arise as a result of air pollution, water pollution, and poisoning of our food chain from the GPT project and subsequent shipping of coal and bitumen? Who will pay for loss of tourism and other year-round and seasonal employment?

4) Cumulative release of copper, from coal train trips. Of special concern is fugitive copper in riparian wetland environments, fish bearing streams, estuaries, and in farms and towns along the entire coal train corridor. Please investigate and compile data on where the other 80% of fugitive copper actually goes, and what impact it has cumulatively on plant, bird, amphibian, fish populations, and pollinator populations (bat, bird, and insect) as well as human health issues. As a professional gardener, I know that just a small amount of copper can pollute and even poison soil for many years. This is worrisome, as pertains to the food chain, especially the agricultural industry and mom-and-pop small organic farms; as well as the health of pollinators like bumblebees and honeybees, on which we depend for our food.

5) Fresh and marine water quality: What potential negative impacts will these suffer from:
a) invasive aquatic species?
b) fugitive pollutants and particulates?
c) toxic chemicals and compounds?
d) routine "leakage" of oil, diesel, and other motor poisons from cape and panamax ships?
e) oil, bunker fuel, coal, or bitumen spills in the event of an accident or mishap.

6) Air pollution - I am an asthmatic whose condition is worsening from particulate pollution. I am gravely concerned for my health and that of all creatures along the entire transportation corridor community. Who will pay as more and more of us humans are hospitalized, and more and more species' own respiratory capacites are clogged?

7) Ocean acidification and extinction rate of marine plants and species, terrestrial plants and species, and birds - please include present, projected, and cumulative effects.
a) please study specifically how ocean acidification affects migratory birds all along the flyway.
b) please assess its effects on whales and other cetaceans.
c) please study its effects on extinction of sensitive species.
d) please assess how this affects overall global temperature, and what percentage of climate change comes from oil and coal shipments to Asia from the Pacific Coast (including train corridors as part of the transportation corridor.)

8) Fire and explosion risk: Coal, diesel, and oil are extremely volatile. It is my understanding that both train cars and ships must leave the coal uncovered, due to high risk of explosion/fire. This risk increases with lightning, excessive heat, and collision.
a) What is being done to study the potential and actual risks to safety and biodiversity in the event of an explosion?
b) What effect would burning of these volatiles and all else that gets burned, have on the air, water, and human and non human health?
c) What impacts would flying chunks of burning debris have on terrestrial and marine life? If the explosion happens along the train route, what risk is there of wildfires in our very dry summers?
d) how toxic is the smoke, both short and long term? What exactly are the risks of ingesting it?

I ask that all data be compiled by separate academic sources and that they not be done by paid or other affiliates of Peabody Energy or other fossil fuel industry corporations.

What guarantees will Peabody Energy give that they ever can, or will, abide by strictest safety standards, clean up, "mitigate" or restore damages to pre-GPT levels from the potential cumulative impacts of "business as usual" alone - let alone a catastrophe?

If legally binding, unbreakable, no-loopholes guarantees can't be obtained by Peabody et-al, for all points raised by all the citizens who comment with concerns about negative impacts, then a no-build option is paramount in order to save our Salish Sea, and the planet.

Respectfully submitted,
Brenda Bailey
Eastsound, WA

Brenda Bailey (#11152)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I'm not sure where my comment fits but I guess under "other human environment" topic. I notice that economics is not considered as a topic in the GPT EIS, and I think it needs to be, in order to gain a fair estimate not only of how many high-impact jobs will be created vs how many more low-impact jobs displaced, especially in the event of an ecological disaster; but also to guarantee that those responsible for the damage or lack of adequate safety measures be held responsible and liable. I comment on these things in hopes that if enough of us comment on them, you will look at how economics are an extremely important consideration in a full-scope EIS, and cannot be separated out from the rest of the impacts when we ask, "who pays?"

Any requests given, I ask that they be for all 5 proposals - that the entire linked areas be considered as one contiguous whole. I also ask that any marine waterways with reefs, rocks, or narrow inlets, or that are breeding grounds for protected and endangered species be considered - even as far away as Unimak pass, (which harbors migrating whales in the summer.) when it comes to determining costs for cleanup of a large scale disaster.

My concern is about SSA Marine, a subsidiary of Carrix Inc, which runs terminal operations. SSA Marine has, in turn, made a subsidiary with NO ASSETS called Pacific International Terminals (PIT). I am not sure which of these are LLCs or exempt from paying anything, should they declare bankruptcy. This is alarming, because, from my experience as an environmental activist, time and time again I have seen these corporations and their myriad LLCs weasel out of any kind of environmental restitution from damages they cause, including paying for it. They just shift the monies into foreign bank accounts or play the LLC shell game. Accountability and responsibility must be required of them all, and must be legally binding.

Adding to this concern is the fact that Carrix is 51% owned by the Hemingway family (CEO Jon Hemingway), and 49% by Goldman Sachs! http://www.ssamarine.com/company/executive_bios/bio_Hemingway.html

I suggest you look into all SEC records about Goldman Sachs and any other corporations and LLCs associated with Gateway and the other coal, oil, and tar sands proposals. Here is a link on Sourcewatch about Goldman Sachs. See # 5 under "other controversies" to read what specifically they are doing regarding Coal. Sourcewatch says: "In November 2011, Goldman Sachs was listed as the number 11 top global financier of coal-fired power plants in a report complied by various environmental groups entitled, Bankrolling Climate Change: A Look into the Portfolios of the World's Largest Banks. The report noted that Goldman Sachs spent $5,392 million euros on coal plants around the world since 2005.[100]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldman_Sachs

You can also read about Carrix/SSA Marine on the same website:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SSA_Marine

My concern is that PIT can be dissolved in a bankruptcy without paying for any of the damage caused. I request that PIT be required and legally bound to put up a bond of at least $1 Trillion dollars. If something inestimable happens, this seems a fair number to cover at least some of the damages. Otherwise, who will be left holding the bag of the wreckage? The bond should be set up so that it is replenished as funds are withdrawn

I ask that the EIS measure the cost of a worst-case scenario, from a spill of 470 thousand gallons of bunker fuel in the San Juan Islands, to an explosion at the terminal or a derailment in a highly populated area like downtown Mt. Vernon.

I request that SSA/Carrix is legally bound to guarantee any and all damages associated with activities related to the terminal regardless of who is ultimately held by the courts to be liable – the coal owner (some subsidiary of Peabody Energy), the coal transporter (BNSF), or the terminal operator (PIT).

Let SSA/Carrix fight it out in court for the next 25 years to get their money back if they’re not liable but, in the meantime, the public shouldn’t have to wait decades to receive the final paltry settlement the Supreme Court approves, a la Alaska citizens and the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

I request that SSA and Carrix guarantee all obligations of PIT, including union contracts, incident response and cleanup, and site restoration when the coal market dries up and they leave town.

No EIS would be complete for a project of this size and scope without including some kind of guarantee against large-scale disasters.

I believe that corruption must be addressed when it comes to permitting large scale fossil-fuel and polluting projects. I find it ironic that this will all be exported to China and Asia with no real benefit to the many citizens and Tribes all along the circle route. Money should not buy global polluters whatever they want, at the expense of the rest of the local and global human and non-human populations.

Respectfully committed,
Brenda Bailey, Eastsound WA
longtime resident of beautiful Orcas Island

Brenda Bailey (#11154)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I'm a resident of the San Juan Islands. This is my home and I want to see our wetlands, salt water, and both terrestrial and marine species protected. I want our grandchildren to live in safety and in a beautiful clean environment. I'm concerned about long term cumulative impacts on human health from all aspects of coal ane bitumen export to Asia. My topic concerns safety and emergency response in the event of ant type of spill: oil, diesel, tar sands, coal.

GPT’s Whatcom application states that a “site-specific emergency response plan would be developed and kept available at the Terminal at all times. Spill and response measures would be implemented following an emergency or release of dangerous materials... coordinated with ALCOA and BP.”

I am not at all comforted by these "guarantees." ALCOA and BP? Seems like strange bedfellows!
ALCOA: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alcoa
BP: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/BP
(Major Litigation on down to the bottom of the page is interesting reading)

My questions are:

1) Over 30 tons of coal were dumped into the ocean when Cape Ship Apricot crashed into a loading trestle at Westshore Terminal, with no reports on how much fugitive coal dust escaped. Is someone researching what actions were required by the BC government regarding spill cleanup and monitoring? Whose responsibility is it, and who will pay for it? What would the US and WA state governments require if this happened at Cherry Point?
2) Since fugitive coal dust and other chemicals and particulates are likely to drift into US waters, what can the US government require, regarding the Westshore cleanup?
3) I request that the Westshore terminal accident be studied and considered in the US EIS. How would an accident like this affect marine life in the inland waters of the San Juan Islands? How would this affect Cherry Point herring, on which the marine food chain is dependent?
4) Which companies, corporations, LTD and LLCs would be responsible for cleanup in at Cherry Point of any sort of spill, leak, disaster, fugitive particulates, hormone disruptors, chemicals, etc? How will damage drift from wind and water currents be measured, cleaned up, and monitored, and by whom?
5) What specifically is being done to secure all coast terminals and all the loose coal in the loading trestles, in the event of a major earthquake in our area?
6) What emergency measures will be in place on land, in case of a train accident, coal, tar sands spill or break in the tar sands and oil pipelines which connect to these shipping terminals, specifically Cherry Point?

I believe that the Westshore accident is a precursor of more to come. Please research the worst case scenarios, and plan emergency response for those. Please study existing disasters such as Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, etc., and project how those same magnitude spills would affect the San Juan Islands and nearby towns along the coast of the mainland.

Please only consider studies from independent outside academic sources on all cumulative negative impacts from existing and potential spills. Please consider the no-build option. Thank you for your consideration.

Brenda Bailey (#11821)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I am a longtime resident of Orcas Island in the San Juans and love these islands. I have been actively engaged in trying to protect our enviroment here, and my specific area of passion is forested and sub-scrub wetlands and riparian wetlands. My concern is about endocrine disruptors - both their short-term immediate (and often irreversible) effects and long-term cumulative effects. Many effects of just short-term exposure to, or ingestion of, hormone disruptors, don't show up right away, so we are playing a form of loaded-gun roulette with them.

It is now known that many endocrine disruptors "reset" our bodies' blueprint so that the body can't assimilate foods in the same way, or work at peak efficiency. Some of the results of this are reproductive failure and/or birth defects or genetic mutations, increased mammary glands on men, too much estrogen or anti-estrogen, too many antogens and other imbalances, increased risk of reproductive cancers, and unexplained weight gain and obesity that no amount of good diet or exercise will fix.

Endocrine disruptors are agents for extinction of at-risk species of amphibians. No human or animal life is untouched, because once endocrine disruptors get into our waters, every life form ingests them. But worse: they are in our clothing, upholstery, bedding now. They are in public seating fabrics and god knows what else; much of which is manufactured in China - so we have no idea of what chemicals or compounds are even involved.


I stand 100% beside Janet Alderton (retired Biologist) of Deer Harbor, in her comment regarding endocrine disruptors, and the excellent article she posted entitled; "Warnings from a Flabby Mouse" by Nicholas D. Kristof. I ask that you honor her requests and answer her questions to the publi's satisfaction.

I add these questions and requests:

1) Besides MinTopperS+350, what other hormone or endocrine disruptors will be used, not just to try to "tame" fugitive coal dust, but in the entire process of mining coal - from U.S. and Canadian mine extraction, all the way on the long circuitous (and fraught with dangers) route to destination Asia, on ships that take 7+ miles to come to a complete stop after the motor is cut, if something goes wrong?

2) Please consider any endocrine disruptors in chemicals used an any process or part of the coal export route - including, but not limited to: rail car loading, rail transport, land clearing for track pipeline, loading berths, terminals, oil and bitumen pipelines, any materials or chemicals used in the building of the terminals, chemical makeup of pipeline pipes themselves and all attached valves and fixtures, machine cleaners and lubricants, all soaps and surfactants, herbicides and pesticides and spreader-sticker type chemicals to make them adhere to what they're killing , and chemicals leaching from any pipes put underground and into our wetlands & aquifers, ship loading of coal, bunker chemicals, and the entire water passage to Asia and back.

If any of these chemicals are unregulated, please consider regulating them and compiling immediate existing data of their effects, both short term and cumulative, on amphibians, migratory birds, marine creatures, and humans and other terrestrial and marine life. Please further the study to include monitoring and recording all effects henceforth, and please use outside academic experts to compile these studies - not people bought and paid for by Carrix, Peabody, BP, Goldman Sachs, etc.

3) What regulations are in place at China's receiving coal/oil ports - in terms of both hormone disruptors and fugitive "treated" coal dust migrating into their air and into their waters? What effect can U.S. Agencies have on these regulations and enforcement? How do China's regulations (or lack thereof) compare to US regulations? Canadian? International?

4) Will cargo be sent back to the USA on the "empty" cape and panamax ships? What cargo, if so? What monitoring, inspecting, and regulating will cover any hormone disruptors that the Chinese may be using on these ships or in the return cargo? If these ships will have duel or multiple purposes, what chemicals will be used to clean the ships at both ends (in the terminal berths) and where does the cleaning duff go? Into our waters? Into holding tanks? What "treatment" is then done to render them inert? What risks are engendered by using "treatment" chemicals? Which chemicals/surfactants would be used for cleaning and washdown of ships, loaders, etc?

5) Taking into consideration existing studies on MinTopperS+150 and other endocrine disruptors, if these studies clearly show existing negative impact on any important part of the food chain, please ban them from use on the Gateway Project. If banning them from use means that fugitive coal dust can't be controlled or "mitigated," (and i believe it can't be mitigated, due to the fact that only a teaspoon-full into our waters causes permanent damage and irreversible negative impacts, and we live in a high-wind, dramatic weather place), please choose the no-build option for GPT.

6) Please study endocrine disruptors' effects on plankton, herring, eelgrass, salmon, and orca whales; all part of one food chain. How will endocrine disruptors affect shellfish, and what health risks are there in eating these foods after exposure?

7) Please do a study on all endocrine disruptors' stability and how long each one takes to break down and become inert, after they have been introduced into our environment. Another study should be done on how long they take to become inert in our bodies, remembering that even one-time low-dose exposure or ingestion appears to permanently alter hormone regulation; so hormone levels need to be monitored in humans, wildlife, and laboratory animals so we can better understand the long term effects of endocrine disruptors before using them so freely in such a potentially devastating way to the local and global environment.

8) What plans do the Agencies have to deal with keeping endocrine disruptors related to all aspects of GPT coal export out of our drinking water, aquifer, bathing water (they are easily assimilated through the skin) and navigable waters? What plans do the Agencies have to keep these endocrine disruptors out of sensitive wetlands all along the coal rail routes and oil and bitumen pipelines and loading stations/terminals for all of these substances?

9) How will the regulatory agencies hold Carrix, Peabody, SSA Marine, et-al, accountable for this - both monetarily and legally? It seems an ounce of prevention is definitely worth ten tons of "cure."

Thank you for your consideration.

Brenda Bailey (#12072)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I am a longtime resident of Orcas Island who has fought hard for our local wetland habitats and critical areas, because they give habitat to many beneficial species that mankind needs in order to survive as a species.

In reading about SSA Marine's sketchy practices, my comment concerns their illegal actions in regard to the Gateway project. My particular concern is legal issues and environmental violations by the fossil fuel industry, specifically as it informs the EIS process with GPT.

It is customary for LLCs and large corporations to break the rules and clearcut before permitting, then get a "hand slap" and "token fine" by some local government.They know they can get away with it, so they do it. Over and over again with few repercussions.
http://www.king5.com/news/Company-builds-roads-for-coal-terminal-without-proper-permit-126553458.html
What's a $5,000 fine to a company that grosses millions per month? Nothing!

Once the trees are gone, they are gone. This changes entire ecosystems in a hurry; many species are already stressed and cannot survive the continual onslaught that projects like GPT bring.

In reading the linked article above, I am alarmed that SSA cut trees on the GPT site without a permit. They "apologized", got the customary hand slap and token fine, and are back in operation. How can we trust their word that they will follow every EPA rule when they clearly violated the Clean Water Act already? They will do it again; they all will!

How will the Lead Agencies be prepared to monitor corrupt greedy fossil fuel empires, and enforce anything environmental, when fugitive coal dust is not even important enough to be considered by the EPA as a serious health and environmental hazard? I hope you will put the brakes on this project indefinitely until much, much more is revealed about all of our concerns.

My requests:
1) Please ask every corporation, umbrella corporation, LLC, and shill corporation involved to provide litigation history for the last 30 years.
2) Please research each corporation involved directly or indirectly with Gateway Pacific on the SEC website and other watchdog websites, and look for litigations and violations. (Peabody Energy, Goldman Sachs, Pacific International Terminals>Carrix> SSA Marine, and any other shadow or hidden corporate affiliates) Search out their financial and legal violations, and open and solved cases regarding these corporations' ethics, specifically environmental violations and money laundering.
3) Please let this information inform you to be extremely thorough and cautious before granting any permits or legally binding contracts with these corporations.
4) Please have each company provide proof of jobs vs loss of local jobs, habitat, and quality of life. Numbers, please. Consider health effects of the "jobs" they offer - on humans and the environment - and weigh if this "benefit" outweighs the costs.
5) Do violations count as strikes against these corporations when applying for permits of this magnitude, and does that make the permitting process and EIS more strict? If not, why not? What can be done to hold them accountable in light of their routine ecological and safety violations?

Please choose the no-build when you factor in all of their violations. They don't deserve this project. Neither do all of us who will bear the negative impacts.

Thank you.

Brenda Bailey (#12469)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

I also urge you to consider potential earthquake and tsunami damages, health costs and who will cover any negative impacts to human, terrestrial plant and animal, marine plant, fish, and animal , marine and songbird health. I urge you to consider how many jobs in all of the affected communities may be lost due to health considerations or in the event of a catastrophe (many millions of community members affected and their livelihoods destroyed), and weigh against the few jobs that might come of this (for all the proposed projects, and most of them temporary). Please assess all worst-case potentialities, and all increased risks in ship and train accidents due to increased volume.

Please also assess the amount of pollution that will come over from China on the jet stream winds and impact the health of Washingtonians.
Coal dust and coal contain carcinogens, mercury, and other toxic substances causing respiratory problems. Coal dust would be/already is being introduced into our food chain, even plankton. What studies have been done on the impacts of coal on marine environments?

What assessments have been done on costs in case of damage, and will Peabody and Gateway be held 100% accountable for any and all damages?
How will this be enforced?

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals. If there is no way to guarantee protection of our area environments and all of our interconnected lives, then a no-build option is recommended - for all 5 proposals.

Brenda Bard (#11346)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Kirkland, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

ISN'T CHINA SUFFERING FROM EXTREME AIR POLLUTION? AT THE CAPITAL CITY THEY ARE SUFFERING. AND WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF THIS? COAL BURNING FOR WINTER HEAT AND ENERGY!! DON'T THE PEOPLE OF CHINA DESERVE BETTER? WHY CAN'T WE EXPORT SOMETHING BETTER FOR THEM AND THE WORLD? HOW ABOUT NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGY?

I'M A NW NATIVE BORN IN SEATTLE AND EDUCATED HERE AND WORKING HERE. OUR BEAUTIFUL PNW ENVIRONMENT IS STRUGGLING TO RECOVER FROM POOR DECISIONS MADE IN THE PAST WITH REGARDS THE THE ENVIRONMENT: DAMS, FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE, ROADS/HARD SURFACES/STORM WATER RUNOFF, URBAN SPRAWL, COAL BURNING, SEWAGE, AND MORE (THE LIST IS LONG). IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THIS PROJECT IS ALREADY FRAUGHT WITH NEGATIVE ECHOS FROM OUR PAST, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS?

DO WE REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT ACCELERATED GLOBAL WARMING? DO WE REALLY WANT THE PARTICULATE POLLUTION TO COME BACK TO US WITH THE JET STREAM? DO WE REALLY WANT TRAFFIC TO BE HELD UP AT RR XINGS MORE THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY? CAN THE COMMUNITY OF EDMONDS SURVIVE? WILL IT EFFECT COMMUTER USE OF THE RAILS, SOUND TRANSIT?

THIS PROJECT SEEMS LIKE ONE THAT BENEFITS THE FEW AND HURTS THE MANY. THUMBS DOWN! THIS VOTER IS NOT FOR THE PROJECT, RAILS OR OTHERWISE.

BTW WHY HASN'T BARGE TRAFFIC ALONG THE SNAKE AND COLUMBIA BEEN SUGGESTED?

Brenda Collier (#10216)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Please consider the widest possible impact of proposed coal trains including the global impact of burning coal. Our regulations to preserve the environment by preventing pollution and carbon emissions are the reason companies want to export coal but burning coal in other countries like China will still put carbon in the air increasing the risk of catastrophic climate change.

Brenda Collier (#10887)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the impact of the trains on the communities they pass through.
--Health: I am concerned about the coal dust that will be lost on the journey and the impact on air quality and subsequent health problems for children and people with breathing troubles.
--Traffic and Health: I am concerned about the disruption as the train passes through and cuts one side of the track from the other, as well as the safety issues when ambulances, fire trucks, etc cannot get across.
--Natural Environment: I wonder what the effect of the many trains will be on wildlife, fish, wetlands and water quality.
Thank you for making the environmental impact study as broad as possible.

Brenda Crockett (#10092)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
Environmental Study for GPT Project Jan. 20, 2013
I would like to add my name to the list of people extremely concerned about the environmental impact of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. As residents of Birch Bay my husband and I enjoy the pristine beauty of the natural environment and I have grave concerns regarding the potential development of a massive coal transfer site along the south shore of Cherry Point, especially because it includes stockpiling a commodity that contains heavy metals and toxic substances. Although coal is largely an organic material, it does contain inorganic matter and chemically toxic substances such as arsenic, selenium and mercury. Along with these substances, coal contains minerals and radioactive trace elements that include uranium (U) and thorium (Th). The impact of long term exposure to toxic substances on human health, wildlife, marine species, wetlands and the natural environment should be of major concern to everyone.
The EIS should include;
a) The long term health impact of airborne coal dust particulates on people living and working within a 30 mile radius of coal rail transport and large scale coal transfer terminals
b) The ecological impact on wild life and wetlands located within the same proximity of the GPT project site
c) The marine impact of a coal dust spill. Note the recent collision at Westshore Terminals on December 7, 2012; upwards of 30 tons of coal was spilled into the surrounding water. This should provide an “up close” look at the impact of such an event.
d) Air quality impact due to accidental fire outbreak at coal handling site.
e) The overall impact to human health with increased exposure to noise and air pollution associated with coal transport to the coal transfer site.
Acting as stewards of our planet on behalf of all living species, we are obligated to assess potential risk and take action to protect our natural environment for the long term benefit of all. I urge you to conduct an in-depth, comprehensive environmental study that takes a hard look at the short and long term impact to our health and environment.
Thank you,
Brenda Crockett

Brenda Cunningham (#8699)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
I am submitting this comment to agree with comment #6108 by Mary Ruth Holder, submitted January 6, 2013 asking for consideration of impacts of fugitive coal dust in the scope of the EIS. As a resident of Mount Vernon for more than 20 years and an active member of local organizations, I have a lot invested in this community. Our community deserves to be informed of impacts to the health and environment caused by this proposal. Pleae study the impacts of fugitive coal dust from the mining and transport of coal from the Powder River Basin to the proposed terminal at Cherry Point and the loading of ships at Cherry Point. The quantity and quality of the dust should be quantified and evaluated so that the public may be fully informed of the cost of the proposal to human health and the environment. How much dust, how far does it travel, what is the quality and particulate size and how much is entering the waters along the rail corridor and at Cherry Point. And what are the measures that can be taken to mitigate these impacts. Thank you.

Brenda Cunningham (#10009)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
I agree with comments submitted by Sanford Olsen on October 27, 2012, in which he has pointed out the traffic safety concerns regarding increased traffic proposed with Very Large Bulk Carriers in waters off the west coast of Washington, Alaska and British Columbia. Please study the impacts to traffic safety, water quality and the marine environment of a significant increase in vessel traffic on these waters. Our economy in Washington, Alaska and BC is dependent upon the health of these waters and their fisheries. Please include impacts to the marine environment and the dependent economies in the EIS for the GPT proposal.

BRENDA LAVENDER (#3042)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brenda Rose (#6003)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brenda Smith (#13079)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I am 74 years of age and have emphysema. I live in the St Johns community in Portland. I am very concerned about the coal trains passing within a mile of my home. Will I have to move?
Please support the environment.
Brenda Smith

Brenda Tarvin (#4401)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
Dec 6, 2012

Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology WA

Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology: Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology,

First, I do not agree with the export of our energy resources to anywhere.

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. It would increase traffic, pollute our air and water, harm small businesses, delay emergency vehicles, and increase shipping traffic and noise. The coal export terminal would also hurt our environment by damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents, and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Sincerely,

Brenda Tarvin
1414 S Southeast Blvd
Spokane, WA 99203-3544

Brenda and Lawrence Smith (#13514)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Brendan Cook (#14643)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Parkland, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Brendan Stanton (#14606)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Tacoma, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

brent howell (#4770)

Date Submitted: 12/14/2012
Location: seattle, Wa
Comment:
Welsh/American,born in Pittsburgh,Pa., in 1949, grew up in Kentucky. Know the value and damage of coal usage. Today we know we must be world leaders of green and not green backs. The future may hold new science for coal that may be non threatening to our planet, but we're not there yet. If the coal industry wants to create jobs let them be jobs in R&D. If we as a nation don't take a lead here, we become a far lesser people, known only for our ignorance and greed. A simple citizen concerned about who we are and where we're going.

Brent McFarlane (#6453)

Date Submitted: 01/05/13
Location: SEattle, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

We live just uphill from the railroad tracks in North Seattle. One member of our family has asthma and her health could be put at risk by daily coal train shipments thru our neighborhood. We may be forced to move if this proposal gets approved. We enjoy the waterfront parks and we appreciate the long term value of the rail system / corridor for transport of essential goods and passengers. Daily exporting mega tonnage of coal shipments to China is not a worthy or sustainable use of our rail system.

We strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Bret Frost (#1926)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brett Baunton (#927)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Oct 22, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

The project will harm imperiled wildlife species and their designated critical habitat, interfere with recreational and tribal fishing, transform the region with rail congestion, and dramatically increase carbon pollution that is driving climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Given the significant effects that proposed coal export terminals will have on our natural resources and public health, strict oversight is essential.

I live in Bellingham and this issue is very important to the future of our town.

Sincerely,

Brett Baunton
301 W Holly St Ste U9
Bellingham, WA 98225-4384

Brett Llewellyn (#7624)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brett McFarland (#3876)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Brett Renville (#9365)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Thank you.

Brian Bass (#9056)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
My name is Brian Bass and I live in Seattle, WA. I respectfully request that various impacts upon tribal nations be given due consideration. Please study:
1. Potential damages to the Nooksack River, to Salish Sea ecosystems and fisheries, and to Cherry Point itself; and impacts on traditional livelihoods, natural resources, food sources, culture and religion.
2. Possible infringement of international and treaty rights, and the consequences of such infringement.
3. Any disturbance of archaeological sites, burial sites, and sites of cultural importance.
As recognized in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Plan, the Lummi Nation and other tribes have treaty rights in the Salish Sea, as usual and accustomed fishing grounds. How might damaged fisheries; polluted waters, lands and air; altered ecosystems; and increasingly industrialized, crowded waterways impact traditional Native culture and spirituality; employment and livelihoods; natural resources and safe food sources? How might the construction and operations of GPT, and the transport and storage of bulk commodities, including coal, affect the full and proper observation of all relevant rights and treaties?
Xwe’chi’eXen (Cherry Point) is known to have deep spiritual and cultural significance. A burial ground and a sacred site, it is associated with the creation story of the Lummi People and the First Salmon Ceremony. For over 175 generations, Lummi ancestors lived and fished at Xwe’chi’eXen, and it was part of the (now much smaller) Lummi Reservation as established by the Point Elliott Treaty. It was the first site in Washington State to be listed on the Washington Heritage Register and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supported by the President of the United States, includes the right to maintain and protect archaeological and historic sites. I request that a third party archaeological study of cultural significance at Cherry Point be done in accordance with Lummi tribal code, and approved and accepted by a Lummi Nation cultural commission.
As a non-indigenous person, I can't accurately articulate GPT's current and potential damages to culture and spirituality. That is why third-party studies done in collaboration with the Lummi Nation and other involved tribes are necessary. However, I do understand that the impacts would be serious, and that some would likely be irrevocable and impossible to mitigate. I do understand that we in the United States, as citizens and as a nation, have a legal obligation to uphold treaties and other accorded rights, and a moral obligation to help respect and protect the sanctity of Lummi Nation's holy ground.
Thank you,
Signed Brian Bass

Brian Buller (#6753)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In the simplest terms I believe that investing in carbon intensive fuel sources is an unrealistic and counterproductive course of action for the Whatcom County community and for the Nation as a whole.

Unrealistic, because the majority of the residents in Whatcom County will not benefit economically from increased coal production, processing and transport.

Counterproductive because anthropomorphic climate change is real. Whatcom County needs to set an environmentally sane example by pursuing alternatives to carbon based fuels.

I acknowledge that my comments here are general. Yet I also acknowledge that the argument at hand is frustratingly tedious and on the verge of becoming redundant: Why are we even having to debate this? We are in the 21st Century. It is time to let coal go; phase it out and focus our innovation into preserving and improving upon the natural environment in which we all live and on which we all depend for life.

Thank you for reading.

Brian Campbell (#2077)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Campbell (#5193)

Date Submitted: 12/20/2012
Location: seattle, wa
Comment:
I'm not the least bit concerned about coal trains heading through Seattle. Quite honestly I think the issue people are upset about is that the coal is headed to China to ultimately be burned, thereby doing the atmosphere no favors. That's fine if that's your issue, but coming up with nonsensical arguments about coal trains is a disingenuous way of getting your point across. In all of Seattle we have what, five or six affected grade crossings? Once you get north of the ship canal I don't think you could find another one until you get to Marysville, so I don't really see how that's an issue.

As for concerns about dust, I've lived near plenty of coal hauling rail lines and never noticed any dust. If dust is such a problem why do we let trains haul gravel, or grain? No one's out protesting anything other than coal, which leads me to believe it's a bunch of nonsense.

Brian Donovan (#3162)

Date Submitted: 11/12/12
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
Nov 12, 2012

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

Solar Panels cost 1/5th of the coal that produces the same electricity.
the Solar panels weigh 1000th as much.

Fossils are killing us, and expensive. Stop helping them

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

Brian Donovan
2106 NE 185th Ave
Vancouver, WA 98684-0936

Brian Duncan (#5159)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Spokane , WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Finn (#10247)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Comment:
I am writing to ask that you not allow coal trains to operate in the Pacific Northwest. We have a rare commodity (clean air, clean water, and a vibrant ecology). Coal trains and the associated dust particulates will only be detrimental to our environment. For example the bee populations have dwindled due to parasites and pollution. Minute coal particles will only cause further damage to bees and to humans lungs.

Brian Gerbrandt (#3877)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Location: Lynden, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Brian Grunkemeyer (#5521)

Date Submitted: 12/23/12
Location: Redmond, WA
Comment:
Attached are my scoping comments for the EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to participate.
Attached Files:

Brian Gunn (#521)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Auburn, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest.

I support a programmatic environmental impact report because coal dust and diesel exhaust will adversely affect the environment all along the rail corridors, not just at the ports. When they burn the coal in Asia, the toxic sulfur and mercury will return to our shores via the jet stream. Exposure to coal dust causes increased rates of asthma in children, as well as lung and heart disease in adults. We'll lose salmon runs and discourage economic development at our ports. Traffic congestion will increase around busy rail crossings slowing commuters, commercial vehicles, and emergency responders alike. But these 'external' costs won't be paid for by the coal companies. Taxpayers will have to foot the bill. In my view, these hidden costs far exceed the benefit of the small number of jobs that would be created.

Sincerely,

Brian Gunn

Brian Gunn (#3720)

Date Submitted: 12/02/2012
Location: Auburn, WA
Comment:
I like to ride my bike along the Interurban Trail which runs through my home town of Auburn, Washington. I know that many of my neighbors also enjoy this feature of our town because when I am out riding, I always see them jogging, biking, skateboarding, rollerblading or just walking on this popular trail. I see folks of all ages, serious bicyclists, parents with their kids, and folks like me who just want to get a little sunshine and exercise on their day off. The trail also passes alongside the Auburn Environmental Park, a stretch of over 70 acres of reclaimed wetland preserved for native flora and fauna and enjoyed by birdwatchers and casual strollers alike. It is hoped that these reclaimed wetlands will improve the health of surrounding creeks and restore salmon runs that have been lost to excessive and poorly planned industrial and residential development.

Now, the Interurban Trail was built on an old railroad right-of-way which means it is straight and flat (great for those learning to rollerblade), but it also means that it runs parallel and only a stone's throw away from the tracks of the main BNSF freight corridor which could carry up to nine additional northbound mile-and-half long trains pulling open freight cars loaded with coal from the Powder River Basin on its way to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal in Bellingham. In addition, there would be another nine (empty) southbound trains traveling through Auburn.

I am concerned that this increased train traffic will have adverse affects on human health as well as on sensitive areas such as wetlands in the Auburn Environmental Park. Coal dust will inevitably enter the water supply and the atmosphere as the trains move through towns like Auburn. In addition, diesel exhaust will increase and people on the Interurban Trail or in the parks along the trail will be exposed to these toxic fumes. I am worried that folks who are exercising will be more at risk because the toxins will be drawn even deeper into their lungs. In addition to the healh risks, we could lose the economic benefit of eco-tourism as well as the environmental benefits of a healthly, functioning system of wetlands.

The EIS for the Gateway Pacific Terminal must include the impacts to communities like Auburn that are on the path of the trains as they travel from Wyoming to the Pacific Coast.

Brian Koepke (#5447)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Koepke (#5459)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Koepke (#5514)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Koepke (#5525)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Koepke (#5526)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Pullman, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Koepke (#5527)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: ,
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Koepke (#5528)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Koepke (#5529)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: ,
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Koepke (#5530)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Lynch (#5743)

Date Submitted: 01/02/2013
Location: Shaw Island, WA
Comment:
My wife and I have been visiting Shaw Island since the 1970s, and have lived here full time for the past six years. My son, who spent his childhood summers on Shaw, considers this his home base, and will be the third generation of our family to care for our land here. We are seriously committed to life in the San Juan Islands, and value its scenic beauty and the authentic sense of community that Islanders have created.

The specific issue I would like to comment on is the potential for vessel-induced oil and other load spills in the Rosario and Haro Straits, caused by the increased traffic of large ships servicing the proposed terminal. Given the history of other such spills (e.g., The Exxon Valdez), in particular how far they spread, the direct impact on sea life and the general health of our waters seems seriously at risk. My fellow Islanders who depend on fishing and those who depend on tourism for their livings will suffer devastating impacts. All of us, our children, our pets, our guests who recreate in and near the water will be negatively impacted by the resulting water pollution, which lasts for decades.

Please study the following as part of the Gateway EIS process:
1) Measure the probability of vessel collisions due to the increased vessel traffic in and around Haro and Rosario Straits.
2) Study spread scenarios for spilled fuels and loads in all of the potential collision areas.
3) Include a consideration of the protected and specially designated environments in the San Juan Islands.
4) Study the long term impacts to the marine ecology of the San Juan Islands.
5) Measure the probable costs, both long and short term, for the clean-up of vessel-induced spills, including indirect costs to the San Juan County economy.

If are unable to determine that there is no risk of devastating effects due to vessel collisions and fuel/load spills resulting from the increased traffic for the Gateway Pacific project, please decide in favor of the no-build option.

Brian Moynihan (#8939)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Mulligan (#1312)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about health issues related to poor quality sleep.

When fully developed, as many as 18 additional trains will move through Whatcom County carrying coals and returning to the Powder River Basin. Noise from the additional trains will interfere with sleep, result in negative direct health effects and exacerbate mental health disorders in Whatcom County residents.

A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine finds that inadequate shut-eye has a harmful response on fat cells, reducing their ability to respond to insulin by about 30 percent. Over the long-term, this decreased response could set the stage for type-2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and weight gain. The study adds to a growing body of evidence that there's "an intimate relationship between the amount of sleep we get and our ability to maintain a good, healthy body weight," says sleep expert Helene Emsellem, director of the Center for Sleep and Wake Disorders in Chevy Chase, Md.

Disrupted sleep also results in fatigue, hypertension, arrhythmia and an increased rate of accidents and injuries. Direct health effects include cardiovascular disease, increased blood pressure, arrhythmia, stroke, ischemic heart disease, and cognitive impairment in children. Mental health disorders such as depression, stress and anxiety and psychosis are aggravated by noise.

Sleep disruption, direct health effects and exacerbated mental health disorders lead to higher health costs, diminished quality of life and tragic personal loss.

Our house is within earshot of the BNSF trains. We hear the whistles; the house shakes when trains move through Bellingham. Our sleep is already negatively affected by train whistles. Add 18 trains a day and we’ll be hearing the whistles more than once every hour. Of course, sensitivity to noise is greater during the night, with Ldn increased by 10 dB between 10 pm and 7 am.

There are, no doubt, thousands of people who live close enough to hear the whistles over the route from Wyoming to Cherry Point. The effect of the train whistles is measured in poorer health quality and higher health care costs.
Quiet zones would help (although only with whistle noise; not with wayside noise) but should be paid for by the companies that will benefit financially from the project.

Please study the effect of whistle noise on sleep. And, importantly, don’t average the noise level in your considerations. We would also need a before/after assessment of property values along the train route, with the project proponent responsible for all lost value. Thank you.

Brian Mulligan (#1313)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned that the proposed development of the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, WA., with the concomitant mining, transport and shipping activity, will cause significant negative impacts to the air quality of the region with associated health impacts and related health care costs.

Diesel emissions of less than 2.5 microns have been shown to increase pulmonary impairments and mortality; asthma attacks, ER visits and hospital admissions in children; the rate of heart attacks in adults; and the risk of cancer. Coal dust contains heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury and lead which lead to chronic bronchitis, emphysema and pulmonary fibrosis.

The development of this project will, to my mind, result in higher health care costs, one of the biggest drivers of the U.S. national debt and a reduction in quality of life due to increased sickness and shortened life span.

Please thoroughly examine the effect of the proposal to ship 48 million tons of coal a year to the People's Republic of China on the air quality for all communities close to the excavation, transport and shipping route. Thank you.

Brian Mulligan (#1314)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned that the proposed development of the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, WA., with the development of the waterfront site for heavy industrial use and the dramatic increase in the number and size of vessels in and around the terminal will do significant harm to the already drastically diminished Cherry Point herring population (94% reduction between 1973 and 2000).

Unlike other Washington herring populations, Cherry Point herring spawn in the spring, which aligns with the Chinook salmon run. A smaller herring population reduces the salmon’s food source, likely affecting their numbers. Salmon, of course, are a diet of choice for orcas and seals. Would the activity associated with the construction and operation of Gateway Pacific Terminal further damage this important food source?

Fewer salmon would also mean higher prices at the market and restaurants for this iconic Pacific Northwest dietary staple.

Rather than coal, please investigate other commercial uses that do less damage to the fisheries AND employ more people. A Port of Seattle economic impact study found that shipping bulk cargo (like coal) generates .09 jobs/acre compared with .57 jobs for containerized cargo and 4.2 jobs for “break bulk” cargo. A study at the Port of Baltimore found that coal export supports .11 jobs/acre while dry bulk commodities supported .41 jobs, containerized cargo .43 jobs, and autos 1.71 jobs/acre.

Please study the impact of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal on the Cherry Point herring population. Thank you.

Brian Mulligan (#1315)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about the potential for shipping lane accidents with the addition of hundreds of massive ship passages through the strait of Juan de Fuca.

Most years for the past quarter century, my family has vacationed in the San Juan Islands. We’ve been privileged to enjoy beautiful scenery, clear air and a slower pace. I’m concerned that the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal would render all of that a mere memory. The less-abundant-than-it-used-to-be wildlife and fragile ecology of the area would be severely impacted were there to be a collision involving ships carrying dirty and damaging cargo such as coal and/or oil. With increased traffic from the expanded terminal, the already busy Strait of Juan de Fuca will, in my view, be ripe for just such an accident.

The consequences of an accident are easy to foresee. Wetlands would become oil slicks; waterways would be impassible during cleanup (with resulting financial costs); birds and fish would die in great numbers.

My family and I plan to continue to camp in the islands. Based on the difficulty of securing a campsite, we’re far from alone. Tourism on the north coast of the Olympic Peninsula, in the San Juans and in southern Vancouver Island would suffer.

I ask that the vibrancy, the beauty and the irreplaceable natural heritage of the area be preserved by leaving the coal in the ground. Please study the risks and impacts associated with significantly increased shipping traffic through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Thank you.

Brian Mulligan (#1316)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about the release of toxic materials from the mining transport and loading of coal related to the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal.

At full buildout, the trains transporting coal from WY to Cherry Point will spew more than 1.2 million tons of coal dust into the air along the 600 mile route.

This dust isn’t simply a cleanup task; it is most significantly a health hazard. Coal dust has been linked to chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and pulmonary fibrosis. This is an avoidable affliction.

Beyond the quality of life degradation, I’m concerned about the costs involved with mitigating and eliminating the effects of coal dust on our health. In a 2009 report, the National Academy of Sciences determined that US coal burning results in $60 billion per year in health costs.

Given these harmful consequences of coal transport, please examine an alternative approach which, in the case of GPT, is the terminal permitted by the County in 1997.

Please determine whether the harm outweighs the benefits to the people whose health will be affected by this project. Thank you.

Brian Mulligan (#1317)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about potential derailments resulting from ballast degradation caused by coal dust.

As much as 3% of a car load (approx. 3 tons) can blow away in transit. Multiply that by more than 100 cars per train and you have a lot of coal dust spreading along the train route. We know it fouls the air and water. My focus here is the ballast that supports the tracks. The U.S. Department of Transportation classifies coal dust as a “pernicious ballast foulant” that can weaken and destabilize rail tracks.

In 2005, coal dust that had accumulated in ballast caused two derailments. More recently, coal trains derailed in Maryland, Illinois, Washington state and Texas, killing 4, closing roads and disrupting commerce.

According to the report, PRB Coal Degradation: Causes & Cures, “PRB represents the extremes of handling problems. It is extremely friable and will break down into smaller particles independent of how the coal is transported or handled.” Therefore, mitigation needs to include cars that are less full and/or covered with tarps or chemical sprays.

Please study the impact of the proposal to ship 48 million tons of coal to the People’s Republic of China on the risk of accidents and associated health and economic consequences resulting from coal dust accumulation in ballast. Thank you.

Brian Mulligan (#1318)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about delays to emergency medical response times to Bellingham’s waterfront should the Gateway Pacific Terminal project be implemented as proposed.

18 coal trains running through Bellingham each day will likely add over 3 1/2 hours of delays at railroad crossings. Having aid units wait up to 12 minutes while a train passes could easily mean the difference between life and death.

This scenario becomes more disquieting when one considers the plans to develop the waterfront into “a thriving, mixed-use urban neighborhood featuring residential, commercial, marine trade, hospitality, and educational uses”.* More use of the types described here means more people at the waterfront more regularly, increasing the likelihood of medical emergencies.

The only reasonable mitigation strategy is for BNSF, SSA Marine and the other corporations who will benefit from the terminal, if built, to pay the full cost of building waterfront access that will not be interrupted by trains.

Please study the impact of the proposal to ship 48 million tons of coal to the People’s Republic of China on the ability of our fire and police personnel to respond to medical emergencies at the waterfront in a timely manner. Such an analysis should include mitigation strategies such as the one I suggest that are paid for by the corporate entities that will benefit from the project. Thank you.


* Port of Bellingham, WA - Official Website - Business Opportunities

Brian Mulligan (#1319)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham.

I’m writing because I’m concerned about the quality of the drinking water in Bellingham. Lake Whatcom is Bellingham’s drinking water source. When coal is burned in Chinese power plants, wind carries the emissions to the western United States. For example, up to 18% of mercury in Oregon’s Willamette River comes from overseas, increasingly from China. Likewise, a Western Washington University study found that a major source of mercury pollution in Lake Whatcom is coal-fired power plants in China. The quality of Lake Whatcom water is already degrading. Will this project exacerbate the problem?

Mercury, a neurotoxin, is particularly dangerous to children while pregnant women and the unborn are most vulnerable. Mercury poisoning can cause damage to the brain, kidneys and lungs as well as several diseases.

Please study the impact of the proposal to ship 48 million tons of coal to the People’s Republic of China on the quality of our drinking water.

Brian Mulligan (#1320)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about climate change. The climate of the Northwest is changing. Over the last century, the average annual temperature rose by 1.5°F, with increases in some areas up to 4°F. Changes in snowpack, streamflows, and forest cover are already occurring. Future climate change will likely continue to influence these changes. Average annual temperature in the region is projected to increase by 3-10°F by the end of the century. (US EPA)

This is important because a reliable water supply is crucial for energy production, agriculture, and ecosystems in the Northwest. Much of the region's water is stored naturally in winter snowpack in the mountains. The snowpack melts and runs off into streams and rivers in the late spring and summer, a time when there is very little rainfall. Climate change will likely threaten this natural storage, with important consequences for the timing of runoff and amount of water available in streams and rivers (streamflow) throughout the year. Higher temperatures, changing streamflows, and increases in pests and disease also threaten forests, agriculture, and salmon populations in the Northwest.

Please study the impact of the proposal to ship 48 million tons of coal to the People’s Republic of China on climate change. Thank you.

Brian Mulligan (#1570)

Date Submitted: 10/28/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about the introduction of non-native species via the ballast and/or hulls of coal ships.

I worry that the invasive species will upset the delicate balance of the food chain of the Salish Sea with the resulting damage to the region’s important fishing industry.

A prime example of what can happen can be found in the Asian clam experience in San Francisco Bay. This small creature altered the entire food chain in the bay; displacing all other invertebrates and reducing biodiversity to almost zero. The state of California has spent millions trying to limit the damage, to no avail. They’re now focusing on preventing the introduction of such visitors before they can do their damage.

Your goal should be to control entry of non-indigenous species to double “background” (the amount that naturally flows in and out) level. Potential strategies include retaining ballast water in ships and pumping the water into tanks on land and treating it with heat, ultraviolet radiation or chemicals.

Please study the potential impact of the introduction of non-indigenous species via ballast or “hitchhiking” on the hulls of ships on the fishing trade in the region. Include analyses of collateral impacts of any proposed mitigation strategies. Thank you.

Brian Mulligan (#2254)

Date Submitted: 11/02/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about the possibility that Gateway Pacific Terminal will be built; then all but abandoned because of market changes.

Construction of the terminal, rail improvements and crossing upgrades will all be very disruptive and possibly damaging to fish and wildlife. These sacrifices are significant even when there is a perceived payback. Should the market for coal weaken considerably, the investment becomes a dramatic lost opportunity; what could have been accomplished were those resources directed toward 21st century industries?

This is not idle speculation on my part. All or most of the coal planned for shipping out of GPT is destined for China, which accounts for about half of the world’s coal consumption. Demand for coal in China is down, however. According to Wu Yin, deputy director of the National Energy Administration at the China International Forum on Coal Industry, coal output has seen rapid growth since the beginning of the year, but that coal consumption is slowing down and inventories are increasing, which led to huge prices drop in the past three months. (ChinaDaily.com.cn 11/2/12)

It is likely that part of the reason for the decline is China’s push to ‘go green’. According to Ross Garnaut, one of Australia’s top economists, “China has exceeded its ambitious emissions targets, cutting coal-fired generation by more than 7 per cent in the past year. A rapid expansion of hydroelectricity, wind, biomass, solar and nuclear power had pushed down coal’s share of energy production from 85 to 73 per cent.”

This is a case of deja-vu all over again. Twice before - in Portland and Los Angeles - a gamble on purported insatiable demand for coal from China has backfired.

China is out ahead of the U.S. when it comes to clean energy. The good news, however, is that our ability to innovate means we can still lead!

Please estimate the public/private investment involved in the GPT proposal and examine the relative cost/benefit of using that money and those resources to develop energy from hydroelectricity, wind, biomass, solar and nuclear power. Thank you.

Brian Mulligan (#2690)

Date Submitted: 11/11/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about about the predicted reduction in the value of our house.

My wife and I are retired and on a fixed income. We’re also raising a middle schooler who needed a safe, loving home environment. Our modest home in the Columbia neighborhood is an important part of our personal worth as a couple and provides the stability and safety our daughter so desperately needs. We worked long and hard to get to this point.

A recent report by the Eastman Company pertaining to the anticipated loss in value of homes close to the rail line to be used to transport coal to the Gateway Pacific Terminal, however, indicates that our financial situation will be materially impacted if this project goes forward. I quote, “Based upon all of the information and data gathered, in my opinion, the applicable range of diminution in value for single family residences, the property type expected to suffer the most severe impacts, has been concluded to range from five to twenty percent of market value.”

Twenty percent! And ours is, as I mentioned, a modest home. Factor in all the affected homes and families along the rail route and you have a very significant impact. How will we all be compensated for our losses, especially given that we in no way gain from extracting, transporting and shipping millions of tons of coal to the People’s Republic of China?

Please examine, and publish for all to see, the cumulative loss in real estate value for all the families such as mine along the rail route and compare that number to the estimated value to be gained by these families. Then propose fair compensation for each of these families, again for all to see.

Or, leave the coal in the ground and invest in clean, renewable energy sources that will once again put America in the forefront of technologies and industries that make sense.

Brian Mulligan (#3478)

Date Submitted: 11/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My wife, daughter and I are residents of the Columbia neighborhood in Bellingham. I’m writing because I’m concerned about the suspected link between traffic-related air pollution (such as would be generated at increased levels in connection with increased rail traffic) and the incidence of autism.

A new study shows that children who were exposed to the highest levels of traffic-related air pollution during gestation and in early infancy were three times more likely to be diagnosed with autism than were those who had very low exposure. The study, published 11/26/12 in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found early exposure to high levels of air pollution in general was linked to a higher likelihood of autism in a group of more than 500 children followed for several years from birth.

Diesel exhaust particles and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are present in traffic pollutants (and, significantly, in train and ship exhaust), have been shown to interfere with gene expression important in healthy brain development. The strongest link was found between exposure to nitrogen dioxide — a pollutant found plentifully around freeways — and autism, while exposure to particulates was less strongly linked to autism.

Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in U.S. children has skyrocketed. In the last six years alone, it has increased 78 percent.

Please examine the link between rail, shipping and auto traffic-related pollution and autism. Thank you.

Brian Nappe (#3161)

Date Submitted: 11/12/12
Location: Stevenson, WA
Comment:
Nov 12, 2012

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

We have no bridges over or under the RR line, every train stops all traffic across the tracks in my town. I also have asthma and the dust from the open train cars my be fatal for my condition. Would you make an old man an eco-refugee for the fat wallets of others?

Sincerely,

Brian Nappe
PO Box 885
Stevenson, WA 98648-0885

Brian Phillips (#9895)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
As a frequent hiker in the Columbia Gorge I am often aware of traffic noise ruining the tranquility. It is present even at altitudes of several thousand feet and miles from the river. The numbers engaged in this outdoor activity is relatively small compared with tourists and residents who, being much closer to the tracks, will have a much degraded experience from the considerable added rail noise. I suspect fumes may also become a factor. A natural wonder must be protected and users and residents allowed to continue to enjoy it without further added noise and air pollution.

There are other reasons I oppose the project but I will allow others with more detailed knowledge and involvement to express them.

Brian Pouillon (#2654)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Ramey (#8873)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Seattle , WA
Comment:
Mr. Randel Perry
US Army Corps of Engineers; GPT/Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
Most people have concluded that the United States and the World must press to invest quickly in promising technologies to reduce dependence on oil, coal, other fossil fuels, and other products that create greenhouse gases. If we do not take the steps now to curb world-wide use of fossil fuels, we a doomed to a world which soon will be uninhabitable because of the trapped gases creating heat beyond what human life can bear. Make it clear to the coal and oil companies that they need to start to rethink the extraction of these elements to continue to make profits. Money will not do their children any good in the world they are creating. Please stop NOW for the sake of our children.
Brian Ramey

Brian Ramey (#11289)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

Most people have concluded that the United States and the World must press to invest quickly in promising technologies to reduce dependence on oil, coal, other fossil fuels, and other products that create greenhouse gases. If we do not take the steps now to curb world-wide use of fossil fuels, we a doomed to a world which soon will be uninhabitable because of trapped gases creating heat beyond what human life can bear.

Please make it clear to the coal and oil companies that they need to start to rethink the extraction of these elements to continue to make profits. Money will not do their children any good in the world they are creating. Please stop NOW for the sake of our children.

Brian Trimble (#10502)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Everett, Wa
Comment:
No Coal train!

Brian VanCamp (#7920)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
I believe the process should fairly balance human economic and social needs with those for human/global environmental needs. With respect to both transportation and terminal issues, I am familiar with the safeguards currently in place to ensure both immediate safety (impacts of increased traffic on current routes) and long-term environmental (noise, air quality) impacts. As far as the proposal by BNSF to transport coal (or any other bulk commodity to a transloading terminal), I believe sufficient practices are in place by the company (required by local, state and national regulations as well as self-imposed) and adequate equipment (trackage, signalling, locomotion and commodity-carrying vehicles) available or planned to be in-place for this project, that the long-term environmental impacts are sufficiently addressed. I support the proposal for rail-based transport of coal and any bulk commodity that the market determines sufficiently valuable.

Brian Wetcher (#11044)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Anacortes , Wa
Comment:
My concerns for this project include both environmental issues and economic issues.I will try to be as conscience as possible.I request that you review the following:
1. Why are strategic energy resources mined on public lands with public subsidies being shipped,with a considerable tax dollar investment in infrastructure expense, to an industrial and manufacturing competitor,rather than being used locally or nationally to increase national manufacturing and industrial development?Does this not violate our national strategic energy policy?
2.I request baseline studies of air quality and ground water quality be done for any community located within a five mile radius of the proposed route of the uncovered coal trains;further I request similar studies for all wetlands ,riparian areas,streams,rivers,waterways of the states or nation,shorelines and coastal waters, within a one mile radius of the proposed route,with all such studies to be completed before final approval of this proposed project,so that any subsequent impacts can be measured by the conditions existent prior to the onset of coal transport in this manner.

Brian Wetcher (#11071)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Anacortes, Wa
Comment:
I request that you review the impacts of this project on the following:
1.Coal dust damage to the rail bed structure
2.Coal dust impact on respiratory disease in adjacent communities
3.Coal dust impacts on freshwater and marine habitat particularly mercury concentrations
4.Cost of rail bed and transportation system upgrades necessary for the first ten years of coal transport and the percentage of cost to be supplied by tax dollars
5.Estimated cost of lost community revenues from traffic and transportation delays caused by coal train traffic on a rail line already much overburdened and in constant disrepair.
6.Emergency services access for police ,fire ,EMT ,dike district flood management and Army Corp of Engineers within our flood prone valley bisected by the I 5 and rail corridor
7.Noise levels of 100 car + trains more than 30 times a day through the most urban and densely populated section of our county
8.Possible outcomes of derailment in urban and rural areas and protocols for such disasters,including but not limited to a dedicated disaster fund or bond upon the proponent to provide immediate funding for remediation of any such disasters

Brian Willow (#5643)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Brian Willson (#10131)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
There are multiple reasons to deny approval of this horrendous private project – daily moving multiple tons of strip-mined coal from public lands in Wyoming and Montana (Powder River Basin), leased at rates far below market value, a thousand miles by rail cars (and barges) through five states to be ultimately burned in power plants 6,000 miles distant in Asia. This project will egregiously impact Oregon and Washington air and water quality, and thus the health of citizens like you and me.

I emphasize the overriding reason to stop this project: “Burning coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our plant...The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains.”
– James Hansen, Dir., NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (our top climate scientist).

We clearly understand that our future as a species is severely endangered by any policies that facilitate mining, movement and burning of coal.

Meanwhile, rapid destabilization of our climate, largely due to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reaching 2.4 million pounds every second (Nature Climate Change Journal, Sunday, December 2, 2012), demands that we humans immediately, and drastically, reduce our burning of fossil fuels. This, then, is our nightmare – continued carbon burning with nobody seemingly capable or sufficiently courageous to stop our complicity in our own undoing. This is Kafkaesque!

After this coal has been hauled by multiple 1.25+ mile-long daily trains (subject to derailments of which there have been several in the past six months) inevitably spewing coal dust and diesel particulates into our air and waterways, we members of the public ultimately will be forced to breathe the mercury- and acid-laden emissions drifting here from all this coal being burned for fuel in Asia.

The deleterious impacts of this project are extraordinarily significant, clearly foreseeable, and there is no way to mitigate the many harms. Who in the world has the authority and responsibility to stop this insanity? If you or others in public office are not able to act in a manner effectively protecting the health and well being of the public from private profit adventures that have virtually no concern for consequences, what is the point of having public representatives?

Brian Wilson (#13346)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. We now know that mining and burning coal is the worst possible contributor to creating carbon emissions and the consequential catastrophic global warming threatening all life on the planet. Why would we facilitate such burning unless we are knowingly choosing to commit ecocide/suicide? Of course, when profits become the god of policy, all other realities are denied.

This proposal would negatively affect our communities by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents as well as severely exacerbating climate change. The Environmental Impact Statement means virtually nothing if it facilitates mining, moving, and burning coal.

Brian & Tifni Lynch (#1271)

Date Submitted: 10/11/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Briana Cox (#8700)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
Please do not allow the proposed coal train project to go through. This country already burns enough coal for the entire world. Please do not let economic drives of supply and demand determine the health and future of the Earth's environment.

Briana Van Craeynest (#13340)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Comment:
I lived in Washington during college and plan on moving back within a