EIS Home > EIS Library > Scoping Report > Appendix G - All Scoping Comments > Public (K - L)

K Eggers (#1005)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Addy, WA
Comment:
Oct 21, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Once again, it's ALL about money!

It's time to use our intelligence and technology to Stop polluting OUR planet!!!

We vehemently 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,

K. Eggers
2353 Addy Gifford Rd
Addy, WA 99101-9712

K Francis (#13002)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Langley, WA
Comment:
Thanks for reading and recording this 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.

K Hindall (#13805)

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.

It's time to stop using fossil fuels and the expense of the environment. We are going to have to seek other fuel sources eventually; we might as well bite the bullet and do it while we still have some wildlife left! Forget this awful terminal.

K Lebioda (#3461)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Comment:
I've lived in Bellingham for 12 years and the Pacific NW for 20. I live and work less than a mile from the railroad tracks and have already noticed an increase in noise. I'm most interested in the following being scoped:

1) The human health impact of noise pollution generated by the increase in rail traffic (i.e. sleep being disrupted, noise at local parks along the waterfront)
2) How the increase in trains will affect traffic patterns and congestion in downtown Bellingham
3) How the increase in train traffic will impact the economic development of the Bellingham Waterfront
4) The impact on property values of land/homes along the rail route

K Roche-Zujko (#489)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
There is NO SUCH THING as "clean coal." We should be working to eliminate coal as a power source, not planning for it's future growth in Washington State.

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This is a HUGE mistake in our beautiful state OR in any other location! We're blessed with wind, water and geo-thermal resources -- WHY would we be investing in a dirty, destructive source like coal????

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,

K Roche-Zujko

K Secunda (#2922)

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

K Stofer (#12907)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Corvallis, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. There is no reason in this day and age to be promoting coal. While expensive, alternative energy investment will cost less in the long run than cleaning up after the damaging environmental effects from coal. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

K & Chani Griffin & Hines (#2397)

Date Submitted: 10/28/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

K. Eggers (#12482)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Addy, WA
Comment:
ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!
According to the American Lung Association, 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.
Despite coal industry claims that coal mining creates lots of jobs, the truth is that coal mining employment has been declining for decades, due to increased use of machinery instead of manpower.
Coal mining requires an estimated 70 to 260 million gallons of water every day.
The Department of Energy is currently seeking $648 million for "clean coal" projects in its 2009 budget request, "representing the largest budget request for coal RD&D in over 25 years."
I urge you to STOP THIS INSANITY!!!

I vehemently 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.

K.A. Montgomery (#5664)

Date Submitted: 12/26/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

ka yung ursula cheung (#11507)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
I think that we can improve human environment through encouraging citizens to reduce water waste in every places, on both rural and urban areas. For example, we can spend less time to shower, wash the dishes. Moreover, promote to people that we can plant more trees, use alternative gases fuel to replace exhausted gases by cars to reduce air traffic pollution. For vegetation and marine system, we should promote to citizens that we can buy eco- friendly fish, like salmon and tuna, in order to protect the extinction of fishes. Government can implement clean up actives in beaches, so students will cultivate a sense of protecting the ocean since they were young. Also, water quality will get better when there were less pollutants in the ocean.

Kacie McKinney (#10264)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Tacoma , Wa
Comment:
This is awful for human health in multiple ways. Coal dust will impact plants, which affects our health and well being.

Kaden McFarland (#12344)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: La Conner, 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 ask that you please take into account the environment and the many people of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and King County that would be negatively affected by coal exportation in Whatcom County. I love the Northwest and all of it's people. The fact that much of it remains un-touched by large and dirty energy markets makes this place special. It's in the best interest of everybody that it remains untouched.

Kai Breshem (#3472)

Date Submitted: 11/28/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
EIS Scoping Comments re Proposed Gateway Shipping Terminal

IMPACTS ON WATERWAYS/FISHING:

As a member of a commercial fishing family here in Puget Sound, I am concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed GPT on our waterways. We, along with many other Whatcom County families, rely on the continued health of the Salish Sea ecosystem to support us economically.
Please study the impact of increased large-boat traffic, and the terminal itself, on salmon, herring, and crab populations.
Please study the impact of increased shipping traffic on the safety and ability of smaller fishing vessels to work fishing gear, including gill nets and crab pots, in the Salish Sea. In particular, please study the incidence of crab pot loss caused by large vessel interference: when large vessels, unable to maneuver tightly, run over crab pot buoys the lines are either cut, causing gear loss, or drag the buoys to deeper water where they are lost. Please study the economic impacts of lost fishing gear as well as the loss of time caused by searching for missing pots.
Please also study the potentially devastating and immitigable effects of a large shipping accident such as a grounding that could release oil into the waterways. Increasing vessel traffic associated with the proposed GPT will increase the risk of vessel-vessel collisions as well as single vessel accidents – please study these increased risks of oil spill contamination of marine habitat, and the potential effect on herring, salmon, and crab populations.
Increased large vessel traffic would add danger and difficulty to local commercial and sport fishermen; please study the economic impact of fishing time lost due to increased interference from large vessel traffic.
I am also concerned about the effect of increased shipping on large marine mammals. Please study the impact of large ship activity, in particular engine noise, on marine mammal populations.

IMPACT ON TOURISM/COMMUNITY REPUTATION/ECONOMY

I grew up in Whatcom County and returned here as an adult with my family in large part because I value the natural beauty and healthy environment that surrounds us here. The reputation of Whatcom County as a beautiful and environmentally friendly place to live is valuable both to garnering tourism dollars and to attracting and retaining motivated and productive people to our workforce and our community. Please study and attempt to quantify the immitigable effects to the current environmentally positive reputation of Whatcom County that the GPT and related increase in coal train and large vessel traffic would have. Please also study and attempt to quantify the related effect on tourism in Whatcom County and related economic impacts.
I am especially concerned about the potential impact of increased rail traffic and the possible need for another rail spur near Boulevard Park on the Bellingham waterfront. This area is among the best know and most prized of local scenic areas, and is the first place we take visitors from out of town. Hundreds of people a day walk on the Taylor Street Dock and along Boulevard Park, and these visits bring dollars to businesses in both Fairhaven and downtown. Please study the impact of the proposed increased train traffic on local businesses and tourism.
In addition, Bellingham residents take great pride in this waterfront. Please study the impact on public morale of decreasing the public's ability to access waterfront parks.
Longer train wait times and disturbed traffic patterns will also have measurable impacts on the economic life of downtown Bellingham, as well as in rural Whatcom County, and in every other town along the proposed train route that would experience increased train traffic. Please study these impacts, including lost business related to decreased foot traffic and lost time related to waiting for train crossings.
Please also study the potential costs to local taxpayers that would be necessary to improve rail crossings, such as increased signaling, overpasses, and changes to existing traffic patterns.
I am also concerned about the possible effects on property values, particularly those near to train tracks, related to increased coal train traffic. Please study the impact of the proposed increased train traffic on current property values in Whatcom County.

IMPACTS ON HEALTH:

As a Bellingham resident and a registered nurse at our local hospital, I am particularly concerned about the potential health impacts of the proposed GPT and related increased coal train traffic.
Please study the health risks associated with increased exposure to coal dust and diesel particulate matter that would result from increased coal train traffic. This would impact not only Whatcom County residents but all those living along the proposed transit route between the GPT here and the mining sites in Montana; please study the cumulative health impacts. Please also study the related economic impacts, such as increased doctor visits, lost work days, and increased personal spending on medications. While the increased economic costs of health impacts could possibly be mitigated for, the emotional and social costs of increased health risks could not be mitigated for.
Another health impact of particular concern to the thousands of Bellingham residents, like myself, who live and conduct business near our waterfront, is the increased train crossing wait times associated with the proposed GPT. In emergency medical response, every second makes a difference, and the significantly increased train traffic proposed would delay emergency responses. Please study the health impacts of delayed emergency responses, not just in Whatcom County but along the entire length of the proposed coal transit route.
Please also study the health impacts of increased noise pollution from increased train traffic. These impacts include hearing loss, decreased ability to concentrate and learn, and loss of sleep or interrupted sleep, which can decreased productivity, impair childhood development, and decreased quality of life. The increased coal train traffic would cause increased train noise in Bellingham, throughout Whatcom County, and all along the proposed transit route; please study these cumulative impacts.
The research supporting these above listed health concerns has been outlined by Whatcom Docs in their Position Statement and Appendices; please add my voice to their request that a Health Impact Assessment be completed for the proposed GPT.

SOCIAL COSTS:
Please study the cumulative social costs related to growing anger caused by the possibility that corporate demands have trumped the needs of local communities. These costs are real and can be measured: the social unrest, physical violence, and economic damage seen at the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle are an example.
Another concern in this category - less easily quantified but as important – is the potential for increased burn-out and frustration felt by emergency responders whose ability to care for their patients would be compromised by long train crossing waits.
I am also concerned about the potential need for increased security related to the proposed GPT and rail traffic. As polarizing as this proposal is, I am worried about the increased risk of sabotage or acts of environmental terrorism aimed at coal trains, tracks, shipping vessels, and the terminal itself. Please study the impact of the increased risk for malicious acts and/or environmental terrorism that would accompany the proposed shipping terminal. Please also study the potential costs, and who would bear the costs, of increasing security along the rail line, in the Salish Sea, and at the terminal.

Thank you,

Kai Breshem
2908 Cottonwood Ave
Bellingham, WA 98225

Kaia Gran (#713)

Date Submitted: 10/16/2012
Location: Belligham, wa
Comment:
This is a very very bad idea. Increased coal consumption will be detrimental to the people of the world, not only the immediately affected population. We are already seeing effects in Lake Whatcom's watershed from coal burning in China. We should not exploit our community for the gains of a few when it costs the world so much.
This is a completely unacceptable proposal.

Kaia Gran (#714)

Date Submitted: 10/16/2012
Location: Belligham, wa
Comment:
GPT will kill people because the rail traffic will keep people from being able to reach medical attention.

It will create a divide in the community of who has to cross the tracks and who can have access to medical care unencumbered by the offensive project.

You can save lives. Stop the project.

Kaia Gran (#715)

Date Submitted: 10/16/2012
Location: Belligham, wa
Comment:
How many people will be put out of work because of this terminal.

I want the impact studied in detail. How many fishermen will be unable to work? How many businesses will fail or flounder because of the added traffic?
How will the reputation of Whatcom county and Bellingham change by having a coal port and coal industry. Tourism is important for the town's prosperity. Being a healthy and visual pleasing place is essential. How will inns and bed and breakfasts be affected? How about the crops in the community? What about raspberries and coal pollution.
What about WWU's standing? It's reputation for being an environmentally friendly school?
What about the plastic ban bag? We would loose all of the credibility in our efforts to help the Earth if we were to allow such an environmentally destructive thing to be built.
Belligham's vitality and livelihood that attracts people all around the country will be destroyed. Our community will suffer greatly.

Kaia Johnson (#11511)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
My name is Kaia Johnson and I am a high school student. I am writing because I am concerned about the negative impact the coal trains may have on our future air quality. There is a great danger with our clean air being polluted by dust coming off of the train cars. 3% of the coal in transit is lost in dust. The trains lose 500 pounds of coal during transportation. The air surrounding the nature will soon be polluted with coal dust. A good solution to this problem is covering the train cars, but the company who owns the trains must be held responsible to use the train covers and buy the train covers. I am also concerned with the regulations of the proposed alternative. Please study the effects that coal dust has on our air pollution by measuring the amount of coal lost in transit because I believe that the lost coal could be affecting our air quality. Thank you.

Kailey Gabrian-Voorhees (#10898)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear 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.

In my view the single most basic and important issue regarding the shipping of US coal to foreign countries to burn is that, in view of what we know about the health hazards of burning coal, it is unconscionable to send these resources anywhere so that financial profit can be realized. 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.

Kain Nielsen (#5369)

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

Kali Orkin (#14648)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kara Anastasio (#13898)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
Coal is not the answer we need, not in this country or elsewhere.

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.

Kara Black (#215)

Date Submitted: 10/02/2012
Comment:
Dear County members,

I am writing to strongly urge you not to approve to proposed terminal.

It is time in our community and our world to start looking at growth and jobs in a new way--in a way that will assure growth and jobs for our grandchildren too. The only way to do this is to preserve and nurture the vital resources we all depend on--the water, the air, our food, and animals. More jobs now at the expense of these resources in the future is like shooting ourselves in the foot. Plus, I believe there are other, more sustainable options to explore for job development, such as developing our own renewable resources and energy, so even that advantage does not need to be sacrificed.

I feel a great respect for the lands of our County, Country and all the people who are to come. Please take care of them.

Thank you for your consideration

Kara Black (#1932)

Date Submitted: 10/31/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear EIS Team,

As someone who has had asthma from childhood, chemical sensitives, and actively enjoys water sports and wildlife watching--and knows and cares about many other people here who have/do the same--

I would like to specifically ask you to require a detailed investigation of pollution generations possibilities and its impact on human, animal and plant life:
*Air pollution from increased diesel exhaust-trains
*Air & water pollution--exhaust from ships
*Water pollution--mercury from coal transport and burning
*Water pollution--steams and wetlands crossed by train traffic
*Water pollution if there are accidents at sea
*Air pollution--coal dust

I think all these impacts need to be studied for our entire County.

In addition, I would like to see these impacts investigated from point of mining to point of use, as these will affect people and other life all along the way.

Thank you very much for your consideration Kara Black 1727 Mt. Baker Highway, Bellingham, 98226

Kara Black (#2557)

Date Submitted: 11/08/12
Comment:
Dear EIS Team,

I am writing to request that you require review of the affect of increased train traffic on our County's vehicle and pedestrian circulation: water front access, traffic and emergency response times.

Our waterfront, both in terms of existing parks, such as the community gem of Boulevard Park, but also the potential waterfront park and commercial development that is planed in the future, are key elements of out community that my family, friends and guests greatly enjoy. It would be a tremendous cost to our community to further limit access to these in any way.

Another concern is traffic in general. How long will the excess wait times be? How much more frequently? What lengths of traffic back ups may be created that we don't have now?

And then, of course, the critical life-and-death question of emergency response times. How many people live across the tracks from emergency (fire/ambulance/etc) services, and how (frequency and duration) might increased train traffic affect response times. How many people could be more severely injured or even die because of this? I care very deeply about the lives and health of people in our community.

Thank you for your consideration. Kara Black

Kara Black (#3257)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Scoping group.

I am writing to ask that the proposed terminal's impact may have on Native American relations & rights. I understand that the trains and terminal will be adjacent to tribal lands, and could impact the environment, livelihood and rights of these tribes. I would like these various impacts to be closely studied. Please consider impact on fish/fisheries/fishing rights, tribal environmental affects ranging from water & air pollution (from trains, ships and the terminal itself) to adding to global warming, which may flood tribal lands. And any impacts on tribal quality of life from the increased train and sea traffic.

Thank you Kara Black

Kara Black (#6513)

Date Submitted: 01/06/13
Comment:
Dear Review Team,

I am writing to ask you to consider the potential deleterious effects on ocean acidity from the increased coal transport (pollution and spills) and subsequent burning across the ocean. This is a big scary issue affecting the whole world of people that would only be made worse by the proposed terminal.

Thank you for your consideration. Kara Black

Kara Kukovich (#13745)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
As a former resident of the San Juan islands in the Salish Sea, 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.

Kara & Kurt Black & Yandell (#6510)

Date Submitted: 01/06/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Scoping Team,

We are writing to ask you to please closely examine the effects that building a coal terminal here will have on the reputation of Whatcom County. Though we do have a history of industry here--these industries have been in keeping with the character of our area--fisheries and logging and innovative sustainability in an area full of fish and trees and people focusing on local and sustainable alternatives.

I believe coal is not an industry in keeping with the reputation and resources of Whatcom County. It does not belong here. I would like a close study done of the impacts that coal might have on our reputation as a region/county/city and the compatibility/incompatibility of getting into this industry, given focuses and resources we have here in this most beautiful gem of a corner of the Pacific Northwest.

Thank you Kurt Yandell and Kara Black, Owners Tree Frog Night Inn
--
Kara Black Tree Frog Night Inn 1727 Mt. Baker Highway Bellingham, WA 98226 360-676-2300 www.treefrognight.com

Karen Axell (#5637)

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

Karen Bloomquist (#6567)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I request a comprehensive review of the impact on the whole area through which the extraction and transportation of coal would travel, and the projected environmental effect of the burning of 50 million tons of coal a year in Asia (or wherever the coal goes), especially in contributing to climate change globally.

Also, please calculate how many jobs in the area (e.g., in fishing) would likely be lost if the terminal were to be built, compared to how many would be employed over the long-term (beyond the building stage) by the corporation running the terminal. What guarantee will the corporation make that these will be good-paying union jobs?

Karen Bray (#8805)

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

Karen Clark (#409)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
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.

I also believe it's immoral to export this dirty source of toxic excretions and global warming to developing countries. We're all affected by pollution and the effects of global warming. We should be exporting clean energy sources and technology, not old 19th century problems.

Karen Cook (#3282)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Karen Cook (#3306)

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

Karen Cook (#3316)

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

Karen Cooper (#1922)

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

Karen Copher (#6579)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My husband and I have invested heavily in the Bellingham community by building two different homes above the bay, up a hill from the rail line. Please investigate the effect of the vibrations from the heavily loaded coal cars on the hillsides and bluffs along the rail corridor. So far this season, we have had over 72 mud slides north of Seattle. Will an increase of train traffic, with heavier loads, endanger homes, businesses and lives?

Karen Copher (#6619)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It is my request that you please investigate the effects of increased diesel particulate on humans, animal and plant life within the rail corridor. The surge of train frequency expected, with the creation of the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point, will certainly raise levels of diesel particulate. I am especially concerned with how asthmatic children, and others with decreased lung functioning, will react to this intrusion in our clean air. Train delays are common and the idling of numerous diesel engines are a big concern to me. Thank you for your attention to this concern.

Karen Copher (#7024)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the effects of both ship noise and increased water acidity on marine life. Our concern is that with increased ship traffic our frail ecological system will be harmed beyond remediation. My husband is a scuba diver in the waters of the Salish Sea and Puget Sound. He has seen the death of cloud sponges, possibly from water acidity in certain areas and has experienced the roaring sounds carried underwater coming from passing vessels. Any living creature should not be subjected to the constant noise and pollution. Our economy depends on healthy waters.

Karen Derrig (#13109)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Auburn, 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.

On top of all that, the pollution that is the end result of using coal is killing our planet and we need to end it's use. From the toxins that get dumped into the air to the mercury that is poisening our seafood...stop coal mining, stop coal use, stop killing the planet.

Karen Devers (#13629)

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, 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 ALL need to take a longer view of our community, country, and the world. Do not bring coal into the Pacific Northwest.

Spend time, energy, and money looking for and promoting sustainable sources of energy. We have been given ample supplies of water, wind, thermal, and sun - let's stop being stupid and get smart - sustainably!

Karen Dove (#10517)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Hood River, OR
Comment:
Please accept these scoping comments for the environmental impact statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project located at Cherry Point, Washington.

National Scenic Area Impacts: The Columbia River Gorge is a National Scenic Area under federal law, the law requires protectio of scenic, natural, cultural and recreation resources and air quality. The impact of transporting coal through this area must be analyzed.

Air Quality Impacts: The human and environmental impacts of diesel emissions and coal dust from up to 18 trains per day must be analyzed.

Water Quality: Adverse effects of coal spilling into waterways in the Gorge from open-top coal cars must be analyzed and avoided.

Transportation: Additional trains will block at-grade crossings in the Gorge, interfering with commerce, recreation, tourism and emergency services.

New track construction: 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. These impacts must be analyzed and avoided.

Train-caused fires: 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 containers would exacerbate the problem.
Increased risk of fire from coal trains must be analyzed in the EIS.

Cumulative effects: 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.

Climate change: Coal-burning power plants are the primary source greenhouse gases driving global climate change.Greenhouse gas emissions from the mining, transportation and burning of coal must be analyzed in the EIS.

Area-wide EIS: 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.

Karen Edwards (#3517)

Date Submitted: 11/29/2012
Comment:
Please do not permit the coal companies to transport their coal through the Columbia River Gorge. It will expose this vital area to toxic materials, threatening the environment there. While this could be viewed as supporting our economic recovery, it is degrading our environment in the process, which is not a win-win proposition. The stakes are too high to allow this to proceed. Thank you for considering my views. Karen Edwards

Karen Ernst (#14322)

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

Karen Farnsworth (#8060)

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

Karen Farnsworth (#8529)

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

Karen Flikke (#5249)

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

Karen Gardiner (#13489)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: ,
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Karen Gardiner (#14323)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Karen Genest (#3139)

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

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

I have to seriously wonder why we are not actively pushing alternative energy sources instead of continuing to rely upon polluting fossil fuels.
Once again I want to voice my opposition to continuing reliance upon coal, specifically now the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. I believe this proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, (the Columbia is already very busy), 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,

Karen Genest
17200 SE 26th Dr Unit 38
Vancouver, WA 98683-4311

karen grimstad (#8850)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Washougal , WA
Comment:
Jan 16, 2013

US Army Corps of Engineers, Whatcom County Commission Washington Department of Ecology

Dear 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.

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.

I live on the Washougal River and have Commercial Property on E St. in Washougal that sits 300 ft from the rail road tracks.

I will not live and work in a community that values the coal industry over the Federally protect Columbia Gorge and it's people living here, and allows the Gorge to become the POLLUTION CHUTE OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.

I WILL SELL EVERYTHING AND TAKE MY SMALL BUSINESS TO ANOTHER LOCATION WERE THE LAND, AIR AND WATER REMAINS CLEAN. I'M NOT ALONE AND YOU KNOW IT.

Do your homework elected officials who have charge over this project and learn that BNSF filed a report on just 30 TRAINS per day running the Columbia Gorge and River. The amount of Dirty Coal Dust that will fall in the Columbia river per day blew my mind in regards to pollution per day.

The REPORT LISTED 8 TONS OF DIRTY COAL DUST WILL FALL IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER PER DAY.

NOW KNOW THE PLAN IS FOR A LEAST 60 + TRAILS PER DAY THAT RUN 1 to 1 & 1/2 MILES LONG AND DOUBLE THE TONS TO 16 TONS PER DAY DIRTY COAL DUST DUMPED INTO THE COLUMBIA PER DAY. Want to drink that water, or eat the fish eating from the bottom of the Columbia River and the vegetation with mercury and the like all over it. No not for my family.

Camas and Washougal will be cut in half due to the amount of trail traffic which KILLS the little business that is trying to hold on.

Seriously for what? What does our Community get for all this damage and pollution .......NOTHING but the damage/pollution and lack of business.

No, I will sell and move - good luck to those left...........Canada looks pretty good from here if YOU allow the Corporates to do to this Country as they are doing just for money for them. Shame on you if you allow this crime to be committed.

Think long and hard elected decision makers on this one.

SEE WE THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING NO TO THE DIRTY COAL INDUSTRY WANTING TO POLLUTE OUR COMMUNITIES AND STATES JUST FOR MONEY FOR THEM AND WE THE PEOPLE SUFFER.

IN BELLINGHAM, WA.- 8,200 PEOPLE SHOWED UP TO SAY NO TO THE DIRTY COAL INDUSTRY AND THEIR PLANS TO POLLUTE ALL THE CITIES ALONG THE WAY FROM WY. AND MT. TAKING THE TOPS OF MTS. AND KILLING PEOPLE AND CREATURES ALONG THE WAY.

THINK AND RESEARCH ELECTED DECISIONS MAKERS AND UNDERSTAND WE THE PEOPLE KNOW WITH AS MUCH PUBLIC OUT CRY AGAINST THIS PROJECT WE CAN ONLY SEE IF THIS PROJECT IS ALLOWED TO BE APPROVED AGAINST OREGON AND WASHINGTON's People - we will then know............

YOU HAVE BEEN PAID AND ARE ON THE TAKE.

Sincerely,

Ms. karen grimstad

Karen Hall (#11045)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the coal trains and shipment of coal to China. All that coal burned in China will blow back to the west coast as air pollution. Those trains potentially will scatter coal dust over a large part of this country, creating environmental toxins. It seems like an unnecessary risk to all of us just for monetary profit for a few.

Really, is the ability of some corporation to realize a nice profit for a few worth the environmental risk for the majority? Please do not approve the shipment of coal to China and the coal trains rolling across the western US. It is just plain wrong.

Karen Hamalainen (#9816)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I have lived in WA my whole life and see the GPT project as affecting our whole state transportation system. With trains funneling through Spokane going along the Columbia River Gorge and up the Washington coastline through numerous urban areas I do not see this project limited to the Cherry Point site and the Custer Spur.
We need rail transport for passengers and numerous current and future freight needs. Tax and economic benefits are clearly not distributed.
Since the impacts are cumulative let’s make the studies also the same.
I want no action alternative on the coal terminal since we aren’t able to handle even current rail needs.

Karen Hamalainen (#9818)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
As a resident of Whatcom County and a lifelong Washingtonian I believe that any economic taxation benefits will be very geographically and unevenly distributed. I would want a study of who benefits and who doesn’t and what costs we are likely to incur as residents along the rail line. I believe the costs are much greater than the benefits and a good study needs to be made of this. This project will impact a much larger area than Cherry Point, Custer Spur or even Whatcom County. Although I believe the costs to each of these is greater than the benefits.

Karen Hamalainen (#9823)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I am also concerned about the spontaneous combustion concerns of the coal in the trains to Cherry Point, at the port. If the coal ignites at Cherry Point it can take tremendous water to suppress it, which might put tremendous strain on the Nooksack in-stream flow and other users. Please study combustion likelihood and magnitude as well as availability of Nooksack water. I also concerned about the impact of water drainage on groundwater and the biology of the area not just for putting out fires but managing coal dust. Please study the impacts of water drainage on groundwater and the biological integrity of the area. I would prefer a no action alternative given the magnitude of foreseeable problems.

Karen Hamalainen (#9883)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I’ve been a lifelong resident of Western Washington, and am now 68 years of age. I have lived at and helped in the development of the current state park on Camano Island at Cama Beach. When my grandfather built the resort in 1934, it needed almost no sea walls and the beach had an entirely different shape. With high sea walls, it is now totally under siege with rising water levels and apparent climate instability. It may not survive my lifetime in its current state.

It is critical that we understand what the rising sea levels and expected climate evolution will mean to the Cherry Point site as well as the transportation routes to and from the site. The coal port is a major permanent change to the Cherry Point environment and will not be easily undone, whether we are exporting coal or not. What will changing water level mean to this site?

We are a long way from having the infrastructure or full understanding of this site. So my choice would be no action at this point.

Karen Hamalainen (#14324)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Karen Hartley (#12638)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Salem, 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.

While I live far south of Cherry Point, I am particularly concerned about coal's harm to the overall climate and polluted air coming to Oregon from Washington on northerly winds and from Asia on westerly winds.

Karen Hartman (#12383)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Kirkland, WA
Comment:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I am a breast and thyroid cancer survivor, my son a brain tumor survivor. NO POLLUTION! NO SHIT IN OUR ENVIRONMENT!
DON'T YOU PEOPLE GIVE A FLYING SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING BUT YOURSELVES?!
GOOD LUCK WHEN YOU STAND IN FRONT OF GOD WHEN YOU DIE.

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.

Karen Helgesen (#13170)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Gold Beach, 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.

We have only one earth to leave our children and their children and their children...we want to leave them the best one we can. Will you help?

Karen Homitz (#14325)

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


Karen Hornite (#13428)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
See attached.

Karen Howard (#228)

Date Submitted: 10/02/2012
Comment:
In addition to their statement below, Karen Howard and Christina Needham would like someone to call them to confirm whether the following highlighted sentence is true or not, and if it is true, what the details of the “wetland transfer deal” are. This is a letter to the editor of the Northern Light newspaper on September 14, 2012.
***
The Editor:

The people of Whatcom County overwhelmingly do not want Peabody Coal and SSA Marine to build the coal shipping terminal. We all know the story: Rail cars spreading their dust and causing terrible traffic problems along with ridiculous railroad infrastructure costs to the citizens of Whatcom County.

Ships discharging their disgusting, filthy polluted ballast water from China (I have spent a lot of time in the Bahai Sea of China, where the coal is going) into our herring spawning beds at Cherry Point and then that water flowing into Birch Bay. That will be 500 ships per year at 17 million gallons per ship. It will destroy the herring and our salmon industry and ruin Birch Bay.

Coal dust blowing all over Ferndale, Birch Bay and Blaine. We will have coal filth all over our property and in our houses and lungs. Ask the people at Point Roberts about their coal dust problem from the Tsawwassen, B.C., coal terminal.

Do not trust your politicians, who get bribes in campaign contributions to protect you. Do not trust the environmentalists and EPA to protect you. They brought you the ecological disaster, ethanol, which reduces your gas mileage by 10 percent and raises your food costs.

We in Whatcom County must establish a coal tax on all coal stored and transferred in the county of $20 to $30 per ton. At 24 million tons shipped per year, tax revenue at $20 will be $480 million a year. That will pay for all the railroad infrastructure problems and perhaps an underpass for the miserable intersection railroad problem at Peace Portal Way and Blaine Road. It will pay the fishermen who have lost the salmon catch, but not the Lummis who are bringing this disaster to us by their wetlands transfer deal. It will pay for service people coming to our houses and cleaning up the coal dust once a week and then the doctor and hospital bills after our lungs are destroyed.
If the county council will not pass this tax, we the people must, through the initiative process.

Arne Cleveland
Birch Bay
***
This statement below was taken by Linsay Albin at the Bellingham Field Office, Department of Ecology.

Callers: Karen Howard and Christina Needham

Callers are against the building of the terminal which will increase train traffic.

Trains are currently about 130 cars long and run fairly slowly, often in the evenings or at night. Additional coal trains would make train traffic nearly constant, which would equate to constant noise, coal dust, and difficulty getting from one side of the tracks to the other.

More trains will jeopardize health services as aid vehicles such as ambulance and fire response will be delayed in crossing the tracks to respond to calls. Using Medivac to work around – or over – the trains would be much more expensive.

What will be in place as far as risk management regarding environmental impact to air, water and land? There will be cumulative effects in all three in addition to existing pollution. The water already smells (e.g. Drayton Harbor) and Point Roberts already has coal dust issues, which is causing their property values to plummet.

Whatcom County needs a great deal of control over this project as it is being built and also while it is operating; otherwise the corporations and companies involved will make their profit at the county’s expense. Just the word “may” in a legal document can be a loophole that can enable a company to avoid being held responsible for wrongdoing and allow them to wreak havoc on human health and the environment. They are interested in what benefits their company, period. Jobs promised usually turn out to be fewer than promised and all low-level jobs.

There are not enough benefits – in fact, no benefits – to offset the risks of these coal trains.

Why does Canada want coal coming through the US instead of through their own country?

Similar issues were faced by another county who listened to the siren song of a company promising to provide jobs and a positive cash flow to the county’s economy. Their county council is still working on the clean-up 20 years later.

Karen Howard (#461)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Blaine, 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 oppose this company in our backyard.

Additionally, I lived in a county in California that had dealings with this corporation. 20yrs ago they wanted to have a goldmine in our little town. Most of the jobs were given to employees within the company. They promised it would last for 20yrs, they would put the land back the way it had been. They left in less than 10yrs. They left behind a tailings pond leaking arsenic and cyanide and a hillside totally scarred and unusable. Here in Whatcom county they have already had a sub-contractor desecrated the land without a permit, and are now costing Whatcom county legal fees to fight them to pay the fine. This shows poor faith before they have even started. Those of us living in the county between Drayton Harbor and Birch Bay cannot connect to the outside world if the train is running past the only two roads going east. We will be stranded from emergency services during these times, and they have predicted 30 trains a day. This will also adversely effect the economy of our area. Let Canada take care of their terminal just over the border from us and leave our beautiful county alone

Sincerely,

Karen Howard

Karen Howard (#2564)

Date Submitted: 11/08/2012
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
I was unable to attend the Bellingham meeting. I live between Birch Bay and Drayton Harbor. I also have multiple medical problems, including respiratory. We know there is already a problem at Pt. Roberts from the terminal in BC. If the Canadians have coal, let them take it to that terminal and leave our environment alone. There is also another health problem that most of the county isn't aware of. When the trains come through, they block all access to emergency medical aid to our whole area. We already have to cope with trains that can take up to 10 minutes to pass. As of now, what they call the "golden hour" in emergency medicine is almost taken up just with getting the ambulance to our homes and then to Bellingham. Add so many more trains, we will have people dying, waiting. Not even the promise of jobs should override people's lives.

karen karen kelly (#8616)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: camano island, WA
Comment:
Hello, Hello, I live and work in the Stanwood/Camano area and am concerned about the negative environmental and health impacts of the coal trains. I agree with Dr Michael Riordan's comments about the winds at Cherry Point and fugitive coal dust. (submission #11) http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/7362
Because his study shows dust will leave the site, I want the impact on air water quality
and marine and fresh water species studied.
Karen Kelly

karen karen kelly (#8648)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: camano island, WA
Comment:
Hello, I live and work in the Stanwood/Camano area and am concerned about the negative environmental and health impacts of the coal trains. And as a small business owner am especially concerned about the detrimental economic aspects. The delays from the coal trains will cause loss of revenue to the existing businesses along the routes, and subsequent loss of work to those they employ. Also loss of tourism revenue.

The main justification I have heard is that it will create jobs. But I am not aware of any studies being done on loss of jobs and increased cost of infrastructure to the taxpayers.
I oppose the coal trains for these reasons, along with oil/coal spill risks and ensuing environmental damage and taxpayer expense.

The costs to the public for rail upgrades, infrastructure, safety measures, and mitigating adverse impacts all along the coal train route needs to be evaluated against the purported jobs. All things considered, this project is not
of benefit to the public.

Karen kelly 970 Rockaway Lane Camano Island WA 98282

Karen Katz (#11606)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a parent living within one mile of the train tracks, I ask that the assessment include a thorough review of the health effects on children. There are eight elementary schools located within a mile of the tracks. The trains will be passing through neighborhoods packed with young families. Studies on the impact of the terminal for the overall population will not be applicable to children, as their bodies are small and still developing. That's why studies specifically on children are necessary.

First, please study the effects of nighttime noise on children. What will happen to the thousands of children whose sleep will be further interrupted by the more frequent train whistles? Will their immune systems be affected, leaving them more vulnerable to serious illness? Will their ability to learn be impaired? And how about our children's capacity for peaceful social play? Recent studies suggests that sleep-deprivation is correlated with both ADHD and bullying.

In addition, evidence shows that driving while sleep-deprived is similar to driving while drunk. Will our children start their day exhausted only to have to be extra careful to avoid being run over by a sleepy driver?

Second, please consider how the increased air pollution from diesel exhaust and coal dust will effect the children of Bellingham. Will more of them be diagnosed with asthma now or later in life? Will they have fertility problems? What about cancer?

Third, please assess the impact on local seafood and drinking water. Will shellfish from the Bay be safe for our children to eat? Will our drinking water have increased levels of diesel and coal related pollutants that will adversely affect our children?

The combination of these three types of pollution may prove especially pernicious. If train-related pollution causes a child's cell to turn cancerous, and then his or her immune system is impaired because of sleep disturbances, AND he or she can't get clean water or nourishing food, he or she will be especially vulnerable.

Finally, please include a study of what will happen to children's mental health when we limit their access to waterfront play areas. In Bellingham, children experience many months of cloudy, rainy, and cold weather. What a boost it is for them to finally, in the summer, be able to play at one of our three sunny waterfront parks. But the tracks cut right through two of those parks and come close to the third. If the terminal is built, our children can say goodbye to their parks. This will most likely mean less sunshine, less unstructured playtime, less interaction with other kids. Will childhood depression then become a health issue in Bellingham?

We must do everything in our power to protect our children. We must not let them become coal-port casualties.

Thank you.

Karen Katz, on behalf of my children, and all the children who live along the tracks

Karen King (#5729)

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

Karen Kirkwood (#12874)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Comment:
Please require an environmental impact statement for the proposed coal export trains. We need clean air to breathe.
Thank you,


--
Karen Kirkwood

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." Albert Einstein

Karen Kurtz (#2784)

Date Submitted: 11/14/2012
Comment:
My mother lives in Marysville Washington, she is 86 years old.
We moved her into a house close to the Everett area over a year ago for health reasons. Coal trains that ad to the air problems with breathing aren't good for any community, but for seniors its even worse. She has friend that meet on Sundays for Breakfast and they are right across the street from the restaurant in Marysville WA. We have sat in the Restaurant and felt the floor shake. When driving through Maryville it takes up to 10 minutes for the train to pass in the roads. Bad for Emergency vechicals.
Before sending these trains you should fix the roads.
Also you need to meet with the leaders of the area you have a space in that area to meet with them. Don't think that people don't care about were there live.
Karen Kurtz

Karen Lauckhardt (#14291)

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

Karen Lewis (#1854)

Date Submitted: 10/24/12
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern

We should not send our resources to another country!
My home in Mount Vernon,WA is a rural community. We live here for the beauty, fresh air and small town life.
Many long coal trains bringing their dust, noise, vibrations and traffic jams to our small community is NOT OK!
We will receive no jobs, no benefits only a disrupted way of life.
Who will pay for overpasses, underpasses and what about an important part of the Skagit Valley tourism trade?
We have a month long Tulip Festival every spring that provides a livelihood to many people and business' here in the valley,
long coal trains would be very disruptive to the Festival, as the trains will block all access to the tulip fields, creating unimaginable traffic back ups in our
small community.
This is a no win situation for Mount Vernon and many other small communities along the different coal train routes.
Wouldn't it be better to send OUR coal to the East Coast to burn in cleaner burning coal plants?
It's time business' look at the bigger picture rather than just the money picture!
PLEASE STOP these terminals before you have destroyed many healthy rural lives and livelihoods.

Sincerely,
Karen Lewis
Mount Vernon, WA

Karen Molenaar Terrell (#3422)

Date Submitted: 11/26/2012
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
We live 100 yards from the railroad tracks, in a really beautiful part of the world. Eagles lodge in our trees, herons and trumpeter swans make their homes here. I'm concerned about the safety and health of all those who inhabit the environment near the tracks - both human and wild. I'm concerned about the toxic dust, the noise, and the shifting earth.

I drive across two tracks to get to work. If I managed to come to the tracks when trains are coming through, I could lose as mjuch as 16 minutes in my commute.

I'm concerned about the noise and traffic congestion bringing down our property values.

http://bellinghambayblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/coal-trains-and-our-beautiful-part-of-the-world/

Karen Molenaar Terrell

Karen Morse (#1727)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Karen Mueller (#2183)

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

Karen Olsen (#7639)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Karen Pipkin (#397)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Shoreline, 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 don't believe the jobs that this will create will make up for the pollution and just one train going off the tracks will be a disaster to our Puget Sound. We have air quality problems like many cities so we don't need coal dust flying through the air and into Puget Sound.

Sincerely,

Karen Pipkin

Karen Powers (#10316)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
To: Scoping Committee:
From: Karen Powers
Re: How much coal falls off of the BNSF trains?

How much coal falls off of the coal trains as they travel across the state? This question needs to be investigated. BNSF has learned how to decrease the amount that falls off with chemical coatings and their web site says that the amount is “substantially reduced”(ref below). What is the real amount and how will it be distributed along the train line?
In addition, how much coal dust will be emitted into the air along the train line? Are there small particles that would impact human or animal life along the way?

Thank you,
Karen Powers

http://www.bnsf.com/customers/what-can-i-ship/coal/coal-dust.html#2
http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/docs/BNSF-Coal-Dust-FAQs1.pdf

Karen Powers (#10333)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
To: Cherry Point Scoping Committee
From: Karen Powers, Seattle resident
Re:Infant hospitalizations and PM(2.5)

What will the increase be in infant respiratory problems? The small particulates PM(2.5) from diesel smoke have been shown to cause increased infant hospitalizations. Can extra hospital visits expected from the extra diesel smoke be mitigated? (2 Refs below).

Thank you looking into this.

Reference 1:
Environ Res. 2009 Apr;109(3):321-7. Epub 2009 Feb 10.
Infant exposure to fine particulate matter and traffic and risk of hospitalization for RSV bronchiolitis in a region with lower ambient air pollution.
Karr CJ, Rudra CB, Miller KA, Gould TR, Larson T, Sathyanarayana S, Koenig JQ.
Source
Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. ckarr@u.washington.edu
Abstract

Few studies investigate the impact of air pollution on the leading cause of infant morbidity, acute bronchiolitis. We investigated the influence of PM(2.5) and other metrics of traffic-derived air pollution exposure using a matched case-control dataset derived from 1997 to 2003 birth and infant hospitalization records from the Puget Sound Region, Washington State. Mean daily PM(2.5) exposure for 7, 30, 60 and lifetime days before case bronchiolitis hospitalization date were derived from community monitors. A regional land use regression model of NO(2) was applied to characterize subject's exposure in the month prior to case hospitalization and lifetime average before hospitalization. Subject's residential proximity within 150 m of highways, major roadways, and truck routes was also assigned. We evaluated 2604 (83%) cases and 23,354 (85%) controls with information allowing adjustment for mother's education, mother's smoking during pregnancy, and infant race/ethnicity. Effect estimates derived from conditional logistic regression revealed very modest increased risk and were not statistically significant for any of the exposure metrics in fully adjusted models. Overall, risk estimates were stronger when restricted to bronchiolitis cases attributed to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) versus unspecified and for longer exposure windows. The adjusted odds ratio (OR(adj)) and 95% confidence interval per 10 mcg/m(3) increase in lifetime PM(2.5) was 1.14, 0.88-1.46 for RSV bronchiolitis hospitalization. This risk was also elevated for infants who resided within 150 m of a highway (OR(adj) 1.17, 0.95-1.44). This study supports a developing hypothesis that there may be a modest increased risk of bronchiolitis attributable to chronic traffic-derived particulate matter exposure particularly for infants born just before or during peak RSV season. Future studies are needed that can investigate threshold effects and capture larger variability in spatial contrasts among populations of infants.

Reference 2:
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009 Nov 15;180(10):995-1001. Epub 2009 Aug 27.
Influence of ambient air pollutant sources on clinical encounters for infant bronchiolitis.
Karr CJ, Demers PA, Koehoorn MW, Lencar CC, Tamburic L, Brauer M.
Source

Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, 401 Broadway, Box 359739, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. ckarr@u.washington.edu
Abstract
RATIONALE:

Data regarding the influence of ambient air pollution on infant bronchiolitis are few.
OBJECTIVES:

We evaluated the impact of several air pollutants and their sources on infant bronchiolitis.
METHODS:

Infants in the Georgia Air Basin of British Columbia with an inpatient or outpatient clinical encounter for bronchiolitis (n = 11,675) were matched on day of birth to as many as 10 control subjects. Exposure to particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 mum or less (PM(2.5)), PM(10), NO(2)/NO, SO(2), CO, and O(3) were assessed on the basis of a regional monitoring network. Traffic exposure was assessed using regionally developed land use regression (LUR) models of NO(2), NO, PM(2.5), and black carbon as well as proximity to highways. Exposure to wood smoke and industrial emissions was also evaluated. Risk estimates were derived using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for infant sex and First Nations (Canadian government term for recognized aboriginal groups) status and for maternal education, age, income-level, parity, smoking during pregnancy, and initiation of breastfeeding.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

An interquartile increase in lifetime exposure to NO(2), NO, SO(2), CO, wood-smoke exposure days, and point source emissions score was associated with increased risk of bronchiolitis (e.g., adjusted odds ratio [OR(adj)] NO(2), 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12, 1.09-1.16; OR(adj) wood smoke, 95% CI, 1.08, 1.04-1.11). Infants who lived within 50 meters of a major highway had a 6% higher risk (1.06, 0.97-1.17). No adverse effect of increased exposure to PM(10), PM(2.5), or black carbon, was observed. Ozone exposure was negatively correlated with the other pollutants and negatively associated with the risk of bronchiolitis.
CONCLUSIONS:

Air pollutants from several sources may increase infant bronchiolitis requiring clinical care. Traffic, local point source emissions, and wood smoke may contribute to this disease.

Karen Powers (#10338)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
To: Cherry Point Scoping Committee
From Karen Powers, Seattle resident
Re:Marbled Murrelet food supply:

How will the endangered Marbled Murrelets be affected by the loss of eelgrass beds? Eelgrass is the spawning ground for herring, the primary food of Marbled Murrelets. With the loss herring, what is the fate of the Marbled Murrelet?

Reference:
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Karen%20M%20Powers/My%20Documents/Environment/Coal%20Train%20Scoping/Marbled%20Murrelets/Marbled_Murrelet.htm

Karen Prince (#12752)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Kenmore, WA
Comment:
We are deeply opposed to a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and to the transporting of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

We are against this because it is the wrong direction for us as a state and nation. We need to burn less coal, not more, as we face the relentless increase in global temperature. The United States should lead the world in finding and subsidizing cleaner sources of energy. Surely, jobs can also be created using alternative energy sources and by retrofitting buildings to make them energy efficient.

Further, more coal dust in the air is detrimental to public health; it leads to acidification of the ocean affecting marine life and our food supply; it leads to an increase in ship traffic with potential coal tanker accidents; it creates traffic congestion including emergency vehicles, while waiting for long trains.

We recommend a trip to China to experience toxic air firsthand. In 2010 we spent three weeks in major cities where the sun was often hidden by the "smog". On the Yangtze River the land on either side was obscured by dirty air and we saw coal plants spewing noxious dark effluvium into the air. The gigantic Three Gorges Dam and the Great Wall disappointingly disappeared into a similar haze. We came home with bad cases of bronchitis, as did most of the people on our tour.

As you think about this decision, consider soberly the costs to the future health of our children, generations to come, and the health of our beautiful planet - our only home.

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

Please keep us informed. Thank you.

Karen Racich (#13334)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
My name is Karen Racich and I am a retired elementary school teacher. I've lived in Bellingham since 1968, and taught in Whatcom County for over 30 years. I've seen many changes come to our lovely city and county and many proposals made, but nothing has ever compared to this

It is beyond my comprehension as to why Bellingham and Whatcom County would want to allow dirty coal into our lovely county land and waterways. Already the coal trains that do pass through to the terminal to Canada have made life miserable for many: those trying to enjoy a picnic in Boulevard Park, or walk the trails along the bay, grow produce( that gets covered in coal dust), or get a decent night's sleep with the continual horn blowing. That Whatcom County would add so detrimentally to the local and world environment is reprehensible. Will our tourist brochures now announce a new attraction - see the United States biggest coal terminal and breathe in the coal dust as a free treat? What about the sea life, the Orcas, the fishing industry, the Native American culture? Why would we want to bail out a dirty, dying coal industry so the corporate giants can satisfy their own greed over the future of their and our children and grandchildren.

I can think of absolutely no benefit to bringing coal here.The '200' supposed new jobs we may get will sacrifice so many other jobs: at restaurants and hotels near the water and tracks (I understand ear plugs are already handed out at hotels near the tracks and wonder if gas masks are next.) What about the huge cape ships in our waters bringing us invasive sea life from afar, about destroying the herring spawning grounds at Cherry Point which will effect the salmon industry and wreck havoc with our Orca population? What about the realty business; who wants to buy a condo by the bay, er tracks? What new people will want to move here? What about emergency vehicles needing to cross the tracks? The 8 minutes needed to wait for a 100- plus car coal train to pass could mean life or death. House values will surely drop. And the global impact of all that pollution is mind boggling. No good will come of allowing dirty coal to come to us and allowing it to be burned half a world away.

Karen Reisdorf (#12689)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: San Clemente, CA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export in Washington State.

This facility, as part of a larger scheme to strip-mine coal in Montana and Wyoming, transport it across the Northwest and ship it to Asia, would negatively affect the health of human communities and ecosystems in the region:

* Coal dust and diesel exhaust will contribute to serious respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

* Coal dust creates exposure to toxic metals including mercury, a known neurotoxin, and is linked to increases in asthma, especially in children. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad studies estimate that up to 500 pounds of coal dust could be lost from each car en route.

* More coal burning in Asia means more toxic air pollution, including mercury, travelling back across the Pacific to pollute West Coast rivers, lakes and fish.

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.

AND take a good look at what coal burning does to the environment in China - smog so thick they can't see a factory that is on fire! Please work for a BETTER world.

Karen Robinson (#1345)

Date Submitted: 10/20/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Karen Sauve (#340)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Renton, WA
Comment:
There is no such thing as clean coal. Not in mining and certainly not in transporting. 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.

karen sokolowski (#10045)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I am opposed to the coal train because of health concerns,air quality and noise. My home is within 2 miles of the rail system though b'ham. I can hear several trains running at night now when I am trying to sleep!

Karen Ulvestad (#13420)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Edmonds, 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 the wrong direction for Washington to go. We want clean and green energy, and coal is not either. It destroys the environment, and we do not need it near our land, water or air. Please do not do this!

Karen Wagner (#14058)

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.
Why is this coal being exported for private profit? It should be kept in the United States, at least. At best the American people should benefit from THEIR natural resource, not private corporations!

Karen Walasek (#13196)

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, 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.

Seriously, who will this help? Exporting coal?
How many ways can we say we need clean energy options?

Karen Weber (#13459)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Karen Weill (#11099)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The true cost of coal

We have allowed the coal industry to “externalize” the cost of coal onto the rest of us, the taxpayers. Not just in the form of direct tax subsidies, but in areas such as the increased cost of health care due to disease and injury to the environmental clean up. A recent study lead by the Dean of the Harvard Medical School, Dr. Paul Epstein, found that these costs can amount to $500 billion per year when they looked at the costs associated with coal mined in Appalachia. (See http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf)

Please include in your EIS a similar look at the true costs of coal on the West Coast, both to the State of Washington and Whatcom County, of costs such as the mother who has to miss a day of work in order to take her child to the doctor for an asthma attack, the cost of missed work days due to injury along the transportation corridor and at the terminal itself, the cost to a family of the loss of a loved one due to injuries or the inability of the emergency vehicle to get to a medical facility in time, etc.
A quote from the Dr. Epstein’s study: “The monetizable impacts found are damages due to climate change; public health damages from NOx, SO2, PM2.5, and mercury emissions; fatalities of members of the public due to rail accidents during coal transport; the public health burden in Appalachia associated with coal mining; government subsidies; and lost value of abandoned mine lands.”

We need to not only list these impacts, but also quantify the costs to taxpayers for all of them. Please study this and include this information in the EIS. Thank you.

Karen Weill (#11116)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Ocean acidification / Oxygen / phytoplankton / marine species / oyster farming

The phytoplankton and ptreopods in the ocean are dying from ocean acidification, caused by global warming. The oysters are also being affected by this, and it is having a huge impact on our oyster farming in the Puget Sound, to the point where baby oysters must be brought in from outside the region in order to be raised here.

The most worrisome aspect to this finding is that the phytoplankton produce 50% of the world’s oxygen.

The EIS authors need to look at the latest studies, and what impact this huge coal terminal and the cumulative impact of have five coal terminals shipping over 100 million tons of coal per year to Asia will have on the ocean acidification, and how will that impact our Puget Sound, the wildlife in it, and human beings?

Here is the URL for the study by DOE and University of Washington:

www.ecy.wa.gov/water/marine/oceanicacidification.htm


Here is a study of the issue published in the journal, Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html


and two articles about the study cited above:

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/29-4

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/29/206497/nature-decline-ocean-phytoplankton-global-warming-boris-worm/?mobile=nc


Please include in the EIS a review of these and other studies and how the Cherry Point terminal will adversely add to the ocean acidification and thereby affect all of these important issues, particularly the loss of oxygen and the building blocks of marine life, phytoplankton and ptreopods. The EIS needs to look at all the levels of possibility: a) If only this terminal is built, b) if some combination of the proposed terminals are built, and then c) if all five are approved.

Karen Weill (#11117)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Appearance of Fairness / Neutrality of the company doing the EIS

I am requesting that there be full disclosure by CH2MHill as to all previous relationships, contractual or otherwise, between CH2MHill, SSA, Burlington Northern, and any other company or entity involved in the permit request for this terminal. CH2MHill is a company that makes millions of dollar per year providing engineering for exactly this type of project. Its business relationships would be irreparably hurt if they came out with an EIS highlighting enough serious impacts to make the “no alternative” choice the only sane one. I am requesting full disclosure of all previous, current and potential future relationships and a review by a neutral, scientific body.

I am also asking that any agency reviewing the choice of CH2MHill look at it with the “Appearance of Fairness” doctrine and/or policy in the governing statues of EIS studies in mind. Even if CH2MHill were to hand this over to a neutral third party to actually do the study, I cannot believe they would actually allow any scientist, but especially not anyone who works for them, to come out recommending the “no alternative” option. They would never get another job as a consultant on an EIS, and they would never get another job in this type of engineering if they did so. There is no way the choice of CH2MHill meets the Appearance of Fairness.

Karen Weill (#11121)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Cost to tourism / particularly eco-tourism, such as whale watching, etc.


I am also requesting that the EIS study look at how much is eco-tourism going to be hurt in general by the fact that we have coal terminal at Cherry Point with 480 additional ship trips every year. Regardless of what they build, any dock, any shipping will have an impact. What is the impact of the largest terminal proposed or envisioned, and what is the impact of the smaller dock that already has been permitted? What would be the impact if all 5 terminals are permitted? Even if only 2 or 3 are permitted?

What will be the impact on sport fishing, on whale watching, on scuba diving, all of the tourism and eco-tourism activities and how much does that cost us in terms of tourism dollars?

Karen Weill (#11123)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Loss of species from both site and vessel traffic

What is the tipping point that will lead to our losing the orcas? If we lose this herring spawning ground, will we lose the salmon? Is the loss of the Nooksack salmon enough for us to lose orcas, who will leave the Puget Sound to find other food? What is the tipping point when we might lose enough of the herring, that leads to enough loss of salmon, that leads to loss of orcas? This isn't just about one species. You can't look at them in isolation. You have to consider each one in turn, as the collapse or harm of one will lead to harm or collapse of the next one. How much more toxic chemicals then will go into the orcas, so we lose this icon of the Puget Sound/Salish Sea and the Pacific Northwest?

Karen Weill (#11128)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
In my last scoping comment, I asked about what is the tipping point, the one herring species / nursery ground, the one salmon species / river run, that will finally tip the scales so we have a catastropic loss of herring, salmon and the orcas that feed on both.

Now, I'm asking a related question: how will the increased toxic chemicals added to the water from the coal dust and from the shipping vessels affect the salmon that we humans eat? This is less of tipping point, we are not an endangered species like the orcas. But we are getting increasing effects of toxic chemicals in our diets. I read an article recently about a study stating that people under 50 will live shorter lives because of the increasing pollution in our environment. How much more toxins will be added to the salmon we eat in Whatcom County from our local waters and from waters in Alaska, the primary shipping channel for the added 480 trips per year from this one terminal alone (never mind if the other terminals get permits)? What is the effect on the average human being's diet, based on average consumption of salmon in the Pacific Northwest, where it is a mainstay of our diet?

Karen Weill (#11141)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Herring spawning grounds

I am concerned about the forage fish at Cherry Point, including but not limited to the herring.

The Puget Sound eco system depends on herring spawning grounds. The salmon that return to the Nooksack, depend on this particular type of herring, that are the earliest to be born in the area. The salmon rely on this early cycle in their spawning cycle, and the orcas rely on different types of salmon to be available at different points in the year. This particular nursery is one of the few remaining that support salmon and orcas, iconic wildlife in our region, and a major tourist draw.

There was a study that said that the Cherry Point herring have been reduced by 90% over the past several decades. See this study:

http://www.seadocsociety.org/node/71

Kurt Stick, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife was one of the experts on this issue:

http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/pacific_herring.php

(Note: it does say this is not the latest information, and gives a pdf link, http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/SOS2012/sos2012_110812pdfs/SOS2012_VS09_110812.pdf
but then says I don't have permission to download the more current information. Please contact Mr. Stick or Fish and Wildlife as part of your study for the EIS. Thank you.)

There were several other studies that came up when I googled "study 90% decline Cherry Point WA herring" including a 2005 study from Dept. of Ecoology and Fish and Wildlife:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wet/docs/cherrypointherring.pdf
(which states that the biomass of the Cherry Point herring was at one point equal to the biomass of all the other herring spawning grounds combined in the STATE).

Please contact either the authors, R.R. Marshall and G.G. Bargmann, or whoever is now the responsible scientist/administrator/ "indicator champion" on this issue, for up-to-date information.


How will the coal dust that will fall in the water as it already does at the terminal at Roberts Bank/West Shore, the ships' exhaust that goes into the water, diesel particulates from the trains, and other toxic run offs and impacts affect this sensitive nursery?

The company applying for this permit says they can do better than the Roberts Bank/West Shore terminal at capturing the coal dust, but no one can do this 100%. Even if the permit application calls for what appears to be a negligible percentage, please calculate how much that translates into tonnage or whatever applicable unit, and how that will impact the herring?

The Cherry Point herring are not classified as an endangered species but should be considered one. When the EIS looks at this issue, it should ALSO include (separately) the impact of the herring being placed on the endangered species list or even on a threatened list as one of the effects that would increase the adverse impacts of the terminal and shipping.
Attached Files:

Karen Weill (#12039)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
A study mandated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals required BP to look at the potential impact on marine vessel traffic if BP increased it's capacity/production. That study said that even a 17% increase in marine vessel traffic would substatially increase the risk of accidents. The number of vessels associated with the coal terminal could reach twice as many ships as now go in and out of Cherry Point.

I am extremely concerned about the possibility of a coal spill; I am deathly afraid of the consequences of a potential vehicle collision between a coal ship and an oil ship going in and out of Cherry Point. Just recently, Roberts Bank/Westshore had a ship completely destroy the dock there, in a place that has had literally decades to prevent exactly that kind of accident.

What are the safeguards being suggested by the applicant? Are they adequate? Given the magnitude of recent accidents, from the Exxon Valdez to the Gulf of Mexico, what needs to be in place to prevent a coal - oil collusion that would totally destroy not just Cherry Point, but a good portion of the Puget Sound? What would be the result if such an accident happened? What is the worst case scenario?

In addition to studying the scientific impacts, the EIS also needs to look at the possibility of requiring a bond. Apparently, this has been required of projects similar to this in the past, and the applicant/company responsible has never actually posted such a bond, and ended up paying less than 10% of what the clean up actually took. What part of paying for clean ups have the taxpayers had to take on in the past/historically? What is required under current regulations? What does that come to in dollars?

And how long did it take to recover? Have the herring returned in the area of the Exxon Valdez spill yet?

http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/bp-vessel-traffic-risk-assessment-assessment-of-oil-spill-risk-due-to-potential-increased-vessel-traffic-at-cherry-point-washington

http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~dorpjr/VTRA/FINAL%20REPORT/083108/VTRA%20REPORT%20-%20Main%20Report%20083108.pdf (I couldn't get this to come up, but it was a report mandated of BP in 2005, I believe.)

A law school review article:
http://www.elawreview.org/summaries/environmental_quality/nepa/ocean_advocates_v_united_state.html

Karen Weill (#12062)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
There was a study done in the City of Spokane that showed there is a 10 year difference in life expectancy between the north side of Spokane and the south side of Spokane. The difference is directly related to proximity to the industrial area, which includes the railroad tracks where products, including coal, is shipped to and through Spokane. What would the impact of this coal traffic have on human life expectancy as well as human health?

Spokane Regional Health District study:
http://www.srhd.org/links/data.asp

Article on this:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/sep/23/solving-a-health-gap/

Karen Weill (#12106)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
This coal terminal is part of a larger interconnected coal delivery system. Same mines, same rail lines, same type of transfer terminals, same vessels, same shipping route, and same coal furnace destinations. The cumulative impacts are the same on the same resident and migratory natural resources (salmon, whales, sea birds) all along the delivery route over freshwater and marine water bodies from the mines to the furnaces in China. The "similar actions" have "similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography."

It is my understanding that of the five proposed coal terminals in Washington/Oregon, this would be the largest by a significant amount. It is reasonable, then, to request that the EIS for this terminal include scenarios of how much more adverse will the same impacts be if any combination of the five receives permits, from two of them to all five.

I would urge the Army Corps of Engineers to address these issues in a combined EIS. However, the Cherry Point EIS also needs to look at some of these same issues from the viewpoint of residents of Whatcom County and residents of Washington, who will be impacted by this terminal, and it needs to include various types of potential scenarios, under "Connected Actions" requirement.

Karen Wright (#306)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Arlington, 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. There is a university in Whatcom County and it is a very Arts and Educational community. The negative impact on the campus and student health would be unacceptable.

karen zeldenrust (#7451)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: edmonds, wa
Comment:
Please Lets not send coal to China. Instead, lets help them with a healthy alternative. Unhealthy pollution will eventually harm us all and our generations to come. Why cant we think globally and not just about the profits to be made.

karen zeldenrust (#7452)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: edmonds, wa
Comment:
Please Lets not send coal to China. Instead, lets help them with a healthy alternative. Unhealthy pollution will eventually harm us all and our generations to come. Why cant we think globally and not just about the profits to be made.

karen zeldenrust (#7453)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: edmonds, wa
Comment:
Please Lets not send coal to China. Instead, lets help them with a healthy alternative. Unhealthy pollution will eventually harm us all and our generations to come. Why cant we think globally and not just about the profits to be made.

Karen Zorn (#12670)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Eugene, 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.

It is irresponsible to consider increasing any use of coal or encouraging others by actions or inaction to expand the use of fossil fuels.

Karen & Karl Mueller (#1527)

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

Karen & Karl Mueller (#2109)

Date Submitted: 10/30/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Karen & Russ Richman & Barger (#2458)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
We are opposed to the exportation of coal from Gateway Pacific Terminal north or any other place in Washington and the US. Large scale daily coal trains as proposed would impact the communities along the way in these ways that we know of:

spreading of coal dust and particles in the air - which contributes to breathing problems and health issues
frequent stoppages of traffic throughout the day while long coal trains pass over streets and highways
delay of emergency vehicles and their critical missions
coal being burned in China would come back in the atmosphere -- to us -- and would contribute to air pollution and climate change

We would be hippocrites --- the US talking about and promoting methods of delay of climate change --- and then we become a major contributor!!!! And climate change would become worse than it is now.

All train cars carrying coal should be covered NOW! I worked on the second floor in a building right next to the train tracks in Mount Vernon and sat right next to the window. I saw open train cars loaded with coal daily.

Please don't proceed with plans for exportation of coal. The consequences are too great.

Sincerely,

Karen Richman and Russ Barger
14408 Jura Lane
Anacortes, Wa 98221

Karen & Truman Harrison (#2193)

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

Karen Molenaar Terrell (#3624)

Date Submitted: 11/27/12
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kari Cleghorn (#606)

Date Submitted: 10/09/12
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.

Kari Cleghorn

Kari Henderson (#436)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
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, increasing shipping traffic and noise with extra trains, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Kari Henderson

Kari Quaas (#12253)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, 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.

Don't just think about the immediate future. Please think about the long term consequences of this action.

Kari Schuh (#2282)

Date Submitted: 11/03/2012
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I am against the installation of the Gateway terminal. My husband and I are residents of Orcas Island in the San Juan's. Our lives have been devoted to the protection of natural resources and education. We both value, in particular, the land and our water resources. Without proper management and oversight, these essential elements of all life on earth are always in jeopardy.

We are concerned that the GPT coal shipping terminal would cause tremendous amounts of runoff from the coal which will carry impurities and pollutants to the earth and then the water.

Please do not build this--we don't need it. Sincerely , Kari Schuh

KariAnna Clausen (#10970)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I oppose the coal industrial site and train coming into Whatcom county. It has been argued that the coal train would bring industry and economic strength to our area, but the kind of industry that promotes the use of unsustainable energy and causes pollution is not the kind of industry we want here in Whatcom county or anywhere in the world. I watched Obama's inaugural speech today. In it he said, "The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it." People have begun to realize the implications of pollution and climate change and it seems as if the U.S. is attempting to move toward cleaner, more sustainable energy. Why then would we allow ourselves to move backwards and watch as the ocean becomes polluted with coal dust, wildlife is driven away by noise and pollution, our air quality goes down, and other negative environmental impacts take place in an area so well known for it's beautiful nature. The economic advantages of a coal terminal are far outweighed by the potential possibilities of investing in clean energy and making a choice to value our health and the health of our environment over money.

Karin Brittain (#13496)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Karin de Weille (#7237)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Comment:
In this day and age, to be investing in a technology and energy of the past is irresponsible. Let's not dig our heads in the sand any deeper but eschew what adds to the problem of climate change. It is hard enough to change what is in place, but to actually build and invest in a direction that goes backward...! The absurdity is overwhelming. Let's think of people in the future and how they will look back at us. Were we forward-thinking or in denial? There's plenty of other projects in which to invest our time and energy. Let's move our focus there.

Karin Engstrom (#5028)

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

It is imperative that the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council conduct a very thorough Environmental Impact study of the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point or any other terminal along the Washington and/or Oregon coast.

As the young man said last evening at the hearing, he already recognizes the changes in environment with global climate change. What in the world are we doing even considering the export of coal to other countries? What kind of responsibility are you willing to take as governmental agencies?

I believe and propose that if you consider this proposal at all, the companies who will make their profits off of this venture MUST place bonds to cover the costs of all environmental degradation in land, water, and air including all “accidents” on both land and sea and increases in health risks of the populations affected in the Northwest. . Therefore, I ask you to include in your study:

1. The air pollution caused by one open railroad cars times the number of cars on each train load as it travels along the route from Montana or Wyoming to the docks where the coal will be transferred to ships.
2. What happens to the land adjacent to the railroad route with so many trains of coal passing over it.
3. What happens to the communities along that railroad in terms of air, land, water and noise pollution.
4. Identify specific illnesses that can be caused by coal pollution. We’ve known about these illnesses and more for many years. Will these companies be willing to cover the medical costs – please estimate these costs so that these companies who want to profit have a reality check. I want them to place bonds to ensure these communities, farmers, fisherman, native peoples, employees and others that they will in good faith to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

This is not an isolated issue. This proposal involves the entire globe in the consequences of your actions. We are stripping this planet to make it die one way or another. The lives of your children and grandchildren and their children are in your hands.

I ask that this comment be made a part of the record on the scoping process. Please place me on your mailing list for updates on the study.

Karin Engstrom

Karin Everett (#13045)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Lynnwood, 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 coal trains would block up the ferry terminal in Edmonds and other Puget Sound businesses making continued business in these locations untenable. This would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands jobs due to reduced ability of commuters to access the ferry.

Karin Sanders (#13070)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Ferndale, 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.

Coal is NOT the future...it has far too many negatives to consider and we have so many better options to use for energy. Why ruin the United States just to expot coal to China so they can pollute more than they do now!!

Just SAY NO to coal...SAY YES to the quality of life and our environment!!

Karl Kleeman (#12272)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It is clear that a good and honest environmental assessment is needed concerning the coal port. But those who are against it have lost a lot of credibility with their misinformation and focus on the coal trains. This is a self serving issue unrelated to the environment we all need to protect.

Trains are the best and most environmentally friendly way to move people and freight. And each town along the line cannot be allowed to decide what kind of cargo can go through their town. This would destroy this critical environmentally friendly transportation system.

Coal dust and other issues in Bellingham are just not valid. In Bellingham there are three places where the trans pass over or go under the roads. Trains will not block traffic in the city. There are a few spots where a train will temporally block intersections but these are not critical. And there are no freight sidings in Bellingham, there is one approaching south Bellingham that is on the shoreline and does not impact traffic.

So, a good environmental impact study is needed but action against trains motivated by property self interest should not be allowed to block progress.

Karl Kleeman Karl (#2277)

Date Submitted: 11/03/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Coal trains through Bellingham will have no impact on the health of those living in and around Bellingham. In fact, there are so many lies and misinformation about this topic that we hope these will be addressed and the truth will be made clear. Coal dust is not an issue as the current modern coal cars and methods to prevent dust will take care of any potential dust. Emergency services will not be impacted as there are three places where emergency vehicles can go over or under the tracks. If you calculate the number of minutes per day that the trains will block a crossing, it is pretty small. There are no sidings in Bellingham where trains can be parked and block vehicles. This is a coastal route with limited vehicle crossings. It might be worth looking at ways to limit the locations where trains must blow warning horns or perhaps set up the vehicle crossings themselves with warning horns that are directed to focus the sound where needed. We have a lot of emotional and misinformed people in Bellingham and a good and proper fact based study should alleviate a lot of unwarranted fears. The actual terminal is another question that needs careful study and I am sure all environmental concerns will be addressed. Building the facility and the unloading and transfer of coal is the real area of concern and I hope the commission will carefully study and assess the facility plans to meet all requirements and if we can not properly protect this sensitive environment turn down the project.

Karl Rubicam (#32)

Date Submitted: 09/24/2012
Comment:
See image
Attached Image:

Karl Rubicam (#52)

Date Submitted: 09/24/2012
Comment:
See image
Attached Image:

Karl Rubicam (#673)

Date Submitted: 10/13/2012
Comment:
Why not let your true colors shine through?
Attached Image:

Karl Uppiano (#4541)

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

Karla Casanova (#11745)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
To whom it may concern,
My name is Karla Casanova. I am writing about Global Warming to explain the effects that are going on around the Earth. The effects of Global Warming are the ecological and social changes caused by the rise in global temperatures. Projections of the future climate changes suggest further global warming, sea level rise, and an increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events that can be risks to lives and many opportunities. Supposedly with very high confidence they concluded that physical and biological systems on all continents affected by recent climate changes, particularly regional temperature increases but my concerns are what is going to happen when the Earth’s magnetic shield is all gone what is going to happen. What are the back up plans or what is science going to do for us? I feel that the Earth’s magnetic shield should be studied more and what other things can we do to help besides recycling and reduce polluting.

Karla Pouillon (#2658)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Karla Sabin (#8790)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am a home-owner on San Juan Island and a former resident of Bellingham, WA, and 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,
Karla Sabin

Karla Sabin (#8793)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am a home-owner on San Juan Island and a former resident of Bellingham, WA. 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,
Karla Sabin

Karla Sabin (#10198)

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


I am a homeowner on San Juan Island and former resident of Bellingham, WA. 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,

Karla Sabin

Karla Von Huben (#3166)

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,

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.

It's way past time for us to start making a serious investment in solar and wind energy. We can create good jobs in clean energy industries if we can just get over our addiction to fossil fuels and embrace the future.

Sincerely,

Karla Von Huben
13314 SE 19th St Apt U2
Vancouver, WA 98683-6595
(360) 828-5593

Karla Willett (#4105)

Date Submitted: 12/05/12
Location: BEllingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Karn Nielsen (#5371)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Karolyn Burdick (#12921)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Clallam Bay, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect many 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 and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Coal is a polluter and killer from extraction to final use. We should be eliminating coal production, not encouraging it. To export it to other countries is criminal. The damage already caused by coal in this country has been horrendous - let's not add to that here, or anywhere else.

karyn daniels (#6385)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Comment:
Let's put our citizens to Work!

Karyn McKinney (#6164)

Date Submitted: 01/07/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a home owner and business owner in Whatcom County, I believe that the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal will have enormous negative impacts locally, regionally and internationally. Below I list all the areas of concern that I feel need to be studied:

Property Value Loss: real estate values will be devalued by noise (wheel squeaking and horn blasts), coal dust, and traffic.

Business Isolation: Waterfront businesses in the City and County will likely suffer as customers are blocked and services interrupted for significant portions of the day.

Diminished Waterfront Redevelopment Success: It is important to note that when jobs are discussed, the Waterfront Redevelopment Project represents significantly greater job prospects over a longer period of time than the Cherry Point project. Much of the success of the proposed $2 Billion waterfront redevelopment project depends on attracting investors and users willing to pay premium prices for condominiums, office space, and marina slips. The premium nature of those opportunities will be significantly diminished by coal dust, noise, and train-related access issues.

Public Expenditures: Since these increased train traffic levels obviously require significant safety improvements, this will seriously impact public coffers.

Coal Dust: Coal dust will be a huge problem. At Cherry Point it will coat and cover sensitive habitats and compromise water quality. Likewise, coal dust scattered all along the route will foul water and generally lower the quality of life for all.

Physical Disruption: This project proposes to change the physical characteristics of the site in a significant manner including impacting 162 acres of wetlands and altering more than 2 miles of existing waterways. High levels of vessel traffic in the area will also impact nearshore and offshore conditions, particularly bulk carriers that are more prone to catastrophic failures.

Mercury: Mercury pollution is a serious threat to human health with pregnant women and the unborn being most vulnerable to this peril. Burning coal elsewhere, like China or other Asian countries, will increase the amount of mercury in our waterways, increasing human and animal exposure to this element.

Geological Peril: Coal trains are long and heavy (i.e., one and half miles long and up to 15,000 tons). These trains are so heavy that they tend to flatten the rails, which causes much of much of the wheel squealing we hear during transit. These same extraordinary forces that impact tracks also act on geology. Given that much local development is on vulnerable or unstable formations such as the homes along Eldridge Avenue in Bellingham, this is a great concern that needs to be examined.

Ancestral Burial Site: The terminal and surrounding sites are part of an ancient Lummi village, and as such is considered by the Lummi people to be an ancestral burial site. The bones of Lummi ancestors were removed from the site during archeological excavations of the 1940's and 1950's, but the site remains sacred to the Lummi Nation, who has long opposed development of the property.

Historical Reefnet Site: For thousands of years before European settlement, Lummi people fished at Cherry Point (Xwe'chi'eXen). The Lummi developed a unique reefnet technology to harvest salmon at the site while limiting bycatch. The sites traditionally used for this purpose (Sxwo'le) are protected by treaty and are considered both critical economic resources and historically significant areas.

Treaty Fishing Rights: The Lummi people are signatories to the Point Elliot Treaty of 1855, which guaranteed the Lummi and several other Coast Salish first nations access to traditional fishing and gathering sites. In 1975, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal court decision issued in 1974 by District Court Judge George Hugo Boldt that affirmed the rights of the Coast Salish tribes to serve as comanagers of the Puget Sound salmon fishery. The threat posed by the coal terminal proposal to salmon habitat and fishery stocks has the potential to significantly impact the treaty and inherent rights (Chi'lang'e'lh) of the Coast Salish tribes to their traditional way of life.

Increased Cancer Rates: In addition to the mercury threat identified above, studies on the impact of train-generated diesel exhaust in Stockton, California indicated a clear relationship between the proximity to train traffic and cancer. This study observed a doubling of cancer rates within a zone of 200 yards of the rail operations. While Bellingham projected traffic levels are less than Spokane or Stockton, the relationship between diesel particulates and cancer is well-documented at multiple locations. I also have concerns that air and water pollution associated with large vessel traffic will have human health consequences as well.

Human and Property Safety: Even at our current traffic levels train-caused deaths are not uncommon. The anticipated escalation of traffic would likely increase that number. In addition, coal dust distributed on rail beds is being credited by the railroad industry with causing train derailments because the dust inhibits proper drainage of rail beds. A train derailment like the recent one in Tacoma could have disastrous consequences in downtown Bellingham and elsewhere in Whatcom County.

Regional Reputation: Many individuals, organizations, and companies have worked very hard to create a regional character or brand that emphasizes the perfect balance between urban and rural; industrial and natural; and looking towards the future while embracing the best aspects of the past. This mixture has led to Bellingham being identified as one of the happiest and most sustainable cities in North America. This is a source of pride and an important aspect of our collective self-identity. Being perceived as a portal to the single most destructive energy source on the planet jeopardizes this balance, our hard-earned reputation, and—ultimately—our happiness.

US Job Loss: The enormous amount of coal being sent as an economic building block (raw material) to a country that is our direct competitor on the global market has direct economic impacts in terms of national job loss. Fifty-four million metric tons of coal will empower an estimated population of 5 million Chinese which will result in roughly 200,000 more workers making products bound for the US market and displacing a like amount of US manufacturing jobs. Do we really want to help accelerate this trend or should we be smarter?

Climate Change: There is no escaping the fact that these coal and train shipments will result in approximately 150 million tons in new greenhouse gases annually.

Energy Security: No rational national energy trajectory involves a scenario where the US will be coal-free anytime in the near future. Therefore, these coal resources from federal public lands we are so cavalierly sending to China are diminishing the energy security of our country.

Please examine closely the impacts of all the issues listed above. Gateway Pacific Terminal has too many negative impacts to be given a green light.

Sincerely yours,

Karyn McKinney
Bellingham WA

Kasey Potzler (#5697)

Date Submitted: 01/01/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Kasey Potzler and I’m a teacher in Meridian School District. By virtue of that position I have a vested interest in the future. I moved to Bellingham 21 years ago because of the outdoor opportunities here, because of the pristine lakes, mountains and the ocean. I have loved that there are so many people here who care deeply about the environment and who do all they can so that today’s children will also have a place to live and work and recreate. I drive a Prius. I have solar panels on my roof. I do the small things I can to make my footprint smaller. The Gateway Pacific Terminal does not make our footprint smaller…in fact it will seriously increase our footprint and add to an already serious state of global warming.

I would ask that you study the impact that will result from approximately 150 million tons in new greenhouse gases annually if we ship the amount of coal proposed through the Gateway Terminal and on to China. That’s about twice as much global warming pollution as results from every activity in Washington in a year, including every power plant, car, truck, factory, and farm in the state combined. (Washington state and Centralia power plant emissions from Washington State Climate Advisory Team, “Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections, 1990-2020,” Washington Department of Ecology, April) This is a foreseeable, significant and adverse impact!

I hear a debate about “clean coal” technology and China’s advancements in the realm of pollution reduction and carbon sequestration, but coal is not clean and though China may make bold promises, there is a serious performance gap. Two young adults from Bellingham who are close to my family spent 2 years teaching English in China and had to wear face masks whenever they went outside to deal with the pollution already persistent there. Do we really want to add to that already desperate problem by helping China burn more coal? Researchers have also linked ozone in the air above the US to pollution from developing Asian countries that are burning fossil fuels. I’d ask you to study the health concerns involved for me, the children I teach through Meridian, and all of Western Washington, and the US when that coal burned in China comes back to despoil our air and water.

Kasey Potzler (#7144)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Kasey Potzler and I’m a kayaker. I’ve enjoyed many kayak trips in the San Juans, the west coast of Vancouver Island and the BC Coastal Islands. Of course one of the most incredible aspects of these areas are the presence of Orca whales which I have had many excellent opportunities to see from the perspective of a kayak or a ferry.

I’m very concerned about the many significant impacts this project has in terms of transportation of coal on the marine environment, and particularly the Orca whales.

Please study the impacts of tanker accidents on the Salish Sea. How would the Orcas be impacted from a diesel or coal spill?

Please study the impact of the increased traffic and density of these ultra-large ships on the Salish Sea. How will noise of these ships affect the Orca’s ability to communicate with each other. How would the increased risk of Orca collisions (causing injury or death) with marine vessels, threatened food sources, and a degraded marine environment increase challenges for the health and continued presence of whales?

Please study the impact of ballast water from the ships that come back from Asia would have on the whales. What invasive species could be introduced because of release of ballast water, and how would that impact the whales?

Please study the effect of air emissions from the diesel engines of the tankers. Burning coal in Asia releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and increases the acidity of the ocean. What is the effect of increased ocean acidification for Orca habitat?

These impacts not only affect our Orca in this area, but marine life all the way to Asia. Please scope the aggregate future impacts involved with these issues. Allowing the project to proceed certainly creates significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the Orca here and wherever they may be from the Salish Sea to Asia.

Thank you.

Kasey Potzler (#7400)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Kasey Potzler. I’ve been a Bellingham resident for the past 21 years.

I agree with Joseph K. Gaydos’ comments in his letter to you, dated November 3, 2012. He states, “the economic trade off of creating a few jobs in a more wealthy urban area like Bellingham needs to be weighted in light of the potential damage it could bring to both harvestable and watchable fish and wildlife resources of less economically well off rural counties.”

Mr. Gaydos continues, “I implore you to ensure that the scope of the EIS being developed for the proposed deepwater multimodal terminal in the Cherry Point area of Whatcom County also extend to the counties and regions where ships entering and leaving this proposed port would transit, including Clallam, Jefferson and San Juan County as well as to the waters and resources of neighboring British Columbia. The potential impact of increased vessel traffic needs to be evaluated in light of potential major stressors such as increased vessel-related noise, increased potential for a catastrophic oil spill, increased potential for vessel strike to marine birds and mammals, and increased pollution associated with the ship’s marine diesel engines. These stressors should be evaluated for every species of concern, including candidate species that are not yet Federally listed by the U.S. or Canada. Risks also need to be considered for their potential economic impact to the marine ecosystem and the businesses and livelihoods they support.”

I too, want these impacts to be thoroughly studied.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kasey Potzler (#7410)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I just read Mary Ruth Holder’s letter to you dated Jan 6, 2013. Her initial comment is stated here: “Please include in the scope of the EIS: impacts of fugitive coal dust from trains en route to and from GPT and coal mines in the Powder River Basin.” Here is the link to her comment.
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6108

Mary asks a myriad of excellent questions which I too believe should be studied in detail. Mary asks you to determine the effects of fugitive coal dust in Mount Vernon. I would ask you to study the same questions she asks in Bellingham where I live. In fact, shouldn’t those questions be studied for every community along the rail route from the Powder River Basin to the site of the proposed GPT?

I am especially concerned with this coal dust as my husband suffers from asthma and upper respiratory ailments. What effect will the coal dust and/or the surfactant used to reduce said coal dust, as well as the increase in diesel exhaust from all the additional trains, have on his ongoing health? What effect will it have for all the children and adults in all these communities from the Powder River Basin to the proposed GPT? Please study how 48 million metric tons of coal transported on these rail lines annually affect, not only people who already deal with respiratory ailments, but all the rest of us who live along these lines.

I would like you to thoroughly study the impacts Mary has proposed too.

Thank you.

Kasey Potzler (#8210)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Kasey Potzler and my husband and I moved to Bellingham from Minnesota in 1991. One of the reasons we came to Bellingham was to live near the ocean so that we could kayak there, enjoy watching the whales, seabirds and creatures and explore tidepools and tidelands. When you grow up in landlocked Minnesota the ocean is an amazing treasure.

As I read Dr. Gary Greene’s Comment on Potential Fugitive Coal Distribution from the Proposed Cherry Point Coal Loading Facilities and Outward Transport of Product, http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/5913 I was awed at the complexity of the issues that abound as we consider what bringing in a coal plant and shipping 48 million metric tons of coal across the ocean will do to the ocean. Even the ocean floor will be changed and what changes will those changes bring about? We don’t know that and it needs to be studied prior to beginning such a project, because there is no going back if later we find that there are seriously negative effects and damage done to the treasure!

I would ask you too, to study these concerns brought forth by Dr. Greene.

Thank you.

kasey potzler (#8222)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Comment regarding Michael Riordan’s Comment on Wind-Blown Coal Dust From the Proposed Cherry Point Terminal http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/7362

Like Michael Riordan I am also a kayaker. I moved to Washington from Minnesota over 20 years ago to kayak in the waters of the Salish Sea and British Columbia and one of my favorite places to kayak too, is the islands north of Orcas Island – Sucia, Matia and Patos! I came here “because the San Juan archipelago is one of this sport’s premier destinations.” I am one of those kayakers who “relate closely to this marine community and care deeply that it continues to thrive. I know the wind of which he speaks when Mr. Riordan says, “The proposed Cherry Point site is located in one of the windiest regions in northwest Washington.” I’ve also waited for the ferry at Tsawwassen, BC, and watched the winds blow coal dust off the huge coal piles there.

I would ask that you do study each of the items in Riordan’s section titled “Studies and Actions Requested.” This is a huge decision with long term and lasting ramifications for people, sealife and the ocean itself.

Thank you.

Kasey Potzler (#9173)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The Climate Reality Project just confirmed that last year was a record breaking year for hottest temperatures and this affected people in all the regions of the US. Minnesota, my home state and the place where I spend a significant part of my summer is suffering from serious prolonged drought. My relatives, who have lived in Kansas for much of their lifetimes, just moved out of that state, driven north after every tree that they planted 30 years ago on their acreage died due to drought and record breaking numbers of days with temperatures over 100 degrees. Kevin Curtis from The Climate Reality Project (email dated 1/18/13) states that “snowpack has decreased 30 percent in parts of the Pacific Northwest, posting a serious risk to the region’s water supply. I currently live in Bellingham. These are 3 areas in the nation significant to me and my family and one only has to look at every region of the US to find record breaking heat and drought.
Curtis states, “Climate change is a threat to our economy, infrastructure, food and water security, and our health. Coal is already the number one source of carbon pollution in the United States.” How can we continue to be increasers of the problem?

I would like you to study the overall comprehensive effects of carbon pollution occurring as a result of 48 million tons of coal annually moving from Montana through Washington state and then on to Asia. What effect will this have on our economy, our infrastructure, our food and water security and our health?

Thank you for your consideration.

Kasey Potzler (#9185)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Reading scoping comments is certainly an eye opening and educational experience and I’m thankful to all the people with expertise in many different areas for sharing their thoughts and questions. I came to the Pacific Northwest in the early 90s to live by the ocean and to kayak there. The thought of a tanker spill in this area is frightening and heartbreaking to me, and the increase in shipping which would be brought about by the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would make these already crowded shipping lanes look like LA freeways.

I agree with Sanford Olson on his comment October 27, 2012 on the Vessel Traffic Risk (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/1567) and along with San I would ask you as well to “Please conduct a thorough, comprehensive, Vessel Traffic Study including all potential increased vessel traffic occurring due to expansion, or development, of import/export terminals in Washington, Oregon and Canada.”

I would also stand in support of San’s January 5, 2013 comment (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6044) and ask that you not only study all of his questions as they relate to the Salish Sea, but that you extend your scoping to consider all the areas of potential impact if there were to be a significant spill along the entire Great Circle Route.

Thank you.

Kasey Potzler (#9506)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I have many concerns about the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, but one of my greatest is the air pollution that would occur due to the diesel locomotives and ships needed to transport coal from the Powder River Basin through Bellingham where I live, to the proposed terminal at Cherry Point and then on to Asia.

I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Sara Mostad’s comment regarding air pollution from diesel, http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6353 when she states the following: “I specifically request that you determine how many excess deaths and hospitalizations would be expected, across the entire state of Washington, from diesel particulate matter associated with the diesel locomotives and ships from the Gateway Pacific Terminal. Such an analysis, should, at a minimum, compare baseline and expected rates of asthma, stroke, heart attack and cancer. There is abundant peer-reviewed medical research establishing irrefutable links between diesel pollution and the above noted diseases. “

This is important to me because my husband suffers from asthma and I know too many friends in Bellingham who deal with heart issues and cancer already. Their health will be negatively impacted by this pollution. I am currently a teacher serving a program in Meridian School District which has students throughout the state of WA, many of whom live along rail routes which would conceivably be used for the transport of coal. How will the 235 locomotives coming and going per day to the Columbia River Gorge from the Powder River Basin if GPT and the other proposed terminals are constructed affect the health and wellbeing of all our families who live along these rail lines?

Please thoroughly study these impacts.

Thank you.

Kasey Potzler (#9548)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Much has been said by coal proponents that we can’t let this opportunity go by because building and running the proposed GPT will be a source of jobs desperately needed in this area and this economy. I heard this over and over again at the Ferndale scoping meeting which I attended. I respond with 3 questions and these are questions I would like you to study:

1) How many of these jobs would go to local people and how many of these jobs would be filled by experts coming into the area?
2) How many other jobs would be lost as a result of the negative impacts of coal (like the jobs that could occur as Bellingham transforms its waterfront, fishing and shellfish jobs, tourism, agriculture, and manufacture of local goods, etc)?
3) Given the seriousness of climate change already at this point, and the knowledge that burning coal and diesel fuels only contributes to the problem of climate change, wouldn’t our state be better served to create new clean energy jobs around solar and wind power?

I know that a huge reason that my husband and I moved to this area over 20 years ago was because the Northwest is known for its spectacular beauty and its emphasis on healthy living and environmental stewardship. Coal doesn’t fit into this plan at all and in fact would be detrimental on local, regional, and national levels. Our overall quality of life would be negatively impacted. If the value of GPT in our area is jobs, then Nick Gier in COAL TRAINS THREATEN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH (www.lakependoreillewaterkeeper.org/uploads/1/2/.../coaltrainsng.pdf) states this: “Data from the Sightline Institute indicates that a coal port would produce only .2 jobs per acre, whereas a FedEx distribution site would create 1.1 jobs per acre. Another facility at Longview brings in wind turbines and other cargo and generates 3.4 jobs per acre. These uses are obviously much cleaner than huge piles of coal kicking up tons of toxic dust.”

Kat Hall (#5240)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Haver, ID
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Kat McManis (#9540)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Comment:
My family and I live in Auburn and we are absolutely against the proposed coal terminal up north, since we would be tremendously affected by the additional traffic, noise and pollution. We should not support China's appetite for coal! Or we'll be contributing indirectly to more world wide air pollution and global climate change. I fear for increased cases of asthma and cancer in our population, more preventable deaths and accidents if we would have to endure increased train traffic in the puget south. There are too many arguments against this project and only few in favor.
Please DO NOT approve the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point or anywhere else.

Kate Scott (#10866)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
As a waterfront property owner on the west side of Lopez Island, I am concerned about the destructive capability of wave action on the shoreline from all these ship's wakes. The results of that many large cape sized ships traveling through the Haro and Rosario Straights on a daily basis will most likely carry a heavily erosive toll. The undercutting and calving away of land, some of which holds housing, is already a problem on an island - a situation that will most likely be many times worsened by the wake from these ships.
As you know, the shorelines are home to all manner of seabirds, seal, otter, whales, crabs, shellfish, salmon and such, as well as the eel grasses and habitat that support them. They cannot afford to have their habitat destroyed by landslides and ever more destructive wave action. Please study in depth the potential erosion effects on the shorelines from all these ships. Thank you.

Kate Benkert (#14101)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
I am deeply concerned about the potential impact of coal exports on my family, local community and global community. Coal exports pose great threats to the health, safety, and environment of the Pacific Northwest. But even more so, burning this coal would be a huge step backward in combating global warming. It is better left in the ground.

We need to have a thorough review of the risks and impacts to our communities - from mine to rail, from port to plant, and from plant to our region's air.

Please support a cumulative and comprehensive area-wide environmental impact statement is conducted that takes into account the impacts of all six proposed coal export terminals currently on the table.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kate Berg (#9263)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: LaConner, WA
Comment:
Please consider that the future of our entire planet is threatened by continuing archaic industrial practices. Mining coal, shipping coal by rail and cargo ships, offloading in China where it is again transported and then burned for fuel and energy... where does this end? Right back on us ! We make a big mess getting it out of the earth, and an even bigger mess getting it to China. China will sully their home continent as they burn this coal. And then, prevailing winds will return this toxic air to us, all the while harming the oceans, the air and farmland all over our small planet. It is so shortsighted to even consider that "jobs" could possibly be more important then the health and future of our planet. Short term gain for a few at the cost of health for all of us on Earth....just plain wrong.

Kate Blake (#6885)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I have been a resident of Whatcom County for 25 years, for many years I commuted via train to Seattle. During the winter season there were regular landslides so Amtrak had to stop trains and ferry us by bus. This season we have already seen 77 slides and Amtrak has not been able to run train service for much of this month. The tracks run on very unstable ground, steep hills directly to the east of them and the water to the west. With the extra train traffic that's expected we can only assume we will see more landslides, which may be just an inconvenience or a tragedy.

Will you please ensure that the EIS evaluates the vibrational impact of the coal traffic on the surrounding land, roads and bridges and please consider the cumulative impact of the trains.
Also evaluate the effects extra landlsides would have on the surrounding waters and the effect on the waters if a landlside happens to force a coal spill into the Salish Sea.

Thankyou

Kate Bowers (#5882)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
My name is Kate Bowers and I live close the the South Bow tracks. I work with children with learning disabilities including those on the autism spectrum. Here in Bow many days engines are parked with their engines spewing fumes that make it difficult to breathe the air here. The engines rumble for hours at a time. Children living near me are forced inside or outside breathing this terrible air. Neighborhood took me to see piles of coal they gathered playing by the tracks.

As a child I grew up in the rust belt town of Canton, Ohio. I saw, but didn't understand, the cycle of boom and bust as manufacturing grew then declined. After the decline stores were boarded up, unemployment grew and with it a host of mental health related issues including domestic abuse grew too. The companies grabbed their dough and ran leaving we the people holding the bag with no resources to bring our healthy communities back.

As a child trapped in this matrix I eventually was the victim of hunger, homelessness, physical abuse and ran away when I was fourteen with a broken back and damaged brain that took me decades to overcome. I watched the Cuyahoga River burn. Heard unemployed fathers beating their wives and children every Friday as their despair grew. The air quality burned my nostrils then as it does now more and more in Bow.

This coal will run out. While I am totally disbelieving of claims of economic prosperity of this GPT project, what provisions are being taken for the care of children's mental and physical health as they are confronted with the many facets of health hazards posed by this project. Sadness, grief and depression as we watch our beloved natural landscape transformed into industrial wasteland. Anger as the lies of GPT are manifest. Mercury, blown off from coal powered electricity plants, will blow back here and increase the already epidemic proportions of ADD, ADHD and other neurodevelopment mental illnesses in Skagit County. Autism on the rise. These are our children!

Illnesses borne by them via this project are untraceable to the companies making a fortune on this project and their CEOs like Warren Buffett, Lloyd Blankfein, Gregory Boyce and Jon Hemingway. We still have no universal health care. So the poorest children will likely suffer the most and either they will get no care (like myself) or tax payers will pay for their very expensive treatments including Ritalin which is methylphenidate which is like METH, asthma meds, hospital stays, cancers.

My life is devoted to helping children and a clean environment is critical to thriving youth. I question the mental health of those already unbelievably rich men referred to above being willing to harm innocent children for more money especially when they already have vast fortunes. Clearly they are out of touch with reality. The mental illness is that of a sociopath or psychopath. I've discussed this at length with a local psychiatrist. There is a clear and direct link between the possible mental illness of these very rich men and harm to the environment that hurts the children playing around the tracks.

Please mitigate for this by insisting on a mental health assessment by a neutral provider for those willing to harm children for their own profits including the four CEOs. Remember, as Bertrand Russell said, "all great truths begin as blasphemies."

Now is our last chance to get the future right.

Kate Bowers (#5890)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
My name is Kate Bowers and I live close the the South Bow tracks. I work with children with learning disabilities including those on the autism spectrum. Here in Bow many days engines are parked with their engines spewing fumes that make it difficult to breathe the air here. The engines rumble for hours at a time. Children living near me are forced inside or outside breathing this terrible air. Neighborhood took me to see piles of coal they gathered playing by the tracks.

As a child I grew up in the rust belt town of Canton, Ohio. I saw, but didn't understand, the cycle of boom and bust as manufacturing grew then declined. After the decline stores were boarded up, unemployment grew and with it a host of mental health related issues including domestic abuse grew too. The companies grabbed their dough and ran leaving we the people holding the bag with no resources to bring our healthy communities back.

As a child trapped in this matrix I eventually was the victim of hunger, homelessness, physical abuse and ran away when I was fourteen with a broken back and damaged brain that took me decades to overcome. I watched the Cuyahoga River burn. Heard unemployed fathers beating their wives and children every Friday as their despair grew. The air quality burned my nostrils then as it does now more and more in Bow.

This coal will run out. While I am totally disbelieving of claims of economic prosperity of this GPT project, what provisions are being taken for the care of children's mental and physical health as they are confronted with the many facets of health hazards posed by this project. Sadness, grief and depression as we watch our beloved natural landscape transformed into industrial wasteland. Anger as the lies of GPT are manifest. Mercury, blown off from coal powered electricity plants, will blow back here and increase the already epidemic proportions of ADD, ADHD and other neurodevelopment mental illnesses in Skagit County. Autism on the rise. These are our children!

Illnesses borne by them via this project are untraceable to the companies making a fortune on this project and their CEOs like Warren Buffett, Lloyd Blankfein, Gregory Boyce and Jon Hemingway. We still have no universal health care. So the poorest children will likely suffer the most and either they will get no care (like myself) or tax payers will pay for their very expensive treatments including Ritalin which is methylphenidate which is like METH, asthma meds, hospital stays, cancers.

My life is devoted to helping children and a clean environment is critical to thriving youth. I question the mental health of those already unbelievably rich men referred to above being willing to harm innocent children for more money especially when they already have vast fortunes. Clearly they are out of touch with reality. The mental illness is that of a sociopath or psychopath. I've discussed this at length with a local psychiatrist. There is a clear and direct link between the possible mental illness of these very rich men and harm to the environment that hurts the children playing around the tracks of South Bow.

Please mitigate for this by insisting on a mental health assessment by a neutral provider for those willing to harm children for their own profits including the four CEOs. These companies must prepay damage deposits since they have a long record of skipping out on paying for the damage they do. Remove the subsidies on the coal they're removing and use that money to pay for programs in advance to mitigate health impacts on poor children living along the tracks. $500 billion in advance.

Now is our last chance to get the future right.

Kate Bowers (#6889)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
If the Whatcom County Council OKs this project and the jobs do not materialize with benefits, healthcare and pensions can we hold the Council Members legally liable for the economic losses to those workers personally?

Kate Bowers (#6891)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
I live in Bow near the railroad tracks. The engines stand for hours with engines running and the air becomes unbreathable. With the increase in trains and coal and diesel particulates, how can I make sure that the companies will pay my medical bills, lost wages and other incurred economic hardships?

Kate Bowers (#6895)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
At a community information meeting a GPT representative stated that up to 5% of some rail mitigation such as overheads would be paid for by BNSF. The remainder along the entire route would be paid for by tax payers. Please identify how much tax payers would be accountable for in all of the towns along the route and compare that loss of local revenue to stated gains by this project. Should the gains be less than promised as a mitigation the companies Goldman Sachs, Berkshire Hathaway and Peabody Energy should be held to account to pay the loss or discrepancy so local communities are not hurt by this project.

Kate Bowers (#6897)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
Currently the air quality around Bow has been poor because emissions from the refineries are coating the air with acid quality that burns my nostrils and hurts my throat. The crude from North Dakota is being refined and harming the air terribly. I want to know how the mixture of chemicals released and combined with other local industrial emissions will harm the environment and who will pay for the damage to land, sea, air and people.

Kate Bowers (#6898)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
Currently the Anacortes refineries are increasing the intake of shale, planned is to bring in the water bottling plant in Anacortes (Tethys) and increase the trains carrying coal to GPT. I want you to look at the aggregate of all potential train traffic by these companies planned projects and who will pay for lost revenue.

Kate Bowers (#6901)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
Children are susceptible to the neurotoxins contained in diesel, coal and mercury byproducts. I work with children with neurodevelopment challenges. Who will pay for the illnesses, lost productivity, lost tax revenue and other financial and social costs?

Kate Bowers (#10238)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bow, wA
Comment:
My father was a mechanical engineer in what is now called the Rust Belt. In my first ten years our family fell from being solidly middle class to squalid poverty. There were many others living in desperation there in Canton, Ohio as the jobs were outsourced and the ruined environment and communities writhed in agony.

Husbands, desperate in their inability to support their families got drunk and beat their wives. Wives, desperate in their inability to care for their children turned to violence or profound depression. Kids attacked other kids. I was assaulted five times in two years. My brain injured. My back broken. My spirit crippled by PTSD. When I was fourteen I ran away to Chicago joining Puerto Rican gangs for the protection.

My high school, Lake View High, was used in a movie called My Bodyguard. I laughed myself silly when I saw the delightful little cream puff versions of gang members as they were portrayed in that movie. But those gangs had nothing on these corporate gangsters in Armani suits.

My 55th birthday was spent with friends writing scoping comments on this GPT issue.

It took me years to understand that the devastation of my life was directly attributed to the social and environmental devastation that occurs when the psychopaths who run corporations have sucked the very life out of a region before they move on. They internalize the profits and externalize the costs.

My fifth grade school field trip was a ferry boat ride on the Cuyahoga River AS IT BURNED!

It took me years to heal by body, brain and spirit. I couldn't hold jobs, I was too emotionally broken to form friendships. Decades of my own life were spent putting myself back together after this horrific childhood. And I'm just ONE PERSON.

Please look globally at what happens to environments and communities when corporations decide to move on. See if there is a pattern of devastation that could predict corporate behavior in the future specifically the records of Goldman Sachs, Peabody Energy, Bershire Hathaway and SSA Marine's parent company.

What happens when the coal run is done? Make Lloyd Blankfein, Warren Buffet, Gregory Boyce and Jon Hemingway personally liable for returning Cherry Point to it's original UNIMPROVED state by making them post a bond BEFORE they are given this permit. Make them establish mental and medical clinics to provide care for the poor along the entire route of their planned coal carnage including all of Whatcom county's rural areas. Make them pay to play.

That way we won't be doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different outcome.
Because that would be INSANITY!

Kate Bowers (#10240)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bow, wA
Comment:
Are slick wolves in sheep’s clothing cynically offering us much needed jobs and money for our local economy?

Think frankenstorm. Major spill. Our federal marine sanctuary. Dead. Orcas dead. Fishing. tourist industry dead. And the fuure of our children?

GPT’s plan? Bring in the safety manuals!

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.”

Remember the BP Gulf Oil Spill emergency response plan?

After Fukushima radio active iodine 131 was fed to infants through tainted drinking water. Bhopal, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, BP Gulf spill, Exxon Valdez spill...all had a safety plan.

Prince William Sound was court ordered to receive $4.8 billion in punitive damages paid by Exxon for a failed safety plan. Silk stockinged lawyers for Exxon got it down to $504 million (a month’s profits).

Children are particularly susceptible to the consequences of environmental disasters.

Warren Buffet made 10.254 billion in 2011
Peabody Energy’s CEO Gregory Boyce 30.66 million.
Goldman Sachs President Lloyd Blankfein 16.2 million.
SSA’s, CEO Jon Hemingway probably did OK too.

This project could garner 1000 percent profits.

Make these rich corporations pay an up front $500 billion dollar damage deposit so silk stockinged lawyers can’t make taxpayers take another hit when a Frankenstorm hits or an earthquake or volcano or all of the above. Prepay that GPT safety plan and we’ll use dirty money to develop clean energy, living wage jobs! Now THAT’s a plan!

Kate Burns (#12423)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Doing this is a big mistake - it will bring more health problems from air pollution, it will rob the US of our natural resource virtually giving it to China who will burn it without adequate environmental controls. Saving it for our future is a much better idea. Also, as a resident of Seattle I have no interest in all those train cars coming through our region - interrupting commerce and traffic. Strip mining and burning coal is terrible for the environmentn. There are better ways for energy. Please stop these proposals.

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.

Kate Grinde (#9403)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
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. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:
OIL/COAL SPILL RISKS: 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?
BOATING & SAFETY: How might fishing and recreational boating be affected by the additional capesize and Panamax coal ships in our waters? By how much will accident and collision rates increase?
ORCA, MARINE MAMMALS & BIRDS: How would the noise, pollution and physical presence of the additional huge vessels affect our orca populations? How would construction and operation of the coal port and the continuous transiting of coal ships affect other marine mammals, fish, birds, and the food web that supports them?
SALMON & FISHERIES: How would construction and operation of the coal port; up to 100 acres of pulverized coal in open, near-shore storage; and the coal ships themselves (size, pollution, noise, anchor dragging, etc) impact the crab, herring and salmon fisheries?
TOURISM & OTHER ECONOMIC COSTS: How would lost beauty, decreased orca populations, damaged fisheries and more crowded waterways affect our tourism industry? How would property values be affected? How much will we, the taxpayers, ultimately pay for costs directly and indirectly associated with GPT?

Kate Grinde (#12804)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern:

I live and/or work in a Bellingham, 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 encompass the entire transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:

NOISE: 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?

TRAFFIC PROBLEMS: 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?

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?

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?

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?

VISUAL QULITY: How will the GPT and the train traffic affect the visual quality of our beautiful and valuable landscape? While the GPT itself may be designed to minimize its impact, the increased train traffic will likely negatively affect the buildings and landscapes due to dust and exhaust that will be created by this traffic.

LAND SLIDES: With the recent increased numbers of landslides along the route that is and will be used for the coal trains, the likelihood of more slides and possible blockage of train traffic should be evaluated. Does the slide history make this particular route and unwise choice when there are others that would provide a more dependable route? Will the vibrations associated with the increase in train traffic increase the number of slides?

Sincerely,
Kate Grinde
January 19, 2013

kate hawken (#8679)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
I want to provide for my children and future generations an environment that is still sustainable and clean. It seems to me that coal shipment through our region will in no way benefit our fragile and diverse ecosystem. We in the Puget Sound enjoy an access to nature that is unmatched almost anywhere else in the United States and along with that access comes a responsibility to do everything that we can to ensure that our environment remains as clean as possible. Increased rail and shipping traffic, coal dust, reduced air quality, noise pollution, increased runoff contaminants, all of these things will negatively affect our region.

kate hawken (#8690)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
I am a sailmaker and avid sailer and the increased shipping through the Puget Sound required to deal with all of this proposed coal is going to adversely affect our boating population. The boating industry in the San Juan Islands is not insubstantial, every summer tourists come to charter boats, go whale watching, kayak, camp, and just ride the ferries. Our sailing regattas draw boats from as far away as California, Idaho, Montana, and Canada. Our region is frequently written up in magazines such as Cruising World, and Sunset magazine as a place to enjoy a peaceful, relaxing and environmentally significant vacation. The environmental impacts of coal transportation can not help but negatively affect this industry.

Kate Johnson (#6854)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am deeply concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed Gateway pacific terminal and the rail, vehicle, and vessel traffic that it will create. As a lifelong resident of western Washington I have seen rapid assault upon our ecosystems and waterways, and am shocked that something that threatens so many aspects of our environmental health is being considered as a possibility. Please include in the scope of your study the effects upon all aspects of our water systems - not only the bay, wetlands, and estuary near the proposed site, but also including streams and rivers in the neighboring area to the terminal. As has been shown recently in Canada, with tar sands pollutants effecting water quality of lakes 50 miles from the excavation sites, there are effects that projects of this dimension can create that are far reaching and, while they occur silently and seemingly out of sight, are potentially devastating. Thank you for your attention to this process and to the health of our living communities.

Kate Johnson Kiefer (#1094)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I am a mother of three living in Bellingham, and am opposed to the construction of the Cherry Point coal terminal. To be honest, I'm against coal in general. From start to finish, mining to burning, coal causes enough damage to human bodies and natural ecosystems that I believe it is best left in the ground. I believe it would be brutally unwise to sacrifice the health of our Northwest communities so that this dirty fuel can be shipped from Wyoming to China. The Cherry Point Terminal proposal would disrupt our community, and many communities throughout or region, by increasing train traffic, causing more automobile congestion, blocking access to the waterfront, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, and delaying emergency responders. On top of that, the proposed terminal stands poised to damage the irreplaceable aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site. The Lummi tribe has spoken out against the desecration of these fishing grounds and I strongly support their defense of their sacred lands. I also stand with the Lummi Nation in believing we should be aware of the Cherry Point terminal's increase tanker traffic, which holds 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 am aware that the Cherry Point terminal is one of five coal export proposals currently on the table for our region. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals, and to assess the impacts of every step of the export process.




Kate Johnson Kiefer
1421 Portal Drive
Bellingham, WA 98229

Kate Ketcharev (#5772)

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

Kate Ketcherez (#5950)

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

Kate Koughan (#13710)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
I must have heard incorrectly this morning that I could cast a vote at the Washington Department of Ecology website either for or against the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point.
I could not find a spot on the website to vote so I am emailing you to cast my vote IN FAVOR of allowing the coal exports to pass through a terminal at Cherry Point.
I appreciate the opportunity to do this.

Kate Kypuros (#10891)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Camano Island, WA
Comment:
I have attached my letter in pdf format, regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal related rail activities impacts and requests for EIS inclusion.

Sincerely, Kate Kypuros
Attached Files:

Kate Long (#10173)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Olga, Wa
Comment:
I live on Orcas Island with my husband and two small children. We chose to live here because of the natural habitat and beauty. With 900 scheduled annual transits of super tankers, I believe there should be a study of the possibility of a marine disaster that results in a significant oil/coal spill that might damage the San Juan Islands.

Additionally, examination of the issue of pollution and noise and its potential significant adverse impacts on native and endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales and other fish/wildlife in the waters transited by the coal tankers. Recent studies have found that orcas are among the most contaminated marine mammals in the world. Pollution and chemical contamination make orcas more susceptible to disease and likely cause reproductive difficulties. Further study of the coal tanker impact on pollution in our waters is needed.

Kate Lunceford (#14327)

Date Submitted: 01/06/13
Location: Bothell, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kate McBride (#5617)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Kate Mullen (#723)

Date Submitted: 10/17/2012
Comment:
see attachment
Attached Image:

Kate Nichols (#12280)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the affects on water quality on the Salish Sea from building a coal terminal. The coal will be blowing into the ocean from the terminal at great cost to the fish and marine life.
I am strongly opposed to building a coal terminal on the ocean. We need to protect our oceans. Shellfish in this area are already have a hard time surviving, the addition of a coal terminal could wipe them out.

Kate Nichols (#12285)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live within two miles of the BNSF line that will carry coal through the Bellingham community where I live. Please study the affects of the air pollution on our community from an additional 18 trains a day passing through it.

Kate Nichols (#12286)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study what the toxic air pollution that will come from burning the coal in China that will be shipped from the Pacific Northwest before allowing a coal shipping terminal to be built at Cherry Point, Washington.

We know that the polluted air will return to our country. Please protect our country.

Kate Nichols (#12290)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington because of the environmental damage it will do to the shellfish, salmon and orca whales that live in the sea surrounding that area. Please study the damage building a coal port will do to this sensitive area. We need protect our seas from more damage.

Kate Nichols (#12295)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live in Bellingham two miles from the BNSF line on which 18 additional trains would travel. These additional trains, running along Bellingham's waterfront, will disrupt access to businesses and community events, which we enjoy during the summer. The damage that this many trains will bring to the community of Bellingham should be studied.

Kate Richardson (#12991)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Burian, WA
Comment:
There are better ways to create jobs, which is just about the only positive effect of this project. As resident of Puget Sound concerned with our local environment and the safety of civil society on earth, I very 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. To do less would be a disservice to the American Public.

Kate Rinder (#9978)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
To whom it may concern:

I am writing to state that we should NOT move forward with the Gateway Pacific terminal at Cherry Point. There are innumerable reasons why, as noted below. Arguments in favor due to the “job opportunities” it will bring are overinflated. And not worth the countless negative repercussions the terminal will have. If our community allows this project to be approved, we will be ruining the health and well-being of the entire community—both people and the environment that is the base of this wonderful region. A handful of jobs, and a small amount of tax revenue in no way justify the expense that many communities along the coal route will incur. Allowing this project to happen would be another sell-out to big business that has the potential to ruin all of what makes this area so vibrant, and one of the best places to live.

There seem to be countless reasons why allowing this project is a bad idea. But some of the strongest are human health. The number of open coal trains moving through the area will poison the air through release of toxins and particulate matter, affecting air quality, with especially negative impacts for children, the elderly, and pregnant women. This pollution will also affect water quality, which of course affects all marine life as well. The particulate matter released from the coal can cause cancer, as well as cardiac and respiratory problems. Because these pollutants are released into the air, they will spread throughout our watershed, and effectively poison our pristine waters.

The Skagit River is one of the few to boast all five salmon species; they and so many fragile organisms are very vulnerable to these toxins leaching into the water. Additionally, much of our regional economy relies on marine life to support thousands of families financially. Marine life will also be threatened by the potential for coal transport shipping accidents, which could be disastrous. The Cherry Point herring, in particular, which are a keystone species, are vulnerable to stresses caused by the proposed terminal.

The trains will also poison agricultural land all along the route to Cherry Point. These toxins can contaminate our precious farmland (which is already under assault from so many factors), which will take many years to leave. Meanwhile, these toxins will be transferred into food that is grown on this land, which will again poison our bodies. As the Whatcom Physician’s Scoping report notes, “Arsenic concentrates in food crops such as apples and rice and is associated with increased rates of skin, bladder and lung cancers, cardiovascular and lung disease.” Coal dust will also cause adverse health affects to those working in and around these trains and train routes. Children who live along train routes are especially at risk.

The noise pollution caused by the increased number of trains will also cause disturbance (sleep, livability, stress, etc.) along the route. These communities will likely face a decline in real estate and property values, as people no longer want to live in these areas. A coal train every hour will make a substantive difference.

One of the most significant threats from these trains is the impact they will have on the ability of emergency services to respond to emergencies. For many serious health emergencies, every single minute counts. The fifteen minute delay caused by a coal train preventing an ambulance from responding to a call could be the difference between life and death. In a similar vein, every additional train put on these tracks increases the likelihood of an accident, loss of life, and environmental contamination.

Western Washington is known and sought out for its environmental awareness, pristine natural resources, and wilderness beauty. This is at the base of the region’s tourism, identity, and why people want to live in this area. All of the consequences of building the terminal and bringing so many coal trains through this region will devastate all that is good in this amazing place. This list of reasons is only touching the surface; but any single one of these reasons would be enough to NOT go through with this terminal. I ask you to use reason and good judgment to recognize that rejecting the proposal is THE ONLY acceptable course of action.

Thank you.
Kate Rinder

Kate Siegl (#7079)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Comment:
I grew up with coal trains running near my house, 2 blocks away. Every weekend we had to dust and clean every week. I have lived with asthma and was sick with bronchitis and respiratory problems constantly. This clearly is a health concern, especially for children. Plus the fact do you know how long we will have to sit there?
Please consider an alternative to shipping coal. This is 2013 and we are smart enough to figure out a way to heat other than coal.

Kate Siegl (#7089)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Comment:
I grew up with coal trains running near my house, 2 blocks away. Every weekend we had to dust and clean. I have lived with asthma and was sick with bronchitis and respiratory problems constantly. This clearly is a health concern, especially for children.

Plus the fact do you know how long we will have to sit there?

Please consider an alternative to shipping coal. This is 2013 and we are smart enough to figure out a way to heat other than coal.

Kate Wearn (#7778)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We recently moved to Bellingham with our two children. We feel so fortunate to live in this beautiful part of the world, and are concerned that increased coal train traffic will negatively affect residents' quality of life in many ways.

I encourage the agencies involved to study and investigate the impacts on air quality that increased coal train traffic would produce - I am concerned that additional coal particulates introduced into the air will have significant negative health effects on local populations.

I am also concerned that increased rail traffic, particularly many-car, long trains, will significantly limit access to our town's waterfront, affecting downtown businesses and decreasing citizens' quality of life. Traffic to and from our highly valued waterfront parks will clearly be affected, and I encourage further study into how this will affect the citizenry.

Thank you for your time.

Kate Weisel (#12740)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Comment:
January 18, 2013

GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
1100 112th Avenue Northeast, Suite 400
Bellevue, Washington 98004

My comments on the scoping phase of the EIS on the coal trans-shipment terminal proposed for Cherry Point, Whatcom County, Washington.

I also have concerns about the entire route and its impacts on the health, safety, and sustainability of human life and aquatic life.

These concerns should be comprehensively researched, documented, and treated in the forthcoming EIS.

1. The rail lines along the coast from Seattle to Bellingham routinely have mudslides.
More and heavy loads on this route will not improve that failure rate.
Will the people who profit from this endeavor be paying the full cost of rail line improvements and repairs?

2. Exporting coal to China at this point in time will not improve the health of humans going forward, be they in China or here in Washington.
It WILL contribute to acidification of oceans and air, potentially causing catastrophic ecosystem failure.
Are the people who profit from this endeavor be in the least concerned about this?

3. Can we not keep the coal in the ground until future technology allows us to use it safely here in the United States.

4. Perhaps the owners of the land the coal is being stripped from so inexpensively should capture more of the profit and put it in a fund for ecosystem cleanup and impending health care costs.

thank you...

Kate Weisel
kate@weiselcreative.com

prepress, book design and production,
web design

Kate Yamamoto (#7903)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am opposed to the development of the Gateway Pacific Terminal. I think this project would have a grave impact on the environment of the Pacific Northwest. Besides the coal dust, there is the problem of constant train traffic through Bellingham, which was obnoxious enough when Georgia-Pacific carted Chlorine around in the past. THe waterfront area of Bellingham is just beginning to feel like a neighborhood and I am looking forward to the development of a beautiful waterfront that we can enjoy. The movement of coal through this corridor would ruin an otherwise scenic part of Bellingham.

The number of jobs this project will really have once completed is also another reason for my opposition. Sure it may employ some short-term, but long-term not many for such an impact on our community.

Also, how long will China want our coal? Residents of Beijing can't go outside right now, and I think their government may move towards alternative energy and hurt the market for coal.

Katelyn Chrisman (#14634)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Tacoma, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Katelyn Kinn (#11931)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Attached is a written transcript of the verbal comments I provided at the Seattle hearing on Dec 13, 2012.
Attached Files:

Katelyn Kinn (#11939)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Attached is a written transcript of the verbal comments I provided at the Seattle hearing on Dec 13, 2012.
Attached Files:

Katelyn Schoof (#12379)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Bellingham, 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 not only negatively affect my community emotionally and physically but it fiscally does not add up. While some jobs may be created, an even greater amount will be lost. One example alone is if the Cherry Point herring population decreases. This will lead to decreased salmon populations which will lead to a decrease is TRANSIENT orca whales who will already be inhibited to feed by noise pollution created by the ships. Simple logic dictates that this will cause fishermen and tourist guides to loose their jobs. Ranchers land is being taken, patrons will be cut off from business' along the track due to increased trains and 20 years down the road I'm sure our town will have to pay for the ecological clean up. This is not even taking into account the money we will have to spend to build new pathways down to our beautiful bay. I urge you to consider these impacts (mental, emotional, physical, financial, ecological) 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. We are talking about people, not just profit. Please remember this.

Katharina and Patrick Sharpe and Stayton (#5014)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Comment:
To whom it may concern,

My husband and I live in King County 50 yards from the railroad track in Ballard. We are writing because we will be directly impacted by the transport of coal via trains along the corridor by our home. I would like to request that the following impacts be scoped in the EIS:
- Air quality
- Seismic stability of slope along railroad corridor
- Noise

The significance of the following impacts are as follows:

Air quality: A study of the Puget Sound corridor near our home done 5 years ago showed that the air quality along this corridor is very poor due to a cumulative effect of uncontrolled emissions from cruise ships that travel along this corridor in addition to the number of trains. We currently have 35 trains that travel along this corridor and idle in front of our home. Adding 20 coal trains to this equation will significantly decrease the air quality for families like mine who live along this corridor and increase the health issues associated with this poor quality. My husband already suffers from a chronic skin condition and asthma.

Seismic stability of the slope: We had a slide on our slope 1 year ago, and each year there is at least one slide up this rail corridor that shuts down trains. The combined effects of the rain/steepness of the slope and train vibrations contribute to the seismic instability of the slope. Adding 20 trains to this equation will potentially increase the instability of this slope leading to more slides which will result in financial hardship for the families along this corridor as well as a significant cost to other trains (Burlington Northern and Sound Transit) that travel along this corridor.

Noise: As it currently stands, we are not able to open our windows in the evening due to the noise produced by the trains passing by our home. The sound is so loud that sleep is impossible unless our windows and doors are all closed. This is not a sound you get used to – we have lived in this home for 9 years. The noise level from an additional 20 trains will increase this level.

Thanks for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Katharina Sharpe and Patrick Stayton

Katharina Sharpe Sharper View Consulting LLC
A sharp approach to project management and process improvement



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 7797 (20121213) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

Katharine Harmon (#10426)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
We live in Seattle, on Kiwanis Ravine Park, between the Ballard Locks and Discovery Park. Trains pass adjacent to the ravine, in the vicinity of thousands of neighborhood residents. I have several questions I would like the EIS to address.

Kiwanis Ravine is the site of a heron rookery. What would be the impact of increased train traffic (noise levels, air quality, and coal dust) on the nesting herons?

We have a plum tree in our back yard where our daughter likes to climb and do her homework. In September she can reach out, pick a plum, and eat it as she reads or does her math. Would she be able to do this if there is a layer of coal dust on the fruit?

When trains pass by at night, the vibrations travel through the ground and cause our house to “quiver.” Will increased train traffic have an impact on soil stability in our slide-prone area?

On our way to and from our home, we pass the main railway staging area adjacent to Fisherman Terminal. Often there are trains idling there, with billowing clouds of diesel fumes rising into the surrounding neighborhood. (At some times, as we come over the rise, it appears as if there is a major fire in the area.) What will be the air quality impact of the proposed additional trains idling here?

Thank you.

Katharine Harmon (#10441)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
As a resident of the Magnolia neighborhood in Seattle, I am concerned about the traffic impact of up to 18 additional trains, over a mile long, passing adjacent to Alaskan Way each day. Magnolia and Ballard residents typically use Highway 99 coming up from downtown and points south. Soon, when the viaduct is gone and traffic is routed through a tunnel, there will be no exit to the west of 99. Magnolia and Ballard residents will be forced to use surface streets when approaching from the south. With all of this additional usage of Alaskan Way, traffic will be a growing concern.

What will be the impact of the proposed train traffic on cars needing to cross just south of the SAM sculpture park?

Will any provision be made to mitigate the impact of idling cars releasing CO2 as the coal trains pass?

Kathleen Ridihalg (#11911)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
I want to ensure that U.S. Representatives Jim McDermott and Adam Smith's concerns are addressed in the EIS Scoping process, as outlined in this letter to the Army Corps of Engineers, dated May 9, 2012.

Including: "This significant increase in coal being transported throughout the region will have a serious impact on the region and surrounding communities. Indeed, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in its April 5th letter to the Corps, lists a number of potential impacts including the effects on public health, transportation, cultural resources, endangered species, and aquatic resources. Furthermore, the EPA has recommended that the Corps conduct a "thorough and broadly-scoping cumulative impacts analysis of exporting large quantities of Wyoming and Montana-mined coal through the west coast of the United States to Asia. This cumulative impacts analysis could be used in the environmental analysis of other proposed coal export projects of similar scope."

The full letter is attached.
Attached Files:

Kathleen Ridihalgh (#11927)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
I want to ensure that the concerns about coal export as outlined in a letter from U.S. Senator Wyden and U.S. Rep. Edward Markey are considered as a topic for scoping.

They state: "With domestic demand shrinking, coal companies are significantly increasing exports of American coal to foreign markets. U.S. coal exports hit 107 million tons in 2011, a 20-year high. Pending proposals for additional coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest alone could lead to a doubling of total coal exports, primarily serving companies mining on public lands in Montana and Wyoming. This has significant implications for Federal coal leasing policies and will result in additional environmental impacts associated with the mining, transportation, and combustion of these coal resources."

Full letter attached.
Attached Files:

Kathleen Ridihalgh (#11935)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
I would like to ensure that concerns raised by Senator Patty Murray about the coal exports proposals are included in the scoping process.

In summary (from a June 13, 2012 letter to the Army Corps of Engineers): "In addition to possible environmental and public health impacts to neighboring communities, concerns have been raised about effects on cultural resources, rail and waterway transportation systems, endangered species, aquatic resources, and impacts of transportation coal mined in Wyoming and Montana and sent through the West Coast for export, which has not been specifically studied by the federal government."

Entire letter attached.
Attached Files:

Kathleen Ridihalgh (#11948)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
I would like to ensure that the concerns raised by U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell are included for consideration in the scoping process.

From a letter dated July 3, 2012 to the Washington Department of Transportation, "The potential effects of expanding coal exports on our rail, roadway, and waterway transportation systems have generated considerable concern and questions within the communities that could be negatively impacted. For instance, if new coal export terminals significantly increase rail traffic, roadway improvements in several Washington towns and cities may be necessary to minimize traffic flow disruptions to our road and ferry systems and maintain safety and mobility within heavily-used transportation corridors. The additional rail traffic could also impact freight mobility, adding further congestion to our intermodal transfer centers and ports."

Full letter attached.
Attached Files:

Kathleen Ridihalgh (#11979)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
I would like to ensure that the concerns U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley raises in his letter dated July 19, 2012 to the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior are included for consideration in the scoping process.

Excerpt: "Global impacts of coal exports to be studied must include effects on climate change (including cumulative additionsl to global greenhouse gas emissions), global energy markets, energy security, and the clean energy economy. The changing climate is already altering our environment, and will have particularly signficant negative impacts on our state, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like storms, flodds and summer droughts."

Full letter attached.
Attached Files:

Katharine Rode (#10700)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Sumner, Wa
Comment:
I am a Pierce County resident living with cancer. I am also a mom with a young daughter. We live in Sumner. The train goes straight through our 3 mile town. I am concerned with the quality of life she will have if the air quality continues to decline. I was at a Washington Green School training about a year and a half ago and one of the speakers was from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and learned that Pierce county has some of the worst air quality in the country already and apparently we are already out of federal compliance guidelines and that we are to reach compliance by 2015. In the last week alone I have been stopped by trains, one of them was a coal train and we were in a pickup truck idling right next to the track. We were idling for over 6 minutes along with the 50 or so other cars around us.
I am asking that you please look at this project as a regional, even global project as this will affect more than the immediate community Cherry Point will serve. An extensive, comprehensive, multi-state EIS should be completed before any decisions can be made. This project will effect so many people here, water life, and people abroad. From the origin of the coal to it's final destination, all issues should be looked at.

The following are a few highlights from the study I referred to as well as a link in it's entirety.2010 Study of Air Toxics in Tacoma and Seattle 2010 Study of Air Toxics in Tacoma and Seattle
Page 2 of 8 - The study confirmed that mobile sources (cars, trucks, ships, etc.) contribute most to health risk from air toxics.
Page 2 of 8 -. Although more needs to be done to reduce the public’s exposure to health risk from air toxics, the results of the study confirm that the Clean Air Agency’s programs correctly target reducing diesel and wood smoke emissions in the Puget Sound area.
Page 3 of 8 - Of the sampled air toxics, we identified nine pollutants that were above the health screening levels and could potentially cause harm. Eight of these are known to increase the potential risk of cancer, and are listed in Table 1. The ninth pollutant with health risk is acrolein. While acrolein does not pose any cancer risk, exposure to this pollutant can cause upper respiratory irritation.
Page 5 of 8 - In Figure B, we added available diesel and wood smoke particulate matter risk estimates developed from other recent studies.2,3 In our study, we did not measure diesel or wood smoke particulate as no direct monitoring method exists. Researchers estimated diesel and wood smoke particulate using mathematical models with multiple years of monitored data.
Page 5 0f 8 - As seen below, diesel emissions (gold color in Figure B) remain the largest contributor to potential cancer risk in the Puget Sound area, contributing over 70 percent of the potential cancer risk from air toxics at the Seattle sites and over 40 percent at the Tacoma residential sites. In Tacoma, the wood smoke contribution is more pronounced when compared to Seattle. However, diesel exhaust remains the largest source of potential cancer risk in Tacoma as well.
Page 6 of 8 Transportation and wood burning contribute most to the health risk from air toxics As shown in Figure C, the contributions of diesel and wood smoke emissions to potential cancer risk are different in the Seattle and Tacoma areas. Wood smoke in Tacoma makes up a larger percentage of the potential cancer risk when compared to Seattle.
However, diesel remains the largest source of potential cancer risk in Tacoma as well.

www.pscleanair.org/news/library/reports/2010_Tacoma-
Seattle_Air_Toxics_Report.pdf

Thank you for listening, Katharine M. Rode

Kathe Hartley Vago (#2400)

Date Submitted: 10/31/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathe Koruga (#9932)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
As resident of Fairhaven, Washington and being within 2,000 feet of the rail line I am extremely concerned about particulate matter coming from the coal trains into the local environment. I chose to live in the Fairhaven area because of its proximity to the water which provides healthy air quality. I have an autoimmune condition which will be exacerbated by the pollution from the diesel and the coal dust coming from the trains. I encourage you to make a complete comprehensive and thorough examination as to the impact of particulate matter upon the health of the population of Bellingham. I agree with the Whatcom Docs concerns for the health of our community. Please consider their concerns and investigate them.

Katherine Delanoy (#14046)

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.

Years and years ago there was a song with the line "Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away." And we are still facilitating their doing so. When are we going to wake up and try to phase out fossil fuels instead of subsidizing them?

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 siteIsn't that enough to stop them?

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.

Why aren't these impacts being addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement?

With the terrible pollution and climate change impact of coal in China, why are we planning to allow as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea, all bound for China? 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.

I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

katherine Foster (#11054)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
There is promise of many new jobs. In the building of the GPT, is it likely that a local company will be hired to build the terminal, thus creating local jobs, or is this probably something that will go to the most competitive bidder, from any where?

Katherine Ginter (#10715)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Granite Falls, Wa
Comment:
Allow this coal facility to go through, we need the jobs, there is tons of coal moved across this country daily, and very little affect on environment. We want this facility.

Katherine Harding (#10540)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
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.

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.

This project also impacts Seattle, where waterfront communities and densely populated areas are directly impacted. This is dirty money; say no!

Katherine Hardy (#4578)

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

Katherine Johnson (#13040)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
Attached. Please let me know when you receive them.

Thank you,
Katherine Johnson
Attached Files:

Katherine Koruga (#9938)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
As a citizen of Whatcom County I am deeply concerned about GPT's usage of river water from the Nooksack River water. At a time when the headwaters of the Nooksack are at risk due to declining glaciers on Mount Baker, the amount of water in the Nooksack river will diminish and will create a chain reaction directly threatening the environment of Whatcom county and thereby its residents. GPT will need to use water from the Nooksack which is public domain in order to spray the coal piles. According to law, this process requires solid evidence that this is in the best interest of the citizens due to the fact that the Nooksack River is public land. Please demonstrate due diligence showing how this could possibly be in the best interest of the public.

Katherine Kozisek (#10754)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Centralia, WA
Comment:
For so many reasons, it's imperative that the rail line carrying coal through the state of Washington NOT be approved! Safety first an foremost. These cars full of coal will ruin our air and water. Breathing in the dust can cause emphysema and other respiratory diseases. The noise from the trains will be unreal! The trains going through the state will impede normal traffic, but most importantly emergency services. The city of Centralia will be cut in half not to mention major portions of the city of Seattle! PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS SHORTSIGHTED PROJECT! Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Katherine McDade (#8455)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am writing in opposition to increased coal train traffic through Bellingham. The potential long term negative impacts on the people and community of Bellingham far outweigh the temporary economic benefit of building a new terminal at Cherry Point. Increased train traffic will split our community, as moving across the tracks becomes more difficult. Businesses and people living on the west side of the tracks will be effectively cut off from the rest of the city. Access to the waterfront, one of the joys of living in Bellingham, will be difficult. Coal dust will impact our health and our environment in negative ways. We should also consider the moral and ethical implications of exporting more coal to China, a country already experiencing serious air quality problems.

Katherine Moulton (#14328)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Coupeville, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Katherine Novak (#10046)

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

GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
1100 112th Avenue Northeast, Suite 400, Bellevue, Washington 98004

I am a registered nurse and resident of the city of Bellingham. Bellingham is my home and the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project has made me concerned for the potential impacts for Bellingham and larger Whatcom County, as well as the rest of the United States and the entire world. I find it especially difficult to itemize my concerns for this proposed project as when considered in the context of the greater plan to transport large amounts of coal to Asia, the known adverse impacts are on a scale beyond limits and are irreversible. The damage to quality of life in Bellingham and Whatcom County from the trains, vessels and the GPT port are bad enough. But the global impact is really beyond measure and this sickens me for our communities proposed role in worsening the climate crisis which adversely impacts me, my family, my patients, and everyone, including you.
As the proposed GPT project is an integral part of a larger, far-reaching plan that will significantly impact people across the United States and around the globe, it is reasonable to request that the cumulative impacts of the overall project are studied and considered when determining whether or not to permit the GPT. I am aware that this GPT project is a major part of a larger plan to increase Powder River Basin coal extraction, ship this coal via train across the American West, unload this coal onto vessels at five proposed SSA marine shipping terminals including the proposed GPT, and transport this coal across United States and International waters to Asia. I am aware that these coal-carrying vessels will travel via a marine highway that all Western North America vessels traveling to Asia converge on and that these all pass through a 10-mile wide passage known as Unimak Pass en route. I am aware that once this coal arrives in Asia it will be unloaded in facilities that operate under less stringent environment regulations than here in the United States, where it will be transported, unloaded again and then burned for electricity. I am also aware that once this coal is burned in the coal-fired power plants, the pollutants will significantly impact the local water and air quality as well as the global climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Here in Whatcom County we will feel the impact through increased acidity in our rain, mercury contamination to our lakes and streams, and air pollution, not to mention the unknown and likely severe impacts of ubiquitous climate change.
Due to the role of the GPT project in contributing to the success of this larger scheme to expand the extraction and transport of United States coal reserves to Asia in conjunction with the expansion of coal-fired power plants throughout Asia, it is essential that the Whatcom County Council, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Army Corps of Engineers, study the impact of the terminal locally as well as regionally and globally, and do so in terms of cumulative impact from the mining, transport, cumulative shipping from the 5 proposed ports to the burning of the coal in overseas power plants and the impact on climate change. The potential adverse impacts from the construction and operation of the GPT itself cannot be considered in isolation from the four other proposed terminals throughout the region to serve the same purpose, from the adverse impacts of expanding mining operations in the Powder River Basin, from adverse impacts of expanding and increasing rail traffic throughout the West, from the adverse impacts related increased marine vessel traffic, and finally, from the cumulative impact of on worsening climate change.

Please consider the potential adverse human health impacts of GPT including the Powder River region where the coal is mined, the rail and marine transportation corridor, GPT. Please study the direct impacts of coal dust on human health by studying the effects of coal dust on the air, soil and water quality during coal extraction, storage, transport, and the loading and unloading process. Please study the impact of mercury contamination from coal dust and the effects of mercury-contaminated water as it relates to Bellingham and Whatcom County drinking water supply, local marine food sources such as Dungeness crabs and fishes, the Cherry Point marine environment, the terrestrial environment immediately surrounding the GPT coal storage site. Please specifically study the direct impact of coal dust contamination at the GPT site on the marine environment including the potential adverse impact on the Cherry Point herring population especially in terms of breeding and food supply. As herring are a primary source of nutrition for many marine mammals and fish, please study the impact a contaminated and/or decreased herring population would have on these species. Please include data from the impact on the herring population at the Vancouver Westshore Terminal. Please consider the effects of wind events to determine the potential range of contamination and use historical wind events when determining the range. Please study the effects of mercury contamination from coal dust on the health of the soil and the indirect impact on human health for those living along the entire transport corridor from the mining source to the destination GPT. Please study cumulative impact on the air quality locally (immediate and delayed from blowback from China) and global with contribution to climate change.
Please also study the adverse impacts related to water used to spray down the coal trains and coal piles. Where will this water come from and what is the plan for sequestration? How will this impact the surrounding terrestrial environment? How will this contaminated water effect bird and mammals in the immediate area. I am a birder and the health of bird populations, both resident and migratory, are essential to my sense of place here in Whatcom County.
The health of the marine environment is significant to myself and others in Whatcom County in economic terms such as commercial and sport fishing, kayaking and boating recreation, whale-watching tourism. I am a former commercial fisherwoman and have friends and neighbors who depend on a sustainable, intact marine ecosystem for their economic livelihood. The health of the marine environment also is significant as the marine environment is an integral part of the local indigenous culture as well as the culture non-indigenous “pioneers,” their descendants, and newcomers. The marine environment defines this community no less than Mt. Baker as is evidenced by the plethora of murals, postcards, paintings and of Whatcom County prominently featuring the marine environment.
Please consider the potential adverse impact of the increased large vessel traffic throughout the Salish Sea including the impact on the health of Orca populations and other marine mammals. Please specifically study the adverse impacts to the Orca population from the increased vessel traffic and size of vessels that will transport cargo from GPT out the Strait of Juan de Fuca through either Rosario or Haro strait. Please consider the impact of noise, pollution, ship-strikes on the health of the resident and transient Orca whale population as well as all other marine mammals known to reside or travel through the Salish Sea. Please study the potential number of orcas that may incur ship-strikes from the increased vessel traffic and the impact this will have on the health of the Orca population. Please specifically study the impact of increased underwater noise from these vessels and consider the cumulative impact from GPT and other cargo and tanker vessels, in addition to commercial and recreational vessels, on the health of the Orca population. This is significant to the people of the region including myself as the Orca is of cultural and spiritual importance to indigenous and non-indigenous people of the region.
Please consider the potential cumulative impacts on water pollution as well as water temperature by studying the proposed GPT and four other SSA marine shipping terminals and the potential maximum level of mercury contamination. Please study the cumulative impact of GPT on the resident and transient Orca population of the Salish Sea cumulated with the acidification of the ocean, vessel traffic to include the proposed increase vessel traffic from GPT, and at risk herring populations including the Cherry point herring population and potential adverse impact from GPT.
Please consider the impact on commercial and sport fisheries including salmon and herring fishing. Please specifically study the direct and indirect adverse impacts for the recovering salmon populations, both Canadian and United States, and the potential for loss of habit and food sources due to the GPT itself as well as increased marine vessel traffic. Please study the impact of the GPT on Cherry Point herring population cumulated with the BP and Intalco runoff and vessel traffic. Please study the impact a further decline including extinction of the Cherry Point herring population would have on the resident and transient Orca population, as well as the salmon populations, throughout the Salish Sea including the Puget Sound and Georgia Strait. Please determine the potential numbers of jobs that will be lost related to decreased populations of commercial fish. Please consider the cumulative impact of decreased recreational and commercial fishing opportunities as well as decreased whale-watching and cruising tourism in determining the potential cost in lost jobs by construction and operation of the GPT.
Please study the potential adverse marine impacts that may result from a vessel collision or accident. Please consider the adverse impact of the recent Cape Apricot accident at the Vancouver Westshore Terminal that occurred December 7, 2012. Please study the potential adverse impact of a vessel collision with pilings made of modern materials versus the aged wooden pilings the Cape Apricot struck.
Please consider a change in coal market conditions including the proposed royalty tax legislation recently introduced by Senator Murkowski and Senator Wyden and the impact this may have on the proposed GPT project. Please consider the SSA marine terminal in Los Angeles as an example of a terminal that was not successful due to market conditions and study the potential cost of taxpayers should the volatile coal market prove unfavorable after the GPT has been built.
Climate Change and the known adverse direct, indirect and cumulative impact of increasing coal-fired power plant operation oversees are concerning to me for the health of the present and future generations of all life on earth.
In the Seattle times today, Tuesday January 15, 2013, there is an article entitled “’Beyond index’ smog angers Chinese, media” which describes four straight days of hazardous air quality in China. The article cites the U.S. Embassy’s air monitor showing the air quality reading 755 on the index, which is over 50% higher than what is considered “hazardous.” The article attributes this due to combination of the winter weather pattern and pollution. Please consider this potential indirect impact of the GPT in the context of its role in worsening the air quality of people in Asia and ultimately in worsening the air quality of the United States including Whatcom County. Please study the potential PM2.5 particulate levels and the potential indirect impact on the health of residents of Whatcom County, United States and the world. The Bellingham Herald in their January 12, 2013 article entitled “Air pollution in Beijing goes off the index” directly cites coal power as a contributing factor.
Please consider the potential cumulative impacts on air pollution and overall climate change by studying the proposed GPT and four other SSA marine shipping terminals in terms of total coal shipped to Asia for coal-fired power plants and resulting greenhouse gas emissions and PM2.5 particles released.
Please study the impact of the GPT terminal on the achievement of Washington State’s goal to reduce greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by January 1, 2020. By January 1, 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. Please consider that only 20 percent of the reserves of the top 100 coal and top 100 oil and gas companies could be burned while keeping the global temperature rise under the internationally agreed limit of 2 degrees C. As the construction of the SSA ports, including GPT, are integral to Asia obtaining United States coal, please consider the adverse impact of construction and operation of the Gateway Pacific Terminal on climate change.

Sincerely,
Katherine Novak
2000 Harris Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225

Katherine Petersen (#7161)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Mount Vernon , WA
Comment:
It is the year 2013 and we still having figured out that burning coal is not the answer?
First and foremost is the effect on our precious environment, not just here but everywhere, we are after all on the same planet! The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we grow, the health of marine life are some things that immediately come to mind regarding sustainability of life as we know it.
Here in the Northwest we appreciate the beauty of our surroundings, the quality of our lives. Since coal transportation via rail & broken down cargo ships has begun here, one cannot help but notice the coal dust every where, if we can SEE it, we are certainly breathing it! The noise pollution from the trains, the traffic congestion, the earth moving and vibrating from the extreme weight of the heavy loaded train cars has caused damage including mudslides, train derailments, sewer pipes and broken building foundations just to name a few. I am also very concerned about traffic delays at railroad crossings being excessive for emergency vehicles to find their way to a patient or transporting patients to a hospital on a timely basis. These delays would also affect the way we try to do business in our day to day routines. This is something that could make or break the commerce in any given community the rail passes through. Thank you.

Katherine Scott (#3291)

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

Katherine Smith (#13200)

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.

I live close enough to the train tracks to hear the noise of the trains at night & it impacts my ability to sleep soundly! How could they even think of increasing what are already too many trains on the tracks?!! I used to live even closer to the tracks when I lived in the Browne's Addition. I could not only hear them but I could smell their awful odor. This is bad for any person's lungs, but if you have a serious respiratory condition or lung cancer, it's so much worse!! I feel so sorry for all who own property near the tracks as this will most certainly hurt its value. I also don't look forward to when emergencies happen & I can't cross the tracks to get to a hospital, or the fire trucks can't get to the fire, etc.

Please study the proposal carefully & limit these coal trains to every extent possible!!

Katherine Watters (#3015)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Katherine Williams (#43)

Date Submitted: 09/24/2012
Location: Everson, WA
Comment:
Our community desperately needs this project to go through. I support this endeavor and believe it will benefit all aspects of family life here in Washington State. It is a false dilemma to assert that we must choose between the environment and this project. It is possible for the needs of both to be met as long as extreme environmentalism does not take precedence over human needs.

Katherine Williams (#4019)

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

Katherine Willis (#2596)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Katherine Ziesmer (#13281)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Comment:
We live along the train line on the water. We have way too many trains now in this sensitive area. Amtrak isn't too bad. Usually short, little noise, no pollutants that might effect the Puget Sound. Freight trains are noisy and long, so they rattle the area they are going through for a longer time. If they are only carrying freight, there is little chance of polluting the area of the train lines. But coal trains on the other hand increase noise pollution, but more importantly have the potential to do irreversible damage to our shorelines. As I understand, the loads are not covered and the coal dust distributes itself all along the route creating a dead zone. So much of the route is along our precious waterfront and we can't afford any more pollution in Puget Sound. Also much of this area is neighborhood communities. The noise alone can and does hinder conversation, and the peace and quiet of the neighborhood we live in. We are retired and hear every train that goes by, 24 hours a day. We are outdoor people and love to work in our garden and enjoy the birds who visit our area and it's getting hard to enjoy peace and quiet when we have many trains going by every hour around the clock. We need to cut back on trains, or reroute them to a less sensitive area.
I also worry about some of our local businesses, who depend on their deliveries and customers having to cross a RR track. A train that is 1 1/2 miles long, traveling at the reduced speed limit in our area must tie up the crossing for a long time.

Please reconsider the routing of these coal trains.

Thank you,
Katherine Ziesmer
University Place, WA

Kathlee Ridihalgh (#8865)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
How much, in the project's entirety, will be needed for all rail upgrades, safety and improvements that would be required for this project and who will pay for them? Please provide a breakdown with sufficient details including but not limited to how much would need to be paid by specific cities, state, region, federal governments, private investment, etc. Include associated local costs (ie, if a new gate is added, who would pay for the traffic lights, aligning and fixing the new roads, sideways, etc -- EVERYTHING associated with the project.)

thank you.

Kathleen Birch (#4233)

Date Submitted: 12/05/12
Comment:
I am completely against shipping coal through the Gorge and my city.

As a Registered nurse and mother, I believe the dust will harm health.

As a citizen of a beautiful natural area, I am against the Environmental impact potential on trees, fish and water quality. All of those things benefit individual people directly and also indirectly as tourists come to Oregon and spend money to be in the Columbia Gorge.

I live in the inner Southeast of Portland. I know the traffic clots that result from the trains that come through densely commercial areas. Greatly increasing the number of trains through the cit will complicate traffic every day.

I also know that coal purchases by China in the near future will become less attractive for them as they get their own mining increased and Oregon will be stuck with the bill for infrastructure As well as the dust pollution.

In short, I believe shipping coal through the Gorge is a shot into our own feet and lungs.

I also am happy to say I know my State Representative, Jules Koppel Bailey, is of the same opinion.

Thank you
Kathleen Birch

Sent from my iPad=

Kathleen Burton (#9366)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I would like to comment on the following areas:
Economic Review:
1) A detailed analysis of direct and indirect costs for a rail system, road and infrastructure to support Powder River Basin / West Coast coal export projects.
2) Local economic impact to the cities. A detailed analysis of the city’s level of services, emerging response times and impact on local freight delivery systems. Detailed analysis of the projected cost to mitigate the negative impacts. And who is financially responsible for the mitigation. What economic impact the mitigation process would have on neighborhood residences and businesses. Would property be condemned? Would additional bridges and tunnels need to be built? If so, who pays for it?
3) If taxpayers are responsible for some of the costs of the rail system, road and infrastructure to support the additional trains for the coal export project it is important to know those costs up front. A detailed analysis of what it will cost tax payers, states, cities, federal government and private businesses. If local cities and states are responsible for some of the cost how do they pay for it?
Environmental and Public Health Review
1) What are the serious long-term health problems associated with coal dust and diesel exhaust from coal trains and cargo ships?
2) What is the noise pollution of coal trains as they pass homes, businesses, sports stadiums, hospitals and public buildings?
3) How much coal dust is lost from each rail car en route?
4) An analysis of increased vessel traffic risk. Including air pollution, collision, spills and marine life.

Washington’s most valuable asset is our quality of Life. It is a prime tourist destination and desirable place to live. Our region was built on a healthy environment, innovative businesses, tourism, clean energy, clean agriculture and manufacture of local goods.
The traffic and noise pollution and pollution of our waters and fisheries that would come with significant coal train and ship traffic is not in line with Washington’s values.

Kathleen Casey (#13006)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Eugene, 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. It is time for America to invest in clean energy like wind bridges and solar trains; instead of dirty energy.

Kathleen Champion (#4276)

Date Submitted: 12/09/12
Comment:
To whom it may concern:
I would like to say that I am opposed to the additional train traffic this proposed coal terminal would bring through Skagit County. I grew up in Skagit County and would hate to see what will happen ecologically to our beautiful valley if an enviromental impact study is not performed. The additional coal trains passing through will affect us all. I am very concerned about our air quality as well. China can't burn this coal and keep the emissions over their country. Our air quality will be affected. I don't believe that the additional temporary jobs this proposal would bring would have any long term benefit for Skagit Valley's residents.
I am employed as a medical lab courier and often transport Puget Sound Blood Center blood and platelets from the local blood bank to the hospitals in the area as well as Stat specimens from doctors' offices and hospitals to our laboratory for immediate processing. Encountering additional delays from train traffic would significantly impact my ability to be timely with these deliveries.
I recently witnessed an ambulance with its lights and siren on waiting at a train crossing in Burlington while a freight train lumbered by. It was a minimum of 2 minutes for the train to clear the crossing and this was one of the shorter lines of train cars. That 2 minute wait for the patient inside that ambulance may have prevented the patient from receiving life saving treatment at the local hospital. I would not want to be a patient inside an ambulance waiting at a crossing while a longer coal train passed through our county. I am asking you to do a thorough study on the possible impacts to the Skagit County area should this proposal be approved.
This area is already struggling with lowered property values as a result of the current economy and I don't see how this proposal could do anything positive for us. I also don't believe enough thought has been given to who would end up paying for train crossing maintenance, overpasses, underpasses and such. Adding additional taxes to support such a project would only add more financial burden on residents such as myself who are already struggling with day to day living costs. PLEASE perform a thorough study of the impacts this project would impose on Skagit Valley residents. Thank you. Kathleen Champion

Kathleen Claire (#13623)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Sedro Woolley, 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.

It makes no sense to me to continue to destroy the earth and her resources when we have natural resources available, water, wind and air. I also think about the burning of coal in Asia effects everyone, all of us and not for the good. We need to undo our insatiable need for energy, not tomorrow, not next year but NOW!

Kathleen Coffman (#8248)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a 40 year resident of Bellingham, as an out-of-door enthusiast, as a R.N., as the wife of an Environmental Health grad of Huxley/WWU, as a daily Bellingham trail runner, as a lover of our waterfront, as a person who has lived in a town in the South with heavy rail commercial traffic I UTTERLY OPOSE the proposed cargo terminal at Cherry Point and the increase of rail traffic along the environmentally sensitive Salish Sea corridor.

Thank you, Kathleen M Coffman

Kathleen Davis (#5274)

Date Submitted: 12/18/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathleen Feagles (#1963)

Date Submitted: 10/25/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathleen Foley (#1260)

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

kathleen gallagher (#7312)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: lummi Island, Wa
Comment:
Please study the noise level of the increased rail traffic combined with the increase of noise from the Airport expansion ,on the surrounding areas. This is south from smith rd. in Ferndale ,West form Northwest rd. South to Marine view dr. /old marine dr./Eldridge .Please estimate the loss in land tax revenue for the county and the decline in property values due to noise levels raising
thank you,
K.G.

Kathleen Gallagher (#8534)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Comment:
Environmental Impact Statement

To whom It may concern,
I am a simple person, retired Grandmother, Yoga teacher, and an 11 year resident of lummi Island. I would like you to study the noise increase of the coal train traffic (18 trains a day?) combined with the expanding air traffic noise in the neighborhoods surrounding the airport. Birchwood area ,Rural road east, Smith rd. And Northwest road south to Old marine road/ Eldrige. One of these noise increases will change the character of these neighborhoods. Both of these noise increases will be an affront to life quality. Could you also study the decline in home value and land tax revenues this kind of noise will produce.
Thank you,

Kathleen Gallagher


Environmental impact statement

To whom it may concern,

Please study the effect and costs associated with degradation of the existing natural beauty and life quality of the area, on the mental and Physical health of the people who came to build lives here.
Increased noise and air pollution, increased train traffic ,Increased Tanker traffic, Increased coal dust, increased industrialization have been associated with decreased levels of physical and mental health. Please estimate these costs for the county, state and federal services involved with providing health care for our area.
Thank You

Kathleen Gallagher
Whatcom County Resident


Environmental impact statement

To whom it may concern,

Please compare the private gains to the public costs and the time frames of these(county, State, and Federal) associated with this Terminal and coal transport Including,

• Mitigations and taxpayer Contributions toward Environmental cleanup/maintenance
• Habitat restoration and loss of plant and animal species
• Unemployment insurance for displaced fishermen, , whale watch business, Ecotourism , restaurants and lodging dependant on the existing natural environment, etc.
• Health care needs associated with increased noise and pollution and industrializations degradation of our small city, rural environment
• Infrastructure repair and maintenance
• Extended wages for creation of extensive EIS
• Legal costs for establishing mitigation etc.
• Any other public costs


Compare with,
• the number of long term Private employees retained ,after the GPT is built, their private wages and expected public contributions from these employees.(taxes etc.)
• the Expected profit of the private investors /owners of GPT, Peabody coal company, and Burlington Northern Pacific Railroad, and their public contributions.


Please estimate the public profit from the same amount of public funds invested for the same period of time in a publicly owned clean Energy Farm (wind, Solar hydroelectric fuel cells etc.)

Thank you,
Kathleen Gallagher
Grandmother


Environmental impact statement

To whom it may concern,

Please study the effects of the shaking vibrations on the brick buildings and other vulnerable structures along the path of the many trains per day.
Please study how the traffic may accelerate the need for maintenance and the added costs of this. I would like you to study this for each area (city and state)the trains pass thru as the decline in stability could figure in to any federal emergency storm repair program as well as state and city financial responsibility to maintain these infrastructures.
Thank You,

Kathleen Gallagher
Resident of Whatcom county Washington state

Kathleen Gallagher (#14682)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Lummi Island, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Kathleen Goodhew (#2932)

Date Submitted: 11/14/2012
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
I am extremely troubled and against the proposed coal shipping terminals in Washington State, because it will mean eighteen (or more) 1 1/2 mile long trains traveling through my community on a daily basis snarling traffic even more than it is now. It will increase the noise level, increase airborne pollutants from diesel engines and coal dust, and affect wildlife that resides in or near the wetlands. There would be an increase of over 450 ships crisscrossing the waterways each year. If a spill occurred on the waterway it would be destructive to marine life and the shorelines, damaging Washington’s fragile economy even more. The project would decrease property values along the corridor and any costs to lessen the impact of the trains would likely be added to local residents’ tax burden. Additionally, I am worried that if any other costs arise they would end up being state and local governments’ responsibility which brings up the question of raised taxes!

Kathleen Ing (#14329)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Kathleen Jackson (#310)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Port Townsend, 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 madness!

Sincerely,

Kathleen Jackson

Kathleen Jett (#14330)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Kathleen Langdon (#1455)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT SCOPING REQUEST

My name is Kathleen “Lee” Langdon
My address is 5 Oval Court, Bellingham, WA 98229.

I enjoy living in Bellingham because it is a deeply spiritual place where it is possible to breathe clean air daily, view trees, mountains and waterways clearly, and to be quiet in the middle of demanding days.

I'm concerned that my county (Whatcom) will have to pay for work on roads and railway lines that are for the sole benefit of SSA, a company that is not local, nor non-profit.

Please identify the costs to me as a county resident of the new coal terminal, such as road repairs and changes) and identify the items in the county budget (such as parks, library and roads) that may be reduced as a result of spending that money for the coal terminal. In addition, please identify the amount of money, and ways that SSA can return it to my county.

Respectfully submitted, with thanks.

Kathleen Langdon

Kathleen Langdon (#1456)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I enjoy living in Bellingham because I am able to work as a volunteer on a number of projects that reduce poverty in Whatcom County.

I'm concerned that my county (Whatcom) will have to pay for additional health impacts on our poorest residents. Studies I have read show that the incidence of asthma and respiratory diseases increases when coal trains enter a region.

Please identify the costs to me (as a county resident) of the increased health care needs of our residents caused by the new coal terminal. Please identify the actual amount of the county budget that is predicted to go to treating increased health problems. Please identify the amount of county and state taxes SSA will pay to relieve these burdens.

Respectfully submitted, with thanks.

Kathleen Langdon

Kathleen Langdon (#1457)

Date Submitted: 10/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I enjoy living in Bellingham because I am able to work with my church to reduce the burden of poverty on people in Whatcom County. This includes Hope House, the Food Bank and Catholic Community Services.

I'm concerned that poor people will have less of a chance to get out of poverty as a result of the presence of the coal terminal in Whatcom county.

Please identify the predicted number of deaths that will occur in Whatcom County, and that likelihood that those deaths will be of people who fall below the poverty line. Please identify the health risks to poor people (in particular) of constant noise from trains (subsidized housing is close to the train tracks), and respiratory ailments in poor people.
Please identify the mitigation costs for SSA to relieve these burdens on the poor, the homeless and the families living just above poverty.

Respectfully submitted, with thanks.

Kathleen Langdon

Kathleen Langdon (#6712)

Date Submitted: 01/08/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

My mother grew up in a coal-mining town in PA. I went there for vacations in the 50's. It was ugly, because everything was covered with coal dust.

Will this happen in Bellingham? Will the coal trains fill our air? Pollute the clean air we have? Cause more asthma among our children?

I would like you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement, specifically, the impacts on health in Whatcom county as a result of bringing 20 or ore trains a day, filled with coal, into our city.

Sincerely Yours,
Kathleen Langdon

Kathleen Langdon (#6721)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

The five proposals regarding tranporting as much as 150million tons of coal through the Northwest to China give me pause.

As a resident of Bellingham, I am very concerned that should we experience an earthquake and/or a tsunami that the coal terminal at Cherry Point would spell an end to the economy of the area. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals, especially in the face of major climactic events...such as the eathquake and tsunami in Japan.

I urge you to consider the impact in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Kathleen Langdon (#7268)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I retired as a Corporate Human Resources Direcctor at a hopital system in Michigan. I am quite interested in the economic development aspects of the Coal Train proposals. In particular, I believe that people in Whatcom County need jobs, and permanent jobs that pay well....i.e. in excess of $45,000 per year. I have read the various arguments that jobs will be created, and therefore we should support of the coal train.

I urge the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and the the County Council to require in the scoping documents an assessment of the cost-benefit ratio of every job that is expected to be created. In other words, what is the cost to the county in health decline, tourism deterioration and ecological damage for every job that will be created...and publish these numbers for all to see.

Kathleen Langdon (#8914)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:
Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Kathleen Langdon; I live at 5 Oval Court, Bellingham WA 98229. I enjoy living here in Whatcom County for many reasons, one of which is the clean air and beauty of the environment. Having lived in Detroit MI for 20 years and Los Angeles for 10 years, I am particularly sensitive to the differences between Whatcom county and others places that have lost their beauty.

I am writing about the proposal to build a coal export terminal at the Cherry Point Reserve here in Whatcom County. I am concerned that the building of a coal export terminal would severely damage the environment we are all blessed to enjoy--so that folks who are able to invest their money can earn dividends, while we see our living conditions deteriorate. But what if the terminal and rails are built—and the price of coal is no longer viable for the Chinese?

Please study the direct and indirect impacts of the current price of coal being bought by the Chinese with the cost-benefit scenario presented by the railroads and coal companies. It is my understanding that the price of coal today makes this economically viable. However, as reported in Salon (on-line) and the Cook Islands News states, “Air Pollution hazardous” in Beijing (january 14, 2013):
"A BBC correspondent says…the air tastes of coal dust and car fumes, two of the main sources of pollution....
WHO guidelines say average concentrations of the tiniest pollution particles…should be no more than 25 microgrammes per cubic metre. ...
Official Beijing city readings on Saturday suggested pollution levels over 400 microgrammes….at 300 all children and the elderly should remain indoors."

At some point the Chinese (who are typically very smart people) will figure out alternatives to the use of coal for heating and electricity. This is already happening in Fiji, where solar is being installed throughout the rural areas.

Please study the economics of the use of coal in China versus the coast to American cities and states for providing it to them.


Thank you.

Kathleen Langdon

Kathleen Langdon (#10585)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am not a scientist, but a logical member of the community. I defer to Dr. Gary Greene of Orcas Island's questions about the effect of caol dust on the fish. Specifically, he says the EIS must address:

1) how fugitive coal particles will be incorporated into natural sediments, if at all;

2) how concentrated the particles will become and what the toxicity will be to benthic organisms, especially Pacific sand lance; and 

3) how far the particles will be distributed from their point of entry into the water. 
Finally, he says, “All sub-tidal PSL habitats should therefore be located and mapped within close proximity to the coal-loading facilities and along the bulk carrier routes, where coal is likely to be introduced into the marine environment. Coal toxicity associated with dissolution or any other chemical processes that occur in marine and estuarine environments also need to be addressed. If potential impacts are found, how will they be mitigated?”
I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Thank you for your time and expertise in developing these Impact Statements.

Kathleen Langdon (#12480)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In my research, I came across these questions from the physicians in Whatcom County. As a mother and grandmother who lives in Whatcom County, and an interested person regarding the economics of the coal terminal, I think these are all quesitons that need to be addressed.
Dr. Mostad's stated that a Health Impact Assessment should "determine how many excess deaths and hospitalizations would be expected." I ask regulators to measure lost life expectancy, and do not limit those measures to Washington's populations living and working in rail communities, but consider those living in proximity to rail lines from the terminal to the Powder River Basin. Then, I request that you quantify those medical consequences: who, exactly, will pay for the hospitalizations? What share will be borne by private insurers, individuals out-of-pocket, treatment providers for unreimbursed costs, and the public through government-funded benefits programs.

I do not want to do that which we have always avoided: identify precisely how many years of life and mortalities we are willing to "pay" for a net economic benefit, if there even is a net benefit of the proposed economic activity.

Kathleen Langdon (#12669)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I am a rtired business consultant. I "get" that businesses have many ways to protect their assets. however, as a resident of Whatcom county whose duaghter, son-in-law and granddaughter live here as well, I am troubled that However, SSA created a subsidiary, Pacific International Terminals (PIT), which has no assets, to build and operate Gateway Pacific Terminal. If a significant “event” of any of the kinds that have happened, such as Hurricane Sandy, or a west coast earthquake, were to occur, PIT could be dissolved in bankruptcy faster than we could say, “Who’s liable?”

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

I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of the gateway proposalswith this information in mind.

Thank you.


Kathleen Langdon

Kathleen Langdon (#13309)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I agree with every word below. I am retired, and am concerned about the quality of life in Wahtcome County.

"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."

kathleen laws (#3928)

Date Submitted: 12/05/2012
Comment:
Please keep coal transport out of the Columbia Gorge. This is not good for air quality nor the environment of the Gorge. We should not spoil our state to aid big coal to export to China or other countries. Burning coal is one hugh reason for climate change, plus their dirty air will eventually come back to Oregon to foul our air quality.

Kathleen Lord (#1969)

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

Kathleen Lorence-Flanagan (#14331)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathleen Marty (#8707)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
I oppose having coal trains travel from Montana and Wyoming through Idaho and Washington. I live in Washougal, WA, about four miles from the railroad tracks, but my family and I cross the tracks daily to go to work or school. My husband has congestive heart failure, and my son has chronic daily migraines. I worry about the effect of coal pollution on their health.

I am a substitute teacher in the Washougal and Camas school districts. In Washougal, Hathaway Elementary and Jemtegaard Middle Schools are across the street from the railroad tracks—children playing in the playgrounds watch the trains go by every day. Gause Elementary and Washougal High School are a few blocks from the tracks. As a teacher, I am concerned for the health and safety of all the children, and particularly for those with fragile health and special needs. I will be anxious every time I take the children to the playground or watch them cross the tracks on their way to school, wondering what effect the coal dust and diesel emissions will have on them.

And obviously, the coal dust won’t stop at the school playgrounds. The tracks also run for miles through the backyards of residents in Washougal and Camas, including those of friends of mine. There are hundreds of homes and businesses within a block of the railroad tracks, the Washougal River runs nearby and under the tracks, and the tracks border the Columbia River. What will be the effect on salmon fishing, water quality, tourism, property values, and overall quality of life?

The railroad tracks split downtown Washougal from Rt. 14—the main east-west traffic corridor—and the Port of Camas/Washougal (a major source of local and tourist income), as well as homes along the Columbia River. The addition of coal trains will cause tremendous traffic congestion and ambulance/fire truck delays.

Finally, when coal is being burned in China or other countries abroad, it still poisons communities in the U.S. and elsewhere, when pollution travels back across the oceans. This is not only a local issue, but a global one as well.

Thank you for taking my concerns and those of thousands of other Washington residents into consideration.

Kathleen Masis M.D. (#11837)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Billings, MT
Comment:
I am a retired family physician, living in Billings, Montana, about 5 miles from the railroad line that would be carrying coal to the proposed port expansion in Cherry Point.

The breadth of the scoping process in the EIS for this port needs to cover the probable significant adverse impacts to the health of the individuals living in communities on the railroad route, not just at the site of the port. A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is the appropriate tool to address human health effects.

My Concerns:

1. Traffic/safety. Current rail traffic has already been identified by the citizens of Billings as a health hazard due to delays to ambulances at the rail crossing on the street that connects the Interstate (I-90) to the hospitals in Billings. In the EIS for the Cherry Point Port, a Health Impact Assessment is recommended, to answer the questions being asked here in Billings. These include the effects of blockage to emergency vehicles of the route to the hospital by trains headed to the proposed port, and risks (number of deaths) from increased waiting time at the RR crossing.

2. Air Pollution. Exposure to Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) increases the risk of lung cancer, and other lung disease (asthma and COPD) and cardiac disease. (American Lung Association, American Health Association.) The near source health effects of increased exhaust from locomotives to those living along the route from the mine to the proposed port need to be identified. In Billings, how many people live close enough to the railway that they are exposed to airborne toxins of diesel exhaust, specifically DPM, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), and others such as formaldehyde. How much will this exposure be increased in sites along the route to the proposed port, and what will be the increase in deaths from lung and cardiac diseases? Adoption of the risk assessment tools developed by the California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, and the US EPA Integrated Risk Information System, for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk based DPM concentration levels are recommended. (See health risk assessment guidance from California’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment at
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/pdf/HRSguide2001.pdf)


Thank you.

Kathleen McGregor (#10256)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Hood River, OR
Comment:
Dear 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.

US Army Corps of Engineers
To Whom It May Concern:

I wish to preface this message by reiterating (pre-iterating, perhaps) the last sentence of the letter I am sending:
"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."
Don't let this happen... at least, not until you've proven that it's a lawful and necessary project. If we can keep the coal from polluting our valuable, and special, east-west waterway, we must.
Kathy McGregor
Hood River, Oregon

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.

Kathleen McKenzie (#353)

Date Submitted: 10/03/12
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
October 4, 2012

To Whom It May Concern:

I have a number of concerns about the impact that the proposed coal export facility would have on the Northwest. Specifically:

• The street-grade rail tracks in Edmonds effectively cut off the town from the waterfront as trains come through. The coal facility would add 18 additional trains per day, each 1.5 miles long. In the event of a medical emergency or fire at the busy waterfront, aid vehicles would be delayed critical minutes while the trains transit. Ferry traffic, carrying commuters to and from the mainland, would also be stalled, rendering ferry schedules unreliable. Tourists wanting to enjoy Edmonds’ beaches, parks and waterfront facilities would also be inconvenienced and tourism thus discouraged.

• There are legitimate concerns about the health effects of blowing coal dust from uncovered, albeit “treated” coal, and from the particulate pollution of the four engines needed to move such heavy trains.

• Trains derail. Coal dust on tracks increases the risk of derailment. To the incalculable human tragedy of derailment, we must consider the threat to wildlife, to the marine environment and to the economy of fisheries and tourism.

• As a former resident of San Juan Island, I share the residents’ concerns about the danger that enormous coal vessels would pose to the fragile ecosystem of the islands.

• Jobs are promised. But is the cost worth it? Not just the unknown cost of potential hazards to the local economy and to residents’ health and safety but the known and substantial health costs of coal use to the environment we all share.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kathleen McKenzie

Kathleen McQuillan (#13791)

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.

More coal use? Oh our poor planet, it's just the wrong way to go!

Kathleen Patton (#471)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Longview, WA
Comment:
I oppose coal exportation from Washington, and want to advocate for the widest and deepest possible environmental impact study.

I am very concerned about the impacts of coal on the Columbia River itself, and all the communities along the path of these uncovered coal trains. We desperately need good science to understand the real cost to our health and environment.

We need to understand impacts on our fisheries, wineries, and other agriculturally related businesses, as well as the health of people living near the tracks all throughout Washington where these trains will be moving.

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

Sincerely,

Kathleen Patton

Kathleen Petrie (#4768)

Date Submitted: 12/14/2012
Comment:
Health Impacts:
o Assess the health issues and healthcare costs caused by increased pollutants.

o Use of coal as an energy source is a short term solution; when coal and coal trains become obsolete in 50+ years, how long will it take beyond that for our environment to recover from decades of impact?

o Evaluate the environmental and economic impacts of diesel, coal dust, sound, vibration, etc. these trains will have on the health of our land and water environments such as Puget Sound which is currently at risk?

· Puget Sound contributes $20 billion of economic activity in our state and is linked to thousands of jobs in fishing, tourism and trade.

Traffic Impacts:
Rail line capacity:
o 2011: Rail Capacity Assessment (Pacific Northwest Marine Cargo Forecast Update and Rail Capacity Assessment, published by BST Associates and MainLine Management in December 2011) evaluating the rail capacity between Tacoma and Seattle, and between Seattle and Everett.

· This study found that the daily rail line capacity between Seattle and Everett is approximately 80 trains. Approximately 55 trains currently use this rail segment daily. Adding 18 additional coal trains per day will max out the railway, limiting additional capacity for other freight and commuter services growth.
· What is the industry, economic and commuter impact?
· What will the environmental and economic impacts be by expanding the railway to accommodate increased capacity north of Seattle?

Streets:
o Coal Train Traffic Impact Study completed by the City of Seattle in Oct 2012

· This report evaluated queuing times at impacted intersections, but what should also be considered is the impact of back-ups at feeder streets to those intersections. Car emissions are very quantifiable. What is the impact of idling cars an extra 3 hours a day?

· EIS should also consider the impact of increased congestion at S Hanford St and 1st Ave S. West of this intersection has become extremely congested due to train traffic and commuters due to changes being made to 99. What is the financial impact to freight movers and property values in West Seattle?

· What are the traffic/emission implications when the construction of a new stadium, tunnel, sea wall are occurring simultaneously?

· Will streets be negatively rerouted, thereby increasing distance between certain parts of town; what is the increase in vehicle emissions?

o Perhaps a revised traffic impact report for the proposed stadium needs to be redone assuming increased rail traffic, if it wasn’t done in the initial report?

Coal Dust:
Evaluate the impacts of coal dust:
o How far can it travel through air from its source, how does it impact humans, animals, land and water environments?
· Oregonian on June 30, 2012:
Railroad testing found an average of 225 lbs of coal dust lost per car during a 567-mile trip, kicked up in episodic bursts. For a 135-car train, that's about 15 tons.

William VanHook, an assistant vice president with BNSF Railway, said this to the federal Surface Transportation Board in March 2010:
· “Plumes of coal dust can often be seen from passing coal trains. When standing near the rail lines, I have often had to avert my face when a loaded coal train passes to avoid being pelted with coal particles."

o 2011 railroad rule now requires tops of loads with a topping agent called Surfactant:

· What percentage of dust emissions are reduced with this product?

BNSF says up to 85% when partnered with other methods

· The use of surfactant would have equated to 2.25 tons of coal emissions with a 15% loss in the above study – this is unacceptable. Train cars carrying coal need to be covered with a hard top lid

BNSF Claims: Different topper agents were tested in the laboratory and in the field on operating coal trains to determine the effectiveness of different products and services in reducing coal dust releases. The Super Trial confirmed that the application of certain topper agents, when used in combination with a modified loading chute, can reduce coal dust losses by at least 85%. An additional phase of the Super Trial will be carried out in 2011 to test the effects of a compaction technique on coal dusting events.

· How is this requirement enforced by BNSF or the Federal Government?

· What federal standards or testing method approves these products?

Opponents aren't convinced that surfactant works so a group of 180 doctors near the Gateway Pacific terminal outside Bellingham, Wash., wants a comprehensive health review of coal dust from trains and terminals -- and of diesel pollution from locomotives -- as part of permit reviews. This should be evaluated.

Property Values:
o An October 2012 report by Paul Zemtseff of the Eastman Company evaluated the impacts of the coal train traffic on properties within 600’ of the rail lines

· Resulting in a possible property value reduction of 5%-15% in the Seattle area; SF being the most impacted. Everett and northward will experience a property value loss of 5% - 20%.

· The EIS should quantify the impacts of financial stress on human health and financial health for our city and environment

Voters and politicians have spoken:
o 2006: Voters approved Initiative 937: Clean Energy Initiative ensuring that at least 15% of the electricity Washington State gets from major utilities comes from clean, renewable sources: All 17 utilities in WA State are meeting or exceeding clean energy targets. China is working on alternate

· And Washington is benefiting from billions of investment dollars, local economic stimulus, new jobs, lower electric bills, healthier homes and cleaner air.

o 2011: WA State Senate approved Senate Bill 5769 that would eventually shut down Washington’s only coal-fired power plant, phasing coal out by 2025

o Do initiatives/bills such as this have any legal standing to stop this project?

Final note:
Governments and citizens are working hard together to reduce energy consumption and grow alternate options to fossil fuels in WA State and nationally – why would we work so hard at reducing impacts of climate change in our own back yard but then encourage other countries to increase carbon emissions?

The advancement of the coal trains is a shortsighted benefit for few to the detriment of all. Some companies do things that are environmentally and socially irresponsible for financial gain, but this plan is truly negligent and my heart aches learning there are people with this lack of integrity and ethic.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment

Kathleen Petrie (#4774)

Date Submitted: 12/14/2012
Comment:
Health Impacts
o Assess the health issues and healthcare costs caused by increased pollutants.
o Use of coal as an energy source is a short term solution; when coal and coal trains become obsolete in 50+ years, how long will it take beyond that for our environment to recover from decades of impact?
o Evaluate the environmental and economic impacts of diesel, coal dust, sound, vibration, etc. these trains will have on the health of our land and water environments such as Puget Sound which is currently at risk?
• Puget Sound contributes $20 billion of economic activity in our state and is linked to thousands of jobs in fishing, tourism and trade.

Traffic Impacts
Rail line capacity
o 2011: Rail Capacity Assessment (Pacific Northwest Marine Cargo Forecast Update and Rail Capacity Assessment, published by BST Associates and MainLine Management in December 2011) evaluating the rail capacity between Tacoma and Seattle, and between Seattle and Everett.
• This study found that the daily rail line capacity between Seattle and Everett is approximately 80 trains. Approximately 55 trains currently use this rail segment daily. Adding 18 additional coal trains per day will max out the railway, limiting additional capacity for other freight and commuter services growth.
• What is the industry, economic and commuter impact?
• What will the environmental and economic impacts be by expanding the railway to accommodate increased capacity north of Seattle?
Streets
o Coal Train Traffic Impact Study completed by the City of Seattle in Oct 2012
• This report evaluated queuing times at impacted intersections, but what should also be considered is the impact of back-ups at feeder streets to those intersections. Car emissions are very quantifiable. What is the impact of idling cars an extra 3 hours a day?
• EIS should also consider the impact of increased congestion at S Hanford St and 1st Ave S. West of this intersection has become extremely congested due to train traffic and commuters due to changes being made to 99. What is the financial impact to freight movers and property values in West Seattle?
• What are the traffic/emission implications when the construction of a new stadium, tunnel, sea wall are occurring simultaneously?
• Will streets be negatively rerouted, thereby increasing distance between certain parts of town; what is the increase in vehicle emissions?
o Perhaps a revised traffic impact report for the proposed stadium needs to be redone assuming increased rail traffic, if it wasn’t done in the initial report?

Coal Dust:
Evaluate the impacts of coal dust
o How far can it travel through air from its source, how does it impact humans, animals, land and water environments?
• Oregonian on June 30, 2012:
 Railroad testing found an average of 225 lbs of coal dust lost per car during a 567-mile trip, kicked up in episodic bursts. For a 135-car train, that's about 15 tons.
 William VanHook, an assistant vice president with BNSF Railway, said this to the federal Surface Transportation Board in March 2010:
• “Plumes of coal dust can often be seen from passing coal trains. When standing near the rail lines, I have often had to avert my face when a loaded coal train passes to avoid being pelted with coal particles."
o 2011 railroad rule now requires tops of loads with a topping agent called Surfactant:
• What percentage of dust emissions are reduced with this product?
 BNSF says up to 85% when partnered with other methods
• The use of surfactant would have equated to 2.25 tons of coal emissions with a 15% loss in the above study – this is unacceptable. Train cars carrying coal need to be covered with a hard top lid
 BNSF Claims: Different topper agents were tested in the laboratory and in the field on operating coal trains to determine the effectiveness of different products and services in reducing coal dust releases. The Super Trial confirmed that the application of certain topper agents, when used in combination with a modified loading chute, can reduce coal dust losses by at least 85%. An additional phase of the Super Trial will be carried out in 2011 to test the effects of a compaction technique on coal dusting events.
• How is this requirement enforced by BNSF or the Federal Government?
• What federal standards or testing method approves these products?
 Opponents aren't convinced that surfactant works so a group of 180 doctors near the Gateway Pacific terminal outside Bellingham, Wash., wants a comprehensive health review of coal dust from trains and terminals -- and of diesel pollution from locomotives -- as part of permit reviews. This should be evaluated.

Property Values:
o An October 2012 report by Paul Zemtseff of the Eastman Company evaluated the impacts of the coal train traffic on properties within 600’ of the rail lines
• Resulting in a possible property value reduction of 5%-15% in the Seattle area; SF being the most impacted. Everett and northward will experience a property value loss of 5% - 20%.
• The EIS should quantify the impacts of financial stress on human health and financial health for our city and environment

Voters and politicians have spoken:
o 2006: Voters approved Initiative 937: Clean Energy Initiative ensuring that at least 15% of the electricity Washington State gets from major utilities comes from clean, renewable sources: All 17 utilities in WA State are meeting or exceeding clean energy targets. China is working on alternate
• And Washington is benefiting from billions of investment dollars, local economic stimulus, new jobs, lower electric bills, healthier homes and cleaner air.
o 2011: WA State Senate approved Senate Bill 5769 that would eventually shut down Washington’s only coal-fired power plant, phasing coal out by 2025
o Do initiatives/bills such as this have any legal standing to stop this project?

Governments and citizens are working hard together to reduce energy consumption and grow alternate options to fossil fuels in WA State and nationally – why would we work so hard at reducing impacts of climate change in our own back yard but then encourage other countries to increase carbon emissions.

The advancement of the coal trains is a shortsighted benefit for few to the detriment of all. Some companies do things that are environmentally and socially irresponsible for financial gain, but this plan is truly negligent and my heart aches learning there are people with this lack of integrity and ethic.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

Kathleen Petrie

Kathleen Pierce (#12455)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Dallesport, 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.

We already have coal trains that go by my home, but they are only a couple a day. Coal has been found along those tracts and the vineyards and orchards that are near them. More coal trains will cause real harm to our fruit based economy through coal dust contamination, will cost local companies untold dollars through lost productivity and time because of the many at-grade crossings, and negatively affect recreational economy and general quality of life.

Please, just say "NO" to coal export terminals on the West Coast.

Kathleen Randall (#453)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
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.

You and I know this is a disaster of incredible proportions just waiting to happen!
Where will it occur? Whose business, community, house, life is going to be affected. I hope your health insurance is in place and paid up-to-date? You will need it for the respiratory and other health problems that will occur. There is no doubt that the entire state will be negatively impacted for the sake of a few hundred jobs in one location. No amount of compensation can make up for the disruption, congestion and damage that allowing this project to go forward will do to our state and its citizens.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Randall

Kathleen Randall (#1075)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
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.

In addition, when a thorough analysis is truly done, I feel confident that the Army Corp of engineers will stand with us in declaring this an international disaster for the world of immense proportion. We need to consider the international effects of our actions, as well as, the local effects.




Kathleen Randall
4315 7th Ave NE
SEATTLE, WA 98105

KATHLEEN RANDALL (#4814)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Seattle, wa
Comment:
There are two issues I am concerned about that I did not hear addressed Thursday:
1) The fact that we require cargo ships carrying oil to be double hulled to provide greater safety to the environment in the case of an incident like the one which took place in Canada this week. I don't know if a double hull might have prevented the "spill" which took place, but, it might have and we do not have a similar requirement in place for coal carriers.
2 These huge cargo ships come from all over the world to carry this coal to China, the ballast they dump into our waters includes all kinds of organisms from all over the world that are foreign to our ecosystems and could be terribly destructive to our native habitats if unchecked. The "Zebra Mussel" in the Great Lakes is an example of this kind of intrusion.

I'm asking the EIS address the above issues, specifically, and to make recommendations based upon their findings that includes potential damages, preventions and safeguards and a fund that could be established to which all who will realize profits must contribute to mitigate the inevitable damages that will occur to our state, our residents and our ecosystems.

Kathleen Richardson (#6414)

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

Kathleen Ridihalgh (#216)

Date Submitted: 10/02/2012
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 coal on trains 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.

This is net negative economically and a BAD Deal for Washington.

Kathleen Ridihalgh

Kathleen Ridihalgh (#8623)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Seattle , WA
Comment:
I live in Ballard, Seattle, Washington. My children play in the parks (Golden Gardens and Carkeek Park) through which trains travel each day.

I would like the agencies to specifically measure and monitor the pollution from current coal trains that could affect children and at-risk adults within any public park, school, day care center or public access area along the lines. Then, extrapolate that pollution to measure how much additional pollution will affect people in public areas from the mines to the terminal.

Thank you.


--
Kathleen Ridihalgh
Sr. Regional Organizing Manager
Sierra Club

I live in Ballard, Seattle, Washington. My children play in the parks (Golden Gardens and Carkeek Park) through which trains travel each day.

I would like the agencies do conduct studies measuring the possibility of derailments in any public access area (including but not limited to state, city or federal park, day care center, school, swimming area, etc) where children congregate. What would the mortality rate be? What would the injury rate be? Look at different times of the day and year (there are more people accessing these areas in the summer when derailments are more common.)

Prepare and distribute disaster preparedness materials to the park's administrators and ensure that public safety meetings are held to release the studied information as well as plans for immediate emergency response. Please line out what entity is responsible for clean up, what could be the costs to taxpayers, and who is responsible for any civil liability to injured parties.

Thank you.



--
Kathleen Ridihalgh
Sr. Regional Organizing Manager
Sierra Club
180 Nickerson Street, #202
Seattle, WA 98109
206-378-0114 x 305
fax: 206-378-0034

I live in Ballard, Seattle, Washington.

My family visits the Ballard Locks and watches the salmon migrate through the Locks up to streams from Lake Washington. It is an amazing sight and we are all too aware of how rare an opportunity it now is. Climate chaos, ocean acidification and a myriad of other impacts will hurt our NW Salmon populations which are already under much stress. I would like the agencies to study the impacts of 18 coal trains travelling over the Locks and the waters that host returning salmon. What effect will coal dust, derailments, coal spills and diesel have on those populations?


Thank you.



--
Kathleen Ridihalgh
Sr. Regional Organizing Manager
Sierra Club
180 Nickerson Street, #202
Seattle, WA 98109
206-378-0114 x 305
fax: 206-378-0034

Kathleen Schmitt (#5638)

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

Kathleen Shelman (#7292)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Corbett, OR
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.

I strongly oppose all coal exports from NW ports, for many reasons.

As a resident of a gorge community, I am concerned about the effect on the health of the National Scenic Area as well as the economic effects of up to 18 long coal trains a day going through the gorge. This area depends on tourist dollars and blocking access to the river during most daylight hours is going to have a serious effect on jobs in our area.

I am also concerned about the effects of coal dust on the plants, trees, and waters of the gorge. Already, emissions from the Boardman coal plant are affecting air quality in my area and causing the growth of undesirable lichens on many of my ornamental trees. I can't wait to see what blowing coal dust will do.

The coal companies want to make money at our expense, by asking that their projects be approved individually. We need a thorough EIS that includes ALL proposed projects since the effect they have will be cumulative.

While this particular proposal may create some jobs at the Bellingham terminal, it will cost jobs at this end, while trashing my back yard in order to send a highly polluting substance to China, where it can be burned and the toxic fumes blown back for me to breathe.

NO THANKS! Keep BIG COAL out of the Columbia River Gorge.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Kathleen Shelman

Kathleen Shelman (#8440)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Corbett, OR
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.

I strongly oppose all coal exports from NW ports, for many reasons.

As a resident of a gorge community, I am concerned about the effect on the health of the National Scenic Area as well as the economic effects of up to 18 long coal trains a day going through the gorge. This area depends on tourist dollars and blocking access to the river during most daylight hours is going to have a serious effect on jobs in our area.

I am also concerned about the effects of coal dust on the plants, trees, and waters of the gorge. Already, emissions from the Boardman coal plant are affecting air quality in my area and causing the growth of undesirable lichens on many of my ornamental trees. I can't wait to see what blowing coal dust will do.

The coal companies want to make money at our expense, by asking that their projects be approved individually. We need a thorough EIS that includes ALL proposed projects since the effect they have will be cumulative.

While this particular proposal may create some jobs at the Bellingham terminal, it will cost jobs at this end, while trashing my back yard in order to send a highly polluting substance to China, where it can be burned and the toxic fumes blown back for me to breathe.

NO THANKS! Keep BIG COAL out of the Columbia River Gorge.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Kathleen Shelman

Kathleen Sparkes (#5906)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
I am concerned about the air pollution including diesel exhaust and carbon dioxide emissions that would be caused by the increased number of trains needed to transport coal from the mining sites to the Gateway Pacific Terminal, as well as the number of vehicles required to wait, idling engines, at the numersous at-grade crossings. Although I live in Whatcom Councy, I recommend the study of the complete corridor through which train traffic will increase to determine the number of at-grade crossings, the length of time required for a train to pass, and the emissions from vehicles waiting.
These data are significant since air quality issues, including diesel exhaust pollution and CO2 emissions affect public health and the natural environment. The public health impacts have been investigated by well qualified medical professions, as documented in the Whatcom Docs position statement, as well as by presentations by Dr. Steven Gilbert (Institute of Neurotoxicology and Neurological Disorders) and Dr. Chad Weldy (University of Washington, School of Medicine) particularly regarding the health risks of diesel exhaust pollution.

Kathleen Sparkes (#5914)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
If the Gateway Pacific Terminal is allowed to be built, the trains serving the terminal will substantially increase traffic delays at railroad crossings all along the rail route. One mitigation measure would be to construct overpasses where at-grade crossings now exist. How many would have to be built? What would be the cost? Who would pay? If this type of mitigation is considered, these questions need to be answered, the answers then examined for economic feasibility.

Kathleen Sparkes (#5916)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
I support the concerns enumerated in the letter from Sean Guard, Mayor of Washougal, in which he stresses the need for an assessment of the cumulative impacts from all the potential new coal terminals in the Pacific NW. These concerns have been well documented in the letters from many public officials and agencies, as noted in Mayor Guard's letter.
This is extremely significant since no one project's impact can be walled off in a quarantine manner from the others. Also, the total population in the total area is large, especially in the north-south corridor along the coast.

Kathleen Sparkes (#6047)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
I recomment that the study include an investigation of the marine environment, not just in the area adjacent to the Gateway Pacific Terminal, but also the complete waterway through which vessels will pass from the port through the San Juan de Fuca strait. Detailed data need to be gathered on the potential effect, considering such questins as:
How many ships and of what size wold be transporting coal through this waterway?
What is the potential risk for oil/coal spills? Refer to the BP Vessel Traffic Rish Assessment, August, 2008.
What would be the effects of all these factors on the fisheries, the whale population, and tourism?
This is a significant concern since the Salish Sea has already been harmed by human activities and current efforts are underway to reverse this damage. Of particular concern is the impact on the unique Cherry Point herring, already in decline as determined by the Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.

Kathleen Sullivan (#9886)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I’m a student at WWU. Regarding the coal terminal, I’m interested in knowing more about how it would affect the elderly in Bellingham.

Kathleen Tei (#284)

Date Submitted: 09/26/12
Location: Home, WA
Comment:
Coal is dirty - polutes the air - and is a hazard to health.

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,

Kathleen Tei

Kathleen Thulin (#14332)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathleen Tyrrell (#3625)

Date Submitted: 11/20/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathleen Wahl (#8938)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Comment:
With the increase of approximately 30 miles of coal trains per day on our railways, my biggest fear is for those that live on the "wrong side of the tracks." My parents live in Marysville, on the West side of the railroad tracks. If one of them has a medical emergency, say, a heart attack, and time is of the essence, but there is a coal train going through town, the delay of aid could quite literally kill them. This is already a very real possibility with the current train schedule, please do not add to the problem.

Kathleen Warren (#10743)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Puyallup, WA
Comment:
I am not in favor of additional trains passing through Puyallup. The length of these proposed trains and the frequency of these trains in addition to the trains already passing through the city will have a negative effect on crosstown traffic. And I don't even want to think about the potential impact on emergency vehicles with no alternative routes!

Kathleen Washienko (#5039)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
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, and increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents. **Most importantly, no matter where the trains would run or whether dust suppressants are used en route, the climate science is clear that we simply cannot facilitate the burning of millions of ton of carbon-intensive coal and have any hope of a liveable future for our children.** I urge you to consider these impacts, especially the climate 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.

Kathleen Washienko

Kathleen & Ron Pulliam (#7444)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Ridgefield, WA
Comment:
1-15-13

China is a huge polluter already. Did anyone see the news clip last night showing people in a city in China wearing masks and walking down a street filled with thick smog? It is TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE to help China destroy our Earth's air and
water any more than they are now by selling them MORE coal to burn.

We are against having coal trains going through Washington to Cherry Creek because of the human health problems and degradation of our environment they will cause.

Kathrine Jenkins (#13597)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Ulm, MT
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.
There is no such thing as clean coal!

Kathryn Alexandra (#1832)

Date Submitted: 10/31/2012
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
Besides my concerns re train traffic, air pollution, and promotion of dirty energy world wide, I would like to know how the ships tranporting coal around the world are going to effect the marine environment. Adding coal dust , diesel particles and piers to the marine preserve at Cherry point will likely have a negative impact on the eel grass which is the basic element supporting a healthy marine environment. As the ships leave the piers, how will ballast water, noise pollution, and oil leaks be controlled to prevent pollution of marine waters.

Kathryn Bachen (#3345)

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

Kathryn Edgecomb (#4373)

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 oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and the transporting of strip-mined coal from the states of Montana and Wyoming via trains and ships and barges throughout the Northwest. It will increase traffic, pollute our air and water, harm small businesses, delay emergency vehicles, and increase shipping traffic and noise. The coal export terminal will also hurt our environment by damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing serious shipping accidents, and exacerbating the rate of 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 United States. The Army Corps of Engineers must conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals. Their duty is to protect the future health of our waterways.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Edgecomb
5715 NE 112th St
Vancouver, WA 98686-5948
(360) 573-8928

Kathryn Ellis (#14333)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Otis Orchards, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathryn Gerry (#13943)

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.

The economic benefits of this proposed project are limited and short term, and they do not outweigh the damage it will do. Coal is on the way out as an energy source, and rather than investing in this outdated, dirty, and unpopular fuel, we should be putting out efforts into cultivating energy sources that will have longer term benefits for the economy and the environment.

Kathryn Hoch (#4858)

Date Submitted: 12/16/2012
Comment:
I am greatly concerned about the air quality, stream/riparian impact, noise, traffic, and agricultural impacts resulting from an increased number of trains on the BNSF lines. The northern BNSF route passes through beautiful and unspoiled national forest lands in eastern Washington, and within a couple of miles of designated wilderness areas. Furthermore, the rail line crosses through prime recreation and farm/orchard property. The coal dust and increased noise from additional trains could seriously degrade the unique character of these areas, reduce property values ,and interfere with commerce in towns like Wenatchee.

Kathryn Hogan (#12487)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
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.

Please consider the impact of the coal export terminal on bird and marine life on Bellingham Bay and the herring run at Cherry Point.

If you want to truly be accountable for your proposal, as I believe you must be, you should do an environmental impact statement of the millions of ton you are sending to be burned in China. The air quality in China is dangerously bad and unhealthy; sending coal to burn will make matters worse--not just in China, but all over the world.

The world wide impact of the coal export terminal on air quality should be included in any seriuos attempt to consider the environmental impact of this dangerous proposal.

Kathryn Keener (#2807)

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

Kathryn Keener (#14334)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathryn Ketcham (#12679)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community, Clark County, by increasing the community risks for repiratory diseases, 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.

Kathryn Kirdahy (#10291)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
As a part of the survey please include a study on the effects on marine life in the Puget Sound region. The Puget Sound is a very diverse and unique ecosystem. The large size of the new port will likely destroy many acres of marine habitat. Additionally the increased traffic may put stress on wildlife. Some of the issues to further investigate would be the impacts on herring populations, the effects of increased shipping traffic on marine life (including noise pollution), the potential increase in pollutants in the waterway and the effect destroying wetlands would have on the marine ecosystem as well as local watersheds.
With the Proposed terminal train traffic along the lines is expected to increase. In some areas this could mean up to eighteen trains a day. The effect of the dust on people living and working near the train tracks needs further study in order to determine whether the construction of a new terminal would pose a significant health threat. The amount of diesel emissions may also be a problem. In addition the trains would run along a number of fairly pristine natural areas, introducing higher levels of contamination.
Finally the addition of this terminal would allow for over 200 million tons of emissions annually contributing to global warming. This issue is the most global and may be more difficult to study. Yet by creating a cheap source of coal for Asia, there is minimal incentive for the receiving countries to take steps towards greener fuels. Already climate change is moving more rapidly than predicted. IT would be useful to study the actual increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the construction of the new terminal, including the process of shipping, burning and mining the coal. As a result a clear assessment can be made as to the contributions this terminal will have on climate change.

Kathryn Lanlins (#13701)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Mt. Vernon, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Kathryn Lindsay (#13152)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
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.

Just one more comment: it seems like we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we send more coal to China and China continues to pollute at an excessive rate. We are all in this together. Our goal must become an effort to reduce pollution by finding kinder alternatives for our environment.

I am exceedingly concerned about the coal issue for the sake of my grandson who willl be 5 years old in March. He and his peers have no voice in this matter, yet they are the future of our existence. I see no kind future for them if you do not stop the expansion of coal now.

Thank you for doing the right thing here.

Kathryn Maly (#7341)

Date Submitted: 01/12/13
Location: SEattle, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

Mining coal in Montana and Wyoming, transporting it across the country and shipping it to China so that the Chinese can pour toxic emissions into the world's air makes NO environmental sense at all. We need clean energy solutions for the planet.

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.




Kathryn Maly

Kathryn Nollman (#2603)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Kathryn Peterson (#5299)

Date Submitted: 12/18/12
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
Dec 18, 2012

US Army Corps of Engineers

I have deep and serious concerns regarding the impacts of 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 and, in particular, through the Columbia River Gorge. This proposal would negatively affect the Columbia River Gorge by increasing traffic congestion and noise, through higher volumes of coal train traffic. This negative impact will impede the vital tourism economy of the Gorge. I am also concerned about polluting our air and impairing visibility in the National Scenic Area, as well as impacts to water quality in the Columbia River.

I am also concerned about the impacts of train traffic on delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, and the potential for serious shipping accidents.
Finally, regardless of how this coal is shipped, once burned, it accelerates climate change worldwide. I urge you to consider ALL of 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 Columbia River Gorge. I strongly urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a thorough and fully inclusive area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Sincerely,

Ms. Kathryn Peterson

Kathryn Rogers (#8278)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
Besides all the problems noted above, I am especially concerned about the effect of very long trains on all the road crossings multiple times a day. This could be a huge mess for anyone wanting to cross railroad tracks.

Kathryn Sonenshine (#13966)

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.

I STRONGLY URGE the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to THOROUGHLY assess the CUMULATIVE impact of these proposals ON OUR environment (air, water and ecosystems), fish and wildlife, AND on Climate Change issues!!!

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.

Kathryn Thorney (#5393)

Date Submitted: 12/24/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I urge the council to reject the proposed terminal on multiple grounds. An increase in train traffic will strain our road system to an unacceptable level: In Blaine, cars wait for over twenty minutes at rail crossings, because the trains slowly pass through x-ray machines when they enter the U.S., and there are no alternate routes or bridges over the tracks. Coal dust along the tracks and at the terminal poses a major environmental and health risk. Water used to mitigate coal dust only leads to more risks, such as groundwater pollution. Coal as a viable, acceptable fuel source is declining, and will not last more than a couple decades. The burning of coal in power plants is a major contributor to greenhouse gas, which is already causing massive ecosystem failure on a global scale (we are in the midst of a mass extinction event rivaling the effects of a catastrophic asteroid impact. Whether it is human caused is irrelevant - if your house is burning, you don't argue about the cause, you put out the fire). The amount of permanent jobs created by the terminal would not be enough to offset the number of jobs lost as people move away from the area due to environmental degradation. The building of the terminal will upset sacred Lummi tribal burial grounds, and eliminate a natural landscape. Whatcom County will be a worse place to live if the terminal goes ahead, and it will be 100 percent your (the Whatcom County Council's) fault. Don't let it happen.

Kathryn Trueblood (#13287)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
My name is Kathryn Trueblood, and I am writing to ask for further study regarding the Gateway Pacific Cherry Point Coal Terminal here in Whatcom County.

I would like to see good jobs that can support families come to Whatcom County, but there are many questions that have yet to be answered about the Coal Terminal.

Specifically, the effect on the herring spewing grounds and therefore also the salmon runs between Cherry Point and Point Roberts. I understand that the Coal Terminal would result in an additional 900 ships per year.

The effect on traffic and noise levels of the additional trains per day through our waterfront and the subsequent decline of our prime recreation and tourism spots. Also the cost to the taxpayer of trying to mitigate these problems with railroad overpasses.

It has already been proven that coal burning in Asia ultimately affects our air quality here. Bellingham is a town that agreed to levy taxes on itself three times in order to create a system of connecting greenways and trails. I think it is fair to say that bringing 48 million metric tons of coal through this area is in conflict with the community values.

We also need to be respectful the ancestral burying grounds of the Lummi people whose burial rights and fishing rights were guaranteed by treaty.

Thank you for listening.

Kate Trueblood
Whatcom Country Resident since 1987.

Kathryn & Gray Oseen-Senda & Rybka (#4678)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF,

I am writing to add my input to the public scoping meeting for Seattle.
As someone who lives near to downtown and who regularly takes the train to Vancouver, I am concerned about the many effects the proposed coal trains would have in the region. On a local level, they would cause major transportation delays to pedestrian, transit, vehicular and train traffic. They would also have a severe negative effect on the air quality in the city, which concerns me greatly as I have asthma.
Finally, they will be a significant contributor to ocean acidification and climate change when they are burned to produce carbon dioxide. I urge you to carefully consider these harmful impacts.

Sincerely,
Dr. Kathryn Oseen-Senda
Dr. Gray Rybka

Kathryn P Webers (#1042)

Date Submitted: 10/19/12
Location: Marshfield, MA
Comment:
Oct 19, 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 global warming pollution. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

The threats to this region and its ecosystem are unacceptable. While I haven't been to Washington, I have spent significant time in coastal Oregon and throughout Vancouver Island, BC, Canada. I strongly support these irreplaceable habitats and ecosystems. There is no justification to put them at risk.

We know too well that man-made damages to such areas are not recoverable or reversible. I oppose this coal export terminal and the risks that can not be prevented. We know better.

Given the broad impact that proposed coal export terminals will have on area natural resources and public health, and man's errors in the past, I do not believe that even strict oversight is sufficient to prevent man-made harm. I oppose this coal export terminal.

Sincerely,

Kathryn P Webers
43 Medford St
Marshfield, MA 02050-4341

Kathy Berg (#3263)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
To whom it may concern,

I would like the EIS process to examine the following issues regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, WA.

1. What will be the impact of Cape-sized ships operating in the relative close confines of the Puget Sound, aka Salish Sea and the effects things like prop wash and wakes of such large ships on the unique and sensitive ecology of that area?

2. I would like to an honest projection of the jobs in Whatcom County created after build out.

3. What will be the true cost to provide services and oversight for and income from SSA/GPT to Whatcom County in property taxes, fees and the like?

Thank you,
-Kathy Berg

kathy brackett (#9531)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: mt. vernon, wa
Comment:
I believe that the EIS should be as broad as possible. The coal trains will effect the lives and quality of life of many members of the community from waiting for trains, to added pollution, environmental concerns, to who will pay for the track up-keep and plans for what might happen in the case of a emergency. I think that not only the terminal ends should be considered but also the lands in between. Also ethical issues of coal use should also be addressed.

Kathy Dennis (#7462)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, Wa
Comment:
The negative effects from the increased number of coal trains is unacceptable. It does not take a huge expensive study to know this. It is common sense. Do not let big business win this fight along with their usual rhetoric that covers up, ignores, or twists truth. The grid lock alone that will diminish our small towns will be horrific. The impact on our environmental air and water will be devastating. And BUSINESS??? You say Monetary GAIN?? Well OUR businesses will suffer....all the small local businesses will suffer along the way that this coal-train-proposal from H--- will travel.

Kathy Dennis (#14335)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Mt Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

kathy GABLEHOUSE (#2401)

Date Submitted: 11/06/2012
Location: BELLINGHAM, WA
Comment:
I wish you would study the effect of train diesel and the coal dust on our local environment. I have lived in Bellingham for 48 years and am a daily walker in Southern Bellingham often near where the trains travel through,. We came here for a quality of life, which I do not want to lose because of bad health in the future.

kathy GABLEHOUSE (#2405)

Date Submitted: 11/06/2012
Location: BELLINGHAM, WA
Comment:
Being a 48 year resident of Bellingham I wish you would study how the extra coal train traffic will effect possible car traffic tie ups in our town and EMT response times.

kathy GABLEHOUSE (#2408)

Date Submitted: 11/06/2012
Location: BELLINGHAM, WA
Comment:
Being a 48 year resident of Bellingham I wish you would study the possible need to build extra parallel tracks in southern Bellingham to accomodate other trains such as Amtrak once the extra coal trains begin. The loss of our waterfront access would be bad enough but the loss of tourism would be worse for our economy.

Kathy Hashbarger (#398)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Edmonds, 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 any one of the above impacts infringe on the lives of the individuals living in our little town of Edmonds, it will hit the news.
Mitigation of those probable realities prior to the actuality would benefit our communities greatly. Your constituency deserves your full attention on this subject.

Sincerely,

Kathy Hashbarger

Kathy Hazen (#3431)

Date Submitted: 11/26/2012
Location: Burien, Wa
Comment:
As a teacher, I am aware of a high number of students who have asthma and other respiratory ailments. Uncovered rail cars allows coal dust to get into the air. How will this effect the health of people in poor respiratory health?

Kathy Hazen (#7671)

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

Kathy Hirdler (#14336)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathy Kahn Hurwit (#13570)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Eugene, 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, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change.

Coal dust and diesel particulates will damage our air and water quality. Increased rail traffic will delay emergency response at train crossings and impact local businesses on main street. Fishing and agriculture will be harmed by coal train pollution and exporting tons of coal overseas will accelerate climate disruption.

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

Kathy Kalapaca (#10995)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
Length of trains, frequency and air quality are great concerns. Restricting access to and from the waterfront goes back to length and frequency of trains.

Kathy Kaufman (#10897)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Comment:
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that 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.” This was President Obama today at his inaugural address.

Please do not let this coal terminal happen. If we are to leave a livable world for our children and grandchildren, we’ve got to keep 2/3 of the remaining fossil fuels reserves in the ground. The International Energy Agency’s recent report report said it explicitly; it was also acknowledged recently in places as diverse as the Harvard Business Review and in commentary in Nature magazine.

We need to keep the coal from being burned, if we care at all about the future. Please do not allow our coal to be exported. As James Hansen said about Keystone XL, if we allow this much coal to be burned, it is "game over" for civilization. Not immediately, but in the forseeable future. Our grandchildren will not forgive us.

Thank you.

Kathy Kron (#14005)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
Just say "NO!" In the advent of wall street greed causing great anguish to millions of AMericans, even the most conservative are beginning to "see the light" that not ALL business is GOOD business. They are beginning to realize that we must qualify positive vs negative business. THe project mentioned here, although providing a relatively small number of jobs to blue collar types, is mostly for the sake of the few greedy CEO's that will reap all the profits. THe WORLD cannot afford any more dirty energy industry! There are so many other alternatives that could provide clean energy as well as even more jobs than this dirty coal endeavor. It is up to you to protect our environment and wildlife - do not cave like most of our federal agencies have been doing - you are paid with our tax dollars and we demand that our will is done!!!!!

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.

Kathy Lane (#12529)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
We should be strongly subsidizing solar manufacturing plants, not coal exports. 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.

Kathy Nenninger (#12744)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Cornville, AZ
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. Health issues for those in the areas of mining, transport and the final export location will be exacerbated
beyond any positive effects of these actions. Long term planning
needs to be done to mitigate these concerns .

Kathy O'Neill (#13712)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Issaquah, WA
Comment:
Please consider the extreme environmental and health implications of coal train traffic through our region.
You may put me down as firmly against this plan.

Kathy Pasek (#14337)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Mt Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathy Rainbolt (#1487)

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

Kathy Seabrook (#6001)

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

Kathy Seabrook (#7347)

Date Submitted: 01/12/13
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
Jan 12, 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 pacific northwest and the gorge in particular have tourist appeal the world over. The environmental, health and economic impacts, not to mention global climate change are what the gorge will be famous for it you allow this coal chute to proceed. It is your duty make the decision to fully study all the cumulative impacts that these coal companies activities will have. The public good should be first and foremost, not the profits of a few already wealthy individuals. Count the externalized costs in your evaluation and make sure that they are internalized by the coal corporations.

Thank you
Kathy Seabrook

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.

Sincerely,

Ms. kathy Seabrook

Kathy Seabrook (#9019)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:



The coal industry is planning to ship 36 miles of coal trains per day from Federal Lands in the Powder River Basin to ports in Oregon and Washington for shipment to Asia. The terminals are already in the permitting process. The Army Corps of Engineers is the lead agency. Despite urging from the Seattle Office of EPA to expand the scope of the EIS, the Army Corps of Engineers seems reluctant to expand the scope beyond the actual terminal site. The PowerPastCoal organization has turned out 8000 protesters to the scoping hearings.



Everything about these proposed exports is contrary to everything the Obama Administration and you believe, and yet this is mostly within the president’s authority to stop.

1. The coal is coming from Federal Lands

2. We are selling the coal to Peabody and associates for $1.00 per ton. (I believe the price is determined by auction.)

3. The president is the chief commanding officer for the Army Corps of Engineers.

4. Coal is a non-renewable resource that should be saved for future National Security.

5. The coal terminals are being built in navigable waters of the United States.



Why is the president silent? Are the people in charge of these leases keeping this under Obama’s radar?

These coal exports would produce as much greenhouse gas as the Keystone Pipeline. The Army Corps has the authority to deny the permits for the terminals.



“If you build it, they will come”, and if the terminals are not built, then there will be no exported coal. I can only speculate on why the president is silent. My guess is that he wants to make nice with China, and also with Warren Buffet who is the major stockholder in Peabody and BNSF.



I urge the Army Corps of Engineers and the president to do all of the following:

1. Stop the sale of coal for export from Federal Land

2. Put a high tax or tariff on export coal

3. Tell Army Corps to deny the permits for the terminals on the basis of National Security.

4. Or ask the Army Corp to widen the scope of the EIS to include regional and global impacts.

accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider the cumulative 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.

Kathy Seabrook

Kathy Specht (#5198)

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

Kathy Thornburgh (#2351)

Date Submitted: 11/05/2012
Location: MOUNT VERNON, Wa
Comment:
I have lived in Skagit County for over 25 years. I am a biologist and I have spent most of my career working in streams and rivers in this region. I have worked to restore fish habitat and to ensure that we have water quality that meets the goals of the Clean Water Act. These goals are simple: that we are able to swim in our waters and that our waters are healthy places for aquatic life. The coal trains threaten the goals of the Clean Water Act.

Increasing coal shipments would increase the amount of coal dust lost from coal trains.
BNSF estimates that a single loaded car can lose 500 pounds of coal, lost primarily from blowing off the top of the car. According to BNSF, fugitive coal dust is a significant problem for its track maintenance. So where does the dust go?
Coal dust can blow and run off into every river and stream crossing along the railroad.
Mile and a half long trains will leave deposition both from diesel emissions and from coal dust that will deposit toxic contaminants such as mercury, lead and much more into our waters.
Scientific studies have shown that coal dust has many biological impacts in fresh and marine waters. These impacts include carcinogens found in juvenile Chinook salmon from the hydrocarbons in coal dust. Coal can physically damage fish habitat: coal dust can reduce light penetration and inhibit the growth of algae and bottom-dwelling plants that provide food and shelter. Port construction and a huge scaling up of barge traffic would harm crucial fish habitat in marine waters.

For all of these reasons we need to expand the scope of the EIS to cover impacts from coal dust to every river and stream crossing of the railroad. We must look at cumulative impacts from multiple toxins to aquatic life in these waters. And we must look at cumulative amounts of coal dust as it washes downstream to our estuaries which are critical to survival of salmon and other aquatic life.

Kathy Waters (#1956)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kathy Wilmering (#13000)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Although I did not write what is below, it expresses my position much more clearly than I could. I used to live where coal trains went by and know the negative impacts on a community.

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.

Kathy & Hannah Stephens & Nyland (#12375)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to request that any agency making decisions regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point perform a comprehensive study of the detrimental effects of the increased level of noise created by the proposed coal trains on the towns they will pass through.

Of particular concern to me is the noise created by diesel engines idling on the side rails south of Bellingham – especially in the early morning hours. Since there is only one rail line along Chuckanut (there are probably others that I am not aware of), southbound trains sometimes idle for hours until any northbound trains pass.

I live a few blocks east of the waterfront, and while the train noise is noticeable during the day, at night is a disturbing. Believe me, the deep thrumming and vibrations have forced me awake too many nights, even with the number of trains passing through the area now. Getting back to sleep with that constant irritation is next to impossible. The thought of the proposed lengthy coal trains associated with the terminal (nine full and nine empty daily) moving through this area are unthinkable! And what will happen when rail traffic is authorized to resume after mudslides are cleared?

Please consider the negative impact the increased rail traffic noise will have on anyone living and trying to get some sleep along the rail corridors.

Sincerely,

Kathy Stephens
Bellingham, Washington

EIS agencies,

Please consider the amount of water the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point will require at its site. It’s my understanding that this facility alone would use almost half as much water as the whole city of Bellingham! With the terminal’s highest usage occurring during the summer months, the impact on the local water supply will be significant. During these months the levels of water in the Nooksack River and other aquifers are already at their lowest.
As in any community, water is a valuable asset in Whatcom County. Your research on this water usage issue is of the utmost importance.

Sincerely,

Kathy Stephens

Dear Decision Makers,

Please do some research on how the animals could get hurt by all the icky coal stuff because all of the icky stuff could get up in the sky and the sea gulls could get hurt. Please remember to think about the little crabs on the beach, even the baby ones, and how coal and coal dust can hurt them. The fish might also get sick from it.
I’m 8 years old and I live right by Birch Bay. We play there a lot and love the beach. We take good care of the beach when we are there and hope that you will protect it too. We try to save the little crabs so people won’t hurt them, so make sure that the coal trains don’t hurt any animals.

Thank you,
Hannah Nyland

Katie Fleming (#3739)

Date Submitted: 12/03/2012
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Dear Co-Lead Agencies,
My name is Katie Fleming and I am a resident of San Juan Island. I am an environmental educator and have delivered information about climate change science and sustainability solutions to thousands of adults and students over the past 8 years. I am also a trained leader with the Climate Reality Project.

I was discouraged today to read that carbon dioxide is still rising rapidly around the globe (http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019816294_carbonpollution03.html). Coal is mentioned many times in this article. Here's one quote: "Coal, the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, is growing the fastest, with coal-related emissions leaping more than 5 percent in 2011, compared with the previous year."

Burning 48 million tons of coal every year will certainly have an impact on carbon dioxide emissions. It would be irresponsible if the EIS for the GPT project does not include climate change impacts.

Please study and include the impacts of burning 48 million tons of coal every year on the climate. Please study and include the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions for the projected life of the coal export terminal. If the study finds that this project will contribute greenhouse gas emissions that will take away from the international goal of limiting the ultimate warming of the planet to 2 degrees, I recommend the no action alternative.

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Katie Fleming

Katie Fleming (#4947)

Date Submitted: 12/18/2012
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Dear Co-lead agencies,

The Department of Ecology has calculated that a major oil spill could cost Washington’s economy $10.8 billion and adversely affect 165,000 jobs due to disruptions to maritime shipping and public port activities, recreation and tourism, and damage to state fish, shellfish and wildlife. Please study the increased likelihood of an oil spill as a result of the bulk carriers that will be transiting to and from the Gateway Pacific Terminal every year. Please study the impact to jobs and the economy that an oil spill would create and compare it to the proposed jobs and economic benefit that GPT would bring to the region. If an oil spill's negative impact to regional jobs and the economy outweighs the GPT economic benefits, I recommend the no action alternative.

Source: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2012/267.html

Sincerely,
Katie Fleming

Katie Fleming (#7244)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Dear Co-lead Agencies,
I am a resident of Friday Harbor, WA, but I am also concerned about the global environmental impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. This terminal could ship 48 million tons of coal to Asian markets every year. Coal is one of the major polluters in China. In fact, air pollution in Beijing hit a record high this past weekend (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/01/201311363634198312.html) - "China's air quality is among the worst in the world, international organisations say, citing massive coal consumption and car-choked city streets in the world's biggest vehicle market."

I feel it would be incredibly irresponsible to play a role in helping China further pollute its environment and its citizens. I request that the EIS study:

1. The health impacts to Chinese citizens as a result of burning 48 million tons of coal annually.

2. Additional environmental impacts to China as a result of burning 48 million tons of coal annually.

3. How much of this air pollution will travel back to the United States and the impacts to human and environmental health as a result.

If the coal associated with the GPT project will add significantly to air pollution in China and the U.S., I recommend the no action alternative.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Katie Fleming

Katie Hover (#1343)

Date Submitted: 09/28/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Katie Jones (#10708)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
My name is Katie Jones and I am a local naturalist and nature photographer and I work for one of the whale watch companies here in Friday Harbor. I moved here back in 2001 because I gained an intense interest in the endangered Southern Resident killer whales as well as the other animals that make this area their home and I wanted to do what I could to help ensure their survival. One of the best ways to do this presented itself in the form of education and working as a naturalist. It is one of the best ways to teach as many people as possible about the ecosystem of the Salish Sea. Thousands of tourists flock to the San Juan Islands every year to see the orcas and to enjoy the beautiful habitat. When I heard about the proposed construction of the largest coal port in North America at Cherry Point, I became gravely concerned. To say the least I have some very serious questions regarding the Gateway Pacific Terminal and they are as follows:
It is possible that there could be up to 950 coal ship transits per year through the Salish Sea if the GPT is built on top of the already busy vessel traffic that ply our waters. What are the risks regarding collisions between GPT traffic and the other cargo ships and tankers that navigate these waters? What would be the environmental effects of a massive oil or coal spill due to collision or running aground? Will these large ships be escorted through inland waters to reduce risk of an oil or coal spill?
The huge cargo ships and tankers that cruise through the area on a regular basis create a tremendous amount of submarine acoustic disturbance. They also create enormous pollution of the air and water. How will the increased pollution by the GPT (acoustic and otherwise in relation to vessel traffic, construction, and everyday procedures) affect our local killer whale population as well as birds, fishes, invertebrates, and other marine mammals including the food web that supports them?
Cherry Point is home to a very important natural herring spawning ground. Herring is very important to our ecosystem. These fish play a very vital role in our local food chain (salmon eat herring, orcas eat salmon, etc.). How will the construction and operation of the coal port affect this spawning ground and, in turn, affect the salmon and crab fisheries?
As I mentioned previously, the San Juan Islands and the Salish Sea in general are a hot spot for tourist activity. How will the GPT affect the tourist industry concerning degradation of the natural beauty of our area, a decimated orca population, destroyed fisheries, and more crowded waterways?
Climate change is a very real threat in our modern world. How will the increased burning and use of coal in Asia as a result of the GPT affect the climate of our already ailing planet?
I bring these questions to light because they are highly important and it is absolutely required that we know what effects the GPT will have on our very fragile ecosystem. This area is very populated. There are many different kinds of industry that occur on or near the Salish Sea that have very negative consequences on the environment. The ecosystem in this area is already hanging by a thread. What will happen if we grab the scissors and sever that last little thread of hope for our ecosystem? If the GPT is constructed, there may be irreversible damage done to our local orca populations, the salmon and herring fisheries, and our tourism economy. It may not happen right away, but over time the damage of the GPT could become permanent and irreparable. No one wants to come here on vacation and watch coal ships constantly file through Haro Strait. If there is a massive oil spill, no one will want to come sit on the beach to enjoy a summer day, kayak through the kelp beds, or go whale watching. I believe whale watching is an invaluable experience for so many people. We as a species have lost touch with nature and whale watching gives people a chance to see and learn about our ecosystem, even if it is for just for an afternoon. However, for many people, this experience will stay with them for a lifetime. What if there are no orcas for people to go out to see? The natural beauty of this place is invaluable. If it is destroyed, our summer tourist dollars, which are the life-giving bread and butter of many island residents, will disappear. What will we do then? It’s not as if we have many options. The environment doesn’t have options either...
Thank you for your time and for the consideration of the above comments.
Sincerely yours,
Katie Jones

Katie Kaku (#7049)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Seatt;e, WA
Comment:
Please note I am against the coal trains for a number of reasons. In particular, I am a Ballard resident and am concerned on how the diesel locomotives and open coal trains will emit pollution into my neighborhood and impact my experience at Golden Gardens park and Carkeek Park. We have access to beautiful open space that would be ruined by large coal trains and their emissions.

Katie Kaku

Katie Kaku (#8551)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Comment:
Please note I am against the coal trains for a number of reasons. In particular, I am a Ballard resident and am concerned on how the diesel locomotives and open coal trains will emit pollution into my neighborhood and impact my experience at Golden Gardens park and Carkeek Park. We have access to beautiful open space that would be ruined by large coal trains and their emissions.
Katie Kaku

Katie Klahn (#12479)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: North Bend, WA
Comment:
No coal in Washington!

Coal is on its way out, and I'd like to think that my home state and ancestral state for 5 generations is on the ball about promoting renewable, clean energy rather than enabling coal to continue polluting our environment and communities. As far as I can tell, coal isn't good for anything but creating jobs and pollution. Let's find other ways to take care of people's livelihoods in a way that's best for ALL, including our environment. It's not all about economic development, folks.

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.

Katie Reding (#519)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Comment:
My grandchildren live by Cherry Point. 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 love my State- please don't let it be ruined!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,

Katie Reding

Katie Riley (#3118)

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

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

We must protect our environment and the quality of life that we enjoy in the Pacific Northwest for future generations. 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,

Katie Riley
250 NE Hillwood Dr
Hillsboro, OR 97124-3400

Katie Sanford (#9126)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Comment:
I’m writing to express my concern for the environmental issues of initiating coal transport through Cherry Point. Utilizing coal as a source of income for the Cherry Point terminal may create more jobs and bring some extra funds to our locals, but there is a price to pay for allowing these trains to go through. As noted on projectwhatcom.org, cancer is a serious risk factor of living close to these coal transporting railways. The high increase of those who may get cancer is a serious issue and could become very costly through possible lawsuits filed for creating medical hazards. This is just one of the many environmental problems that will have personal impacts on Bellingham citizens. Businesses that are stuck between the water and the railway are highly likely to lose business as it will be a less comfortable atmosphere with trains bustling by constantly throughout the day. Our water is sure to be polluted to some extent, as noted by almost all of those who have left a comment. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of coal dust will be spread over time from the coal trains. These issues will become more problematic over time, if the environmental impact of coal transport isn’t significantly decreased. As these issues become larger, the cost to pay for medical bills of the citizens effected will raise, and the once good decision to initiate this project and bring in immediate income, may become a less effective source of funds.


http://protectwhatcom.org/coal-costs-us-health/
http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/bnsf_stockton_hra.pdf

Katie Sollinger (#14615)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Tacoma, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Katiya Ivcevic (#7640)

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

Katrien Danniau (#3557)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Katrina Lyon (#3626)

Date Submitted: 11/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Katrina Lyon (#8441)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Hello. My name is Katrina Lyon. I am a 15 year resident of Bellingham. My husband and I love working and living in Bellingham, and have been content that this is a great community in which to raise our two boys (ages six and nine). Naturally, the proposed coal terminal raises our concerns for the health of our family and our community, as well as for the health of the world that we will leave to our children.

I agree with Sanford Olson's comments that the EIS study needs to include the full route of coal transport (from the Powder River Basin mine to Asia) from rail to ship - and that the study should include all of the concerns mentioned by Mr. Olson (link to his comment provided below).

http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6044

Please include a thorough study of each of those areas in the EIS. It is important that we understand all of the impacts and the costs associated with them in order to make an educated choice regarding the proposed terminal.

Thank you.
Katrina Lyon

Katrina Lyon (#9059)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
My name is Katrina Lyon and I live in Bellingham. 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 Katrina Lyon

Katrina Lyon (#9147)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Hello. I am a Bellingham resident of 15 years and a Barlean's customer. While reading through the many important comments requesting study I came across this one. http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/9094

I would like to ask that you please include the impacts of the proposed coal terminal on Barlean's facility in the EIS study (see the pdf attached to that comment for specific concerns).

Thank you.
Katrina Lyon

Katrina Poppe (#5068)

Date Submitted: 12/14/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Katrina Poppe (#7641)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Katrina & Sean Lyon (#1942)

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

Katy Berry (#4642)

Date Submitted: 12/13/2012
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
I am appalled at the idea of coal trains polluting our state. The proposed route seems to follow the most population is eastern Washington. Will pollute directly into the Columbia River and North up the I-5 corridor. Coal trains typically run a mile and a half or @ 150 freight cars of uncovered coal, spewing dust. One train could conceivably block all three I-5 access points AT THE SAME TIME going through Marysville. I have read the increase would bring a train through every 1.3 hours. That's a lot of blockage and traffic back-up to deal with on our already congested streets. I would not want to be sitting in an ambulance trying to get to the freeway during one of those crossings. There are two elementary schools close to the tracks also. In my opinion, the short lived financial boon this project would provide does NOT out weigh the lasting damage this would inflict, not only locally, but globally.

Katy Berry (#8887)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
Please survey the impact added rail traffic would have on traffic patterns through Marysville from 4th street through 116th street during peak hours.

Please survey the impact coal dust and added diesel pollution would have on the wetlands, wildlife, vegetation, marine species, fish and water quality, relating especially to the slews, Snohomish river and harbor inlets between Everett, WA and Marysville, Tulalip.

Please survey, estimate the impact a coal train spill would have on the above named resources - specifically the salmon run and local shellfish.

Please survey the impact added coal dust, pollution and noise would have on the learning processes and playground safety of the elementary schools along the proposed path.

Katy Mallams (#11232)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Central Point, OR
Comment:
The outcome of this EIS process should be NO ACTION as in NO COAL EXPORT TERMINALS. The damage to the land and ocean environment and society due to climate change caused by continued burning of coal and other fossil fuels far outweighs any short-term benefits. It doesn't matter if the coal is burned here or in China -- the damaging effects will be the same. If we care in the least about future generations we should be LEAVING THE COAL IN THE GROUND. Switching the world economy to cleaner energy sources will be painful but we MUST do it and it starts with denying projects like this.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Katy Maynard (#5522)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Kau Daller (#3343)

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

Kay Batt (#615)

Date Submitted: 10/09/12
Location: Renton, 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.

Kay Batt

Kay Ellison (#3133)

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

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

One of the newest parts of Vancouver is right next to the Columbia River, which is right next to the train tracks. This new shopping center has a couple restaurants with outdoor seating. While sitting there this summer, a train came by. I thought about the coal trains that will be coming through, and how the pristine outdoor area would be black with soot. What will the coal trains do to this new mall?

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,

Kay Ellison
4303 NE 14th Ave
Vancouver, WA 98663-3606
(360) 696-4840

Kay Ingram (#7642)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kay Keeler (#6254)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
In a Seattle Times Opinion written by Howard Frumkin M.D., Dean of The University of Washington School of Public Health (page A7, "Climate Change Threatens Health"), he states "We need to help move the world past coal. Proposals to ship vast amounts of coal from the Powder River Basin through Washington and Oregon, and then to China, are dreadful health policy. That coal should stay in the ground -- the only proven approach to "clean coal." I live near the Salish Sea and Cherry Point and am concerned about the threat to my health.

My question is what are all the threats? Noise from rail and ship traffic? Coal and metal dust contaminating fish and shellfish? Polution blowing across the Pacific from Chinese factories and power plants?

I request that you investigate all the threats to health and come down on the side of not jeopardizing health in order to create jobs or improve the economy

Kay Keeler (#6863)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: lopezLaneLopez Island, WA
Comment:
My name is Kay Keeler and I am a certIfied Oiled Wildlife Responder in The San Juan Islands. Given the accident at the Coal Dock near Vancouver B.C. last month, The Shell rig near Kodiak Alaska, the fact that there might be 1000+ foot long ships navigating the tricky routes, can you guarantee that companies running coal dock operations and shipping companies can quickly contain oil spills. Right now The State of Washingon is not dealing effectively with derelict boats and allow them to sink (as happened just a few days ago), when salvage costs 10x what it would cost to salvage them before they sink. The Salish Sea is not pristine now, but how can we make sure that there is more degregation. Should we be looking at decreasing the amount of shipping, not only because of the underwater noise that is already adversely affecting fish and mammals, but to prevent catastrophic coal and oil spills?

The quality of our Salish Sea might a so be adversely affected by the pollution fallout from Asia. Are you taking this reality into consideration, the present effect of use of The Salish Sea, and then the potential impact of greater use as well as any accidents that are sure to happen?

kay Keeler (#8449)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I live on Lopez Island and two years had a massive sand slide from our 140' high bank property. I know that sand returning to the sea is a good thing, but this was a pretty big slide. I wonder if the vibrations of ocean freight traffic could have contributed after reading San Olson's comment of October 27, 2012, 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. For those of you who may not know, all vessels going to Asia from North America (starting at the southern-most ports of California) follow a single route up the west coast through the Aleutian Islands where most go through the Unimak Pass, on to the South China Sea. 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 (I’ve examined those proposals and conclude a minimum of 1600 Panamax vessels would be required to move the amount of coal proposed to be handled at those terminals).

Recently the navy has started using jet planes, called "growlers" off of Whidbey Island to our south which has increased the noise in the Salish Sea area. It sounds like a freight train is moving through. I wonder if this and any proposed freighter traffic can possibly not have a serious impact, particularly the noise beneath the water. When training with WSU Beachwatcher program three years ago, we listened to the noise west of San Juan Island and I was dumbfounded on the impact to our fish and marine mammels. Recently another baby Orca was found dead. I request that more research be done before any more noise and vibrations are added to our fragil ecosystem.

kay Keeler (#8450)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I live on Lopez Island and two years had a massive sand slide from our 140' high bank property. I know that sand returning to the sea is a good thing, but this was a pretty big slide. I wonder if the vibrations of ocean freight traffic could have contributed after reading San Olson's comment of October 27, 2012, 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. For those of you who may not know, all vessels going to Asia from North America (starting at the southern-most ports of California) follow a single route up the west coast through the Aleutian Islands where most go through the Unimak Pass, on to the South China Sea. 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 (I’ve examined those proposals and conclude a minimum of 1600 Panamax vessels would be required to move the amount of coal proposed to be handled at those terminals).

Recently the navy has started using jet planes, called "growlers" off of Whidbey Island to our south which has increased the noise in the Salish Sea area. It sounds like a freight train is moving through. I wonder if this and any proposed freighter traffic can possibly not have a serious impact, particularly the noise beneath the water. When training with WSU Beachwatcher program three years ago, we listened to the noise west of San Juan Island and I was dumbfounded on the impact to our fish and marine mammels. Recently another baby Orca was found dead. I request that more research be done before any more noise and vibrations are added to our fragil ecosystem.

Kay Keeler (#9607)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I want to underscore all the great points that James Wells of Bellingham recently made. I live on Lopez Island, but 6 years ago lived near the largest coal loading dock in the Southern Hemisphere in Queensland, Australia. Sometimes, 50 boats were lined up to take on coal for the voracious Chinese appetite. Sure someone will sell coal to China, but when we do we become co-conspirators in the overwhelming pollution that affects the world. Please consider Mr. Wells' argument seriously. I think it makes terrific sense and allows the US to be a model for the world. Meanwhile, China is really suffering from the pollution they are creating. Let's work with them to create Clean Energy and leave the coal where it belongs, underground.

Kay Keeler (#10025)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
Carolyn Gastellum's comment of January 12th makes the request of researching the benefits of not having a coal port. Her reasoning is powerful and is looking to the future that we all have for our grandchildren (I have 13) and will have great-grandchildren in the forseeable future. For their sake, I request that you think outside the "Economic, Job Creation and Commercial Gain Box" and have the courage to look at the big picture. When John F. Kennedy wrote "Profiles in Courage" my vision of true heros transformed. What a model for the world -- a decision not to build a coal terminal anywhere in Washington State!

Kay Keeler (#13923)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington or anywhere in the Salish Sea where I live. 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.

What we really should be looking at is decreasing the burning of fossil fuels. The West Coast already gets pollution blowing across the Pacific Ocean, but look at today's news and you can see the smog that China is currently conducting. GPT affects us locally and reginally, but burning fossil fuel affects the whole planet in the midst of the Climate Change crisis.

Kay Mason (#6659)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Comment:
In wake of all the mudslides on the railroad tracks between here and Seattle this winter, I am concerned about increased traffic/weight on the railroad, and the effect it may have on both land stability (natural) and home stability. Many homes are close to the railway, and if you live in one of them, as I do, you notice not just the noise of the trains, but also the vibration created by the heavily-loaded freight trains. I suggest a study of ground stability--both on railroad right-of-way and on adjacent and nearby properties--to determine what effect increased rail traffic will have.

KAY NEGLEY (#6952)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: MOUNT VERNON, WA
Comment:
We are against the coal train as we feel it will have a very negative effect on our beaitiful Washington state and residents.

Kay O'Connell (#2947)

Date Submitted: 11/15/2012
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
I can't find any aspect of the Gateway Coal Terminal project which is beneficial to residents of the state of Washington including employment for a few. As a train traveler I have experienced the halts and delays on Amtrak caused by tracks. Please study the volume of train traffic and its effect on the local population at railroad crossings, especially ambulances and aid cars.

Kay Paine (#2903)

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

As a tax payer and person who is supportive of the health of ourselves, our children, and grandchildren, 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.




Kay Paine
3007 Rucker Ave.
#356
Everett, WA 98201

Kay Paine (#11486)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
I, along with hundreds of thousands of others, 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, detroying more jobs than the shipping of coal would create, 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.

Kay Porter (#12779)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live several hundred feet away from the railroad tracks, north of Fairhaven on 10th Street. There are no buildings between my house and the tracks, just blackberries and a bank down to the tracks. We already have coal trains going by daily on their way to Canada. I’ve heard there are 8 a day, but I really don’t know how many there are. Any coal trains going by my house are not ok with me.

I have asthma and an autoimmune disease that leaves me open to all upper respiratory diseases around me. I have had an average of 8-10 upper respiratory infections per year for 5-6 years now. I don’t think coal dust had anything to do with these infections, just coming into contact with these germs has caused this. BUT, I do think that coal dust in the air will certainly cause me more lung congestion and will add to the severe nature of the infections I do pick up. The longer the coal dust is in the air around me, the more I will be impacted by the dust.

When we bought our house 21 years ago we thought we would stay in this house until we were no longer able to care for ourselves. My husband says he is not moving, I say in order to live a full life I have to move if the coal trains come.

I not only don’t want you to do this to me, I don’t want you to do it to my town. I love Bellingham.

Sincerely,

Kay L Porter

Kay Sardo (#5665)

Date Submitted: 12/26/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kay Schuhmacher (#6808)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
Comments;
I live at Pt. Whitehorn, Birch Bay.
I have gone many times over the documents about the ongoing PIT/GPT permit process from the beginning and up to the present.
For the past ten year’s, the way they handled themselves puzzles me.
They have not responded to the permitting official’s request not only once but a few times. Their plans for the GPT’S objectives have been changing over time for too many times.
We have learned from BP’s disasters that BP paid huge penalties in the billions of penalties and that they had to sell a big part of their assets to pay for it.
• If a coal ship hits an oil tanker, who will pay for the cleanup and damages? PIT, GPT, SSA Marin are hollow shells without any real assets or financial resources. The operators must be bonded to cover the cleanup costs that might run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The tax payer must not be held responsible to pay for it.
• My big concern is that living near the coal trains and coal terminal will affect my health and will devalue property values. People do not wish to live near the piles of coal and coal train. If there is the permit possibility I would try to move out of this beautiful place which we built to retire. Who will compensate us for the reduce price when we try to sell the house? How do we mitigate such an impact?
• Delays to crossing the rail tracks for the Emergency Vehicles to help the very sick or almost dying, waiting at the rail track for the green light when every second counts. How would this be mitigated?
• I have to cross the rail road tracks 2 times on Grandview road; near Kickerville Road and at Portal Way to go anywhere. Going and returning makes 4 crossings. I have waited up to 13 or minutes at only one rail track. But the train was not that long and not so frequent. It will be a different story if GPT succeeds. According to some articles, it is said that the coal trains will be much longer and heavily loaded which makes them slower, so more wait. Also there will be very frequent runs in order to supply the amount of coal they want to ship to China. I estimate that I might have to wait up to 2 hours. 2 hours is big sacrifice.
• Such delays would also result in lost productivity by workers. How many people will be in this position and what will be the financial cost? These effects must be weighed when evaluating the merits of this project.
• What will be done to prevent coal dust from escaping from the trains, the storage piles, and during the ship loading process?
• PIT’S statement that Coal storage around the GPT will be buffered by the trees around the property, and this will be safe. This is not feasible in such an exposed location. This proposal should not be accepted.
• What are the plans of the railroad companies to improve their rail system in order to move that many trains with such frequency? Who will bear the cost of the rail system improvements? Road improvements?

This project reduces the quality of our lives and it also hurts the environment, marine eco-system and the many living things in it. How can one even attempt to mitigate these effects?

• My suggested alternative is that the State buys the entire portion of the land and add it to the aquatic reserve

Kay Schuhmacher (#7663)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
Comments;
I live at Pt. Whitehorn, Birch Bay.
I have gone many times over the documents about the ongoing PIT/GPT permit process from the beginning and up to the present.
For the past ten year’s, the way they handled themselves puzzles me.
They have not responded to the permitting official’s request not only once but a few times. Their plans for the GPT’S objectives have been changing over time for too many times.
We have learned from BP’s disasters that BP paid huge penalties in the billions of penalties and that they had to sell a big part of their assets to pay for it.
• If a coal ship hits an oil tanker, who will pay for the cleanup and damages? PIT, GPT, SSA Marin are hollow shells without any real assets or financial resources. The operators must be bonded to cover the cleanup costs that might run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The tax payer must not be held responsible to pay for it.
• My big concern is that living near the coal trains and coal terminal will affect my health and will devalue property values. People do not wish to live near the piles of coal and coal train. If there is the permit possibility I would try to move out of this beautiful place which we built to retire. Who will compensate us for the reduce price when we try to sell the house? How do we mitigate such an impact?
• Delays to crossing the rail tracks for the Emergency Vehicles to help the very sick or almost dying, waiting at the rail track for the green light when every second counts. How would this be mitigated?
• I have to cross the rail road tracks 2 times on Grandview road; near Kickerville Road and at Portal Way to go anywhere. Going and returning makes 4 crossings. I have waited up to 13 or minutes at only one rail track. But the train was not that long and not so frequent. It will be a different story if GPT succeeds. According to some articles, it is said that the coal trains will be much longer and heavily loaded which makes them slower, so more wait. Also there will be very frequent runs in order to supply the amount of coal they want to ship to China. I estimate that I might have to wait up to 2 hours. 2 hours is big sacrifice.
• Such delays would also result in lost productivity by workers. How many people will be in this position and what will be the financial cost? These effects must be weighed when evaluating the merits of this project.
• What will be done to prevent coal dust from escaping from the trains, the storage piles, and during the ship loading process?
• PIT’S statement that Coal storage around the GPT will be buffered by the trees around the property, and this will be safe. This is not feasible in such an exposed location. This proposal should not be accepted.
• What are the plans of the railroad companies to improve their rail system in order to move that many trains with such frequency? Who will bear the cost of the rail system improvements? Road improvements?

This project reduces the quality of our lives and it also hurts the environment, marine eco-system and the many living things in it. How can one even attempt to mitigate these effects?

• My suggested alternative is that the State buys the entire portion of the land and add it to the aquatic reserve

Kay Topp (#4238)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
Dec 6, 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.

You have got to be kidding! I am counting the days until I can retire to beautiful Bellingham. Why would anyone even consider this coal export option! It is time to stop thinking about money and start thinking about our planet.

Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten,

Cree Indian Prophecy

Sincerely,

Kay Topp
4103 Amber Court SE
Olympia, WA 98501

Sincerely,

Kay Topp
4103 Amber Ct SE
Olympia, WA 98501-4215
(360) 739-7823

Kay Whitting (#767)

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

Kay Witt (#1296)

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

Kaydeen Franey (#1944)

Date Submitted: 10/28/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

keath rhymer (#11684)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: indianapolis, in
Comment:
This is not good for the enviroment and wildlife

Keely Savatgy (#2664)

Date Submitted: 11/06/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Keith Anderson (#2878)

Date Submitted: 11/11/12
Comment:
To whom it may concern,

This is to group my grave concern about having coal trains come through Washington. My concerns are several:

# 1 Traffic. Our community as with a number of communities that the train will come through can have its traffic seriously clogged even with existing train volumes. New trains adding to this would create an unacceptable traffic burden.

# 2. Dust: Since the coal cars cannot be covered due to concern about fire hazard, large volumes of coal dust are shaken into the surrounding air. Coal since is carbon. It is like graphite. It gets into everything including lungs and onto everything including automobiles and into everything including restaurants. This is unacceptable for our community or any community.

# 3 Shipping: large ships carrying millions of tons of coal along the coastal waters of Alaska cannot help but create grave and detrimental effects to our fisheries, to the whales, and to our environment.

# 4 Global frying: our atmosphere is heating up and we are paying a grave price. Burning coal in Asia will pollute not only their atmosphere but will also contribute graded gravely to heating our delicate earth.

# 5 Jobs: As highly mechanized ports, very few permanent jobs will be created with this enterprise. There would, of course, be a number of jobs created briefly for the construction of the ports. Those jobs are likely to be provided, however, by a transient or imported workforce. There are much better ways to create good long-term stable jobs for region.

Keith Anderson=

Keith Carpenter (#4589)

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

Keith Comess (#6376)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
The EIS should include evaluation of geologic conditions in areas bordering the rail line with specific reference to vibration-induced instability which might promote landslides or foundation shifts of adjacent or nearby structures. Impacts of coal train traffic on roadbeds, bridges and other infrastructure should also be included.

Keith D'Angelo (#8768)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
Thank you for including this in the EIS Scoping Review, its not easy but it is most definintley important to include in the impact review.

The Economic impact to Bellingham and Whatcom county of the thousands of hours of time , unpaid time of all of the people involved in the process of responding to the threat to Human Health and Quality of life posed by the GPT proposal .

We have an idea of the number of meetings, the number of responses and comments
the number of organizations involved.

Now look forward and estimate during the entire process of the EIS months days years and law suits that will follow , the demonstrations, and civil disobedience and repercussions of all of the lost hours of productivity and quality of life lost that will be experienced through the families and businesses in Whatcom county . Now multiply that times the number of similar communities affected along the rail line .
Now compare that to the economic benefit provided by the Jobs at the terminal.

This is a measurable quantity

This quantity of Human hours of lost productivity compared to the no action alternative.
Thank you for looking at this in the scope of the impact, it is a real factor

This is a mitigatable impact, mitigatable by the no action alternative early in the process.

Keith Dangelo (#10376)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I'm a long-time resident of whatcom county and have seen the impact of tanker traffic and reduction of salmon populations in recent years caused by reduction of herring populations at Cherry point.

I Request study of the impacts of tanker traffic Terminal construction And coal dust on the herring population the terminal area at Cherrypoint as well as the cumulative effects of the other coal projects On the Herring population in the entire Puget Sound.

We know Herring is the basis for an entire food chain Involving salmon Orca Whales and humans.

To evaluate the impact of a decimation of the Herring population The study must look at What is the cost of a permanent reduction or elimination of the salmon fishing industry The whale watching industry the sportfishing industry throughout Puget Sound How does the loss of these economic benefits compare to the economic benefits of construction of the coal terminal.
What are the impacts of many large freighters coming from China to Cherrypoint and discharging their water ballast into the breeding grounds of the Herring at Cherrypoint.

What are the health effects to humans and Fish populations from these millions of gallons of untested potentially polluted water From the ballast of these chips containing unknown organisms being dumped into our water When the ships pump out Their water ballast in preparation for Loading coal.





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.

Studying one only of these terminals would not give its full impact on the environment of the combined effect Of five similar terminals

It is imperative we look at the no action alternatives ,the already existing sustainable industries Will be damaged by further degradation of the marine ecosystem that is supporting the herring and salmon population in Puget Sound. What is the total economic impact of the damage Compared to a no action alternative?

Thank you.

Keith Fredrikson (#2007)

Date Submitted: 11/01/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Dear Scoping Committee,
Please study the effects of the coal trains on the existing infrastructure. In particular I want you to study the particular effects of coal trains, their weight and the dust that emanates from them.
Study the effects of coal dust on the tracks and how the coal causes degradation of the track and increases risk of accidents and derailment.
Also study the effects of the weight and repetition of coal trains on the tracks and other nearby and underground infrastructure. I work at the Post point wastewater treatment plant in Bellingham. We have an alternative outfall pipe that passes directly under the tracks. I am concerned about the weight and vibrations of the trains passing over that pipe. There are many other pipes and infrastructure under and near the tracks all along the route. Of particular concern is the fuel pipeline at the BP refinery next to the coal port. I believe this is the same fuel pipeline that exploded in Bellingham at the water treatment plant, where I also work. I understand that these pipelines containing petroleum products are located in the railroad right of way, very close to the tracks. Please identify all underground infrastructure that may be impacted by the heavy train traffic and ensure that they are protected from damage.

Keith Fredrikson (#8587)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Belingham, Wa
Comment:
My comment concerns water quantity, but I am also concerned about water quality impacts this proposal might have. The potential for pollution of the waters along the shores near the terminal is great. Accidents along the rail route and shipping routes will impact waterways far from the terminal. A ship crashed into the Westshore coal terminal at Roberts Bank on Dec 7, 2012, spilling nearly 35 tons of coal into the water. Study the effects of that accident on sea life. Study the probability of accidents occurring due to the increased ship traffic in the inland waterways of the straits of Juan de Fuca and the nearshore environment. Also, study the increased risk and impacts to the environment resulting from additional rail traffic between Wyoming and the port.
Now, to my comments on water quantity. I am concerned about the quantity of water that the coal terminal will use. The environmental impact study must make a thorough and accurate assessment of the quantity of water this industrial facility will use based on independent research, not on information provided by gateway pacific. In other words, check their data. I want you to be sure to study the source of water they intend to use and insure that it is adequate for their real needs without impacting other users. If they intend to take water from the Nooksack River, How will other users be affected. The city of Bellingham diverts water from the Nooksack River. That water is used to generate electricity and to recharge Lake Whatcom with fresh water. How will the city of Bellingham's access to Nooksack river water be affected by this port? If they intend to use well water, how will that affect other users.
Thank you for taking my comment.

Keith Harding (#7242)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Mount Hood, OR
Comment:
With the decades and torrent of scientific data and ground reality, it utterly amazes me that we are even having this proposal to add to the deadly global predicament we now find ourselves drowning in. I am an early childhood educator, and so I am forced to think of the future. Our modern industrialized civilization is making the whole biosphere ever more toxic, leaving future generations with a depleted and spoiled wasteland. Our generation is a disgrace to the evolution of humanity. We have lived an orgy of consumption without regard to impact on future generations.

Fossil fuels are, one way or another, one of the largest causes of our global climate change and pollution predicament. We should in no way promote further development of coal and oil industries. We need a national and global mandate to go all out to develop truly renewable and relatively clean energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and tidal. These coupled with serious conservation with greatly reduced personal consumption. Conservation can be facilitated by vast development of public transportation, electric personal vehicles, increased fuel mileage and reduction in elective energy consumption by taxation on consumption.

Public agencies are supposed to work for the well-being of the public and "the commons," not on behalf of private corporations. With the information available this project needs to be reviewed as a whole and in context of the deadly global situation of our own making.

Keith Harding
Mount Hood Oregon

Keith Houser (#12376)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
Please stop the coal-export terminals proposed for Washington State. The facility planned for Cherry Point, near Bellingham, WA, would be catastrophic for the nearby Aquatic Reserve from which about half of the Puget Sound's herring population spawns. Herring is an absolutely vital link in the food chain without which the local fishing and tourism sector would be ruined, eliminating far more (permanent and clean) jobs than would be created by exporting coal and disrupting Washington's commercial barge and rail traffic in the process. The proposal to export coal would also negatively affect property values, lower air quality, keep local taxpayers on the hook for rail maintenance, and inhibit the movement of emergency vehicles. Please reconsider this misguided proposal.

keith kemplin (#4039)

Date Submitted: 12/06/2012
Comment:
-Please address the condition of the rail bridge across Chuckanut Bay in regard to safety.
It was damaged in a fire a few years ago, and from my position in a kayak, watching a train pass, the amount of vertical motion is alarming.
-Please address the ongoing impact of the train traffic and maintenance with regard to the adjacent salt water. As a kayaker, I see creosote support ties, plastic wrapping, pieces of rail, car covers that have blown off, lots of oil on the tracks. Some of this ends up in the bay and has a long term impact on the marine environment.
-Please address the cumulative impact of the of the "oil trains" coming from Montana as reported in the Bellingham Herald November 30 and November 26, 2012.

keith kemplin (#5057)

Date Submitted: 12/18/2012
Comment:
-(Noise and Traffic or safety)I have heard suggestions that improving rail crossings in Bellingham which would permit no-whistle passage would cost the city (BNSF would not pay) about 5 million dollars. I would like for the EIS to examine what this would cost for all the cities the train would pass through on its way to Cherry Point.
-Alternatives. It makes much more sense for the coal port (if there is to be one) to be on the Columbia River than to continue by train thru seattle, everett, bellingham and then by ship through the San Juans and the Straight of Juan De Fuca. This should be an alternative to siting at Cherry point.
-(Air quality and Human health). At least one study has shown that the particulates emitted by idling trains in downtown Bellingham equal those of peak traffic on Guide Meridian outside Bellis Fair Mall. I would like for the EIS to estimate fine diesel emissions from the train traffic at all points along the route to Cherry Point. Include total emissions, the spread laterally from the tracks of emissions, emissions at the points along the line where the train is working harder such as the climb from Skagit Flats up past Clayton Beach or the climb from downtown Bellingham up the bluff to Marine drive. And then an assessment of those emissions on human health(for example, lung disease).
-(Other human environment). Larrabee State Park has said there is now no public access to Clayton Beach because of train traffic. I would like for the EIS to estimate how many places along the train route would result in similar public access restrictions to the shoreline or other public spaces and the cost the public would bear to remedy the restrictions.

Keith Kemplin (#5416)

Date Submitted: 12/26/2012
Comment:
-(Traffic) Please address the likelyhood and consequences of a vessel-dock accident like the Friday, Dec. 7 accident at the Westshore Terminal coal pier in British Columbia
-(Rail) please address the likelyhood and consequences of repeated wintertime mud slides
on the trains.

Keith Keyser (#2615)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Keith Knowlton (#778)

Date Submitted: 10/17/2012
Location: Blaine, Wa
Comment:
I strongly oppose the proposed coal terminal for Bellingham. I'm seriously concerned about the impact on noise, water and air quality, and quality of life for the community that the project would bring to the area. My experience is that developers never over estimate the damage their projects will do, but rather they minimize both immediate and long term consequences. Getting jobs for the community is a very poor substitute for the health of the people in the community.
Please deny all applications connected with the proposed coal terminal.
Thank you

Keith Kreuz (#13454)

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, 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

WHEN WILL WE MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN COAL BURNING AND THE DISASTROUS EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

WAKE UP AMERICA!.

Keith Neal (#12492)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington or anywhere else on the west coast of North America.
This proposal would negatively affect my and other communities by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems along transportation routes and at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I strongly believe any transport of coal must be in enclosed vehicles. The exterior of these vehicles need to be washed of coal dust before leaving the loading facility. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Keith Raymond (#8979)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Comment:
I am writing in light of the coal terminal. How much more CO2 is going to be admitted per year? CO2 emissions cause global climate change and decrease the chance of a breathable future for our children. Coal business will begin to dry out as the demand lowers in other countries. We are at the limit of gigatons of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. This will impact life and how we live it. Other countries are moving towards renewable energy. Please study the CO2 emissions of this project and consider the no action alternative.

Keith Shoemaker (#4596)

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

Keith Stracchino (#458)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Spokane Valley, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect the community by increasing traffic, polluting 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.

The sole merit of this installation will be to create new profit sources for an out of state industry that has shown itself to be completely oblivious to, and uncaring about, the damage it does to local communities and our life support system, the natural environment.

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

Sincerely,

Keith Stracchino

Keith Stracchino (#3102)

Date Submitted: 11/13/12
Location: Spokane Valley, WA
Comment:
Nov 13, 2012

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

Coal is a filthy fuel when considered from an environmental impact point of view. As a responsible society we should not be taking legislative and administrative actions to facilitate the pollution arising from actions designed to increase corporate profits at the expense of public health.

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect many communities by increasing road, rail and shipping 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. I urge you to considerall of these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Please do not allow the coal industry to get away with a "feel-good" farce instead of a factual impact statement.

Sincerely,

Keith Stracchino
10508 E Cimmaron Dr
Spokane Valley, WA 99206-8649
(509) 922-0274

Keith Tsang (#11514)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
In order to improve the environment in US or even outside the US, the government should plant more trees in city like Seattle, where there are lots of people pack in one place. We should take more of the public transportation to increase the air quality because if everyone of us keep of buying new cars, the air quality sure will not be any better. Also, for marine species, people should not do as much reclamation because the sea lives will extinct. Reclamation could also lend to water quality problem, all kinds of rocks, sands and sentiments would harm the fish and it might make all of them die too.

Keith Voos (#13751)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
I grew up in Washington and now live in New Jersey so that I have first hand experience of the difference between a vibrant, ecologically diverse natural setting and a place where human activity has reduced nature to a sickly shadow of its former self. There are too many downsides for all the living things of the Pacific Northwest for the Cherry Point goal terminal to be built. A single company benefits hugely and the number of jobs created is small. Don't go forward with permissions to build until strenuous investigation of ALL the negtives of this project is undertaken.

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.

Keith Worth (#4555)

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

Kel Mohror (#2886)

Date Submitted: 11/08/12
Location: Tacoma, WA
Comment:
Kel Mohror
1015 74th St E Apt B
Tacoma, WA 98404-5522

November 8, 2012

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


As a supporter of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal in Whatcom County, I encourage you to complete the environment impact statement process based on the same strict federal and state environmental regulations that have been protecting our region for years.

This proposed export terminal project presents Whatcom County with an incredible opportunity to strengthen its economy and improve our area region\'s quality of life in an environmentally responsible way.

The country as a whole will also benefit from additional DIRECT jobs created in the mining and mine management, trucking and transportation, and heavy equipment, industries. Additionally, hundreds of INDIRECT jobs will be created in the housing, grocery, school, retailing, and law enforcement industries to accommodate broad-based economic growth.

We can - and must - grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time by applying comprehensive systems thinking and industrial engineering practices.

In addition, the Terminal area can be the CENTER for significant econimic development by energy research, production, and trading companies. Coal gasification will be the heart of a \"Silicon Valley\"-like business climate.

Critics make it sound like we have to choose between the economy and the environment. I believe that\'s a false choice. The Northwest has been a national leader in the trade industry for generations, and we can continue to lead the way in an environmentally CONSCIENTIOUS manner. The Cherry Point project will do just that.

As our region\'s economy continues to struggle, it is essential not to over-regulate or delay the approval process of this project.

I urge you to create new, much-needed Northwest jobs and strengthening our economy through increased exports by expediting this environmental impact statement.


Sincerely

Kel Mohror

Kelda Miller (#6415)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Kellee Timpson (#3485)

Date Submitted: 11/25/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Kellee Timpson and I live at 4244 Wintergreen Circle in Bellingham, Washington.

I work in the healthcare industry and came to Whatcom County 10 years ago for the recreational opportunites, includuing hiking, biking, skiing, sailing. I am value our local industry and local businesses and understand the importance of creating a quality of life that attracts and supports a vibrant community.
Please study the harm posed by the terminal and related rail traffic to Ferndale, Bellingham and Whatcom County, which stand to lose their standing as a geographic destination for businesses, tourists and outdoor recreation industry. Quality of life attracts and sustains businesses and industries that seek high quality of life for their employees. This harm is difficult to measure but will far exceed the (projected number of) permanent jobs that accompany this proposed terminal and will be cost-prohibitive to mitigate.

Thank you.

Kellee Timpson (#3486)

Date Submitted: 11/25/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Kellee Timpson and I live at 4244 Wintergreen Circle in Bellingham, Washington.

I am concerned about the local, regional and global impacts directly attributed to the proposed terminal.

Please study how shipping coal through this terminal will significantly contribute to climate change, which would not occur but for the construction of this terminal. The harm posed by the contribution to climate change will be impossible to effectively mitigate.

Thank you.

Kellee Timpson (#6650)

Date Submitted: 01/07/13
Comment:
Please study the impact to the Cherry Point Industrial Park, adjacent to the proposed terminal, which will remain undeveloped but for the construction of this terminal. The adjacent lands would likely be deemed a natural wind buffer for dust escaping coal piles. The impact of no other industry or development at Cherry Point besides the proposed terminal at Cherry Point should be scoped.

Thank you.
Kellee Timpson
Bellingham, WA

Kellee Timpson (#7053)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Comment:
I live in Whatcom County and care very much about the health and safety of my community. I agree with Dr. Arthur Winer, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Environmental Health Sciences Department, School of Public Health at UCLA.
He notes that the EIS must:

· Focus on UNREGULATED as well as regulated pollutants,
· Focus on the disproportionate impact on low-income communities which tend to be situated closer to transportation corridors, and probably most importantly,
· The need to do air monitoring adjacent to and downwind of transportation corridors and not just at fixed site monitoring stations.

Since there are operational coal terminals in the U.S. and British Columbia, it is possible for this type of monitoring to be done now, and extrapolated to the geography, winds, and volume proposed at GPT.

Additionally, the studies must include all rail communities from the terminal site back to the mines.

Thank you

Kellee Timpson (#7058)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Comment:
My name is Kellee Timpson and I have lived in Whatcom County for the past 10 years. I have watched invasive species significantly impact the ecosystem Puget Sound and Lake Whatcom. Invasive species disrupt the existing ecosystem of native plants and animals, often resulting in species extinction.

Please study the impact of ballast water exchange, to reduce the incidence of non-native species introduction to waters around the terminal. Where/how will this mandatory testing occur?

If introduced, mitigation of invasive species from ship hulls will be impossible, and will not occur but for the construction of the terminal.

Thank you,
Kellee TImpson

Kellee Timpson (#7059)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Comment:
Please study the impact to the Cherry Point Industrial Park, adjacent to the proposed terminal, which will remain undeveloped but for the construction of this terminal. The adjacent lands would likely be deemed a natural wind buffer for dust escaping coal piles. The impact of no other industry or development at Cherry Point besides the proposed terminal at Cherry Point should be scoped.

Thank you.

Kellee Timpson (#8550)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Comment:
My name is Kellee Timpson and I have lived in Whatcom County for the past 10 years. I have watched invasive species significantly impact the ecosystem Puget Sound and Lake Whatcom. Invasive species disrupt the existing ecosystem of native plants and animals, often resulting in species extinction.

Please study the impact of ballast water exchange, to reduce the incidence of non-native species introduction to waters around the terminal. Where/how will this mandatory testing occur?

If introduced, mitigation of invasive species from ship hulls will be impossible, and will not occur but for the construction of the terminal.

Thank you,
Kellee TImpson

Kelli Turner (#6704)

Date Submitted: 01/07/13
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.

Thank you for your consideration, and please do not support this venture that would move our region and country backwards. We need to support healthy energy sources for our future.

Kellie Edwards (#3816)

Date Submitted: 12/04/2012
Comment:
When we no longer consider the fact that we are leaving toxic garbage behind for future generations to clean up, it's no different than using our private living space as a toilet. Unfortunately, it happens too often.

Coal is dangerous. It's deadly and you can't pretty it up no matter what face you put on it.

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/coaldust-less5percentsio2/recognition.html

There is no job worth ending or maiming a life for, especially one that can't speak for itself.

I am against this proposal.

Kellie Edwards/Whatcom County Resident and voter

Kellie Sagen (#9987)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
The proposed coal terminal will no doubt greatly affect the natural environment where it will be built. Besides all of the negative impacts on the environment from the coal mines, to the coal train route, to the increased traffic issues near the Bellingham/Ferndale area, my biggest concern is that of the marine life in Puget Sound. Our orcas, the endangered southern residents, are an unstable and fragile group that needs to be handled with care. The proposed terminal could affect the eelgrass beds which are hiding areas for herring eggs and young which is a major food source for our endangered and threatened salmon species. Salmon is the main food source of our orcas. I would like the eelgrass to be a large area of study when considering the possible terminal. I'm also very concerned about the increased shipping traffic through the San Juan Islands. Ship noise and greater numbers of boats will affect the orcas. The bottom line is, our orcas not only give us great joy but also boost our economy significantly. If the orcas are unable to thrive along side the proposed terminal I do not think it should be built. Thank you for your consideration.

kelly alexander (#5162)

Date Submitted: 12/20/2012
Location: seattle, wa
Comment:
I am completely shocked we are even considering this. Washington state is a very special place, I don't think I need to inform anybody of that. from rainforest to deserts and everything in between we are not like any other state in the union. we are special. just because this would create jobs is zero reason to approve it. the fact is there is absolutely no way to keep all the coal dust from contaminating the surrounding environment and everybody knows it. I haven't seen one report that says otherwise. it's just considered a part of doing this kind of business. please don't let us be just another state. we aren't.

Kelly Bachman (#2666)

Date Submitted: 11/06/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kelly Baraby (#13359)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Jefferson City, MT
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 route will run right through helena Mt. NThe expense to route traffic around the train after train and the polution will destroy our neghborhoods that line the tracks! NO Not to mention the dust left from each train from her to the coast all for it to be shipped out !
NO

Kelly Brignell (#3101)

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

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

NO COAL EXPORT TERMINAL!!!!!
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,

Kelly Brignell
1747 SW Sunset Blvd
Portland, OR 97239-2629
(503) 293-1335

Kelly Case (#11739)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I am a homeowner near the railroad tracks. Putting in the additional trains will lower the value of my home, make it more difficult for me to get to and from my house, and I am VERY concerned about the health risks of coal dust. I feel that I would like to move from the area if this goes through but I'm sure I won't be able to sell my house for it's value. This creates huge problems for me and my family and costs us money in lost property value and I will not be reimbursed or assisted to move or provided medical reimbursement in any way. I am completely against the coal trains coming through my neighborhood.

Kelly Fine (#8954)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
My greatest concern about this coal export terminal is that burning more coal will cause massive climate change. China is building new power plants all the time, and it will invest in other sources of energy if cheap coal is not readily available. Add to that all the health hazards to all the people and wildlife that come into contact with coal in any way, and you see that this is very toxic stuff. Building a huge new coal export terminal is a terrible idea.

Kelly Gerlad (#8951)

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

Kelly Graves (#10170)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Edmonds, Wa
Comment:
We live right next to the train tracks, overlooking the Puget Sound. The proposed addition of so many more trains going by, carrying coal that would effect the health of my family and the beauty of this land/water is something I am 100% opposed to. It is our responsibility to protect the beautiful coast of the Puget Sound. We can't do such damage as this proposal would cause, in the name of short term economic gain!

Kelly Grayum (#13592)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
I am writing to request a full programmatic environmental and economic study of the consequences of the Gateway Pacific Terminal. I would like the EIS to include a study of the following specific impacts:
1. Traffic, pollution, safety, and congestion issues along the rail line between coal mines and the Pacific Northwest.
2. Increased mining in Wyoming and Montana, particularly on public lands, and its effect on domestic energy security and pricing.
3. Effect on global consumption of coal due to effect of export on market prices, and resulting increased greenhouse gas emissions.
4. Effect of significantly increased barge and cargo ship operations on the Columbia and in Puget Sound.
I would like to elaborate on my request in regards to number four above. My family relies heavily on local seafood for a large part of our diets, especially salmon. This is not only a dietary concern but a cultural one. I want to be able to continue passing on my love of our intact marine ecosystem to my daughter someday. I fear that this coal terminal proposal will have effects on our marine habitat that will be difficult or impossible to avoid or mitigate. Specifically, I would like the EIS to consider the following marine ecosystem impacts in their study:

During construction of GPT, the marine life that call Cherry Point home would experience sea‐floor disturbance
and increased turbidity, noise from pile driving and seismic surveys, and lighting – an attractive nuisance. But
during operations after construction, shading from the pier and wharf, toxics from the terminal’s outfall pipes,
night lighting, and noise from vessel operations would impact species at Cherry Point year after year. Of
particular concern: coal dust in the marine environment.

The Westshore coal export terminal in Delta, BC loses
over 1.5 million pounds of coal dust a year into the
surrounding marine environment while shipping 24
million tons of coal. According to the facility manager,
“Dust is the enemy.” The proposed terminal for
Cherry Point would ship twice as much coal from the
same footprint, just a few hundred yards from
sensitive marine habitat in a high‐wind area.
Coal dust and the high PAHs (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons) it includes would be the nail in the
coffin for the Cherry Point Pacific herring. Since 1970,
Cherry Point herring have declined from 17,000 tons
of spawning biomass to less than 1,000 tons. These
small fish play a big role in the health of the Puget
Sound ecosystem ‐ they are a linchpin in the food chain that includes endangered Chinook salmon, migratory
seabirds, and Southern Resident orcas. Herring eggs and larvae are acutely sensitive to the impacts of PAHs.

At Cherry Point itself, toxics entering the water from the states’ two largest oil refineries are already like a slow oil
spill. How much will that accelerate with a massive increase in deep‐draft vessels (974 transits a year), each of which
carries up to two million gallons of bunker fuel for their own power, and receives coal and fuel transferred over
water? The sheer number of bulk carriers creates multiple risks:
Rosario Strait already sees in excess of 700 tankers, with
Haro Strait exposed to over 100 loaded tar sands crude
tankers and hundreds more bulk carrier and container
ships. Tankers in Haro Strait may nearly triple if the
Kinder‐Morgan tar sands pipeline to Vancouver, BC
expands as planned.
Increasing conflicts between docking vessels and fishing
boats during terminal operations, given both increased
ship traffic and an exclusion zone for the dock.
Ferries crossing Rosario and Haro straits will experience
increased delays.
An oil spill or collision becomes much more likely as
congestion increases.
Whale and dolphin communications will be increasingly disrupted by the high‐intensity low‐frequency noise from
the carriers.

In return for our coal, we get back two kinds of problems: invasive species and air pollution. The largest ships bring
up to 17,000,000 gallons of ballast water infested with non‐native, invasive aquatic species from the western Pacific,
including toxic dinoflagellates that increase the risk of harmful algal blooms that lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning.
These ships can also bring Chinese mitten crabs, Asian tunicates, Japanese eelgrass, and other invasive species that
have the ability to severely disrupt the Salish Sea’s ecosystem. With minimal inspection for ballast exchange and
exemptions for bad weather it is guaranteed that millions of gallons of foreign ballast water will be discharged into
the Salish Sea every year.
And it’s not just invasive species—we also get back mercury pollution and the climate impacts that burning 48
million tons of coal every year, year after year, would create. Carbon dioxide also dramatically contributes to ocean
acidification, a problem already jeopardizing the fabric of the marine food web.

Kelly Hill (#13535)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
To Whom it May Concern:

As a resident of Whatcom County I want to make it clear that I am 100% against coal trains coming through our railways. One of the reasons I moved to Whatcom County was because of how green it is, not only in foliage, but in its daily practices. To think that coal trains are going to be passing through our beautiful area and causing more harm to the environment, let alone knowing the cost the coal mining process had on other parts of the country absolutely goes against everything I personally stand for and what this community stands for. Why would a community ban the use of plastic bags only to have coal trains come through the town!?!

I tell you now, this community will not stand for it! We have worked too hard to keep this community clean and safe for not only our generation, but generations to come. Instead of spending endless amounts of money on getting the coal trains to come through our town, why not spend that time and money on finding an new energy resource that will actually sustain us! As I said before I am absolutely against the coal trains coming through our railways.

Sincerely,


Kelly Hill

Kelly Hohmann (#7721)

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

kelly kelly morgan (#10306)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: beaverton, OR
Comment:
I am opposed to the Gateway Pacific Terminal/Custer Spur. I think it would negatively impact the region's economy and the health of area residents by increasing pollution in the Bellingham area. And perhaps even worse, domestic natural energy resources would be shipped overseas with little benefit to the local economy or the American people. This is a very dangerous and poorly developed plan that should not go forward. Thank you.

Kelly Kelsey (#7820)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
I agree with a former comment:
" Please study the the impacts of having over 900 more ship crossings a year by Panamax size freighters in the Salish Sea. New studies have shown that noise from ship's engines is extremely detrimental to whale populations. "
Please look at all research concerning the well being of Orcas and how sounds disturb their feeding and communication. Please understand what Orcas need to thrive, not just barely survive. WE want a healthier Puget Sound than what we currently have. How will this proposal improve quality of life for all the species of the Sound?
Thank you for your consideration.

kelly kelsey (#7822)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
One of my great pleasures living here is swimming in the South Fork of the Nooksack River in the summer. There is a proposal to run the coal trains along this stretch of river which is one of my paradises on Earth.
Please study the impact on water quality in rivers near high volume train tracks that transport coal. What would the impacts be of train runoff, coal dust , diesel particulate upon our vital salmon rivers? What would the noise impacts on my serenity be with increased trains as I am enjoying peace floating on the river?

I vote for NO action on this proposal as its impacts are TOO VAST and would change the character of where I live!

Thank you!

kelly Kelsey (#7824)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
If they were to run more trains through the Nooksack River Valleys, how would pollution from the trains impact organic farms? Could farms even be organic if they have coal particulate in them? What would be the cost in lost farm revenues if this happened? Ho w much would it cost for farmers to have to relocate if their farms become toxified?
Who would pay to have the soils tested to prove their health/toxicity?

Thanks for your consideration.

kelly kelsey (#7826)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
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 neighboring 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.

More importantly to a youth such as myself, it will directly escalate climate change. We can ship our coal and its deadly air pollution abroad. Nevertheless, its CO2 emissions will impact us all, particularly my generation which is so actively opposed to fossil fuels and the devastation they cause. I urge you to consider these vast impacts of increased CO2 emissions upon our global environment in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. There is more clear science and evidence that climate change is happening. What would be the long term impacts of burning so much more coal as is being proposed to export?

What are the moral impacts of our country polluting the air for the youth of China, all for a few quick bucks today?

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.

Thanks for your in depth research into these pressing topics.

kelly kelsey (#7831)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
Comment: The effects of the proposed project are immense at the most local, the regional and the planetary levels. Please show me the intelligence of your agency and document the known observeable forseeable impacts of the following concerns:

1) Reduced access to the Bellingham waterfront, to the waterfront at the proposed coal port and to the waterfront everywhere where the trains will run along the shore
2) Destruction of the peace of the parks along the waterfront, including Zuanich Park, Boulevard Park, Port of Bellingham Marine Park, Teddy Bear Cove, and Larrabee State Park.
3) Not being able to proceed with the community's vision for waterfront redevelopment (most especially of the Georgia Pacific site, now largely empty, and on the other side of the tracks from downtown Bellingham
4) Not being able to preserve the beauty of the waterfront
5) Not being able to use existing rail facilities for other valuable uses, e.g. passenger trains.
6) Noise
7) Pollution of air, land and water from coal dust and freighter diesel exhaust
8) Health threats, including without limitation
a) Impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
b) Increased cardiopulmonary mortality and all-cause mortality;
c) Measurable pulmonary inflammation;
d) Increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, ER visits, and hospital admissions in children;
e) Increased rates of myocardial heart attacks in adults;
f) Increased risk of cancer;
g) Increased risk of chronic bronchitis;
h) Increased risk of emphysema;
i) Increased risk of pulmonary fibrosis; and
j) Environmental contamination through the leaching of toxic heavy metals;
all as documented by Whatcom Docs.
9) Interruption of ambulances, fire trucks and police
10) Interruptions for people and local businesses
11) Loss of opportunity for local businesses
12) Safety threats
13) Threats to wildlife
14) Loss of property values near the tracks
15) Ecological harm to air, land and water in the vicinity of the proposed port at Cherry Point
16) Harm to the fisheries in the vicinity of Cherry Point
17) Species extinction
18) Multifarious harm to the communities in the vicinity of Cherry Point, such as Birch Bay, Custer, Ferndale, the Lummi Nation, and Blaine
19) Ecological harm in Puget Sound from noise, toxins, oil
20) Safety threats from increasingly dense freighter traffic in Puget Sound and from increasingly large freighters
21) Ocean acidification
22) Furthering global climate change through the burning of the coal in Asia, which will cause health and other impacts to the residents and ecosystems of the City of Bellingham and around the world.

The local effects apply to communities all along the rail line from Wyoming to Cherry Point -- or to any other port from which the coal may be exported - as well as to communities in Asia through which the coal may be transported by rail. The marine effects apply at Cherry Point and in the Puget Sound and in all other water bodies through which the coal may be transported.

I propose NO ACTION on this proposal and vote that we instead create the Cherry Point Aquiatic Preserve Park and Lummi Nation Heritage Site.
That land is for all creatures to share, not for greedy profitmongers to destroy.
NO GPT now or ever. The game is over for big pollution.

kelly Kelsey (#8163)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Comment:
I support the research of Dr. Gary Green who submitted a lengthy scientific comment on Jan. 3.

Pleas reference his findings and address the following questions that explore potential coal particulate impacts upon the sensitive environments of the ocean floor and the organisms that depend on critical optimal conditions to thrive.

Questions that should be addressed and hopefully answered in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal include:
1) how will fugitive coal particles be incorporated into natural sediments, if at all;
2) how concentrated will the particles become and what will be the toxicity to benthic organisms, especially Pacific sand lance(PSL); and
3) how far will the particles be distributed from their point of entry into the water.
All sub-tidal PSL habitats should therefore be located and mapped within close proximity to the coal-loading facilities and along the bulk carrier routes, where coal is likely to be introduced into the marine environment. Coal toxicity associated with dissolution or any other chemical processes that occur in marine and estuarine environments also need to be addressed. If potential impacts are found, how will they be mitigated?

Thank you.

kelly kelsey (#8480)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
I am a Whatcom county resident who likes to sail and I am deeply concerned about safety issues concerning potentially large shipment vessels in connection with the proposed GPT project.

I want you to please address issues presented by former Naval Officer San Olsen:
"I have some specific concerns about the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and its contribution to the numbers of vessels and their safe passage around the San Juan and Gulf Islands.

Adding nearly one thousand Very Large Bulk Carriers (VLBC) to the existing heavy commercial ship traffic, and additional ships from expanded Canadian export terminals, will intensify the work of the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) and Ship Pilots. More foreign owned ships, with multi-national crews, transiting the narrow channels of Haro and Rosario Straits will increase the risk that collision, allison, grounding, or an engineering casualty will occur. Therefore, the dangers of increased oceangoing vessel traffic in the waters surrounding the San Juan Islands need to be evaluated including, but not limited to, the following concerns:

1. The ability of the VTS to safely and efficiently handle the increased traffic.

2. The accessibility of experienced Pilots to meet the increased traffic demand.

3. The availability of capable tugs, with trained crews and appropriate
equipment, to respond to any vessel in distress within reasonable time to
control or prevent any of the above mentioned hazardous events.

4. The ability of the US Coast Guard to provide sufficient boarding examinations
to ensure vessel, maintenance, performance, safety, and that these vessels
pose no security risk to the homeland.

5. That oil spill response capability is robust, locally resident, using current Best
Practices, and is adequate to manage spills resulting from a collision or other
hull damage to any vessels sailing in Washington or British Columbia waters

6. That existing navigational aids are adequate for all weather and visibility
conditions typical for the region.

7. Ensuring US ballast water regulations are verifiably enforced.

Please conduct a thorough, comprehensive, Vessel Traffic Study including all potential increased vessel traffic occurring due to expansion, or development, of import/export terminals in Washington, Oregon and Canada.

Thank you for your thoroughness investigating these essential issues.

Kelly Kelsey (#8488)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
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.
Then keep going up the food chain to study if the grasses are impacted how would it impact other species that depend on them for food and habitat such as herring, salmon , orcas, humans etc.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kelly Kelsey (#10729)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Hello, I live in Whatcom County and would like you all to study the proposed plans for who would pay for and respond in the incidence of a big spill or explosion or other environmental catastrophe caused by some aspect of this proposed project.

I have seen other communities devastated by the lack of responsibility or even remote abilities to truly respond or mitigate to such huge disasters...Valdez oil spill in Alaska, BP Deepwater in the Gulf,etc.

WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED PLANS FOR SUCH A POSSIBLE EVENT AND WHO IS SAYING THEY WILL PAY FOR IT AND HOW WILL THEY PAY???

SSA/Carrix should be required to post a bond, kind of an insurance towards any liability. Some suggests 500 billion dollars, but many think that’s not adequate.

I am asking 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. Set up the bond so that it is replenished as funds are withdrawn; and make SSA/Carrix 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).

Please address this in your scoping process.

Thank you!!

Kelly Kelsey (#10735)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I live in Whatcom County and have similar concerns as those expressed by a local scientist below. Please study the impacts of increased particulate and heavy metals from coal trains and air pollution from increased coal transport. Please assess the increased potential health care costs due to these factors and require that the EIS state where the funding for such increased costs would come from.

"I am a retired scientist living in Bellingham, Washington. My areas of expertise are physiology and human lactation (breastfeeding). My research included impacts of various nutrients, exercise, and environmental exposures on mothers and infants before, during and after pregnancy. During my career, I observed dramatic shifts in scientific understanding of the relative vulnerability of the fetus and young child to pollutants in comparison to adults. I can state unequivocally that it is unborn children, infants, and young children who will suffer the most if the level of particulate matter and the level of heavy metal pollution are allowed to increase as a result of massive coal shipment through Whatcom County and the Salish Sea. The damage to their developing systems will have life-long consequences.

I ask that you require baseline studies and regular monitoring of human body burden for all heavy metals found in coal dust as well as regular air monitoring of particulate matter. Particular attention should be paid to women of child bearing age.

One of the easier ways to measure body burden of chemicals including heavy metals is to measure the levels in breastmilk. It is important to understand - as many do not - that high levels of comtaminants in human milk are merely an indicator of prior fetal insult. Even in cases when breastmilk is contaminated, the best outcome for the infant is generally observed when the mother continues to breastfeed. This is because exclusive breastfeeding for the first three months of life is a pre-requisite for normal development of the human immune system. The appropriate public health response to elevated breastmilk contaminants is removal of the contaminants from the environment.

More importantly, by conducting baseline testing and regular monitoring, it will be possible to detect increases in human body burden as they occur and to correlate these changes with the health (physical and psychological) of the population.

Should the ill advised proposal to ship massive amounts of coal through Whatcom County go forward, baseline and regular monitoring of human body burden of heavy metals will prove valuable in assisting communities to obtain compensation for the increase medical costs they will incur treating birth defects, asthma, heart disease, lung cancer, learning disorders, and antisocial behaviors associated with increased levels of heavy metals and atmospheric pollutants.

I also ask that you require the applicant to post a bond sufficient to compensate the affected communities for potential increases in public and private health care costs."

Thank you!

Kelly Kelsey (#11961)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Please address in your scoping how the proposed project would adversely affect wildlife crossing with such an increase in rail traffic. Has the proposal offered wildlife corridor crossings and to provide adequate accesibility for wildlife such as deer to their necessary habitats and feeding areas.

Thank you.

Kelly Kelsey (#14338)

Date Submitted: 01/12/13
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Kelly Kurth (#13099)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Tualatin, 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.
We need to keep our natural resouces within our country. Even though we know coal is something to cut our uses of with time while developing more alternative energy lets keep what coal we have for our future generations. To sell if out of the country is wrong at this time.

Kelly Lillis (#9081)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
Hello,

My name is Kelly Lillis and I live in Seattle. There are a couple of things I would specifically want studied and evaluated prior to the issuance of the EIS report on this project.

1. I’m concerned about emergency response times throughout the city of Mount Vernon with the increased rail traffic. We have a number of family members in the city.

2. I’m also concerned about the impact of the supertankers that will ship the coal to China. What will the impact be on marine life surrounding Bellingham and the San Juans?

Kind Regards,
Kelly Lillis

Kelly Marie Meyer (#8337)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
As a resident, kayaker and seafood/seaweed collector and consumer in the San Juan Islands with friends and family in Bellingham, Seattle, Portland and Spokane, I would like to request that careful long term independent study be conducted regarding the impacts of additional coal transport through the heavily inhabited and touristed communities and waterways of the San Juan Islands as well as through the surrounding mainland coastal communities and inland communities along the rail routes. Please make no move to to construct infrastructure pertaining to the coal transportation system with out these studies. I would request that the following be included in the studies:

Cumulative impact of coal transport on heath of humans and wild life, including asthma studies, air quality studies, seafood contamination, wildlife reproductive impacts, human and wildlife sea and beach food source impacts.
Accident pollution impacts on tidal flows that could carry contaminated waters beyond the shipping lanes into delicate wildlife communities and human populated areas such as the San Juan Islands, Seattle Area, S. Puget Sound among others.
Damage to long thriving tourist economies of the San Juan Islands and along the coast including north coastal Olympic Peninsula communities such as Port Townsend and Port Angeles as well as the Canadian tourist economy of the Victoria area.
How smaller boat traffic travel and safety will be impacted by the increased tanker traffic.
What monetary funding would need to be available and what systems would need to be in place to both prevent and deal with accidents and spills that may occur. Not build any infrastructure until adequate funding, systems and personnel for accident prevention and spill clean up are funded and in place for the long term.
Impacts of railways on mainland auto traffic, human health and wildlife ecosystems, including urban and rural economies and their various transportations systems along the coal routes, farm field and food crop impacts along coal rail routes and inland air quality and wind patterns.
Study of the boats and rail vessels themselves, their weaknesses, looking at historical and current incidents and accident reports related to the transportation vessels that will be used in the coal transport. Updating and technological advancements to vessels be made prior to use.

Adding to the already intensive traffic going through Haro Strait, Rosario Strait, Juan De Fuca, the Columbia River, as well as through the heavily populated areas such as Spokane, Portland, Seattle and Bellingham without a deep and through study from multiple independent parties regarding the above bullet points among others deeply concerns me. Please go for the No Build Option at this time.

Kind Regards,
Kelly Meyer

Kelly McConell (#6457)

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

I have deep roots in the Pacific Northwest, my family has been here for generations. I have traveled extensively and after seeing much of the world I settled here, right back where I started because there is no place else in world quite like it.

Our beautiful clean coastline with abundant wildlife is MUCH more precious than the money to be made from exporting coal or gas and I believe the damage that WILL be done to this environment by such activities is far greater than the corporations will admit.

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.

Kelly McConnell (#7901)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Tigard, Or
Comment:
I am a lifelong resident of the Pacific Northwest and I am appalled at the wanton disregard by the oil, gas, and coal industries for my environment. Their ONLY concern is lining their pockets and if they have to foul MY land, MY water, MY air then so be it. Screw them! I live here and I do NOT want to trade my environment for their profits. NO COAL TERMINALS and NO LNG TERMINALS. Stop selling off MY future to further enrich the greedy rich pigs.

Kelly Mcconnell (#12712)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export in Washington State. MY environment is not worth sacrificing for THEIR profits.

This facility, as part of a larger scheme to strip-mine coal in Montana and Wyoming, transport it across the Northwest and ship it to Asia, would negatively affect the health of human communities and ecosystems in the region:

* Coal dust and diesel exhaust will contribute to serious respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

* Coal dust creates exposure to toxic metals including mercury, a known neurotoxin, and is linked to increases in asthma, especially in children. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad studies estimate that up to 500 pounds of coal dust could be lost from each car en route.

* More coal burning in Asia means more toxic air pollution, including mercury, travelling back across the Pacific to pollute West Coast rivers, lakes and fish.

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.

Kelly McConnell (#13778)

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.

Kelly Nelson (#5348)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Kelly Sensecgna (#5899)

Date Submitted: 01/02/13
Location: Glacier , WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kelly Stockton (#8153)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
As a life long resident of Washington state, and one who lives near to both the railroad and the terminal site i must register my opposition to the terminal project and the extreme increase in rail traffic. Environmental and quality of life degradation will obviously happen if this project is allowed. Already existing coal carrying train traffic has increased the impacts of my daily commute in terms of delays and noise that wakes me up several time each night. The potential for MANY more coal trains has me worried about the environment, safe and predictable commutes, and impacts property values.

Additionally, an extensive study has just reported that black carbon or soot, (caused by burning coal and some other fossil fuels) is the second leading cause of global warming..... isn't about time all of us here on this miracle planet make efforts to reduce the burning of coal??? Kelly Stockton

Kelly Uusitalo (#4451)

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

Kelly Welker (#4440)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
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.
Stop poisoning my community. The Duwamish River is a cesspool. This coal train would make it worse. STOP POISONING CITIZENS OF SOUTH SEATTLE!




Kelly Welker
6920 Flora Ave S
Seattle, WA 98108

Kelly Wynn (#3292)

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

Kelsey England (#12260)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, 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 not only through local transportation via train, but as well as the result of the burning of these fossil fuels in Asia whose pollution transports these toxicants into our water and airways. The harm to local existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic whose sonar adversely affect aquatic life during transportation across our waterways escalating the already declining fish stocks 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.

Kelsey Powers (#10569)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a lifelong Washington resident and am a very concerned citizen that strongly urges more testing on the potential effects of the coal terminal on the wildlife and my livelihood. I am a naturalist that works in the Puget Sound and if the wildlife is affected than so am I. Please take the time to study the possible effects of increased traffic, noise pollution on local wildlife and probability scenarios of an accident/spill. What are the salvage, clean up, rescue, emergency options? What risk mitigation strategies are in place in case of an accident?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kelsey Powers

Kelsey Pullar (#14293)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Kelsey Taylor (#2861)

Date Submitted: 11/14/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The magnitude of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project alone has implications for the wide ranging effects that could potentially harm the Pacific Northwest, but when the detrimental effects of coal dust are factored into the equation concerns arise for the continuation of biodiversity in the environment. Coal dust, a difficult substance to control, will be released into the freshwater and marine environments adjacent to the coal terminal train tracks and port, releasing heavy metals and creating hypoxic environments to the detriment of aquatic species and humans alike. Dust also remains in the air, and while the effects of coal dust on humans are well documented the effects of coal dust on other species can be inferred from the effect on humans. There is no feasible way to prevent the spread of coal dust to the environment in every aspect, but there are measures that could be taken to reduce the impact of coal dust on the ecological community, such as rail car covers or spray coatings to prevent major loss of coal and spreading of coal dust. Even with these measures, however, the final 80-acre open storage facility is likely to release untold amounts of coal dust into the local marine environment.

Coal Dust and Marine Organisms

According to research results of BNSF, 500 pounds to one ton of coal can escape a single loaded car, and each train consists of about 150 cars (Key Facts 2012). All of the coal and coal dust deposited into the surrounding environment will be particularly harmful once it enters the aquatic ecosystems of freshwater sources along the train tracks and the marine coastal areas at the terminal itself. Heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, barium, chromium, selenium, lead, and mercury leach their way into the water; becoming toxic to organisms that come in contact with them (Key Facts 2012). Metals like these have proven detrimental at all tropic levels, and affect fishes, wildlife at higher tropic levels, and humanity. These heavy metals can be harmful to the Cherry Point herring’s survival success, which are a keystone species in the northwest because of its mid-tropic level status. 60 percent of Chinook salmon’s diet, an endangered salmon spec ices, consists of herring (Drama 2008). In turn, the orca’s diet consists of 60 percent Chinook salmon (Drama 2008). When heavy metals are introduced to the food web, bioaccumulation can occur up the food web, proving more and more toxic to organisms at higher tropic levels. With Chinook and orca already at critical population levels, it is likely that these increased levels of heavy metals in the fatty tissues of the body would result in increased mortality.

Human Health and Biodiversity

These harmful affects translate to the Chinook’s other primary consumer: humans. Mercury in particular has proved to be a “potent neurotoxin,” degrading the health and safety of the community at large (Community Health 2011). Heavy metals will also be deposited into freshwater systems along the train route, affecting local aquatic organisms and contaminating drinking water for human use. Biodiversity at multiple tropic levels would suffer from the inputs of heavy metals from coal dust. Loss of biodiversity at numerous tropic levels, compared to loss of biodiversity at a single tropic level, has been found to cause even greater harm in the environment (Cardinale et. al. 2012). High or even intermediate levels of species loss have also been found to impact the environment on the same level that elevated CO2 emissions and nitrogen additions into the environment cause, which are already considered grave issues and have already been addressed by global powers (Hooper et. al. 2012).

Hypoxic Events

Unfortunately, it is not only the heavy metals that are of concern for Cherry Point herring population when it comes to coal dust emissions. Coal dust has also been implicated in causing depleted oxygen evens along coastal areas, which are important habitat for the herring (Cherry Point 2011). While herring have the ability to remove themselves from these hypoxic events, they lose the vital habitat that is necessary for protection from predators and for spawning. In the last thirty years the Cherry Point herring populations have declined by 94 percent, and although it has been denied an official endangered species listing it is not difficult to surmise the consequences of introducing hypoxic areas into vital marine habitats (Drama 2008).

Air-born Coal Dust

The harmful effects of coal dust are not limited to aquatic impacts; coal dust is also an air-born issue that affects the health of humans and other terrestrial species. According to a review published in the British Occupational Hygiene Society, regular inhalation of coal dust can cause many lug disorders, among which include progressive massive fibrosis, chronic bronchitis, lung function loss, and emphysema (Schins 1998). Considering the volume of traffic proposed by the GPT, especially in the Bellingham area, it is plausible that the public will have chronic exposure to coal dust inhalation. Although this study focused solely on the effects of coal dust on humans, other species could likewise be affected by dust inhalation. While the anatomy and physiology of the lung differs across species, the basic similarity in lung function, especially for land mammals, is comparable, and has been exploited in research studies for the most common human lung disorders (Ware 2008). Laboratory animals have linked coal dust to lymphomas, a cancer similarly found in humans (Ware 2008). Inhalation of coal dust is undoubtedly occurring in wild populations of terrestrial organisms as well as humans, and could severely lower the fitness of those species in a way very similar to that of humans. Biodiversity, again, will be affected as the reduced fitness of numerous species, potentially even leading to a loss of species if populations are already diminished.

Solutions and Unavoidable Effects

Wholesale prevention of coal dust introduction into waterways, the air, and the lives of humans and animals alike is not possible. Nevertheless, there are some actions that can be taken to reduce the impact on the environment at large. Practicing the use of rail car covers is an easy and effective way to prevent coal dust expulsions. Lids on these open top cars reduce the amount of coal dust affected by wind action (United States 1979). This method would, however, require extra time that must be taking from the transportation process, and over time the “cost of covering is very high in relation to the value of the product being shipped” (United States 1979). Another option is to use a combination of latex and water (or other chemical sprays) to form a thin film over the coal that is resilient to wind disruptions and minimizes coal dust (United States 1979). While this could be effective in decreasing or even eliminating coal dust en route, it does not prevent the coal dust from being released at the port terminal itself. The uncovered, 80 acre storage area proposed by the GPT does not have a feasible method for coal dust prevention, which is a considerable issue when the wind action from the coastal zone is taking into account.

Conclusion

The implications of the proposed GPT project on the biodiversity of the Puget Sound and Pacific Northwest as a whole are daunting. From the project’s conception issues of impacts on numerous important and endangered species have been unrecognized to their full extent. Now, during the scoping period for this project, is the time to rectify these past failings by taking into consideration the effect the coal terminal will have on local species. Coal dust is one of the primary concerns for this discussion, affecting Cherry Point herring, Chinook salmon, orcas, various other marine and freshwater organisms, terrestrial animals, and humans with its water-born and air-born contamination.

Works Cited

Cardinale, Bradley et. al. “Biodiversity Loss and Its Impact on Humanity.”Nature 486 (2012): 59-67. Print.

“Cherry Point Coal Export Facility Would Impact Health, Community, and Waterfront Business.” RE Sources for Sustainable Communities, 2011. Web. 4 Nov. 2012. <http://www.re- sources.org/gpt/bob-ferris-statement>.

"Coal Dust Frequently Asked Questions." BNSF Railway Company, 2011. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/docs/BNSF-Coal-Dust-FAQs1.pdf>.

“Community Health Impacts of Coal Mining & Transportation.” Alaska Community Action on Toxics, 2011. Web. 4 Nov. 2012. <http://www.akaction.org/Publications/Coal_Development/Coal_Mining_Transportation_and_ Health.pdf>.

Doeksen, Gerard. 1979. Control of Dust during Coal Transportation. U.S. Patent: 4169170. 25 Sept. Print.

“Drama in the North Sound: The Cherry Point Herring Connection.” Western WA Restoration, 2008. Web. 4 Nov. 2012. <http://westwashrest.blogspot.com/2008/02/drama-in-north-sound-cherry- point.html>.

Hooper, David. et. al. “A Global Synthesis Reveals Biodiversity Loss as a Major Driver of Ecosystem Change.” Nature 846 (2012): 105-108. Print.

“Key Facts.” Coal Train Facts, 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2012. <http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/key-facts>.

“Quick Facts.” Coal Train Facts, 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
< http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/docs/CTFQuickFacts.pdf>.

Schins, Roel, and Paul Borm. "Mechanisms and Mediators in Coal Dust Induced Toxicity: A Review." British Occupational Hygiene Society 1st ser. 43 (1998): 9-33. Print.

Ware, Lorraine. "Modeling Human Lung Disease in Aminals." America Physiological Society 2nd ser. 294 (2008): n. pag. Web. 4 Nov. 2012. <http://ajplung.physiology.org/content/294/2/L149.full>.

Wechsler, Terry. “History, Scoping, and a Discussion of Implications.” Whatcom Watch Online, 2011.
Web. 4 Nov. 2012. <http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=1489>.

Kelsey Wilson (#7581)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
Coal Exports would be great for jobs and the economy.

Kelvin Barton (#10174)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
I am NEPA trained and recently retired from municipal government where I worked in transportation. I am familiar with the scoping project. My main concern is the infrastructure demands that will be place on all roads crossing the rail line. An example would be the BP refinery at Ferndale where tank trucks cross the rail line twice (both ends of Grandview) to move its products from the refinery to the customers. I can easily see, several years from now, our elected officials facing pressure to “fix” these demands with taxpayer money. This should not happen. Overpasses can run in excess of 25 million each. This means there would be somewhere between one quarter to one half billion dollars of taxpayer bailout needed for this project. All infrastructure improvements need to be paid for by the developer for a specific time period say 20 years plus or minus.

kemplin keith (#4738)

Date Submitted: 12/13/2012
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
-Each year there are many mudslides on the train route between Seattle and Cherry Point which stop train traffic. Please address what this would mean in terms of alternate means of moving the coal which would be stopped by the slides.
-Within the last week a section of the coal port at Tswassen was knocked out when a ship hit it. Please address this event and the likelyhood of it happening at Cherry Point in terms of the effect on water quality and marine species.
-The beach at Gulf road has been used by many people for a long time. Please address the issue of public access to that beach.

Ken Adams (#2863)

Date Submitted: 11/13/12
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
Attached is a 'letter to the editor' that I wrote. Please take the time to read it. I live in Marysville, WA and am very much in favor of the proposed terminal and the increase of the number of coal trains that would travel through this area. I believe this would be a very positive venture not only for Watcom County but also for Washington State and the national economy. By combining our country's resources with foreign demand we can have a positive effect on our economy.

Thank you.

Ken Adams

(attachment pasted below)


Just about everything affects air quality. Cars, trucks, boats, home heating, electrical generators, a co-worker who farts... Life evolves. We need lots of electricity, we need our cars, we need goods transported across the country. Trains are very efficient, creating a lot less pollution than the equivalent number of trucks to haul the same cargo. Or we could go back to the 1800's and live with piles of horse manure in the streets and fires caused by cows kicking over a lantern.

Asking an interstate commerce business to limit itself because it might occasionally inconvenience you isn't fair. I cross the tracks every day. I'm stopped by a train on average once every 2 or 3 months. I've waited longer at some traffic lights than for a train. Be honest. How often are you actually stopped by a train. Trucks and busses inconvience me too but they are necessary. So is the railroad.

The railroad was here before any of us. It has no where else to go. It isn't the railroads fault that we all decided to live near the tracks. Just from my personal observation, it seems that the railroad tries hard to minimize disrupting traffic by running a lot of trains during the night and very few in the afternoon. Some people complain about the loud horns on locomotives. That is mandated by the Federal Government because there are too many drivers that think a train can't hurt them. Don't blame the railroad.

I've read a lot of articles where someone claims that dust from coal trains will ruin air quality. But I haven't seen any actual tests to prove it. All I've heard is a lot of people saying the sky will fall. The coal will be treated with crusting agent to prevent dust. It also seems logical to me that if there is any dust it would be blown off long before the train gets to Washington.

Let's be fair. Consider the positive possibilities too!

Ken Adams
7712 81st ST NE
Marysville, WA 98270

425.879.9731

Ken Adams (#13515)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Lynnwood, 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.

Environmentally this is a disaster. You know how unstable the banks are between Seattle and Everett. Do not destroy the Puget Sound!

Ken Akoplantz (#2642)

Date Submitted: 10/20/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Ken Ball (#7565)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Casper Wy, WY
Comment:
I have watched coal exit the State of Wyoming fo 30 years no and do not see where the transport causes any environmental damage whatsoever. even if there were to be a water spill there would be minimal environmemntal impact.

Ken Casler (#4417)

Date Submitted: 12/12/2012
Comment:
I guess in a Capitalist culture to question the morality of propagating more coal consumption is not to be considered. It is wrong, we need to lead the way to sustainable energy production and use. We need to close the pipeline to CO2 production not build a bigger one which is what this terminal proposes to do.

I am also very concerned about the environmental and health issues for the people living in the vicinity of the rail corridors. It is documented that when a train arrives at the terminus it has lost tons of coal dust. It is not lost it has been deposited along the way. That is called toxic pollution, again morally wrong.

Please consider denying permits for this project

Ken Casler

Ken Crane (#10026)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Snohomish, WA
Comment:
Coal Terminals and Trains

U.S. companies should not be exporting coal. Old fashioned coal burning power plants give off tremendous pollution. Our oceans are 30% more acidic than they were before the industrial age. As it increases, it will change marine life as we know it. Many crustaceans are are having difficulty forming their shells now. Mercury will eventually make fresh and salt water aquatic life inedible. Climate change will further alter marine life and our fresh water supply. coal burning plays a big role in all of this.

Proponents say it will create jobs, it will destroy far more jobs than it creates. Homes and businesses need quiet, especially medical, office and counseling facilities. Property values will go down. Close to the tracks, it is at the maximum people can tolerate right now. They are talking about more than doubling the train traffic. The blaring horns near the crossings are the worst. Another factor is the more power foreign countries produce the more they will manufacture, with more U.S. job loss. The trains are a major disruption to traffic flow and they block emergency vehicles. They are up to one and a half miles long. These problems will be repeated in every locality they cross. Please help stop this plan.

Ken Crane

Ken Crane (#10028)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Snohomish, WA
Comment:
Coal Terminals and Trains

U.S. companies should not be exporting coal. Old fashioned coal burning power plants give off tremendous pollution. Our oceans are 30% more acidic than they were before the industrial age. As it increases, it will change marine life as we know it. Many crustaceans are are having difficulty forming their shells now. Mercury will eventually make fresh and salt water aquatic life inedible. Climate change will further alter marine life and our fresh water supply. coal burning plays a big role in all of this.

Proponents say it will create jobs, it will destroy far more jobs than it creates. Homes and businesses need quiet, especially medical, office and counseling facilities. Property values will go down. Close to the tracks, it is at the maximum people can tolerate right now. They are talking about more than doubling the train traffic. The blaring horns near the crossings are the worst. Another factor is the more power foreign countries produce the more they will manufacture, with more U.S. job loss. The trains are a major disruption to traffic flow and they block emergency vehicles. They are up to one and a half miles long. These problems will be repeated in every locality they cross. Please help stop this plan.

Ken Crane

Ken Crawbuck (#8314)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Please find below my list of concerns regarding the impact that this coal production, processing and transport will have on our environment throughout the region:
1) The train traffic will impact every town they pass through
a) it will produce more noise
b) it will impact traffic -- especially in large urban areas like Seattle and Everett
i) if overpasses are implemented to mitigate these interruptions the taxpayers will have to pay for it.
c) it will create more strain on the rail line itself -- taxpayers will have to pay for that
d) dust will be produced along the whole route, which will impact the environment and the rail lines
2) The Coal terminal is a sub-optimal use of the Bellingham port
a) much more profitable -- would produce more jobs -- and environmentally friendly options exist
b) it will destroy the environment around the coal terminal, which includes eel grass beds -- an essential part of our fragile Puget sound aquatic ecosystem -- and impact the livelihoods of the indigenous people, the fishing industry and even tourism.
c) there will be no net gain in jobs in Bellingham
3) We already have enough shipping traffic of coal and petroleum products through the Puget sound and up through the Alaska coast.
a) we have not accounted for the potential for disaster and handling of Bitumen which comes from Canada and goes past San Juan Island
b) Adding second rate coal cargo ship traffic increases the potential for disasters
c) the impact of any disaster with either coal or Bitumen can be significant and 'terminal' for our resident Orca populations and other species that are threatened by our worsening environment
4) San Juan County will gain nothing from this Coal export, but it stands to lose everything that makes it a tourist attraction.
a) we must account for the risk and cost to all of the economies in the path of this "Coal export system" and use it to weigh the potential benefits as we define mitigations for approving it or simply rejecting the proposal.
b) in this context, it would appear that there are innumerable better options for both using the Bellingham port facilities and our precious shipping lanes which must not impact our delicate Puget sound environment that could also produce jobs and help our economy.

Sincerely,

Ken Crawbuck
Friday Harbor, WA

Ken Goldsmith (#11316)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Norfolk, VA
Comment:
As a former Washington state resident 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.

Ken Howard (#370)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Centralia, 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 am sick of local communities getting destroyed by the big money spent in failed energy technology. Spend money on tidal and wind power or any other renewable energy resource. We need to become independent of foreign oil yet we do not need to put ourselves in the dark ages with dirty coal ports and coal fired furnaces.

Sincerely,

Ken Howard

Ken Kaliher (#6126)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Whatcom County, living on a waterfront property on Chuckanut Drive, less than one mile south of the Bellingham city line. The BNSF railroad track runs across our property, between our home and the shoreline. We moved to this area in 2009 in part because of the beauty of the natural surroundings, from mountains and rivers, to the countless species of fish and wildlife living in them, to the gigantic firs and cedars on and around our land, and the rich marine resources in the waters just off our property and throughout Bellingham Bay, the San Juan Islands, the Salish Sea, and Puget Sound. These resources are irreplaceable, and are very vulnerable to numerous negative impacts of human activity.

Because of our particular proximity to both the railroad and the sea, I am asking you to please study the release of copper caused by railroad activity, and the potential effects of such cumulative copper release on our precious marine and wetland ecosystems.

According to Mining.com Magazine*, copper is an environmental contaminant which is highly toxic to aquatic plants and animals. The cumulative release of copper from railway activity near shorelines, wetlands, lakes, rivers or other bodies of water could constitute significant pollution, particularly in waters which are poorly flushed. Construction of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT), and the heavy railroad traffic which would service the terminal, could thus create a specific threat to the already severely diminished population of herring in the ecologically endangered Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. That rail traffic would also pass near much of Washington state’s Pacific shoreline, alongside the Columbia River, and close to other rivers and lakes along more than 1,000 miles of track from the coal mines of Montana and Wyoming to the proposed terminal at Cherry Point.

If such copper contamination causes critical harm to marine species such as the Cherry Point herring, the negative impact could reach right up the food chain through salmon to orcas, threatening these species’ very existence. Such damage could NOT be mitigated.

A study by Ulrich Kral and Paul H. Brunner of Vienna University of Technology**, presented at the 2010 World Congress of the International Solid Waste Association, found that 9.4 kilograms (about 20 pounds) of copper was released into the environment annually per kilometer of railbed along which trains were neither accelerating or braking. More would be released around terminals and maneuvering areas such as the proposed GPT. Furthermore, the contamination would be cumulative in that critical area immediately upland from the Cherry Point herring spawning grounds. Approval of the GPT could thus pose a significantly increased threat of copper contamination to the fragile aquatic ecosystems not only at Cherry Point, but all along the 1,000 miles or more of railroad tracks over which coal bound for GPT would be transported. About 80% of the copper pollution caused by railroad activity is released into the atmosphere and the soil.

The Kral-Brunner study cited above** states, in part, as follows:

"The railway line segment investigated runs mainly horizontal in open land with a length of one kilometer. Trains neither accelerate nor reduce their speed during this section. Figure 4 displays the corresponding copper balance. The total operational copper emissions are shared in ratio of 80/20 on the ‘catenary wire’ and ‘rolling stock’ components (Figure 4). The 80% of the operational copper losses cross the system boundary, which is copper transported into the atmosphere, and accumulated in the planum and the adjacent soil as well as on the surface of the rolling stock (Figure 5). The remaining 20% of copper losses enter the track ballast with a mass flow of about 3,7 kg Cu/a. The current copper emissions entering ‘track ballast’ result from the sources ‘catenary wire’ and ‘rolling stock’ in similar size. Cast iron brakes are mainly responsible for copper emissions. It is likely that this source is much more important on routes with increased brake use, such as railway stations and maneuvering areas."

"As a first result, the study reveals, that 80% of copper emissions occurring during the operation of 1 km railway line are lost to the environment and do not enter the ballast body. Never-the-less, the remaining 20% taken up by the ballast are important for waste management, as old ballast has to be handled as waste and hence must be managed carefully to fulfill the goals of waste management as well as to minimize costs. Up to now, the effects of the remaining 80% of copper emissions have not been investigated systematically, and therefore reliable information about the fate and effect of the copper is lacking."

PLEASE STUDY THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF SUCH COPPER CONTAMINATION ON OUR PRECIOUS MARINE AND WETLANDS ECOSYSTEMS, TO PREVENT HARM TO THOSE ECOSYSTEMS WHICH COULD NOT BE MITIGATED.

* http://magazine.mining.com/Issues/0904/ImpactsCopperAquaticEcosystemsHumanHealth.pdf
** http://www.iswa.org/uploads/tx_iswaknowledgebase/Kral.pdf
See also http://www.railway-research.org/IMG/pdf/b4_kral_ulrich.pdf

Ken Kaliher (#8891)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I am a resident of Whatcom County, living on Chuckanut Drive just outside the Bellingham city limits. One of my major concerns about potential negative impacts of the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point involves exactly how Peabody Energy, BNSF and SSA plan to transport the coal from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point. As part of the Environmental Impact Statement, please have those firms make explicitly clear by which railroad routes they will transport the coal to the terminal, and return the empty cars to the mines. (This information is obviously critically relevant to which areas must be included in the EIS.) Please address the following specific questions:

1) What infrastructure improvements will be necessary along the 1,000+ miles of BNSF tracks between the mines and the terminal to accommodate the projected additional 18 trains per day, each 1.5 miles long? Who will pay for these necessary improvements? Will they be included as mitigations which must be funded by the project’s applicant? (The answers to these questions may have a very significant impact on the many communities along those railroad routes.)

2) What impact would this quantum increase in BNSF traffic through Washington state have on the transportation of agricultural and other products actually produced in Washington? Would a huge increase in coal exports through Washington interfere with the potential for exporting products originating in Washington?

In connection with these questions, please conduct a programmatic survey of all five (or six) coal export terminals being proposed for Oregon and Washington, as the cumulative impacts of these terminals must be considered in the aggregate.

Ken Kaliher (#9117)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I live within 100 feet of the BNSF rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains would run to and from the export terminal at Cherry Point. I request that the EIS encompass the entire 1,000+ miles of the transportation corridor from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point, so that all communities along the rail route are given due consideration. Please conduct objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies of the following topics in particular:

NOISE: How will the noise and vibrations of these 1.5-mile-long trains passing 18 times a day impact property values and the structural integrity of homes and other buildings close to the tracks? How will they affect the productivity of dairy cows near the tracks? How will the continual noise exposure affect the health and quality of life of people living, working, studying in school, and/or playing or using recreational spaces near the tracks?

TRAFFIC PROBLEMS: How will the trains affect motor vehicle traffic (including access to ferry docks), commercial and agricultural transportation, emergency vehicle response times, and the everyday conduct of commerce and industry along the railroad corridor?

FISHERIES AND MARINE RESOURCES: What will be the effect of the terminal’s construction and operation, and the annual transits of nearly 1,000 gigantic coal carrying vessels, on local tourism; recreational and occupational boating; salomon, crab and herring fisheries; orca whales; the chances of a cataclysmic oil or coal spill; and the general beauty, vitality, livability, and survivability of the Salish Sea and its pristine environs?

HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY: How will the air and water pollution associated with coal transport and export affect the incidence of cancer, heart disease, asthma, and other health problems? How will the quantum increase in rail and ship traffic serving the Cherry Point terminal affect accident, derailing and collision rates? Mercury pollution traceable to coal-burning facilities in China has already been found in Lake Whatcom, source of Bellingham’s drinking water, and other toxic pollutants are very likely to follow the same course across the Pacific Ocean; what are the likely local public health impacts of exporting U.S. coal through Cherry Point to be burned in Asia?

COST TO TAXPAYERS: How much will we taxpayers ultimately have to pay for unreimbursed costs associated with a Cherry Point terminal’s construction and operation, specifically with the coal’s transport and export? Will it be SSA, BNSF, Peabody Energy, or the local, state and federal taxpayers who will pay for direct and indirect costs such as necessary upgrades and additions to the railroad infrastructure; safety measures; public health expenses; construction of overpasses, underpasses, and other attempts to mitigate serious adverse impacts; losses suffered by local businesses and local workers who lose their jobs; damaged tourist trade; and plummeting property values?

Please include a careful and thorough study of these numerous impacts in the project’s EIS. Thank you.

Ken Kaliher (#9898)

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

I am a resident of Whatcom County, living on Chuckanut Drive, about one mile south of the Bellingham city limits. The BNSF railroad tracks run across our waterfront property, which sits on a high embankment overlooking Chuckanut Bay. Our home is perhaps 25 meters east of the tracks, and perhaps 10-15 meters above them; the tracks, in turn, are perhaps 10 meters above the immediately adjacent water’s level. Some of the dozen or more trains which typically pass our home daily already shake our foundation; we feel them as much as hear them.

I am deeply concerned about the impact which the additional coal train traffic necessary to serve the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) could have on the stability and integrity of our property and home, and of the properties and structures on similar high ground all along the 1,000+ miles of BNSF’s rail corridor between the Powder River Basin and Cherry Point. The GPT proposal foresees 18 additional coal trains daily, each 1.5 miles long. That is half again as long as any trains running through Bellingham today. Half of those trains would be fully loaded with coal, and thus substantially heavier than any trains running on this route today.

On November 4, 2011, an environmental planner with the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) confirmed to me in a phone conversation that many homes along Bellingham’s Eldridge Avenue, on the bluff above the BNSF tracks, are in a seriously bad position. He said the homeowners have been very anxious for some time, and have voice their concerns to City Hall and other authorities. He said there is a lot of movement in the soil in that area now, causing foundations to crack, windows to break, etc. (I had heard other reports that the foundations of some of those homes had moved by as much as one foot.) He added that, contrary to what one might expect, when trains idle on a siding, as they increasingly do now below Eldridge because of single-track bottlenecks, and then start up again, the series of shocks as each car is suddenly jerked into motion can actually cause worse vibrations than when trains simply moving by at speed, and send huge shock waves up the bluff. Finally, he said thought was being given to doing a follow-up study to one conducted in the early 1990s by BNSF, the City of Bellingham, and the Eldridge Homeowners Association to examine the frequency and strength of current vibrations from the railroad traffic.

The DOE posts “Slope Stability Maps” on its website. The maps for Whatcom County are linked to the website shown below*. Three of these maps are attached:
-- The first shows that most of the bluffs along and northwest of Eldridge Avenue are Unstable or Intermediate, and that several sections are marked “Unstable Recent Slide.”
-- The second and third show that significant portions of the Chuckanut and Edgemoor shorelines are also Unstable or Intermediate, including our property just opposite Chuckanut Rock.

* http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/femaweb/whatcom.htm

These issues of stability or integrity of high ground along the BNSF railroad corridor between Cherry Point and the Powder River Basin are of critical importance not only to our neighbors in the Chuckanut, Edgemoor and Eldridge Avenue areas, but also to every resident or property owner on high ground all along that corridor. Mitigating a threat to such property from the vibrations caused by longer, heavier and much more frequent coal trains, if it is even possible, would seem to be extremely costly.

Because this issue could involve a major adverse impact to hundreds or thousands of property owners along the BNSF railroad tracks, potentially costing them thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, I ask that the GPT EIS include an analysis of the likely impact on the stability and integrity of elevated properties along the BNSF corridor of the vibrations caused by 18 additional mile-and-a-half-long coal trains passing by those properties every day.

Thank you.
Attached Image:


Ken Kaliher (#9968)

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

As a resident of Whatcom County, living just outside the Bellingham city limits, I am seriously concerned about the potentially very serious adverse effects on our community of the construction and operation of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point. I have been aware of, and worried about, many of these adverse impacts since shortly after the project was announced nearly two years ago.

Now I see that the vast number of adverse health and safety impacts of such a project have been exhaustively and authoritatively addressed in the 24-page scoping comment submitted by the more than 180 local physicians who are members of Whatcom Docs. These dedicated health professionals have carefully documented their very specific concerns about numerous such negative impacts in the following categories:
-- Diesel particulate matter
-- Coal dust
-- Noise exposure
-- Delays in emergency responses

I agree wholeheartedly with their sincere concerns, and ask that the EIS respond to each of the specific questions raised in the Whatcom Docs’ scoping comment (attached). I also agree with the request of Whatcom Docs, as well as physicians in Skagit County and King County, that the EIS process include a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to encompass not only Whatcom County, but the entire rail and shipping corridor from the Powder River Basin to and through the coal carriers’ routes to the Pacific Ocean. This HIA, like the EIS itself, should cover all the coal export terminal proposals currently under consideration in the Pacific Northwest.

This issue affects future generations, and I implore you to consider your responsibilities as stewards of the public interest in your decisions about the EIS and about this proposal.

Thank you.
Attached Files:

Ken Kaliher (#9985)

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

As a resident of Whatcom County, living just outside the Bellingham city limits, I am seriously concerned about the potentially very serious adverse effects on our community, our state, our nation, and in fact the entire planet, of the construction and operation of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point. The most compelling of these concerns is the fact that, by facilitating the burning of tens of millions of tons of coal per year, we would be accelerating cataclysmic climate change tantamount to global suicide.

One of the busiest and most brilliant critics of the proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point is Mr. James Wells of Bellingham, who has been actively engaged in educating the public about exporting coal from the U.S. West Coast. In his own scoping comment, which follows below, Mr. Wells addresses the thorny issue that, while NEPA and SEPA clearly require consideration of the greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution of a proposal – in this case, the Cherry Point terminal itself – it is difficult to get regulators to consider the GHG contributions of related activities which are more geographically remote. In the case at hand, the exported coal will be burned in Asia. We all know what that will mean for GHG contributions (and for adverse impacts such as increased mercury deposits into our own water source, Lake Whatcom), but terminal proponents have long argued against scoping such impacts, claiming that China will burn someone’s coal, if not that exported through Cherry Point.

I ask that the EIS process favorably consider Mr. Wells’ clear and compelling counterarguments, which are spelled out in detail below, and include in the EIS the adverse impacts of China’s burning of the coal shipped through Cherry Point. As Mr. Wells explains, given our local and national policies regarding GHGs and global climate change, it is simply and irrefutably against those public policies to refuse to consider the end use of a product which is the purpose of the proposed activity, when that product is coal.

This issue affects future generations around the world, and I implore you to consider your responsibilities as stewards of the Public Interest in your decisions about the EIS and about this proposal.

Thank you.

- - -
Mr. Wells’ comment:

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 Ecology
- 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.
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 out 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)).
For additional information, please see this article: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/05/1176405/-Don-t-Pee-In-The-Pool

Ken Kaliher (#12264)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Whatcom County, living just outside the Bellingham city limits, I am concerned about the potentially very serious adverse impacts of the construction and operation of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point. As taxpayers and responsible citizens, my wife and I are naturally very interested in the economic prospects of adjacent Bellingham city, of Whatcom County, of Washington state, and of the entire country. We are particularly concerned about “worst case” scenarios involving the Cherry Point proposal, including the very real possibilities of a vessel collision in the Salish Sea, a coal train derailment, a catastrophic oil or coal spill, or a major fire or explosion, as well as the distinct possibility that Asian coal markets will dry up and the terminal will go bankrupt, as did coal export terminals previously built in Los Angeles and in Portland, Oregon.

It is not comforting that project proponent SSA Marine created a subsidiary, Pacific International Terminals (PIT), which has NO ASSETS, to build and operate the Cherry Point terminal. If some disaster were to occur, asset-less PIT could declare bankruptcy in a flash, and absolve its owners of any financial responsibility for the aftereffects of the disaster. Similarly, if the terminal were to go bankrupt, PIT could also disappear in bankruptcy proceedings, along with its employees’ pension benefits (if they even have any). SSA’s business partner Peabody Energy tried to offload its employee pension and health benefit obligations to a subsidiary which promptly declared bankruptcy; that attempted fraud is still being fought in court, but we should not open the door to a similar scam involving a coal export terminal.

I ask that the EIS examine what assurances SSA, its parent Carrix, and its subsidiary PIT will provide that the costs of any disaster, bankruptcy, or other such catastrophic event will not be dumped onto the taxpayers of our cities, county and state. SSA and Carrix should guarantee all such obligations of PIT, including union contracts, incident response and cleanup, and site restoration whenever the coal terminal ceases to operate, no matter what the circumstances.

The Cherry Point coal terminal 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.” We have all seen over and over again, however, the pitiful inadequacy of “emergency response plans” in such situations. The Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster, the BP Gulf Oil spill, Exxon Valdez, Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl…. All had a “safety plan,” and all failed. After the Exxon Valdez spill, courts ordered Exxon to pay $4.8 billion in punitive damages for the harm done to Prince William Sound; slick lawyers for Exxon, however, got the bill whittled down to a mere $504 million, chump change for Exxon.

The EIS should also study whether SSA/Carrix should be required to post a bond to cover the costs of a worst-case cataclysmic disaster, regardless of who is ultimately held responsible for it. If SSA, Peabody Energy, BNSF, and perhaps other players argued over responsibility, they could fight it out in court, but at least the victims of the disaster would be protected by the posted bond. Some have suggested an appropriate bond might be $500 billion, but even one tenth of that amount might encourage SSA to be serious about safety and environmental protective measures.

Ken Kaliher (#12459)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Whatcom County, living about one mile outside the Bellingham city line. Proponents of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) claim that the major (if not only) advantages it will bring to the local economy will be the number of jobs it creates here and the tax revenue it will generate for local governments. GPT proponents hired economists to study the economic benefits of the project, and now tout some rosy numbers of jobs they claim the project will create. Not surprisingly, however, those economists were NOT asked to study jobs that might be lost locally, or not attracted to the area, if the coal terminal were built. A more thorough study commissioned by CommunityWise Bellingham* found that the GPT “could put other economic growth at risk, and be a net loss for the local economy.”

I would like the EIS to include a thorough and authoritative analysis of the complete economic impact on local economy if the proposed GPT were to go into operation. Specifically, please address the following questions:

1) How many permanent, full-time jobs would the GPT create, directly and indirectly?

2) How many temporary jobs would be created by the GPT’s construction? Where would those workers be likely to come from (i.e., local, or from other areas)? What would be the impact on local housing, traffic, law enforcement, schools, and other public services, of the temporary influx of those workers for perhaps two years, and then the sudden departure of those hired from other areas?

3) At least as important, how many jobs -- current and prospective -- would be LOST to the local economy as a result of the many effects of the terminal’s operation? These effects would include air, noise and water pollution caused by an additional 18 trains passing daily between the Montana and Wyoming coal fields and the GPT; hindered access to industrial/commercial/retail/recreational sites on the “wrong” side of the railroad tracks; the cancellation of planned development projects because the impact of the quantum increase in railroad traffic makes their sites unattractive; damage to marine resources and vulnerable species of fish which contribute to the employment of thousands of workers in the region’s fishing, packing, shipping, and even tourism industries; and a variety of other changes the entire character of the local communities.

4) How much revenue would the agriculture sector of Whatcom County’s economy lose from the damage to its widespread reputation for high quality organic and other food products attributable to the noise, vibration, and air, water and soil pollution caused by the tremendous increase in railroad traffic through Whatcom farmlands?

Ken Kaliher (#12471)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Whatcom County, living about one mile outside the Bellingham city line. As responsible citizens and taxpayers, my wife and I are naturally very interested in the economic prospects of adjacent Bellingham city, of Whatcom County, of Washington state, and of the entire country. Proponents of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) claim that its construction and operation will not only bring jobs to the local economy, but will also generate significant tax revenues for local governments.

The Whatcom County Code (20.88.130) requires that the applicant for a major project permit must establish that a proposed major development such as GPT “Will not impose uncompensated requirements for public expenditures for additional utilities, facilities and services….” GPT proponents like to pretend that this project will not have any significant impacts outside the actual terminal site, but the tremendous increase in coal train traffic which would serve the terminal would alone require hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades and other improvements all along the 1,000+ miles of the BNSF rail corridor from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point. To assert otherwise would be ludicrous.

Former Whatcom County planning director David Stalheim, in a column in the January 16, 2013 issue of the Cascadia Weekly on tax implications of the coal port proposal, reported that a single grade separation in Ferndale (to separate vehicle traffic and pedestrians from coal trains) is projected to cost $37.8 million. Stalheim also points out that for communities like Ferndale, “the tax benefits that would accrue from the coal terminal would pay for no more than one grade-separated crossing.” Meanwhile, GPT supporters are lying to the public about who must pay for such improvements. The “Friends of BNSF” website page on the GPT (https://www.friendsofbnsf.com/content/GatewayPacificTerminal) makes the blatantly false assertion that “All upgrades to Washington state freight railroad infrastructure ARE PAID FOR BY PRIVATE CAPITAL FROM THE FREIGHT RAILROADS, NOT BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS” (my capitals). In fact, the Washington state legislature alone authorized $13.6 million for 2007-2011 spending on freight rail grant and loan programs (only enough to fund about one third of the Ferndale grade separation). GPT supporters do not like to acknowledge that federal law and court rulings limit railroads’ liability for funding such improvements to a mere 5% of their cost.

Grade separations and other such safety and traffic control measures will be necessary in scores of communities along the BNSF rail corridor, imposing “uncompensated requirements for public expenditures” in all of them. And those communities outside Whatcom County will reap no tax or job benefits from the construction or operation of the GPT.

I would like the EIS to include a thorough analysis of the putative tax revenues at the city, county, and Washington state levels if the proposed GPT were to go into operation. Specifically, please address the following questions:

1) Of the tax revenues which GPT proponents claim will accrue to local governments, how much exactly will go to Bellingham and to the other cities in Whatcom County, how much to Whatcom County itself, and how much to Washington state?

2) How much of those tax revenues will have to be spent on infrastructure improvements along railroad routes and other projects which will be required to mitigate negative effects of the GPT project?

3) Who will pay for all those infrastructure improvements? Will GPT’s builder-owners be required to pay such externalized costs of the terminal’s construction and operation?

Ken Kaliher (#12545)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Whatcom County, living on a waterfront property on Chuckanut Drive, less than one mile south of the Bellingham city line. The BNSF railroad track runs across our property, between our home and the shoreline. My wife and I decided to purchase our relatively expensive property here in 2009 in part because of the stunning view it offers out toward Bellingham Bay and the San Juan Islands, but also because we deemed it a sound investment, likely to yield a healthy nest egg when we need to sell it and move into small quarters for our “silver” years.

Proponents of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) claim that it will bring jobs to the local economy, and will generate significant tax revenue for local governments. In your EIS, please examine how much of the local tax revenue proponents claim the terminal will bring to local governments will be offset by long-term declines in property tax revenues due to falling property values in the community, especially for residential, commercial, and industrial properties in close proximity to the BNSF railroad tracks which will carry the long, loud, heavy, and polluting coal trains.

At a recent public forum on economic impacts of the coal terminal, one speaker cited a study by the Seattle firm of real estate experts and consultants, The Eastman Company. (The study can be found at the Internet website below*.) An experienced appraiser with the firm studied the potential impact of dramatic increases in coal train traffic to and from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. The Eastman report said that properties near the railroad tracks would likely experience very significant impacts, including increased traffic congestion, noise, vibration, safety concerns, pollution, and stigma. It said the value of family residential properties within 600 feet of the proposed coal train route in Whatcom, Skagit, and Snohomish Counties could drop by 5% to 20%.

Such adverse impacts would not be limited to those counties, or even to Washington state, but would affect homes, businesses and other properties all along the 1,000+ miles of BNSF tracks reaching from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point. They could have a devastating impact, not only on the financial status of thousands of home owners, and on the prospects of businesses located near the tracks, particularly those such as hotels, restaurants, and leisure facilities dependent on customer comfort and satisfaction, but also on the property tax revenues of all those communities. And those communities will not benefit one cent from any jobs or tax income generated by the coal terminal at Cherry Point.

Please consider the cumulative impact of such a loss in property values, and thus in property tax revenues, over time and along the entire railroad corridor.

Thank you.

* http://climatesolutions.onenw.org/nw-states/coal-train-study

Ken Kaliher (#12546)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Whatcom County, living just outside the Bellingham city limits, I am seriously concerned about the potentially very serious adverse effects on our community, on the state of Washington, on the entire U.S.A., and in fact on the entire planet, of the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point. This proposal to transport strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and through the Northwest would greatly increase congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, pollute our air and local waterways, harm existing businesses, delay emergency responders, damage aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, dangerously increase tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents, and contribute heavily to accelerating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Since many of these effects could cause or aggravate serious health problems, I strongly urge the Co-lead Agencies to insist that a highly qualified outside organization conduct a thorough HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT of the potential impacts of the Cherry Point terminal's construction and continuing operation, specifically including the requisite quantum increase in coal train traffic.

There are currently five coal export proposals pending which would involve the transport of as much as 150 million tons of coal through the Northwest and through the fragile ecosystems of the coastal waters of the Pacific Northwest. I strongly urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the CUMULATIVE IMPACT of these proposals.

Ken Kaliher (#12676)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

As a resident of Whatcom County, living just outside the Bellingham city limits, I am seriously concerned about the potentially very serious adverse effects on our community of the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point. I have been aware of, and worried about, many of these adverse impacts since shortly after the project was announced nearly two years ago. I was quite surprised, however, to learn rather recently about the issue of the expected demand the proposed coal terminal would impose on the local area’s water resources.

The terminal proponents’ Project Information Document (PID) states that the terminal would require an average of 5.3 million gallons of water each day from the Public Utility District (PUD) for purposes such as dampening its 80-acre pile of coal to suppress dust and combustion. I understand all that water will come from the Nooksack River. That is more water than the city of Ferndale uses every day, and half the amount the entire city of Bellingham uses for residential, commercial and industrial customers combined. The PID says the terminal will naturally use less water during rainy periods, and more in the dry months. Unfortunately, it is precisely during those summer dry months when the Nooksack River experiences its lowest flows. And according to a Western Washington University professor’s master’s thesis published in 2010*, the effects of global climate change may in the future reduce that Nooksack summer flow by over 8%. And in the warm summer months, much of that dust suppression water flow will evaporate, so that none of it can be recycled.
* http://kula.geol.wwu.edu/rjmitch/Dickerson.pdf.

It has been said that the next world war will be over water supplies. While we in the Pacific Northwest are currently blessed by sufficient supplies of clean water, but that water supply is not unlimited. Other Washington counties are already facing challenges, and even Ferndale is encountering problems with its own water supply. We must be extremely careful to safeguard the sources, and uses, of our valuable water.

GPT’s huge demand for water depends on our region’s best water source. In the worst case scenario of a record-breaking drought -- such as much of the U.S.A. has experienced in recent years -- GPT’s demand could have a seriously adverse impact on Whatcom County’s residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, and recreational consumers of safe water. For this reason, I ask that the GPT EIS study future water demands in this region, based on changing climate scenarios, and analyze the overall impact GPT’s demand for water would have on the local water distribution system over the proposed life of the terminal. Some specific questions:
-- During warm and dry summer months, how much is evaporation likely to increase GPT’s daily demand for water? Would GPT have to build a huge reservoir to store water in rainy months to use in the summer? If so, would that require a new permit application, or separate permit?
-- In the no-long-unimaginable event of a severe water shortage, would GPT’s needs for its dust and combustion suppression system have a higher priority for water supply than local homes, farmers, or businesses? Who would make such determinations, and how?
-- What are the Lummi and other native American communities’ rights to the Nooksack’s waters? Do they have a say in how much of the Nooksack’s precious waters GPT should be able to claim?

Thank you.


Ken Kaliher

Ken Kaliher (#12677)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

In his second inaugural address, President Obama made the following statement:
“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 Americans cannot resist this transition. We must lead it.”

As a resident of Whatcom County, living just outside the Bellingham city limits, I am seriously concerned about the potential adverse impacts of the coal export terminal proposed at Cherry Point, especially because, by facilitating the burning of tens of millions of tons of coal per year, we would be accelerating cataclysmic climate change tantamount to global suicide.

I ask that the EIS encompass the concerns spelled out by Alexander Gillespie on pages 86-99 of the supporting materials submitted by The Friends of the San Juans together with their group’s scoping comment, submitted on 18 January 2013.

Also, on the subject of considering climate change as a legitimately scopable impact of the proposed coal terminal, the GPT Project Information Document states that the primary “need” for the project is the Pacific Rim nations’ “need” for exported U.S. bulk commodities, including coal. If this “need” is accepted as a basis for the project, it must be treated consistently throughout the analysis. The assumption that Pacific Rim nations “need” this coal effectively answers the question of the Project’s contribution to global climate change and other air pollution impacts. Without the Project, Pacific Rim nations would not have the coal that they “need,” and therefore the emissions arising from the combustion of coal exported through the Project are directly attributable to the Project. This “need” component forecloses any argument that other sources of coal would be available (and would contribute equivalent greenhouse gas and other air emissions) if the Project were not constructed.

Thank you.

Ken Kaliher


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

I am a resident of Whatcom County, living on Chuckanut Drive, about one mile south of the Bellingham city limits. The BNSF railroad tracks run across our waterfront property, but our concern for the adverse impacts of the proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point extend far beyond our own small property. We are deeply worried about the impact of a quantum increase in coal train traffic on the entire railroad network in the Pacific Northwest, particularly because several other coal export terminals are also being proposed in Washington and Oregon.

The data in two recent documents on rail capacity and rail freight call out for a comprehensive review of the impacts of coal trains in Washington and Oregon. Both documents offer useful information, but each examines only some of the impacts that can be expected if the proposed coal terminals are built in Washington and Oregon. They, and numerous other studies and articles, some of which can be found at the URL below*, show how incompletely we know or understand the probable consequences of delivering Powder River Basin coal to Northwest terminals for export to Asian markets.
* http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/transpo/coaltrans.aspx

The first document, Pacific Northwest Marine Cargo Forecast Update and Rail Capacity Assessment: Final Report (December 2011) prepared by BST Associates and Main Line Management, forecasts a steady growth in all forms of freight train traffic through 2030. These estimates include liquid, dry bulk, and container trains. The estimate for coal train lengths of 115 to 120 cars is inconsistent with GPT’s plan for trains 150 cars long. This, however, is a relatively minor difference. What is not minor is the assertion that most of the rail corridors can accommodate the projected growth. Some of the projections are based on 2008 data and some on 2010 data. All were made before the announcement of the plan to build six coal terminals in Washington and Oregon. The study alludes to the possibility of such ports, but does not appear to include any data from the various proposals.

Although rail capacities are assessed based on future rail expansion, nowhere does the report indicate the cost to the public for these improvements. In fact, it leaves open the assumption that, because the railroads (Burlington Northern and Union Pacific) will determine what improvements are needed, these costs will be carried by the railroads themselves and not the public. We know that that is not at all likely to be the reality.

Finally, the report does show that the rail corridor from Everett to Vancouver, B.C., is directly affected by the GPT proposal. That is, “the growth in bulk export commodities may lead to sustained capacity constraints along this segment” (p. 35). The document provides a graph that illustrates this capacity problem through the year 2030. Also, the section of rail below Everett grows substantially. For example, the number of trains from Auburn to Seattle, part of the Powder River Basin coal route, grows to 103 trains per day by 2020.

The second report, Heavy Traffic Ahead: Rail Impacts of Powder River Basin Coal to Asia by Way of Pacific Northwest Terminals (July 2012), prepared by the Western Organization of Resource Councils, provides cost estimates and revenue values to the various commodities shipped by rail throughout the Pacific Northwest. The estimated cost of rail improvements “could well exceed $5 billion” (p.49). It also reports that the railroad revenue in 2010 for shipping a wide range of agricultural products was $1,574,925,482 (p. 43).

Neither report identifies the cumulative value of the all the products shipped by rail though the Northwest, either for domestic use or for export. Moreover, neither estimates the altered value of these goods if they have to compete for scarcer railroad resources in order to deliver product to market in a timely manner or by contractually obligated dates. While each report contains valuable information, there is not to my knowledge a detailed and cumulative assessment of what the costs would be to the greater public (that is agricultural interests, regional industries, the taxpayer, etc.) if coal were shipped to the various proposed ports in Washington and Oregon.

The coal terminal at Cherry Point is only one of five proposed for the Northwest. In other words, it is only part of a proposal. It directly affects, and is also directly affected by, the other proposed terminals in Washington and Oregon. Because Cherry Point is part of a greater economy, I think it only fair and reasonable that a detailed and comprehensive study be made of the cumulative impacts of coal train traffic on all the communities and industries of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon that are affected by one or more of the proposed terminals. Therefore, I am specifically asking that the scope of the EIS for the coal terminal proposed for Cherry Point include a comprehensive economic and social analysis of the railroad impacts on the Northwest as if all of the proposed terminals were to be approved.

Thank you.

Ken Kaliher


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

As a resident of Whatcom County, living just outside the Bellingham city limits, I am seriously concerned about the potentially very serious adverse effects of the construction and operation of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point.

There are scores of significant adverse impacts which this project would produce, and I have previously commented on several of them, but this comment is about the GPT Permit Application’s Purpose and Need. There is reason to believe that some of the information provided in this section of the Permit Application is either:
1) Not factually true, or
2) Somewhat factually true, but misleading as to whether the result will in fact be a net benefit to the public interest.
In the discussion below, the relevant sections of the Permit application are quoted and are in square brackets [“like this”].

[“operate a multimodal marine terminal …. multiple dry bulk commodities”]
-- What’s questionable is the word “multimodal.” At present, the only material for which construction is planned is coal. Most of the structures built to support coal export are expressly not usable for other goods as long as the coal terminal is in operation, and other goods such as food-grade products may be precluded from export in the vicinity of a coal terminal. I recommend that all references to “multimodal,” or to multiple commodities, be updated to refer explicitly and solely to the materials actively planned to be exported through the terminal -- at present, only coal.

[“to meet international and domestic demand”]
-- This is not only inaccurate, but ludicrous, since there is no plan to export items to meet domestic demand. Doing that would be quite a trick.

[“Gateway Pacific Terminal would further advance the … environmental protection goals of the WDNR-designated Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve.”]
-- This is inaccurate. Installing a coal terminal at the location could not possibly advance environmental protection goals, especially in comparison to the current situation of no development. In fact, the statement is stunning in its audacity; it is a bald-faced lie. In addition to correcting this section of the Purpose and Need, please reflect also for a moment on what this says about the credibility of the applicant with respect to being truthful.

[“Gateway Pacific Terminal would further advance the economic development … goals of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan’s Cherry Point Industrial UGA …”]
-- This is questionable. I request that the agencies consider whether development of a coal export terminal precludes the most effective development of the site, using key measures such as total economic value creation and jobs per acre. For instance, the presence of coal dust emissions from the coal piles could stop further development of the very substantial acreage on the property that is not planned for terminal development.

[“The need to ship bulk cargo to and from Asia and other markets to meet current and future market demand;”]
-- This is questionable, both in its accuracy and in the desirability of the result. In a world that is rapidly becoming constrained with respect to acceptable carbon emissions and other limits, it is rational to expect that the quantities of low-value bulk cargo to be shipped across large oceans should go down in quantity, not up, if proper decisions are being made. In fact, the building of structures that are specifically designed to facilitate vast increases in trans-oceanic shipments should be regarded as very poor policy. Instead, our best future development should concentrate on high value goods, which, if they are shipped overseas, return the highest achievable value per ton shipped. Broadly, such goods should be those that are valued in dollars per pound, rather than dollars per ton.

[“The need for deep-water, bulk marine terminals in the Puget Sound region”]
-- This is extremely questionable with respect to desirability. Deep-water, bulk terminals necessarily cause traffic in extremely large ships. The Puget Sound area is already at or beyond capacity to handle traffic in such large ships in a safe manner. Puget Sound does not need more deep-water bulk marine terminals. If such terminals are needed in Washington State, which is doubtful, then they should at least be sited with direct access to open ocean.

[“The need for community and economic development in Whatcom County”]
-- This is extremely questionable. The agencies should evaluate the NET economic development effects of the coal terminal (jobs created vs. jobs lost or jeopardized, tax revenues added vs. tax revenues lost, etc.), including but not limited to a careful examination of the professional reports on this and related topics commissioned by CommunityWise Bellingham. It should also be noted that the private sector in Whatcom County added over 2,400 jobs in 2012, more than ten times the projected direct employment of the terminal when operating at full capacity.

[“existing and future market demands … current and forecasted Pacific Rim demand … Forecasted growth in trade … ”]
-- Considering that the only material currently planned and contracted for export is coal, the reference to future market demands is deeply troubling, because it reveals that the purpose of the coal terminal is to supply further expansion in the use of coal in Asia. Let’s put this very directly: The expansion in the use of coal in Asia is a serious threat to the United States, and indeed to the entire planet, through worsened climate change. There is no circumstance under which we should actively participate in facilitating this harmful activity, which is bad climate policy and aggravates an existing major national security risk.

[“Because of their physical nature (large quantities of voluminous, dry materials), dry bulk commodities are shipped in bulk rather than as containerized cargo”]
-- This is a good illustration of one of the reasons why coal and similar materials are not desirable for export development. They are so stunningly low in value per ton or per cubic yard that they require the largest ships on the planet in order to ship any appreciable value.

[“In 2008, the average size of bulk carriers had increased 11 percent over the previous 5 years. This increase reflects the deployment of Capesize vessels into the international bulk carrier fleet.”]
-- This represents a PROBLEM, rather than a fun and exciting new trend to follow. As noted above, the state of Washington will realize far more value by exporting premium products, whose value is measured in dollars per pound. Such goods will not be compatible with shipment in bulk carriers.

[“the need for multimodal, deep-water bulk marine terminals is not being met in the Pacific Northwest region”]
-- Oh really? Let’s see the study. In such a study, listing of demand for coal exports should be excluded, unless the applicant is willing to surrender the imaginary “multi-commodity” label for the proposed port. If this purported demand is composed of demand for coal, the applicant should come clean, to the extent possible to anyone in the coal business, and acknowledge the entire real purpose of the facility, which is to export coal.

[“The proposed project would help to implement … the Governor’s 6-Point Export Plan (Office of the Governor 2010).”]
-- That’s questionable. Please carefully evaluate the Governor’s plan and determine whether a plan for WASHINGTON exports includes development of export of NON-WASHINGTON materials. Also, please evaluate whether the quantum increase in coal train traffic through Washington state necessary to meet the GPT demand (and perhaps that of four or five other proposed coal export terminals in Washington and Oregon) would jeopardize continued steady growth in production and exports of genuine Washington state products, such as apples, berries, and other agricultural products which move to market by train.

[“The Terminal is consistent with the goals of the WDNR’s Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve designation for the area and with the Reserve’s Management Plan (WDNR 2010), which specifically allows this proposed development.”]
-- This is questionable. These plans do include potential provision for a port. However, the scale of the proposed port at 48 million metric tons per year is vastly greater than anything that has previously been contemplated. In 2010, the year most recently cited, the active permit for the site envisioned a port with less than 10 million tons per year capacity, so it is reasonable to assume that the management plan was consistent with that scale of activity. In order for these plans to be cited in support of the proposed terminal, each plan should be reopened and evaluated specifically to consider export of the commodity of coal at a scale of 48 million metric tons per year.

[“The site must also possess unique features and characteristics”]
-- This section makes no mention of the constrained nature of the waters between the proposed terminal and the open ocean. The rather bland statement that such a site “Is located on the West Coast of the US” conjures up an image of having a ready interface with open ocean, but this is very simply not accurate.

Broadly, with respect to Purpose and Need, I ask the agencies to consider what types of major infrastructure investments are appropriate for a future whose outlines include:
-- Critically important reductions of carbon pollution emissions worldwide,
-- The impacts of climate change and ocean acidification, which are already occurring, and
-- The critical importance of premium, high-value products to our economy, now and in the future.

I ask that the agencies develop information in the EIS that will help the staff of various agencies to make sound, forward-looking decisions, which do not contribute to aggravating serious climate and ocean problems that are already occurring, and which help us to continue to set a course toward a healthy future for our county, state, country, and planet.

Thank you.

Ken Kaliher


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

As a resident of Whatcom County, living just outside the Bellingham city limits, I am seriously concerned about the potentially very serious adverse effects on our community, our state, our nation, and in fact the entire planet, of the construction and operation of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point. The most compelling of these concerns is the fact that, by facilitating the burning of tens of millions of tons of coal per year, we would be accelerating cataclysmic climate change tantamount to global suicide.

President Obama, in his second inaugural address, made the following statement:
“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 Americans cannot resist this transition. We must lead it.”

I ask that the EIS include consideration of the deadly serious impact which operation of the coal terminal proposed for Cherry Point would have on the entire planet, directly and indirectly. The public servants in whose hands the fate of this project will lie must consider whether this direct contradiction of the president’s stated goal, and of our own national interest, will in fact “betray our children and future generations.” Remember that the Pentagon has stated that climate change is the single greatest threat to our national security. Public officials have a mandate to act in the public and national interest, not simply to approve virtually every development project which corporate America brings to the table.

As James Wells, one of the best thinkers and hardest workers among the many articulate critics of the coal terminal, has written*…

Some decisions are truly a one way street. Once a path is chosen, it won't be rolled back. We have in front of us a decision on whether to double down on a massive new climate-destroying coal project.
It's shocking that, instead of discussing how to roll back coal mining combustion [as Washington state has recently done by voting to phase out its last coal-burning power plants], we are facing the prospect of a huge expansion of it. It's in the same category, both in scale and sheer boneheaded, mind-blowing wrongness, as the Keystone XL pipeline.
Long after the coal terminal is abandoned, or reduced to three lonely guys in the control room, these places will be dead. For as long as we live, and for the entire lifetime of anyone we ever meet, we will be dealing with the harsh climate legacy of ill-conceived projects like this, desperate efforts to get one more fix instead of checking into detox….
I request that the agencies should thoughtfully incorporate the key concept of Permanence, while evaluating the various adverse impacts which have been described in the scoping public comments that have been submitted.
For many of the impacted resources, the occurrence of an impact is truly a one way street, from which there is no recovery within our lifetimes. This is most obvious in the case of big ticket impacts such as the potential for a major oil spill due to vessel collision, or the effects of coal combustion on global warming and ocean acidification. But, it is also true with respect to more local impacts – if a person does not get to the hospital in time due to a blocked crossing, it doesn’t get any more permanent than that.
It is especially important to highlight this concept in the context of a world, and a country, with limited resources. In much of our history as a country, we have been able to throw aside concerns about permanence of impacts, because there was always a new frontier to move to. Now, there is no new frontier, and suddenly we become aware, or should become aware, that a given resource on a given piece of land or sea is literally beyond price.
Conventional economic analysis still disregards this important concept, so it should be carefully incorporated into the EIS. For example, the conventional concept of property ownership and property value contains a gross distortion of the true value of a property. If you look strictly at dollars, then it would be a winning proposition for a company for buy a property for X dollars, realize some net gain of X/5 dollars for 10 years, and then walk away, even if the property was permanently impaired from being used ever again in the future for any purpose.
This fact led to the enactment of key environmental laws including SEPA and NEPA, but those laws in turn have led to the creation of an entire business sector devoted to dodging the trailing responsibilities for impacts that have been created.
So when we say that Pacific International Terminals (PIT) “owns” the property, we should properly understand that this ownership, and potential use of the property, is entirely conditional on PIT assuring that its operations result in no permanent impacts, both on the subject property and on neighboring land, sea, and air. For any proposed use of the property, that assurance must be provided in a form that proactively prevents impacts, rather than just responding to them.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS ALMOST CERTAINLY NO WAY THAT A PROPOSED COAL PORT CAN OPERATE IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS NEEDED. [ALL CAPS emphasis mine.] Not only are there too many moving parts, such as hundreds of large ocean-going vessels per year, but the end purpose of the port, to supply 48 million metric tons per year of coal to be burned, is in direct conflict with rational planning for our climate.
The reality of permanence ultimately trumps anything that we may say or do to mitigate or contain such impacts. When the Deepwater Horizon exploded, BP had binders full of response plans that didn’t do much good. When we imagine that we can “enforce” compliance by levying fines for a spill, let’s realize that such fines don’t compensate the marine life that has been killed, and don’t even begin to address the legacy of those damaged resources for our children and future generations.
When evaluating the impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal, please thoughtfully consider Permanence as part of the EIS process.

Please bear in mind that…
Anytime you think that you don't have a choice, you actually do.
Anytime you think you have to do something that's wrong, you don't.
Not Here. Not Today. Not Any More.
Our future is worth saving.
Let us not participate in our own destruction.

Thank you.

* http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/20/1180661/-Permanence

Ken Kaliher

Ken Kraft (#3908)

Date Submitted: 12/05/2012
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
This proposal is a disaster in waiting. We live about a half mile from the tracks in Smokey Point. The noise now from the whistles is sleep disturbing considering they start to blow ahead of 136th and continue all the way through past 4th street, because there are so many grade crossings. I can't imagine how much worse the air quality will become with so many more trains. The diesel fumes, the coal dust is bad enough now.

We live in an enclave of 150 homes containing all senior citizens. Many of us have breathing problems now, for instance my wife has pulmonary fibrosis and if this many trains are added, we simply will have to leave this area.

If only the traffic would be considered, this proposal would be in the trash can already. This area is a nightmare of traffic already and many of the businesses on the west side of the tracks might as well close up. Marysville is mostly east of the tracks and considering these trains are about 130 cars long, and the total would equal two per hour if evenly spaced throughout 24 hours.

I respectfully request the denial of any proposal that allows for this expansion. There is talk of jobs, how many jobs will be lost if it goes through.

Ken Kraft
Marysville, WA

Ken Kutner (#3293)

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

Ken Leaman (#2494)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Ken McPherson (#12826)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Grandview, WA
Comment:
I strongly support the construction of a coal export termnnal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would positively affect my community by increasing jobs and infrastructure with more coal train traffic. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the environmental communities scare tactics.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. We would be irrisponsible if we did not support these projects.

Ken Meyer (#4775)

Date Submitted: 12/14/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Gentlemen:

On this eve of the renewed boasting about the "wiredness" of Seattle, we find that the much anticipated "Coal Train Hearing" is not available anywhere online. Surely, the Convention Center has adequate internet connectivity to host this event. If you really want to reduce traffic in Seattle, you need to provide access to public events via the Internet. We who must subscribe to the robber-barons of Comcast in lieu of any reasonable alternative are PAYING FOR THE SEATTLE CHANNEL via the disingenuously named "Franchise Fee" are getting screwed over, as usual. Where do I vote against your function?

Ken Meyer

Ken Pearce (#3839)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
While the temporary construction jobs would be beneficial to the local Bellingham / Ferndale economy, the long-term environmental impact of increased rail traffic and more importantly the facilitation of the burning of coal and its negative impact on global warming ; must be considered.

Have we learned nothing in the last 100 years of industrialization? We need to begin leaving coal in the ground! New jobs should be pursued in the sectors of clean energy involving wind, solar, geo-thermal and tidal energy. Exporting coal to China to be burned into the atmosphere and then having it directly impact the PacNW air quality MAKES NO SENSE!!!

Thank you for your consideration.

A concerned citizen.

Ken Pearce
9849 Samish Island Rd.
Bow, WA 98232

Ken Quam (#2964)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

ken quillan (#11748)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: yelm, WA
Comment:
I would like to voice my support for the Pacific gateway project. Due to the fact I believe this project is one small part of the bigger picture in an economic war with canada over shipping. Fairview terminals at Prince Rupert B.C. is in league with a N.J. port and the canadian national railway to avoid the west coast container tax (approximately $109. per unit ) Presently Fairview ships 500,000 containers with planned expansion to 5 million units this port is also a coal terminal with capacity to ship 12 million tons planned expansion to 24 million tons. Another canadian port West Shore terminals the largest dry bulk loading facility on the west coast of north and south america shipped 27.3 million tons coal of which 8 million tons was from Powder river basin planned expansion to 33 million tons there are other canadian and mexican ports being planned. Since 40% of Washington state's economic base is trade related with the majority of containers shipped out of state.I ask can Washington survive a 40% reduction of our states economic base

Ken Rose (#12968)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bozeman, MT
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.

Additionally I want you to recognize that the pollution created in China will be returnbed to Montana in 6 days, according to the EPA.

Ken Seal (#3690)

Date Submitted: 11/29/12
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Birch Bay for the last 10 years I am very concerned about the possible construction of the coal port in the Cherry Point area. Our bay has been a seasonal destination resort area for over 70 years and our primary reason for relocating here. The potential of not only the light dusting during unforeseen wind events but most importantly the perception the likely hood of such an event and the resulting effects on millions of dollars in property values.
The mantra "Location, location, location", is directly tied to real and perceived values. The potential of future health and environmental concerns would undoubtedly impact future sales, construction, and property tax revenues.
The cost far out weights the benefits of a few hundred perminent jobs not to mention the litany of other concerns.
Stop the permitting process now.

Sincerely,

Ken Seal
8018 Comox Road
Blaine, WA 98230

Ken Seal (#4931)

Date Submitted: 12/17/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live in the Birch Bay community of Blaine. We would be in an area that could be tarnished by wind events and the resulting dust contamination. It is common knowledge that these "dustings" happen with frequency up north in Tawassan. We have seen and heard of problems from citizens in the Point Roberts area with dust removal from personal property such as boats and patio's.
The concern is how does the washing and removal of the coal dust effect the environment along the nearby bays where the greywater is discharged?
How does the dust that has landed upon the water effect the shoreline during low and high tides? Does it build up over time? Does it disperse with the tides? These are questions I have not seen any studies on.

ken urquhart (#9747)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I have lived and/or worked in bellingham my entire life (62). I work for the Bellingham Parks Department spending much of my time at Boulevard Park and Maritime Heritage Park. The noise of the safety horns are deftining for all but a few.
The stench of the diesel fumes are overpowering. The dust brought up from the track bed is not minimal. With the additional long coal trains comming and going the chance for tragedy in someone not being able to recieve timely medical treatment by paramedics having to wait for the additional long coal trains will increace. For myself and my wife (asthma) as park users are there to enjoy the peace, safety, quiet, marine and mountain views, that are offered. I believe that for first time visitors to Bellingham, the over water walkway to Boulevard Park is in the top three must see things to do. Do not ruin their experience by adding so many extra trains.

Ken Wiedmer (#531)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
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.

Coal is a filty, unsafe product whether being mined, shipped or handled. Its use must be stopped!

Thank you, K. Wiedmer

Ken & Chris Opligner & Johnson (NW Jobs Alliance) (#2118)

Date Submitted: 10/30/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Ken and Jan Janousek (#739)

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

Kendall Houck (#12703)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Cave Junction, OR
Comment:
Any valid assessment of Environmental Impacts from this proposed project must consider far more than merely transportation routes, air and water pollution, and effects to residential neighborhoods. A comprehensive EIS will evaluate and track the entire coal life cycle: from mining site, to processing, to transport, to combustion and smoke stack emission, to secondary and tertiary transmission and absorption by humans and the environment at every step. Included in this life cycle assessment should also be consideration of economic impacts and market forces that will be preferentially skewed by any decision to commit public funds and properties that enable the continued subsidized use of the dirtiest form of petro-energy.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington or any where else on the west coast of the US. The continued strip-mining of coal in Montana and Wyoming should be steadily and programmatically curtailed and future transporting of coal on trains and ships throughout the Northwest ended.

Clearly, the proposal on the table here would negatively affect many communities in many ways: by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents, unnecessarily contributing to climate change, and reducing public policy opportunities for investment in cleaner energy technologies.

I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to consider these and the other far reaching cumulative impacts that would result from this project proposal as part of the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Kendall Whitney (#676)

Date Submitted: 10/13/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My main concern with the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal is quality of life, not only here in Whatcom County but in the northwest. From what I understand, much fewer communities would be negatively impacted if the terminal were to be built in Longview. Extending the route through the greater Seattle area up to Whatcom County dampens the quality of life for several million more people. Most people who live here know that the competitive advantage to living here is being able to be active outside--hiking, biking, running skiing, canoeing, and other outdoor activities. My bike and running routes would take me right across rail routes to the Terminal. I also enjoy going to places like Taylor Shellfish Farm. An increase in train traffic, with longer trains and trains carrying coal that has not been properly packaged, means that what I love most about living here, the very reason that I am here, will be interrupted more frequently and the air that I breathe will not be as clean. I live here for the clean air and the quality of life. If I had wanted to live in an industrial wasteland, where profit matters over quality of life, I would have moved somewhere else.

Could someone please give a rational explanation of why Longview has not been more seriously considered as a site for this terminal? It would ruin the lives of a lot less people.

Kendra Cook (#3686)

Date Submitted: 11/29/12
Comment:
A man seeking out homeowners who have black dust on their homes from coal trains approached my house. I showed him I can take my finger and slide it down the glass window and the white trim on my house and there was nothing on my finger but a few specks of dirt.

There has never been any problem at our residence overlooking FHS’s ball field and the RR track with pollutants or traffic from the trains. The only problems we have noticed is the hard water residue on our windows from washing them due to the NE winds blowing mini haboobs from off the FHS ball fields.

Supporting you all the way.
God Bless.

Kendra Cook
Diane Court resident
Ferndale

Kendra Schmiedeskamp (#10985)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
Dear Department of Ecology and US Army Corp of Engineers:

I oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. I live within 3000 feet of the railway line in South Bellingham. I would like the EIS to study the impact of increased airborne coal particles from both the rail line and the terminal on aquatic ecosystems, fisheries, air quality, and human health. As I write this, there is an air stagnation advisory for the Bellingham area: the night sky is glowing red. I would like the EIS to particularly study how increased coal train traffic would impact air quality during periods of air stagnation.

The current noise level of the rail line is enough to wake my family up most nights in the summer. I would like the EIS to study the impacts of increased rail noise from the proposed project, as well as traffic congestion at rail crossings. The negative impacts to parks and businesses along the rail line is very concerning and should be addressed in the EIS.

Because Cherry Point is not the only coal export terminal currently being proposed, the area of potential effect for the EIS should include the geographic range of all the projects so that cumulative impacts can be assessed. The effect of the proposed projects on global climate change should be part of this assessment.

Thanks for your time,

Kendra Schmiedeskamp

Kenetth & Margret Milici (#1529)

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

Kenneth Bosworth (#2319)

Date Submitted: 11/05/2012
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
Progress? Jobs? Environment? Safety? Health? Please consider what the COST will be.....you cannot put a dollar figure to it. Remember the WHITE TRAIN that ran across this country carrying Nuclear warheads? Well, from the time the nuclear war was starting up until now, The USA has spent over 8 TRILLION dollars trying to make it safe for all of us. That includes all the dollars spent on White Trains, ICBM's, Trident Submarines, B-52's, missile silos, The constant refueling in air while flying 24-7-365 days a year, and it includes over 5000 nuclear bombs that we are still babysitting and refusing to disarm. On top of all that, it includes all the men and women required to man all of that for the 50 years since it all started. We still have to maintain all of that, as well as we continue to work toward disarming these bombs which are each 10 times more powerful than the bombs we dropped on Japan. COST? DID WE HAVE ANY IDEA THAT WE WOULD SPEND ALL OF THAT AND MORE?

THIS WAS MORE MONEY THAN WE SPENT IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD ON:
Medicare, Education, Social Services, Disaster relief, Scientific research (of the non-nuclear type), Environmental protection, Food safety inspectors,Highway Maintenance, Police, Prosecutors, Judges and Prisons COMBINED!!

We are not any safer than we were 50 years ago! Russia has over 5,000 nuclear warheads, as well as other countries who have engaged in this war game.! What does all of this Nuclear Spending have to do with a coal terminal with 10-20 trains per day when it is all built. Just like the WHITE TRAIN --THIS BLACK TRAIN will have costs that we cannot even begin to list. All of the Human Environment and Natural Environmental issues will be affected.....Not only affecting us but also the citizens of China, and the world populations. WHAT PRICE? WHAT WILL IT COST FOR THE GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL AND THE COAL INDUSTRY? BECAUSE THIS WILL AFFECT ALL OF US.....!

We need to look for a better vision for the people of this city, county, state,country and world. JOBS jobs jobs jobs ..that is all we have heard from the day I was born.. This is not about JOBS...it is about developing a better vision for a healthier world... As was stated before.....WE ARE NOT ANY SAFER WITH OUR BOMBS THAN WE WERE THE DAY WE STARTED.

Kenneth Bosworth (#8934)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
I have lived in Anacortes for over 34 years. What I have observed in most processes of this nature , is that we have all the regulations listed ,and we discuss such but we do not take into account what the LONGTERM CONSEQUENCES WILL COST NOR WHO WILL PAY FOR THEM ! Overpasses for the traffic flow to continue, water clean up cost when spills happen-( AS THEY WILL), all of the above are affected by a coal train everyday they come through.. the COST FACTOR---Who Pays? Not the railroad, not the coal company, not China for the toxic pollution from the air, not the coal terminal/shipping co. IT WILL BE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES THAT THE TRAINS RUN THROUGH.....Who knows how much--Why when we are the ones who want it stopped and are saying NO!! Millions, Billions maybe Trillions by the end of 50 years.

Kenneth Jackson (#12888)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Hubbard, 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.

Living in French Polynesia, and having family in Bellingham, WA, plus more relatives along the North South national railway line that passes from Mexico border (San Diego) to AK, we do NOT need to poison our nest to make a profit. If these Facist Bastards need to make a profit let
them carry the coal in back packs and sacks.... EOS!!! Fascists
Beware, you are courting your demise.....

Kenneth Larson (#4950)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Sagle, ID
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Kenneth Obeso (#2998)

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

Kenneth Russell (#10285)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Scoping Comment

My name is Kenneth Russell, I have lived in Whatcom County for over 20 years and I am very concerned about the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. My concerns follow:

I about a half mile from the train tracks and I cross them several times a week. I hear the train whistle blowing every day and it occasionally wakes me at night. I am concerned that significantly increased train traffic will increase traffic congestion at train crossings, increase noise pollution and more importantly increase air pollution due to train diesel emissions and coal dust. I am particularly concerned about the health problems that may result from these effects. It is important that these impacts be carefully assessed and measured, including the economic impact to real estate and quality of life.

I am an avid hiker and boater in the Whatcom area and I value our natural environment. I have hiked the shore of Cherry Point and public access lands in that area. The Gateway Pacific Terminal will seriously impact that area. I am most concerned about the effects on aquatic life in the Salish Sea including GPT’s impact on salmon, herring production, the Orca whale population and the marine ecosystem surrounding Cherry Point. Because of existing industrial development in the area (oil refineries to the south and coal shipping to the north in Canada, plus increasing urban and residential build out, I am concerned that this new massive export facility will increase the burden of industrial pollutants and significantly increase the disruption to a fragile ecosystem in that area. The proposed GPT will affect wildlife and vegetation, marine species and fish, wetlands and streams and water quality. The impact on all these areas should be carefully studied. I am concerned that increased in coal carrying ships will inevitably result in a shipping accident that will seriously impact the environment. All of these effects on the natural environment should be carefully studied and the potential effects that GPT will have on them should be carefully assessed.

While I am not “anti-development” I believe that industrial development must be carefully assessed for its impact on existing qualify of life and environmental, and impacts on future generations. For this reason one of my chief concerns is the effect that increased burning of coal will have on global warming and climate change. The argument is made that “if we do not sell the coal to China, others will.” This argument ignores the fact that if the United States sells the coal, we will be significantly degrading our own environment at the same time that we contribute to a type of industrial development that science tells us is dangerous unsustainable.

Thank you for including my considerations in the scoping process. I ask that you including all aspects impacts to both human and natural environments. I hope that you will also consider impacts outside of the immediate geographical area including the effects on global climate warming.

Kenneth Sebens (#2270)

Date Submitted: 11/03/2012
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
I am opposed to the construction of the Gateway Pacific Terminal/Custer Spur for the following reasons:

1. Greatly increased vessel traffic, and risk of oil spills, threaten the listed endangered orca populations, the only resident population in the U.S.. The southern resident orcas have not increased their population substantially since protection started four decades ago, whereas the northern residents have shown substantially greater population growth – the southern pods already experience more vessel traffic, and this will greatly increase under this plan. Vessel traffic increases noise in the water, collision probability, and interference with feeding and migration,

2. Oil spills also threaten shoreline habitats and our very diverse biological communities, including the greatly depleted populations of Chinook salmon, and the herring and other forage fish they depend on, plus several endangered rockfish species. Coal and coal dust also contain pollutants that can harm creatures living on the seafloor, and in coastal wetlands.

3. Our region is high in biodiversity, low in pollutant load, and rich in marine habitats and resources compared to many other parts of the Salish Sea, and thus deserves special protection. San Juan County and Cypress Is. were established as a Marine Biological Preserve in 1923. All of SJC became a Marine Stewardship area in 2004, and this includes specific MPAs managed by WDFW and the U. of Washington, plus voluntary bottomfish recovery areas, state and national parks, and national wildlife refuges. Cherry Point, Cypress Island and Fidalgo Bay are all DNR Aquatic Reserves, and there are two others just south of the San Juans, directly in the ship traffic routes (Protection Island, Smith and Minor Islands). These extensive marine protected areas are directly threatened by this project.

4. The livelihoods of many residents of San Juan County, and adjacent counties, depend on healthy ecosystems and would be severely impacted by even a single major oil spill. The UW Friday Harbor laboratories is one of the best known marine laboratories in the world, with over 60 resident staff and over 500 visitors per year conducting research and taking classes; this facility depends on our high local biodiversity and near pristine habitats. There are three other marine laboratories along the shipping lanes as well.

5. Shipping coal out of the U.S. is not necessary or desirable in any case, and will only increase carbon input to the atmosphere and ocean, resulting in continued warming and ocean acidification worldwide. It is a certainty that the U.S. will run short on fossil fuels in the next decades and, even if other energy sources are found, it would be a good idea to bank the coal we already have in this country, not speed up the rate at which it is burned. Shipping coal out of the country threatens the local environment, and the global ecosystem while enriching a few companies and individuals and providing relatively few new jobs.

I provide these comments as a private citizen whose livelihood depends on the Salish Sea, as a scientist and educator, and as a property owner in San Juan County concerned about our environment.

Kenneth Small (#10394)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It is imperative that the best science be used to determine the short-term and long-term threats to human and wildlife health from coal dust along the corridor. The effect of noise, not just as an irritant but as a threat to health, should be carefully assessed; in my community and many other communities, many people live very close to the tracks. The number of railroad crossings which emergency vehicles must go through can be a significant threat to public safety.
A case can me made that climate change should be an issue. If Asian countries want the coal, it can only be to lower the price of the coal they burn. If the price of something is lowered, more of it will be consumed, which in this case will slow down the transition to less carbon-intensive methods of producing energy.

Kenneth Stinnett (#480)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Randle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect the community by increasing traffic, polluting 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 on top of the gradual build up of coal dust in the air,ground and water and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Kenneth Thompson (#4329)

Date Submitted: 12/11/2012
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
My concerns involve the Custer Spur Line that runs to the proposed site. The Custer Spur has right of way across the edge of my property. Our house is at least 1,000 feet from the rail line. The vibrations have caused cracks in the walls of the house, and the noise created by the trains affects my quality of life. My main concern is if it causes cracks in the walls of my house at 1,000 feet away from the line, what effect would it have on the high pressure gas lines and other utility lines that run paralell to the train tracks?What assurance do I have those lines will not explode from increased weight of the train and vibrations, as well as, increased train travel?

Kenneth Wickstrom (#13240)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
In this age of land ethic violations, in the name of non-renewable energy exploitation, it is our solemn duty as stewards of a living planet to urgently oppose this corporate and political massacre. In this, the 21st century, we now have the technology to power the world with renewable energy sources that DO NOT violate the laws of nature.
The advocacy and implementation of a renewable energy infrastructure is the absolute goal of our enlightened generation of global citizens for the health of all biodiversity, living and non-living throughout this biosphere.

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.

Strongly Opposed,

Kenneth Wood (#3920)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kent Heuer (#14339)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Kent Stoddard (#1079)

Date Submitted: 10/23/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I live near Chuckanut Drive approximately 1000 ft from the train tracks. I am very aware of the adverse noise impacts of current train traffic, particularly during those many months when I enjoy open windows.

Since the proposed terminal project will require as many as eighteen additional long, heavy trains per day with multiple locomotives, I ask that the EIS include a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the added train traffic on property values.

A study by Robert A. Simons, PhD, and Abedellaziz El Jaouhari, PhD, titled The Effect of Freight Railroad Tracks and Train Activity on Residential Property Values, found the following:
1. Rail traffic, as opposed simply proximity to tracks, makes a difference in the sale price of residential properties” and that publicity is found to increase public awareness of this issue and significantly impact the sale price of smaller and some larger houses;
2. A survey of prospective home buyers rated “living next to a train track” as one of the least desirable site characteristics right after living near a junk yard, leaking underground storage tank, or a factory;
3. An average loss in value of 5 to 7% for small houses (less than 1,250 square feet) located within 750 feet of a railroad track impacted by freight railroad tracks in Cuyahoga County, Ohio from 1996 to 1999.

The Ohio study focused primarily on adverse impacts of noise and safety. Yet today much more has been learned and documented about the significant public health impacts of harmful emissions from diesel locomotives and fugitive coal dust from rail cars. Additional study is needed on the potential structural impacts of excessive vibration on buildings located in close proximity to train tracks used for heavy coal trains and the impacts of potential derailments.

As part of the EIS, an analysis of the overall impacts of additional train traffic on property values is needed to help quantify not only the significant adverse financial impacts on home and business owners, but also the potential revenue loss to Whatcom County from reduced property tax assessments.

Kent Stoddard (#1083)

Date Submitted: 10/23/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The GPT Permit Application asserts that a large deep-water, bulk marine terminal "is needed" to ship bulk cargo to and from Asia and other markets to meet current and future market demands and “is needed" for community and economic development in Whatcom County.

Rather than addressing a compelling need for the project, the permit application more accurately describes economic opportunities for the world's largest privately held coal company, the world's largest privately held marine and rail terminal operator, and the second largest freight railroad company in North America.

It is critical that the EIS include an independent analysis of the current and forecasted needs asserted by the applicant including (1) the actual global market and demand for bulk commodities other than coal, (2) the availability of coal resources in Asia, and (3) the potential for the use of alternative fuels.

The size and regional scope of the proposed project are likely to result in many significant adverse environmental, health and economic impacts. Thus a detailed and independent assessment of the need for this project should be the basic foundation for the EIS and the identification of alternatives. Is there really a documented need to build the largest coal terminal in North America at Cherry Point? Would such a project actually advance the public policies asserted by the applicant?

Kent Stoddard (#7983)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Coal Dust:

Mary Ruth Holder provided thoughtful comments on January 6 regarding the foreseeable adverse health and environmental impacts from fugitive coal dust along the entire coal transportation route -- from the coal mines to GPT.

I join many others in requesting that the scope of the EIS include: (1) a rigorous study of the impacts of fugitive coal dust on aquatic and terrestrial habitats, the health of residents who live or work near the rail line, and workers at the GPT; and (2) the identification and analysis of the full range of mitigation measures necessary to protect public health and the environment from fugitive coal dust.

Thank you.

Kent Stoddard (#7991)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Joe Knight provided detailed comments on Jan. 3 regarding regarding concerns about rail capacity and the potential impacts of the GPT project on traffic, safety, quality of life and on the economy of the Pacific Northwest.

I request that the EIS include a comprehensive study of the cumulative transportation impacts of all known proposed coal terminal projects that include new or expanded export terminals in the Pacific Northwest.

Thank you.

Kent Stoddard (#8020)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am writing to urge the Co-lead Agencies to prepare a programmatic that EIS meets both the letter and the spirit of Washington State's Environmental Policy Act.

The State's existing SEPA Handbook states very clearly that appropriate environmental review calls for examining the impacts of all related activities, and uses as an example, "a large proposal involving actions in vastly different locations, such as material being mined at one site, then transported and processed at another."

In the case of the GPT project, following the SEPA Handbook would call for a programmatic EIS that identifies all potential significant impacts and possible mitigation measures from the mining, transportation, terminal construction and operation, and the ultimate burning of more than 1billion tons of coal over the life of the project.

Since the potential environmental, public health and economic impacts of the GPT project are greatly exacerbated by similar coal export projects proposed for the Pacific Northwest, it is also critical that the EIS include the cumulative impacts of all proposed projects.

I urge the co-lead agencies to prepare a programmatic EIS that includes all aspects of the GPT project from mining to coal burning as well as the cumulative impacts of all related coal export projects proposed for the Pacific Northwest.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kent Stoddard (#9107)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live in Whatcom County very near 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 encompass the entire transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:

NOISE: 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?

TRAFFIC PROBLEMS: 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?

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?

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?

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?

Thank you

Kent and Lois Gill (#12671)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Camp Sherman, 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.

I wonder if it is wise to export a commodity that is limited in the long run. Might we not be wiser if we retained our supply.

Keren Ganin-Pinto (#5194)

Date Submitted: 12/20/2012
Comment:
Please stop the coal train from passing through the towns of Oregon. If this passes, it will be detrimental on the well-being of the humans and the surrounding environment. Both to protect our lungs and our streams and fish, it is wise to support the world we live in by not allowing this decision to pass.

Kerin Matthews (#13179)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Port Orchard, 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 state is currently fighting to save the water quality of Puget Sound. How on earth can coal trains do anything but hurt these efforts? Coal is, and always will be very, very dirty.

Kermit Buchanan (#13354)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
We have a serious problem here in the USA. We have spent ourselves into oblivion over the past 40 years and now we have a national debt of
16 trillion going on 40 trillion dollars. The overall unfunded mandate debt is over 100 trillion dollars. We had better sell something to raise money and pay the debt or our lender, China, will own us by calling in the markers. Guess who get's to call the shots when China takes over. So is dangerous freight or being owned by China a better deal? I don't know. I'll be dead when the debt comes due big-time. I don't know what is the best route to saving our skins, but we had better figure it out.

Kerri Griffis (#10492)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Auburn, WA
Comment:
I oppose building a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and the sending of coal trains through WA State.

Since November 2012 train travel has been halted over 70 times near Everett due to rain, mud slides, and other safety issues. If passenger trains can not get through how are coal trains expected to get through. Also are the heavy coal trains damaging the tracks more then general freight trains and passenger trains. I am asking that you study these issues.

Thank you

Kerrick Mainrender (#4933)

Date Submitted: 12/17/2012
Location: Renton, WA
Comment:
Find a way to cover the cars, that won't risk combustion, or don't run them through Pugetropolis--or Bellingham, or anywhere folks might be breathing.

Kerry Chappell (#1558)

Date Submitted: 10/27/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
OCT 27th 2012
Dear Editor,
I am a local homeowner and my husband and I are contributors to our “Tax” revenue base. We believe in a new direction for Whatcom County’s business workforce, simple put; cultivate increase and a significant expansion of private companies and businesses locally. Get the people back to work by adding more employees into our local workforce and stimulating our economic growth. This is why we are in Support of the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point which will add aprox 1200 new jobs locally and will be environmentally sound, implementing Federal and State standards. And also will be increasing Whatcom County's annual Tax Revenue and stimulating a healthy economy for Whatcom County.
Kerry Chappell 733-9142
1121 Roland St.
~Bellingham

Kerry M (#13779)

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.

Why should we ruin our environment for shipments to Asia? They are the worst polluters and we shouldn't be involved with coal or fossil fuels which will cause even more pollution. Not a good idea.

Kerry O'Brien Campau (#4618)

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

Kerry, Kayoko, and Iris Canfield (#13735)

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, by polluting the air and local waterways, by harming existing businesses, by risking delaying emergency responders, and by 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 that 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. That’s a *lot* of saltwater real estate! Therefore, I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Kether Scharff-Gray (#4726)

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

Kether Scharff-Gray (#14340)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kevin Baier (#1892)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
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. 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, damaging aquatic ecosystems.

The increased tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents that will do irreparable damage to Puget Sound ecosystems. Please consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Kevin Baier
Bellingham, WA

Kevin Baier
1489 Hillspring Road
Bellingham, WA 98226

Kevin Bartoy (#1017)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Seattle, 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.

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.

In addition, the Lummi and other tribes have expressed their concern for traditional cultural properties at this location. This project is likely to have an adverse effect on those resources pursuant to Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

It is time that this project's path is slowed down and the full environmental and cultural impacts of the project are FULLY analyzed. 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 and cultural resources as well as public health, strict oversight is essential.

Sincerely,

Kevin Bartoy
1908 4th Ave N
Seattle, WA 98109-2603

Kevin Bartoy (#12538)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
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 the concerns of sovereign nations who will have their cultural resources adversely impacted by this plan. The Lummi Tribe has made their statement unequivocal and under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, you must address their concerns.

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.

Kevin Campion (#12283)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I live within a half mile from the Puget Sound shoreline and even closer to the train tracks, I work on the waters of the Salish Sea teaching marine biology and seamanship. Taking into consideration my shore and sea based perspective 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.

Kevin Chaney (#13951)

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.

Living in the southeast, and having direct experiences with coal-industry damages right here, I testify that coal is a severely dangerous and damaging product altogether. 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.

Kevin Clark (#13237)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Location: Port Townsend, 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.

Impacts, in addition to global warming pollution from coal export, include creating more traffic congestion, increasing pollution from mercury, coal dust, and diesel exhaust, likely lowering property values and greatly impacting our communities and local economies.

Kevin Cleary (#4706)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Location: Snoqualmie, 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 the Northwest region by the conflict of interest between Salmon (and Steelhead) recovery efforts and the proposed coal train routes and terminals. The entire Northwest regions watersheds are interconnected to the livelihood of the salmon. The efforts by the entire region could potentially be undermined by the accumulative pollution of railway and terminal coal dust in the waterways and groundwater. As well as the impacts of spills from train wrecks near waterways and wetlands. The proposed train routes and terminals all fall within watersheds or marine waters that have had significant local, state and federal money invested in salmon recovery. These investments, besides tax dollars, have been in changes to land use, development impacts due to clean water rules, limitations on commercial and sport fishing as well as many others laws. By allowing the known pollution impacts of this proposal, there is a conflict of interest by the significant impact to the Northwest region. A region that has spent many years, dollars and time protecting the Salmon and Steelhead, developing recovery efforts and changing our personal, business and development patters to protect our waterways and thus our own renewable natural resource.

It is my understanding that our local elected officials, under current law, are barred from considering the broad interests of the community. This is unfortunate since the impacts of coal in this proposal will be significant and throughout the region. Therefore, I urge you to fully 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 with respect to the conflict of interest noted above.

Kevin Cleary
7331 Silent Creek Ave SE
Snoqualmie, WA 98065

Kevin Colussi (#4410)

Date Submitted: 12/11/2012
Location: Helena, MT
Comment:
Evaluate, honor and uphold our constitutional rights as citizens of this great state we call home. Montana.

Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.
(2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.
(3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.

kevin cron (#10660)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: olga, wa
Comment:
I have lived on Rosario Strait for 25 years and i cannot believe that anyone would even conceive the idea to despoil this natural wonder called the San Juan Archipelago. For profit. Selling dirty energy to one of the world's most flagrant polluters. Dirty coal burning plants in China create air pollution that comes directly to America. Do these people just NOT GET IT? This is OUR HOME!! Keep the Coal Train out of San Juan County!

Kevin Darcy (#9601)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I have found that there is overwhelming evidence that the Cherry Point Gateway Pacific Terminal is a very bad idea. From the risks of chemical and fuel spills on land and in the water to the inconveniences put on traffic in communities for hundreds of miles, this project is riddled with problems. There are far better industries in which to create local jobs without investing in an antiquated industry such as coal. Thank you for your time.

Kevin Foster (#2094)

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

Kevin Hall (#2198)

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

Kevin Hilbiber (#7594)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Coal trains will pollute their paths [I live near the rail corridor and I see coal in uncovered cars, blowing in the wind as they pass under the rail bridge]; they will not be covered to maximize profits. We need to get over our addiction to profits instead, and our demand to have cars for 1. I say NO. The pollution of burning it overseas will come back to haunt us, here. The money will mean nothing when we are under water.

Kevin Jones (#11028)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Lummi Island, WA
Comment:
I live on Lummi Island, 8 Mi west of Bellingham, WA. My commute to work in Bellingham includes crossing tracks where the proposed coal trains will run. Emergency vehicles must take the same route, and for them the delay of a long coal train could make the difference between life and death for some patients.

From where I live on Lummi, trains are clearly audible as they circumnavigate Bellingham Bay. During still air or NE wind conditions, the train passages are loud enough to be annoying. Add that to the increasing air traffic, both from jets and propeller planes heading for the San Juan Islands, and there's a real noise problem. Noise is implicated in a number of health problems, a notable one being high blood pressure.

My workplace is located just over one block from the tracks where the trains will be running. I eat meals every week at an restaurant from which current train noise is disturbingly loud, both from wheels on track and diesel horns.

From what I've read, the coal will be held at the shipping terminal in large piles. What provision as been made to treat runoff of rain water percolating through these piles? What about rain on full coal cars. What happens to the water draining from those? Coal carries many soluble and toxic substances, including mercury and radioactive elements.

Coal sent to China will be burned, and eventually the pollution so-caused will blow across the Pacific to our area. I've already read that increasing clouds and rainfall in this area is partly due to condensation nuclei from Chinese dust and other pollutants drifting across the Pacific.

Diesel exhaust from both ships and trains is toxic and has been implicated in lung cancer, respiratory, and cardiac disease. Any increase in ship and train traffic simply adds to the load of toxins circulating in the air, especially during periods like the current week when the barometric pressure is high and stagnant air conditions prevail.

Kevin Jones (#12299)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Please count me and my family among the citizens who unequivocally oppose construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and the transporting of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

The adverse effects of this proposal on our community are numerous and well-documented: increased congestion and noise from more coal train traffic; pollution of the air and waterways; harm to business; potential delays for first responders; damage to aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site; increased tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents; and the escalation of potentially devastating climate change through the consumption of fossil fuels. I strongly urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

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

Kevin Mullin (#11162)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
As someone that lived in Colorado an saw all the coal trains, I want to know how do we get any traffic besides coal on the trains, this is so wrong, on so many levels, look at the soot from burning the coal.....look at the sky, how do we close out trains to normal trafffic, and make them just to take coal to china, who don't care where they get it, or how much dammage to our enviorment.......plz stop the trains, and stop the sending of burning coal to the china

Kevin O'Connor (#751)

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

Kevin Richardson (#1925)

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

Kevin Riley (#14039)

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.

A new study has found that 84% of all fish have unhealthy levels of mercury. Half of all mercury emissions in the United States come from coal-fired power plants, and a quarter of mercury released into the environment globally is from coal. Coal-fired power plants are responsible for half of all human-caused mercury emissions annually in the US. The plants released 134,365 pounds of mercury in 2006 alone! Only 8% of plants have mercury-scrubbing capabilities in place. Concerned Scientists note that “Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.” There are some 600 coal plants in the United States, and they should all be shut down on grounds of mercury pollution alone, but they also are the major contributor to global warming. They can now all quickly be replaced by solar and wind installations, with some natural gas if absolutely necessary.

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.

Kevin Watkins (#13628)

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, the argument that increasing coal exports would create more jobs overlooks the consensus: the environmental and human health costs will outweigh the paltry number of real fulltime good paying jobs by a wide margin.

Kevin Weitemier (#10813)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Corvallis, OR
Comment:
The Corvallis chapter of the Native Plant Society of Oregon would like to ensure that the impacts of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal/Custer Spur and increased coal transport along the length of its route are considered in an Environmental Impact Statement, with particular attention paid to the impact on vegetation communities, particularly in the Columbia River Gorge.

Coal dust has been shown to have several significant effects on both abiotic conditions and floral communities in eastern Oregon ecosystems. Specifically, deposition of coal dust has been shown to significantly increase soil temperature, lower pH, and alter soil moisture regimes. Additionally, there are indications of increased levels of iron, copper, zinc, sulfates, and lead on soils with dust accumulation (Spencer 1997, 2001).

Deposition of coal dust has been shown to alter floral communities: Lichen communities are significantly altered and many species, including those that fix nitrogen, are significantly less frequent on soils with coal dust relative to those without. An increase in the moss Ceratodon purpureus on soils with coal dust suggests that increased levels of metals in the soil may be driving vegetation change. Coal dust depositions may be altering vascular plant phenology. Communities with coal dust exhibited earlier germination and flowering of annuals and some perennials, and communities with dust tended to have a lower biomass of native perennials (Spencer 1997, 2001).

Finally, if coal trains increase the risk of train-caused fires, the impacts of these fires on local vegetation must be assessed.

While these effects should be considered for all vegetation along the coal routes and in the Columbia River Gorge, it is particularly important for rare plants in the Gorge including, but not limited to: Penstemon barrettiae, Sullivantia oregana, Cimicifuga elata, Ranunculus recondis, Agrostis howellii, Rotala ramosior, Fritillaria camschatcensis, Corydalis aquae-gelidae, Carex macrochaeta, Erigeron howellii, and Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii.

Thank you for your consideration,

Native Plant Society of Oregon, Corvallis Chapter
Kevin Weitemier, President

*Spencer, Sherry, and Robert Tinnin. 1997. Effects of coal dust on plant growth and species composition in an arid environment. Journal of Arid Environments. 37: 475-485.

*Spencer, Sherry. 2001. Effects of coal dust on species composition of mosses and lichens in an arid environment. Journal of Arid Environments. 49: 843-853.

kevin wolter (#3863)

Date Submitted: 12/05/2012
Location: Custer, WA
Comment:
We need to review how the number of coal trains and vessel will disrupt the people. The negative business effects of have such an undesirable process/business in the area. What is the economic cost of lost opportunity and home values/ business that will not locate to the area because of this.

kevin wolter (#3864)

Date Submitted: 12/05/2012
Location: custer, wa
Comment:
Closing valley View is a major transportation route and adding a rail shutting line will destroy the lives of people in the customer area. The noise will ruin the quality of life of people in the area.

Kevyn Jacobs (#3681)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Comment:
No coal. The environmental impact of burning coal is acidifying the oceans, and contributing to climate change.

As a species, we must stop burning coal.

For this reason alone, the GPT must be stopped. No coal.

Thank you,

Kevyn Jacobs
Bellingham, WA=

Keyaira King (#11700)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
I am a Bellingham citizen, I am 17 and I have lived here for a year. In the year that I have lived here I have grown to enjoy the culture of Bellingham, appreciate its use of green energy and recycling programs. I am writing because coal trains will negatively impact Bellingham and impact every aspect of life along the rail. I particularly would like to have the impact of train vibrations on local geology investigated. I am concerned about the effects of increased train traffic on land close to the rails; there is the possibility that this could cause erosion and weakening of the structural foundations of homes. These concerns should be investigated with regards to property values, impact on local flora and fauna, and increased risk of natural disaster (e.g. mudslides). In reading a Washington State Geology and Soils Discipline Report for a Point Defiance Bypass Project I found this information: “Soil liquefaction can result in settlement and lateral deformation of the tracks in areas where liquefiable soil is present. Liquefaction occurs when vibrations within a soil mass cause the soil particles to temporarily lose contact with one another. As a result, the soil behaves like a liquid, has an inability to support weight, and can flow down slopes (lateral spreading).” Train traffic of the type under consideration for the GTP project seems to have the potential to cause vibrations of this magnitude. Since the rail line for this project is so long, mitigation does not seem feasible. The impact of rail traffic on our local geology is an issue of major proportions, so I hope that it is given due consideration in the scoping process.

Keyaira King (#11702)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
I am a Bellingham citizen, I am 17 and I have lived here for a year. In the year that I have lived here I have grown to enjoy the culture of Bellingham, appreciate its use of green energy and recycling programs. I am writing because an increase in coal train traffic will affect life in Bellingham. Specifically, I would like the impact of coal dust on local health, agriculture, marine life, and property values to be investigated. On the website “coaltrainfacts.org” I read thatBurlington Northern Santa Fey (BNSF) estimates that each uncovered coal car loses between 500 pounds and a ton of coal dust on its trip from the mine to the port. Bellingham and Whatcom County will share an even greater share of the coal dust burden as a result of the large coal heaps at the terminal site. It is unknown how much coal dust will be released into the air, onto the land, and into the water from these massive coal piles. However, I fear that this dust will adversely impact agriculture, human and animal health, marine life, and property values in the vicinity of the terminal and the rail line. Doctors in Whatcom County have expressed concern over the impact of coal dust on the young and old, and on people with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. I am also worried about the how human health will be impacted if coal dust enters our drinking water. The severe weather that our area frequently experiences (heavy rain and wind), could potentially increase the spread of dust in our air and water ways. It also appears that efforts to contain coal dust are unproven, and thus efforts at mitigation will probably not be sufficient. Considering the wide potentially wide ranging adverse impacts of coal dust on our community, I hope that this issue will be thoroughly researched.

Khim & Waifan Sim & Kook (#2597)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Khorsian Blanc-Ridings (#9984)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am a 58 year-old woman, married, with a 17 y/o son still living at home and going to high school here on Lopez Island. My daughter and 7 y/o grandson also live on Lopez.

Concerning comment #6908 (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6908, by Carolyn Gastellum), I agree with her statement,"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)"

Carolyn develops her concerns based on this information, which are in alignment with my own. These concerns are around 1) the amount of CO2 emissions as a result of the total efforts of the process of mining the coal to burning it in China and 2) the amount of mercury and other air pollutants that are produced from coal burning in China, resulting in air-borne travel to this region, a part of which settles in our soils and on the plants we eat.

Both my daughter and I garden. Most of the vegetables we eat are raised either in our gardens or on someone's land on Lopez. We will be eating (and breathing) the pollutants resulting from the coal shipments. And we are not the only ones to do so.

I, like Carolyn, want the impacts of CO2 and mercury (among other air pollutants) studied. Please scope 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. Also, please scope the total amount of mercury and other air pollutants that would result from burning the coal that we send to China.

Khorsian Blanc-Ridings (#9998)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Lopez Island, Wa
Comment:
I am a 58 year-old woman, married, with a 17 y/o son still living at home and going to high school here on Lopez Island. My daughter and 7 y/o grandson also live on Lopez.

Concerning comment #6353 (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6353), I agree with Sara Mostad, MD when she states that,"there are many potential serious health impacts that merit close scrutiny. I request that the Environmental Impact Statement include a comprehensive and cumulative Health Impact Assessment." She continues to request that the assessment should model the air pollution coming from the diesel locomotives and ship traffic to be transporting coal through our region.

As the daughter and the sister of two physicians engaged in the fields of oncology and diagnostic radiology, I am aware of the gravity of the health problems that can be exacerbated due to increased pollutants that will be emitted from the coal transportation.

I, too, request that the Health Impact Assessment be employed in your scoping efforts.

Khorsian Blanc-Ridings (#10006)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Lopez Island, Wa
Comment:
I am a 58 year-old woman, married, with a 17 y/o son still living at home and going to high school here on Lopez Island. We have lived here for 11 years. My daughter and 7 y/o grandson also live on Lopez.

Referring to these two comments by San Olson ((http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/1567) and (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6044)), I really have nothing to add to his thorough analysis, other than my agreement.

I want the concerns that San has outlined to be scoped.

Khorsian Blanc-Ridings (#10022)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Lopez Island, Wa
Comment:
I am a 58 year-old woman, married, with a 17 y/o son still living at home and going to high school here on Lopez Island. We have lived here for 11 years. My daughter and 7 y/o grandson also live on Lopez.

These two comments --(http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/5913)
(http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/7362) -- by Gary Green and Michael Riordan focus on water quality from coal dust pollution and how marine life is impacted, particularly spawning grounds (underwater sands) as addressed by Gary. I agree with the combined comments of these two people and also request that scoping be done on the following concerns (quoting Greene):

1) how will fugitive coal particles be incorporated into natural sediments, if at all;
2) how concentrated will the particles become and what will be the toxicity to benthic organisms, especially Pacific sand lance; and
3) how far will the particles be distributed from their point of entry into the water.
All sub-tidal PSL habitats should therefore be located and mapped within close proximity to the coal-loading facilities and along the bulk carrier routes, where coal is likely to be introduced into the marine environment. Coal toxicity associated with dissolution or any other chemical processes that occur in marine and estuarine environments also need to be addressed. If potential impacts are found, how will they be mitigated?

khya rice (#10943)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I oppose coal trains and terminals in Bellingham. Please conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of proposals.

Kiekark Boones (#4120)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kim Boon (#10856)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I request that the EIS study the effects of coal dust on human health. I believe the coal dust generated in the Bellingham, WA area and other parts of the state as a result of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point will adversely affect myself, my daughters, friends, relatives and the public at large.

Please research this concern: the effects of coal dust generated by the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point. This concern includes coal dust generated by any part of the project from A-Z, from coal being transported in rail cars coal dust generated at the site itself or coal dust generated in transporting the product to China and other countries.

Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely,

Kim Boon

Kim Brooke (#12430)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
I live 21/2 miles away from this proposed project, This project will weverely effect where I live and my way of life. What I would like studied in regards to the EI scoping is
1: Blowing coal dust and particulates. what effect will this have on my pastures- I am a sheep grower x 23 years. sheep grazing and ther lambing effects of ingestion of coal dust.
2Agriculture: There has been a few studies and one is that a mint farmer is not able to wash coal dust of his mint no matter what is tried. I want a gurarantee that no blowing coal dust effects my fields- agriculture or others in the area where I buy food for ouselves or hay for my animals re Kickerville rd. bay rd area aldergrove rd W of kickerville and brown rd.
3:Noise and light pollution via the proposed site.
4: This area already has 2 refineries and an aluminum plant How much can this area sustain. I would like this part of the scoping project and taken into serious consideration. To maintain the evironmental integrity of the area there must be a buffer.
5: Shore line protection act.
6: The integrity of Lake Terrill and its preserve. Nesting of shore birds and migration etc....fish and wild life protection.
7: The cost to this vital area, is this worth the risk of never being able to replace the livelyhood of this beautiful area.
8: Wetlands, where will storm water go?
What will happen to the water table. surely an impact. Where will the water come from and how will that be sustained.
9: Final. The cost of my property, and the lively hood I have. Sheep, Ag, food security, and a sustainable way of life.

Kim Cla (#9470)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a forest hydrologist who spent my career working to improve freshwater fish habitats in Washington and Idaho. I moved to Skagit County 4 years ago, and then to Whatcom County 2 years ago. Now, I kayak, hike and bike around both counties, and greatly value the wildlife that still shares our home places. I pick blackberries on Colony Road near the tracks in Bow, and would like to continue to do this without poisoning myself with coal dust from passing trains. I regularly cross the tracks to use the waterfront parks in Bellingham, and am distressed by the prospect of trains blocking that access for long periods of time. I also spend time on the Cherry Point beaches and value the inland areas that sustain them.


Please include the following in your analysis of the effects of the proposed shipping terminal at Cherry Point and the attendant ship traffic.

 Effects of increased ship traffic (noise, habitat disturbance, water pollution) on herring in the Cherry Point area. Given that we do not understand what is happening with the herring population, how can you predict its response to a massive new terminal? You certainly cannot mitigate effects you don’t understand. By the time we understand them, it may be too late and the damage may be irreversible. In addition, what are the effects of a intensifying herring population crash on surf scoters, salmon, marine mammals, and other species that depend on herring in the Cherry Point area and the Strait of Georgia?
 How detrimental will the forecast increase in ship traffic be to orcas and other marine mammals? Will the increase in traffic, in addition to existing traffic, be the final straw that produces so much noise that marine mammals can no longer adequately communicate and find food? How many orcas will beach due to the increase in noise and water pollution?
 What are the indirect and cumulative effects of further damage to the Salish Sea marine mammal populations on the economies of surrounding counties (San Juan, Clallam, Jefferson) that benefit economically from tourists coming to see orcas and other marine mammals? I agree with the request for study submitted by Dr. Joe Gaydos (comment # 2759, 11/3/12)
 I kayak in Rosario Strait. I am really scared about the increase in large-ship traffic through Rosario and Haro Straits. I imagine orcas will be concerned about this too.

Terminal development
 How will the marsh near Gulf Road be affected by terminal development? Is the marsh important in sustaining beach habitat, and aquatic and bird species in the area? How will they be affected? Mitigation by off-site habitat replacement, if required, may not mitigate these effects at all.
 Effect of terminal development and foreseeable company actions on public access to the beach at Gulf Road. I love to walk on that beach, watching the birds and seals.

Thank you for your attention.

Kim Clarkin

Kim Clarkin (#9467)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a forest hydrologist who spent my career working to improve freshwater fish habitats in Washington and Idaho. I moved to Skagit County 4 years ago, and then to Whatcom County 2 years ago. Now, I kayak, hike and bike around both counties, and greatly value the wildlife that still shares our home places. I pick blackberries on Colony Road near the tracks in Bow, and would like to continue to do this without poisoning myself with coal dust from passing trains. I regularly cross the tracks to use the waterfront parks in Bellingham, and am distressed by the prospect of trains blocking that access for long periods of time. I also spend time on the Cherry Point beaches and value the inland areas that sustain them.


Please include the following in your analysis of the effects of the proposed shipping terminal at Cherry Point and the train traffic that would support it.

 Incremental and cumulative effects of increased train traffic through Skagit and Whatcom counties on local air quality due to dust and diesel exhaust. I hike, bike and kayak near the rail lines in the Chuckanut and Bow/Edison area, and do not want to be breathing train exhaust or coal dust.
 Effects of spills and derailments on freshwater water bodies the trains will cross or run near throughout the rail route from mines to Cherry Point. Our nation and the States are working hard to restore past damage and prevent further damage to rivers and streams from the transportation system. Trains ferrying coal for private profit should not be allowed to sabotage that extensive, expensive publicly funded work.
 Effects of increased train traffic and expanded rail lines and bridges on the fish and water-dependent species in the area traversed by the Custer spur. Great effort has been expended to restore fish runs in Terrel Creek. Can the company prevent coal dust from falling into these streams? Can it prevent spills and derailments? What effects will frequent long heavy trains have on the fish attempting to use the habitat below?
 Effects of derailments and spills on Puget Sound and the Salish Sea. The rail line runs on the shoreline in many places, and we have recently seen many derailments due to landslides south of Everett. Accidents are bound to happen. How extensive and long-lasting will the damage be to aquatic habitats and species if a derailment occurs right on the shoreline? Who will pay to clean up, repair and restore habitats and populations? To what degree is repair really possible?
 Effects of train noise and coal dust on the heron rookery just south of Bellingham near the treatment plant. Will the added disturbance affect survival and success of young herons?
 Effects of increased train traffic on public access to the waterfront at the existing and planned future access points in Bellingham. I regularly visit Marine Park in Fairhaven and Boulevard Park, and would be distressed to find them inaccessible or increasingly dangerous to get to.
 Effects of increased freight train traffic on Amtrak reliability and ability to maintain its schedule. If Amtrak schedules are deranged by coal traffic, and business is lost as travelers avoid Amtrak, will the coal trains pay for those losses? The Amtrak connection to Seattle and Vancouver is a very valuable alternative for Bellingham residents, and it seems possible Amtrak might simply give it up.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Kim Clarin

Kim Clarkin (#9472)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a forest hydrologist who spent my career working to improve freshwater fish habitats in Washington and Idaho. I moved to Skagit County 4 years ago, and then to Whatcom County 2 years ago. Now, I kayak, hike and bike around both counties, and greatly value the wildlife that still shares our home places. I pick blackberries on Colony Road near the tracks in Bow, and would like to continue to do this without poisoning myself with coal dust from passing trains. I regularly cross the tracks to use the waterfront parks in Bellingham, and am distressed by the prospect of trains blocking that access for long periods of time. I also spend time on the Cherry Point beaches and value the inland areas that sustain them.


Please include the following in your analysis of the effects of the proposed shipping terminal at Cherry Point.

Trans-Pacific air quality and global warming

 What are the expected incremental effects of burning the shipped coal on Pacific Northwest regional air quality? What are the cumulative projected air quality effects of burning this coal in addition to existing coal-burning in China? How will human health be affected? Is mitigation possible after the fact?
 What are the expected effects of burning the coal on greenhouse gases, ocean acidification, and global warming? It is not acceptable to NOT consider this in an assessment of environmental effects of the Cherry Point coal terminal. At this time, when we know how coal burning affects global climate, it would be absurd to try to avoid considering these very large-scale effects, even though many other climate-change drivers also exist. We cannot sidestep this issue---the terminal would be an additive and avoidable contribution to changes that humans and many other species may not be able to sustain. The EIS should state as clearly as is scientifically possible the incremental effect use of this terminal for coal shipments will have on global temperatures, ocean acidification, and other foreseeable effects.
o One alternative in the EIS might be building the terminal and not allowing its use for coal shipments. I’m not sure if a requirement like that is legally possible?

Economic fairness
 How will the private companies involved repay the citizens inconvenienced and perhaps sickened by the increased train and ship traffic?
 As we burn our oil and coal reserves, less will be at the disposal of future generations. It seems reasonable to presume that fossil fuels will be more and more precious in the future for uses like fabricating plastics and other materials. What are the projected effects on our future national economy of burning up high quality fossil fuels now?

Temporal and geographic scale of analysis
 Given the potential for irreversible and irretrievable damage, I think it is very important to include in this EIS the very long term effects of the potential damage and losses we may sustain. Some of these effects may involve essentially permanent losses of species and habitats.
 Who pays for restoration after the company has gone out of business? The EIS should consider the entire life cycle of the project, from its beginning to its end as well as recovery from it and restoration. We should at least be reasonably assured that recovery is possible within a humanly relevant timeframe.
 It is essential to look at effects over the entire range of geographic scales they may occur, from the Cherry Point vicinity, to the Puget Sound watershed, to the State of Washington and all the towns and areas the trains will pass through, to the Pacific Northwest airshed, to global climate and ocean water quality. There is no excuse to limit the scope of this investigation to local conditions and effects. We are part of a global ecosystem, and everybody knows it now.

Thank you for your attention.
Kim Clarkin

Kim Connor (#11404)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Bellingham, 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. This will also have an effect on my family's standard of living as well as my job, as I know families will not re-locate here after hearing of this traffic. Bellingham (and right nearby) is ALREADY home to two refineries AND an aluminum smelter. Enough!! 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 on behalf of me and my children.

Kim Des Rochers (#11362)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Eastsound, wa
Comment:
I believe that the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal is all about greed and profits, with little concern about the impacts on wildlife and people, and the terrestrial and aquatic environment that both depend on.
The proposed terminal would sit in the heart of the Salish Sea, an area of about 17,000 square kilometers. The Salish Sea is home to over 35 species of mammals, 170 species of birds, 300 species of fish, and several thousand invertebrates. Over 100 of these species are listed as endangered, threatened, of concern, or are candidates for listing for a variety of reasons. This strongly suggests that the Salish Sea ecosystem is unable to handle additional stresses such as increased marine vessel traffic, possible oil spills, increased marine-related sound/noise, and degraded habitats, all of which could potentially result from the construction and operation of the deepwater terminal. The EIS should thoroughly address these possible impacts on every species (animal and plant) that is likely to be impacted.
The potential environmental impacts of the proposed terminal, of course, actually begin at the point where the coal will be extracted, and include all points along the entire length of the rail route, to the Gateway Pacific Terminal, and on to Asia, where the coal will be burned. Therefore, the EIS should also assess the impacts of coal extraction on wildlife, people, and ecosystems in the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming. For example, the EIS should determine how the heavy metals and other pollutants associated with coal extraction will affect water quality and aquatic species, and should also examine how the removal of above-ground land and habitat in the area of the open pit mine will affect wildlife populations and migrations, endangered plant and animal species, and sensitive habitats.
It is deplorable that such a project is actually being considered. At the very least I expect a thorough and comprehensive EIS to be conducted.

Kim Des Rochers
Orcas Island

Kim Feringer (#14683)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Everson, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Kim Harmson (#11478)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
It is essential that a cumulative environmental, health and economic impact statement be carried out so that citizens and decision makers are aware of the impact the proposed coal terminals would bring. Thank you.

Kim Haustedt (#5283)

Date Submitted: 12/20/12
Comment:
Another concern I have is noise pollution. I live and work in the Lettered Streets neighborhood in Bellingham and I hear train whistles all night long! Very rarely do I receive a full, uninterrupted nights sleep.

What, if anything, will be done to address the very real issue of noise pollution? I'd be curious to know the history of train whistles. I assume it is a safety issue, but really? I'm in bed miles away! Realistically what are the chances I need to be alerted to avoid an oncoming train?!



Dr.Kim Haustedt, DC
Rhythms of Life Wellness Studio
"Innovative Health Strategies for a Changing World"

Kim Haustedt (#5284)

Date Submitted: 12/20/12
Comment:
My nephew came down to Bellingham Tuesday from Vancouver, BC. When I drove to the Amtrak station I was surprised to learn that mudslides in Everett, WA had closed the tracks and passengers would be coming in by bus. Trains running late north and southbound is nothing new.

I'm curious as to what impact additional coal trains would have on commuters as well as what plans are in place for "natural" environmental disasters like mudslides.



Dr.Kim Haustedt, DC
Rhythms of Life Wellness Studio
"Innovative Health Strategies for a Changing World"

Kim Kellems (#4987)

Date Submitted: 12/18/12
Comment:
I am writing to you to give my opinion on the proposed coal trains coming through our town, Mount Vernon Washington. Train traffic could become a nightmare, cutting our town off from the Hospital and other public services for long periods of time as the trains pass. Not only the increased train crossing closing, but the dust and spillage a coal train can cause. On top of that, the coal goes to China, where it is burned and back it comes across the Pacific to pollute the air here in the Northwest.
I understand it will bring some jobs to the area, but at what cost to the health and safety of the citizens of the area that the trains will impact. Please consider this coal proposal carefully and think how this can effect all the towns and citizens in it's path.
Sincerely,
Kim Kellems
Mount Vernon, WA

Kim Knerl (#12793)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Comment:
Whenever something like this comes about, it’s hard not to believe that minds are already made up, that the powerful big money corporations have financed decisions in their favor, and that you are just going through the legal motions to satisfy a requirement. I hope that is not the case here.
One only has to look at the scientific facts throughout history to see that coal has been damaging to environments where there has been high usage large scale mining operation, and heavy volume of transport. Currently Beijing is a prime example of the negative results from mass burning of coal and the poor air quality the people of China are experiencing is not restricted to their religion, and even if it were, they are human beings we should show equal care for.
We are talking about a 19th century power source, a product that will inevitably be phased out, however, there are those who want to profit as much as they can before letting go of this old impractical technology and invest in a healthier alternative. To contribute to holding on to past methods of producing power is to be a part of restricting progression into a healthier, more sustainable future, free of the know hazards of burning fossil fuels.
There are many people along the way who are going to suffer the consequences should you decide in favor of the coal business. Their numbers might not sound like much to you, but what is one life worth? Should you choose to side with the coal industry, then it is you who has placed the value on the lives of those who will suffer. Are you ready to do that?
Respectably submitted,
Kim M. Knerl

Kim Lehmberg (#3674)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
Nov 30, 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, negatively impacting property values, and exacerbating climate change. Further, with the other proposals for additional terminals in Washington and Oregon, there will be regional impacts that must be addressed. Therefore I urge you to conduct a Programmatic EIS covering the cumulative impacts of all of the proposed terminals and the accompanying increase in train traffic.

Sincerely,

Kim Lehmberg
11727 36th Ave SE
Everett, WA 98208-5326

Kim Lehmberg (#5305)

Date Submitted: 12/21/2012
Comment:
I request that the Co-lead agencies address the following issues in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Programmatic EIS addressing cumulative impacts
Based on the regional plan for multiple terminals in the northwest, a programmatic EIS should be required addressing the cumulative impacts of all of the proposed terminals and related development. The geographic area to be studied should include jurisdictions and natural resources along all of the railroad routes as well as the marine environment of Puget Sound. Additionally, due to the impact of the burning of the coal in Asia, global climate change must also be addressed. The EIS should take into account the entire life-cycle impact of the coal that would be shipped through, including the strip mining, and the carbon emissions produced from transport and by burning it in Asia.


Local impacts to be addressed include:
• Local traffic and congestion at railroad crossings.
• Increased noise and vibration associated with additional trains. This will not only affect people and properties that are near the tracks but also potentially aquatic wildlife.
• Impact to passenger and other commodity rail service.
• Impact of increased potential of toxic spills along the tracks due to train derailment. Landslides are common, and one recently caused a derailment in December.
• Impact to eelgrass habitat and the DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve in the project vicinity.
• Impact to water quality resources including wetlands, rivers and streams not only in the project vicinity but along the rail lines. Note that construction of the terminal and rail spur is expected to impact at least 160 acres of wetland and two streams. The project proponent states that these will be “replaced,” however there may not be an area where replacement of that amount of wetlands and streams is possible. These wetlands and streams drain into the Aquatic Reserve, and the loss of these wetlands could very negatively affect the Reserve. Any amount of “replacement,” if it doesn’t provide the function and value of what is existing, would not mitigate the impacts to the Reserve.
• Impact to endangered species including salmon and orcas. These species rely on the fish that are spawned in the eelgrass beds.
• Impact to local fisheries and fishermen (see above).
• Impact to water quality resources including the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, and the Columbia and Skykomish Rivers.
• Impact to financial resources of state and local governments (and ultimately the taxpayers) in having to fund infrastructure improvements.
• Impact to financial resources of local governments and property owners due to decrease in property values for those properties located near the train tracks.
• The EIS should conduct a comparison of promised permanent local jobs created by the project as opposed to those jobs in the fishing, other resource and tourism industries that would be negatively impacted by the project.

Alternatives:
• No Project Alternative: Contrary to some thinking, it is not a given that the coal will be shipped through Canada if it doesn’t come through Washington and Oregon. BC does not have the capacity and it is doubtful that Canada would want to invest in the infrastructure to ship U.S. coal. The EIS should give a clear picture of what would happen with the coal if it doesn’t come through Cherry Point.

• Reduce the size and scope of the project(s).


Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Kim Lehmberg (#7589)

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

Kim Lehmberg (#7592)

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

Kim Lehmbers (#7458)

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

Kim Lenmberg (#7587)

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

Kim Lund (#8172)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
My name is Kimberley Lund. I was born and raised in Bellingham and returned over 14 years ago raise my own family.

I respectfully request that the co-agencies consider the following real and foreseeable concerns during the GPT's EIS process:

1) How will the goals of existing Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Management Plan be assured during both:

i) Daily operations of the continents largest coal export facility.
ii) The extreme 6 sigma catastrophic-type events that eventually will occur over decades of operation. As a chemical engineer, I understand that operational procedures and overall project design requirements should give careful thought to minimize such eventualities and planning just for 99% of likely operational conditions is not enough. A six-sigma event would be truly catastrophic for the marine reserve ecosystem.

In 2000, the DNR recognized the need to protect the significant environmental resource of aquatic lands at Cherry Point and designated those state-owned lands not already under a lease agreement, as the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. To ensure long-term environmental protection, DNR and its partners established a 90-year-management plan for the area, outlining specific goals that will protect the health and unique aquatic environment within Cherry Point.

How will progress towards these goals be monitored? What feedback systems will be designed and implemented to insure progress towards the marine reserve's goals? Who will pay for implementing and monitoring such systems?

2) What will the impacts on Cherry Point herring be from the GPT's daily operations and a six-sigma catastrophic type event? Populations of the Cherry Point herring, once the most abundant herring species in Washington state waters, have plummeted in the last 30 years, declining by 90 percent.

Cherry Point herring are a unique population of Pacific herring that spawn on the shoreline north of Bellingham, and a keystone in the food chain for many marine animals including Chinook salmon and orcas. Some two thirds of the diet of local Chinook salmon relies on these herring. (2012, Personal communication, Barry Wenger, retired, WA Dept of Ecology)

The herring's distinct spawning location within the Straits of Georgia in Puget Sound has reproductively isolated them from other Puget Sound herring populations, making Cherry Point herring the most genetically divergent species of herring in Washington and GPT operations will likely have a real and foreseeable impact on the herring.

3) What would be the impact to recreational boaters from GPT vessel traffic? My family enjoys many summer weekends on our boat, taking in the natural beauty of the San Juans and the native wildlife. Additional congestion from GPT tanker traffic and other proposed export facilities in the Northwest and Canada increases navigational risks for both recreational boaters and the likelihood of a grounding or collision between larger vessels.

4) What will be the underwater noise impacts from GPT vessel traffic? This particular foreseeable impact is unmitigatable and likely to cause considerable stress on vulnerable marine mammal species within the Salish Sea including our beloved and protected Orca population. Please analyze this impact.

5) What will the impacts on both recreational and commercial fisheries be from the GPT's daily operations and a six-sigma catastrophic type event?In particular, what will be the impacts to the Lummi Nation fisheries?

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.

Kim Lund (#8174)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
My name is Kimberley Lund. I was born and raised in Bellingham and returned over 14 years ago raise my own family.

I respectfully request that the co-agencies consider the following real and foreseeable concerns during the GPT's EIS process:

1) How will the goals of existing Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Management Plan be assured during both:

i) Daily operations of the continents largest coal export facility.
ii) The extreme 6 sigma catastrophic-type events that eventually will occur over decades of operation. As a chemical engineer, I understand that operational procedures and overall project design requirements should give careful thought to minimize such eventualities and planning just for 99% of likely operational conditions is not enough. A six-sigma event would be truly catastrophic for the marine reserve ecosystem.

In 2000, the DNR recognized the need to protect the significant environmental resource of aquatic lands at Cherry Point and designated those state-owned lands not already under a lease agreement, as the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. To ensure long-term environmental protection, DNR and its partners established a 90-year-management plan for the area, outlining specific goals that will protect the health and unique aquatic environment within Cherry Point.

How will progress towards these goals be monitored? What feedback systems will be designed and implemented to insure progress towards the marine reserve's goals? Who will pay for implementing and monitoring such systems?

2) What will the impacts on Cherry Point herring be from the GPT's daily operations and a six-sigma catastrophic type event? Populations of the Cherry Point herring, once the most abundant herring species in Washington state waters, have plummeted in the last 30 years, declining by 90 percent.

Cherry Point herring are a unique population of Pacific herring that spawn on the shoreline north of Bellingham, and a keystone in the food chain for many marine animals including Chinook salmon and orcas. Some two thirds of the diet of local Chinook salmon relies on these herring. (2012, Personal communication, Barry Wenger, retired, WA Dept of Ecology)

The herring's distinct spawning location within the Straits of Georgia in Puget Sound has reproductively isolated them from other Puget Sound herring populations, making Cherry Point herring the most genetically divergent species of herring in Washington and GPT operations will likely have a real and foreseeable impact on the herring.

3) What would be the impact to recreational boaters from GPT vessel traffic? My family enjoys many summer weekends on our boat, taking in the natural beauty of the San Juans and the native wildlife. Additional congestion from GPT tanker traffic and other proposed export facilities in the Northwest and Canada increases navigational risks for both recreational boaters and the likelihood of a grounding or collision between larger vessels.

4) What will be the underwater noise impacts from GPT vessel traffic? This particular foreseeable impact is unmitigatable and likely to cause considerable stress on vulnerable marine mammal species within the Salish Sea including our beloved and protected Orca population. Please analyze this impact.

5) What will the impacts on both recreational and commercial fisheries be from the GPT's daily operations and a six-sigma catastrophic type event?In particular, what will be the impacts to the Lummi Nation fisheries?

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.

Kim Lund (#9744)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I am lifelong Bellingham resident and cherish my home’s close proximity to the Chuckanut Bay Pocket Estuary and Beach, commonly referred to as Mud Bay. I watch the trains passing over the waterfront via the trestle just before the tunnel at Clark’s Point.

I am concerned about the very real possibility of decreased property values as a result of increased coal train freight traffic. The 18 additional trains a day required to service GPT operations would more than double existing train traffic levels on the rail line through my community. A 130% increase to current baseline rail traffic is exceptional and far exceeds what property owners near a rail line would reasonably expect to incur with normal market fluctuations. A recent analysis by The Eastman Company, of Seattle, WA determined that for properties located north of Everett, the impacts of GPT traffic on single-family residences in close proximity to the BNSF tracks could be considerable: “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.” My family’s residence is precisely among the most vulnerable to future decreases in market value. I therefore request that the following be studied:

• What is the anticipated impact of GPT freight traffic on property values to homes along the rail line?
• What is the associated decline in the value of the City of Bellingham and other impacted municipalities’ tax base?
• What measures could be implemented to lessen these impacts? How would homeowners be compensated for such losses?

In addition to my concerns about decreases in property values and the local tax base, I am also troubled about the immediate, real, and foreseeable impacts of train noise in my community and other communities along the rail line.

• What would this increase in train traffic mean for the level of train noise from horns, screeching and rumbling in our neighborhoods, particularly for the residents living adjacent to or in close proximity to the tracks?
• What are the potential sleep disturbances and or other negative health impacts that may be associated with this increase in train traffic?

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.

Kim Lund

Kim McClees (#1521)

Date Submitted: 10/24/12
Location: Deer Harbor, WA
Comment:
see attached

Kim Potts (#7266)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Location: Three Forks, MT
Comment:
Dear Mr. Perry:

I live in a rural area, already far from emergency help. The proposed increase in coal train traffic would add at least ten miles to the route of an emergency vehicle reaching my home.

2012 saw the worst drought and heat ever. We were under evacuation order for a wildfire which came within a mile of our house. We were saved this time when the wind changed direction at the last minute. A month later we were threatened when a fire started from a running horse whose shoe struck a rock in the pasture. Coal burning is contributing to this dangerous situation. It is time to eliminate coal as a fuel not facilitate burning more.

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?



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,


Kim Potts

Kim Rice (#9675)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
I live in both Seattle and Friday Harbor and I'm horrified by the prospect of the new Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal which will negatively impact lives every step along the way from its being mined in the western US to its being burned in Asia. As a Seattleite I'm concerned about snarled traffic from all those additional freight cars and as a San Juan Islander I'm most concerned about the environmental impacts of all those ships laden with coal on our pristine environment. But as a mother and grandmother I am most concerned of all, for I know that unless we have the wisdom to shift away NOW from fossil fuel, especially coal, our planet will become more and more inhospitable and ultimately will no longer support life. Why do we doubt the integrity of the vast majority of scientists who "believe" in climate change (as they do in gravity), when the "science" behind climate change denial is funded by the fossil fuel industry?

Kim Rutty (#13989)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
Army Corps, please tread carefully and slowly on our common environment. Business is not always the answer!

Kim Secunda (#1461)

Date Submitted: 10/26/2012
Location: Eastsound , WA
Comment:
I live on Orcas island with my young son, we own a home here and have lived in the islands since he was one year old, he just got a kayak for his 16th birthday. We are deeply appreciative of our place here on the planet. We cherish the nature around us and acknowledge our place and responsibility; evidence of cause and effect are amplified on an island.
We both are oiled wildlife responders, and regularly attend IOSA trainings with our inter-island team of friends and neighbors. The day of the local hearing we will, ironically, be in HAZWOPER training in Friday Harbor. We spend the day learning how to handle hazardous chemicals. Ironic. We will try and fit in both. Our treatment protocol will now be including what to do with a bird, mammal, starfish, nudibranch or other creature suffering from coal spill; along with treatment for tanker phenols and the like. We are ill equiped for the scope a threat like this transport imposes.
I ask that you make public record in this scoping document the protocol for such a spill, including cost. In cost, consider and detail economic, social, health, psycho-spiritual, legal and political debits, long and short term.

I request that there be scoping on the effects of coal tanker traffic and spill specifically on turbidity and the subsequent cascade of ecological fallout on aquatic flora and fauna .
Include information on the damages of coal silt on eelgrass surfaces. Spell out chemical impacts.
Address egg laying substrate and photosynthesis interference.
Also provide recovery prognosis.
Remember that eel grass is the prairie of the sea, remember the dust bowl, Exxon Valedez, remember that eel grass is a protected species, and that we islanders love and depend on the earth here.

Most sincerely,
K. Secunda
BA Zoology,
LMP, CNA
COASST surveyor
IOSA spill responder
beachwatcher and mother

Kim Secunda (#2404)

Date Submitted: 11/06/2012
Comment:
In you scoping I think it will be wise for you to include the data that shows the projected reproductive viability of our resident Orca population, and how you proposal intends to share the ecosystem with such an attenuated creature and do no harm. Please do the homework and see that the reproductive potential of this population is severely limited. How can you guarantee they will not be wiped out? The risks inherent in accident and spill in the short term and in climate damages in the long term are potentially fatal for our local population. I request that you show us the math than can explain away this very real fear.
Also include an explaination of plans you have in place to avoid vessel strikes on Marine mammals? Are you aware of the 10 knots rule? Will it be observed? What do you propose to do in the event of injury or death to marine mamals? Who pays? are you equipped? In your scoping it is our due that you acknowledge and detail the realities and unmitigatable aspects of this inevitability, and what you intend to do about it.
As one of over 100 marine naturalist trained through the Whale Museum in Friday Harbor- we here are well aware of the dangers your proposal imposes. Many of us know the resident orca family tree by heart. We know who is who and all the " "begats" and potential "begetting, it is not a hopeful picture even at best.
How are you expecting to manage your plan when there are species, endangered and not, are protected by the 10 knots rule?
What plans for vessel policing enforcement will be in effect and who pays for this ? How will that work in a transboundry model? In international waters?
Most likely will be most enforced by Canada, if not yet by USA, and here we will work to make it so.
Please address the above in the EIS

See and include in the EIS October 27th " Whales For The Killing " CBC.CA

Heavy large vessel traffic has no place in the Salish Sea.

kim Secunda (#3473)

Date Submitted: 11/28/2012
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
REQUEST
In scoping this project please cover impacts and feasibility of mitigations of wave and wake action from tankers and attending vessels on the shore line. Scouring, erosion, substrate deposition disturbance, turbidity and depth modifications and the impacts on spawning and forage substrates are due analysis. Include specifically the short and long term impacts to the specialized features of our many pocket beaches and characteristic redd substrates. Explain compatibility with Salmon Initiative mandates and tribal policy. Provide cost analysis and funding sources for mitigations and damages to forage fish loss and food chain disruption in an ecosystem that supports multiple endangered and federally protected species and shorelines.

Kim Secunda (#3639)

Date Submitted: 11/30/2012
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
In the EIS please include plans and funding for Emergency Response appropriate to the scale of your proposal.
At this time the nearest Coast Guard Station is in Bellingham. Need for EMT and Response Teams will be greatly increased. What is the standard Emergency response infrastructure required to accomodate vessel traffic density on the scale you presume? Please explain the how, who, where, and who pays for the realistic and effective short and long term management of accident and disaster that is an immanent eventuality here in the Salish sea, especially given this increased use. Doubtless you are aware of the small scale of our EMT and Spill response capabilities.

Our country has a dismal response & remediation track record at this point . Exxon Valdez disaster is a permanent scar. The Gulf Spill, Katrina, and most recently hurricane Sandy are evidence of the weak safety net and over extended risk taking America now blithely pursues. Public confidence is eroded and our fears are justified. Your proposal must assume acountability. The EIS must describe how you intend to be acountable. You must provide appropriate infrastructure; provide details of this in the EIS.
Efforts to improve Emergency response are in the works and your compliance to the new and improved standards is required. The transboundry components on all levels, not just the Emergency Response level must be spelled out as you are aware. Address this too .
Logistics of U.S. and Canadian agencies interfacing with out of State imports and Asian owned property is a tall order. In an emergency this will be quite the challenge. Monitoring and litigation will have special considerations.
There will be emergencies.
What will that look like here for all of us? For us in the islands?
Explain to the American Public how you intend to avert and mitigate emergency incidents. Historically there is a record of failure. How will this be different?

Kim Secunda (#7374)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
The last time we flew through Hong Kong it was so smoggy that we could not see the airport from the runway, could barely, and only briefly, see the the city. My friends and family who travel there also experience this dense shroud of constant smog. Look at the air quality score there and you will see how awful it is. It is unethical to damage others and especially heinous to profit from harming others. It is morally irresponsible as it is not only our air quality we will be harming but Asia's. They have problems as it is, and are setting themselves up for a serious fall. I would rather we not be a part of it.

The export of fossil fuels to Asia is a very unwelcome proposition. Many people still take issue with doing business with China due to their human rights breeches. The Canadians importing Chinese miners does not sit well there, and will not go over well in the USA. The Idle No More movement will continue to take hold and will influence this issue in a deeper way that some may presently be aware of. Consider these points in your plan.

Air pollution is famously difficult to address in courts, do you have the legal and financial ability to follow through on managing the inevitable chemical trespass problems this Export Plan will present? In an international arena with multi national players? Wow. Seems very rash. Please show us how you plan to do this in your report and include both short and long range mitagations. Include who pays and how much and for how long.

I remember very clearly how it felt when my 13 year old son asked me " Mom where are we?" I felt fear for him. We could scarcely see in the fog of yellow smog. We stayed in the airport for our long layover. I am not saying it will be that way here- it may be but it will be invisible, worse in a way. And it will be evident the scum and dust like at the marina and beach homes just north of here. It will mean asthma attacks and all the other cascade of ailments that come with this. From the mines to the air in Asia and back here again, you will have to track and show us the entire pattern and its repercussions.

I am in strong support of Dr. Winer's letter of the 7 TH of January and second all his requests. I have seen the video of the silly air quality monitors on the coast North of here, by other tanker loading sites, monitors that are some how supposed to serve us and I have seen also what passes for protective monitoring in Appalachian mining towns and that is not acceptable here. We cannot afford to take the risks to the environment here as the Salish Sea is a globally significant ecological system, we intimately know our place in these islands are truly aware of our connectivity and will not be tolerant of harm.

Please do as Mr. Winer asks and provide quantification from all the chemical pollutants in the high spatial resolution manner which he refers to. Do not proceed with the Shipping plan when you see that the pollutant numbers will be dangerous and damaging. I highly doubt this harm will be mitigatable, and you know you must demonstrate that it is. Please include this in you scope report the intangibles- the impacts on moral hygiene, patriotism, trust, clear conscious. Do not sell the future to buy the present.

Honestly,
K. Secunda

Kim Secunda (#8815)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
In the EIS be sure to include a local study of LIGHT POLLUTION
We live in a flyway here in the San Juan's, and many of us are avid birders. There is a vibrant, active bird research history here. Some of the birds on these local migration routes are formally At Risk, Listed, etc. and already suffer from the existing industrial light and other light pollution.
From this shore i see the glow, and glare and worry for the birds that are trying to track home in this.The impact on migratory birds needs to be scoped, water fowl habits will especially be disrupted as they nest, flock and and raft up around here. Non migratory birds will also be harmed by constant light impacts. Assess them too.
It is not only birds that will suffer, but also the other impacts to the marine flora and fauna need to be addressed. Show data that is locally relevant in the EIS.
Will the tankers that line up at the south end of Lopez and at Cherry point be lit up? Of course. Tell us how this effects us; the all inclusive Us; like kelp, seal haul-outs,rock fish raptor nests... The circadian rhythm will be damaged, there is plenty of data on light pollution, but I would like to see BAS, site specific, local data generated and included. Remember, many of these creatures are mapped, tracked, and shown off from our local whale watch an kayak tours to people from all over the world. Rhinoceros auklets, Puffins, porpoise pinto abalone, and more will be harmed form this proposed. The whole world is watching as the saying goes. We do not run our touring companies up to the dismal refineries that lace the shores West of here.
We are very Place centric in the islands, this is not expendable resource territory, messing it up is not an option.
When I look out, or up, from these island shores at night i do not see that the existing industries- especially the fossil fuel companies, have, presently, any awareness or responsible behavior regarding light pollution.
For scoping show both, At sea and On Shore, what the impacts of Light Pollution are on the inland waters.


Kim Secunda
COASST - Coastal Observation And Seabird Survey Team member
Orcas Island

Please refer to and include the 2009-2010 COASST Report
see the charts and maps, have empathy, think like a bird=
This proposal is a Bad idea.
I have yet to meet anyone who is in favor of this, on or off island.

Kim Secunda (#9929)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
Your proposal and all of the like disastrous proposals of its kind that are being shoved on the west coast of the Americas are unlawful.

This is the link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Show in the EIS how you expect to stay in accord with this law if you proceed with the Cherry Point desecration and subsequent fallout.

The mental anguish and moral indignation we suffer now at the thought of this proposal- Read the comments that we have written here- are already in contempt of good sense and basic rights.
Stop wasting our money and tears.
We say No
We are in solidarity with First Nations, our kids and grand parents all the creatures of land sea and air and spirit.
No. We will not let you hurt yourselves, others, or us.
No way
Wake up please.
Like Irmgard from Lopez says in the comments-
Do you have a conscience?
I think you need to scope that. Go Get a conscience, stop playing greedy or dumb, wasting OUR money & time on archaic poisonous fossil fuels and start over.
Read this EIS scoping response and see our hearts are aflame. Drop the plan. We need good to be done, not harm.

Kim Secunda (#11110)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
Today i am reading Janet Aldertons' impressive and seriously important letter about endocrine disruption potential associated with the CPT proposal and wish to echo her concerns and press you to do due diligence on the subject.
I am trying to think of something to write about , tonight, the last night for comments, that has not been covered yet, something left unscoped. All i can think of is the South end of Lopez that is victim to awful jet noise,especially with the new louder jets. Please include data on the impacts of the vessel noise combined with aircraft noise. The tankers will be stacking up there off the south end where the long house used to be, where we used to gather kelp, they will be thrumming, and the fighter jets screaming. And the marine mammals will be yelling, spending precious energy trying to speak to one another over the din. Scope that.
King told us:
"We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear. That old law of an 'eye for an eye" leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing. peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal."


I also read the letter from Kate Bowers of Bow and have been listening to some mind boggling conversations about global finance, from the who -is- who, follow- the- money thinkers. They all seem spot on, know a spade is a spade, and how outrageous and suspect this project you are considering is.
I feel proud to be friends and neighbors with such an intelligent fair and just minded pool of people.
Today , Martin Luther King Day, I watched Stanley Nelsons FREEDOM RIDERS documentary. I am again reminded of the importance and fragility of freedom. Again here in this bullying plan, the "better thans" richer, bigger, power positioned, (mega multi-national corporate pirates that are behind this project) are exploiting the expendables.
My family picked cotton, they were part of the Civil Rights Movement and worked for and earned freedom, my grandfather gave his life, my uncle his health, in war for American ideals. None of us take this freedom for granted and cherish our Civil Rights Protections Insured by Kennedy. I feel that your plan and the plan for all the fossil by products is destructive and should be dropped . It is a threat to our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tell us how realistic this plan is, the risks are not mitgatable, too financially insecure and wasteful during a time of drastic need.

Kimbal Sundberg (#11573)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached letter with EIS Scoping Comments from the San Juan County Salmon Technical Advisory Group.
Attached Files:

Kimber Langton (#10695)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Kimber Langton. I'm an educator, mom, daughter and wife. I've lived in Bellingham for 38 years, and plan to do so for the rest of my life. Like so many others, one of the things I value most about the amazing area in which I live is the Puget Sound/gateway to the Pacific. While I have numerous concerns re the Gateway Pacific Terminal, I'd like to address one area in particular - marine safety. I concur with the comments made by San Olson (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6044).
Safety issues to be studied must 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 from GPT would follow a route through the Aleutian Islands where most go through the Unimak Pass, on to the South China Sea. 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. ALL POTENTIAL INCREASES IN THE NUMBERS OF VESSELS CALLING AT WA AND BC PORTS, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT MAY BE ADDED IF PROPOSED TERMINALS ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER ARE PERMITTED must be studied. The current VTRA does NOT address impacts beyond the Strait of Juan de Fuca - this is very wrong.

Unimak Pass is an area of great concern, also, as well as all areas along the travel routes that could be devasted by a collision, grounding, etc. Spillage of fuel/cargo could be catastrophic.

Thanks,

Kimber Langton

Kimberly Belleville (#14621)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Tacoma, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kimberly Cancelosi (#4521)

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

Kimberly Collmer (#964)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Lakewood, 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. I am from the Northwest. It is my home as is it the home of all the wildlife from the region.

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. Very strict!!!!

Sincerely,

Kimberly Collmer
9318 Maple Ave SW
Lakewood, WA 98499-2135

Kimberly Hurtle (#12917)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Helena, MT
Comment:
Just say no to fossil fuels. It was the time 40 years ago to demand alternative forms of energy. We just don't learn. Time to put our health and the health of the planet first. We shouldn't be exporting coal or shipping to other US sites. We need to protect Montana, Idaho, and Washington from these coal shipments.

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.

kimberly knutsen (#4033)

Date Submitted: 12/06/2012
Location: portland, OR
Comment:
This is unsafe to the citizens of Portland and environmentally unsound.

Kimberly Koehler (#13159)

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, 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.

Please don't let the coal companies ruin the majestic Pacific Northwest with their polluting coal trains. Please don't contribute to global warming by allowing tons of coal to be shipped to China. The millions of Americans who live in the Pacific Northwest will have to breathe the air that has been dirtied by coal burning. This is such a no-brainer. OF COURSE there will be a negative environmental impact. To quote Gregory Peck in a speech he made to the jury
at the end of "To Kill a Mockingbird": "In the name of
God, do your duty."

Kimberly Larson (#450)

Date Submitted: 10/04/12
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.

Kimberly Larson

Kimberly Larson (#12053)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
While I work for an organization that works for practical solutions to global warming, I am a Seattle, WA resident and parent that is deeply concerned of the impacts coal export would bring upon our planet, our regional identity and livelihood, local economic vitality (not just rail-line business corridors, but industries already feeling the impacts of climate change like the oyster growers and the ski industry). I am a baseball and basketball fan concerned about what coal train traffic would mean for our stadiums (when I took my son to a game last summer, we counted two coal trains go by during the game). I am an art-lover and fish fan wondering what coal trains would mean for the Seattle Art Museum and the Aquarium. I am a

In the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement, I request that the three agencies look at the significant impacts that coal export would mean for our communities, region and climate.

Significant is defined in WAC 197-11-794 as:
(1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.

The EIS scope should include the pollution impacts of increased mining in the Powder River Basin, the economic impacts from rail competition with passenger and other export commodities like wheat, the health impacts from increases in coal dust and diesel emissions from more coal train traffic (coal trains, being that much heavier than other freight trains, require more diesel engine per train). The EIS scope should look at the impacts of increased train congestion on local neighborhoods and businesses where their access would then be blocked or inhibited. The EIS should include the impacts from increased tanker traffic in the Salish Sea and off our coast. The EIS should investigate the combustibility of Powder River Basin coal and would that could mean for the communities near Cherry Point with smoldering coal piles. The EIS should look at the contributions of burning up to 48 million tons of coal/year for both the contribution to climate pollution and how that violates SEPA and the increases in mercury pollution and what the means for our region’s health. The agencies should conduct a separate Health Impact Assessment (if one was done for the 520 bridge, it should be done for this).

In the final EIS, you should offer a "no build" or "no terminal" option.

Kimberly Lynn (#11923)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am significantly concerned about possible adverse effects of the development of the Cherry Point terminal and the proposed dramatically increased coal traffic through Bellingham (and the rest of the state).
I am most concerned about potential adverse human health effects, and the potential adverse environmental effects (especially to air and water quality) that might cause them. I am concerned about adverse effects to the quality of life in Bellingham that increased train traffic and the transportation of coal through the city might cause.
I am also quite concerned about potential adverse effects of the terminal (construction and operation) on marine life, and how that might affect both human health (in fish consumption) and the local commercial fishing industry.

Kimberly Nala Walla (#13332)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
Dear Washington Department of Ecology,


Please accept these comments about the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project located at Cherry Point, WA.


After listening to President Barack Obama's Inaugural speech today, it is even clearer that we, both as US citizens, as well as citizens of the beautiful State of Washington, and planet Earth, ought to make a serious commitment to refuse any projects not based on renewable energy. To go ahead with coal plants in WA (or anywhere else for that matter) would not only be a shirking of our responsibilities to safeguard our precious planet--which has become increasingly small in this era of global commerce and industry--but also would effectively be a decision to bequeath a toxic and dangerous world to our children.


It has been said that the "Environmental Impact" of this project is as yet unknown. But this is untrue: the Terminal at Cherry Point is assured to do grievous harm at every stage of the project, both initially in the extraction and transportation, but especially at the end point, as the whole intent is to BURN BILLIONS OF TONS OF COAL.


How can anyone rationally suggest that such immense mining, transporting, and burning will not significantly "impact" our environment, both globally and locally? What policymakers among us would choose to further pollute this world, after so much damage has already been done? The ONLY ethical choice is to take a stand against this project, sending a clear message to those (few) entities who would profit from it: a new era has arrived, one in which the short-term corporate benefit will no longer trump the health and will of our people and planet.


I have spent some time reviewing the comments submitted about this project, made by concerned citizens like you and me, and they are OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST this project. The time is long overdue for policymakers to actually represent the will of the people, and stop kowtowing to the "interests" of corporate and political power.


Yes, an Environmental Impact Study should be done, but EIS or no EIS, we all intuitively know that the best decision for the "environment" is to keep this coal in the ground, not burn it! Any elementary school student could tell you that. We are certainly not dependent upon an EIS for our common sense.

Policymakers, I ask you, and our unborn children ask you, TO STAND WITH THE WILL AND THE WISDOM OF THE PEOPLE and put a stop to this terminal before it does any more damage.


Signed, your fellow inhabitant of this lovely planet,


Kimberly Nala Walla
NORDLAND, WA

Kimberly Rue (#3272)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Comment:
See attached
Attached Image:

Kimberly Walla (#10636)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Nordland, WA
Comment:
Dear Washington Department of Ecology, 

Please accept these comments about the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project located at Cherry Point, WA. 

After listening to President Barack Obama's Inaugural speech today, it is even clearer that we, both as US citizens, as well as citizens of the beautiful State of Washington, and planet Earth, ought to make a serious commitment to refuse any projects not based on renewable energy. To go ahead with coal plants in WA (or anywhere else for that matter) would not only be a shirking of our responsibilities to safeguard our precious planet--which has become increasingly small in this era of global commerce and industry--but also would effectively be a decision to bequeath a toxic and dangerous world to our children. 

It has been said that the "Environmental Impact" of this project is as yet unknown.  But this is untrue:  the Terminal at Cherry Point is assured to do grievous harm at every stage of the project, both initially in the extraction and transportation, but especially at the end point, as the whole intent is to BURN BILLIONS OF TONS OF COAL.  

How can anyone rationally suggest that such immense mining, transporting, and burning will not significantly "impact" our environment, both globally and locally? What policymakers among us would choose to further pollute this world, after so much damage has already been done? The ONLY ethical choice is to take a stand against this project, sending a clear message to those (few) entities who would profit from it:  a new era has arrived, one in which the short-term corporate benefit will no longer trump the health and will of our people and planet.

I have spent some time reviewing the comments submitted about this project, made by concerned citizens like you and me, and they are OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST this project.  The time is long overdue for policymakers to actually represent the will of the people, and stop kowtowing to the "interests" of corporate and political power. 

Yes, an Environmental Impact Study should be done, but EIS or no EIS, we all intuitively know that the best decision for the "environment" is to keep this coal in the ground, not burn it!  Any elementary school student could tell you that. We are certainly not dependent upon an EIS for our common sense.

Policymakers, I ask you, and our unborn children ask you, TO STAND WITH THE WILL AND THE WISDOM OF THE PEOPLE and put a stop to this terminal before it does any more damage. 

Signed, your fellow inhabitant of this lovely planet, 

Kimberly Nala Walla
NORDLAND, WA

Kimi West (#4252)

Date Submitted: 12/10/2012
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
I live in the Ferndale/Bellingham. I enjoy the access that we have to the present parks in Whatcom County. I've heard that access to Boulevard Park in Bellingham could be limited with additional trains and/or tracks. I am disabled and people like me and others will not have access to the park. Please study the effects that increased rail traffic and tracks will have on pedestrian access to Boulevard Park and all Whatcom County Park. For some people their only access to recreation is the park system. I concerned that this would make Boulevard Park and other Whatcom County parks unusable.

Kimie Gill (#2880)

Date Submitted: 11/10/12
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Comment:
As a former Washington state resident with cherished memories of it's pristine lakes, forests, streams and spectacular views across Puget Sound, and the waters off Fidalgo Island, I must voice my concerns about the state government's plans to transport coal in rail cars to ports like Bremerton where the coal will then be shipped to foreign countries such as China. Puget Sound is still full of life, a marine habitat where orcas breach the waters, giant pacific octopus make their home, and salmon start their journey to their home waters. When I go back to visit the state of Washington I want to see a still intact eco-system from the site of Chief Seattle's grave. I certainly don't want to see waters that are increasingly polluted from toxic coal residue and oil from bilge water as a result of heavier industrial activites in the area due to the coal industry's incursions by rail and ships into this spectacular region. I urge you to reconsider any plan that would allow for the transport of coal on rails through Washington state. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Kimie Gill

Kip Kip Folker (#9123)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Sandpoint, ID
Comment:
The trail of coal dust through out Sandpoint, ID area will be unacceptable and dangerous to not only human life, but also fish and wildlife in the surrounding areas.

kira aryss (#3224)

Date Submitted: 11/19/2012
Comment:
The multiple human & natural environmental impacts as listed above are all indicators that this is a detrimental project. It is also unmindful of the contributions to global warming and the negative US economic impacts in dealing with China.

Please consider the micro environmental impacts such as coal dust and the macro environmental impact of global warning and do not approve this proposal.

Thnak you.

Kira Taylor (#5069)

Date Submitted: 12/14/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kirk Bentley (#6575)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Comment:
I am adamantly opposed to running coal trains through Washington State to facilitate the dissemination of an old world and dirty fuel source. As a native of Seattle I can only honestly speak to the dangers of this proposal from a Seattlite's perspective. However, I have no doubt that this awful idea spells misery and despair for all residents of this fine state. I find the proposal not just outdated but totally offensive. I honestly can't believe anyone would consider this a good idea.

What follows is my stated opposition to the plan to build several coal terminals and feed coal to those terminals with trains running through many critical cities in Washington State.

Seattle is in the midst of an unprecedented growth and development surge. Over the last 5 years Seattle has focused on building clean buildings, reducing single car traffic and encouraging a vibrant and healthy lifestyle. One of the most exciting new developments is the revitalization of the Seattle waterfront.

The soon to be removed Alaskan Way Viaduct connects the city back to its maritime roots. The plans involve an amazing new park with new walkways connecting to Pike Place Market.

This is a golden opportunity to make Seattle a new city of the future. Running 9 trains a day through the waterfront doesn't fit with the plan.

It will generate noise, pollution, and possibly toxic dust. Not to mention the obvious effect on traffic, mobility and enjoyment of the waterfront.

It will also negatively affect our thriving and vital port of Seattle. I'm sure you'll hear from the port themselves but suffice it to say, blocking thousands of trucks a day can't be good for business.

The plan to run coal trains downtown will kill the new Seattle waterfront dream and blast the city back 100 years. We may as well just erect a new viaduct because these trains will create a toxic iron curtain between the residents of the city and the waterfront they've been denied access to for 50 years.

Don't destroy my city; my native and beloved Seattle for the sake of exporting an archaic and non-renewable resource and earning a quick buck.

I'm sure the coal companies stand to make a fortune from this devious plan. What will Washington State get out of the deal? Whatever financial compensation there is, isn't enough.

We don't want your business or your toxic old world fuel.

Come back when you have a progressive idea to export new energy sources that do good for Washington State, the Earth's environment and the magnificent city of Seattle.

Sincerely,

Kirk Bentley

Kirk Fraser (#6310)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Bellingham , w
Comment:
Dear People
My wife and I live five miles north of Bellingham, just west of the rail line going to Cherry Point. I was in a small boat in Bellingham Bay one day this fall. I was amazed as I watched the train proceeding along the water front in Bellingham. There was a dark, thick cloud of Diesel exhaust emitted from the locomotive. I could see that exhaust hanging in the air for a quarter of a mile behind the train!

I would like this issue to be studied. What will the effects of this air borne pollution be on, not only humans but vegetation and all animals along the route from Wyoming to Cherry Point. Will all this toxic material end up downstream in our gardens?

Kirk Fraser (#6313)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: bellingham , Wa
Comment:
Dear People
Some time ago, there was a letter to the editor of the Bellingham Paper that was suggesting that readers go online and review an article that had appeared in the Vancouver Sun. This article had pictures of the coal loading facility south of Vancouver, completely engulfed in a huge cloud of coal dust! The article quoted the manager at this facility as saying. "oops, sorry about that, not supposed to happen". The area had been hit by a 45 kt. wind.

So the question isn't whether this type of release is possible, BUT how often it may occur. Thus, I would like a full study on the effects of this toxic dust on the surrounding vicinity. The effects on the surrounding wetlands, the water, and the marine life.

Thank you for your consideration
Dr. Kirk Fraser

Kirk Ray (#3921)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Location: Renton, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kirman Taylor (#9709)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am writing to ask that the parties responsible for establishing the criteria for the evaluation of the coal transport over Puget Sound address the following:

The environmental impacts of increased shipping to the sound itself including oil spills, effluents from diesel engines, sound impacts upon marine life, etc. In addition, with the recent disclosure regarding pollution in China and noting that the predominant source of that pollution is coal dust from their many coal fired generators, we must address the impacts of the coal itself upon our environment because it is well known that China’s pollution becomes ours as it drifts across the Pacific.

It is justifiable to want to promote economic activity, however there are long term consequences for which China provides the most vivid of examples. Having traveled there over a dozen times in the past 14 years I have experienced what air quality becomes when there is no consideration to anything other than the promotion of economic activity. This project will contribute significantly to continued pollution of the Chinese atmosphere, however the air knows no political boundaries and so it becomes the world’s pollution. The responsible parties must determine whether a short term benefit in dollars is worth increased breathing ailments, like asthma and pulmonary disease in the future.

Our concern for our environment must measure the cost and benefits of this project. Are we to gain a short term benefit with no consideration to its actual risks and consequences? Consider China and the enormous cost to air and water quality that a policy of unbridled development has brought. Let us be more thoughtful in our actions.

Kirsta & Tom Bieren & Schmidt (#1494)

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

Kirsten Jensen (#1661)

Date Submitted: 10/28/12
Comment:
My husband and I have a four year old daughter and live in Sunset Hill - Ballard just up the hill from the train tracks. We live in this neighborhood because it is by the seaside and we relish the fresh air next to the Puget Sound. We paid more for our small house that is west of NW 32nd Ave. than we would have paid for a larger house east of NW 32nd. Ave. We have the tiniest of views. It's the fresh air we wanted for our family. We take frequent walks in our neighborhood, and my daughter plays at Golden Gardens regularly. We absolutely DO NOT want coal trains going on the tracks in our neighborhood or by our child's playground. The coal dust from the trains would ruin the quality of life out here!

Sincerely,

Kirsten Jensen

Kirsten Lutes (#8925)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Comment:
As a Bellingham resident and home owner please count me as being vehemently opposed to the Gateway Pacific Terminal and all of the environmental and social ills that it will bring.

Thank you

Kirsten Nelson (#761)

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

Kirsten Wert (#8149)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I think the EIS should include a study of all the added construction projects along the entire path of the trains. Every main road these trains cross will have to build an overpass or tunnel for traffic to keep flowing as all these trains go by. This could be hundreds of projects each with their own environmental impact. Taken as a whole this could be huge!

Kirsten Wert (#8152)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Is there going to be a study of exactly what water is going to be coming over from China as ballast on the empty boats and possible effects? Will there be critters in that water? Even if it is filtered there are microscopic organisms that could flourish here or cause algae bloomes with resulting red tides and toxins that can have massive effects on birds, shellfish and the marine environment.

Kirsti Charlton (#9685)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
This letter is written to request that quality of air issues be addressed with regard to the coal trains passing through Whatcom County and Bellingham on their way to the Pacific Gateway Terminal. My family and I live in Bellingham and we have friends and relatives who live in the county. My family, friends, relatives, and I have a very personal relationship with the air we breathe.

I request that air quality be evaluated for any possible impacts on the health of Whatcom County residents as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. We are advised when air is stagnant or contains high amounts of particulate that there is increased risk of health problems for people with asthma, other breathing and pulmonary conditions, young children, and elderly folks (read the Seattle Times weather page when it reports a temperature inversion or when forest fire smoke comes over the Cascades or down the Fraser Valley). The quality of the air we breathe significantly impacts our health.

Specifically, I request that these questions be studied:
· Will there be immediate and cumulative changes in air quality with increased train traffic pulling coal cars?
· Will there be increased particulate in the air?
· Will this particulate matter aggravate medical conditions, harm the development of young children, and put our elderly at added risk for breathing and heart problems?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Kirsti Charlton
1410 Grant St.
Bellingham WA 98225
360-393-7187

Kirstin Curtis ARNP (#2544)

Date Submitted: 11/08/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Kirstin Curtis, I am a family nurse practitioner and I am a part of the 200+ Whatcom Docs group concerned with the health impacts of the proposed coal trains/terminal at cherry point.

I have huge concerns about the health impact this major environmental change is going to bring to our pristine Whatcom County. As a nurse practitioner caring for the health of US… preventive medicine and prevention of disease is my primary focus. We have countless research on the negative health effects and impacts of environmental pollutants, whether it is extreme in the case of nuclear power plants post-earthquakes in Japan and radiation exposure, or smog from Los Angeles worsening lung function and allergies for our children and grandchildren. Coal is no different. One of the beauties of Whatcom County is the low pollution and smog in our air.

More specifically, my biggest concern with the passing coal trains throughout the day and having a coal terminal, is the increase in very dangerous small particulate matter (SPM). These are the small particles that our lungs don’t feel and can’t get rid of once inhaled. Then your risk increases for a myriad of illnesses when these toxins and contaminants enter your body. The dust drifting off the coal trains in passing would exponentially increase this exposure for inhaled particles, and impacts all communities along the route. Coal has only negative health impacts. I want the effects of SPMs studied around similar existing sites in the USA and how this has changed the rates of COPD, asthma and allergies to surrounding communities.

I have major concerns on the surrounding marine environment if one ship/vessel was to crash or leak oil/coal into the surrounding waters. What would the marine impact be to the slow moving water in Puget Sound -this must be studied. Our Puget Sound geography is unique as a deep inlet and contaminants to this region could destroy a marine habitat for many years. I grew up working on fishing boats, there is a ton of oil and contaminants that are put into the water on a regular basis-sadly. What would large vessels bring? Please study this potential impact.

One benefit of the terminal is proposed jobs. Are jobs in an unhealthy environment worth the price? They may have jobs, but with increased risk of cancer, heart disease, lung disease to name a few, is it worth the risk? And what of the risk for the other countries we give this coal to? Should China be supported to use such an unhealthy form of fuel and put their people at risk? Do their people really want coal there? Have you been through Bangkok or New Deli lately? People wear surgical masks that are blackened when driving through the city! Yikes. Alternatively, have you seen the increase in wind powered clean energy as you drive to eastern Washington covering the landscape in the past 10 years? Let us focus on modern forms of energy that don’t hurt us-these are great alternatives that also give jobs.

Large corporations have strength with dollars to push their agenda… but at what cost.

I ask that everyone making the decisions to bring coal to our community first put yourself in a place of increased risk to YOUR health. Imagine your increased risk of heart and lung disease or worse cancer. Don’t be naive in thinking it won’t happen to you also.

Kit Rawson (#7121)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: MT VERNON, WA
Comment:
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input to the scoping process for the EIS for the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point.

My wife and I live in Mount Vernon and also own property on San Juan Island, which we use throughout the year. I am a biologist with the Tulalip Tribes and very active in salmon recovery work throughout Puget Sound and salmon management throughout the entire west coast. The fish, wildlife, and plant resources of this area are diverse and healthy. The high quality of life we enjoy here depends on these resources being maintained in a healthy state as well as clean air and clean water. I make these comments with this background.

Our home in Mount Vernon is within 2 miles of 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 encompass the entire transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:

NOISE: 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?

TRAFFIC PROBLEMS: 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?

EFFECT ON PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN PORTLAND AND VANCOUVER, BC: How will the increased traffic of coal trains in the rail corridor, which includes significant miles of single track line, affect the ability of Amtrak to add additional round-trip passenger rail service between Portland, OR, and Vancouver, BC?

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?

PRODUCTION OF SALMON IN FRESHWATER HABITATS: How will the ability of freshwater habitat to produce salmon be affected by in creased pollution of streams, side channels, wetlands, and other waterways from coal dust and diesel fumes along the rail corrdior, which transits numerous salmon-producing streams?

TRIBAL TREATY RIGHTS EFFECTS: How will the reduction in the production of fish and wildlife resources due tot he presence of the additional rail and vessel traffic needed to ship the coal affect the ability of Puget Sound tribes to exercise their treaty-reserved rights to harvest fish and wildlife resources and to gather plant resources? What could be the cost to non-Indian taxpayers should these treaty-reserved resources by lost and the tribes seek and win compensation for the loss?

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 due to heavy metals, increased CO2, and other factors?

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?

Kiwibob Glanzman (#1111)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
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.

EXPORTING COAL IS NO WAY TO ATTAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!!!


Kiwibob Glanzman
1220 NE 90th
Seattle, WA 98115

Kiwibob Glanzman (#10359)

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

I REALLY WANT TO KNOW HOW THIS PROPOSED COAL EXPORT TERMINAL WILL HELP THE U.S. TO ACHIEVE ITS STATED GOAL OF ATTAINING ENERGY INDEPENDENCE?

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.

Klara Weis (#2022)

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

Kobe Belair (#10762)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: edmonds, wa
Comment:
Coal is not good for our environment

Kolenekeo Darwin Kaeo (#4556)

Date Submitted: 12/11/12
Location: Woodinville, WA
Comment:
Dec 11, 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.

It is apparent John Boehner's interest lies with the 2% of high income earners. Should any part of the poor, middle class or the elderly be a target towards John Boehner's future development and greed towards, his personal growth and assets we, will send the private citizen group against all GOP and republican party members including those Democrats supporting John Boehner's agenda and, we will defeat you in more ways than 4. Heed this warning John Boehner should any part of the fiscal cliff fall into the wrong hands of justice, then justice is what will serve your outcome!

Sincerely,

Kolenekeo C. Darwin Kaeo
PO Box 623
Woodinville, WA 98072-0623

Kori Burwell (#3627)

Date Submitted: 11/21/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kraen Mains (#13412)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Leavenworth, 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 you are so determined to move these trains through our state then build a rail line around our cities and communities that is powered by alternative fuel, cover the train loads of coal to protect our air as an asthmatic coal dust and diesel affect peoples breathing. Going along the Columbia River will be a danger to the Native Salmon, Columbia River Steelhead, the Endangered Sturgeon, not to mention the agriculture in the state of Washington. We don't need the area exposed to coal dust which has caused many people lung diseases.

If we don't protect our country and land and economy who will. Sure it will provide jobs and economy for right now but what happens when it ends and the areas left to not be productive, what are we leaving for our future decendents right now it looks to me it is all about money not people.

Kramer Janders (#12308)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellingham, 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.

PLEASE KEEP MY BEAUTIFUL EVERGREEN STATE EVERGREEN! I CARE ABOUT MY WATER, MY TREES, AND MY ENVIRONMENT THAT IS THE BEAUTIFUL STATE OF WASHINGTON AND THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST! PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW FOR THIS UGLY INDUSTRY TO ENTER MY HOME!!!!

Kris Buettner (#967)

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. This unsustainable energy source is outdated and the devastation caused by transporting coal through the Northwest and along our water ways are unacceptable. We have the technology to power past coal and many progressives in China are taking tangible steps to move beyond coal as well.

The powerful companies that have accumulated their wealth at the expense of our environment, the creatures that live there, and the health of citizens must be stopped. The profit off of these coal sales benefits only a few, doesn't create the jobs we need, and leaves our shores covered in coal dust.
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.

It is imperative that we think and act beyond just tomorrow as global warming is here now, caused in large part by human greed. This is the time to take action towards stricter regulations and stop the 1% that is trying to push their agenda through their old ways of making profit on the backs of our citizens and on our greatest resource here in the NW, our environment. Given the significant effects that proposed coal export terminals will have on our natural resources and public health, strict oversight is essential.

Sincerely,

Kris Buettner
2211 Grant St
Bellingham, WA 98225-4117

Kris Buettner (#6900)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
1/11/13

To Whom it Concerns about the Proposed Coal Terminal in Whatcom Co:

I want to express my strong opposition to the proposal to build a coal plant at Cherry Point, to the extraction of coal as an energy source, and to the transportation of the coal along the long route through our precious Northwest. This is a region that prides itself on diverse ecosystems, protecting our pristine wilderness and environmental wonders, and visioning a future where those natural gifts are preserved for future generations. There are multiple reasons why peoples from all backgrounds are standing together to block this potential environmentally devasting and irreversible endeavor.

I have the privilege of living in Bellingham, WA in a well educated community, home to Huxley Environmental College, and the community, our City and County, and the Port have invested in a recovering our waterfront from the environmental wasteland left by Georgia Pacific. Many communities do have that resources or support to sustain an effective fight against this proposal. I'd like to include requests to study the entire proposed route of the coal trains.

The EIS areas of study I am requesting our as follows:

1. The overall health effects of exposure to coal dust on humans and the environment in all communities along the proposed transportation route.

2. I would like an in depth study of the financial repercussion on Counties and Cities along the transportation route. In Bellingham the City and County Governments and the Port, and the community has poured tremendous resources and time into the vision of transforming our waterfront into more desirable tourist and civic destination. The tracks which will be used for the train travel all along the waterfront. The future financial impact of the coal will have significant negative and irreversible effects on public access and civic progress in all communities.

3. It is essential that an intensive study of water quality be studied at the coal plant proposed site and along the proposed transportation route. The herring grounds at Cherry Point are essential to the Northwest icon of the Orca Whales and salmon which are dependent of these sacred waters as stated by the Lummi Nation.

4. Another EIS study of the pollution from coal extraction, coal burnt for energy, and coal transportation on long and short term basis. This is includes the global effects of air quality, ocean acidification, and global warming on the Northwest region of US. Just as the debris from the earthquake in Japan has reached our shores, the winds from more coal plants in China will also reach us. Major corporations producing pollution that contributes to the warming of the planet should be held responsible for their atrocities and furthermore dirty coal should be phased out as an energy source.

Billings, MT is a good example of a community tainted by the coal industry. Their industrial waste zone of tracks is the route used to transport coal for energy. No one but the coal company owners benefited and many have paid for it with their lives. The above studies are critical for our children, for a sustainable life in the NW, and for future generations. Please take my requests for EIS studies into consideration.

Kris Forslof (#11667)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
. Coal dust is hard to control, and unless the train cars are covered, there will be between 500 and 2000 pounds of coal dust lost which could go into the air and water. I personally really enjoy being able to gaze upon the environment of Whatcom County without having a thick ring of smog in addition to our plethora of clouds already blotting out the sun. Truly, nothing makes me happier than a clear sunny day and a walk in the woods. One possible mitigation option is covering the tops of the train cars with sheets to prevent at least some of the coal dust from escaping into the environment. It wouldn’t take too much time, I don’t think, to pull a sheet over the top of the train car and tie it off after every loading/unloading procedure. In the end, it would be worth the small amount of extra time it takes to cover each train car. If the companies had multiple people covering the train cars, it could be a much faster process. I would like the impact on the air to be studied the most because I enjoy being able to breathe fresh air without having to wear a doctor’s mask as well as being able to look out and see all the trees very clearly for miles without having to see a big smog ring around Bellingham/Whatcom County.

Kris Halterman (#6571)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: BELLINGHAM, Wa
Comment:
Dear Sir or Madam;

The EIS process should define the scoping to address matters that are lawfully within the purvue of an EIS. What and how SSA Marine, develops this site, is not the business of outside organizations. It is legitimate that we insure the poject follows existing laws and regulations. It is not legitimate to allow a small sector of people change the rules of this process, for their own personal agenda. That is not what this EIS scoping process should be pressured to do (or any EIS scoping process for that matter) and there are many residents of Whatcom County, Washington State and the U.S. who are counting on you to treat this project fairly and according to the law.

Kris Halterman
4004 Cedarbrook CT
Bellingham, WA 98229

Kris Rubenaker (#4155)

Date Submitted: 12/08/2012
Location: Redmond, WA
Comment:
I got tired of clicking on all the squares! No more cf

Krista Hunter (#12348)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
My name is Krista Hunter and I live in Whatcom County about five miles from the proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point.

I appreciate the that as citizens of this community we have the opportunity to share our comments with you. As you move closer to your decision I would like you to address the following concerns:

This will be the largest coal export terminal the United States running on average 18 trains a day through Bellingham and Ferndale and surrounding communities and greatly increasing ship traffic through the waters surrounding these communities. What is the impact on our health, our childrens health and the health of the ecosystem from coal dust, diesel particulates, the frequency of trains stopping traffic and railroad crossings, ship traffic including potential collision with other ships including oil tankers.

I would also appreciate you considering the effects on the health of our business communities. We live in a beautiful place and tourism is a major source of revenue for this area. We also strongly support our small businesses as a prime generator of sustainability and well-being in our community. We are also an agricultural community with a commitment to keeping our farms clean and healthy. These trains will be running through the downtowns of both Bellingham and Ferndale and parts of our county. This will necessarily have an adverse effect on the livability of our communities.

And on a global scale, coal is dirty to mine, dirty to burn, and is adding to climate warming at an alarming rate.

I strongly oppose the coal-exporting Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point. I do not want to see our communities decimated by coal. And I do not want to contribute to the decimation of all the other communities and ecosystems in Montana and Wyoming that are being strip-mined for coal.

I am urging you to consider these impacts as you do your Environmental Impact Statement. I would also please ask that the Army Corps of Engineers look at the cumulative impacts on the five current coal export proposals in the Northwest.

Krista Rome (#7643)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Location: Lynden, wA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Krista Rome (#14342)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Lynden, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Kristan Brennan (#8654)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
Hello, My name is Kristan Brennan and I live and work in Bellingham. I love our city, and chose this community because of its natural beauty, the accessibility to outdoor pursuits, and the community focus on sustainable living. I have many questions about the impacts of the terminal at Cherry Point and the transfer of 42 million tons of coal through my community.

NOISE 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?

TRAFFIC PROBLEMS How will the coal trains affect motor vehicle traffic, transportation, emergency vehicle response times and the flow of commerce along the rail corridor?

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 the the over 950 annual transits of immense coal ships?

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 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?

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?

Please include these areas of study in the EIS for the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point.
Sincerely, Kristan Brennan

Kristeen Barclay (#12683)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bothell, WA
Comment:
This is my State! I Oppose the a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington!
This proposal would negatively affect my State and the communities LONG TERM! The region is not able to cope with any potential serious shipping accidents and this merely exacerbates climate change. I strongly urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. The Canadians and the coal companies are not our friend and will lie and cheat the rules as soon as they are able. Do not allow this in our region. It does not benefit the values of clean energy, business, regional development, or character of our region. kdb

Kristeen Blanchard (#3985)

Date Submitted: 12/05/2012
Location: Ferndale, Wa
Comment:
Please scope the GPT Draft EIS to include Dust Control
Design
The proposed coal terminal should employ a range of best practice measures for controlling dust
Emissions as follows:
• Construction of a 120 foot high wind fence around the perimeter of the 80 acre coal dump is crucial. A 120 foot high wind fence is the only somewhat effective method of shielding the 80 foot high stockpiles of coal during the high winds which occur frequently at Cherry Point.
• A wind fence is missing from proposed GPT terminal plans. During winter months wind speeds at Cherry Point reach in excess of 50 mph frequently and thousands of Pt Whitehorn, Birch Bay, Semiahmoo and Blaine residences are located within the dominant winter downwind track. • Maintaining an appropriate level of moisture for each coal type from rail receival through to ship loading;
• Wet down of stockpile surfaces. The final stockyard design should incorporate in excess of
100 water cannons each with a radius of throw of approximately 75m. The water cannons must wet down the surface of all stockpiles to form a surface crust that inhibits the wind erosion of dust;
• Mist curtain. In high winds water cannons become ineffective at dust suppression. A secondary suppression system must be used in these conditions that utilizes a mist curtain. The mist curtain enhances deposition of dust by impaction of the dust particles;
• Extendable dust shroud for stacking. The extendable dust shroud will minimize dust emissions from stacking by reducing the effective drop height of the coal to the stockpile and by reducing the potential for fine coal particles to be entrained in the wind during stacking;
• All coal must be placed into its final location in the stockyard by travelling gantry stackers and should not require dozers for this operation, therefore eliminating a potentially significant source of dust emissions;
• Reclaiming system designed to minimize bulldozing;
• Enclosure of all transfer points; and
• Where possible partial enclosure of elevated conveyors.
Construction
Dust control measures implemented during construction must include:
• Development of a dust management plan prior to construction commencing;
• Applying water on all exposed areas by water cart as required to minimize dust emissions, particularly from wheel-generated dust;
• Minimizing significant dust-generating activities during high wind speeds where practicable and unwatered;
• Restricting vehicle speeds on unsealed haul roads to reduce dust generation;
• Avoiding spillages and ensuring prompt cleanup of any that occur;
• Covering haul vehicles moving outside the construction site;
• Stockpiled material should be treated appropriately to prevent wind erosion from the prevailing southwesterly wind direction;
• Regular cleaning of machinery and vehicle tires will prevent track-out of dust to public roads;
• Minimizing licensed burning or incineration on site;
• Ensuring that roads are appropriately surfaced as soon as possible after the commencement of site activities;
• Routing roads away from sensitive areas wherever possible;
• Revegetating disturbed areas as soon as possible;
• Vehicles and equipment must be appropriately maintained to minimize air emissions;
and
• Visual monitoring of dust. Dust deposition gauges must be installed at nearby residences if required.

Operations

Dust emissions from the coal terminal should be minimized by the diligent application and maintenance of the design features.
In addition to the above, maintaining an appropriate level of moisture within the coal is the most important process in minimizing dust emission from the transported or stockpiled coal.

Depending on the properties of the coal, each coal has an optimum moisture level above which coal dust can be effectively minimized. Monitoring the moisture content of coal at rail receival is an important process. This is to ensure the moisture level for each coal type is appropriate on arrival. If the moisture level is found to be below the optimum level, then calibrated water sprays must be used to raise the moisture content.
Handling of coal with moisture content at or above the optimum moisture level will minimize dust lift-off from operations including conveying, stacking, reclaiming, transfer points and ship loading.

During adverse meteorological conditions (such as high wind speeds) the use of misting sprays on the gantry stackers and reclaimers will also reduce dust emissions.

Reducing the spillage from conveyors is important for reducing dust emissions. This can be achieved with effective enclosures at transfer points, washing of the conveyor belts and utilizing conveyor belt cleaning systems. Ground areas in the immediate vicinity of transfer points and other areas subject to spillage should be sealed where practical to facilitate rapid cleanup and removal of potential sources of dust emissions.
Dust emissions from exposed stockpile surfaces are reduced when the moisture level is maintained at the optimum moisture content. The large surface area of the stockpiles is continually subject to evaporation when exposed to hot, dry, windy conditions. Continual moisture replenishment is therefore required during such conditions and this will be applied through the regular use of the stockpile spray system.

Dust lift-off from the stockpiles is greatest during strong wind speeds. Recent studies have shown dust lift-off from static unbroken stockpile surfaces can be reduced by the application of a veneer solution to the stockpile surface. This procedure is currently under investigation at other coal terminals in Australia.

The operation of a mobile spray tanker to apply water at regular intervals to areas where the stockpile sprayers cannot reach, empty stockpile areas and ground areas subject to coal spillage is another effective method of minimizing dust lift-off. In a similar manner, use of a mobile road sweeper/cleaner is very effective in minimizing dust emission from roads and other sealed areas.

Kristen Bendixsen (#9672)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Everett, Wa
Comment:
Because there is such huge impact to all of us in the Pacific Northwest, this project should be put to a vote.

Kristen Boyles, Earthjustice (#14667)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Kristen Kuusela (#1377)

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

Kristen Minor (#12887)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
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, 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.

It isn't just our community, of course, that is at stake. Global warming affects the entire planet. Coal-fired plants spewing CO2 and particulates into the air must be phased out; we are out of time for slowing down the planet's warming trend. Please don't think of this as another NIMBY campaign- it's not. This important issue is a way to start pushing back on "politics as usual."

Kristen Shaw (#10400)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
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.

Kristen Vitro (#11907)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Climate change issues should be thoroughly addressed for this project, including a green house gas inventory for not only the site, but the entire process as well.

Emissions resulting from transportation, construction, and operations should be studied for inclusion.

Kristen Wintler (#5253)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Kristi Moseley (#9254)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: BELLINGHAM, WA
Comment:
My name is Kristi Moseley. I was born in Bellingham and have lived in Whatcom County all my life. I work in Bellingham, have friends and family are here and I choose to remain in the Pacific Northwest because of its natural beauty, the accessibility to outdoor pursuits and the community focus on sustainable living.

I have many questions and concerns about the impacts of the terminal at Cherry Point and the transfer of 42 million tons of coal through my community:

NOISE 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?

TRAFFIC PROBLEMS How will the coal trains affect motor vehicle traffic, transportation, emergency vehicle response times and the flow of commerce along the rail corridor?

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 Sean and environs be affected by coal port construction and operations, and the the over 950 annual transits of immense coal ships?

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 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?

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?

Please include these areas of study in the EIS for the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point.
Sincerely, Kristi Moseley

Kristi Neeleman (#2735)

Date Submitted: 11/13/2012
Location: Arlington, wa
Comment:
STOP THIS NOW. THIS IS ABSURD.

Kristian Boose (#6417)

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

Kristian Ungern (#7941)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I support, in general, the idea of a bulk shipping terminal located at the industrial-zoned area in Cherry Point. High-paying industry jobs have declined since the GP closure in Bellingham. I recognize that the EIS and project scoping process is lengthy and could lead to extensive delays in the approval process. I am less concerned that the project could proceed without proper review, as some activists seem to believe. In fact, the scoping letter from the city of Bellingham is so all-encompassing that to respond to all of the concerns seems to be designed to discourge the applicants.

Whatcom County needs more private sector jobs. Currently, employment seems to be concentrated in the government, medical, and education fields - which are primarily public sector jobs. Although private sector jobs are well represented in the retail segment, the lack of higher-paying manufacturing and other industrial jobs is quite evident.

I hope the scoping and approval process for the GPT proceeds in a timely manner, without unnecessary delays. The issue needs to be resolved one way or another rather than leaving the whole effort in limbo, which is a favored strategy by anti-growth activists.

Kristin Barber (#2330)

Date Submitted: 11/05/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
2306 Henry Street
Bellingham, Washington 98225

November 3, 2012

Re: Scoping under NEPA/SEPA for Environmental Impact Statement – Gateway Pacific Terminal

Survival of the Orca whales of the Salish Sea is important to tourism but more important to the health of the whole marine ecosystem. In particular I want to focus on the Southern Resident population which number about 89 presently and include the J, K and L pods. In 2005 they were added to the Endangered Species list. In 2011, after a five-year review, they were retained on that list.

Orcas use their natural sonar system to navigate and to find food. It is well known that this mechanism for echolocation is disrupted by the noise of submarines, ships and small boats. Less known is the possible effect of noise on their reproductive organs. There are only a limited number of females of reproductive age having calves in the Southern Resident population and the possible causes include noise and disturbance from vessels. (Source, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Services, Northwest regional Office)

NOAA’s “killer whale recovery plan” of 2008 calls for actions to reduce disturbance from vessels. Please scope the effect on whales’ natural sonar mechanism of the projected 487 additional ships a year (plus 2-4 times that many tugboats) traveling through Haro and Rosario Straits, in addition to the planned expansion of Canadia