EIS Home > EIS Library > Scoping Report > Appendix G - All Scoping Comments > Public (M - O)

M Brien (#1498)

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

M Kim (#10272)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
In what sane world did the decision get made to suggest coal travel in trains through WA state or any state?

If you have to ship coal, build completely contained/air quality controlled underground trains that will not contaminate the air and water and every living thing in the areas involved.

Better yet, get our country and China off its addiction to coal before our planet, and all we who live and love on it, implodes. Some things are worth paying for, slow death of WA state and any state, by trains shipping coal to China, is not.

M Leslie Foss (#2456)

Date Submitted: 11/06/12
Location: Mt Vernon, WA
Comment:
Sirs,

Please find the attached letter concerning added coal trains to our community in consideration of building the Gateway Pacific Terminal and Custer Spur in Bellingham.

Sinserely,

M. Leslie Foss

(attached comment below)

GTP/Custer Spur EIS c/o CH2M Hill
1100 112th Ave. NE Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004
November 6, 2012

Dear Sirs,
I am a resident in the city of Mt Vernon and live on the scenic east side of the city above the Skagit River and the railroad tracks that separate the town east to west. I have an immense concern about the added noise that will impact our quality of life with the added rail traffic that will be needed to supply the Cherry point facility should that be built.
The added noise will affect many quality of life issues for both me, my family, my neighbors, the business community of Mt Vernon and the Skagit Valley and all communities along the rail line. Please study the noise impacts to these areas.
Please also study the cumulative effect of the trains to and from the GTP projects, plus all existing rail traffic and future traffic along these routes, including Tethys and Amtrak Cascade expansion. Please conduct detailed studies concerning noise levels and the vibrations due to the added traffic and how this will affect the structural integrity of our homes and the other buildings close to the tracks.
It is foreseeable that our community will see an addition of 18 coal trains per day based on the impact document filed by GPT. This is why I employ you to study the noise affects of these added trains.
Mitigation to these noise issues may be to establish quiet zones in the Mt Vernon area. The horns on trains should also be studied to include ways to minimize their noise.
Please considered these stated concerns in this letter during the scoping process. Thank you.

Sincerely,

M. Leslie Foss
211 South 6th St
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274

M. Adair Orr (#2985)

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

M. Joy Atwood (#2008)

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

M. Joy Atwood (#12428)

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

If you have been watching the news,Beijing has incredible air pollution, from existing pollutants. I do not want to wear a respirator every time I want to go outside. The air over Beijing is the same air we all breathe. It will make it's way to the west coast of the US. Air quality is too important to put more coal into our atmosphere.

M.L. Lyke (#13471)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
Attached are comments on the Gateway project and some considerations of the possible impact on resident orca populations.
Thank you


--
Attached Files:

M.M. Wicker (#12658)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Auburn, 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 And furthermore:
NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO!! NO COAL IN OUR PRISTINE, BEAUTIFUL PART OF THE WORLD!!

M.P. McCutcheon (#4121)

Date Submitted: 12/03/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

MacBryan Green (#13859)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the export of American-mined coal. Period. Coal mined in the USA should be USED in the USA, and most certainly should NOT end up being burned in countries with weaker environmental laws.

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.

MacKenzie VanLaar (#9860)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I am concerned about the environmental impact of the increased train traffic and our beautiful area. Also, about the ethical implications of coal energy. Please study the effects on the environment from coal energy and train traffic.

Madalynn Gavigan Martin (#12256)

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.

Madeleine Baines (#1655)

Date Submitted: 10/30/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The primary concern for human environment is for people to be able to work and earn their living without being beholden to others who supply government by tax exactions on the fruits of their labor. This is a make or break opportunity for Whatcom County to pull it's weight as an integral member of these United States. All other considerations are minor to this need.
People can live with noise and other lesser incomveniences, but they can't live a prosperous life without work. Put work first then and foremost, then let the environmental chips fall where they will.

Madeleine Cadbury Brown (#12743)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Richland, WA
Comment:
My comments are attached.
Attached Files:

Madeleine Ellis (#10509)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
My name is Madeleine Ellis and I am a college student writing to express my interest in scoping the externalities associated with the Gateway Pacific Terminal, specifically the externalities of burning the shipped coal. The United States has committed to phasing out coal and shifting towards greener energy but because of the space externality associated with burning fossil fuels, shipping and burning coal to China will affect those all across the world, not just where it is burned. In light of the increasing adverse effects of climate change due to anthropogenic causes, I would like you to scope the impacts of burning the coal shipped from the US to China. Specifically I would like you to scope how overall weather patterns, such as extreme weather events and global temperatures would be affected by the increased coal burning. Then I would like you to scope the impacts of these increased climate change effects on glacier melting and sea level rises, which may lead to environmental refugees on coastal cities, and a decrease in freshwater sources. I expect to see that the burning of Powder River Basin coal in China will continue to raise global temperatures and lead to an increase in extreme weather events. These impacts can be measured using modeling and simulations, such as those used by the IPCC.

As described above, the EIS statement needs to extend beyond the direct impacts of building the Gateway Pacific Terminal. By building the terminal we are committing future generations to bare the brunt of increased fossil fuel usage so it is important to fully investigate the implications of the terminal for these future generations. If we are truly committed to decreasing coal use and mitigating climate change, then we should not build the Gateway Pacific Terminal. By providing the coal to China, we are just as responsible as those actually burning the coal.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing the findings of this EIS and a decision based on the best interests of people in Washington, those around the world, and the environment.

-Madeleine Ellis

Madeleine Ellis (#11832)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
My name is Madeleine Ellis and I am a college student writing to express my interest in scoping the externalities associated with the Gateway Pacific Terminal, specifically the externalities of burning the shipped coal. The United States has committed to phasing out coal and shifting towards greener energy but because of the space externality associated with burning fossil fuels, shipping and burning coal to China will affect those all across the world, not just where it is burned. In light of the increasing adverse effects of climate change due to anthropogenic causes, I would like you to scope the impacts of burning the coal shipped from the US to China. Specifically I would like you to scope how overall weather patterns, such as extreme weather events and global temperatures would be affected by the increased coal burning. Then I would like you to scope the impacts of these increased climate change effects on glacier melting and sea level rises, which may lead to environmental refugees on coastal cities, and a decrease in freshwater sources. I expect to see that the burning of Powder River Basin coal in China will continue to raise global temperatures and lead to an increase in extreme weather events. These impacts can be measured using modeling and simulations, such as those used by the IPCC.

As described above, the EIS statement needs to extend beyond the direct impacts of building the Gateway Pacific Terminal. By building the terminal we are committing future generations to bare the brunt of increased fossil fuel usage so it is important to fully investigate the implications of the terminal for these future generations. If we are truly committed to decreasing coal use and mitigating climate change, then we should not build the Gateway Pacific Terminal. By providing the coal to China, we are just as responsible as those actually burning the coal.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing the findings of this EIS and a decision based on the best interests of people in Washington, those around the world, and the environment.

-Madeleine Ellis

Madeleine Von Laug (#5987)

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

Madeline Butler (#11267)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
My name is Maddie Butler, and the reason I am writing is because I want to know if there will be a traffic increase in Bellingham because of coal trains frequently passing through. I would also like to know how often trains would pass through each day, and how long it would take them to pass through. Scoping the train frequency and schedule could help decide wether or not coal trains would burden our town. An increase in locomotive activity could cause a severe increase in car traffic,which could lead people to be late to their jobs, and the emissions released from cars waiting at the tracks could be bad for the surrounding environment. Our environment alreadt suffers from excess gas emissions from highway and rush hour traffic. Adding coal trains could easily add to the emissions, and this can be predicted by already changing conditions in the atmosphere from human pollutants. With excess traffic comes congestion of our roadways and difficult driving conditions. Accident could increase, both pedestrian and car related, and traffic build-up could spill over onto busy streets, which is dangerous. If coal trains do in fact become a part of our city, there should be rules and regulations for passing times and frequency. If people were informed of the coal train schedule, perhaps major traffic could be avoided, and possible detour routes could be established in order to decrease traffic.

Madeline Crowley (#6972)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Comment:
I find myself siding with the fishermen who's livelihoods could be jeopardized, not to mention environmental concerns that not only effect each of us, but also other endeavors like salmon hatcheries. The purported job increase seems a dubious promise made to make something entirely not beneficial to our larger economy seem to be in the short run.

In addition, very long coal trains will have a very negative depressing effect on commerce to existing businesses along the train corridor. One time being trapped waiting for a long train to pass will be enough to make consumers and business to business buyers avoid existing businesses potentially closing those businesses and creating commerce 'dead-zones' which again costs us locally in the act of transporting a product that benefits other states, not ours.

Please don't let this shortsighted proposal damage our communities or our state's overall economic (and environmental) health.

I look forward to hearing your decisions and actions in regards to this important matter.

Yours sincerely,

Madeline Crowley
Seattle

Madeline Schneider (#14636)

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

Madeline Studer (#13897)

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.

This would defvinitely prolong and cause more pollution.

Madi Jane West (#10929)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Eastsound, Wa
Comment:
I do not want any huge coal ships passing through the waters of the Puget Sound because it will effect my future. I am 14 years old, and I this is my future that you are effecting. It's time to protect what is precious to us, and that is our whales, seals, sea lions, and other wildlife. We need to protect the air, the water, and the islands. There are huge storms with high winds that concern me because one spill could ruin our waters. The waters of Puget Sound are some of the richest in the world for many marine species, please do not add one more ship to the Sound.
When will we ever learn to stop??????????????????????????????
Say no to COAL!!!

Madilane Perry (#11512)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Republic, WA
Comment:
According to an article in today's (Jan 22) Spokesman Review today is the deadline for comments on the proposed rail ransport of coal through Spokane. My husband, Ray Bilderback, and I would like to submit the following comments:

Coal use is a habit that we must eventually break for the sake of the planetary environment as a whole and because it is a non-renewable resource. The proposed new coal-related developments involving rail transport through Spokane will prolong this inevitable process and spread its damaging effects through Washington State.

Coal extraction causes damage to water systems that impacts wildlife, vegetation and human health.. We should be figuring out how to replace coal, not extend its damage.

The proposed rail transport of coal will distribute coal dust over wide areas and increase rail traffic in already congested areas in Spokane and the Spokane Valley. Spokane is already noted for being at risk for poor air quality due to its location. Adding coal dust to the mixture will only exascerbate the situation. Spokane's rail crossing delays are already a regional joke. The addition of multiple coal trains per day will be even less amusing, particularly when the vehicles stuck at the tracks are emergency response vehicles. Most people in Spokane and such small towns a Sprague and Ritzville would probably be able to adjust to the increased noise of coal train horns but there would still be a considerable impact to quality of life from that and the dust.

When the coal reaches its destination on the Washington coast and is shipped to industries overseas we will still get its effects in the form of acid rain and increased air levels of sulfur, mercury and other pollutants in the air.

Let's find other sources of jobs and electricity. Coal will cost our region and the world too much.

Madison Mirindas (#828)

Date Submitted: 10/16/12
Location: Rochester, MN
Comment:
Oct 16, 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.

Sincerely,

Madison Mirindas
PO Box 9294
Rochester, MN 55903-9294
(507) 696-7999

Madolyn Crumpton (#13960)

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.

Our planet is at the tipping point. Every decision in favor of big coal and big oil & gas moves us closer to disaster. Please act responsibly.

Madora Boyd (#12721)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Rochester, 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 DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE, JUST GO TO MONTANA, FIND A CROSSING TRACK WITH A COAL TRAIN ON IT, AND SIT THERE, AND SIT THERE, AND SIT THERE. LOOK AT THE COAL DUST ON YOUR CAR WHEN IT FINALLY GETS PAST YOUR AND THE MANY OTHER CARS WHO ARE WAITING, BREATHING FOULED AIR, AND ARE MAD.

Magdalene Murphy (#12036)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
My name is Magdalene Murphy and I am a high school student in Bellingham. I am writing to express a concern over the effect of coal dust on human health in the community. According to BNSF research, 500 pounds to a ton of coal can escape from a loaded car. Furthermore, at terminal sites such as the one to be built in Bellingham, bulldozers shift the coal, releasing more dust into the air. This coal can cause breathing problems and even cancer if too much leaks into the water supply, and although covering the coal cars might be an option for mitigation, it is not clear who would pay for this or other mitigation measures, measures which are in any case not guaranteed to be helpful, especially in a place with as many adverse weather conditions as Cherry Point. I would really appreciate some study being done of how coal dust can be contained (or whether it can be at all) and what the effects of released coal dust would be on human health in the community.

Magdalene Murphy (#12048)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
My name is Magdalene Murphy and I am a high school student in Bellingham. I am writing to express a concern over the effect of the coal train terminal on traffic in the city. As I am sure you know, it is necessary to cross the railroad tracks in order to access much of the city. Studies conducted by Gibson Traffic Consultants in western Washington suggest potentially severe consequences due to the proposed increase in rail traffic intensity associated with GPT. 16-18 trains are expected, many over 1.5 miles long, which could considerably slow down traffic and cause accidents and long delays. I would appreciate it if the study looked into these concerns as well.

Magenta Widner (#9095)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Glacier , WA
Comment:
My name is Magenta Widner. I am a Whatcom county resident, and I am writing because I am concerned with the potential impacts increased train traffic would have on street traffic and quality of life. In particular, I would like the potential impact on the level of Whatcom County's carbon emissions studied. The 2007 Whatcom County Climate Protection and Energy Conservation Plan (pdf attached) states, "The goal for the Whatcom County community is to reduce its emissions by 10% below 2001 levels by 2020. The County government will strive to reach an even more ambitious reduction goal of 40% below 2000 levels by 2012." If train traffic causes any increase in carbon emissions this would be a direct contradiction to the intent of the aforementioned Plan. The plan itself goes into detail about the impact of increased carbon emissions on ecosystems, water, plants and animals, and natural disasters. Please refer to the plan for these details. I propose that if any increases in carbon emissions are shown to be likely, the involved parties will need to supply a realistic plan on how these will be offset before any construction is initiated. Thank you for your time.
Attached Files:

Maggie Davis (#1225)

Date Submitted: 10/24/2012
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
Please study the impact of environmental and climate effects over the 50 year lifespan of the Gateway Terminal, in the EIS.
thanks,
margaret

Maggie Davis (#1232)

Date Submitted: 10/24/2012
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
Please study the impact of coal resource depletion by increasing our exports of Coal to China and not retaining it for American purposes in the future if needed, in the EIS.
thanks,
Maggie

Maggie Davis (#1249)

Date Submitted: 10/24/2012
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
please study the impact of coal train damage to the tracks, increased maintenance costs and impairment of rail safety in the EIS.
thanks,
Maggie

Maggie Davis (#1257)

Date Submitted: 10/24/2012
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
please study the impact of increased coal train traffic on impeding free flow of people and traffic in the EIS.
thanks,
Maggie

Maggie Davis (#1795)

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

Maggie Davis (#1797)

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

Maggie Malone (#10810)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live on Eldridge, above the railroad tracks and the changing yard. I am concerned about increased noise and air pollution and also about the effect that so many train cars passing through here would have on the stability of the hillside.

Maggie McCarten-Gibbs (#571)

Date Submitted: 10/10/2012
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 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.

Maggie McCarten-Gibbs (#622)

Date Submitted: 10/10/12
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.

Maggie McCarten-Gibbs

Maggie Montana (#5155)

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

Maggie Rose (#6707)

Date Submitted: 01/08/13
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.

The people of Washington state have started the process to close their only coal burning energy plant. We did this because we don't want to breath the toxic exhaust. Why would we have any part in poisioning other people? Actually, I am a science teacher and I know that it takes about 7 years for atoms in the atmosphere to mix, so we would be poisioning ourselves anyway.

I am also horrified at the toxins produced in mining coal. Mountain top removal is another atrocity performed in the name of coal. I can't think of any good things that come from the burning and mining of coal.

There would have to be so much new infrastructure to accomodate the coal trains that I know there will be a huge expense there. I believe that we should put that money towards developing clean energy, doing something we could be proud of, creating a new healthy future.

Our area, western Washington, is incredibly beautiful. We do not want the coal train here (or really anywhere) If only the United States could be an example for good in this world! I long to see our focus on positive change.

Maggie Taylor (#13652)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
Dear Scoping Committee,

I live in a community close to the BNSF Rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) will be traveling if the Gateway Pacific Terminal is built. I/we request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement encompass the entire transportation corridor as well as the entire Puget Sound as an ecosystem so that our livelihoods, homes, and habitats are given due consideration. Questions that concern me/us, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive study should include:

Direct impacts on Fisheries and the Puget Sound: How will tourism; boating; collision risks; coal spill risks; salmon, crab and herring fisheries; Orca whales; and the general beauty, vitality, and livability of the Puget sound and environs be affected by this new coal port construction and operations, and by the other 950 annual transits of coal ships to come? We and our fellow workers depend on healthy salmon runs and healthy, non-toxic shellfish, as does the marine and bird life in Seattle/the Puget Sound. The trains will be running directly through and over the Carkeek Park
salmon beds, where baby fish are already struggling without the added stresses of arsenic and mercury from coal dust in the river. How will this specific park be affected, and the baby salmon/eggs in its rivers?

Direct and cumulative impacts of Coal Dust pollution: Please investigate this in the areas of rail safety;
increased risks of spills due to coal dust buildup on tracks; increased shellfish toxicity; the general health of the community that lives on/near the rail way and up wind of train traffic; investigate how coal dust and port run off contributes to the acidification of the ocean/Puget Sound, and how this will impact the wildlife there; specifically investigate the Puget Sound's water currents in evaluating what kind of build up there will be, whether or not the pollution will be able to drain out of the sound effectively, and if not, what the overall cumulative impacts of that build up of toxins will be, while also taking into account possible pollution from spills; impacts on workers health who handle the coal, and the costs they will have to pay for increased health care expenses.

Black Carbon and burning coal: Please investigate what role the burning of coal plays in the creation of black carbon, which has recently been identified by scientists as the 2nd biggest contributor to global warming. How much black carbon would be added to the atmosphere if China were to burn the same amount of coal that is planned to be shipped, and what kinds of impacts would this have, cumulatively, on global warming?

How much coal smoke/ash travels to the northern ice sheet when burned in China, and what kind of contribution does it make to the melting of ice once it settles? How greatly does the build-up of coal dust/ash residue contribute to ice-melt acceleration? What companies who are profiting off this transport of coal planning to do in order to clean up in the arctic and preserve the ice sheet from melting away completely? Currently we know that black sludge from air pollutants is gathered on arctic glaciers, which results in more sunlight and heat being focused on the ice than would naturally occur. This increases below-glacier streams/cracks/rivers, which are creating new momentum to carry these ancient glaciers to sea, where they ultimately melt. This process is greatly accelerating the melting of once-permanent glaciers. We can reasonably foresee that if the arctic ice sheet in destroyed, such an event will initiate a series of global weather disasters unlike anything we have seen in recent history. Please investigate the impact of black-sludge residue on the ice thoroughly, as it's presence has only recently come to light publicly and needs much further exploration to fully understand its impacts, which appear dire. (See "Chasing Ice" by Jeff Orlowski for more info.)

Chinese preparedness: Please investigate whether or not China as a nation is fully prepared to effectively mitigate the massive influx of pollution on their people, wildlife, and waterways. What are the impacts to be expected on the Chinese people themselves, and the environment, and what solutions are available to contain the pollution so that our global environmental commons (ocean/atmosphere)
are not damaged beyond sustainability?

Global climate change: At the current rate of global climate change, how much will burning this coal add to the abnormalities in our planet's atmosphere? Please produce an estimation,
based in scientific evidence from multiple independent sources, of how much coal, if any, we can be allowed to burn in the next 5 years WITHOUT impacting climate change. How do the GPT's numbers fit in to that equation?

Human health ans 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 Basic coal combustion in Asia?

Costs 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; and lost local businesses and jobs?

Comment and recommendation: Some arctic experts are now predicting that with the current rate of melting, we could see the disappearance/permanent destruction of the ice sheet within 4 years time. Because of this, and all the above states costs, concerns, and negative effects this plan will no doubt have on our global environment, regardless of the local destruction and pollution it will likely cause, we urge you to consider these questions, and take NO ACTION. We do not believe or expect these effect/concerns to be mitigate-able, and decisively oppose the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, and the companies that are in charge of planning it.

We sincerely hope you take ample time to gather the information necessary before delivering a reply.

Sincerely,

Margaret Taylor

Maggie Wineburgh-Freed (#14067)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of the proposal to:
a) construct a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington,
b) to transport strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains throughout the Northwest and
c) to export 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.

Magnus Homestead (#3171)

Date Submitted: 11/15/12
Location: Camas, WA
Comment:
The proposal to extract and ship tons of U.S. coal to China and other locations is just simply unacceptable in so many ways as to make it an outrage to even consider. PLEASE WAKE UP!
PLEASE WAKE UP! We need local non fossil fuel development and learning to conserve and it's not a matter of opinion, it's a physical law of nature - we as humans will simply not survive if we keep in denial. Again, wake up and stop the destruction!

Magnus Homestead

Mahala Frye (#13214)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Poulsbo, 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 pay attention to our concerns! This is an outdated, outmoded
destructive industry. Let us not let it continue to eat up our lives
and our land. Pay attention!

Mai Nguyen (#11605)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I want to ask what the direct, as well as the indirect impacts on human health, specifically related to air and water quality at the local level, will be from the industrial site, and transportation of coal.

Maia Wolff (#12845)

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

I live on Bainbridge Island, WA, a beautiful island west of Seattle.
The earth needs us to keep the coal in the ground. Living as I do, I cross the Sound by ferry to get to Seattle. Sometimes the boat has to stop & go around Orca whales; they are beautiful. When we get to the mainland, I don't want to be stopped at train crossings waiting for black coal to go by. I don't want the air blackened, the water blackened, my family & my self filled with cancer causing coal dust. Please consider how these trains with change lives, human & animal & plant.

Makala Forster (#3838)

Date Submitted: 12/04/2012
Comment:
How will this system affect our marine species and natural environment (that affects both humans and wildlife/marine wildlife? I would like a study that would look at the costs of this system on our environment, because whatever affects the marine wildlife affects the human environment.

Makenzie Landis (#14652)

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

Mala Wingerd (#12704)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: San Diego, CA
Comment:
NOTE: 1) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CLEAN COAL"! and 2) We should no longer be using ANY form of fossil fuel for energy!!! As a country, we should be supporting cleaner, renewable forms of energy - like wind and solar! NOW!

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.

Mala Wingerd (#13954)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
NOTE: Frankly, I am against ALL forms of fossil fuel for energy (& Nukes)! We should, and must, support cleaner, renewable forms of energy as of the LAST century! The U.S. could be a world leader, and should be by now, for cleaner forms of energy technology. We have the technology, we just need to support it! SHEESH!

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.

Malcolm Best (#6518)

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

Malcolm Best (#10449)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
In scoping this EIS, it is essential to address the impacts of this project wholistically; the EIS must include a careful analysis of the impacts at the site of proposed coal export terminal and all of the associated actions to supply this terminal and the opportunities for increased burning of coal that this facility will bring about. These impacts include the impacts to the marine nearshore including eel grass and other habitats essential for the health of Puget Sound and local fisheries, the risk to water quality and the marine environment and species such as salmon and orcas from coal dust and potential spills. The extensive rail routes and large number of coal trains needed to provide the coal for export would have major significant impacts on human health for air pollution including coal dust, noise, traffic and safety as well as disrupting communities large and small along the entire route. Towns will be cut in half and businesses and local economies disrupted. Any analysis of economic impacts and benefits must include these and other negative effects on local economies. The analysis should also look at the impacts of providing federally subsidized coal to the US's chief economic rival, China. The EIS should also analyze the substantial benefits of the no action alternative. Finally, the scope must include the impacts of facilitating coal burning and its impacts on air quality and climate disruption.

Malcolm Madenwald (#14233)

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

Malcom Lea (#1189)

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

Malena Pinkham (#5252)

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

Malinda McDonnell (#11908)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I live in a community close to the BNSF Rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) will be traveling if the Gateway Pacific Terminal is built. I/we request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement encompass the entire transportation corridor as well as the entire Puget Sound as an ecosystem so that our livelihoods, homes, and habitats are given due consideration. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive study should include:

Direct impacts on Fisheries and the Puget Sound: How will tourism; boating; collision risks; coal spill risks; salmon, crab and herring fisheries; Orca whales; and the general beauty, vitality, and livability of the Puget sound and environs be affected by this new coal port construction and operations,and by the other 950 annual transits of coal ships to come? We and our fellow workers depend on healthy salmon runs and healthy, non-toxic shellfish, as does the marine and bird lifein Seattle/the Puget Sound. The trains will be running directly through and over the Carkeek Park salmon beds, where baby fish are already struggling without the added stresses of arsenic and mercury from coal dust in the river. How will this specific park be affected, and the baby salmon/eggs in its rivers?

Direct and cumulative impacts of Coal Dust pollution: Please investigate this in the areas of rail safety; increased risks of spills due to coal dust buildup on tracks; increased shellfish toxicity; the general health of the community that lives on/near the rail way and up wind of train traffic; investigate

how coal dust and port run off contributes to the acidification of the ocean/Puget Sound, and how this will impact the wildlife there; specifically investigate the Puget Sound's water currents in evaluating what kind of build up there will be, whether or not the pollution will be able to drain out of the sound effectively, and if not, what the overall cumulative impacts of that build up of toxins will be, while also taking into account possible pollution from spills; impacts on workers health who handle the coal, and the costs they will have to pay for increased health care expenses.



Black Carbon and burning coal: Please investigate what role the burning of coal plays in the creation of black carbon, which has recently been identified by scientists as the 2nd biggest contributor to global warming. How much black carbon would be added to the atmosphere if China were to burn the same amount of coal that is planned to be shipped, and what kinds of impacts would this have, cumulatively, on global warming?


How much coal smoke/ash travels to the northern ice sheet when burned in China, and what kind of contribution does it make to the melting of ice once it settles? How greatly does the build-up of coal dust/ash residue contribute to ice-melt acceleration? What companies who are profiting off this transport of coal planning to do in order to clean up in the arctic and preserve the ice sheet from melting away completely? Currently we know that black sludge from air pollutants is gathered on arctic glaciers, which results in more sunlight and heat being focused on the ice than would naturally occur. This increases below-glacier streams/cracks/rivers, which are creating new momentum to carry these ancient glaciers to sea, where they ultimately melt. This process is greatly accelerating the melting of once-permanent glaciers. We can reasonably foresee that if the arctic ice sheet in destroyed, such an event will initiate a series of global weather disasters unlike anything we have seen in recent history. Please investigate the impact of black-sludge residue on the ice thoroughly, as it's presence has only recently come to light publicly and needs much further exploration to fully understand its impacts, which appear dire. (See "Chasing Ice" by Jeff Orlowski for more info.)



Chinese preparedness: Please investigate whether or not China as a nation is fully prepared to effectively mitigate the massive influx of pollution on their people, wildlife, and waterways. What are the impacts to be expected on the Chinese people themselves, and the environment, and what solutions are available to contain the pollution so that our global environmental commons (ocean/atmosphere) are not damaged beyond sustainability?



Global climate change: At the current rate of global climate change, how much will burning this coal add to the abnormalities in our planet's atmosphere? Please produce an estimation, based in scientific evidence from multiple independent sources, of how much coal, if any, we can be allowed to burn in the next 5 years WITHOUT impacting climate change. How do the GPT's numbers fit in to that equation?

Human health ans 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 Basic coal combustion in Asia?


Costs 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; and lost local businesses and jobs?

Comment and recommendation: Some arctic experts are now predicting that with the current rate of melting, we could see the disappearance/permanent destruction of the ice sheet within 4 years time. Because of this, and all the above states costs, concerns, and negative effects this plan will no doubt have on our global environment, regardless of the local destruction and pollution it will likely cause, we urge you to consider these questions, and take NO ACTION. We do not believe or expect these effect/concerns to be mitigate-able, and decisively oppose the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, and the companies that are in charge of planning it.



We sincerely hope you take ample time to gather the information necessary before delivering a reply.



Thank you,

Malinda McDonnell

Mallory Anderson (#11681)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Hello,
My name is Mallory Anderson and I am currently a senior at Bellingham High School. My reason for writing is because I’m concerned about a specific impact of the Coal Trains in Bellingham.
Traffic would be heavily affected by 18 coal trains moving through Bellingham every day. Trains passing would increase the amount of time and the frequency cars are held up at railroad tracks significantly. The amount of inconvenience this would cause people would be enough for everyone to hate the new coal trains, regardless whether they’re Democrat or Republican. Nobody likes traffic. People already have a short enough patience on the road as it is.
Alternatives or mitigations are limited in this position because the coal trains have to go through Bellingham. There’s no obvious answer around it. What I would like studied is how long cars would be sitting at railroad crossings throughout the day and a further impact traffic would have on Bellingham besides people waiting in their cars.
Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Mallory Anderson

Mallory Millay (#1905)

Date Submitted: 10/25/12
Location: Maple Falls, 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 considering public comment against the coal export terminals and coal trains.




Mallory Millay
Robinswood
Maple Falls, WA 98266

Maly Stockslager (#14639)

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

Manda White (#9333)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Comment:
As a resident of King County I am writing to convey my opposition to the proposed coal terminal and the transport of coal through Seattle. There are many reasons why I am very much against this proposal and I would like to share them.
To start, I am terribly concerned about the negative health effects of coal dust spewing from the cars multiple times a day. Our children should not have to pay the price for the coal exporting companies short sighted, ill-conceived plans. There are many documented negative effects of breathing in coal dust. This should be an obvious deal breaker.
But beyond ours and our childrens health, the health of Puget Sound is also in question.
The pollution in the form of coal dust and train emissions adds yet another challenge to keeping our Sound, and all of its inhabitants, free from harm.
Beyond those very negative impacts we add traffic issues.The traffic problems we have in Seattle are already grave, and with the number of trains increasing greatly we will be stuck with massive traffic congestion to boot.
China's plan to burn this coal and pollute the air with vile waste not only threatens their countries health, but the health of our planet as a whole, and as the airborn pollutants travel, they will blow back our way and come full circle. As far as I can see, the only people benefitting from this plan are the people who own the coal. The rest of us will suffer. There will be short term jobs created, but in the big picture this story has a very sad ending. Please do not allow such a short-sighted, disastrous plan to be put into place.
Thank you,
Manda White

Mandee Manes (#1327)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Manuel del Pozo (#10447)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
On the shortsightedness of digging up and selling our natural resources to the Chinese to burn.

The coal in question is dug up from Federal Lands, It is Our coal. As such it seems foolish for us to be contemplating taking this natural resource and selling to the Chinese.
More to the point, the private companies that are digging, transporting and selling the coal are not paying a fair price to the Federal Government for our coal.

Many years hence we may need this energy resource, we may have invented truly clean ways to extract the energy from the coal, but if this and other projects for exporting the coal are approved, by then the energy will be gone and its residue floating around in the atmosphere, warming the planet.

We here in Whatcom County need to take a stand- while noise, traffic congestion and local pollution are significant by-products of this plan, the more important issue is this:
Why in God's name would we want to sell this coal now?

manuel reta (#8631)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Ferndale, wa
Comment:
This area would benefit the community in a economical way. It would have a positive affect for jobs created for our young people and also for veterans of the armed forces

Mara Lawrence (#2439)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Mara Lawrence (#2463)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Mara Lawrence (#2473)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Mara Modayur (#3053)

Date Submitted: 11/17/2012
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
I am VERY concerned about the increase in coal dust pollution, and train engine pollution. I live in Seattle, and know that the train goes by many parks, with wetlands and streams on either side of the tracks. BNSF estimates that each uncovered car loses between 500 pounds and a ton of coal dust en route. The coal dust and engine emissions pose a significant health risk to humans, animals and wildlife. I understand there is a lot of money to be made by the coal companies, but the cost to human health and wildlife is just too high!

Thank you for offering this forum to share our concerns.

Mara Reynolds (#296)

Date Submitted: 09/26/12
Location: Stevenson, 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.

No coal export trains through the Columbia Gorge, please!

Sincerely,

Mara Reynolds

Maradel Gale (#939)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Bainbridge Is, WA
Comment:
Oct 22, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

There's no way that coal export through the waters of the Salish Sea will do anything other than further endanger the protected resident orcas that live and visit there. A real environmental analysis will find all sorts of problems with this proposal, both on land and on the waters of our sound and the ocean.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Maradel K Gale
239 Parfitt Way SW Unit 2a
Bainbridge Is, WA 98110-4900

Marc Adam (#2891)

Date Submitted: 11/13/12
Location: Bainbridge Is, 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 state and the country by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and, MOST CRITICALLY, 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.




Marc Adam
16555 Agate Point Road
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Marc Forlenza (#839)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Marc Forlenza (#2760)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Marc Fulmer (#4672)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Location: Arlington, WA
Comment:
To whom it may concern:
Aside from the environmental impact of coal moving through Everett and elsewhere in Washington State, I am not keen on sending our natural resources to China when at some point we (the USA) may be in need of them. This is likely outside of the scope of your inquiry, but yet I make the point in case you are interested.

Regarding the draft letter, I think it includes all of the major points I would like to see addressed. I support the letter as is.
Thank you,
Marc

Marc Grotle (#9400)

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Marc Grotle

Marc Islam (#3619)

Date Submitted: 11/30/2012
Comment:
I have significant concerns over this project that I would like to see addressed by the EIS study. In particular:
1) what will the effect of the reasonable dumping of ballast be on the returning vessels. Some very basic estimates can be made... Estimate the number of days in the year that conditions will exist, allowing vessels to dump their ballast in our local waters, calculate the number of gallons per year we expect to see dumped, and talk with experts in that field of study about the anticipated impact. We already have a huge problem in the Puget Sound with invasive marine species. Lets not accelerate that problem.

2) is it true that enforcement of our laws pertaining to the dumping of ballast is poor? The EIS should review that process. If enforcement is sufficiently poor, and if there is a business incentive for the vessels to hold onto their ballast u tip the enter local waters, then that needs to be called out into the report. Public costs to increase enforcing need to be taken I to consideration.

3) what's the failure rate for these vessels? Is there a drastically probability that we will see at least one failure in our local waters? Is the response plan sufficient? Should tugs be required (and at what cost)? What is the cost of the cleanup? That money should be paid into an escrow account PRIOR to operations commencing.

I am not saying outright that this project should not go forward. I am voicing my distrust over the inevitable clean-up that gets mired in political and judicial processes, which have demonstrably minimized the concerns of the local population and the environment. Lets do our best to understand those costs and concerns ahead of time and require the companies that stand to profit from the venture to appropriately pay for their share of the costs.

Thank you for your consideration,
Marc Islam
Friday Harbor, WA

Marc Johnson (#8002)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Boise, Id
Comment:
I believe the utilization of U.S. produced coal for export is highly preferable for foreign energy producing utilizing much dirtier coal produced elsewhere in the world. India, China, Brazil and other rapidly development nations will produce vast new amounts of energy. They should benefit from cleaner U.S. coal, while allowing for expanded U.S. and Northwest exports and jobs.

Impacts on communities in the region can and should be mitigated. The world needs energy and until and unless we are able to widely deploy newer, cleaner generation coal has a legitimate role to play. Thank you.

Marc Murawski (#1946)

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

Marc Smason (#14145)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
The U.S. must implement 3 things to establish a democracy:
publicly-funded campaigns, election reform (a la W. Europe) and end obscene corporate lobbies!

I am deeply concerned about the potential impact of coal exports on my family and community. Coal exports pose great threats to the health, safety, and environment of the Pacific Northwest. In addition, burning this coal would be a huge step backward in combating global warming

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.

Marc Stoner (#12646)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Eugene, OR
Comment:
I was raised in a farm area that had a coal train over 100 cars long go through twice a day every day on their way to a super port like Cherry Point. There was a steady supply of black soot from the open cars for fifty yards on either side of the train every time it passed. Increased noise, air and water pollution were the result for the environment.
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.

Marcella E. Widdoes (#763)

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

Marcia Corey (#3089)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. Please consider the fragility of the land along the Chuckanut, the coastline south of Bellingham. Can that area sustain the weight of multiple trains passing along that fragile area?

2. Will the local community be responsible for all or most of the traffic mitigation work that needs to be done? If so, is that fair to the community?

3. Washington State is trying to go green for our longterm health. Doesn't this seem to be the opposite of going green and aren't we ruining our health and environment to help China instead of ourselves?

4. Wild salmon are some of our best fish. If we lose some of that resource, aren't we contributing to poorer nutrition?

5. How many cities, towns, and villages will have noise and pollution as the trains pass through with no economic gain whatsoever and only disruption as a result?

6. How many people will lose home values as a result of all these trains in their front or back yard?

7. What about quality of life? Can repeated train whistles and noise be anything but stressful and doesn't stress cause disease? If a person can't sleep, doesn't that cause health-related issues as well?

8. What about loss of income for fishermen, organic farmers, and others?

9. Will this contribute to global warming?

10. Why are we ruining a wonderful Northwest environment and giving resources to China? So we can get back products and be dependent? Change our culture instead of our environment for longterm good. We must think bigger than just environmental impacts.

Marcia Denison (#6588)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Longview, Wa
Comment:
Please protect us all from the global warming air pollution coal export operation at, to and from Cherry Point would add to our already severely polluted climate. Last summer's worst drought in history was terrifying. The air was orange for 4 months. It got up in the 60s in December, and 2012 was the year China burned more coal than ever. The soot travels back to the west coast carried on the trade winds and is spewed into the air by trains of coal cars, wind storms and terminal activity. It pollutes the Columbia River Puget Sound and every stream it passes all the way to Powder River, contaminating the water, wetlands and fish with arsenic, lead and mercury and many more toxins. If you approve this terminal people will die of lung disease all along the routes. Is that what you want?
The estuary at Cherry Point took many millions of dollars and years to restore for Salmon. The terminal would turn it into a dead zone, like at the terminal in Vancouver BC where coal is spilled into the waters. These polluters don't even pay export tax on the raw materials, leaving citizens and states to clean up their mess after the fish are already poisoned, and we'd supply the infrastructure for them free of charge. No way. No Gateway Terminal to the end of the world. The terminal and all related activity are contrary to the publics interests, health and well being. NO Cherry Point or any other coal terminal. Thank you.
Attached Image:

Marcia Foster (#1376)

Date Submitted: 10/24/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
Dear ones,

I am gravely concerned with the possibility of 18 coal trains passing through our community on a daily basis. Health issues/concerns will further be at risk from the huge amounts of coal dust that will contaminate/pollute our air.

I fail to see how the coal dust and it's aftermath will be eliminating our "carbon footprint" which is being touted as the new way to "go green". Coal being shipped to China via coal trains passing through our cities at the rate of millions of tons of coal a year is hardly eliminating our "carbon footprint". Quite the contrary.

If the coal trains pass through our community at the rate of which is estimated (18 trains/day), it will surely have additional impact on the health of those (men, women, and children) whose immune systems are already weakened with respiratory illnessess. And there is also the possibility that the coal dust will eventually affect even those of us who are not - yet - afflicted with respiratory illnessess.

The traffic delays and backups will surely hinder the first responders on their way to or from an emergency.

Our quality of life as we know it, will be forever changed. And not for the better.

I am reminded of Erin Brockovich's litigation in 1993 with Pacific Gas and Electric in the southern California town of Hinkley. The company contaminated the town's drinking water (hexavalent chromium was disolved and discharged into ponds, some of it into the ground water). As a result an estimated 196 cases of cancer was reported. I assume PG&E considered the population of Hinkley dispensable.

Ms. Brockovich fought the good fight and won monitary damages for it's citizens; even though it was too late to keep them healthy.

Who will fight the good fight for us before our community becomes sick? All of us have to fight the good fight to maintain our health and well-being. Or will be dispensable, too?

Mayor Boudreau launched a Wellness Challenge this past August. She believes that "a healthy community results in a greater quality of life"; 18 coal trains per day (as estimated) leaving our air contaminated with dirty coal dust in it's wake will put an end to that.

Sincerely and Respectfully submitted,
Marcia Foster
Mount Vernon, Washington

Marcia Foster (#2668)

Date Submitted: 11/07/12
Location: Mt Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Marcia Fpster (#2805)

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

Marcia Garrett (#9592)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
I oppose the open container transport of coal through my community. the coal dust is hazardous to all living things in the vicinity.

Marcia Guderian (#1888)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

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

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

It is important to examine the increase in air pollution here in the Northwest that the burning of all that exported coal in China will have, and also, I would like to see the EIS go even further and examine the effects that burning will have on climate change worldwide.




Marcia Guderian
PO Box 1569
Bellingham, WA 98227

Marcia Guderian (#9390)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a long term resident of Bellingham, WA. I live in the northwest part of town in what is known as the Columbia Neighborhood within 1 mile of the railroad tracks. When a train goes by, my property actually shakes. At first it's like standing on the deck of a boat. When the first "wave" hits, you need to be on an even footing to avoid falling. Then as the train gets closer it settles down to a more even vibration followed by the noise of the train on the tracks and the whistle. Please investigate the possible consequences of an increase in this seizmic effect caused by heavier, longer and more frequent trains.

Many properties, (my own included), in this neighborhood and others near the tracks are built over abandoned mines.* The increased vibration from the trains is causing more sink holes to appear on all these properties, at least that's what is happening here.
Please investigate the stability of the underground mines and the possibility of cave ins.

In addition to the seizmic effects, there is the noise to consider and air pollution and soil contamination from coal dust and diesel particulates. I am an outdoor gardener as are most of my neighbors. What amounts of toxins will coal dust add to the soil we are growing food in? Please also investigate the effect the coal trains will have on nearby residents' health.

I am a first time home buyer and have most of my resources invested in my property, as do many other homeowners. Moving so much coal by rail could be devastating to everyone who owns residential property near the tracks. Please investigate the financial impacts to property owners.

Thank you
Marcia

*article: "What Lies Beneath Bellingham Attracts Attention of Federal Government"
http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php
Attached Image:

Marcia Guderian (#9832)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a long term resident of Bellingham, WA. I am very worried about what shipping coal from the West Coast could mean to the health of the environment, of humans, animals and plants and to our quality of life.

What are the impacts to the environment and health from coal dust and diesel emissions? We have lots of wind here. How much coal dust will be carried on the wind? Coal is contaminated with toxins and heavy metals, such as mercury, chromium, arsenic, lead and cadmium*. How far will the dust spread from the coal shipping facilities and from the trains and ships that carry it?. How much diesel will travel on the wind? In addition to the immediate effects, please also investigate the effects, on humans and animals, of inhaling these toxins over time.
We also have lots of rain here. What toxins will wash into the sea water and seep into our groundwater, and in what quantity? Please study the effects of water borne toxins on health and environment as well.

What is the potential for contamination of the soil?. I grow organic vegetables outside in the summer, as do many of my neighbors. Ours is not the only food supply that could be affected. There are farms all over the area, including farms that raise livestock as well as those that raise produce, orchards, dairies and also oyster farms and hatcheries, all of which could be negatively impacted by air borne coal dust. What will be the impact of air and water borne toxins on the local food supply?. What will happen to the herring beds at Cherry Point?

What will happen to our quality of life? Part of the reason I live here is the natural beauty of the area, not yet completely devastated by industry as are some other parts of the continent. What will the coal shipping industry do to that quality of life which is so important? What threat does it represent to local waterways? What are the risks of collisions at sea and spills of fuel and cargo due to the increased shipping? How much will shipping coal contribute to the devastation of already endangered species of ocean life and water fowl? What is the risk of introducing harmful invasive species into local waters?

In light of the vast numbers of people who will be affected all along the train route, the risks and negative impacts are not worth the few hundred jobs that the facility will provide here. Please stop the permitting of coal industry on the West Coast, beginning with the Gateway Terminal.

Thank you.

* http://www.minersnews.com/EMarApr2012/HeavyMetal.html

Marcia Guderian (#9834)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a citizen of Bellingham, WA, I moved here with my parents as a teenager. But more importantly I am a citizen of Earth, and as such I am concerned about what the proposed Gateway Pacific coal port at Cherry Point and all other such facilities will mean to this planet:

What are the cumulative impacts on a global level? It is time to address the worldwide problem of climate change without further delay. It is time to acknowledge that the planet is a combined eco-system. What happens on any part of the globe affects the whole. Our oceans cannot stand much more degradation, and all life on this planet depends on them. Ocean currents and air streams spread man-made toxins around the world and the pollutants from coal burned in China come back home to plague us here.* Also please take into account the further acidification of the ocean waters by contamination with coal and the effect that will have on sea life. It is clear that any study of the impacts of building even one coal facility must also take the cumulative global impacts into consideration.

The environmental, social and financial impacts of mining, burning, transporting and shipping coal are numerous and inevitable. The population of China is even more at risk as we are, and so is the rest of the world. (For something this big, international permits should be required.) I am not a scientist, but I see no way to mitigate the worldwide toxic effects of coal except to stop using it, and share safer energy technologies with the rest of the world. I ask you to deny permits to Gateway Pacific and to all current and future proposed coal facilities.

Thank you.

*. Physicians for Social Responsibility
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coal-ash.pdf

Marcia Guderian (#9838)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a long term resident of Bellingham, WA. I am self employed and my business depends on other local businesses. If they are not doing well, I'm not either. I am very concerned about what effect the proposed Gateway Pacific coal port at Cherry Point will have on local business.

How will the coal shipping industry affect local business? At the very least, fishing, boating and tourism will all be affected by the introduction of a coal facility here because of increased shipping traffic and pollution and negative visual impacts. Local small businesses and industries keep other businesses going as well. How much will the increased traffic interfere with local business? How much will increased pollution and negative visual impacts affect the tourism industry? What effect will increased shipping activities have on the Washington State Ferry System and on cruise ships? What will be the impacts to small boats and the pleasure craft industry? What will increased water toxicity do to the fishing industry and the hatcheries and oyster beds? What effect will increased air pollution have on local farms?

A related area of concern is that the City and Port of Bellingham are in the initial stages of creating a new Waterfront district by redeveloping the former Georgia Pacific property and extending the existing harbor area. Unfortunately, the new district is located across the tracks from the rest of the town. and will be sometimes inaccessible due to increased train traffic. It will also be subject to noise and pollution problems from transporting coal nearby*. What will be the costs to the community if it becomes necessary to build overpasses in order to access this area? What will be the cost to the environment?

The impacts to local water related industry alone will outweigh any increases in business that the coal port might generate. Please do not permit the Gateway terminal.

Thank you.

*. Clean Air Task Force
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf
Attached Image:

Marcia Guderian (#14481)

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

Marcia Halligan (#13767)

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.

Currently five coal export proposals 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 go to 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.

Marcia Lagerloef (#10041)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA
Comment:
I attended and spoke at the December 13 scoping meeting for the proposed Gateway Pacific project. At that time I heard issues that I had been unaware of, such as the opening of a new coal mine in Montana being contingent on the export terminal being built, and that the rail lines in some towns bisect the town and thus the multiple long trains per day will interrupt both commercial life and critical emergency services delivery to both sides of the towns. Most importantly, I heard over and over that the expected destination for coal leaving the proposed terminal in Bellingham is China, where rapid industrialization has caused them to exceed the U.S. in carbon dioxide emissions, thus making China the largest current contributor to the atmosphere of the gas known to be a central cause of global warming. Given just these issues, the EIS for this project should address these larger geographic and global health issues. This decision cannot be isolated from its upstream impacts to land and communities in Montana that are newly opened for coal mining, nor from all of the towns the coal trains will pass through and disrupt, as well as pollute, nor from the foregone established destination and purpose of this coal – to be burned in China and thus converted into the chief contributor to global warming. These are all connected, and the coal export terminal is the critical link.

Secondly, the State of Washington is currently in the process of revising its water quality standards for surface waters to adopt human health-based criteria that incorporate new rates for fish consumption in this state, taking into consideration the information available now which indicates high fish consumption rates by the Native American tribes as well as Asian and Pacific Islander populations in the state. The Department of Ecology’s 2011 report entitled, Fish Consumption Rates Technical Support Document, is the starting point for this regulatory revision. In that report, Ecology concludes that the available studies support the use of a default fish consumption rate in the range of 157 – 267 grams/day. The fish consumption rate, which is the basis for calculating Washington’s currently applicable water quality standards is the national default value of 6.5 grams/day. The EIS should evaluate the potential for impacts to the state’s waters and the human consumption of fish in light of the likelihood of a significant increase in the fish consumption rate, and hence a significant decrease in the human health criteria applicable to state waters. This analysis should be done particularly for pollutants such as mercury, that might be associated with the coal dust that will escape onto the surrounding landscape as the coal trains pass through the state.

Mercury is already a contaminant in state waters that has resulted in a statewide mercury advisory issued by the Washington Department of Health, which advises about fish consumption to protect particularly vulnerable individuals. Women who are or might become pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children are advised not to eat Northern pikeminnow and to limit eating largemouth and smallmouth bass to no more than two meals/month. In Puget Sound methylmercury is a contaminant of concern particularly in Chinook salmon. The EIS needs to consider the potential for coal dust escaping during passage of coal cars, coal car derailment and dumping into water bodies or nearby waters, and burning of coal in China to contribute to worsening the mercury loading of State waterbodies, therefore further limiting the ability to harvest and consume local fish.

Marcia Monma (#933)

Date Submitted: 10/22/2012
Location: Clinton, WA
Comment:
Oct 22, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

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

The project will harm imperiled wildlife species and their designated critical habitat, especially our endangered orcas. It will also 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. Revenue and jobs gained will not be worth the damage, this is a very short-sighted, only one bottom-line perspective project!

Sincerely,

Marcia Monma
PO Box 680
Clinton, WA 98236-0680

Marcia Robey (#6718)

Date Submitted: 01/08/13
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. I believe the increased train traffic will overwhelm our small city of Bellingham in a very, very profound way. The number of personal injuries and deaths in the major metropolitan areas of western washington has yet to be addressed. The present infrastructure for trains will greatly impact pedestrians and motorists resulting in personal injury and death.

In addition, I must hear the physicians in our community caution us about the increased pollution and coal dust from 18 additional trains a day.
Please hear us.

Marcie Keever (#2496)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Berkeley, CA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Marcie Keever (Friends of the Earth) (#12206)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Berkeley, CA
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern:

Please find attached the comments of Friends of the Earth regarding the scoping for the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal & Custer Spur. In addition, members and supporters of Friends of the Earth also submitted approximately 12,700 individual comment letters to the Army Corps, Dept. of Ecology and Whatcom County. We are able to forward those comments to CH2M HILL at the email above if requested.

Sincerely,
Marcie Keever

****************************************
**PLEASE NOTE FRIENDS OF THE EARTH'S NEW ADDRESS**

Marcie Keever
Oceans & Vessels Project Director
Friends of the Earth
David Brower Center
2150 Allston Way, Ste. 240
Berkeley, CA 94704
510-900-3144 phone
510-900-3155 fax
mkeever@foe.org
www.foe.org
Attached Files:

Marcos Pacheco (#6644)

Date Submitted: 01/07/13
Comment:
Comment: coal train proposal

I live in Spokane, Washington, and this comment is regarding the coal train proposal and its potentially negative impact on this city. Although proponents claim that the proposal will create jobs and increase economic growth, the stated benefits do not outweigh the potential harm that the proposal will have on the city of Spokane and its residents; namely, the proposal will increase city traffic, increase pollution, and expose residents to dangerous levels of toxins that are known to cause health problems. Given this, the proposal should be rejected.

First, the proposal will increase traffic because the amount of trains already passing through the city will increase substantially. The number of trains that may pass through Spokane County each day could reach up to 40 in number. Each of these trains takes about six minutes to pass through a railroad crossing, blocking such crossings for about 4 hours a day. See http://www.powerpastcoal.org. Spokane is already hit with heavy traffic because it is prone to snowy conditions, increasing the number of trains that pass through the city each day will intensify this problem.

Second, the proposal will increase pollution and create health risks because of the dust and exhaust discharged by passing trains. Studies have shown that the coal dust can cause asthma and contains toxic metals such as mercury. Furthermore, the diesel fuel and coal dust has also been linked to causing lung disease, hearts disease and cancer. See http://www.powerpastcoal.org.

Such health risks are foreseeable in Spokane because they have already occurred in Stockton, California, where a similar rail yard has been in place for many years. When comparing the study in Stockton to Spokane, it shows that residents less than 1,000 feet away from the production area “are estimated to be exposed at or above 50 and 100 in a million risk of cancer due to the Spokane BNSF railyard operations.” See http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/health-risk-study-bnsf-railroad-spokane-railyard. Essentially, the study has shown that the closer residents are to the BNSF rail yard operation, the higher their risk of cancer increases.

Stopping this project completely is the only feasible solution to remedy the traffic, pollution and health issues. The risks are too great.

There are no alternatives that will remedy the traffic issue. Should the proposal pass, the trains would be able to use city train routes to carry out business, and the residents will have to suffer the traffic delays. Even if train routes were changed to later hours to avoid rush hour, the noise that these trains would create would disrupt citizens in their homes in the evening.

Regarding pollution, the law should require that the coal companies take extra precautions to eliminate the discharge from their trains and from the coal. Although, this will likely be too expensive for the companies and they will likely choose alternative routes with less red tape. Be that as it may, the economic growth of the city should never be considered before the wellbeing and health of its citizens. Should only one person contract cancer because of this project, the project should not go on – the economic benefits would not outweigh the burdens.

Should the project go on, please study ways in which the discharge of both diesel fuel and coal dust can be limited before the project commences. Furthermore, each citizen should be made aware of the risks and assisted in moving to safety should the project greatly affect their residence.

Respectfully submitted,

Marcos Pacheco

Marcus Hoffman (#5486)

Date Submitted: 12/20/12
Location: Bremerton, WA
Comment:
December 20, 2012

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


As you know Whatcom County is a gateway for exports to the Far East. Coal is one of the important commodities to be shipped from this port. China is going to buy the coal, it is just a matter of through which port. Get the environment impact statement process done so we can keep the jobs here, instead of shipping them to Canada.

In the Northwest we know how to keep our environment in great shape and we will not put up with bad players in our community. Reasonable solutions can be found to mitigate any serious concerns that some groups are expressing. Don t kill this effort by over reaching with regulations and unnecessary rules. Be responsible and keep the local economy from been hurt again by extremist groups trying to stop the progress within the world trade arena.


Sincerely

Marcus Hoffman

Marcus Intinarelli (#8919)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Comment:
Marcus Intinarelli
Scoping Comments
1/18/13
Address according to published instructions from the agency(ies)
RE: Scoping under NEPA/SEPA for Environmental Impact Statement – Gateway Pacific Terminal
Dear ------:
Please scope the impacts of the water quality, air quality, soil quality of the Powder River basin where the coal will be mined. I would like you to scope the impacts of the native fish populations within the Powder River Basin. As well as, I would like you to scope the impacts to bird populations due to noise pollution and light pollution. I would like Montana and Idaho to be included in the EIS. I would like to see the impacts to the plant species as well as incest species as a result of the mining. Please include the building of the terminal and its effects of endangered species within the area as well as fish populations, bird populations, and land mammal populations. I would like to see the impacts of more trains in regard to coal dust, exhaust pollution, traffic delays, particulate matter coming off and noise pollution within Montana, Idaho, and Washington. Also, in past years trains have been de-railed due to particulate matter on the tracks, I would like to see the probability of trains being de-railed within the scoping, as well as the impacts of the spilt coal if trains are de-railed, on local flora and fauna.
Within the scoping, I would like to see the effects on the coal miner’s health due to mining and being around heavy machinery daily. I would like to see how the property values of Montana, Idaho, and Washington due to mining, more trains, coal dust, other particulate matter coming off the trains, water, soil, air quality, and noise pollution. I would like to see how much more fuel would be needed for more trains to go from Montana to Washington, as well as fuel costs for more ships going back and forth from Washington to China. In regard to ship traffic, how would marine life and their feeding grounds, spawning areas, mating areas and migration patterns is disrupted. Also, how many and how often would invasive species be introduced into water ways in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and the oceans waters between the terminal and Chinas terminal.
The quality of life within the Northwest could be affected by noise pollution, coal dust, as well as many other factors in regard to excess coal trains. I would like to see how the quality of life would be affected by all of these. How will the mining of the Powder River Basin effect families who already live in the area? I would also like to see how many more jobs would be created by implementing this project. Also, within the scoping, I would like to see how much CO2 emissions would be released annually from China burning this coal, more ships shipping the coal, more trains running back and forth, and all the heavy machinery that goes into running and opening a mine this size. Also, include how much CO2 emissions would be emitted by the building of the new terminal in WA.

Thanks you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Marcus Intinarelli

Marcus Lanskey (#12856)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Eugene, OR
Comment:
As a resident of the Northwest, 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.

Marcy Hipskind (#9885)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I would like to add my voice to those who request a very comprehensive evaluation of the impact of developing the Gateway Pacific Terminal in Whatcom County. I am a family physician who has been in the community for over 30 years seeing patients with the full spectrum of health and disease. I am also a member of those who have been tasked with creating an Accountable Care Organization in Whatcom County. I feel that it must be an absolute priority for us to know and fully understand the potential consequences of this development, some of which may be unintended, and specifically, those that involve our health.

If we are going to make any headway in cutting costs toward health care, we must take great care to know in detail those risks to which we are subjecting ourselves. With the body of knowledge currently available, there would be no excuse to not avail ourselves of its application to this situation.

I am particularly concerned about diesel particulate in the air, noise pollution, and contamination of our seafood. The evaluation must include the increase in local water traffic that would result from the Terminal, and the increase in environmental mercury contamination from coal burning in Asia, which does impact our watershed.

We must understand the impact of the increase in rail traffic as it relates to noise, vibration, and to our transportation via roads and as pedestrians, both as it relates to health and beyond that. The impact to our waterfront development, our tourist industry, and the long term desirability of our location as a safe and healthy place to live are equally important.

As such, I request that you address the impact of diesel related respiratory and cardiovascular disease and apply the statistics additively to the recently announced increase in rail traffic by the oil industry. Noise and vibration pollution are not insignificant factors that must also be detailed. Population health must be addressed as we enter an era of being held accountable to the health of our community. This should be addressed not only as to incidence of disease and optimal functioning, but also cost.

The location of our rail system must also be taken into account as its proximity to our population and tourist centers is central to the concerns. We need to evaluate the lost opportunity costs of the impacts to waterfront development, the seafood industry, and the emergency system delays.

This development raises concerns far beyond Whatcom County, with the diesel and rail issues extending to the entire path of the railroad from origination of the coal to the final destination.

Marcy Widdoes (#8885)

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

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

I am especially concerned vessel traffic and its impact on the Salish
Sea. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and
comprehensive studies should address include:

How will GPT's marine vessel traffic increase collision risks with
tankers and other cargo ships in the area?

What would be the effects on our region of a catastrophic oil and/or coal spill?

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,
Marcy Widdoes

Mardi Salisbury Currin (#10680)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
I live in Spokane, Washington and have a vacation home outside of Sandpoint, Idaho were I spend the majority of my leisure time. Both of these cities have significant rail traffic through them that originate in the states of Montana and Wyoming. For a number of years, I have observed the movement of trains with cars full of coal that have passed through both towns. I have a growing concern that the potential development of the Cherry Point coal terminal that will have an unknown adverse impacts on my community due to an increase in the volume of coal and trains being routed through our rural towns and cities. As citizen of Eastern Washington the impact of the terminal appears to go well beyond the citizens of Whatcom County.
There are two concerns that I would like to have addressed further in the EIS for this project. One is the impact of the increased train traffic would have on the basic public road infrastructure in both of the communities in which I live. In Spokane, we have long worked to create a system of underpasses and bridges to help keep auto traffic moving when trains are also moving though the city. Even with these improvements, there can be periods of significant wait times for trains where there are traditional crossings. I am concerned that given the length of the coal trains and the slow speed with which they move through our community and the proposed increased number of trains would adversely impact the ability of our community emergency responders to assist people in emergency situations. There has been no meaningful discussion of ways to mitigate these potential impacts on communities either large or small along the rail routes. This causes particular concern in the community of Sandpoint, where I frequently have to wait for train traffic, both coal and non-coal at the train crossing that crosses the only access route I have to my vacation property. I have serious concerns, that this small community will not have the financial resources available to make adequate infrastructure changes to allow auto and pedestrian traffic to move without regard for the trains moving through the community. Both of these communities are being asked to cope with the burden of increased train traffic without any compensation from coal companies, railroads or state or federal government agencies.

I am also concerned about the increase in coal dust and particulates along the train routes. It is already significant and if the numbers of trains were increased, presumably the particulate will increase correspondingly. I want studies conducted on the health impact of the increased particulate and the responsibility to pay for adverse health conditions that result.

I thank you for your consideration.

Mardi Salisbury Currin
519 W. Cotta Ave.
Spokane, WA. 99204

mardi Solomon (#10939)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
My concerns are pollution locally and globally, health impacts, train noise, and salmon distruption. I am also concerned about environmental impacts at port, coal mine sites and along route.

Maren Jones (#4086)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Comment:
GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
1100 112th Avenue Northeast,
Suite 400, Bellevue, WA 98004

December 4, 2012

Dear Sirs,

I live in a community close to the BNSF rail line on which up to 18 additional daily trains (9 full, 9 empty) would travel if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were built. This corridor has also increased capacity with the shipments of oil from the Bakkan and Montana oil fields and other commerce. No one is measuring, nor knows the effects of emissions from these trains on us, and the surrounding local environment. As well, all together how much will this increased capacity contribute to the worldwide increase in CO2 emissions?

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.

Noise: How will the noise and vibrations of usually 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 increasing capacity of trains affect motor vehicle traffic, transportation, emergency vehicle response time and the flow of commerce in communities along the rail corridor?

Fisheries, the Salish Sea, and Water Sheds along the rail corridor: 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 water sheds along the way be affected by coal port construction and operations, and by the over 950 annual transit of immense coals ships?

Human Health and Safety: How will cancer, heart disease, asthma and other health risks be affected by air and water pollutions associated with emission from 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 impact of Powder River Basin coal combustion in Asia?

Cost to Taxpayers: How much will we, the taxpayers, ultimately pay for cost affiliated with the increase capacity of the railroad? Will such direct and indirect costs include necessary upgrades and addition to rail infrastructure; safety measures; public health expenses; the building of under and over passes and other attempts at mitigating adverse impacts; lost businesses and job, damaged tourism trade; and decreased property values?

Sincerely,


Maren Jones

maren larson (#7748)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I live in Bellingham and enjoy and regularly use Boulevard Park. My concern is how the frequent train traffic will disrupt park use and impact the health of humans and vegetation in the park. Please study the implications of the close proximity of rail traffic to this unique and heavily used park in Bellingham.

maren larson (#7750)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I live in Bellingham and as concerned about the implications of coal dust on human health. Please study the impacts of particulate matter in areas such as asthma, cardiology and neurological problems.

maren larson (#7751)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I live in Bellingham and am concerned about the impact of the coal port on the ocean fish reserves. Please study how the industry will affect the fish population near the proposed terminal.

maren larson (#7753)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I live in Bellingham and am concerned about the about the implications of coal train traffic on the children attending Columbia School. Please study how the close proximity to the train will affect the children's health and safety.

maren larson (#7754)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I live in Bellingham and am concerned with the impact of the vessel traffic and pollution on our areas unique orcas population. Please study the effects the increase in vessel traffic and pollution will have on the future of the orcas .

maren larson (#7755)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I live in Bellingham and am concerned with legal issues of the large vessels transporting the coal and when they leave the port. Who is responsible for accidents, clean-up and pollution?

Margaret Berger (#367)

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. Why should we help China increase greenhouse gases and speed global warming? I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Margaret Bergman (#13138)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Honolulu, HI
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect an area that is near and dear to my heart, as well as all the communities along the way. The current pollution problem in Beijing is largely due to the increased use of coal during the winter in China, creating a dangerous situation for the Chinese as well as the potential for that pollution to reach our shores when the wind returns. Please Do not endanger the lives of people in the beautiful Pacific Northwest and abroad.

Margaret Blum (#5341)

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

Margaret Bone (#7162)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
General Comment (what I prepared for in person testimony December 13, 2012, but my number was not called)

As a physician, I thought I should focus on the health effects of this proposed project. I think particularly about the impact on asthma. As a medical resident, I cared for a child who didn’t get access to emergency care in time during an asthma attack. The lack of oxygen caused brain damage and he died some months later. But I’m confident you will be looking at the impact of diesel exhaust and coal dust on the rate and severity of asthma, as well as other lung problems, heart disease and stroke, and on delays at crossings that can interfere with emergency services.

So as a grandmother, I ask you to investigate the impact on climate change. While I carry the image of that brain-damaged asthmatic child with me, I am more horrified when I picture the massive numbers of people who will face catastrophe if climate change is not curtailed. The World Bank warns that hundreds of millions will suffer and die. Some will be swept away in storms; some will starve because of droughts and because salt water from rising sea levels has infiltrated farm land; many will become environmental refugees; and many will die in the inevitable wars over resources severely diminished by climate change.

We all know that we, as a human population, need to change to a sustainable energy economy. What impact would the increased availability of Powder River Basin coal to the world economy have on that process? Simple economics suggests this terminal would retard that critical and urgent transition and put us and future generations on a course for more and more tragic consequences.

I look forward to reading the climate change section of your report, and hope it is one we can show our grandchildren with pride, showing them we understood that each project has to be evaluated on the measure of promoting a sustainable world or promoting world-wide disaster.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Margaret W. Bone, MD

Margaret Bone (#7163)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
The proposed coal export terminal, if approved, would place large ships with both fuel oil and coal cargo in sensitive waters. An oil or coal spill could have devastating impacts on fisheries, birds and marine mammals as well as tourism. The shipping lanes are already heavily used.

It seems to me that in the best of circumstances, there would be a mild decrement to quality of life for both people and wildlife because of increased noise and chemical pollution both in the air and in the water. A cargo ship collision or grounding is a low probability event, but would be devastating, and even massive mitigation attempts would not be effective. Irreparable damage would be done.

What is the estimated increase in the risk of cargo ship or oil tanker accident because of coal transport ships?

In the case of an accident, how will remediation be accomplished?

Can coal terminal operators be made to pay for emergency tugs and other cleanup equipment to be available in the area on short notice for containment and cleanup?

How can the increased risk of coal transport be reconciled with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, The Pacific Salmon Treaty, and other relevant treaties and laws? What species and systems are most at risk because of a spill? What about eel grass, kelp beds, shellfish, sea birds?

What is the estimated range of financial impact of a shipping accident? For example, how many jobs will be lost in fishing, tourism and other industries important to the fabric of our lives here in the Northwest?

Thank you for considering these issues in the EIS.

Sincerely,

Margaret W. Bone

Margaret Bone (#7164)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Comment regarding rail corridor and impact on small business, and need to do a cumulative EIS including the prospect of all proposed export terminals being approved.

I am concerned about the economic (and to some extent probably social) impact of increased train traffic on the towns and cities along the rail corridor.

Many retail businesses are already struggling as people use on line shopping for their purchases. The risk of having to wait at a rail crossing while a coal train goes by may be the disincentive that causes a consumer to decide to purchase on line rather than go to their local store for a product. Each customer has a different threshold for how much of a wait they are willing to endure before they simply avoid crossing the tracks to go to a local business. One train a day would probably have little impact, but 9 or 18 or more drastically impacts the likelihood the person will be delayed by an amount that is unacceptable to them.

The EIS needs to include an estimate of the loss of revenue to the thousands of local businesses along the rail corridor. Of those with a predicted decrease in revenue (i.e. those located across the tracks from a significant portion of the community population), how many are likely to go out of business altogether? What are the impacts on small towns of losing retail businesses? What impact does it have on the social fabric if people are staying in their homes rather than venturing across the tracks to be face to face with other members of their community?

What is the estimated impact on the tax revenues to state and local governments when businesses shrink or go out of business?

Thank you for your consideration of these issues.

Sincerely,

Margaret W. Bone

Margaret Bone (#7165)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Comment regarding Amtrak and rail infrastructure

I am a fairly frequent rider of Amtrak, most often between Seattle and Bellingham (where my grandchildren live), but sometimes to California and occasionally east from Seattle.

I am concerned about the impact of coal trains on passenger service. It has often happened on trips to or from California that the Amtrak train has to pull over and wait for a freight train which has right of way. This happened so frequently on one trip that I missed my nephew’s wedding in northern California, arriving six hours late, just in time for the reception. An increase in freight traffic of any kind would make this problem worse. Coal trains are likely to be an even greater problem since coal dust may increase risk of derailment therefore not just delay while they pass, but frank blockage by an accident.

I am also concerned that the very heavy coal trains will cause increased wear and tear on tracks and trestles.

What mitigation would be offered to Amtrak as an entity, or to individual riders when a coal train caused a delay in passenger transit?

How many more mudslides would be expected in the stretch of track between Seattle and Everett?

What would be the estimated increased costs of maintaining the tracks and supporting structures attributable to coal train traffic?

Who would pay for that?

How many derailments would be expected?

How many of those derailments would be expected to occur over sensitive areas such as bodies of water, or in populated areas and how would those be addressed? How many would be expected to block other freight or passenger rail service?

Thank you for investigating these questions.

Sincerely,

Margaret W. Bone

Margaret Bone (#7166)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Comment about noise pollution by trains along the whole route from Wyoming

As a psychiatrist, I am particularly concerned with the noise of coal trains. The heavy, multiple engine trains are extremely noisy. As they are expected to operate at all hours of the day and night, they will not only be an annoyance to people who are awake and perhaps trying to enjoy a conversation, some music or a quiet moment, they will disturb people’s sleep. Having engines at both ends of the trains means that people may be particularly annoyed, since the noise is very loud, then a quieter rumbling, then very loud again, perhaps just as they are going back to sleep or resuming a conversation.

It has been established that noise makes people irritable, and sleep disturbance contributes to a variety of mental and physical health problems. These include problems with mood, interpersonal conflict, obesity and heart disease, to name a few. People with schizophrenia particularly seem to be sensitive to increases in noise as they are less able to screen out unwanted stimuli.

How many people live or work close enough to the tracks to be impacted by the noise?

What might be the impact on people with schizophrenia? Might more of them go “over the edge” and act out in some destructive way because of being disturbed once too often by the noise of a train?

Can the noise be mitigated by installing sound barriers between tracks and residential, work and school zones? At what cost?

Thank you for your consideration of these issues.

Sincerely,

Margaret W. Bone, MD

Margaret Bone (#7167)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Comment regarding interference with wildlife corridors by rail traffic

Many animals have habitat with a rail line going through it. I believe some mitigation has been done in terms of building underpasses to allow safe transit from one side to the other, but there are many miles where animals must just traverse the tracks.

What species will be impacted by being blocked from traversing, or being killed by the trains?

Are any of those species endangered or at risk of significant negative impacts on their survival?

Thank you for considering the issue of land animals in the EIS.

Sincerely,

Margaret W. Bone

Margaret Bone (#7168)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Comment about health effects on train workers and others in the vicinity of tracks

Diesel exhaust is known to be very hazardous to multiple organ systems, particularly lungs and the cardiovascular system. Because coal trains are so heavy, they require more engines than a typical freight train. Per hour of work, working on a coal train is likely to be more hazardous than working on a train carrying other freight. Similarly, living, working or going to school near the railroad track would be more hazardous if the trains are heavy like coal trains because of increased exposure to dangerous diesel exhaust. Coal dust is also known to be a health hazard (think black lung).

For railroad workers and for the population in general,
1) What are the expected increases in rates of various illnesses?
2) What are the expected resulting increases in costs of health care? Who pays?
3) What is the expected decrease in life expectancy? (Note: A study published January 22, 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated that “each decrease of 10 micrograms of pollutant particles per cubic meter of air was associated with an increase of more than seven months in average life expectancy”. Conversely, what decrease in life expectancy would this proposed project cause?)
4) What is the expected impact on the railroad disability and retirement system?
5) How about the impact on the Social Security Disability system when people in the general population haven’t died yet but are disabled by health conditions related to diesel exhaust or coal dust?

Thank you for your consideration of this important health issue.

Sincerely,

Margaret W. Bone, MD

margaret borgens (#664)

Date Submitted: 10/11/12
Location: Ferndale, 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.

margaret borgens

Margaret Cowfort (#13360)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I will be breathing coL dust from uncovered coal on it's way to China and pollutoin from the coal they burn. My home is by the train tracks.
Today, inportland we Re beseiged by pollution from China which has made our air qualIty parhetis. So, of course I In 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.

Margaret Crosgrove (#683)

Date Submitted: 10/14/2012
Location: Anacortis, WA
Comment:
19/14/12 SKAGIT VALLEY HERALD ARTICLE. GREAT WAY TO COMMUNICATE. HIT ME IN MY HEART. MOST EVERYONE LOVES THE ORCAS, SO IF THEY WEREN'T CONVINCED BEFORE THEY WILL BE NOW

Margaret Davis (#1023)

Date Submitted: 10/22/2012
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
Hi ,
My name is Margaret Davis,

Will you please study the impact of property value loss and subsequent loss of tax base to the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County along the rail corridor if Gateway Pacific Terminal is built, in the EIS.

thank you,
Margaret Davis

Margaret Davis (#1254)

Date Submitted: 10/24/2012
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
please study the impact that train noise (squeaking, horn noise, rumbling, longer length of trains) has on sleep quality in Bellingham and Whatcom County, in the EIS.
thanks,
Margaret.

Margaret Doyle (#6662)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Eastsound , WA
Comment:
The marine and commercial environment from Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point through the Salish Sea and the Straits of Juan de Fuca are too vulnerable to massive-sized shipping such as proposed.
Accidents will happen and each accident is unique; no contingency clean-up plans exist that address whatever unique situation would develop. The damage from even a small oil spill must be addressed and paid for long after a spill event. We can't jeopardize the health of our natural, human and marine environments for the sake of increased commerce.
Please consider my concerns on the impact the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point will have on the marine environment and the commerce of the Salish Sea and the Straits of Juan de Fuca.

Margaret Knight (#11988)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: EVERSON, WA
Comment:
I live in Everson Washington close to the Swift Creek landslide impact area. The following is among the concerns I have about increasing train traffic bearing coal through this area.

I am concerned about the effect of coal dust in addition to the existing asbestos dust in the area. Does it double the hazard, treble? The potential health effects for this area should be studied.

Margaret Knight (#11995)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: EVERSON, WA
Comment:
I live in Everson Washington close to the Swift Creek landslide impact area. The following are among the concerns I have about increasing train traffic bearing coal through this area.

There is asthma present in my immediate family. I am concerned that the coal dust will increase the risk of an asthma episode. The increased risk due to coal dust for asthmatics in the area should be studied.

Margaret Knight (#12002)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: EVERSON, WA
Comment:
I live in Everson Washington close to the Swift Creek landslide impact area. The following are among the concerns I have about increasing train traffic bearing coal through this area.

The road either for access of emergency vehicles to our house, fire or first aid, or for us to be transported to a hospital would be blocked for a great deal longer than it is now if the route were to go through this area. The effects on emergency transport, should this part of the county be considered for the coal transport route, should be studied.

Margaret Knight (#12012)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: EVERSON, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the potential effect of both the increase in diesel and coal dust runoff into salmonid bearing or potentially salmonid bearing streams. The potential effect should be included in the study.

Margaret Koehler (#980)

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

As a resident of Seattle, I have had the opportunity to see the amazing wildlife living in the water off our coast. I have to add my voice to those who oppose this terminal.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Margaret Koehler
150 NE 95th St Apt 411
Seattle, WA 98115-2038

Margaret Lane (#8309)

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

Margaret Larson (#13021)

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

The GPT violates all five goals of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Management Plan. This Plan must be taken into consideration when evaluating the environmental impact of GPT.

Huge ships will be dumping bilge into the herring spawning ground, bringing in non-native species to our water and creating a hazard to all other marine traffic.

Margaret Lyman (#500)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Everett, 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 in Everett WA and am wondering why a public hearing was not
arranged for the Everett Marysville communities. The train traffic
through town that we already have is creating clouds of coal dust off the car tops and down along the tracks. To increase the amount of
trains coming through our community is not an option. Burlington
Northern does not care about the health and welfare of the people in Snohomish or Whatcom counties.

Sincerely,

Margaret Lyman

Margaret Lyman (#14391)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Margaret Mallett (#420)

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. On a personal level, I've had cancer
treatment that has left my lungs more susceptible to damage. The coal dust of hundreds of thousands of additional open coal cars per year will do in my lungs and that if many many people!! Please do not allow our health and that of our future generations to be damaged!!! Thank you!!

Margaret Malone (#12506)

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.

I am also concerned about the stability of the cliffs along the route.
How many mud slides have we had so far this winter just south of
Everett? It is already difficult for the passenger trains to be on
time. What will happen with nine more mile-long trains to fit in the schedule?

Margaret Mamolen (#9087)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear EIS Scoping Panel:
As a family physician in Whatcom County, I am concerned about the potential health effects of significantly increased noise and vibration from the rail transport of coal to the proposed terminal. What effect would the noise and vibration from 18 heavy, long trains have on the people who live and work close to the tracks?

Excessive noise has been shown in medical studies to increase the risk of heart disease and stroke, raising blood pressure and constricting blood vessels through elevated production of stress hormones such as cortisol and epinephrine. How many additional heart attacks and strokes can be expected from the increased train noise?
Sleep disturbance from passing trains is also a concern. Frequent night time awakening and changes in the stages and depth of sleep can affect daytime alertness and worsen chronic health problems. Poor sleep contributes to obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as to mental health problems.

Children who are exposed to increased noise levels have shown lower academic achievement, specifically in reading and problem solving, as well as concentration, emotional development and motivation. Noise has been shown to increase irritability, depression and anxiety in adults and children. How will this affect the well-being of our community?

I would like to request that the EIS investigate fully the increase in frequency and amount of noise and vibration that could result from this proposed project. The scope of the investigation must include all the people who might be affected along the rail route from the mining communities to Whatcom County.

Essential questions include:
1) What would be the decibel levels experienced by people within 100 yards, 500 yards, one mile and two miles of the tracks?
2) What would be the frequency and duration of exposure to increased noise and vibration?
3) How many people could be expected to be awakened or have their sleep quality affected?
4) How many additional cases of diabetes, heart disease and stroke could be expected in the exposed population?
5) How many additional cases of depression and anxiety could be expected in the exposed population?
6) How many children could be expected to need additional educational services due to decreased learning capacity from noise exposure?
7) What will be the effects on the well-being of people whose businesses could be adversely affected by significantly increased noise?
8) What would be the economic costs of additional morbidity and mortality from these diseases?

Thank you for your consideration of these questions.

Sincerely,
Margaret Mamolen, M.D.

Margaret Mamolen (#11189)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
May I respectfully request that the Environmental Impact Statement address the following questions:

1) What would be the impact on our marine environment of hundreds of extremely large ships coming to our shores?
2) What invasive marine plants and animals would be brought from Asia to our area on the hulls and in the ballast water of the ships?
3) What effects would the invasive species have on our local marine ecology?
4) What will be the likelihood of accidents involving huge ships traversing our narrow straits and waterways?
5) How likely would significant fuel spills and dumping of coal cargo be in case of an accident?
6) Would it be possible to clean up a significant amount of the contamination from spills and accidents?
7) Who would pay for the attempted clean up?
8) What effect would these contaminants, the passage of the many ships themselves, and the invasive species have on marine plants and animals, from microscopic life forms to salmon and large marine mammals.
9) What would be the economic impact over the next 50 years of the loss of habitat for native marine species on our fishing industry, boating, real estate, recreation and tourism industries?
10) What would be the estimated loss of potential jobs in these industries?

Margaret Mamolen (#11503)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I respectfully request that the following questions be investigated as part of the EIS:

1) What would be the economic impact over the next 50 years of approving this
project in terms of jobs that will go to local people at the project site,
and tax dollars to the cities of Ferndale and Blaine?

2) What would be the economic impact over the next 50 years of jobs that are lost or not created in tourism, fishing, education, industry and retail businesses if this project is approved?

3) What would be the economic costs to communities all along the rail corridor
of building overpasses and otherwise mitigating the effects of over 18
additional coal trains per day, if this project is approved?

4) What would be the added health care costs from the additional morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular disease, cancer, lung disease and mental illness that could result from the diesel particulate matter and other air and water pollution, noise and decrease in emergency response times associated with this proposed project.

Margaret Manning (#1710)

Date Submitted: 10/30/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Margaret Mason (#7885)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Clearlake, WA
Comment:
The passage of multiple coal trains through our town, and our state, will be a complete nightmare for all of us, and our environment, in this lovely part of the country. Our town is bisected in several places by railroad crossings, and with heavy use of these, our traffic will come to a halt, the noise of hooting trains will devastate our peace, and safety vehicles such as ambulances, police, fire trucks, etc. will be unable to find anywhere to cross through town to get to problems. People willbe unable to get to work on time. The dust from the coal trains will ruin our environment, and I do not support sending coal to China where the pollution is at unsustainable levels even now.

Margaret McGinnis (#13601)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Harrisburg, OR
Comment:
We need to stop consuming fossil fuels! Aside from the Global Warming we will be endangering our small community's health & well being by transporting dirty coal across our already polluted country. Enough!
Let's stop denying the truth & start investing in clean, renewable energy. No more coal!

Margaret Mcphee (#13059)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Olympia, 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.
As Chair of the Emergency Medical Services Council for Thurston County I am worried about the delay in emergency services that more trains will cause. We have many at grade level crossings. We already have too many trains. So much so that some fire departments are forced to have stations on both sides of the tracks, at considerable expense born by the taxpayers of this community. This may be sufficient for fire, but if you have a heart attack, or other medical emergency, and you are being transported, the logistics are not so simple. I can personally tell you we have some of the best paramedics in the state, but they cannot leap long trains taking their patients with them. If the trains halt to wait for oncoming traffic while blocking a crossing, this adds additional critical time to the transport. Will the coal trains pay for additional staffing of paramedics and stations? Will they be able to coordinate with emergency dispatch for our county (or any county for that matter) so the dispatchers know which is the closes EMS vehicle?
So far this is not a solution.

Margaret Mead (#13388)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: La Grande, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect a great area 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.

Also, if the USA ships coal overseas, we are contributing to further degradation of the Earth and all its inhabitants. Burning coal in China will impact all of us. By selling them coal, we are also guilty and as a concerned citizen, I don't want that. Perhaps it's a short-term gain for long-term losses--which The EARTH cannot afford!

Margaret Mead (#13965)

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.

IF we allow these coal trains to go through, we are morally--if not criminally--responsible for increased global warming and the eventual death of much of the Earth. What happens in China and other Asian countries who buy this coal affects ALL of the Earth

Margaret Metzger (#1762)

Date Submitted: 10/24/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Margaret Moulden (#6703)

Date Submitted: 01/07/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Jan 7, 2013

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

It would increase traffic, particularly in already jammed downtown Seattle, pollute our air and water, harm small businesses, delay emergency vehicles, and create all kinds of negative impacts while bringing little in the way of positives to our city. The coal export terminal would also hurt our environment by damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents, and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

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

Sincerely,

Margaret Moulden

Margaret Nagel (#13730)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
The oceans and farmlands are already showing the ill effects of our dependence on fossil fuels. Famine here in the United States would not be a good thing. That is why 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.

Margaret Nicoll (#242)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect this 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'm all-too-familiar with the hazards of coal mining and the ensuing coal dust impact that creates black lung. There is no such thing as "clean coal" and to foist this damage onto our pristine environment and the health of our citizens in the name of corporate greed is unconscionable.

Margaret Ostervold (#11327)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I am raising three children in Mukilteo, and I am extremely concerned about the coal dust blowing off the trains traveling through my town. I am worried about the residue on the grass in my yard, where they play, and in my berry and vegetable garden. I love to see the tree frogs that venture into my yard occasionally and watch the birds (hummingbirds, juncos, chickadees, and song sparrows) that live in my backyard, and don't want to see them and other native species exterminated by coal dust pollution. Please ensure that this project will not deteriorate the environment in which my family lives.

Margaret Payne (#1285)

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

Margaret Payne (#3939)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Margaret Ruby (#13286)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I am writing to strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. I oppose 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 air and noise pollution in the Columbia Gorge with more coal train traffic. In addition, the proposed Gateway pacific Terminal coal export proposal would pollute the air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing for 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.

In addition, the EIS should address this proposal's implications for climate change. I asked that the EIS consider all of the greenhouse gas emissions from mining, transport and burning of the coal and then demonstrate how these increases in emissions were consistent with climate science, which is saying that our global emissions must peak now or, at most, in the next few years, and then be reduced rapidly until mid century when the economy must be essentially decarbonized.

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.

Margaret Scaief (#8655)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live and work in Bellingham WA. I am concerned about he need for an external siding for the coal trains that will travel through Bellingham. It has been stated that SSA will need additional siding from Ferndale to south of Bellingham. I believe that Boulevard Park is included in SSA plans and intent. The City of Bellingham has spent a considerable amount of money developing Boulevard Park for the enjoyment of members of the community as well as visitors to our area. It is an important element in our sense of community, heavily used for exercise as well as a meeting place for gatherings. I request that the cost/benefits of coal trains severely impacting the use and availability of Boulevard Park be included in the Environmental Impact Study.

Thank you,

Margaret Scaief

Margaret Scaief (#8667)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I live and work in Bellingham. I am concerned about the impact the so many heavy coal trains will have on the stability of the embankments along the route. It has been stated that only 20% of these embankments and bluffs just from Bow in Skagit thru the Lummi Reservation in Whatcom county are actually stable. Some areas are much more unstable than others due to mud and/or soft crumbling sandstone. Recently in the B'ham Hearld a Burlington Northern Santa Fe spokesman, Gus Melonas says there were two slides Wednesday night and another one at 8:20 a.m. Thursday near Mukilteo. Melonas says there have been 77 mudslides in the area since Thanksgiving Day. Won't the vibration from heavy train traffic lead to greater instability of embankments and further damage to the natural environment and creating possible loos of property, the human environment. I request that you study this issue: the crumbling of the embankments of the rail route along the entire Puget sound corridor.

Thank You

Margaret Scaief

Margaret Scaief (#9967)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I live and work in Bellingham Washington. There are many many very important issues and concerns related to the request made by SSA to build this huge shipping terminal at Cherry Point WA. With all of the budget cuts ( 40%) in the Washington Environmental Protection Agency how will we be certain that all of the concerns in the scoping process be address professionally. I have deep fears that many of the issues which are critical will not be studied. Please address this problem of professional study. If more help is needed could SSA be required to provide funds for EPA professionals to do their job?

Margaret Scaief (#9970)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I live and work in Bellingham Washington. I am concerned about the size of the ships to be used to transport the coal to China. The Salish Sea is a very important waterway for shipping, pleasure and tourism. These enormous ships will require a very skilled crew to navigate these waterways. There is much to be concerned regarding such passage without damage to the marine environment, large interruption to the already busy shipping lanes and great interference to pleasure craft. Please study the cost/benefit of the use of these huge ship to the detriment of the environment of the Salish Sea.

Margaret Scaief (#11420)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I live and work in Bellingham. I am concerned about potential catastrophic damage that may result from the installation and operation of the Cherry Point coal terminal affecting points from the Powder River Basin coal mine to the Cherry Point destination and further affecting shipping in transport to China.
SSA Marine is the subsidiary of Carrix Inc. that runs terminal operations. Carrix is 51% owned by the Hemingway family (CEO Jon Hemingway),: 49% by Goldman Sachs. SSA created a subsidiary, Pacific International Terminals (PIT), which has NO ASSETS, to build and operate Gateway Pacific Terminal. If a significant “event” were to happen, PIT could be dissolved in bankruptcy. Who then would be liable? The citizens of Washington should not be required to absorb this immense cost. SSA and Carrix should be required to guarantee all obligations of PIT including union contracts, incident response, clean up and site restoration when China no longer wishes to import coal from US mines.

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". Catastrophic accidents have occurred with failed safety plans, BP Gulf Oil spill for example. I agree with Kate Bowers, Bow Wa GPT site scoping public comment entered at McIntyre Hall on November 27, 2012. I request that SSA and Carrix be required to post at least a 500 billion dollar bond to cover the worst-case scenario catastrophic event prior to approval of the petition to build the terminal. Please study the cost of clean up from a catastrophe as a result of GPT's operation of the importing of coal to China.

Margaret Scaief (#11501)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I live and work in Bellingham. I am very concerned about the damage to marine life along any of the ports. I supports the comments presented in a pdf by Barleane's Organic Oils. I request that the issue of the affects of coal dust on marine life be studied.

http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/sites/default/files/comment-attachments/pdf/Barleans%20GPT%20Scoping%20Comment%20Final.pdf

Thank you,

Margaret Scaief

Margaret Scaief (#11950)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I live and work in Bellingham. I am very concerned about the numerous effects of the GPT on the human environment. I agree with the very thorough and thoughtful document submitted by the 209 Whatcom and Skagit Physicians Scoping Request a Comprehensive Health Impact Assessment be included in the EIS. Please include include this important Comprehensive Health Impact Assessment in the scoping EIS study.

Margaret Scaief (#12060)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I live and work in Bellingham. I am concerned about the loss of jobs rather than the hoped for increase of jobs for our state of Washington if GPT is allowed to build this terminal. I request that the scoping process study the loss of jobs resulting from congestion of rail traffic throughout the rail corridor. and the Bellingham Waterfront in particular. The job loss will affect agricultural products and containerized traffic both inbound and outbound shipping. Tourism brings numerous and varied jobs related to our waterways. Please study the almost certain possibility that the enormous increase in freighter traffic in the Salish Sea could harm or destroy our fishing industries. Please include impacts from the increased potential of collisions, oil spills and ballast water discharges. Please study and evaluate an equitable plan for financial responsibility in the event of damage to our environment. In view of the ineffective safety plan that BP has had in place, a sizable bond should be required by SSA and Carrix prior to granting a permit and this should also be studied.

MARGARET STUDER (#10353)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: ANACORTES, WA
Comment:
Today, as I write these comments there is an air stagnation advisory for Western Washington. I am concerned that the addition of coal and more diesel particulates to the atmosphere in Western Washington will cause air stagnation to become a greater problem. Please include in the EIS, a study of the impact that additional pollution from diesel and coal will have on our already compromised air quality. Please make this air quality study cumulative to include all areas from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point.

Margaret Studer (#10375)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: ANACORTES, WA
Comment:
I make many trips up and down the I-5 corridor via Amtrak. I view this as a more environmentally sustainable mode of travel than individual car travel. Freight rail transportation dominates the rail system over passenger trains. Amtrak's schedule, and increased passenger transportation can become compromised by dramatic increases number of freight trains using the same rail system. Please include in the EIS a study of the impact of this increased freight train traffic on the availability of increased, efficient, passenger trains.

Margaret Studer (#10409)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: ANACORTES, WA
Comment:
I own agricultural property bordered by and upwind and uphill from the Burlington Northern railway. I am concerned that prevailing winds would cause all particulates, both from coal and diesel fuel to settle on my crops and my soil thereby contaminating them.

Some of the property is home to grazing agricultural animals. I am concerned that the stress of the noise and vibration of the rail traffic affect the health of these animals.

In addition to the impact on my livelihood from the above stated reasons in the short term I am concerned that this would adversely affect the value of my property in the long term.

A broad agriculturally rich geographic area will feel the impact of this project on crop production, animal husbandry, and soil health. These environmental and economic effects will be felt far, far, far into the future. The EIS must address the environmental effects of coal dust and diesel particulates on agricultural crops both in the short term and in the long term due to build up of these particulates in the soil. Please include the entire area of the route of coal travel from Montana to Cherry Point.

Please also include in the EIS the health effects of the noise and vibration of increased rail traffic on agricultural animals near the tracks including harm to animal reproduction potential, weight loss, affect on the quality of meat. This study should include the entire route of coal travel from Montana to Cherry Point.

Please include in the EIS the economic effect on values of agricultural property adjacent to train tracks due to pollutants in the soil, crops, animals and dramatic increases in rail traffic.

Margaret Studer (#10437)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: ANACORTES, WA
Comment:
I am concerned that this project will deteriorate existing communities to the point that they will no longer be economically viable. Please include in the EIS the broad-reaching cumulative effect of the GPT on local economies, including all the economic effects of transportation, traffic, human health, local infrastructure.

Additionally please include in this study the net effect on jobs for the entire region of the transportation. What jobs will be lost due to the increased train traffic, closing of businesses due to train traffic increase, reallocation of local tax revenue to cover increased infrastructure costs, loss in property values?

Margaret Studer (#10467)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: ANACORTES, WA
Comment:
History has shown us time and time again that environmental disasters happen. Who will be responsible when environmental disaster happens with this project?

Please include in the EIS a study that measures the cost of a worst-case scenario; a spill of thousands of gallons of bunker fuel in the San Juan Islands; an explosion at the terminal; a derailment in a highly populated area. SSA should be required to post a bond based on these costs, prior to permitting. This would guarantee SSA's responsibility for any and all damages associated with activities related to the terminal and transportation of coal regardless of who is ultimately held to be liable by the courts.

As we have seen with Exxon Valdez, the Deep Water Horizon, and other disasters, victim compensation comes too late if at all. We must have the money on the line to guarantee swift action when disaster strikes.

Margaret Studer (#10874)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: ANACORTES, WA
Comment:
"We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations." President Barack Obama, Inauguration Speech, 1/21/13

Allowing the transport of coal through our countryside, cities and towns, spewing hundred of pounds of coal dust per car, emitting plumes of diesel fuel, contaminating the air and water upon which depend and the crops that sustain us, compromising the health and well being of ourselves and generation to come is the betrayal that President Obama decries. The science of climate change is clear and the devastating impacts are being felt. Burning coal is a serious threat to our environment whether it is done here or abroad. There can be no scientific reasoning for being complicit in contributing to the degradation caused by burning coal. What causes a people to collaborate in their own destruction? This is a moral issue that cannot be justified.

I ask the cooperating agencies to study the moral implications of going against science and reason to contribute further to the causes of global warming.

Margaret Studer (#10911)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: ANACORTES, WA
Comment:
Other than huge amounts of profits in the pockets of the already rich, it seems that the only agreed upon positive outcome of GPT is more living wage jobs in a small section of Whatcom County. What price would be paid by the environment and the economies of communities in the long run along the corridor for this handful of jobs?

I am concerned that these jobs will become another bankrupted spin off of Peabody Coal, the only shipping contract announced so far? "Peabody,,,continues strenuously to oppose organized labor. Where federal laws have forced the company to recognize unions, it has closed the union mines and opened more non-union mines. As a result, according to the United Mine Workers' Association, fewer than 30 % of Peabody's miners are currently union members. Peabody owns the lion's share of rights to strip coal from public lands in the Powder River Basin in Montana, where its mining jobs are 90% non-union. Even some who favor permitting the project for the benefit of it's jobs are skeptical of Peabody. "I don't do business with Peabody," Mark Lowery (head of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 843 and Northwest Washington Central Labor Council) said. "I don't like Peabody. I don't trust multi-national corporations." (Cascadia Weekly, 1/16/2013, p. 8)

The following article documents the scheme Peabody uses to maximize profits in exchange for worker benefits.
http://daily.sightline.org/2013/01/09/would-be-coal-exporters-scheme-to-avoid-paying-worker-benefits/

Indeed, if more jobs at whatever the cost is the goal, then let us have all the information about the employers and investors. I ask that the EIS report include a detailed study of employment and union practices of each of the corporations and their subsidiaries involved at every level (including investors) in the GPT project. This is to include coal companies, mining operations, rail lines, etc.

MARGARET STUDER (#10975)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: ANACORTES, WA
Comment:
Washington State promotes itself as an international leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. as seen in the following legislation:
RCW 70.235.005 Findings — Intent.
(1) The legislature finds that Washington has long been a national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship, including air quality protection, renewable energy development and generation, emission standards for fossil-fuel based energy generation, energy efficiency programs, natural resource conservation, vehicle emission standards, and the use of biofuels. Washington is also unique among most states in that in addition to its commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, it has established goals to grow the clean energy sector and reduce the state's expenditures on imported fuels.

(2) The legislature further finds that Washington should continue its leadership on climate change policy by creating accountability for achieving the emission reductions established in RCW 70.235.020, participating in the design of a regional multisector market-based system to help achieve those emission reductions, assessing other market strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and ensuring the state has a well trained workforce for our clean energy future.

(3) It is the intent of the legislature that the state will: (a) Limit and reduce emissions of greenhouse gas consistent with the emission reductions established in RCW 70.235.020; (b) minimize the potential to export pollution, jobs, and economic opportunities; and (c) reduce emissions at the lowest cost to Washington's economy, consumers, and businesses.

Given the above declaration, how can Whatcom County Council approve a permit which will allow coal to be carried and shipped through the State of Washington for the purpose of burning it? The shipment of coal through the GPT would fly in the face of what the Washington Legislators have adopted to protect water and air quality. I am concerned that the Whatcom County Council, which has a record of noncompliance with the Western Washington Hearings Board, will dismiss the overarching findings of higher legislative bodies in favor of self-serving political goals.

Therefore I request that the EIS include a study which details Councilmen's affiliations, campaign contributors, and employment record. If these are the decision-makers, we need to know everything about them.

Margaret Sullivan (#10930)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
For the GPT - EIS, please include my concerns for increased rail traffic along the rail corridor from the Powder River Basin (PRB) to Cherry Point.

I live in rural Alger, located in the northern part of Skagit county. I shop and conduct business in many of the towns along the rail corridor, including Sedro Woolley, Burlington, Mt Vernon and Bellingham. I buy produce from the farms down in the flats of the Bow-Edison area. I recreate down along the bay and up in the Chuckanuts.

SSA Marine and other proponents of the GPT encourage the notion that due to the Asian demand for coal, if the GPT were not built, Puget Sound rail traffic would increase regardless because the coal would be shipped to Canada.

A fact-check paper by Salish Law, PLLC, states that:

"-Although B.C. ports are in the process of expanding their capacity, it is well documented that the increased capacity will be absorbed by current export contracts with those ports.
-The planned expansions will not be able to solve the high demand for Powder River Basin exports and thus will not attract new train traffic from the U.S.
-In recognition of this shortage of Canadian capacity, these U.S. coal companies are investing heavily in the permitting for at least six new U.S. West Coast port proposals."
(www.coaltrainfacts.org/salish-law-pllc-will the trains-come-anyway)

The GPT proposal includes a build-out annual capacity of 54 million dry metric tons (48 million of coal) requiring 9 (18 round trip), 150 car - 1 1/2 mile long trains per day. It is reasonably foreseeable that these trains going from the Powder River Basin to the GPT will create adverse impacts from increased rail traffic to the communities along the rail corridor and these adverse impacts are significant and should therefore be studied in the GPT-EIS.

An August 2011 report by Gibson Traffic Consultants for the City of Burlington stated:

"10. The Cherry Point applicant and its advocates argue that the coal train activity will only bring train activity back up to the level it was before the economic recession of 2007/2008, and therefore it will have not impact. In our judgement, this conclusion is not supportable...assumptions from the past should be regarded critically."

In speaking for the interests of Skagit Co. citizens, the Cities of Mt. Vernon, Burlington and Sedro Woolley, as well as the Skagit Co. Commissioners, all have submitted GPT-EIS scoping comments.Their concerns are for the safety of their citizens and the significant economic and financial adverse impacts they foresee as a result of these additional 18 trains per day. As I too am concerned about these adverse impacts, please include in the scope of the GPT-EIS:

-A study of the Canadian Terminals' capacities, desires and legal rights to receive the 48 million additional tons of U.S. Powder River Basin coal per year along U.S. rail ways, through U.S. towns, if the GPT is not built.

-Please study the number of crossings in each town and community within the rail corridor from the PRB to Cherry Point and study the traffic pattern changes that would occur with the additional rail traffic.

-Please study the number of residences and businesses from the PRB to Cherry Point affected by these crossings and traffic pattern changes.

-Please study the number and locations of sidings along the entire route needed to alleviate passing train traffic.

-Please answer if eminent domain would come into effect for these sidings to be built, and who exactly would pay for this taking of land?

Again, in the same report by Gibson Traffic Consultants for the City of Burlington:

"4. There is a probable issue concerning emergency services response time, in a scenario where the 1.5 mile long trains block all the downtown east-west crossings at the same time for several minutes. Adding 16-18 additional trains per day to service Cherry Point could tip the balance at a critical time when emergency responses are needed."

All of the hospitals along the I-5 corridor in Skagit Co. are on the east side of the train tracks. There are many business and communities and residences on the west side.
Like many towns, the train tracks split Mt Vernon, Burlington and Sedro Woolley in half.

-Please study the effects increased rail traffic will have on Police, Fire and Emergency responses.

-Please estimate the cost of overpasses to alleviate the foreseeable increased congestion caused by the increased train traffic to the GPT.

-Examine and report exactly who would pay the costs.

The trains, by law, are only responsible for a maximum of 5% of costs related to "safety" issues...and typically pay 3% or less or zero.

-Please have a study to estimate the percentage the Federal Government might pay (and remember-that has to go through Congress), the percentage the State might pay (Congress there too) and the percentage the citizens of Skagit Co. would have to pay for these costs.

From the Powder River Basin to the Columbia river, there will be an estimated 50 extra trains per day. From the Columbia River, 18 of those trains will go to Cherry Point. The remaining 32 will go to the other 4 proposed terminals.

-Please conduct a Cumulative EIS which would include all of the above requested studies for all 5 terminals.

Thank you for taking these scoping comments into consideration.

Margaret Sullivan (#11033)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
For the GPT-EIS, please include my concerns for the adverse economic impacts on businesses, employment and investments as a result of the GPT and the increased coal train traffic along the entire rail corridor from the Powder River Basin ((PRB) to Cherry Point and the additional vessel traffic in the Salish Sea.

I live in rural Alger, located in the northern part of Skagit county. I shop and conduct business in many of the towns along the rail corridor, including Sedro Woolley, Burlington, Mt Vernon and Bellingham. I buy produce from the farms down in the flats of the Bow-Edison-Blanchard area. I recreate down along the bay and up in the Chuckanuts.

The study by Martin Assoc., paid for by the GPT developers, estimated direct, indirect and induced jobs at Cherry Point and Whatcom Co. as a result of the GPT. That study did not address either the potential costs as a result of GPT and increased rail and vessel traffic, nor their potential impact on economic development. The study by Public Financial Management, paid for by Communitywise, did study potential cost of GPT and increased rail traffic. It stated that "if the development and operation of GPT ....let to a loss of more than 13% in the ten year period after construction begins, the result would be a net loss in employment in the County".

Neither study considered the reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts on employment, investments and economic development due to GPT and increased rail traffic on any of the other 119 towns along the rail corridor from northern Skagit county to the Powder River Basin nor communities on the shores of the Salish Sea. The Public Financial Management report did include include costs regarding the development of the Bellingham waterfront. A similar scenario was described in the City of Mt. Vernon's scoping letter:

"Additional rail traffic, proposed by GPT, will result in safety and mobility impacts within the City's most heavily traveled transportation corridors. Traffic delays and congestion have a direct economic impact that will negatively impede business development and investment at a time when the City is removing such obstacles in order to promote economic development. The City spent a great deal of effort and capital on the revitalization of its downtown and envisions significant reversal to adopted redevelopment plans for the downtown."

Are any other towns and communities along the rail corridor or along the shores of the Salish Sea also similarly adversely impacted by the GPT and the foreseeable increase in rail and vessel traffic? Do any of them have development investments that might be impacted by this GPT project ? Train traffic from the PRB to the Columbia River will increase by 50 per day. Train traffic from the Columbia River to Cherry Point will increase by 18 per day. Vessel traffic in the Salish Sea will increase by 900 per year. There is evidence that these impacts would be significant and the economies and developments along these routes could be adversely impacted. Many of the towns, for example, in Skagit County are divided in half by the rail road. In your GPT-EIS, please scope the following:


-Revisit and study all reports evaluating the economic impacts of the GPT and the rail and vessel lines associated with it.

-Please conduct an independent study of all economic and development impacts by the GPT and increased rail and vessel traffic on all communities from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point and out to communities along the shores of the Salish Sea.

Skagit Valley and the South Fork Valley are agricultural areas. Farmers in these two valleys have invested heavily in their businesses. These farmers grow crops such as flowers, fruits and vegetables. They raise dairy cows and beef cattle. The local economies rely upon the viability of these businesses.

-Please measure and study the effects trains and diesel particulates, including trains idling on sidings, have on soils, crops and animals raised near the rail corridor.

-Please study the impact 18 additional trains will have on other rail shippers that farmers depend upon. Will there be competition over the use of rails between the proposed additional 18 coal trains and the existing trains for Bakken oil, lumber and other commodities - and might this competition interfere with local economies and development? Will getting the farmer's product to the market be impeded by increased rail traffic ?

Communities such as Bellingham and Mt. Vernon (and towns further south) have heavily invested in Amtrack passenger trains.

-Please study the effects increased rail traffic will have on these investments and the potential to expand these investments.

Finally, will the GPT and it's increased rail traffic adversely impact the property values of those living near the rail corridor? I've discussed this subject with friends and neighbors who live in the Bow-Edison-Blanchard-Chuckanut Drive areas. They have already witnessed that the value of houses and the ability to sell them has already been affected by just the potential of the increased coal train traffic.

-Please study the effect diesel particulates have on people who live near the train tracks.

-Please study the effects the vibration of 18 additional 150 car coal trains, 9 of which carry about 109 tons of coal per car, will have on the foundations of the houses in the above mentioned areas.

-Please study whether or not present building code requirements take into account this significant increase in vibrations. What about the houses that are grand-fathered-in?

From the Powder River Basin to the Columbia River, there will be an estimated 50 additional coal trains per day. From the Columbia River, 18 of those trains will go to Cherry Point and the remaining 32 will go to the other 4 proposed terminals. There will be an estimated 900 additional vessels in the Salish Sea. How many additional vessels in Puget Sound ?

-Please conduct a Cumulative EIS which would study all of the above mentioned economic and development impacts by the GPT and the other 4 proposed terminals.

Thank you for taking these scoping comments into consideration.

Margaret Sullivan (#11903)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
For the GPT-EIS, please include my concerns for the impacts the GPT foreseeably would have on marine life in the Salish Sea.
The GPT proposal projects an additional 972 Panamax and Capesize ship transits through the Salish Sea at full build-out. The effects of this increased vessel traffic should be a part of the GPT-EIS, as without the GPT, they wouldn't be coming to Cherry Point.
I live in rural Alger, located in northern Skagit County. I spend a lot of time in Anacortes and on the shores of the Salish Sea. I am deeply concerned with the health of the Sea, including the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve, as well as the marine life it supports.
I agree with much of Sanford Olsen's scoping comments dated Jan 5, 2013, and will quote some of his comments as my own.
Please conduct a thorough, comprehensive vessel traffic study which would at least include the following:
-Please study the increased risk of collision...or grounding of all vessels while navigating the narrow, reef strewn shipping lanes around the San Juan and Gulf Islands.
-Please study the increased risk and consequences to the economy, wildlife, and the environment by any oil or cargo spill in the Salish Sea.
-Please study if local oil spill resources are adequate to limit and then clean up a significant spill.
-Please study what would be the economic consequences of a large spill on the marine life, shellfish, tourism, recreational boating and fishing industries of the Salish Sea.
-Please study the harmful effects on marine mammals of mechanical and surface sounds of the 972 additional vessel traveling through the Sea each year. How will this significantly increased vessel noise effect the foraging, rearing of young, social interactions and possibly the survivability of the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales ?
The GPT proposal states that it "will develop a plan" to deal with spills.
-Please study the historical record of spills and how well they were mitigated.
-Please conduct a cumulative study of all 5 proposed ports that will be exporting coal from the Powder River Basin and their impacts on the Puget Sound/Salish Sea.
Thank you for taking these scoping comments into consideration.

Margaret Swendsen (#3038)

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

Margaret White (#247)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Redmond, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. To bring it something so polluting to this beautiful area is criminal. 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.

Margaret Wood (#13787)

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.

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 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. 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.

Margaret Ann Lyman (#3629)

Date Submitted: 11/23/12
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Margaret Ann Lyman (#5672)

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

Margaret Ann Lyman (#5900)

Date Submitted: 01/02/13
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Margaret G Kershaw (#12871)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
Regarding the Gateway Pacific Terminal:

My comments are personal, hopefully not political. The proposed route for carrying materials to the Terminal is not only inadequate, but also threatens the continuity of life along its route.

The primary inadequacy is infrastructure for daily life along the proposed route:

Already, Amtrak service is halted by freight trains with priority over human transit. As traffic and population along the I 5 corridor develops train traffic will confound the population traveling to and from Seattle.

Vehicular traffic in Skagit County will be halted and stalled on its way to hospitals and emergencies.

While the Terminal will contribute needed jobs and tax income to our communities, there is little said about addressing the infrastructure necessary to maintain the lives and commerce of citizens along its supply route.

Thank you for your consideration of this issue.

Sincerely,
Margaret G Kershaw

Margareta Larson (#3754)

Date Submitted: 12/03/2012
Location: Sandpoint, Id
Comment:
I strongly urge the co-lead agencies to consider all aspects of impact along the entire proposed transportation route, from the coal mines to Cherry Point. I live in a community near Spokane/Sandpoint shares Spokane's unique, and in this case highly disastrous, siting: all rail lines coming from east of here have to pass through my little town and Spokane before continuing on westward.

Every disadvantage, every pollution, every hazard, is concentrated here. I have educated myself on the potential hazards from diesel exhaust particulates, sound pollution, traffic interference, environmental impacts, and even property value impacts. I find it hard to believe that this project even warrants consideration, the hazards mount so high.

Please, don't sell the health and wellbeing of my community for job creation, increased tax revenues, or ANY other potential benefit. If this export facility is approved, people will die in my community due to emergency vehicle delays, crossing accidents, illness from air quality issues, and more. And then, once the coal reaches its main purchasers in Asia, much of the highly toxic smoke particulates from the coal consumption will return home settle down here in the northwest, thanks to the Pacific jet stream.

You stand in a position to protect the people in the path of greed that would trade human health and lives to money. Please--don't let the profit motives of multi-billionaires wreak havoc in my town.
Thanking you for taking your time to read my comment. M larson

Margarita Mclarty (#12351)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Livingston, MT
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.

Livingston, Montana is the nearest community to where I live in Pray, Montana. At least once a week I go to Livingston to shop, volunteer as a tutor, meet with friends and watch the trains roll by.

There is an ever increasing number of trains that bisect Livingston each day, making our lives subject to more frequent delays, impacting the ability of emergency vehicles to reach many of our neighbors, and exposing us all to increased diesel emissions and coal dust. To further increase coal train traffic will exacerbate an already untenable situation.

The evidence of the multitude of harmful results from mining, transporting and burning Montana's Powder River Basin coal is
overwhelming. When we look at the costs to public health from toxic
residues, the costs to our communities from climate change caused (in
part) by burning coal, the environmental catastrophes resulting from toxic pollution, including the acidification of the oceans, the dangers from train traffic blocking emergency vehicle access, the extreme stress placed on civic institutions from boom and bust extractive industry, the profit to be made by a few corporate entities simply does not outweigh the harm to the public and our planet.

It is time for us to deny the permitting for mining and transportation
of coal. It is past time for us to focus on creating clean,
sustainable energy sources. It is time for us to prepare for a
transition to a better tomorrow for our children.

Margarita McLarty (#12354)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Livingnston, MT
Comment:
Livingston, Montana is the nearest community to where I live in Pray, Montana. At least once a week I go to Livingston to shop, volunteer as a tutor, meet with friends and watch the trains roll by.

There is an ever increasing number of trains that bisect Livingston each day, making our lives subject to more frequent delays, impacting the ability of emergency vehicles to reach many of our neighbors, and exposing us all to increased diesel emissions and coal dust. To further increase coal train traffic will exacerbate an already untenable situation.

The evidence of the multitude of harmful results from mining, transporting and burning Montana’s Powder River Basin coal is overwhelming. When we look at the costs to public health from toxic residues, the costs to our communities from climate change caused (in part) by burning coal, the environmental catastrophes resulting from toxic pollution, including the acidification of the oceans, the dangers from train traffic blocking emergency vehicle access, the extreme stress placed on civic institutions from boom and bust extractive industry, the profit to be made by a few corporate entities simply does not outweigh the harm to the public and our planet.

It is time for us to deny the permitting for mining and transportation of coal. It is past time for us to focus on creating clean, sustainable energy sources. It is time for us to prepare for a transition to a better tomorrow for our children.

Margarita McLarty
85 Chicory Road
Livingston, Montana 59047
maga@wispwest.net

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.

Margen Riley (#7092)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
If permits are granted to allow a deep water port to be built, loaded coal trains will be blasting through Bellingham every hour. Property values will decrease, access to the waterfront will be compromised, vehicle and pedestrian access to commercial and residential neighborhoods will be disrupted, firefighters and police will be prevented from reaching emergencies when intersections are closed by trains, and the noise and inherent danger for people near the tracks will create stress as the health and quality of life diminishes in the community.
I ask you to use your integrity and awareness when putting the microscope to these issues.
• Waste of prime waterfront development at the GP site in Bellingham
• Loss of jobs due to under - under-utilized GP waterfront site
• Interruption of vehicle and pedestrian traffic at all intersections near the tracks from the Columbia River to Ferndale
• Frequent shutdowns of all train traffic due to mudslides – caused in part by the vibrations of the trains and the volume of train cars
• Road closures on both sides of the tracks when trains are stalled due to damaged tracks, with mile-long trains blocking traffic for hours and days at a time
• Stress caused by noise from the frequent, shrill whistles and the potential coal dust in the environment affecting all citizens within sight or sound of the tracks, leading to diminished quality of life and health of the community
• Decreased property values for both residential and commercial property near the tracks
• Diminished emphasis on restoring and improving the environment for the people living here now and for the future

Once again, I ask you to have the courage and the integrity to deny the SSA Marine coal port permit.

Margen B. Riley
2731 Michigan Street, Bellingham, WA 98226
360-647-1160 margenb@earthlink.net

Margen Riley (#7861)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
TO: Whatcom County Council, the Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Ecology
Please SCOPE on the question ‘Who Pays?”

This is a concern that affects all local taxpayers, Whatcom County, and the State we live in.
Who pays for the enormous costs associated with building infrastructure to handle the volume of trains that SSA/Gateway Marine intends to run - if they are awarded the permit to build the coal port at Cherry Point?
Have SSA Marine and BNSF agreed to cover all costs associated with building the new infrastructure required to handle the volume of train traffic they intend? And have they agreed to maintain the tracks when there are problems? And is their agreement legally binding?
The cost of building new infrastructure such as over-passes, bridges, re-routing roads and possibly tracks will be enormous. Who pays for the required up-grades and who pays to have them maintained? Who has the kind of money this will take? Not Whatcom County, not Washington State, and not the Federal Government.
Our County, and the taxpayers cannot afford the financial or the environmental expenses associated with this project. This is not a win-win business deal for the County or for we, the people.

Margen B. Riley
2731 Michigan Street, Bellingham
margenb@earthlink.net 360-647-1160

Margen Riley (#10950)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I’ve been a resident of Bellingham for almost 35 years and have been walking with friends along the water at Boulevard Park for many years. This park is one of the crown jewels of our city and it constantly pulses with all kind of people and activities. The city of Bellingham grew and developed into the largest population base in Whatcom County for one primary reason - its location on the water. In addition to the birds and marine life, the bay is a source of fishing, boating and recreational opportunities, along with commercial docks and shipping and being home to the southern port of the Alaska State ferry system.

After Georgia Pacific sold 137 acres of prime waterfront property to the city 7 years ago, our city planners, city council and the port leaders have been spending countless hours, days and weeks planning and negotiating to reach agreement on a development plan for this prime waterfront real estate. Envisioning a vibrant waterfront for the public and visitors alike, plans to date for the site include open space for pedestrians to walk along the bay, businesses, shops and offices and an expanded boat harbor or marina.

If the SSA Marine, Peabody Coal and Goldman Sachs are awarded a permit to build a coal port at Cherry Point, the Bellingham waterfront park will be doomed. The serenity of being at the water, the natural beauty of the bay, watching the boats and sea life and the islands will be shattered by constant train traffic slicing through the view. With 18 or more coal trains every day – each one a mile or longer – blasting along the waterfront, this desirable downtown real estate will be wasted. The volume of train traffic will create constant noise and interruption, making any property near the tracks a place to get away from. At Boulevard Park whenever a train goes through, it cuts off traffic into and out of the park. Imagine this scenario repeated at every intersection along the tracks from the Columbia River to Ferndale, with mile long trains 18 times a day. Add to this picture what will happen any time a train is stalled, or more than one train stopped - blocking access into and out of the park, and blocking access to businesses, neighborhoods and boat harbors all along the tracks to the south.

I would like you to scope the negative impacts this amount of train traffic will have on the city and ports ability to develop and build a desirable open space and outdoor destination along the tracks on the GP waterfront property.

Margery Hite (#13295)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
Please accept the attached letter as my comments on the scope of the EIS for the proposed terminal construction and expansion known as the Gateway Pacific Terminal/Custer Spur.
Thank you.
Margery Hite
Attached Files:

Margi Fox (#8135)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The most important thing to me is the effect on global climate change. We are talking about warming that is going to have a devastating effect on the northwest and beyond. The process of mining, transporting, and shipping the coal and then burning it will have an effect on us locally and on the globe. Their burning it in China affects us here.

I am concerned about the noise levels and the effect of vibration from the coal trains constantly coming through. They are already having problems with landslides. Please study the effects of the vibration on slope stability.

The effects on communities having the trains go through, dissecting them is a concern. Please study the impacts on communities large and small along the entire rail corridor.

If the coal trains are stopped on the tracks and it is raining, please study the effects of runoff from static trains, especially in terms of salmon habitat.

Also, please study the impacts from diesel emissions coming from the trains.

Please consider a no action alternative because any of these mitigations won’t substantially address these concerns.

Margie Van Nort (#6151)

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

Margit Zimsen (#12499)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Bremerton, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
My health and the health of my fellow human being should not be sacrificed for someone's profit. The negative effects of this project are universal, the positives affect only a few. Please do not sell me out. Please.

Margo Huth (#14270)

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

Margo Polley (#4143)

Date Submitted: 12/07/2012
Location: North Bend, WA
Comment:
My comments are based on the article by Bill McKibben, Climate Change’s Terrifying New Math. Attached is a link, and I earnestly ask that you read it carefully.

McKibben directs us to three numbers in the terrifying new math.

The first number is 2 degrees Celsius. This is the singular thing that came from the failed 2009 Copenhagen summit on climate, and the one thing that the US has agreed to, along with 166 other nations. 2 degrees. It is the number beyond which life on this planet is doomed, and in fact many scientists believe it is far too lenient a target, and some call it a “suicide pact”. We are currently at 1 degree of warming and we see 1/3 of the arctic sea ice gone, our oceans are 1/3 more acidic, storms such as Katrina and Sandy ravage our cities, devastating wild fires in Russia and the US, floods the like of which we saw in Pakistan, and severe impacts from both flooding and drought to agricultural areas world-wide. At 2 degrees, we will see more and more unprecedented storms and weather conditions, and we will not have potable water and food for the planet. We may not survive to 2 degrees. We certainly will not survive beyond 2 degrees of warming.

The second number is 565 gigatons. Scientists predict the global community can pour another 565 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere before we hit 2 degrees of warming. At our current rate this will occur in 16 years. This means we have 16 years to build a sustainable, green energy infrastructure, and get ourselves completely off of fossil fuel. We need solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and we need it now. We need electric cars and associated infrastructure, massive increases in transit, solar hot water, home heating and electricity generation, and a complete overhaul from fossil to renewable sources. In 16 years.

The third number: 2,795 gigatons. This is the amount of coal, oil and gas reserves already discovered, identified and on the balance sheets, and stockholder portfolios, of the fossil fuel companies. 2,230 gigatons of the identified 2,795 gigatons represents the amount of fossil fuel we need to KEEP IN THE GROUND, lest we destroy the earth as we know it.

If you think we are going to sit idly by and let fossil fuel companies destroy the planet for short term profit, we will not. And if you think we will sit idly by and let your actions hasten the end of life as we know it on this planet earth, we will not. And if you think we should sit idly by while trains ship coal to other countries to further reduce the measly 16 years we have left to turn this around, we will not.

We need jobs and a good economy. And what we desperately need is a complete overhaul of our energy infrastructure. We can put everyone to work on solar and wind and electric cars and transit. We need the political will to do it, and we are here to help give you that political will. Our very future depends on it.

Here is the link that will take you to a page on which you will find "Climate Change's Terrifying New Math" by Bill McKibben. Please read it. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Margot Boyer (#8096)

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

Margot Boyer (#10597)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Vashon, 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 are responsible to future generations to maintain a livable world for them. We must stop valuing short-term profit and comfort over the long-term survival of life on earth. It's time for our public agencies to show leadership on this issue.

MARGOT HOTTMANN (#11187)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: BELLINGHAM, WA
Comment:
The proposed terminal in Bellingham will not generate as many jobs as many
claim. It will create an enormous amount of pollution not only here but at the
sites in China where the coal is headed. This pollution is not only effecting
Chinese people directly but eventually everybody. Coal is not the answer to
our energy needs, there are other cleaner sources available. We are already
closing energy plants here in the US run with coal in favor of natural gas.
Thank you

Margret Milici (#10516)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
We live in the Columbia neighborhood, a neighborhood of smaller, mostly one family homes a few blocks east of the marina. We have one of the most desirable primary schools in Bellingham which attracts young families with children, and many older, retired folks live here too. Any support to the economy of Bellingham by the proposed coal-port will certainly be negated by the adverse affects on this neighborhood, including the plummeting of our property values due to air and noise pollution and lessening accessability to the marina and also Boulevard Park. We are already impacted by trucks, whose G.P.S. monitors erroniously send them through our neighborhood. While much of the infrastructure of the coal-port will destroy existing wetlands so necessary to the health of avian and other species, it is hard to imagine the extent of damage to the area of the Salish Sea where enormous ships, supposedly double-hulled, but likely not, will be travelling through breeding grounds of herring and the pods of whales that live here. As tour boats and pleasure boats are required legally to keep their distance from these whales, how will we prevent ships of indetermanently large size and nationality carrying, coal from not respecting our waters?
As this is one of the most undespoiled areas in the lower main-land it must be protected: it makes much more sense to all of us, including our economy to continue it to be a tourist attraction, and the home of Western Washington University, a school known nationally for its environmental studies. Anyone who doubts this need only spend a few weeks touring the Eastern Seaboard where the sprawl and degradation of property adjacent to many miles of disused railroads has degraded land from north of Boston down through New York and New Jersey, places like Trenton, Perth Amboy, westen Pennsylvania, Philidelphia, down though Washington,D.C. Baltimore and other places synonymous with the trashing of the natural environment. Don't stop there, keep going south to Florida. We do not want to be the rust-belt of the twenty-first century when we can continue to be a healthy, beautiful and desirable place to live.
This is ours, we, all the people. It doesn't belong to corporations.
Margret and Kennth Milici

Marguerite Jacobs (#7141)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
My name is Marguerite Jacobs. My husband and I purchased not quite 10 acres of raw land on the east side of the RR tracks in Bow in 2004. Buying property adjacent to the RR was the only way we could finance a large enough piece of property to carry out our dream of owning a family farm. My husband spent 2 1/2 years building our house and we both have worked very hard in the last 8 years establishing a small working farm and improving the landscape around our home. Both of us are self-employed and we have relied on our 'sweat equity' to increase our property investment's values over the past 20 years. This property is what we rely on as our retirement investment. We have no other source of retirement.
Increasing rail traffic to one or more coal trains per hour would cause a significant drop to our property value. For us, it would be like taking away the retirement we have worked so hard for, for the past 20 years.
I would like to see a study done on all of the properties along the RR lines from Montana and Wyoming to Cherry Point to calculate what the cost is going to be to us taxpayers that will lose financially if the Cherry Point Coal terminal goes through. I do not see that there is any mitigatable solution to this effect of rail traffic.

Marguerite Jacobs (#9582)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
One of my many concerns with the increased coal train traffic going to Cherry Point is the effects it could have on the health of our children. Our home is approximately 200’ from the tracks in Bow where there is a siding. Coal trains with 4+ engines sit idle for hours blowing diesel into the air we breathe.
My 12 year old son has had a history of dust allergies as a young boy, so I am concerned about the impact to his health, as well as to my daughters’. Increased toxins being released by more rail traffic, mainly coal, will contribute to added diesel exhaust but also coal particulates that blow off of open cars.
Our children also ride the bus to and from school. They wait at a bus stop that is less than 50’ from a RR crossing. That puts them in yet another high risk point to rail accidents and/or derailments.
For the health and safety of our children and the thousands of others that live along the railways from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point, I would like to be considered in the scope of the EIS, the impact of toxins due to diesel particulates and coal blow-off from loaded (and unloaded) trains, particularly to those who live in close proximity to the tracks.
I would also like the EIS Co-Lead Agencies to investigate the feasibility of doing regularly scheduled inspection where the public is bound to wait on trains speeding over crossings. They should all be in optimum condition if these heavy coal trains are to be allowed. I know that I don’t want one or both of my children to be casualties of a billion dollar company’s neglect to make their transportation route safe to the public because it isn’t a profitable part of doing business. They can afford to make routine inspections and retrofit rails as needed; and not with the taxpayers footing the bill…we are not the ones that benefit from this ludicrous plan.

Marguerite Stroosma-Jacobs (#6236)

Date Submitted: 01/07/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
I live in Bow, Wa. with my husband and 2 kids. Our house sits approximately 200’ from the RR tracks where there is also a siding. We purchased the property in 2005, built a house and established a small farm with livestock, a large vegetable garden, orchard and multiple varieties of berries. Our goal was to become virtually self-sustainable because of our growing concern about food safety. We grow our food organically for our own consumption and also sell a small portion of what we produce to family and friends who also care about the quality of their food. My concern is the diesel and coal particulates that come from the trains and how the proximity of the bulk of our food supply to those trains, is affected by it. I would like the impact of these particulates studied; how far it travels and the long term effects it has on people who eat food crops grown in contaminated soil and air, as well as on livestock that are exposed to it by the air they breathe, the grass they eat and the water they drink.
Skagit Valley is home to numerous commercial farms and residential gardens that are in close proximity to the RR tracks, and whose soil would be contaminated by particulates and dust left by the coal trains that would pass through the county. Spraying the coal cars with a surfactant – also a chemical that would end up as a contaminant if debris falls from the cars – is not a safe option. Diesel smoke from the 4-5 engines it takes to pull a 1 ½ mile coal train will still pollute our soil, water and air that we rely on to produce healthy food for ourselves and our children.

Marguerite Thayer (#965)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Kent, 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. 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.

Remember the Exxon Valdez? Can you afford the environmental damage this terminal may trigger?

Sincerely,

Marguerite Thayer
PO Box 1264
(Res: Federal Way WA 98023)
Kent, WA 98035-1264

Mari Anderson (#4832)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Comment:
My family has lived on Whdibey Island since 1900. We are concerned about the negative effects coal export could have on the environment in Puget Sound. Coal dust has been proven to be toxic. We don't want any harm to come to marine life or air quality. The environment is already under assault from military installations and refineries. There is a limit on public tolerance of pollution.

Maria Batayola (#10049)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
Dear NEPA and SEPA Coal Train Review Team,
On November 16, 2012, we installed a historical kiosk with a major metal mural art work in Seattle Chinatown International District (CID) 6th and King honoring the contributions of Filipino Americans in CID. The news of the coal train running 18 times through the tracks adjacent to CID is of deep concern to us. The CID already has the poorest air quality in the ciyt of Seattle. The train would further exacerbate that quality, pollute the air and increase the likelihood of acid rain in the area leading to the degradation of the historic buildings and structures in CID. We strongly recommend that a Section 106 review to assess the effects of the coal train on the historic buildings and structures of CID be performed. CID is a national and local treasure, designated as a historic neighborhood. Please feel free to contact us to partner in this process. Thank you in advance for your work.
Maria Batayola
Project Chair
"Honoring Filipino Americans in Chinatown International District" Kiosk Project
Attached Files:

Maria Bohman (#4247)

Date Submitted: 12/08/12
Location: Kenmore, 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.
WE MUST MOVE BEYOND THIS ENERGY SOURCE FROM THE DARK AGES, AND DEVELOP RENEWABLE, CLEAN ENERGY SOURCES.




Mara Bohman
6428 NE 185th St
Kenmore, WA 98028

Maria Clemente (#8966)

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

Maria DeMars (#14122)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
I am deeply concerned about the potential impact of coal exports on my family and community. Coal exports pose great threats to the health, safety, and environment of the Pacific Northwest. In addition, burning this coal would be a huge step backward in combating global warming

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.

I see photos of China, and the the pollution that they have, that has come from coal and cars, and I do not wish to live like that. We have a choice. You have a choice. Maybe this is the time, to side with the common people, and let the corporations ruin another part of the world, although I wish they would embrace, you guessed it, New Green Energy Technologies!

Maria Duarte (#11010)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Coal ports are terrible for human health, climate change and it creates a horrible enviromental impact in the Puget Sound area as well as in our global community.

Maria Gruener (#1743)

Date Submitted: 10/24/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Maria Torres (#7651)

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

Maria Theresa Maggi (#2111)

Date Submitted: 10/29/12
Location: Moscow, ID
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Maria Victoria Peeler (#8191)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
Please USE FULL COMPREHENSIVE LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS (LCA) methodology for the the comprehensive, crossmedia, crossgenerational impact this proposal entails. It is baffling that at the same time we are spending huge amounts of time, effort and money to determine how to manage climate change, and reduce its impacts, that we fail to take strong action against a massive transportation package that purposely separates the continued terrible practice of using coal for energy. In an age where we know we can change our practices by using new methods of generating heat and energy, political pressure should not drive WA to accept this project, which at every level of action screams damage to the environment, human health, and....ironically enough...long term negative impact on our fiscal integrity, even though now it is sold as a revenue method. NO MITIGATION IN THE LIST, WELL PAYING JOBS, OR INCREASED REVENUES TO THE STATE WILL NEGATE THE CONTINUED, AND PERHAPS INCREASED, LEVEL OF MERCURY and other contaminants RELEASE TO ALL ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA AND HUMANS THAT WILL REMAIN PART OF THIS TRANSPORTATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT. Please use the following research materials as you consider this project: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=LCA+of+coal+use+and+its+impacts+2012&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48
If you need a specialist in Mercury impacts from coal use, feel free to contact me.

Mariah MacKay (#5827)

Date Submitted: 12/29/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
I strongly urge you to see to it that the Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal EIS fully addresses the adverse environmental impacts of climate change in the Spokane area and beyond due to the extraction, shipment and burning of the coal involved in the proposal.

While I understand that most of the impacts examined in this study will focus on immediate local environmental harms such as coal dust, traffic congestion, etc. I feel the responsible and prudent thing to do is to also consider the climate impacts of the treatment of the substance that is proposed to be shipped.

We live in Peaceful Valley in the heart of Downtown Spokane just a few blocks between the Spokane river and the rail lines. We are concerned about the impacts of coal industry emissions on our climate; including seasonal changes, temperature changes and watershed impacts. As a minimum we urge the EIS report include an estimate of the total carbon tonnage that will be pumped into the atmosphere as a result of the extraction, shipping and burning of the coal that is implicated in the proposal.

Sincerely,
Mariah McKay

Mariah Maracle (#12456)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

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

"Personally, I am against strip- mining, as well as transporting coal & all that it entails to get the shipment to China. As it is, there is a humungus coal pit down by Centrailia that is growing bigger by the day and the ecological problems that are not being addressed. Lets stop this raping of Earth, the Planet that supports us all."

Mariah Rose McKay (#5160)

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

Marian Beddill (#9000)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a retired civil engineer, with my specialty being water systems management. I was deeply involved in the Washington State program known as WRIA-1 (Water Resources Inventory Area #1), dealing with water quantity equity in the Nooksack River and associated basins.

A necessary minimum instream flow of water in the Nooksack River, is an essential requirement for the life and survival of the marine life which live and/or spawn in the river.

The SSA project proposal intends to utilize (unspecified) large quantities of Nooksack River water, which would be furnished by the Whatcom Public Utility District #1, and captured in one or more spots near the City of Ferndale.

Please study the full impact such water capture (removal from the instream flow) will have on the salmon and other marine life that is natural to the river, and study the consequent impact on the life, finances, and the legally-treaty-assured cultural norms of the Lummi Nation.

Marian Carrasco (#2155)

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

Marian Gonzales (#14112)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
I am deeply concerned about the impact of coal exports on my family and community. Coal exports pose great threats to the health, safety, and our precious environment of the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound.
Burning this coal represents a huge step backward in combating global warming and moving forward into setting standards on clean energy, which our state is committed to!

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.

Marian Harrison (#12773)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
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 in an area sensitive to many environmental changes impacted not only by the pollutants from the coal trains, but the noise and the potential of cutting Lakewood schools off from emergency services, if a train were crossing any of the crossings leading to that area west of
I-5 at Smokey Point or State Street and 136th. Noise from the trains are a nuisance there also as the tracks are very near the schools.
All rail traffic coming from Cherry Point will impact the already existing rail traffic and the impact of such usage on the rail system itself is not been well thought out.
Who will pay for repairs when needed? I hope it will not be the citizens who never asked for this plant to be built.

Marian Hayes (#13982)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I already have a very difficult time breathing due to severe asthma so I don't need anyone making it even more difficult to breathe!

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.

Marian Hennings (#3728)

Date Submitted: 12/03/2012
Location: Spokane, Wa
Comment:
The EIS process should be broad-based and cover the impact of the project from coal mine to shipping port. Impacts of coal shipment will be felt particularly in Spokane because of its being the hub of rail traffic in the inland northwest. 46 freight trains per day, plus Amtrak passenger trains, already pass through Spokane. The proposed coal shipments would add a minimum of 16 trains and possibly as many as 60 additional trains depending on the market and available shipping ports. This would have an adverse effect on Spokane due to increased noise, lowered air quality due to increased diesel emissions and coal dust, danger to human health caused by lengthy waits at railroad crossings in the Spokane Valley delaying access to Valley General Hospital, increased risk of derailment due to increased heavy traffic (which would be catastrophic in downtown Spokane because the rails run above the streets, and the risk to our aquifer from increased refueling and risk of derailment. Derailment is not a hypothetical; it has already occurred in Franklin County and north of Spokane this year and has many times in past years. Heavier, more frequent loads increase the chances of accident and derailment. Noise is already a problem in that the trains can be heard for miles around and this would become nearly constant with the increased coal shipments.

Finally, there is the concern of acid precipitation to the Pacific Northwest from increased coal burning in China., Tests done at the Univ. of Washington at Bothell have shown that winds bring air and pollutants from Asia in only 10 days. The sunsets we had last summer were due to fires in Siberia from which the prevailing winds carried the smoke to our state. We do not need acid rain to damage our forests or even the finish on our cars, let alone what exposure to these chemicals does to the human body. We should not be encouraging the Chinese or anyone else to burn coal because global warming affects us all detrimentally.

Marian Kelner (#13802)

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.

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

Marian Neevel (#2680)

Date Submitted: 11/06/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Marian Neevel (#14300)

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

Marian Schwarzenbach (#6421)

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

Marian Schwarzenbach (#11914)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
This project would profoundly negatively impact the five largest cities in Washington state, our most valuable body of water (Puget Sound), all of the sea life in it and the economic benefits related to it, including tourism, fishing industry, major parks and agricultural areas and wildlife, some of the most valuable real estate in the state, and be a major health hazard and air quality destroyer--and that's just before it gets shipped to China!
The Northern Cheyenne reservation, already impacted by a mine, would be made uninhabitable by the poisoning of waters and lands from the mining activities.
All this so we can help China out-manufacture us and further pollute their air spaces, which would then return to us via the air streams, further acidifying the Pacific Ocean on its way.
Please quantify these issues in your Environmental Impact Statement.

Marian G Beddill (#2135)

Date Submitted: 11/02/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a retired civil engineer and USAF Meteorologist, whose work was predominately on water management, especially irrigation and drainage. I was awarded a US Patent for a flow-controlling device.

I value the protection of our water resources, an essential element of all life.

I'm concerned that the GPT coal shipping terminal, if built, will contribute substantially to pollution of the waters on the lands where the coal would be stockpiled, and lands adjacent. One cause of pollution will occur because of the use of water sprayed over the coal. Runoff from the coal will carry impurities and pollutants.

Please study the impact of those impurities and pollutants carried by the runoff, on the purity and health of the lands, subsoils, and adjacent maritime environments.

Marian G Beddill (#8982)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The engines driving the trains and ocean vessels, emit diesel particulates (especially the ocean vessels which burn low-grade bunker fuel - whatever is the proper term for that fuel.)

Please study the direct and profound linkage between diesel particulates and disease, and coal dust and disease.

Please study whether, once the region is contaminated with mercury, cadmium, uranium, and other elements that are components in coal dust, whether it will be possible to mitigate those consequences.

Please study and quantify Dr. Mostad's statement that a Health Impact Assessment should "determine how many excess deaths and hospitalizations would be expected."

I ask the agencies 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 between the terminal and the Powder River Basin and any other mining locations.

Then study and quantify those medical consequences: to establish 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?

mariana foliart (#11251)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, Wa
Comment:
I am opposed to coal mining in the eastern states and coal shipping to and from a Bellingham port.Coal mining is a danger to mankind and an ecological disaster wherever it occurs. It is unconscionable to ship[ coal to a country which does not make any effort to control emissions and damage to the atmosphere and the people living there. I am opposed to coal trains passing through this area, spreading coal dust, impounding traffic, creating noise, and disturbing wildlife. The greed that would impose these trains on this area would create a few jobs during construction of the facility but in the long term does little or nothing to improve the economy of the area.

Marianne Edain (#176)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Langley, 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 and beyond the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change.

The most important of these on a global scale is the exacerbation of climate change. Please do not limit the scope of the EIS to the immediate local impact of a coal export facility on Whatcom County.
Rather, please consider the impact on climate change of those actions made possible by this one, as required in SEPA if not NEPA. SEPA speaks of evaluating actions in the same document if one action relies on the other and would not proceed without it, or if the actions are interdependent and parts of a larger action. Without a port from which to ship the coal, there would be no incentive to dig that coal, no capacity to transport it, or to burn it. The entire cycle of coal needs to be considered in the light of its potential to overheat the earth beyond its capacity to support human life.

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

Marianne Goble (#3771)

Date Submitted: 12/03/2012
Location: Enumclaw, WA
Comment:
Dec 3, 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.

We have spent much time cleaning up the Puget Sound to make it a healthy place for what is a very unique population of marine wildlife.
This proposal will reverse this hard work and turn our pristine Puget Sound into a potenial hazard zone for all who enjoy it. Orcas' need strong protections and this proposal for a coal export terminal is unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Marianne Goble
2037 Jensen St
Enumclaw, WA 98022-3611

Marianne Haworth (#13274)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: La Conner , WA
Comment:
Subject: Infrastructure lacking
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:33:44 -0800
Regarding the Gateway Pacific Terminal:
My comments are personal, hopefully not political. The proposed route for carrying materials to the Terminal is not only inadequate, but also threatens the continuity of life along its route.
The primary inadequacy is infrastructure for daily life along the proposed route:
Already, Amtrak service is halted by freight trains with priority over human transit. As traffic and population along the I 5 corridor develops train traffic will confound the population traveling to and from Seattle.
Vehicular traffic in Skagit County will be halted and stalled on its way to hospitals and emergencies.
While the Terminal will contribute needed jobs and tax income to our communities, there is little said about addressing the infrastructure necessary to maintain the lives and commerce of citizens along its supply route.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
Sincerely,
Marianne Haworth

--
Aaaaaja message from massage mari, mahalo

Marianne Mabbitt (#259)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Silverdale, WA
Comment:
The Cherry Point and San Juan Islands in WA state are some of the most beautiful in the world. DO NOT DESTROY them. There is already too much risk to this vital fishing and marine life area due to the two oil refineries.

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,

Marianne Mabbitt
13699 Olympic View Rd NW
Silverdale, WA 98383-9717
(360) 204-5118

Marianne Mersereau (#3546)

Date Submitted: 11/28/12
Location: Lake Forest Park, 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.

I grew up in Appalachia and witnessed first hand the negative impacts of coal removal on human health and the environment in that region. My father shared with me a story about what happened to the ponies that were once used to pull the coal cars from the mines there, and I share it here as an example of the far-reaching effects of coal removal (and to give the forgotten victims (the ponies) a voice):

Big Coal, little ponies
~ A Poem For Uncle Dee

Looking back, I tally the Appalachian losses:
Five hundred ancient mountain tops blasted Trout streams choked for two thousand miles And Daddy told me about the ponies too In 1935, Big Coal turned those little ponies loose to starve on Black Mountain after the cars took their pulling jobs I hear them crying after all these years Uncle Dee and Daddy tried to save some Scraped together a little money, offered to buy a few but Big Coal said No Big Coal did not care about small change Old Mountains, little ponies or the dust coating my uncle’s lungs.

~Marianne Mersereau (Written July 16, 2011 following a conversation with my father, age 90)









Marianne Mersereau
19200 51st Avenue NE
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

Marianne Nelson (#4535)

Date Submitted: 12/11/12
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I will be attending and signing up to comment. But in case I do not, I would like to have this entered into the written record.

Thank you.

Marianne Nelson
1426 SE Rural St.
Portland OR 97202
503-231-2825

The new Spielberg movie on President Lincoln is about a time in American history where leaders faced decisions about a form of energy used then: slave labor. There are comparisons to our time, where we face decisions about another form of energy: coal

Lincoln pushed to get the 13th amendment to the constitution passed before the civil war ended. It abolished slavery forever in the United State. Then he meets with the southern leaders to negotiate an end to the war. They want a truce between two sovereign nations. Lincoln rejects that. The south must come back into the union.

They say they can’t come back without slavery. The economy of the south is based on this form of labor. To end slavery would ruin their plantations, their civilization, and life as they have known it.

Lincoln listens, and bows his head for a long silence. Then he says “I do not know how we will get through this, but we must. Gentlemen, you must understand, THE TIME OF SLAVERY IS OVER. It is over.”

Our situation today is similar. Those in favor of this coal terminal will talk about jobs, about keeping a form of energy that we know, that civilization has been based on for more than 100 years.

But already we know that things need to change. Carbon dioxide emissions are at a worldwide all-time high. Listen to the news: coral reefs dying, the shellfish industry threatened by acidic ocean water, droughts, floods, heat waves .

Coal is one of the biggest producers of CO2. We must move beyond it. THE TIME OF COAL IS OVER. To paraphrase Lincoln, “I don’t know how we will get through this”, but for the sake of our planet we must.

Those defending coal will talk about “clean coal”. That is like talking about a gentler slavery—no chains, no beating, better food. No, that is not the solution. As hard as it is, we must put a stop to digging, transporting and selling more coal.

But the countries that want to buy this coal need this energy to develop—we would deprive them of a much needed source of energy. If these countries do not get coal, perhaps they will invent more sources of clean energy. China is developing new clean technologies-no imported coal could force them to become a leader in clean energy.

I ask you to look ahead. Imagine a discussion with your great-grandchildren and their children. Will our planet be dying, or will it be recovering? They ask you how you decided on the Gateway Pacific Terminal, the largest coal export terminal in the United States. Will you be proud to say that you had the courage to vote against it? Or, will you have to admit that your decision allowed coal pollution to continue, even though scientists knew that it was killing our planet. The decision is yours. May the wisdom and courage of Abraham Lincoln be with you as you make your decision.

Marie Bussard (#11385)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
Why are we sending a raw natural resource to a country that will use it to compete against us in making cheaper products? Also how do we know they won't use it in a way that impacts the entire world environment? (I think it's a dumb idea)
I'm an emergency responder firefighter/medic an am worried about the train delays both in the city and county and what that will do to peoples lives. I'm also worried about the environmental, health impact to my life as well as everyone and everything that lives and breaths along the way.

Marie Erbstoeszer (#8320)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
I am writing in agreement and support of the City of Mount Vernon, Washington's Scoping Letter Comments #s 4925 and 4927. I am a resident of the City of Mount Vernon and live in the West Hill neighborhood within 2 blocks of the BNSF railroad tracks. I understand that subsequent to submitting the above noted comments the City of Mount Vernon resubmitted its letter correcting the 2nd paragraph statement noted that there are 8 at grade railroad crossings in the City not 5 as noted in the initial submission.

Each of the factors identified in the City's Scoping Comment Letter could have a significant impact on me, my family, my neighbors and the residents and visitors to the City of Mount Vernon. In particular, I am concerned about the potential delays in emergency response times for fire, police and ambulance; the increased noise and the increased pollution due to coal dust and diesel particulate emissions.

I request that the EIS process include the study of any and all significant probable adverse environmental and health impacts including direct, indirect, cumulative and future impacts. Furthermore, in view of the potential health issues, I request that a full Health Impact Assessment be conducted for this proposed GPT Project.

Thank you,

Marie Erbstoeszer

Marie Erbstoeszer (#8866)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
Scoping Comment regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

I agree with Dr. Arthur Winer’s submitted comment # 6641. My name is Marie J. Erbstoeszer and I live in Mount Vernon, Washington within 2 blocks of the BNSF railway tracks. Like Professor Winer, I am concerned about the signifcant pollution that will occur with the increased rail traffic if the GPT is approved. My family along with many others in Mount Vernon and through out Washington State will be affected by the increased particulate pollution.

I agree that it is imperative to study both the unregulated as well as the regulated pollutants. I also agree that it is important to do air monitoring adjacent to and downwind of transportation corridors and not just at fixed site monitoring stations.

Please include within the Scope of the EIS a comprehensive study of the impacts all pollutants including coal dust on the health and safety of my family and all families along the the rail line in all 120 other communities along this long rail line from the Powder River Basin to the GPT. Because of the serious potentail health issues a health impact assessment should also be required for this proposed project.

Thank you,
Marie Erbstoeszer

Marie Erbstoeszer (#9092)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Comment:
As a resident of the city of Mount Vernon who lives two blocks from the BNSF railway line, I am very concerned about the GPT proposal and the impact it may have on me, my family and the residents of Mount Vernon. I support the information sent by Mary Ruth Holder in Comment # 6108 which thoroughly review the potential issues related fugitive coal dust from trains enroute to and from GPT and coal mines in the Powder River Basin.

Please include in the scope of the EIS process the study of all impacts of fugitive coal dust as outlined in Comment #6108.

Thank you.

Marie Erbstoeszer (#9301)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
I agree with Sanford Olson's comments regarding the significant potential impacts of vessel traffic due to the proposed GPT project. Mr. Olson's comment # 1567 was submitted on October 27, 2012 and his comment # 6044 was submitted on January 5, 2013. Each of these comments clearly outline the issues of increased commercial vessels transporting coal to Asia.

I am very concerned about these potential issues and the impacts they could have on the waters of not only the northwest USA but all of the way across to the Asian continent.

Please include those issues in the scope of comprehensive and cumulative EIS studies regarding the GPT project.

Thank you,
Marie Erbstoeszer
Mount Vernon, WA

Marie Erbstoeszer (#10317)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
My name is Marie Erbstoeszer and I live in Mount Vernon, WA. Professionally, I have a Master's degree in Health Services Administration from the University of Washington - School of Public Health and Community Medicine. My 30+ year career has focused on health related activities and issues. I am a parent and grandparent. I am also an active community volunteer and deeply care about my community.

Each of my characteristics listed above contribute to my concerns about global climate change. Most specifically I am deeply concerned that the proposed Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal at Cherry Point would escalate climate change by leading to increased green house gas emissions in China and other Asian countries.

I am thoroughly in agreement with Carolyn Gastellum's scoping comments # 6908 submitted on January 12, 2013. I request that the EIS process address each of the study issues outlined and detailed her submitted comment # 6908.

Thank you,
Marie Erbstoeszer

Marie Erbstoeszer (#12794)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Comment:
Scoping comment regarding the proposed GPT Project – Health Issues

My name is Marie Erbstoeszer and I live in Mount Vernon, Washington in the West Hill Neighborhood which is just 2 blocks from the BNSF railway route. I have a Master’s Degree from the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine. My entire 30 + year career has focused on health issues.

Thus, I am very concerned about the potential health impacts of massive coal exports from this region. I request that the scope of the EIS study for the GPT project include a cumulative approach and also include a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment. In particular, the scope of the EIS study and the Health Impact Assessment should include an in depth study of:
- Diesel pollution effects
- Noise and vibration effects
- Emergency Response delays for ambulances, police and fire
- Environmental mercury contamination from coal burned in Asia

These health impacts should be studied throughout Washington State, not just in Whatcom County, since the coal trains will pass through numerous cities en route to the GPT.

Thank you,

Marie Erbstoeszer

Marie Hitchman (#3998)

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

Marie Marrs (#333)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Port Angeles, 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 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.
Thank you.

Marie Maughan (#4630)

Date Submitted: 12/12/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I think the overall costs to required infrastructure improvements, human health, and the environment significantly out weigh any monetary benefits Washingtonian’s stand to gain from pursuing the West Coast Coal Export project.
I have concerns about proceeding with its implementation before a complete emergency response and preparedness plan is in place. There are many potentially problematic situations to consider along with train car derailment, ocean tanker oil spills, shore area access for emergency vehicles through congested rail tracks, and air quality from our inefficient methods of controlling coal dust disbursement into the air, land, and sea.
From the perspective of enriching our humanity I strongly feel we need to reevaluate our process of transporting and exporting coal so that we incorporate alternative methods that don’t put our quality of life at risk.
Perhaps we should focus our efforts on finding safer, more efficient means of energy production rather than perpetuating the use of hazardous substances. We human beings are incredibly innovative creatures with great intelligence and unique abilities that, put to task, help us accomplish our goals. Moving toward goals that improve our quality of life is foremost.

Marie Needy (#7239)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
No way!! No why!! No how!!

I have seen the effects of coal terminals in other areas and have been disgusted by the devistation to the surrounding environment caused by the coal dust and spillage. Oh but you have fans. Yes, but in your plans there are several areas where coal and its dust could easily escape into the environment killing wildlife and affecting the workers themselves!! In addition, where do these wonderful fans vent??

Do you enjoy fresh salmon for dinner? What do you think a terminal in Ferndale will do to all the salmon runs through those tributaries?!!

Please keep our coal where it belongs and save our environs and those involved from black lung! Let's learn to respect life! Not everything is about the almight buck!!

Marie Tabata (#3116)

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

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. The great Pacific NW is one of the few places in America where people can feel nature's beauty even in the cities.

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 help us!

Sincerely,

Marie Tabata
5724 NW El Rey Dr
Camas, WA 98607-9120

Marie J. Erbstoeszer (#13291)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
My name is Marie Erbstoeszer and I live in Mount Vernon, WA. I respectfully request that various impacts upon tribal nations be given due consideration. Please study:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Marie J. Erbstoeszer, MHA

Marie-Claire Dole (#2984)

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

Mariette Ravet (#10893)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Ashland , OR
Comment:
I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, Western Washington, and currently live in Oregon. I'm very concerned about the inevitable health and environmental impacts from the Gateway Pacific Terminal. I agree with the Friends of San Juan scoping comments (It can be referenced by noting that it is the comment of approximately 400 pages). I think that all of their requested studies should be conducted. Please do so. Thank you, Mariette Ravet

Marilee Dea (#5722)

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

Marilee Dea (#5723)

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

Marilee Dea (#5724)

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

Marilou Eva (#10237)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Global has for too long been associated with "global markets" and global economy". It is essential that today we recognize that the "global environment" must be our number one mandate if the planet is to survive. There are "101+ Reasons to Be Concerned About Coal Export" across the Pacific to China and other Asian markets.

Marilyn Anderson (#7793)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
My name is Marilyn Anderson. I have owned property in the San Juan Islands for 53 years and have been a resident here for 40 years, first living and farming on Crane Island and, since 2001, living on Orcas Island.

I agree completely with the recent Resolution of the San Juan County Commissioners, in which they addressed many vital issues: among them the impact of possible oil spills on fish and wild life, the health risks inherent in increased particulate matter escaping from carrier engines, the impact of noise on our heretofore serene and healthy environment, and the long term effects of the discharging of foreign ballast into our waters.

The dangers inherent in these possible outcomes are intolerable to contemplate, for any of them could change our lives, our economy, the attraction of our safe and welcoming environment to visitors, and the wonderful spirit of the Islands.

As a native Washingtonian and voting registrant for all of my adult years, even the 23 years spent on active duty with the Army Medical Department, I ask you to study this proposal with due diligence, and thus lead the way in preventing the degradation of our island habitat.

Marilyn Boyd (#4527)

Date Submitted: 12/11/12
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
The trains carrying coal cars follow the Puget Sound along Port Gardner Bay through Everett. Everett, aka the 'City of Smokestacks', has been a Superfund site on more than one occasion, and we are just now watching the last remaining mill, Kimberley Clark, being demolished. This site will also require extensive environmental remediation.
The citizen's of Everett have been assaulted by toxins in air and water for generations, and are hopefully now reaching the end of a very long, dirty era.
The increase of coal trains through our area would negate the efforts to assure citizens rights to clean air and water by producing increased diesel fumes, asthma aggravating coal dust, and by disturbing fragile bluffs along the tracks.
Mudslides occur frequently along the tracks between Edmonds and Everett, and the increase of trains along this route is setting up a catastrophic scenario. Our fragile ecosystem would be profoundly damaged if a coal train were to dump it's load into the Sound.
Exporting coal to China is not only a giant leap backwards for Everett, but a profound mistake that adversely affects our region, our country and our entire planet.

Marilyn Boyd
1620 Hoyt Avenue
Everett WA 98201
425-339-1158

Marilyn Brashen (#11782)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Kirkland, wa
Comment:
In no way should a terminal be constructed to ship coal out of Bellinham, nor should trainloads of coal be allowed to criss cross the state.

Marilyn Brashen (#11783)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Kirkland, wa
Comment:
In no way should a terminal be constructed to ship coal out of Bellinham, nor should trainloads of coal be allowed to criss cross the state.

Marilyn Darilek (#3142)

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

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

Jobs for Washington employees must be built around sustainable, clean industries. Building our economy should not come at the expense of our citizens' health and our environmental treasures. It is reprehensible to condone the coal industry's degradation of lands in Wyoming and the Dakotas by permitting this detrimental product to be transported through our rural settings and urban centers.

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,

Marilyn Darilek
1814 W Briarcliff Ln
Spokane, WA 99208-8983

Marilyn Dunham (#3982)

Date Submitted: 12/05/2012
Location: PORTLAND, OR
Comment:
32 diesel train engines hauling over 13 miles of coal hauling rain along the Columbia River is just bad, bad, bad. Coal dust will travel about 2 miles from the track: that means into the communities, farmland, wetland areas, and the river itself will be continuously contaminated by coal dust even when there are no spills. Safety vehicles will be forced to wait at railroad crossings when mile and a half long trains roll through at freight train speed. Wildlife and vegetation, marine species- significantly salmon- will be smothered in coal dust. The coal dust will reach the ocean, not only via the Columbia, but also at the port, from the mountains of coal awaiting shipping. But worst of all, as Chinese companies burn their American coal, tons of carbon dioxide will be released into the Earth's atmosphere, creating climatological damage world-wide.

Protect the Columbia River and the 2 mile channel alongside it, with all the residents within it, the ocean area near the port, and the entire Earth's atmosphere, by denying coal transportation through our region.

Marilyn Dunham (#13008)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington.
The proposed terminal would increase traffic, air and water pollution, harm existing businesses, delay emergency vehicles, increase shipping traffic and noise, damage aquatic ecosystems near and far from the terminal site, increase the risk of serious shipping accidents, and exacerbate climate change.

Coal dust is carcinogenic, and would drift across the entire transit route, damaging land, water, and air safety. The damage will last for many years. And no matter where the coal is burned, the destruction to climate stability will be global.

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

Marilyn Ferrier (#7653)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Location: Snohomish, wA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Marilyn Flint (#10623)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I oppose the export terminal at Cherry Point. I nearly died from pollution in Los Angeles and oppose anything that adds to pollution and climate change.

Marilyn Gilchrist (#14399)

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

Marilyn Gunning (#1410)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Marilyn Hair (#3516)

Date Submitted: 11/20/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Nov 20, 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 the 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, by the emissions from mining, transporting and burning coal, exacerbating climate change. I am concerned in particular about people who live, work, or go to school near railroad tracks and will be exposed disproportionally to coal dust that causes asthma, cancer, and other chronic diseases. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement and encourage you to facilitate a Health Impact Assessment as well.

Thank you for your attention and concern,

Marilyn Hair
Box 354695
Seattle, WA 98195

Sincerely,

Marilyn Hair
PO Box 354695
Seattle, WA 98195-4695
(425) 890-7153

Marilyn Hjort (#4676)

Date Submitted: 12/12/12
Comment:
> Gentlemen:
>
> Yes, I do have a few thoughts about more coal trains. Everett residents
> should be informed and polled more often, before "the papers are signed",
> and city staff should be more forthcoming.
>
> 1. The City's draft is a catechism of all that's wrong with the idea of
> sprinkling more coal dust over the paper mill pollution and geological
> shortfalls.
> Take those points and whatever else Mr Smith has found, and run with them.
>
> 2. Promises of profits and jobs are not to be believed. The (non-local)
> proponents
> of the added trains will take the first and fill the second.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Marilyn Hjort

Marilyn Kelsch (#13180)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Hansville, 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.0

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

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 STRONGLY oppose the Cherry Point Terminal!!!

Marilyn Kimmerling (#8313)

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

Marilyn Mastor (#985)

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.

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.

We must protect the waters of our universe in order for all beings to survive; it is very short-sighted to continue to allow this raping of our land & waters.

Sincerely,

Marilyn Mastor
3100 Vallette St
Bellingham, WA 98225-1846

Marilyn Mastor (#11777)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am absolutely opposed the the Gateway Pacific Terminal. This is a moral, ethical and environmental issue which must be carefully considered in regards to all the above issues. It is only a short-term answer to the jobs problem with extremely detrimental results for the community...........ours and the world community.

Thank you

Marilyn McClelland (#13250)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Location: Fanny Bay, BC
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.

Coal is filthy, harmful and any imports only benefit a few at the time, but in the long run destroys the world environment contributing greatly to climate change. It's legacy is pollution, wasted money from clean ups and medical care, a landscape we don't recognise where it is mined, wildlife impacted or killed and an environment destroyed. It is the liver of the earth and should be left in the ground.

Marilyn Mueller (#12747)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Deer Lodge, 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.
When all this destruction of our earth is over & done, where are these greedy bastards going to take their families for a lung full of good air, a glass of clean water? Absolutely no fore thought on their part as to what happens to our planet.MM

Marilyn Nieckarz (#12610)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Pacific Beach, 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.

We worked hard to keep this out of Aberdeen/Hoquiam WA. We need to
prevent this from ruining the environment in Bellingham. Say No to any coal port!

Marilyn Parman (#2536)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Marilyn Parman (#3358)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Eastsound , WA
Comment:
1. The noise of so many trains on land as well as traffic being stopped so much might discourage tourism. Also the noise of so many super tankers has been shown to damage dolphins including whales and other endangered species. So perhaps more research should be done in that area to determine the exact adverse impact on these marine mammals.

2. The effect on air quality during windstorms seems enevitable, however, perhaps there could be more studies relative to this issue as to the contribution to particulate pollution should windstorms blow coal dust into the air.

3. History has shown us that breathing coal dust results in adverse health impacts, so if this happens to citizens here, how will you deal with this issue, financially and help with relocation. How can you reverse adverse effects on humans?

4. Since this will be record train traffic in the area, how will you deal with that issue, when people are late to work due to trailn traffic, and how will that impact Amtrac schedules?

5. How will you deal with a problem of ambulnces trying to get a dying or severely injured person to a hospital when a railroad is in its path and the railroads are so heavily being used under the new coal train traffic?

6. Finally, our country is supposed to be a leader in developing green energy, so how is it that shipping such any coal, particularly this low-grade coal to China, rationalized and what will that do to this effort in cleaning up our enviornment? We are already starting to reap havoc in the way of storms, which science has shown to be caused by global warming. Global warming is cyclical, but not to this extent because glaciers and arctic ice are melting rapidly due to coal dust that holds in heat, which melts the ice in both the Anarctica and Arctic, and even in Canada and in the northern parts of the United States, such as in the Cascade Mountains right here in Washington.

7. A lot of study needs to include the damage to the entire food chain relative to the oceans. Because the mussels and marine life that is at the bottom of the ocean floor where much coal dust settles are adversely affected or even destroyed. These life forms are a major food for other fish like salmon and this type of fish is the primary food of whales and dolphins, as well as people. So I would like to know what you plan to do about these problems and I would like to know what a real study says about this.

8. Finally, I would like to see a good study that shows the real effect on ground water after coal dust has been rained on and gets into our ground water. If more high tech filtering is required, such as reverse osmosis filtering, who is going to pay for that - the coal mine company or the residents of Washington and Oregon and elsewhere.

What kind of funds will be set aside to compensate the adversely impacted businesses and residents if the coal trains begin running. However, my concern is that lungs and lives cannot be measured in money.

Marilyn Parman

Marilyn Portwood (#10549)

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

I am a descendant of Native Americans who lived in the Columbia Gorge.
I have always wanted protection of the Gorge from commercial interests, and this shipping of coal through the Gorge really worries me. I feel that protecting the Gorge far outweighs any benefits derived from shipments of coal.
I am hoping Oregonians and Washingtonians have more sense than to let commercial interests spoil our national treasure.

Marilyn Roberts (#1603)

Date Submitted: 10/25/12
Comment:
I have been against coal being transported thru my community of Mount Vernon via open rail cars. I would be more supportive if even once I had heard that each rail car of coal would be covered so that coal dust would be contained and that rain would not wash over each coal car and the contaminated residue filter out on to the ground.

Our society has made considerable effort to clean the air and water of our great nation this coal hauling via rail cars seems to fly in the face of that.

Marilyn F. Roberts

Marilyn Stoops (#10935)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Bellingham, WA, has been my home for 30 years, and I love living here. I am concerned about the potential impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal on the quality of life for people, animals, and plants in this area. Please include the following areas of concern in your research and reporting:
-air and water quality over the expected life of the Gateway Pacific Terminal;
-human health for people living here currently and for future residents, including infants and children; and
-land/water animal and plant populations over the expected life of the Gateway Pacific Terminal.

Marilyn Tuoby (#8062)

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

Marilyn Wall (#10261)

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.

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.

Marilyn Warner (#14187)

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

Marilynne Mueller (#5113)

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

Marin Andersen (#11339)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. I particularly object to having these trains pass through heavily populated areas including the city of Seattle, harming existing businesses, and delaying emergency responders. I live in Seattle and I have asthma. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion with perhaps 15 coal trains a day moving through an area close to downtown Seattle. This is in addition to the noise associated with more coal train traffic, and the polluting our the air in my community. Air pollution in this city is associated with increased asthma deaths and increases in particulate pollution in particular are deadly. Increased tanker traffic is also associated with significant increases in particulate air pollution and has 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. Though I personally would be most affected by any transporting coal through Seattle all could affect air and water quality and I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Marina Wiesenbach (#12404)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, polluting our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
The train will cut off transportation and commerce in Seattle to the Waterfront. This ESPECIALLY IMPACTS THE CRUISE TERMINAL AT PIER 66. It will make getting passengers to their ship EXTREMELY difficult and will create HUGE TRAFFIC JAMS in the area. This will create more car pollution while waiting for the train to pass and frustrated tourists and hospitality workers.
ALSO there have been MANY MANY LANDSLIDES on the tracks between Seattle and Everett and could result in DERAILMENTS and coal going into the Puget Sound.

Marinus Rouw (#3294)

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

Mario Preti (#2364)

Date Submitted: 11/06/2012
Location: Burlington, WA
Comment:
Let me begin by saying that I was a long time union member in Seattle. The unions in the 80s voted for Regan,I was apposed to that.The unions today backing this are making the same mistake again.The jobs will be short lived ,and will be mostly automated in the end. I live in Burlington now and waiting for mile long dirty trains at crossings is unbelievable.The noise will be unbearable day or night,we can hear the trains now going through the valley for miles passing through.The country is moving toward new clean energy,why give China the opportunity to polute even more of the world.
Global warming is a fact,putting more garbage in the air will only hasten our demise on this planet. A shipping accident would be huge to the area,on the scale of the AlaskaValdez spill. Even thinking of doing a project like this is insane.
The only people who will benefit from this are corporations, not the local area counties or the state. Please veto this project for the public good .

Thank you ; Mario &Yvonne Preti..

Marion Hanks-Bell (#6750)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Orcas , WA
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

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

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

Sincerely,

Marion Hanks-Bell

Marion Hanks-Bell (#8463)

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Marion Lodwick (#12737)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
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.

I know there is a lot of money to be made by exporting coal but please consider the costs to the long term health of our communities and our environment.

Marion Reed (#14401)

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

Marion Seymour (#13939)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
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.

Marion Ward (#10071)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
http://www.king5.com/news/environment/Dozens-of-mudslides-bury-railroad-tracks-between-Seattle-to-Everett-185003081.html

There have been 40-50 landslides on the railroad tracks from Seattle to Everett this season alone, with at least one train derailment. Train traffic has been stopped.
Moving additional trains full of coal through the I-5 corridor makes no sense. Trains
will be backed up all the way to Montana. What happens when a coal train derails
near WA waterways or near fragile ecosystems ?? These trains should to be moved underground in tunnels.

Marisa Hendron (#6531)

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

Marisa Hendron (#6625)

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

Marita Graube (#11418)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Although this is a form letter, I agree with all the points that follow. 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.

Mariyin Wood (#4824)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I am completely opposed to the proposed coal export project. It can only bring serious harm to our environment including serious health risks to those who live along the railroad where trains filled with coal will pass through, and our children. The proposed benefits are insignificant compared with the consequences. Exporting coal overseas is clearly not in the best interest of the United States. We can create more profitable ventures by focusing our energies else where. This project should be stopped immediately.
Marilyn Wood

Marj Hogan (#10641)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Public investment in railroad infrastructure, ports, etc., will benefit primarily the companies responsible for coal export, not the states and counties that will bear the burden of increased traffic, environmental degradation, and risks to health and safety. Our tax dollars should go to projects that benefit our communities and citizens, not multi-national companies.

MarJoe Davidson (#11464)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Lopez Island , wa
Comment:
I live in the San Juan Islands and I am opposed to the increase in Ship traffic through the straits, also to the Cherry Point location. Our herring population has decreased and Cherry Point is one of their spawning areas. Salmon depend on herring for food before going out to the ocean. We need to look to our future to keep the Pacific northwest prisine for the next generation. Yes the coal port will add jobs but will take away others jobs in the fishing industry and could also affect Tourism our main industry if a catastrophy like the accident in Canada happened here in Washington State.

Marjolein van der Veen (#11007)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
What is the net gain or loss to the economy, and the net gain or loss of employment from this project? While I have seen various estimates of the expected job creation (from about 100 to a couple thousand overall), there has been little attention to the potential loss of jobs. What is going to happen to the Waterfront development project and the jobs that were planned there? What is going to happen to the attraction of Bellingham as a retirement community, after the increased noise and air pollution from the trains? How much are property values expected to fall? How will the damage employment in construction, retail, small business, retirement-related sectors?

Marjorie Bills (#2209)

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

Marjorie Bills (#4449)

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

Marjorie Bowker (#7834)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I am a Seattle native and have been a teacher with the Edmonds School District for 16 years. I am proud to be a part of such a forward-thinking area of our nation, and therefore, am quite distressed the idea of a coal export terminal here. Aren't we the ones who know that if we don't have our clean air and environment that we have nothing? That's what I try to convey to my students every day. We live in the most beautiful place - why would we compromise that in any way? When it comes to the environmental cost, we cannot afford this mistake.

Marjorie Fields (#286)

Date Submitted: 09/26/12
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
I can't imagine that anyone would seriously propose such a disastrous plan. It isn't as if we don't know the negative effects of coal dust on our lungs and on our environment in general. As a grandmother of children living near the train tracks, I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington.
This proposal would negatively affect my community and my family 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,

marjorie Fields

Marjorie Fields (#6290)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
Although the broader issues of coal and the world-wide environment are obvious, my own selfish concern is for the health and well-being of my family. Our home is 1/2 block off the tracks in Edmonds and I am very worried about air quality. Of course there is quality of life to consider too: the children's access to and enjoyment of the beach that drew us to live here.
The whole town of Edmonds would suffer from constant coal trains, changing the atmosphere and driving shops and restaurants out of business. Though some jobs would be created elsewhere, many would be lost in the process.
Life along the entire rail corridor would be negatively impacted, and Cherry Point would be seriously damaged. Fishing jobs are as important as coal terminal building jobs - and have the potential to be longer lasting.

Marjorie Johnson (#6926)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Comment:
I am submitting my comment to insure Oregon residents do not foot the pollutant bill for all of China and beyond. First, we should not be encouraging the use of coal in any capacity. Second, we do not want the toxic effects of coal dust, the noise, traffic congestion and safety, air quality to be diminished in our pristine Columbia River Scenic Gorge. Once you go down the path of polluting the Gorge you can not get it back for decades. I encourage and ask you to deny any permit or any other plan to ship dirty coal period much less in our Gorge. I speak for many Oregonians who now enjoy the beauty and history of one of the most irreplaceable natural wonders of the world. With all the evidence of how it would pollute with is toxins, mercury, etc. you must not vote to proceed with this horrible idea shipping coal through the Gorge. Thank you for listening. Marjorie Johnson, Hillsboro, Oregon 97124

Marjorie Johnson (#7340)

Date Submitted: 01/12/13
Location: Hillsboro, OR
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 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 whole idea is just poor idea. First, we should not be encouraging coal consumption. Second, the means to get to to China through our gorgeous Columbia River Scenic area is just outrageous. Please do not let the money talk on this issue (some things are more valuable than
money) and use common sense in denying any such movement of coal with its toxic pollutants in our Scenic pristine Gorge. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ms. Marjorie Johnson

Marjorie Kircher (#2379)

Date Submitted: 11/04/12
Location: Portland, OR
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. In addition, the coal dust and diesel particulates from the transportation of massive amounts of coal will be harmful to the health of citizens of the Pacific Northwest. I work with children who have neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, ADHD and learning disabilities. Exposing citizens, especially pregnant women, to hugely increased amounts of neurotoxins (such as the mercury, lead and arsenic found in coal dust) will likely result in even more children with debilitating cognitive and behavioral disorders.

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.

Marjorie Kircher, MS OTR,
Pediatric occupational therapist




Marjorie Kircher
3023 SW Cascade Dr.
Portland, OR 97205

Marjorie Kircher (#3548)

Date Submitted: 11/26/12
Location: Portland, OR
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 through the Columbia River Gorge, 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 know from my work with children who have neurodevelopmental delays for over 25 years as an occupational therapist, that increased exposures to neurotoxins in coal dust (mercury, lead, arsenic, etc.) will contribute to more children born with autism, ADHD and learning disorders that will profoundly impact their futures, indeed all of our futures as many children are born with suppressed intellectual capacity. 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.




Marjorie Kircher
3023 SW Cascade Dr.
Portland, OR 97205

Marjorie Leone (#6338)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

My name is Marjorie Leone and I have been a Whatcom County resident for 24 years. I am concerned about the Gateway Pacific Terminal having an adverse impact on herring spawning grounds within the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. Not irrelevantly, I am also concerned about the effect of the terminal and all its activity on migratory bird populations.

The herring population off Cherry Point are unique in that the herring spawn in the spring. Migratory birds have relied on this natural phenomenon for millennium. The waters off Cherry Point have been a crucial stopover during their flight to breeding grounds in the arctic. We know there are many fewer birds than in the past. For example, in the 1981 edition of A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington by Terence R. Wahl and Dennis R. Paulson, Cherry Point is listed as having "some of the largest concentrations of birds in Washington" during herring spawning season, with "Flocks of up to 25,000". These are not the numbers seen lately. At this time, Cherry Point herring numbers were also the highest in the state. Herring numbers have also declined dramatically, to the point that the Cherry Point herring population is listed as being in critical condition by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The 2004 petition to list Cherry Point herring as an endangered species states "Spawning and other life supporting activities are routinely disrupted by extensive vessel traffic and facility operations."

Nevertheless, Whatcom County's birding related tourism industry is growing steadily, as evidenced by Blaine's annual "Wings Over Water" event that centers around the aforementioned spring bird migration.

These birds have limited options for putting on the weight necessary for migration to their summer breeding grounds. Adverse effects of additional vessel traffic and facility operations on the herring, and on efforts to restore them, need to be studied. Adverse effects on waterfowl need to be studied as well. Adverse effects on birding-related tourism in Whatcom County need to be studied.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Marjorie Ann Leone

Marjorie Lorant (#7752)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
IMPACT: I would like the EIS to study the impact of the proposed Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal due to air pollution.
Marjorie Lorant, resident of Ferndale, Washington. I grew up in Long Beach, California. When I walked to school while I was in elementary school I would look to the east and see the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains. It looked like I could reach out and touch them, or at the very least just walk down the street and be there. By the time I got into college it was impossible to see the mountains on most days due to the smog and air pollution. Even after regulations came into effect to ameliorate the air pollution it is impossible to see the mountains except after a heavy rain. My son was born in the Los Angeles Basin and was diagnosed with asthma at the age of 6 months, even though there is no history of asthma in the family. Air pollution is real and the impact is devastating to all life; human, animal, aquatic, insect, plant and birds.
SIGNIFICANCE: Today my son at 39 years of age still suffers from asthma. He must take medication daily, see his doctor regularly, and have a rescue inhaler with him at all times. There are days when he cannot work due to his asthma. This is a significant financial, emotional, and health burden for him. GPT is up to 18 additional trains per day to pass through Bellingham, Ferndale, and other Puget Sound communities. Each train is 1.6 miles long and has four engines on each end in order to pull the heavy load. The American Lung Association has studies that link increased lung diseases and cancer to the increased particulates spewed into the air from diesel train engines and coal dust. All major body organs are affected by the pollution. Not only are the particulates spewed into the air but they also leech into the ground and water, further polluting the environment. The cost of treating diseases linked to these particulates is at least $190 million per year, excluding the cost of missed work, inability to care for family, and the emotional cost of the illnesses to individual and families affected.
The cumulative effects of the many pollutants from the transportation, storage, and shipping of coal will affect not only humans but also household pets, wild birds, cattle, sheep, and aquatic life. Doctors and veterinarians do not make people and animals healthy; they merely treat illnesses and disease.
FORESEEABLE: Air pollution and the effects from it are clearly foreseeable. There is no way to return humans, birds, plants, animals, aquatic life to wholeness once the pollutants have caused chronic disease and even death. There are a large number of studies that show that the kind of particulate pollution that train traffic and coal movement will causes is not only foreseeable, but also disastrous.
ALTERNATIVES: There are no alternatives. When the coal trains come through western Washington and the Puget Sound area they will spew particulates into the air, the air will be polluted, and every living things will suffer to some degree. Some forms of life will die and some forms of life will be wiped out.
ASK: I am requesting that the EIS study the effects of air pollution caused by the transportation, storage, shipping, and spilling of coal on all living things from the point in Montana and Wyoming where the coal is mined to the point where it is off loading in Asia or its final destination.

Marjorie Lorant (#7771)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
IMPACT: I would like for the EIS to study the potential harm to aquatic life due to the potential of single hull ships hitting rocks, running aground, colliding with docks, colliding with other vessels or other conditions which damage their hull allowing coal and/or oil to escape from the vessel during their journey from the loading dock at the Cherry Point Terminal to the offloading of coal in Asia.
SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed vessels that will transport coal are single hull vessels that when the hull is damaged or breeched it will allow the cargo and fuel oil to spill into the water. The vessels loaded with coal and carrying fuel oil for power, will travel from Cherry Point, Washington to Asia by traveling through the Georgia Straits, up the west side of Vancouver Island, along the west coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands, along the west coast of the islands of southeast Alaska, across the Gulf of Alaska, through the Unimak Pass in the Aleutian Islands, and through the Bering Sea to Asia. This is the route that all ships travel when transporting cargo from the west coast of the United States to and from Asia. Thousands of ships travel this route yearly. The proposed terminal at Cherry Point will add approximately 500 additional yearly trips.
FORESEEABLE: When the Exxon Valdez hit rocks in the Prince Williams Sound it caused extensive damage to the aquatic environment, birds, fish, sea animals, and the land adjacent to the Sound. In the event of a collision between a ship carrying oil and a ship carrying coal it would be extremely difficult to contain. In the event a collision occurred in the Unimak Pass, which is only 10.5 miles wide, the damage to aquatic life would be devastating. Because of the remote location it would be extremely difficult to get people and equipment to the site. Ships hit rocks, docks, and other ships each year. With the number of ships traveling the marine route between the west coast of the United States and Asia it is foreseeable that a collision will occur and devastating results will happen.
ALTERNATIVES: Require that all coal be transported from Cherry Point Terminal in double hull ships. Otherwise, there is the potential for catastrophic damage to aquatic life in the waters of the United States (especially Alaska), Canada, Russia, and Asia.
ASK: I would like the EIS to study the likely damage to aquatic life in the event the ships transporting coal from Cherry Point Terminal to Asia collide with something that causes their cargo or fuel leaks into the water.

Marjorie Lorant (#11644)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I’m living in Ferndale and am concerned about the potential economic impact of the Gateway Pacific Terminal on the citizens of Whatcom County, if the GPT is built. I would like for the EIS to investigate and address all the potential economic impacts to Whatcom County if the GPT is built.
If the GPT were to be built it would detrimental impact the crab and salmon runs and the herring spanning beds. This would lead to loss of approximately 20,000 jobs that are related to fishing and processing. This is much more than the number of jobs the terminal would create.
The San Juan passages are the most congested in the world and is also where Orcas live. The increase in congested from the additional 485+ ships per year would affect the Orcas, making it difficult for them to navigate and decreasing their breeding. All the jobs associated with whale watching would be detrimentally affected. The island cities will not be compensated for any of their loss/damages. They will see no economic benefits.
Because of the increase of coal trains virtually monopolizing the rail system, the other businesses would not be able to increase their output because they would no longer be able to ship their goods to market by rail. These would include the agricultural output throughout the state of Washington and the manufacturing output.
There is a planned railroad spur along the Bellingham waterfront just east of Boulevard Park. This would block all vehicle traffic in and out of Boulevard Park. The business that is located in Boulevard Park would probably go out of business and jobs would be lost. Additionally, the 18+ trains per day that will travel along the waterfront will effectively close off the waterfront businesses from the rest of the city. The businesses that are presently along the waterfront will probably go out of business and a multitude of jobs will be lost.
Tourism will be decreased. Property values will go down all along the rail route. There will be a diminished interest is developing the Georgia Pacific site. Other businesses that would have come into Bellingham will be lost. People who would move to Bellingham because of the lifestyle will no longer choose Bellingham as their home.
Whatcom County and the cities within the county will have to bear uncompensated expense for projects like street overpasses, services, and utilities that will need to be built or increase their output.
All of the above will cause significant economic damage to Whatcom County and the cities within the county. The economic damages have been carefully studied by many people and are foreseeable and certain.
There are no reasonable alternatives that would ameliorate the economic damage the GPT and the increased railroad traffic will do. Please study and address all the potential economic impacts to Whatcom County if the GPT is built.

Marjorie Lorant (#11742)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I live in Ferndale, Washington and I am concerned about the potential health effects from the proposed increase of railroad traffic to and from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. I would like to have the impact of 1.5 mile long trains (more or less) making 18+ trips per day through Whatcom County on the health and safety of people and animals.
With each train being 1.5 miles long it takes each train a significant period of time to cross each street/road. When the EMTs respond to calls they may need to cross the RR tracks twice before the patient can be taken to the hospital (once going to pick up the patient and once transporting them to the hospital). Additionally, it may be necessary for doctors, nurses, technicians, and other medical personnel to also cross the RR tracks to get to the hospital to attend to the patient. If trains passing the streets delay the treatment of the patient the patient may suffer either increased injury or death. Both increased injury and death are significant concerns. There are many small communities in Whatcom County where it is necessary to travel longer distances to get the injured to medical facilities.
Increased injury and death to patients where transportation is delayed due to train traffic is clearly foreseeable. Additionally, there will undoubtedly be multi-million dollar law suits due to the injuries and deaths sustained by the delay in being able to get the patients to the hospital or trauma center. With the increase of railroad traffic by a factor of 6, the probability of delay in transporting patients to the hospital in emergency situations is likewise increased as is the likelihood of exacerbating their injuries.
Alternatives could include the construction of street overpasses, however this would need to be done prior to the increased in railroad traffic and at the expense of SSA Marine or additional economic injury will occur to the citizens of Whatcom County.
Please study the impact of delayed medical treatment in emergency situations caused by the delay in getting patients and medical staff to the hospital due to the passage of trains blocking street traffic.

Marjorie Lorant (#11850)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I live in Ferndale, Washington and am concerned about the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and the proposed increased in train traffic from the coal mines in Wyoming and Montana, through the Columbia River Gorge, along the Puget Sound, and to Cherry Point. I would like the EIS to study the impact of coal dust pollution and train mishaps.
The United States has signed the Copenhagen Climate Accord which will reduce GHG emissions worldwide. Any new coal exporting works against the purpose of the Accord. Any combustion of coal anywhere in the world defeats the purpose of the Accord and damages the health of humans, plants, animals, fish, birds, and all living things. When the coal is transported it is placed in open cars and doused with water because it is combustible. Trains traveling through forested areas and through cities while on fire is a dangerous situation, releasing toxic gases into the air. Additionally, all along the train routes coal dust is blown into the air. The coal dust clings to trees, buildings, and other objects. It is washed into streams and other bodies of water where fish and other aquatic life can be suffocated. When the coal is off-loaded at the terminal and loaded into ships large amounts of coal dust are released into the air. When it rains the dust is washed into the soil where it seeps into the aquifer. The pollution caused by the settling of coal dust on water can cause acidification of the ocean, streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds. This in turn interferes with the reproduction of aquatic life and will either cause defects or infertility leading to extinction. Each winter there is a lot of rain in the Puget Sound area. Each year there are slides along the hillsides above railroad tracks, washing out the tracks in some areas. When the slides occur when a train is on the tracks below the cars and/or their cargo are dumped into the water. To dump the cargo of trains of 1.5+ miles long into the water would add to its acidification of the Puget Sound. Acidification reduces fish runs and aquatic life which causes the reduction of jobs to people who make their living from fishing and related employment.
All anyone needs to do is watch the evening news to see pictures of train cars being knocked over by landslides. Clearly coal dumped from open cars into areas of water is not merely foreseeable but is a certainty. There are pictures and clear evidence that coal dust on the water interferes with reproduction of aquatic life and in some areas has wiped out the sea life around coal loading terminals. Pictures show us huge coal clouds when the winds come up, blowing the coal over both land and water. Since coal is being shipped to burn in Chinese factories, coal is obviously combustible and there is danger that it will combust when being transported.
Especially as to the health and future of aquatic life, there is not alternative to prohibiting coal being shipped from Wyoming and Montana to Cherry Point and then loaded on ships for China.
Please study the impact of coal dust pollution and train mishaps on the environment, including aquatic life, due to the transport of coal from Wyoming and Montana to China.

Marjorie Lorant (#11984)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I live in Ferndale, Washington and am opposed to allowing the Gateway Pacific Terminal to be built at Cherry Point. My concern is about all of the Climate Change problems it will cause and contribute to. I take issue with the purpose and need of the permit. Not only would the proposed terminal exacerbate an already dangerous air quality and climate issues, but it would be multiplied by 5 times as that is the number of proposed coal shipping terminals in Washington State.
Coal is the dirtiest fuel known. The United States government has regulated much of the burning of coal within the U.S. borders specifically because it causes air pollution and climate change. The New Source Performance Standards requires any new coal-fired power plant in the U.S. to meet very tight standards for low CO2 emissions. To allow coal to be shipped outside the U.S. in order to avoid meeting the standards is inconsistent with and undermines the purpose of the NSPS standards.
Washington State has adopted greenhouse gas reduction standards in RCW 70.235.070(1)(a). If the Cherry Point coal terminal is permitted it will wipe out a considerable portion of the required reductions. Each of the 1.5+ mile long trains requires four diesel engines just to move it. Diesel engine exhaust accounts for a substantial amount of CO2 that is released into the air. CO2 increase is one of the causes of climate change. The GPT facility alone will emit an estimated 296.8 billion pounds of CO2 into the air each year. We can no longer sustain the economic impact of the flooding, drought, and fires caused by climate change. Climate change causes drought which is leading to loss of food production and increased food prices throughout the world.
Climate Change is not merely foreseeable, but it is a proven fact and it has been proven to be human made.
There is no alternative to rejecting the GPT permit.
Please study the effects of all aspects of the Gateway Pacific Terminal and the increase in trains bringing in coal on Climate Change.

Marjorie Prince (#5044)

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

Marjorie Sawyer (#72)

Date Submitted: 09/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I'd like to add my voice to all the people against transporting coal by train through WA. I've lived in Bellingham for over 30 years, and have enjoyed the clean air and relative quietness the city provides. My husband and I live directly above the train tracks, and can't imagine how the quality of our lives will be impacted by the addition of so many trains traveling through the city at all hours. I also oppose the sale of coal to a country already suffering major pollution. Please vote NO to the Gateway proposal.
Marjorie Sawyer

Marjorie Trifon (#13784)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
WE DON'T NEEDa 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.
PROPOSED Gateway Pacific Terminal WILL negatively affect Pacific Northwest folks: IT WILL increase congestion&noise ; IT WILL POLLUTE air & waterways; IT WILL HARMexisting businesses; DELAYemergency responders& DAMAGE ecosystems of orcas, salmon& herring, i-- ALL INCREASES accidents&spills potential&ESCALATES CLIMATE CHANGE.

WE MUST CONSIDER CLIMATE CHANGE--already upon us.

Marjorie Trifon (#14152)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
WE DON'T NEEDa 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.
PROPOSED Gateway Pacific Terminal WILL negatively affect Pacific Northwest folks: IT WILL increase congestion&noise ; IT WILL POLLUTE air & waterways; IT WILL HARMexisting businesses; DELAYemergency responders& DAMAGE ecosystems of orcas, salmon& herring, i-- ALL INCREASES accidents&spills potential&ESCALATES CLIMATE CHANGE.

WE MUST CONSIDER CLIMATE CHANGE--already upon us.

Marjorie & Kethy Sawyer & Adams (#1384)

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

Mark Ashworth (#1803)

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

Mark Ashworth (#1805)

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

Mark Asmudson (Clean Air Agency) (#14353)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Mark Bartleman (#12694)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Laguna Beach, CA
Comment:
I write in opposition to 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. Thank you.

Mark Benoit (#6725)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
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.
For so many reasons that you likely already know this is simply a wrong-headed direction to take.

please to the right thing and stop this from progressing.

thank you

Mark Blitzer (#4433)

Date Submitted: 12/05/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Dec 5, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I am strongly in opposition to the proposed construction of 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.

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.

Sincerely,

Mark Blitzer
8047 Earl Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98117-4529

Mark Bunster (#5870)

Date Submitted: 12/27/12
Location: Lake Oswege, OR
Comment:
December 27, 2012

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


Please do NOT approve the Gateway terminal. The last thing we need is more dirty coal going across Washington and being shipped to other countries to make our air dirtier. Bad idea.


Sincerely

Mark Bunster

Mark Carlson & family (#1836)

Date Submitted: 10/30/12
Comment:
I am writing on behalf of my family of four voting adults, all of whom are absolutely against allowing coal trains to run through our gorgeous Northwestern states, laden with dangerous coal from Wyoming, headed to China and Korea and other ports. Our planet is in such a precarious position, we need to focus on saving our threatened environment and on finding and funding clean energy sources. Please do not allow the terminals to be built in Whatcom County and put a stop to this madness as soon as possible.

The Mark Carlson family
Gresham, Oregon

Mark Dawson (#12297)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

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.

Mark DeLaurier (#1009)

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The proposed coal transportation through the Pacific Northwest and the building of the coal export terminals must not be allowed to happen.

These proposals put our health, our lifestyle, and our environment at risk, and they do so in order to continue the use of an outdated, harmful energy source.

Transporting the coal through the Pacific Northwest is a threat to wildlife and its habit as well as human health. It also leads to further consumption of one of the leading contributors of global warming.

I vehemently oppose the building of these terminals, including the one at Cherry Point, and the transportation of the coal through the Pacific Northwest.

Sincerely,

Mark DeLaurier
87 Cemetery Rd
Oakville, WA 98568-9737

Mark Dix (#6887)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I fully oppose transporting coal thr the northwest and then burning it in China. Much too dirty.

Mark Dix (#7309)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Jan 11, 2013

US Army Corps of Engineers

Please accept these scoping comments for the environmental impact statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) project located at Cherry Point, Washington.

Coal is much too dirty of an industry. All steps along the path of transport thru burning cause too much pollution. I am fully against this project.

Sincerely,

Mr. Mark Dix

Mark Drummond (#13657)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
To be delivered by 5pm: comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov


{NOTE! Here is a copy of my coal train letter, for anyone to copy and send/adjust as they see fit. The more people who submit the same issue, the more seriously it will be regarded: aka if I am the only one asking for these things and the only main thing everyone else asks about is traffic, they will probably ignore these ones: do it!}


I/we live in a community close to the BNSF Rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) will be traveling if the Gateway Pacific Terminal is built. I/we request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement encompass the entire transportation corridor as well as the entire Puget Sound as an ecosystem so that our livelihoods, homes, and habitats are given due consideration. Questions that concern me/us, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive study should include:


Direct impacts on Fisheries and the Puget Sound: How will tourism; boating; collision risks; coal spill risks; salmon, crab and herring fisheries; Orca whales; and the general beauty, vitality, and livability of the Puget sound and environs be affected by this new coal port construction and operations, and by the other 950 annual transits of coal ships to come? We and our fellow workers depend on healthy salmon runs and healthy, non-toxic shellfish, as does the marine and bird life in Seattle/the Puget Sound. The trains will be running directly through and over the Carkeek Park
salmon beds, where baby fish are already struggling without the added stresses of arsenic and mercury from coal dust in the river. How will this specific park be affected, and the baby salmon/eggs in its rivers?


Direct and cumulative impacts of Coal Dust pollution: Please investigate this in the areas of rail safety;
increased risks of spills due to coal dust buildup on tracks; increased shellfish toxicity; the general health of the community that lives on/near the rail way and up wind of train traffic; investigate how coal dust and port run off contributes to the acidification of the ocean/Puget Sound, and how this will impact the wildlife there; specifically investigate the Puget Sound's water currents in evaluating what kind of build up there will be, whether or not the pollution will be able to drain out of the sound effectively, and if not, what the overall cumulative impacts of that build up of toxins will be, while also taking into account possible pollution from spills; impacts on workers health who handle the coal, and the costs they will have to pay for increased health care expenses.


Black Carbon and burning coal: Please investigate what role the burning of coal plays in the creation of black carbon, which has recently been identified by scientists as the 2nd biggest contributor to global warming. How much black carbon would be added to the atmosphere if China were to burn the same amount of coal that is planned to be shipped, and what kinds of impacts would this have, cumulatively, on global warming?


How much coal smoke/ash travels to the northern ice sheet when burned in China, and what kind of contribution does it make to the melting of ice once it settles? How greatly does the build-up of coal dust/ash residue contribute to ice-melt acceleration? What companies who are profiting off this transport of coal planning to do in order to clean up in the arctic and preserve the ice sheet from melting away completely? Currently we know that black sludge from air pollutants is gathered on arctic glaciers, which results in more sunlight and heat being focused on the ice than would naturally occur. This increases below-glacier streams/cracks/rivers, which are creating new momentum to carry these ancient glaciers to sea, where they ultimately melt. This process is greatly accelerating the melting of once-permanent glaciers. We can reasonably foresee that if the arctic ice sheet in destroyed, such an event will initiate a series of global weather disasters unlike anything we have seen in recent history. Please investigate the impact of black-sludge residue on the ice thoroughly, as it's presence has only recently come to light publicly and needs much further exploration to fully understand its impacts, which appear dire. (See "Chasing Ice" by Jeff Orlowski for more info.)


Chinese preparedness: Please investigate whether or not China as a nation is fully prepared to effectively mitigate the massive influx of pollution on their people, wildlife, and waterways. What are the impacts to be expected on the Chinese people themselves, and the environment, and what solutions are available to contain the pollution so that our global environmental commons (ocean/atmosphere)
are not damaged beyond sustainability?


Global climate change: At the current rate of global climate change, how much will burning this coal add to the abnormalities in our planet's atmosphere? Please produce an estimation,
based in scientific evidence from multiple independent sources, of how much coal, if any, we can be allowed to burn in the next 5 years WITHOUT impacting climate change. How do the GPT's numbers fit in to that equation?


Human health ans 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 Basic coal combustion in Asia?


Costs 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; and lost local businesses and jobs?


Comment and recommendation: Some arctic experts are now predicting that with the current rate of melting, we could see the disappearance/permanent destruction of the ice sheet within 4 years time. Because of this, and all the above states costs, concerns, and negative effects this plan will no doubt have on our global environment, regardless of the local destruction and pollution it will likely cause, we urge you to consider these questions, and take NO ACTION. We do not believe or expect these effect/concerns to be mitigate-able, and decisively oppose the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, and
the companies that are in charge of planning it.


We sincerely hope you take ample time to gather the information necessary before delivering a reply.


Sincerely,

Mark J Drummond

Mark Eikeland (#3041)

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

Mark Ewbank (#3799)

Date Submitted: 12/04/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I am particularly concerned about increased train noise in my neighborhood, which is adjacent to the railroad tracks on the Magnolia side of the BNSF Ship Canal bridge crossing. I can see the railroad tracks through the eastern-facing windows of my home. The tracks curve in this area, and the large freight trains make a huge amount of noise, for minutes at a time multiple times a day, all week long, due to squealing wheels rounding the turn. The noise caused by freight trains disrupts everyday life, especially in the warmer months of the year when windows and doors are open to the open air. The proposed coal trains will seemingly result in much more time each day when this noise envelopes the neighborhood. While we who live in this neighborhood chose to do so knowing we would live with train noise, this proposal clearly makes a giant change in what we will experience.
I am also concerned about potential adverse effects to fish and marine wildlife, including salmon and orca whales, in a large number of important and already-stressed waters between Cherry Point and the open ocean, encompassing the Salish Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Bellingham Bay and Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. The region and our federal government are investing huge amounts of money and volunteer energy into restoring habitat and water quality in these waters. It is hard to envision a project in this region that could have a greater threat to those investments than this one.

Mark Falcone (#3941)

Date Submitted: 12/01/12
Location: Lynden, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mark Fix (#10348)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Miles City, MT
Comment:
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.

Arch Coal is proposing to open up the Otter Creek mine and the coal is destined to use the ports. The mine would not have to be built if the ports are not built. The mine has lots of water in the coal and the water will most likely be dumped into the Tongue River where I irrigate. The Tongue has numeric water quality standards for salinity and sodium. The discharges will damage our soils when we irrigate with the water. The Pallid Sturgeon is endangered and they used to spawn in the Tongue River. The Tongue was recently opened up to the the possibility of the Pallid Sturgeon spawning again when an irrigation dam installed an upstream bypass. The discharges from this mine may harm the recovery of the Pallid Sturgeon. There are also discharges of salty water being discharged into the Tongue from coal bed methane in Wyoming. The existing Decker coal mine also discharges salty water into the Tongue River Dam.

Landowners could face condemnation to obtain right of way for the trains going to Cherry Point. It is not right to condemn US citizens for the Chinese. It is not right to build a port for Asia and China. The traffic will increase so much that we may not be able to transport agricultural products on the tracks anymore. Agriculture is under attack and if the ports are built and more coal is developed, land will be taken out of production that is critical to producing food for a hungry world. You must pursue the no action alternative. It is the only alternative that makes sense.

Mark Gale (#2151)

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

Mark Gardner (#13323)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I am writing to request that you fully consider all the impacts of increased train traffic resulting from the operation of the Gateway Pacific Terminal at full build-out. Impacts from train traffic are a direct impact of the terminal because the very high projected volume of coal delivery, requiring 9 trains 1.6 miles long in each direction daily, will have a substantial impact on all aspects of train operation as well as direct impacts to communities and facilities alongside the tracks. These impacts are not incidental to but a direct result of the very large increase of traffic on tracks that are in many cases already at or near capacity. The impacts that need to be studied regarding this are, at minimum:
1. Identification of needed the train storage sidings within the City of Bellingham and the consequent impacts of the location and operations of such sidings on the City’s plans for waterfront redevelopment;
2. Impact on emergency response vehicles of increased blockages of tracks, especially within the City of Bellingham planned waterfront redevelopment area;
3. Impacts on the state’s Ferry system of increased trains, especially at the Edmonds Ferry terminal;
4. Impact to health from diesel emissions as idled trains sit with engines running on any Bellingham siding or other train “storage” areas;
5. Impact from train traffic on passenger train traffic in the Puget Sound, and especially on the Seattle to Vancouver, B.C. corridor;
6. Impact from trains idled by the regular and increasingly frequent mud slides that affect both passenger and freight trains on the corridor N. of Everett. Where will trains that are unexpectedly delayed be stored, and what impacts will this storage have on the populated areas along the northern train corridor?
I thank you for considering these concerns.
Mark Gardner

Mark Hamlin (#5114)

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

Mark Hennon (#2562)

Date Submitted: 11/08/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

Coal is filthy, and so are trains with open coal cars. Strip-mining desolates the earth. Burning coal raises heat and the ocean level and will flood our shores and seaside properties.

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.

--Mark Hennon


Mark Hennon
612 1st Ave W apt 102
Seattle, WA 98119

Mark Hersh (#3999)

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

Mark Hicks (#9662)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
My name is Mark Hicks and I am an avid boater and fisherman. I often feed my family from Birch Bay and the surrounding waters. I am concerned about the impact of the Cherry Point Coal terminal on the quality of the water in the marine environment. What happens when thousands of tons of coal dust lands in the water? Does it stay suspended? Does it sink to the bottom and create a layer of toxic compounds? I fish for salmon and rock fish. I set crab pots and gather horse clams, cockles, clams and oysters from the tide flats. I am deeply concerned that the coal dust blowing from the terminal will pollute the bay and surrounding waters to the point that the fish and shellfish will no longer be edible and then no longer be able to survive. We in Birch Bay have gone to great effort to change over old septic tanks and use non polluting fertilizers. We monitor water quality and our human impact on the bay on a regular basis. It is unnacceptable that the coal terminal should destroy all of our hard work in preserving this environment for now and for generations to come. Please study the impact of the dust from the coal terminal on the marine environment of Birch Bay. Thank you.

Mark Hillman (#7654)

Date Submitted: 01/03/13
Location: sEattle, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mark Hinchen (#10946)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Camano Is., Wa
Comment:
I am not willing to put up with the traffic and environmental impact that the coal trains will bring. Please do not allow additional trains with coal.Thank you.

Mark Holland (#13624)

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

My name is Mark Holland and I live in Seattle WA. in the Beacon Hill neighborhood, overlooking the SODO industrial area. SODO is where the proposed coal trains will rumble through every day if the cherry point project goes is approved. I am concerned about the negative economic and environmental impacts to my city if the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point is approved.

For the following reasons I ask you deny the proposal and that the "no action" alternative be taken in regard to this project. If no action is taken on this proposed project, the applicant, SSA Marine, will still have the economic benefit of building the terminal permitted by Whatcom County in 1997.

The cumulative negative effects of the proposal cannot be mitigated, therefore the project must be denied.

1. Time delay of commerce and traffic in Seattles' most robust industrial district, resulting in major economic losses.
18 trains per day would equate to approximately one additional coal train every 1.3 hours, all day long, in addition to existing train traffic. At six to seven minutes per train, that would translate to an addition of approximately 2 hours per day that vehicles and people would not be able to cross these major intersections in south Seattle. Businesses like the Port of Seattle, the two existing stadiums and the soon to be built third stadium, Sears, Home Depot, every other business large and small, and ultimately the consumer will have to pay the indirect costs of the added delays.

2. Unforseen future increases in capacity. Capacity could be easily increased over the proposed quantities once the project is approved. The Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point is designed to process much more than the proposed amounts of coal, and could be adapted to other materials transfer, increasing both Terminal processing capacity and negative environmental impacts to Seattles' environment and economy.

3. The City of Seattle will have to pay to correct the problems caused by the extra train traffic. For instance it could eventually require the city to build bridges over the tracks at every crossing. Ultimately this negatively impacts every citizen in Seattle due to increased taxation to pay for the corrections.

4. Excess noise and diesel pollution. SODO is already on of the most polluted areas in the city. As a low lying river valley, the Duwamish basin/ SODO is an effective trap for pollution. 18 coal trains a day will only make the air quality worse.

5. Global impacts of burning coal in Asia must be considered. As we saw with Fukushima, the Earths' atmosphere can easily carry radioactive fallout over the Pacific, landing all over the U.S.A., especially on the West Coast. The same is true of pollution from burning coal in Asia. We can export all the coal we want, but we cannot export the pollution. It will always come back to find us

6. Uncovered coal train cars lose coal dust all along the route. On many train tracks you can literally pick up hand fulls of coal dust that fills the gaps between the ties and covers the ground twenty feet out either side of the tracks. COAL TRAIN CARS MUST BE COVERED TO STOP THIS TYPE OF POLLUTION. THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF RUNNING UNCOVERED COAL TRAIN CARS IS RECKLESS, CHEAP, IRRESPONSIBLE AND TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. Whether the Cherry Point proposal is approved of not, coal train cars must be covered as soon as possible.

Thank You,

Mark Holland

Mark Irish (#14402)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Hauser, ID
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mark Johnson (#5072)

Date Submitted: 12/15/12
Location: SEattle, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mark Johnson (#13438)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Mark Johnson (#14404)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mark Kerrigan (#5018)

Date Submitted: 12/17/12
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."

I would also like to add my own comments on the issue. One of the problems the whole idea of coal export is it seems analogous to the "tragedy of the commons". Here Washington, all the people have a shared resource, access to clean air that will be negatively affected in several ways. It is unclear how this resource will be affected, but I cannot imagine it will be entirely harmless.

Investors who propose such bold plans think very short sightly about the long term impacts. They are quick to point out the economic benefits and additional jobs created, and their supporters fail to understand the true cost of additional pollution from transporting coal, in the cumulative health costs from the increased air pollution, the cumulative time wasted while waiting at level crossings, and the cumulative ecological cost of the increased pollution. When added up, these costs may outweigh the benefits, and the people primarily stand to benefit are the investors and the coal company, a much smaller group of people than all the people who live and will be affected by the increased coal train traffic.

I strongly oppose coal export. I do not want to see the health and local economic concerns ignored for the benefit of a small group of people, who think it is appropriate to sacrifice the health of the environment for short term economic gain.

Thank you

Mark Kerrigan

Mark Knittel (#10125)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live in a community close to the BSNF rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) would travel if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement 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?

Mark Konikoff (#907)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Mark Konikoff
1310 10th St
Bellingham, WA 98225-7011

October 21, 2012

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


At one time in history, industry in Bellingham showed little or no concern for the environment, leaving us with remnants of pollution and despolation in the present, decades or even a century later.

However, in the present, industry is taking great caution with the environment partly by environmental awareness and partly out of regulations.

Nevertheless, a segment of the public reacts to industry as though no changes have taken place. This anti-industry lobby takes extreme positions. An example of this is the uproar over the coal dust issue, which has been demonstrated to be a false concern. A second example is the effort to expand the scope of the EIS to include theoretical impacts to Asia and other parts of the world.

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 present Whatcom County with an incredible opportunity to strengthen its economy and improve our area regions\' quality of life in an environmentally responsible way. We can - and must - grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time.

The 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 conscious 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 not stand in the way of creating new, much-needed Northwest jobs and strengthening our economy through increased exports by completing this environmental impact statement in a fair and expedient manner.


Sincerely

Mark Konikoff

Mark Lanci (#7147)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live in Bellingham, WA in the Columbia neighborhood on Monroe Street which is 2 blocks from Eldridge Ave. On the other side of Eldridge Ave. is a cliff with the train tracks below. Whenever the coal trains approach, my house shakes even though it is several blocks away & at a different elevation than the train tracks. That Eldridge Ave cliff has always been unstable. I am very concerned that the vibration from the coal trains could cause this area to become even more unstable & possibly collapse. I would like to see a study on this be included in the scoping process for the GPT. Thank you.

Mark Larsen (#2507)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Mark Lee (#14633)

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

Mark Leed (#10263)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
The EIS needs to take into account impacts to the entire transportation corridor from the point(s) of loading in the Powder River Basin to the terminal, as well as the impacts that the burning of the exported coal will have on air quality in the Northwest, and its contribution to global atmospheric carbon concentrations.

Please consider the following:

1) fugitive coal dust and its impacts on human health, as well as on agriculture in the rail corridor

2) delays to emergency service providers due to increased rail traffic in communities bisected by the rail line

3) impacts on customary tribal fisheries, both to the health of tribal fisherman, the health of marine organisms, and the accessibility of historic fishing sites.

4) effect on the water quality of streams and lakes adjacent to the railroad

5) potential acute impacts at the proposed terminal of loading and unloading coal, on the water quality of Whatcom County streams and marine waters

6) mercury and other heavy metal pollution that could blow across the Pacific Ocean from coal burning plants in Asia

7) impacts of burning the exported coal on global atmospheric carbon concentrations

8) contribution to ocean acidification from the burning of the exported coal

9) impacts of potential derailments of coal cars, taking into account the higher rate of coal car derailments compared with those involving other of commodities shipped by rail

Mark Lewis (#7586)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Our government entities have already allowed the decimation of our most important herring spawning stock in Washington. They allowed development at Cherry Pt to occur in a manner that destroyed a spawning ground that was formerly as large as all other Washington spawning sites combined! Herring are the most important keystone species in the Salish Sea ecosystem, yet they are treated like vermin. Impacts from this dastardly policy are reverberating far and wide. The Salish Sea has experienced a sea bird crash that exactly matches that of the Cherry Pt herring stock: a 90% decline over the past quarter century. Yes, that's right - no one really cares about birds in our culture. But we've all heard about the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" as a leading indicator of our own demise. The herring crash impact has affected more than sea birds - ground fish, endangered salmon stocks, endangered orca whales, and more, are negatively impacted. What has already occurred is shameful and criminally negligent. Someday, our business and political leadership needs to realize that an intact ecosystem is essential to human survival and that destroying our natural capital is a crime against future generations. Someday, they need to learn that long-term thinking must replace their current myopic style of analyzing cost/benefit. I strongly urge you to drop this "quick and dirty" scheme and seek something "slow and clean" to build a sustainable economy in our state.

Mark Lusk (#6818)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Morgantown, WV
Comment:
Concerned about impacts on marine fisheries and mammals, and wetlands in the area. EIS also needs to do a thorough job of evaluating cummulative impacts from this and other projects in the area.

Will EIS evaluate impacts associated with the transportation of coal to and from the facility? Barge/ship traffic will have impacts and rail infrastructure upgrades will also have impacts. Also additional air emissions from both.

Please add me to your email/mailing list. Thx.

Mark Maher (#8373)

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

Mark Mark Lanci (#7145)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Whenever I rode my bike last spring & summer along the trail going to Boulevard Park in Bellingham, WA, I often came home with black specs on my forehead & glasses. The trail is parallel to the train tracks where the coal trains travel to Canada. Everyone is always saying that they have never seen any coal dust as a result of the coal trains but I am not so sure. I am assuming that the black specs on my face was coal dust that had been disturbed from riding on the dirt & gravel trail. If that is the case, then every man, women & child that was on that trail was already breathing in coal dust. This is a recreation area where thousands of people from Bellingham gather to exercise, relax & listen to concerts & other special events. They should not be exposed to toxic, mercury laden coal dust. Besides the human health costs, I am very concerned that this dust will get into our soil & water supply causing acidification of Bellingham Bay affecting our fishing & agricultural industries. I would like to petition that not only the health effects be included in the scoping process but also the economic ramifications on our community.

Mark Metge (#4478)

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

Mark Miller (#4303)

Date Submitted: 12/05/12
Location: Corvalis, OR
Comment:
Mr. Randel Perry,

I am writing to urge you to use your full authority to prevent the Northwest from becoming a gateway for coal exports around the world. Not only is coal contributing to global climate change, but the proposed coal export terminals in Washington State also pose a huge threat to the Columbia River Gorge and its residents.

As I'm sure you know, proposed export facilities in Bellingham and Longview would result in an estimated 50 additional uncovered coal trains, with 120 cars per train, traveling each day through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) estimates that each coal car would lose 500 to 2000 pounds of coal during this trip, mostly in the form of coal dust. Based on BNSF own estimates, this means that many thousands of pounds of fugitive coal dust would be deposited in the Gorge every day, damaging the human health and the environment.

Coal exports would significantly harm air quality in the Columbia Gorge and result in the risk of higher rates of cancer, emphysema and asthma.

The doubling of rail traffic caused by coal export proposals would result in significant congestion and long transportation delays in rail communities, negatively effecting river access, local businesses, commuters and emergency vehicles.

As a 4th generation Oregonian with roots in the Gorge community of Hood River, Please stop these coal trains -- they do nothing positive for the local economy, and bring myriad negative health and environmental impacts.
Coal export does not provide any benefit to communities along the transportation route and comes


Mark Miller
6655 NW Grandview Dr.
Corvallis OR 97330
tel: 541.602.2180

Mark Niehaus (#9511)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I read that each coal train would be 125-150 cars, and each uncovered car could release from 500 to 2000 pounds of coal dust en route. With 9 full trains per day arriving in Cherry Point, that's up to 1350 tons of coal dust released every day, or almost half a million tons per year. With the recent news that carbon black is far more potent as a greenhouse warming agent, what will we find out in this regard about coal dust? That's beyond any respiratory effects on humans and animals downwind of the trains. Then there's the actual CO2 that would be produced by burning the coal in Asia -- 500 million tons would be Oregon and Washington's share, judged by the amount of coal leaving their ports. Climate change is already happening far faster than scientists were predicting just a few years ago. The effect of burning this coal will be to accelerate this process, making it that much harder to ameliorate the harms to societies and ecologies around the globe.

These trains would be about 1.5 miles long and run through small towns as well as cities. They would be noisy and produce traffic hazards. How many ambulances will have to re-route due to a coal train blocking the most expedient rail crossing? In both city and rural areas this reroute could lead to unacceptable delays.

Then there is the effect on housing prices in areas near the railroads that the trains travel on. They will inevitably fall, due to the noise, the dust and the traffic delays. This will aggravate the already week housing market and lengthen what Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman calls our Lesser Depression.

Keep the coal in the ground. Block the coal trains. Deny the Cherry Point facility.

Mark Niehaus (#9514)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I read that each coal train would be 125-150 cars, and each uncovered car could release from 500 to 2000 pounds of coal dust en route. With 9 full trains per day arriving in Cherry Point, that's up to 1350 tons of coal dust released every day, or almost half a million tons per year. With the recent news that carbon black is far more potent as a greenhouse warming agent, what will we find out in this regard about coal dust? That's beyond any respiratory effects on humans and animals downwind of the trains. Then there's the actual CO2 that would be produced by burning the coal in Asia -- 500 million tons would be Oregon and Washington's share, judged by the amount of coal leaving their ports. Climate change is already happening far faster than scientists were predicting just a few years ago. The effect of burning this coal will be to accelerate this process, making it that much harder to ameliorate the harms to societies and ecologies around the globe.

These trains would be about 1.5 miles long and run through small towns as well as cities. They would be noisy and produce traffic hazards. How many ambulances will have to re-route due to a coal train blocking the most expedient rail crossing? In both city and rural areas this reroute could lead to unacceptable delays.

Then there is the effect on housing prices in areas near the railroads that the trains travel on. They will inevitably fall, due to the noise, the dust and the traffic delays. This will aggravate the already week housing market and lengthen what Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman calls our Lesser Depression.

Keep the coal in the ground. Block the coal trains. Deny the Cherry Point facility.

Mark Niehaus (#9516)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: SEATTLE, WA
Comment:
I read that each coal train would be 125-150 cars, and each uncovered car could release from 500 to 2000 pounds of coal dust en route. With 9 full trains per day arriving in Cherry Point, that's up to 1350 tons of coal dust released every day, or almost half a million tons per year. With the recent news that carbon black is far more potent as a greenhouse warming agent, what will we find out in this regard about coal dust? That's beyond any respiratory effects on humans and animals downwind of the trains. Then there's the actual CO2 that would be produced by burning the coal in Asia -- 500 million tons would be Oregon and Washington's share, judged by the amount of coal leaving their ports. Climate change is already happening far faster than scientists were predicting just a few years ago. The effect of burning this coal will be to accelerate this process, making it that much harder to ameliorate the harms to societies and ecologies around the globe.

These trains would be about 1.5 miles long and run through small towns as well as cities. They would be noisy and produce traffic hazards. How many ambulances will have to re-route due to a coal train blocking the most expedient rail crossing? In both city and rural areas this reroute could lead to unacceptable delays.

Then there is the effect on housing prices in areas near the railroads that the trains travel on. They will inevitably fall, due to the noise, the dust and the traffic delays. This will aggravate the already week housing market and lengthen what Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman calls our Lesser Depression.

Keep the coal in the ground. Block the coal trains. Deny the Cherry Point facility.

Mark Pomeroy (#13595)

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 resist any misguided attempt here at short-term gain. Because even if such a terminal operated for years, it would still be short-term in light of our health.

We are what we breathe, after all. And of course, we've already done enough to harm the climate, which will negatively affect human beings for decades to come.

Mark Pope (#7199)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Comment:
Please do what you can to stop this coal export project. It is bad for human respiratory health, it will interfere with already congested traffic, and contribute to global degredation of air quality.

Mark Prussing (#7038)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Underwood, WA
Comment:
As a long-term resident of the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area, I encourage any environmental impact assessment of proposed pacific coal shipping terminals to include assessment of shipping coal through the Scenic Area.

I live just above railroad tracks on the Washington side of the Gorge. Last summer, I happened to see a coal train traveling near my house and was astounded by the amount of dust coming from the uncovered coal cars. Should this traffic increase as a result of shipping coal from a pacific terminal, I firmly believe the natural setting of the National Scenic Area will be irreversibly damaged.

I also believe the increased rail traffic would degrade the quality of life in an area chosen by Congress for special protection.

I hope these impacts will be studied and considered as part of any project evaluation.

Thank you.

Mark Quam (#12093)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I support the use of rail to transport the coal to China. If they don't get it from us, they will get it from someone else or get it themselves from the south pole. I'm not sure why China has to get the coal from us as I remember they have the largest coal reserves in the world.

Coal, if shipped by rail, will mostly likely not effect us at all, even environmentally. It is much easier to contain than oil for instance and if spilled in water the polution will be somewhat limited. The green river runs through coal striations and we don't here a big complaint.

We need the money to balance our payments, so lets ship the coal.

Mark Renton (#255)

Date Submitted: 10/03/2012
Location: Ellensburg, WA
Comment:
I oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington.

Coal is the dirty fuel of the past, even the new, "clean"
coal.

And "third-world-ing" the air pollution and carbon emissions to China doesn't work and will kill people and increase global warming.

Sincerely,

Mark Renton

Mark Salzman (#4374)

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 have been to the Detroit area and seen first hand what coal fired power is like. It is incredibly dirty and damages the local environment in so many ways! The barges shipping the coal to a power plant spread coal dust everywhere with the least amount of wind! We should be encouraging clean alternatives, not further promoting such a vile product.

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

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

Sincerely,

Mark Salzman
1208 NE 167th Ave
Vancouver, WA 98684-6412

Mark Schofield (#11150)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
January 22, 2013

Scoping comments on proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export proposal EIS (Docket number COE-2012-0016)

Dear U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WA Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council –

In light of the scale of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) – a development scheme bringing potentially unprecedented impacts to northwest Washington – I implore your agencies to fully investigate all connected and cumulative impacts in the upcoming Environmental Impact Statement for this project. That should include an area-wide analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of all five proposed coal export facilities in Washington and Oregon, which together would move up to 150 million tons of coal through our region every year.

Specifically, you should carefully study the following components of this project…

Train Transport

*How will diesel emissions, fugitive dust and other air pollutants associated with transporting coal by rail affect human health, specifically for those with compromised respiratory systems? Part of my professional work involves developing indoor air quality improvement plans for people in Whatcom County who have young children with asthma. I do not want the positive human health benefits of this work to be compromised by deteriorating local/regional air quality. You should study the air quality impacts of transporting coal via rail by delineating the possible geographic range of this air pollution under all potential conditions (including inversions such as western Washington has recently been experiencing). You should then estimate the cost – in exacerbated illness, premature death, lost work days, etc. – of deleterious health impacts resulting from this pollution.

*How will response times of emergency vehicles be impacted by up to eighteen, 1.5 mile-long trains per day blocking at-grade crossings? You should study the likely wait times at all affected rail crossings, determine the populations that would experience delayed emergency response time, and estimate the potential avoidable deaths that may result.

*If significant infrastructure (e.g. rail overpasses) is required to facilitate coal shipments, who will pay for such development? You should analyze the cost burden to the public given the project proponents’ admissions that they will contribute no more than 5% of the cost of major infrastructure improvements.

*What impact will increased coal train traffic have on opportunities for redevelopment of Bellingham’s waterfront? You should analyze how increased coal train traffic will affect options for the creation of new businesses and public amenities along the waterfront – vis-à-vis diminished access and loss of property values. You should also analyze and disclose the impact that increased industrialization in Whatcom County will likely have on tourism.

*How will noise associated with increased coal train traffic affect local residents? You should study the decibel levels (especially train horns and screeching wheels) of these coal trains, determine the physical (e.g. sleep deprivation) and psychological (e.g. anxiety) impacts on people experiencing noise from a steady stream of coal trains at all hours, and delineate the geographic areas where these impacts are likely to be noticeable.

Export Terminal

*How will fugitive coal dust at the site of the Gateway Pacific Terminal affect the local environment? Specifically, you should determine the amount of coal dust likely to escape the facility under various conditions (including major wind events), and analyze what coal dust deposition will do to aquatic and terrestrial resources around the site. For example, you should also study the levels of acidification that would occur in local waters due to coal dust escaping the site (especially during ship loading) and how this change in marine chemistry would affect aquatic species.

*How will the Nooksack River be affected by water withdrawals needed for dust suppression at the GPT site? You should study how much water would need to be withdrawn from the river to serve this function, and determine the consequent impact on salmon and other species within this river system. In particular, you should study how the necessary withdrawals would increase water temperature and lower water levels during periods of exceptional drought.

*How will the diverse biota of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve be affected by docking ships, building of the pier, and other associated development and activities? You should specifically analyze what will happen to the herring population – a species already in steep decline at this site – and consider how species dependant on herring (such as salmon) will be impacted if development at this site causes further decline in the herring population. You should look at the potential destruction of near-shore marine vegetation due to dredging, as well as the impact of shading by built structures.

*How would the Lummi Nation’s treaty rights and cultural heritage be impacted by development of a coal export terminal at this site? You should analyze the full scope of Lummi treaty rights related to the site, and consider the site’s cultural importance as defined by the Lummi people themselves.

Ship Transport

*What would be the likelihood of accidents at sea resulting from a sharp increase in ship traffic? You should analyze the risk of ship-on-ship collisions and ships running aground. Your analysis should study the environmental damage that would result from a spill of bunker fuel in the Salish Sea, as well as coal spillage into the sea. In addition, you should study the cost and feasibility of various clean-up options were such an accident to occur.

*How would an increase in traffic from bulk cargo ships impact other commerce as well as tourism/recreation? The Salish Sea is already a busy shipping area for vessels headed through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and across the Pacific Ocean. The San Juan Islands are also a world-class destination for tourism and recreation opportunities such as kayaking, fishing and whale watching. You should analyze how the coal cargo ships associated with the GPT would delay or displace other commerce as well as diminish marine-based tourism and recreation in and around the San Juan Islands.

Global Impacts

*To what extent would coal export (made possible by the GPT and other proposed export facilities) result in the excess burning of dirty coal – in other words, the burning of coal that would not otherwise be readily available to markets in Asia but for the GPT – and how would this exacerbate global climate change? You should analyze the total amount of carbon dioxide pollution expected to be released as a result of burning this coal, and you should include a timeline of how long the GPT infrastructure would likely lock us in to exporting (and burning) this coal.

* How would the burning of this excess coal contribute to global climate change that will have a direct and significant impact on ecosystems of the U.S. Northwest? You should analyze the how much of the climate disruption likely to be experienced in the Pacific Northwest would be attributable to the burning of coal shipped through the GPT.

* How will coal burning in Asia (made possible by the GPT) result in air and water pollutants that return to the Pacific Northwest? Given existing technology at coal-burning power plants in Asia, you should analyze how much pollution (e.g. particulate matter) can be expected to be released into the air, where that pollution would end up by following jet stream patterns, and what the human health impacts would be here in the Pacific Northwest. Likewise, you should study to what extent water pollution (e.g. mercury deposition) from burning coal in Asia could make its way to North American marine ecosystems.

In analyzing these and many other impacts related the GPT, your agencies should present a range of alternatives, including a “no action” alternative that would result in maintaining current conditions at Cherry Point.

Finally, because the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would depend on public resources such as coal from the Powder River Basin, rail lines and near-shore marine areas, you should analyze the extent to which the public would receive benefits from this proposal – and make a determination of whether the GPT is in fact in the public interest.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely – Mark Schofield

Mark Shifflette (#8384)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Please address possible negative effects of coal trains on successful and efficient re-development of the Bellingham waterfront. Include costs to Bellingham for infrastructure development necessary for coal trains. Also potential long term job loss for businesses in the re-development and general Bellingham area due to impacts of coal trains. Also short and long term loss of city income due to loss of tourism dollars related to negative effects of coal trains. Also negative effects to traffic and first responders due to coal trains. Also scientific study of possible negative effects of coal dust, and noise, and other parts of the transportaion process on human health and comfort, both local and along the entire transportation chain, from beginning to distrubution end point. Also impacts to ocean warming because of pollution caused by burning coal at the end point of coal delivery. evaluate effect on ocean acidification due to coal burning, and its economic and environmental effect due to acidification on local marine businesses due to negative effect on local marine environment and marine organisms that support local businesses. Evaluate effect of coal dust from local terminal area to marine ecosystem, and water quality. Evaluate effects of possible overloads to stormwater and pollution mitigation systems at the terminal site. Include study of long term effects to groundwater. Include costs and areas of responsibility of demobilization and removal of terminal, if it is built, and then removed in the future. Include study of how other edible products could be moved from the terminal without contamination by coal products.

Mark Shifflette (#14406)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Mark Shuler (#3498)

Date Submitted: 11/23/12
Comment:
Make the rules srong enough to really protect the enviroment and rail side cities, then BUILD the terminal!
Mark Shuler

Mark Slayden (#5784)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Missoula, MT
Comment:
Rail traffic along the I-90 corridor near my house has increased significantly and along with it so has the noise pollution created by the train horns sounding at the crossing that is approximately 1/4 mile away. The sound of the trains themselves don't bother me, but the horns are obnoxious and in my opinion, totally unnecessary.

When I purchased this home in 1996 rail traffic was at a minimum and the noise pollution was negligible. Today, more than 30 trains pass by my house, most of them at night, and the blast from the train horns is deafening and often wakes me at night. Furthermore, I own a small vacation rental house on the same property and am concerned that continued noise pollution from the trains will adversely affect my annual rentals, therefore decreasing a very important source of income for my family.

I would like to see silent crossings constructed at all locations that are within a mile of homes. Noise pollution creates a great deal of stress on the human body and extremely loud noises such as the blast of a train horn are downright obscene.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Mark Smaalders (#11891)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: WA, WA
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Gateway Pacific deepwater multimodal terminal.

The proposed Gateway Pacific terminal, which would have the capacity to ship more than 50 million metric tons of coal per year, is one of a number of proposed coal export facilities currently proposed or under consideration in Washington and Oregon (specifically, Longview Washington, and Port Westward, Coos Bay and the Port of Morrow in Oregon). While each of these proposed facilities has local environmental impacts, the projects also have cumulative environmental impacts, associated with:
(i) coal mining in the Powder River Basin;
(ii) transport of coal via train and/or barge to the export facilities;
(iii) transport of coal via ship to overseas destinations;
(iv) air pollution and greenhouse gas production associated with the burning of the coal in China and other countries to which the coal is shipped.

The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations that address implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) include the following, relating to scope (Sec. 1508.25):

Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an environmental impact statement. The scope of an individual statement may depend on its relationships to other statements (Secs.1502.20 and 1508.28). To determine the scope of environmental impact statements, agencies shall consider 3 types of actions, 3 types of alternatives, and 3 types of impacts. They include:
(a) Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may be:
1. Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they:
(i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements.
(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously.
(iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.
2. Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement.
3. Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same impact statement. It should do so when the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement.

The proposed export facilities constitute both cumulative and similar actions under NEPA. These should be viewed as similar actions as a result of their common timing and geography; if all currently proposed projects are implemented the impact on communities along the transport routes will be significantly greater than if only one of the projects is implemented. Similarly, implementation of these projects have similar impacts on the larger environment: a significant, potentially long-term increase in greenhouse gas emissions, with attendant climate change impacts on the environment, including in Washington state. The actions are also cumulative in their impact, in terms of mining-related impacts in the Powder River Basin, transport-related impacts on communities, and climate change impacts, both locally and globally.

Alternatives that should be considered include the no-action alternative, and expansion of bulk terminals for commodities other than coal. The latter review should reflect a reduction in climate change impacts, but also continued impacts on the environment from terminal construction, bulk commodity transport, and shipping.

Mark Smaalders (#11895)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Olga, WA
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Gateway Pacific deepwater multimodal terminal. I submit these comments as a resident of Orcas Island; I am a professional yacht designer, licensed USCG captain, and recreational boater.

The proposed Gateway Pacific terminal would have the capacity to ship approximately 50 million metric tons of coal per year. Coal shipments would be undertaken by hundreds of “Panamax” or “Capesize” ships (estimates range between 450 and 950 transits per year, depending on capacity and shipping volume). These ships would be in addition to existing shipping traffic travelling to US and Canadian ports (traffic is expected to increase significantly as coal and oil exports from Vancouver increase).
Ships would be routed through the heart of the Salish Sea, from southern Georgia Strait into Haro or Rosario straits, and then through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Salish Sea ecosystem is already showing signs of stress (33% of mammal and bird species and 13% of fish species found in the Salish Sea are listed as endangered, threatened, or as species of concern, or are candidates for listing). Potential impacts on the marine environment in the Salish Sea include noise and emissions associated with normal operations, and impacts (physical damage, and the impacts associated with spilled oil) resulting from a collision or grounding.
The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations that address implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) include the following, relating to scope (Sec. 1508.25):

Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an environmental impact statement. The scope of an individual statement may depend on its relationships to other statements (Secs.1502.20 and 1508.28). To determine the scope of environmental impact statements, agencies shall consider [….]
(a) Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may be:
1. Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they:
(i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements.
(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously.
(iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.
2 Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement.
3. Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same impact statement. It should do so when the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement.
In the case of the Gateway Pacific Terminal, the terminal expansion is directly and necessarily associated with increased shipping traffic; expansion and operation of the terminal will result in an increase in shipping traffic. Consequently, the increased shipping should be viewed as a connected action, the impacts of which should be evaluated in the Gateway Pacific (or an additional) EIS.
In addition, in order to provide a meaningful assessment of the effect on the environment, the shipping impacts associated with the Gateway Pacific terminal should be evaluated in combination with existing and planned or foreseeable shipping traffic in the Salish Sea. For example, the Roberts Bank bulk terminal in Delta, BC was recently expanded, and has a capacity of 24 million tonnes of coal; it is located .5 km from the US border. The Trans Mountain oil pipeline, which terminates at the Westridge terminal at Burnaby, is slated to be expanded from 300,000 to 850,000 barrels per day. These and other actions that increase shipping in the confined waters of the Salish Sea constitute similar actions under NEPA, and will potentially have a cumulative impact on a specific geographic area. As such, the shipping-related impacts associated with the Gateway Pacific project should be evaluated, and the study should examine these impacts in the context of a broader review of the impact of shipping on the Salish Sea environment, one that examines both existing and foreseeable increases in shipping traffic.

The NEPA review should include potential secondary impacts on the human environment that occur as a consequence of negative impacts on the marine environment of the Salish Sea. The region’s marine environment supports many of the area’s residents, through jobs in commercial fishing, marine tourism (whale watching, sport fishing, sightseeing, sailing charters), and more general tourism (for which a primary attraction is the region’s reputation as “beautiful, natural and unspoiled”). The potential economic effect of the negative impacts of increased shipping — both as a result of normal activities and catastrophic accidents — should be thoroughly evaluated.

Mark Snifflette (#2098)

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

Mark St John (#2929)

Date Submitted: 11/12/12
Location: Waldron Island, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mark Stevens (#13974)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
Who are the Public Officials authorizing this AND what are their specific financial connections with the coal industry?

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.

Mark Wade (#4848)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Comment:
Please consider the impact on public space in Bellingham and other cities. 22 additional daily trains will have a huge detrimental effect on Larabee State Park, Marine Park, Boulevard Park, the South Bay Trail and the Taylor Dock Walk.

Please consider the impact on public transportation. Large amounts of additional train traffic will have a big effect on access to the Bellingham bus and train stations and to the Alaska Ferry Terminal.

Please consider the impact additional train traffic will have on the potential redevelopment of the Bellingham Georgia-Pacific site.

Please consider the impact on property values throughout Washington State.

Please consider the impact on Bellingham tourism.

I believe the social and economic costs of all the above, greatly outweigh any economic benefit of this project.

Mark Walker (#8809)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

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

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals. Also note that China has pledged to decrease coal imports by 5% a year for thenext five (5) years and 10% a year thereafter. We will build these ports and mine this coal just as the rest of the world says NO to its burdensome pollution potential.

Thank you.


Mark Walker

Mark Weller (#12493)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
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.

Also please stop polluting the waters, air and especially the fish with mercury and other contaminants from mining and burning coal.

mark wray (#661)

Date Submitted: 10/12/2012
Location: Anacortes, 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.

mark wray

Mark Wray (#14411)

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

Mark Young (#11355)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Sandpoint, ID
Comment:
It is important to expand the scope of the EIS to include potentially impacted communities and natural environment along the rail lines. Unanswered questions remain concerning coal dust, noise, increased rail traffic (and the effect of the road closures on human health and safety), increased rail accidents and the severity of those accidents, harm to waterways, and loss of property value. More information is needed to make a decision.

Mark & Jo Johnson (#8752)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
To Residents of Whatcom County and neighboring communities:
It's mind boggling to me that someone thinks 260 jobs, 14 years away are worth millions of dollars in declining real estate values, noise beyond tolerance and a highly polluting substance in our air. How many deaths will we incur due to continuous trains crossing streets, sidewalks, pathways, bike trails......what's the price for that? Or derailment?? No way, not here?? THINK AGAIN.
Don't close your eyes to the most important issue here....the degradation of our waterfront which is the only thing that keeps this city alive with visitors and new growth. People and businesses come to be part of our beautiful tranquil, clean air ocean front city and community. Why are we willing to destroy our most valuable resource for eternity?? For 89 measly labor jobs in 2015 and 260 in 2026? Are you kidding me???
This is the most valuable real estate in Whatcom County.....if we don't have ocean front views and accessibility that is desirable....WE HAVE NOTHING, PEOPLE! We're just an unattractive, noisy and dangerous corridor for a filthy, polluting substance .......is this what we want Bellingham to become? The cherry point project goes so far beyond destruction of numerous communities and the lives of people it's crazy for us to even consider this. Let's encourage productive, healthy, inventive, positive industry into our community. We can survive without the cherry point jobs and China needs to get their act together and find other clean air energy sources.
Who is really benefiting here?? Let's see....the coal mine owner, the railroad owners and the cherry point owners. Bellingham gets NOTHING, NADA. A person that is willing to sacrifice the entire legacy and positive growth of this city can't be very smart or motivated. It's better to MOVE for a job than to destroy communities. (Why don't we go into the national forest and annihilate all the animals for their meat and fur??....hey, this would create all kinds of hunting jobs.) That's how ridiculous this is.

Do you think prospective home buyers are even going to consider purchasing a house within one mile of the waterfront? How are the people that live there going to sell their homes? Who's going to buy them? What if you have asthma? You think THIS situation is less catastrophic than the non creation of 260 labor jobs 14 years away?? Have you ever been in a condo, apartment or home along Eldridge Avenue or the Boulevard when a train goes by? Expecting them to bear the brunt of this so you and 259 of your friends can go to work 14 years from now is selfish and ridiculous. There are too many negative, irreversible side effects to list! Shaking, clanging, banging, intersecting with people & auto traffic at dangerous speeds, whistles blowing for 10-12 minutes each trip through the city, and the deep rumbling of the earth and building when a heavy coal train goes by....all day long......all night long. This is reprehensible for the residents of Whatcom County to even consider betraying every single person with real estate within a one mile radius of the tracks! Are you going to reevaluate their property tax liabilities?? How much money is the county going to LOSE over this?
Sure, lets support an industry that's one big fat negative anyway you look at it affecting THOUSANDS of people so a couple hundred can have a job? It is unbelievable to think conspiring with out of town corporate monsters would trump common sense, morality, compassion and wisdom.
Just remember, there is no turning back, people. We get one shot at this. If you're not one thousand percent sure, then just say no. There are SO many negatives and so many lives that will be adversely affected, it's the most detrimental issue ever placed in our laps in the 50 years I have lived here. I have nothing against creating jobs....but this is just so far beyond stupid I'm having trouble understanding how even ONE person in our community could support this.
Meanwhile, educate yourself, take a different kind of job or move to a different city. The solution to the job problem is not destroying our city and neighboring communities.
We VOTE NO, a thousand times NO, on the coal trains.

Mark & Jo Johnson (#11534)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
To Residents of Whatcom County and neighboring communities:
It's mind boggling to me that someone thinks 260 jobs, 14 years away are worth millions of dollars in declining real estate values, noise beyond tolerance and a highly polluting substance in our air. How many deaths will we incur due to continuous trains crossing streets, sidewalks, pathways, bike trails......what's the price for that? Or derailment?? No way, not here?? THINK AGAIN.
Don't close your eyes to the most important issue here....the degradation of our waterfront which is the only thing that keeps this city alive with visitors and new growth. People and businesses come to be part of our beautiful tranquil, clean air ocean front city and community. Why are we willing to destroy our most valuable resource for eternity?? For 89 measly labor jobs in 2015 and 260 in 2026? Are you kidding me???
This is the most valuable real estate in Whatcom County.....if we don't have ocean front views and accessibility that is desirable....WE HAVE NOTHING, PEOPLE! We're just an unattractive, noisy and dangerous corridor for a filthy, polluting substance .......is this what we want Bellingham to become? The cherry point project goes so far beyond destruction of numerous communities and the lives of people it's crazy for us to even consider this. Let's encourage productive, healthy, inventive, positive industry into our community. We can survive without the cherry point jobs and China needs to get their act together and find other clean air energy sources.
Who is really benefiting here?? Let's see....the coal mine owner, the railroad owners and the cherry point owners. Bellingham gets NOTHING, NADA. A person that is willing to sacrifice the entire legacy and positive growth of this city can't be very smart or motivated. It's better to MOVE for a job than to destroy communities. (Why don't we go into the national forest and annihilate all the animals for their meat and fur??....hey, this would create all kinds of hunting jobs.) That's how ridiculous this is.

Do you think prospective home buyers are even going to consider purchasing a house within one mile of the waterfront? How are the people that live there going to sell their homes? Who is going to buy them? What if you have asthma? You think THIS situation is less catastrophic than the non creation of 260 labor jobs 14 years away?? Have you ever been in a condo, apartment or home along Eldridge Avenue or the Boulevard when a train goes by? Expecting them to bear the brunt of this so you and 259 of your friends can go to work 14 years from now is selfish and ridiculous. There are too many negative, irreversible side effects to list! Shaking, clanging, banging, intersecting with people & auto traffic at dangerous speeds, whistles blowing for 10-12 minutes each trip through the city, and the deep rumbling of the earth and building when a heavy coal train goes by....all day long......all night long. This is reprehensible for the residents of Whatcom County to even consider betraying every single person with real estate within a one mile radius of the tracks! Are you going to reevaluate their property tax liabilities?? How much money is the county going to LOSE over this?
Sure, lets support an industry that's one big fat negative anyway you look at it affecting THOUSANDS of people so a couple hundred can have a job? It is unbelievable to think conspiring with out of town corporate monsters would trump common sense, morality, compassion and wisdom.
Just remember, there is no turning back, people. We get one shot at this. If you're not one thousand percent sure, then just say no. There are SO many negatives and so many lives that will be adversely affected, it's the most detrimental issue ever placed in our laps in the 50 years I have lived here. I have nothing against creating jobs....but this is just so far beyond stupid I'm having trouble understanding how even ONE person in our community could support this.
Meanwhile, educate yourself, take a different kind of job or move to a different city. The solution to the job problem is not destroying our city and neighboring communities.
We VOTE NO, a thousand times NO, on the coal trains.

Mark & Kristie Jacoby (#3938)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Mark & Linda Wilkins (#727)

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

Mark & MJ Toney & Delahunt (#3553)

Date Submitted: 11/09/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mark M. Leonard (#827)

Date Submitted: 10/16/12
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
Mark M. Leonard
1200 21st ST Apt-B
Everett Wa. 98201

Now that we’re coming into the winter months for the hillsides around the train tracks are saturated with water. Landslides are happening every winter.
With the increased in train traffic through the city of Everett. Has the city has set aside any money to reinforce the hillside between grand avenue and the train tracts. I have noticed landslides already appearing with no increase in train traffic. But yet I see no attempt by the city or the railroad to do anything about it at all. I can tell you that there is already damage occurring to homes on the hill from just the regular train traffic. The city should make any and all the attempts to re- route as much train traffic as possible away from the hill side, especially in the winter months.
Also with the increase in train traffic comes an increase in noise pollution within the city. Is the city of Everett in the process of separating trains from cars or pedestrians? Not allowing any cars or pedestrians to cross over the tracks within the city limits. So that the trains do not have to be blowing their horns at all hours of the day and night. This should be a primary goal for the city of Everett. In my experience is always a good thing two separate the railroad from everything else. Allowing the railroad to do its job transporting the goods and services as safely as humanly possible.
My third concern is any of the coal being dropped from the train cars. Or the coal dust being spread around the city hazardous to health. If so would covering the coal cars help.
These are my major concerns with the increase in train traffic through the city of Everett. I do believe the city of Everett is in a lot better position than most of the other cities that this train traffic will affect.

Thank you for your time and consideration

Mark M. Leonard

Markaya Henderson (#14412)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Marla Jones (#12893)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
If an area needs energy, they need to manufacture it on site, not import fossil fuels from other areas. Our area and especially the ecosystem does not deserve to be punished and put at risk of environmental problems due to the greed and unenvironmental actions of others. The proposed coal shipping operation at Cherry point would have the effect of 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.

Marla Smith (#12267)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Vashon, WA
Comment:
We cannot regulate coal burnt in Asia. We can, however, breathe its effects. We can continue to alter the planet's climate by continuing to create CO2, atmospheric particles and mercury by burning massive amounts of coal for electricity. Cancerous disease is now occurring in children. It is obvious that metals and pesticides are now present everywhere on earth, including the Arctic, where human mothers' breast milk is laced w/ PCB's and mercury.
We need to create and manufacture renewable energy and figure-out another solution for economic prosperity, other than mining, moving vast amounts of coal for electricity overseas.

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.

Marlene Ayala (#7094)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Comment:
I am especially concerned with the fact that there are so many mud slides along the rail system on which the coal trains would run in the area north of Seattle. The Sounder light rail and Amtrack use the same rails. They have been shut down numerous times this year because of the rain. It seems that whenever it rains heavy there is a slide. With the increased traffic on the rails from the coals trains added to the mud slides, I can only picture mass inconvenience to commuters, many times worse than it already is. I understand that for safety the "human cargo" trains have to wait 48 hours after a slide for the rail to be determined that it is safe for humans. Whereas, regular cargo trains can use the rails after a slide as soon as it is cleared. Please study the safety factor of coal trains going through this "slide area" in terms of human safety, as well as environmental safety.

I'm also concerned with the wear and tear of the rail system in that area knowing that mile long coal trains and the number of them being proposed daily will only create more deterioration.

Please study the impact of the increased rail traffic from the mud slides onto the tracks in relation and how it affects commuters using the Sounder to get to work every day.

Marlene Ayala (#7103)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Comment:
My concern is the Bellingham waterfront. With 30-40 extremely long, open air coal trains coming through our waterfront area daily, I cannot imagine that this would be beneficial to our community's plan to create a beautiful, attractive, relaxing and recreational place that would attract residents and tourists alike.

Please study how the noise from the coals trains would affect our ability to enjoy the waterfront. Please study how the coal dust and train traffic would affect our air quality and water quality. Please study how all this will affect our health, those of us who live and work in Bellingham? Please sudy how this will affect the water, animal and plant life in and around Bellingham Bay.

Marlene Ayala (#10714)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am very concerned about the quality of air in our community of Bellingham if many more coal trains were to come through daily. I'm also concerned about the health of persons who have respiratory diseases in our community and how the coal trains coming through would affect them. I'm concerned with people who don't have any breathing problems developing breathing disease because of the coal trains.

I know someone in Bellingham who adopted a baby from China where there were coal trains going through the community daily. In that community most children under the age of 5 had respiratory disease.

The cost to health and the environment is too great.

Marlene Ayala (#10718)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Please keep the coal in the ground. It is a dirty, polluting energy source. Develop alternative sources of energy like solar and wind, geo thermal and wave. Send our expertise over seas to China.

Marlene Ayala (#10722)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Please study the effects of rail traffic on the coastal rail. During rains the route north of Seattle experiences several mud slides a year closing down the rail lines. My husband is a commuter from Bellingham to Seattle. When the Sounder is off line because of mud slides the buses are packed and he has had to stand from Seattle to Mt Vernon. Heavy, extra long coal trains will only make this situation worse.

Marlene Ayala (#10725)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Please study the effect the coal trains will have on tourism in Bellingham. We are trying to make our waterfront an attractive, recreational, relaxing ammenity. Having the coal trains come through will negatively impact what the city is trying to do.

Marlene Eckman (#6938)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
I am not in favor of the coal terminal and the resulting trains. This is bad for the environment for many reasons. I don't believe any new jobs, if they do come, would be worth it. The delays to everyone (and other businesses) for long trains disrupting traffic is also not worth it. We should not be contributing to the burning of coal anywhere on the planet.

Marlene Eckman

Marlene Eckman (#8416)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Everett , WA
Comment:
I am not in favor of the coal terminal and the resulting trains. This is bad for the environment for many reasons. I don't believe any new jobs, if they do come, would be worth it. The delays to everyone (and other businesses) for long trains disrupting traffic is also not worth it. We should not be contributing to the burning of coal anywhere on the planet.

Marlene Fleischman (#13603)

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.

Apparently, the reason for this decision is based on profit not what is best for the community. Already, passenger trains schedules are disrupted by freight trains which affects a mode of transportation and the tourist industry.

At any time the customers buying the coal could elect to cancel their contracts, leaving the terminals with all the equipment and repercussions of having polluted the area and other undesirable consequences of the coal trains going across the northwest.

Marlene Huntsinger (#8584)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Location: Portland , OR
Comment:
Jan 14, 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 the transport of coal through the Columbia gorge in open vessels. We have done so much to preserve our natural beauty, recreation and livability along the Gorge. It is a national treasure.
To see it polluted with coal dust is a crime beyond words. Our future generations would rightly tag us as heinous. Please do not give permission for this to happen!!

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. Marlene Huntsinger

Marlene Sweet (#467)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Lake Stevens, 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 FILTHY FUEL - WHEN IT IS MINED, SHIPPED, DISTRIBUTED OR BURNED!! WE NEED TO WEAN OUR SOCIETY AWAY FROM THIS - AND NOT ENCOURAGE OTHER SOCIETIES BY COMPROMISING OUR ENVIRONMENT TO SHIP IT TO THEM!!!

P L E A S E - NO COAL SHIPPING FROM WASHINGTON STATE!!!!

Sincerely,

Marlene Sweet

Marlene White (#4648)

Date Submitted: 12/13/2012
Location: Harrah, WA
Comment:
Transporting coal by rail through areas inhabited by wildlife, natural vegetation, marine species, fish threatens the very ecosystem Native American People rely upon for food and medicine. This action of transporting coal through these areas is cause for concern for noise and air pollution, further threatens the already endangered water quality for rivers and streams. I am a cancer survivor in remission for nearly two years for non-hodgkins lymphoma, and was just recently diagnosed with breast cancer-I have not been told why I have gotten cancer or what caused my cancer, but most likely the environment is one of the contributing factors for people like me getting cancer not once, but twice! I am against the transporting of coal by rail through areas that are already threatened and endangered by existing industry or economic activities. Rule against the transporting of coal by rail! Stop! Stop!

Marlevonne Whipple (#1493)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Marley Cribbs (#925)

Date Submitted: 10/22/2012
Location: Ferndale , wa
Comment:
I am writing today to voice my support for the Gateway Pacific Terminal. I have read and heard a lot of concerns about the negative environmental impact that this terminal will generate. I believe all of these fears are based on unsupported studies and propaganda from groups who have an agenda and stand to lose what they have if the terminal were to be allowed here. The people of this community deserve to have this type of an option for good paying jobs. When so many of our manufacturing and industrial jobs are being exported to other parts of the world, why not allow this terminal to stay here and help in a small way ease the ever ballooning recession.
The amount of revenue that will be generated from this one terminal will impact this community in a positive way and put a huge dent in the unemployment that we have suffered as a result of the great recession. The city of Ferndale is in dire need for a new school for elementary age children. One school was closed because it had become too old and unsafe to continue to operate. The money needed for repairs was just not there. The need for a new school didn’t just go away so the children were moved to another elementary school which quickly increased the amount of children attending. In order to deal with this increase the city decided to simply remove an entire grade from the school and merge it with the High School.
That is just one example of how much this community needs the jobs and revenue that will be generated from this terminal. The environmental impact will be unchanged to what already occurs daily with the passing of the train carrying car after car of coal. I see these trains pass everyday sometimes three times in a twelve hour period. The train will continue to pass through our state and our community even if the terminal is rejected. I know that Canada is as concerned about their environment as we are about ours and they are not going to allow this type of cargo into their country if it were in any way dangerous or detrimental to the well being of its citizens, waterways or environment.
I see no long or short term damage that will result from this terminal. The long term effect will be good solid jobs here in our community and if Cherry Point is allowed build as it is already zoned more jobs would be sure to follow. Right now is the time to think about the future of our community our state and our country as we deal with the harsh economic times. With real unemployment numbers away from the political spotlight and families hurting for a living wage, how can we not try to do everything we can within reason and responsible action to improve our current economic condition?

Marley Koll (#4586)

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

marley koll (#9096)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: ferndale, wa
Comment:
1.Diesel particulates and coal dust DO matter! Our frequent high winds in Whatcom Co.will disperse toxins far and wide on land and puget sound. 2. Train crossings increasing to 18 more/day, or 1 coal train every 1.3hrs is 90 more per week,, or 4680 more trains/yr.!! ( on a 5 day/ week estimate ). 3. 450+ Tankers through the San Juans with coal. 4. Traffic delays at each crossing, approx 9.5 minutes/train (over 2 1/2 hours of trafic delay daily at each crossing! ) 5. Potential property devaluation with homes in close proximity to tracks (noise,vibrations,coal dust,frequency of trains) could cost cities $1000's of lost tax revenue. 6.Five different coal train derailments in summer of 2012 Kansas, Illinois, and Indiana with 4 deaths.7.Whatcom Physicians published open letter to public advocating against coal transport. 8. Quality and quantity and longevity for "new jobs" is low and negative impact is high. 9. Cost to improve rails will fall mostly on the counties affected. 10. The Custer Spur . 11. Global warming is a reality and we would be contributing to it.
I attended the Ferndale "scoping meeting" with my list of issues to present. Although I arrived early, the slots had been filled "hours prior to my arrival". It was a pathetic presentation for "jobs, jobs, jobs". The night before the meeting my husband received a phone call from a man identifying himself as a republican urging us to attend the meeting......2 days prior, I received a phone call from an old neighbor in Seattle Wa. urging me to attend to address the jobs issue. He was astounded when he learned who I was since he thought we had moved to Bellingham. He was working in a room filled "with at least 100 people manning the phones for "Good Jobs Now".

Marley Simmons-Abril (#4064)

Date Submitted: 12/06/2012
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
I am self-employed in Bellingham as a private gardener, and as such spend a great deal of time outdoors in some of Bellingham's wealthier neighborhoods, including the water-front neighborhood of Edgemoor, which abuts both the coastal shelf and the rail line.

I see the train tracks nearly every day, and am very aware of how close they are to the bay. I am concerned about the amount of coal dust which would accumulate behind the heavy rail traffic proposed, because in some places the rails sit no more than 10 feet from the high tide line, and are easily covered by storm surges. Rain and heavy coastal winds would also move the coal dust into shallow waterways. The bay is a popular nesting site for bald eagles, because the shallow water makes spotting fish easier, and a protected estuary sits just north of Edgemoor, where eel grass has been recently planted by conservation crews to stabilize the tidal ecosystem. Water-bourne dust, as well as the noise and vibrations which accompany heavy and frequent rail traffic, would compromise the biome of Bellingham Bay, which I have the pleasure and privilege to see nearly every work day.

Because the proposed terminal is already coupled with a proposed export and supply line, and cannot exist without them, it is most sensible to include these factors in the EIS process. I urge these agencies to consider the full picture, and study the impact of such magnified rail traffic on the waterfront ecosystem under our stewardship.

Marley Simmons-Abril (#4833)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Because the proposed terminal at Cherry Point is paired with a specific export traveling a specific route to the terminal, I believe it is common sense to examine those elements in the environmental reviews, in addition to the site itself. Living in central Bellingham, I can see and hear the rail traffic every day, and can imagine the affect which long, heavy trains, passing nearly every hour, would have on the communities along the rail lines.

I work as a gardener and have many clients in the Fairhaven and Edgemoor neighborhoods, which sit directly uphill from the tracks. Working out there, I experience first-hand how clear the sound of the trains is as it travels up. Families in these and other neighborhoods would be tormented by the noise, and communities which formed around quiet, wooded streets could be very negatively impacted in Bellingham and all along the multi-state route of the proposed coal trains.

I also would like a comprehensive study of the health implications of air-borne pollutants. These coal trains would not only slough measurable amounts of dust onto the tracks, into the ocean, and into the air, but would also be powered by multiple deisel engines. A group of nearly 200 doctors in and around Bellingham released an open letter to the community warning of the health affects of these pollutants, and I want to make sure that human health is taken into consideration as well as the health of our intertidal ecosystem.

Please take a wide range of environmental perspectives when examining the proposed terminal and the heavy rail traffic which would necessarily accompany it.

Marley Simmons-abril (#11761)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As this is the last day to comment I want to write and emphasize the importance of studying the impacts which the proposed terminal will have on the rail lines that are necessary to supply the terminal with cargo to export. That rail traffic I believe will have a disastrous affect upon the wetlands and tidal zones in Whatcom County that the rail line passes through. Just last month mud slides during normal winter rains washed out sections of the tracks, delaying cargo and passenger traffic. The quantity of trains proposed will leave diesel exhaust and coal dust throughout the rail corridor and rains, tidal surges, and wind will all blow these heavy toxins into the water and into the human environment. Please use the full capacity of your position to require a full study of the environmental impacts to humans and the tidal zones which the increased rail traffic will cause.

Thanks you, Marley Simmons

Marley Simmons-abril (#11762)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As this is the last day to comment I want to write and emphasize the importance of studying the impacts which the proposed terminal will have on the rail lines that are necessary to supply the terminal with cargo to export. That rail traffic I believe will have a disastrous affect upon the wetlands and tidal zones in Whatcom County that the rail line passes through. Just last month mud slides during normal winter rains washed out sections of the tracks, delaying cargo and passenger traffic. The quantity of trains proposed will leave diesel exhaust and coal dust throughout the rail corridor and rains, tidal surges, and wind will all blow these heavy toxins into the water and into the human environment. Please use the full capacity of your position to require a full study of the environmental impacts to humans and the tidal zones which the increased rail traffic will cause.

Thanks you, Marley Simmons

Marliese Bonk (#14018)

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.

Th Army Corps of Engineers, as a US Government entity should not participate in the transportation of BIG FILTHY COAL, an obsolete energy source that is killing people, wildlife, flora and fauna!

Marlin and Sharon Marsh (#13396)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Boring, 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 DO NOT NEED COAL EXPORTING IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON, IN OUR OPINION!!

Marlys Waller (#1721)

Date Submitted: 10/24/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Marna Marteeny (#12393)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Kirkland, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington for many reasons.

The first reason, is that it would increase asthma rates in our regions.

The second is that it is in our national security and economic national health to process that coal inter-country. WHY would we send our naked coal reserves for China to process. That's NUTS!

Third, 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.

Marnie Jones (#11401)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Acme, Wa
Comment:
I'm a mother, small business owner, and homeowner in Acme, Whatcom County, Washington. My family's home abuts BNSF's inland railway.

I am writing to ask you to measure the impact of the Gateway Pacific Terminal and related shipping activities on the following:

1) Human health. As a resident (and mother of an asthmatic child) living within 75 feet of a railroad, I encourage the accumulation of data about coal dust and it's longterm effect on pulmonary health. I am also concerned with the agriculture of Whatcom County, which is among the nation's most productive, and how it would be changed by coal dust and rail traffic. As a professional writer on food and farming issues, I understand what a vital role agriculture plays in Whatcom County's economy and I ask you to weigh it against the potential income from GPT.

2) The economy. We live in a region full of farmers, apiarists, orchardists, loggers, fisherman, retailers, restaraunteurs, and others who are dependent on two vital Northwest assets: a beautiful natural setting and an abundance of natural resources. Please measure the financial impact on tourism in all of the communities affected in all of the states from whence trains will travel to Cherry Point, and measure the potential losses of crops, recreational spaces, residential neighborhoods, and other things that enrich our economic climate.

3) The environment. Whatcom County is filled with sensitive natural spaces and delicately balanced ecosystems. Fisheries are dependent on healthy water, healthy land, and healthy air. Sustainable forestry, fishing, and recreation are all vital parts of Whatcom County's identity and rely upon this healthy ecosystem to thrive. Please study the plant and animal species who live within breathing/walking/swimming distance of the railroad, the terminal, and the origin mines to determine whether they will be impacted by this commerce. In some cases, such as here in Whatcom County, this may mean looking at migratory species who are in the area seasonally. On the tracks beside my home, I've spotted bald eagles, peregrine falcons, salmon, bobcat, and bear. The tracks on the coastal route are often visted by animals of similar diversity.

4) Human society. As a member of a progressive society moving toward clean energy and local commerce, I would like you to consider the value of Cherry Point's potential for export capital versus the value of sustainable, local trade that builds a better future for our children. I ask you to please conduct surveys or other analytics to determine how many Whatcom County residents would leave, taking with them their home equity, their schoolchildren, their small businesses, their professional skills, and their tax dollars, in the event that GPT is constructed.

5) The inland route through South Fork farmland. The communities of Acme, Van Zandt, Everson, Nooksack, and Lynden might bear some train traffic if the capacity challenges identified in a 2004 Commerce Corridor Study come to pass. These communities, especially the first four, might not survive such a change. Our schools, farms, stores, and homes are nestled alongside a currently sleepy railway. Our children study in a building which sits just a few lots over from the tracks. My daughter's bedroom looks out on the railroad bed. Additionally, the sensitive ecosystems of the South Fork Nooksack River and the Samish Headwaters, home to bald eagles and spawning salmon, run alongside and under these tracks. Please study the potential for concentration of diesel exhaust, coal dust, and heavy metals in this wet, narrow valley.

6) Costs for taxpayers. If infrastructure is needed (overpasses, traffic signals, etecetera) to support the increased train traffic through Whatcom County and all the counties from the trains' point of origin, who would bear that cost? If the cost were to fall on taxpayers, what impact would that have on citizen's ability to support the local economy in it's present form? If concerned citizens moved out of Whatcom County as a result of the construction of the terminal, as my family likely would, what economic allowances would need to be made to pick up the slack from their absences, their vacant homes and businesses?

Thank you for your attention to the above six concerns regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal.

Marnie Pennington (#2449)

Date Submitted: 11/06/12
Location: SEattle, WA
Comment:
I would like you to consider and study the affects on our health and safety. This is a very important to our quality of life regionally and worldwide.

Numerous (up to 18) trains a day at 1.5 miles long will block roads and inhibit emergency vehicles. Even the noise of trains during the day and night is affecting my sleep. I am also very concerned about the effects of fall off dust along the entire route.

Please do not endanger our health or safety - this is a sacred responsibility of our governing officials at the county, state and federal levels.

Thank you for conducting a scientific study...and keeping the facts clear. Please do not let money run this study.

Marnie Pennington
5760A Ashworth Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103

Marsha Barton (#337)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
I consider myself lucky to live so close to the Sound in the beautiful Northwest, especially coming from life in corn and soybean country where I lived most of my life. 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 save our communities from the changes coal trains along the Sound would bring!

Marsha Lazarus (#12818)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
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 remember
when we had coal to fire our heaters. The coal would be dumped into the basement and we had to shovel it into a little storage area to be able to feed it into the burners. everyone had a cough and bad skin
for a few days after. I had family in the south that worked in coal
mines - short lives and black lung. Imagine the air quality from
shipping that much coal! There are so many things in our lives now
that are so fragile that adding that much risk from coal is pretty insane. Why do we worry about such things as school shootings that take a few lives compared to thousands that could lose their lives from something like this. Boy, we as Americans really need to step back and take a look at the whole picture. And take serious time and thought about what we really mean about life.

Marsha Marsha Riek (#9745)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My husband and I chose to retire from the Chicago area and move to the northwest because Bellingham offered such a great healthy living environment. Our air quality here is so superior to being near a big city with factory emissions. For us that was a factor in choosing Bellingham. Our property borders the rail track, and we are becoming very concerned about the health hazards due to the huge increase in diesel fumes and soot from the growing number of train engines that pass by our home.

All diesel engines spew soot but these coal trains add many more engines per train to move the heavy coal loads. This greatly adds to the diesel fume emission per train. Over 200 Bellingham Doctors have expressed concern regarding diesel fumes and soot from these trains that pass by homes, schools and businesses, or worse yet idling trains, spewing diesel fumes and particulate matter in a concentrated area.

According to a case argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Jan. 4, 2013 a ruling was handed down requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection agency to implement stronger requirements to clean up and LIMIT particulate matter also known as soot, one of the deadliest forms of air pollution. Soot particles are a dangerous mix of toxic metals and chemicals and are released into the air by diesel engines and the burning of coal. These diesel engines not only spew fumes but deliver coal that goes to China where it is burned, causing dangerous pollution there, and eventually making it's way back to our own shores in the air we breath. Washington state so firmly believes that the burning of coal is dangerous to health that they have taken steps to insure that our state becomes free of fossil fuel to produce electricity. With this decision handed down from Federal court for limiting and reducing soot, should this coal terminal proposal even be considered? If the goal is to limit diesel fumes, should the expansion of train traffic even be allowed?

"Soot pollution is dangerous to kids, seniors, and people with heart and lung problems, and kill tens of thousands of people each year," said Paul Cort, an Earthjustice attorney who argued the case. Apparently the court agreed with him as they ruled in favor of limiting not only direct emissions of soot but also the pollutants that transfer into particulate matter. Who will pay for health care costs due to compromised health issues? What is the cost to our public health agencies?

What will the impact of longterm exposure to this dangerous mix of toxic chemicals and metals contained in diesel soot have on all the farmland along this coal train route? How will organic farmers we impacted? Will they be able to keep their organic status? The berry farmers have a delicate crop that is quite susceptible to the absorption of pollutants. How will this be mitigated? Who will compensate farmers for their losses? Will this be a burden to the taxpayers? Will these toxins pollute the food we eat?

How will additional diesel spewing engines conform to this new court ruling? What will this add to the health issues of our community and all the communities along the coal train route? How will this impact life expectancy? Is there an acceptable cost in human life to compromise our air quality? Can this be mitigated? How will this be regulated? How will soot and diesel fumes be measured? How will it be strongly enforced? What will be the consequences for violation and will this be harsh enough to gain compliance? Will there be enough staff in the EPA to actually regulate this effectively?

Can you answer the question of who benefits from this project? Please weigh the costs to communities and citizens? What will we lose?

Please consider all of these concerns in your extensive study of the health risks involved in diesel fumes and toxic particulate matter.

Marsha Marsha Riek (#11526)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We moved to this beautiful area 11 years ago because we valued the pristine water of the Salish Sea, the beauty of the natural environment and a community that valued all of this enough to set aside lots of green space for future generations to enjoy.We now feel this is all in jeopardy due corporate greed.

I have some big concerns about huge corporations jeopardizing our health, our property, and our environment to make enormous profits for themselves and their shareholders. SSA is a subsidiary of Carrix, Inc which is owned by the Hemingway family, CEO Jon Hemingway and 49% Goldman Sachs. We are talking some seriously heavy investors, but the plot thickens. SSA has created a shell corporation, Pacific International Terminals(PIT), with NO ASSETS, to run the building and operation of the terminal. Why would they do this? If a catastrophic event occurs in the magnitude of the BP Gulf oil spill, or the Exxon Valdez spill, or an explosion, PIT would be dissolved in bankruptcy and we would be left in court battles without anyone clearly responsible. How can you deal with a corporation that knows there is a possibility for accidents or natural disaster and has planned ahead to form a subsidiary company that has no assets to avoid taking responsibility? The Exxon Valdez accident was a good example of the Alaskan citizens having to wait through decades of court battles to recoup losses. Exxon was ordered by the courts to pay $4.8 billion and the payout was a mere $504 million after decades of court battles.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
To quote Kate Bowers, Bow WA at the Ferndale Scoping Comment Meeting of 11-29-12
"Warren Buffet made $10.254 billion in 2011
Peabody Energy's CEO Gregory Boyce $30.66 million
Goldman Sachs President Lloyd Blankfein $16.2million"
SSA's, CEO Jon Hemingway probably did OK too
"This project could garner 1000% 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."
****************************************************************************************************************************************
We are up against some major money, some mega corporations with incredible legal advisors, and the legal teams to battle for decades. We need safeguards in place before permitting is approved or it will never happen.

Please include a thorough study of the following:
1. a real safety plan for all aspects of this project, including not only this terminal but the vessel transports and trains in route. This should also include preventative measures that are monitored regularly by a government agency for compliance. Will we have adequate government staff available to accomplish this regularly?
2. a plan for immediate action in the case of an accident, natural disaster, spill, explosion, etc. Please look at the many possibilities of off site accidents such as vessel and train. The plan should be inclusive of all aspects of shipping by rail and vessel as well as the terminal.
3. This bond should be large enough to cover large disasters, not a token amount. (Look at costs related to recent disasters such as the BP Gulf spill.)
4. The bond should make SSA responsible for all of their subsidiary entities to avoid shell companies that can declare bankruptcy. Should all of the profiting entities be required to post bonds, as an example, Peabody Energy and BNSF?
5. From what I've read, this Asian coal market seems to be short term, 5-10 years max. Who will be held accountable for the clean-up of this site? Who will be held accountable for the restoration of the damages done to the bay, etc. by this operation? Please find a way to hold SSA responsible for immediate restoration, not some dummy corporation that will declare bankruptcy.
6. In your heart of hearts can you honestly say there will be benefits to the communities these coal trains will pass through? Will there be no harm to our health, our environment, our Salish Sea, our marine life? The benefits seem to be all on the side of mega corporations, their CEO's, and their shareholders. This project CANNOT claim to "DO NO HARM".

Marsha Riek (#6006)

Date Submitted: 01/04/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We live south of the city of Bellingham in Whatcom County. Our property borders the railroad track on a curve. I am concerned about the level of noise that we will be subjected to with the increase in the number of trains per day, the weight of coal trains, the increase in speed, and the increase in length of these trains. All of these things greatly increase the amount of screeching of the train wheels against the outside rail. This metal on metal produces a very high pitched screeching sound. There can be oilers installed to somewhat mitigate this screeching but with coal trains being so much heavier there is little that has helped with this problem. There is the added noise at our crossing with multiple horn blasts to announce each train. I would like to have EIS examine the screeching on curves for ALL residents along the train routes not just my neighborhood. It should be determined what decibel levels are acceptable to the health of residents in accordance with noise ordinances . People living on train track curves are subjected to a higher level of noise than other residents along the train route. Interrupted sleep accounts for many health issues and this should also be part of the EIS study.

Marsha Riek (#6056)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My husband and I live south of Bellingham in Whatcom County. Our property is located along the track. We are concerned about what the dramatic increase in coal train traffic and the vibrations these much heavier trains will have on soil stability. We live next to the track and we are noticing a trembling in our house when these heavy coal trains pass by. This has not occurred before with lighter rail traffic. The addition of extra engines and the weight of the coal trains combine to shake the earth. We want the EIS to study the danger to properties located along the coast. This study should determine who will be responsible for the stabilization of land adjoining the track. How will homeowners be reimbursed for damage to their homes and foundations? Many homes in the Eldridge area in Bellingham have issues already with the stability of the bluff on which they are located. How will this bluff be stabilized?

Many of the communities along the coastal run of the railroad are prone to having mud slides. There have been an increase in the number of mud slides on the slopes around the Everett/Mukilteo area. There was also a freight car derailment due to a mud slide. The EIS should study whether the increased vibrations from these trains are contributing to the instability of the soil. Is it wise to pursue heavy rail traffic in areas so prone to mud slides? The vibrations from heavy rail traffic cause safety and financial issues for the homes and businesses all along this coastal route.

Marsha Riek (#6107)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My husband and I live in the Chuckanut neighborhood in Bellingham. Our property borders the rail lines. We are concerned about the possibility of roads in our area being cut off from access by train traffic or the worst case scenario a derailment. There are many roads along Chuckanut Drive that have only one entrance and exit with the railroad intersecting that egress. If train traffic increases with 18 additional coal trains(9 going up & 9 coming back) plus the train traffic we already have, it will be impossible for EMT vehicles, firefighters, or police, to respond in a timely fashion to people who are cut off. If a train derails, it will be impossible to evacuate those in need of medical attention. Please add this to your study. We have many businesses and parks in Bellingham that will be cut off from emergency services with increased train traffic. There must be many other communities along the train route that will be impacted in the same way. Please study the impact this will have. How can it be mitigated and is the cost of not mitigating it too high in human terms? Who bears the monitary burden to construct an overpass on all these roads? Why would a community benefit from rail traffic if the burden is on us to mitigate it? Will the loss of life because help could not be reached be worth the few jobs that are promised? Please include a study of emergency access to areas cut off by the railroad.

Marsha Riek (#6336)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
This comment deals with coal dust

My husband and I moved to Bellingham 10 years ago. We chose to live here because of the beauty of this area, with pristine shorelines, an abundance of wildlife, hiking trails, and boating. I grew up in Pennsylvania where coal mining was a major industry and I know what coal dust does to towns. People do not flock to live in a coal town. Stores get boarded up and people move. Coal dust does not lure new businesses or tourist money. Bellingham has such an opportunity to develop its waterfront and attract real business investment and a viable tourist industry.

One of the big problems with a coal shipping terminal is the release of coal dust into the air. The fact is, coal dust makes its way all along the route from the place it is mined to its destination at the shipping terminal. The northwest is known for the wind that we have here. There are often small craft warnings issued for boaters here due to our wind. A study was done in 2001 of the Westshore Terminal near Tsawassen, B.C. After all that is done to contain coal dust, that facility still emits 715 metric tons of coal dust a year. The report states that "coal terminals by their very nature are active sources of fugitive dust." Dust will occur no matter how it is handled. It will be carried by wind into the community and into the sound. It will be stored in open piles while it waits to be loaded. It will be transferred by conveyor belts, dropped from conveyor to stockpiles, and left open to the wind until it is again moved by equipment to a conveyor to be uploaded to a ship. Each one of these processes causes dust. The amount of time it spends on open stockpiles and the amount of vehicle movement around these stockpiles all contribute to the dust issue.

As part of the scoping process please study the impacts of coal dust on our community including
1. how it will be cleaned up, what will be done to mitigate it, who will pay for this?
2. clean up of coal dust on private property and businesses, who will pay for this? mitigation?
3. environmental issues in the sound - aquatic life, PH of water, heavy metals etc.
4. the impact to the herring population at Cherry Point?
5. the impact to fishing, crabbing, and shellfishing?
4. human health issues - people with emphysema, asthma, young children, elderly
5. economic impact of luring new businesses or encouraging tourist money in a coal town.
6. With the kind of wind here, is it wise to go forward with a coal port?

Marsha Riek (#6362)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
This comment concerns the treatment to reduce coal dust at the terminal site.

My husband and I live in Whatcom County. We moved here 11 years ago because we appreciated the beauty of this area and the pristine waters. We valued the environmental awareness that this community embraces. Years ago wise people recognized how special this area is and set aside parks and beaches to protect this asset for future generations to enjoy. When people move to a community they look for green space, clean water and a healthy environment. Few people choose to move to a community because it has coal dust and environmental issues.

When coal is brought to a coal terminal for shipping, there is the inherent problem of coal dust. Coal arriving by train is off loaded into open piles where it is stored until it is loaded on cargo ships. We have very windy weather conditions here on the coast. The piles of coal need to be stabilized so the wind doesn't send the coal dust into the air. Airborne coal dust can be mitigated somewhat but never solved.

Reduction of coal dust can be handled in several ways:
1. fogging of stock piles - small droplets of water are injected into the air to dampen the coal dust.
2. Sprinklers that spray water on the coal stockpiles to discourage coal dust.
3. Surfactants which add chemicals to the sprinklers to soak the coal and prevent it from drying out so quickly.

Please study the impacts of the following things.
1. How much water will the coal terminal use at full capacity?
2. Is our water supply adequate now and in the future to supply it?
3. Are the surfactants used safe for our soil, ground water, aquatic life? What do we know of their long term use?
4. What happens to all that water and coal dust run-off? What are the impacts to ground water, soil, environment?
5. How much is an acceptable amount of coal dust to put into the water and air?
6. What are the human health risks of coal dust?
7. What does coal dust do to the sea? How are the fish, crab, and shellfish habitats affected?
8. Are water PH levels affected by coal dust? How does this affect the health of Cherry Point sea life?
9. If contamination occurs, who is responsible for remediation? Who pays for it?
10. Will coal dust issues cause an economic hardship for us by reducing our growth and causing our homes to be worth less?
11. If the coal terminal is abandoned in the future who will be responsible for the clean-up of the site and the deep water port?

Marsha Riek (#7224)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My husband and I moved to Bellingham 11 years ago. Our decision to come to Bellingham was a choice we made based on the quality of life here. We valued clean air, a community that valued local sustainable business, grew healthy crops, and had many healthy outdoor activities to offer. The proposed coal terminal train traffic would impact Bellingham and all the towns that would bear the burden of this increase in rail traffic. The coal terminal would not be the only user of this train line. There is already an increase in the number of trains from other sources and more requests for expansion of trains to an already crowded single track.

According to an article in Crosscut.com Seattle 2013.1.14
"Do the math: To the existing rail traffic of at least 15 trains a day, Bakken oil will potentially add another six-plus trains a day; the Anacortes bottling plant potentially adds another four, and Gateway Pacific another 18 trains daily.

The total increase — if all the proposals come to fruition — would add more than 40 trains a day to a system that in some places is not designed, according to state rail studies, for more than 15 trains a day. And nearly all of the new trains would be the giant unit trains of up to 150 cars, a mile-and-a-half in length."

Please include the following things in the EIS study:
1. How will a single track all along the coast be able to handle this kind of train volume?
2. The need for side rails will be necessary to accommodate trains going up and back. Where would they be feasible in Bellingham? And how will this impact our downtown and our waterfront development?
3. How will embankments, bluffs, and mudslide areas be made safe? How does the weight, length, and increased number of trains affect these sensitive areas along our coastline? The long term bank stability due to increased vibrations from heavy train traffic? Impact on residential home and property damage due to vibrations?
4. With all the mudslides which have closed down rail lines this winter, where will these mile and a half long trains be held to wait? How many mile and a half trains can be held until rail lines can be cleared?
5. Who will pay for the mitigation of rail crossing improvements that will be necessary? The railroad only provides 5% of the mitigation. Where does this additional money come from?
6. What is the total cost of rail crossing mitigation that would need to be addressed not just for Bellingham, but for all the communities that face these same issues from Wyoming to the GPT site?
7. What will be the financial losses to local businesses and to residential property devaluation due to the noise, traffic congestion and health hazards. What will be the losses in things such as tax revenue from property devaluation, loss of tourism trade, and the inability to attract new businesses?
8. If coal trains add 18 trips a day, how will the shipment of Washington goods and farm products get to market? What are the impacts on our own farmers to move their products to market and be able to ship in a global market?
9. How will the passenger trains be impacted? Will there be passenger service? Will it be possible to expand passenger service to lessen traffic on the highways?
10. What are the benefits of this increased coal traffic to the communities all along the train route from the coal extraction sites to GPT's site? Who does benefit from this coal project? Who are the losers in this proposal?

Marsha Riek (#7503)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My husband and I moved to this beautiful area 11 years ago. We chose to live here because of the pristine waters of the Salish Sea, the rare beauty of the beaches and surrounding land, and the marine and wildlife that abound here.

There is great danger to the marine life posed by the huge increase in the number of ships and the size of the ships that will be calling here if the proposed coal terminal is approved at Cherry Point. This also opens greater liability to ship collisions, groundings, or accidents due to this increase in numbers. The release of ballast water and the possibility of invasive species coming attached to ship hulls presents a very real danger to our own fragile marine environment. This could endanger our resident Orcas, the fishing industry, as well as a whole chain of related environmental and economic issues. These Cape sized ships do not use a tug escort to make their way into the terminal. There is a huge risk for an accident here. A single facet of this would be the devastation of the herring population at Cherry Point.

To quote an article that appeared in Crosscut.com - Best of 2012 Floyd McKay 12/26/12
"Another danger cited by Wenger and others is ballast, required for stability in large ships empty of cargo, a category that would include Asian coal ships bound for Vancouver or Cherry Point. Wenger notes that Asian ballast is from warm water and often carries invasive species that could harm Northwest fisheries. The ballast — it could be as much as 17 million gallons on a Capesize ship headed for a coal terminal in the Northwest — is exchanged at sea, at least 200 miles from shore, for cold and cleaner ocean water before it enters Puget Sound, where it can be inspected by Washington Fish and Wildlife inspectors before the dumping of the ocean ballast at the terminal.

The ocean exchange is designed to limit invasive species, but Wenger points out that Fish and Wildlife has only two full-time inspectors for thousands of ships, and foreign species can also attach themselves to a ship’s hull, which is not inspected. Ships may also avoid at-sea exchange in case of severe weather.

Allen Pleus, who heads the state’s ballast-water program, says his two inspectors can board only 5 percent of incoming ships a year but concentrate on “higher risk” vessels known from past incidents or with old equipment."

Many of these ships are still only single hull ships and are not in good repair. Who will inspect these ships, how will the ballast water be monitored and will the ship hulls be inspected for invasive species? Will all ships be inspected? Who will pay for the additional inspectors that will need to be in place? Will these ships get an escort into the terminal to lessen the chance of accident?

Please include all of these concerns in your EIS investigation.

Marsha Riek (#7856)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My husband and I moved to Bellingham after the horrible Olympic Gas Pipeline explosion in Bellingham on June 10, 1999 that killed three young people. A massive fireball sent plumes of smoke visible from Vancouver B.C. Fearing the worst, police tried to evacuate businesses downtown.The explosion put 277,200 gallons of gasoline into two creeks. The coast guard feared that this fuel would reach the bay and ignite the piling and vessels.

I am very concerned about this Olympic Pipeline corridor. This gas pipeline runs from the refinery in Ferndale WA south to terminals in Seattle and Portland. This Olympic pipeline shares some of the same corridors as the railroad track. With the increase in the number of trains and the greatly increased weight and length of coal trains, we need to study the affect constant vibration has on the integrity of these pipe lines. It must be determined if this constant vibration will cause these pipes to be unsafe causing an explosion. We need to determine where these pipelines are located and determine if they are too close to railroad tracks or crossings. These pipelines need to be inspected regularly. Please include this in your EIS study.

We cannot afford to ever have this kind of tragedy happen again.

Marsha Riek (#8722)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My husband and I moved to the Northwest 11 years ago, choosing this area because of the opportunity to enjoy recreational boating and crabbing in this beautiful San Juan area. We are concerned about the impact of the huge cape sized ships that would be necessary to transport coal to China.

This huge increase in the size and number of ships that would be coming into a constricted island area leads to questions of how this shipping traffic will wait out their turn at the proposed coal terminal? The need to anchor will pose environmental problems.

I am very concerned that these huge cape sized ships will cause damage to the sea floor with anchoring. These huge ships will tear up the sea floor with repeated anchoring. In doing so they will gouge out toxic pollution that has settled on the sea floor and set these toxins free to damage sea life and vegetation. With our many islands and rock reefs there is a limited amount of areas that these ships will be able to anchor. Please study the effects of long term anchoring. Please determine if these cape sized ships will also need to be anchored in Bellingham Bay while they await being able to make their call at the proposed coal terminal. Would bad weather cause them to find refuge in Bellingham Bay? Would backups of coal trains due to mudslides cause these ships to be anchored in our bay? What is the danger of their anchors dredging up pollution from some of our former industries here? What would the environmental impact be for our community? Would these cape sized ships hinder our regular ship business from being able to access our port and marine businesses? Please take these concerns into consideration in the EIS process.

Marsha Riek (#10018)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I followed the newspaper accounts of the Gateway Pacific Project beginning without a permit. The permitting process had not even started yet and they cleared trees and put in roads. (49% of this Pacific International's property is a wetland.) They told no one of their plans to clear and destroy wetlands it was only accidentally discovered by a neighbor walking a dog. The subsequent fine was $2000....really? $2000! Why comply with any rules? That was not even a slap on the hand. This is a preview of what we can expect from them. How do you insure compliance?

I want to quote the comment submitted by David Stahlheim - comment #6937
"It took someone walking their dog to find illegal land clearing and road-building at the coal terminal site. Not only were trees cleared and roads built, but wetlands were impacted in violation of local, state and federal laws. If regulatory agencies were unable to find this violation until reported by citizens, what assurance would the public have that all the safeguards and promises that Gateway Pacific Terminal makes will be enforced?"

"Federal, state and local governments have seen their workforce decline over the past four years due to the economic recession. These reductions are not split equally amongst the various functions of government, and have been most impactful on those agencies that are expected to monitor and enforce protections of the environment."

"For example, the largest reductions in the workforce in Whatcom County was the Planning and Development Services Department - the same department that we expect to oversee preparation of this EIS. From 2007 to 2014 (staff levels in adopted budget), their staff levels declined 42.4%, or 32 employees. No other County department comes close to seeing this amount of reduction in workforce."

"Not only can we expect that the EIS will not have adequate attention from PDS staff, we can expect that there will be less ability for staff to monitor and enforce mitigation and conditions associated with approval of North America's largest coal export facility."

"The EIS needs to identify measures to implement the measures. In other words, just saying that there are ways to minimize and mitigate the proposal is meaningless unless there are ways to enforce those measures. "

"I ask that the EIS explore the ways to ensure that measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate the effects of the proposal get implemented. One way that should be explored would be dedicated funding from the project to hire dedicated staff for federal, state and local agencies to monitor and enforce these measures. "

"Otherwise, the measures might be nothing more than broken promises."

I agree with his comment and would like the scoping process to study how to require compliance and put teeth into non compliance. When paying the fine costs less than compliance with the law we will never see our interests represented. There needs to be adequate staff to monitor this. With the budget and staff cuts that have been made from the federal level on down to the county, I'm not sure how this can happen. The destruction of wetlands and proceeding without a permit before this process even started just shows their arrogance toward the legal process. The fine of $2000 is a joke for a project of this size. This is pocket change to them! I would like the EIS to look into having them post meaningful bonds to hold them accountable. Enforcement is the big issue. How will this be done?If they are not in compliance can they be shut down until they comply? With the severe cuts to staff that would regulate them at the federal, state and local levels, will there be enough staff to do a thorough EIS study of all the issues? Will there be enough staff to enforce the findings and mitigation issues? What kind of teeth will enforcement have? What kind of access will be given to monitor compliance?

Marsha Riek (#11691)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We chose to live in Whatcom County because of the healthy environment here. We made this our home because it was a community that shared our values for healthy living and a clean environment. We are very concerned about the impact of increased coal train traffic and what a coal terminal would do to our health.

I agree with the health concerns expressed by the very thoughtful document submitted by 209 Whatcom and Skagit County Physicians. I would like to have all of the concerns that were put forth in this document submitted by these physicians, be carefully and comprehensively studied by this EIS,

In addition to these concerns, I would also like to have the EIS carefully study specifically the noise on railroad curves. The level of noise on curves is much greater and more damaging than sound on the straightaways. We live on a curve and we are subjected to squealing that has grown much more intense with heavier and longer coal trains. This metal on metal squeal needs to be evaluated specifically. What is the decibel level on curves? How does the weight of these cars and the length of these trains impact this noise level and intensity. This should be a study that includes noise evaluation on curves for residents all along this route from Wyoming and Montana. What are the health impacts of this on health, sleep deprivation and property values?

Thank you for your thoughtful evaluation of concerns that have been put forward by 209 physicians in our community. Our health is now in your hands.

Marsha Riek (#11887)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We love the Bellingham waterfront and spend a great deal of happy time in Boulevard Park. We enjoy all the waterfront walkways that the city of Bellingham has provided for our community. We enjoy the great summer concerts and time for picnics with friends. We see families with children, runners, and retired folks enjoying this park. The park is always a busy place where folks enjoy a waterfront walk and often pause for a cup of coffee at Woods Coffee.

The city has a unique opportunity to convert the old Georgia Pacific area into a world class waterfront that will attract new businesses, marine related jobs, and tourist dollars. The addition of 18 trains, plus the train traffic we already have, would definitely prevent this. We would never be able to reach Boulevard Park with trains whizzing by. A concert in the park with rumbling, screeching, and horns of passing trains would be impossible. Please study how this can be mitigated? What is the impact to our community?

The other thing I would like you to thoroughly investigate is where would the side rails be located in Bellingham? With the huge increase in rail traffic and a single rail, it would be necessary to have side rails to stage trains. How will these trains idling and spewing diesel fumes effect the use of the park? How much access would we lose to our waterfront? How would we reach Boulevard Park? Would there even be a Boulevard Park? Please investigate what the loss to existing businesses would be? What would the impact of the loss of our waterfront have on the development of new jobs? Who pays for this loss? What will the loss in property taxes be for both residences and businesses? How will we be compensated for the loss in value to our homes?

Marsha Riek (#12067)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My husband and I live in the Chuckanut area and love the beauty of this very special place. We chose to live here because we love being near the water and the enjoyment of the wildlife and marine life that abounds here.

I am concerned about the Chuckanut Bay Pocket Estuary and Beach, commonly referred to as Mud Bay. Trains pass over the water directly via the wooden trestle just before the tunnel at Clark’s Point. The coal dust has no where to go here but into the water. Please study the effects of coal dust on the shellfish, crab, and fish that populate Chuckanut Bay. Does this coal dust change the PH of the water? What do these metals that are associated with coal do to the marine life in this bay? How will the plant life be effected by these toxins? How much do the dangers of pollution increase where trains pass directly over water on bridges or trestles? Please study this for the many other places where the train lines cross water from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point. Please determine how a derailment would impart Chuckanut Bay? How would this area be reached for a clean-up? Is this wooden trestle strong enough to handle the increased volume of trains, and the increased weight of trains? What will rail vibration and noise do to the marine life in this bay?

Marsha Shaiman (#13754)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
I have asthma and am very sensitive to particulates in the air so 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.

Marshall Brisbois (#5003)

Date Submitted: 12/17/12
Comment:
The scope fo the future EIS should not overlook the potential for serious damage to the steep bank and soil stability and home foundations adjacent to the RR right of way between Fairhaven and Cliffside Park. High end condo complexes line this area and some are within fifty feet of the current tracks. Some of them exhibit premature damage to windows, decks and cracks to walls and walkways. This I believe is related to the number of trains currently transiting to Canada. Add to that the RR trafic predicted in the future, we can only anticipate a significant amount of damage to our homes; to say nothing of the market value going down as RR traffic goes up. Many may seek some sort of compensation for the effects of increased RR operations in the area. Keep in mind that the county park contemplated between Chartwell Estates and Cliffside Park will be similarly effected and the county may well be required to seek compensation from SST for damages done.
There has to be a better, less disruptive, way to get coal to Cherry Point if it must go. Realigning tracks further inland where the above problems wouldn't exist would at least give current and future bay home owners some relief from a situation that dooms their ability to enjoy the beauty of the area and the safety and sanctity of their homes and property. Surely the sponsors of this endeavor would see the benefits of the above proposal and adopt it even though it would add some costs to the overall project. Land zoned for manufacturing or a small amount of ag land would seem appropriate. For info, my home in Chartwell Estates is fifty feet from the RR tracks. Marshall B. Brisbois

Marshall Goldberg (#3044)

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

Marshall McComb (#13167)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Baker City, OR
Comment:
A coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, means much more than the local impact: polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, and so on.

Even more important is the impact on global warming. Those who control coal deposits are trying to make a quick profit by having as much coal burned up now as possible in Asian power plants.

This profit motive carries an extraordinary cost in damage to the planet and in the premature using up of this important resource. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Marsie Martien (#3503)

Date Submitted: 11/20/12
Comment:
Marsie Martien
3001 SE Kelly St.
Portland, OR 97202

Mr. Randel Perry
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Subject: Docket #COE-2012-0016.
Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export proposal draft EIS scoping comments.

Dear Mr. Randel Perry and others,
Please stop the action to transport coal through the Columbia River Gorge and through our Portland city streets. These coal shipments would dramatically increase diesel pollution and spew toxic dust all along their route through the Gorge. I am totally against uncovered coal trains moving though my neighbor and through the Gorge. This is a time to look to renewable energy sources and not reverting back to the same old same old. The motivation behind this is monetary, greedy, and not forward thinking. I have a new grand daughter due any day that I would like to save the beauty and clear air in our Gorge for. Please take action to stop transporting coal trains through the Gorge and Portland!

Sincerely,
Marsie Martien

Marta Branch (#10432)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Orcas, WA
Comment:
Hello. My name is Marta Branch. As a youngster growing up in New England, I spent weeks at a time lying on my porch with a “cold”—using a box of Kleenex a day. Later, I learned that I had allergies, and asthma. Moving to the west coast as an adult, I have had better luck with breathing. It is, of course, essential to life. The numbers of particulates in the air DO impact those of us who have the misfortune to suffer from various respiratory ailments. Attending the scoping comment event in Friday Harbor, WA, I listened to the comments from a young student from China, who referenced the pollution from coal burning in her home country of China and the resultant environmental effects on humans and other species. But let me focus on our environment here, near my home on Orcas Island, WA. We know there is a direct linkage between diesel particulates and human disease. Already, large numbers of diesel burning ships ply our waters. There are estimates that this coal terminal would generate large increases in those numbers of ships. “Number of ship passages in the Salish Sea: 487 ships x 2 (entering/leaving) = 974/day Panamax and cape class bulkers.”(OrcasNoCOALition,2013) I ask that a health impact assessment be done to determine how many excess deaths and hospitalizations would be expected from this increase in diesel ship traffic. I would also like for regulators to measure lost life expectancy. I further request that these measures(including, but not limited to), lost life expectancy, excess deaths, hospitalizations, and increase in medicines needed to mitigate respiratory distress, be reported on not just for the populations in and around the Salish Sea, but also for the populations of US citizens who live or work in proximity to rail lines from the terminal to the Powder River Basin that will produce this coal. I also ask that the measurement include all diesel and other hydrocarbon burning devices that will result from the construction of this terminal and the resultant mining and shipping of product(s) to this terminal. In your studies, please examine who will pay for the hospitalizations? What share in these hospitalizations and increased medication needs will be borne by the private insurers? And what portions of this care will be borne by individual’s out-of-pocket costs? What portions of this care will be borne by licensed treatment providers for unreimbursed costs? And lastly, what portion of these costs will be borne by the public through government-funded benefits programs? At some point the costs to individuals, the public through our taxes, and the costs to life and liberty in the form of reduced life expectancy for some and the misery of exacerbated symptomology MUST be seen as outweighing the benefits of this proposal, and the profits to some. The costs associated with the studies requested above MUST be aggregated with the costs associated with all impacts. Further, if these aggregated impacts cannot be mitigated, the agency must determine that the harm to the population outweighs the benefits and the proposal must be denied.

Marta Branch (#10469)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Orcas, WA
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a scoping comment. As science educator, and resident of the San Juan Islands in Washington State, the environment is important to me. As a citizen of the planet, I believe strongly in the mandate of human stewardship of this earth. I also believe in the sanctity of life—ALL life. I believe that we have a duty to maintain the diversity of species on this planet. I believe that we must strive to do all in our power to preserve threatened and endangered species.

I want to comment specifically on one species today, and focus on the Marbled Murrelet, Brachyramphus marmoratus. It is my understanding that 1) this is a species that is currently listed under the protections of the Endangered Species Act and that 2) one of the issues for this species is vessel traffic. A report from 1995 states(in part):

“Threats from oil pollution in British Columbia appear to
be highest around Vancouver Island, because of the
coincidence of tanker and barge traffic through the Strait of
Juan de Fuca and high populations of murrelets on the west
side of the island. Murrelets in lower densities also breed in
the Queen Charlotte Islands, but ship traffic and tanker
traffic are less. The very large volume of crude oil traffic
from Alaska to California occurs more than 100 km offshore,
reducing the threat from tanker spills.
The smaller populations of murrelets in Washington in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca remain at considerable risk because
of both tanker traffic and large volumes of commercial
shipping (cargo and fishing) into Seattle, Tacoma, and
Vancouver. The local, inshore distribution of murrelets makes
them particularly vulnerable to spills in coastal areas.
Tanker and barge traffic in coastal waters of California,
Oregon, and Washington pose significant threats to murrelets.
Barges are used to enter smaller ports, and are often towed in
near-shore waters. While the tonnage of oil transported by
barge is much less than that conveyed by tanker, the Apex
Houston (approximately 10,000 dead birds) and Nestucca
(>50,000 dead birds) spills have demonstrated barge traffic to
be of high risk to murrelets along the Pacific coast”
Source: “Pollution and Fishing Threats to Marbled Murrelets”
D. Michael Fry, Research Physiologist, Department of Avian Sciences, University of
California, Davis, CA 95616 ; page 259, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152. 1995.

Further, from another publication entitled Status Review of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia, we read that

“The species’ inshore distribution coincides with high levels of vessel traffic and makes them especially vulnerable to both chronic oil pollution and to catastrophic spills (e.g., the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill [EVOS] in south-central Alaska, which is estimated to have killed 12,000 to 15,000 murrelets).”
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1387/; U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Open-File Report 2006-1387, By J.F. Piatt, U.S. Geological Survey, K.J. Kuletz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, A.E. Burger, University of Victoria, S.A. Hatch, U.S. Geological Survey, V.L. Friesen, Queen’s University, T.P. Birt, Queens University, M.L. Arimitsu, U.S. Geological Survey, G.S. Drew, U.S. Geological Survey, A.M.A. Harding, Alaska Pacific University, and K.S. Bixler, U.S. Geological Survey

I ask that the impact of increased vessel traffic on this species be measured. How will the impacts to this species be mitigated? Who will pay? How will the potential loss of this species in these waters be valued and measured? If the vessel traffic results in the reduction or loss of this species from the waters utilized by the increased vessel traffic sailing to and from the proposed Gateway Terminal, how will tax payers—the American Public—be reimbursed for the reduction in numbers or loss of this species from these waters? How will these losses be measured? How will they be valued? If this impact cannot be mitigated, than I ask that agency determine that the harm of this proposal outweighs the benefits of the proposal. Respectfully yours, Marta Branch.

Marta Dully (#8941)

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

Marta Hozack (#8157)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Stanwood, WA
Comment:
I am Marta Hozack and I am fourteen years old. I am worried about coal trains coming to Washington State. I am for healthy living and having a long lasting life. Bringing coal through our neighborhood might threaten my standards for having a healthy life.

I believe that coal impacts communities in big ways. It is polluting the earth. Also when coal goes in the water, species die from being exposed to it. Please study what will happen to the herring, the salmon and the Orca whales when the supertankers are traveling through our waters.

I have some personal concerns about our town not being exposed to coal. I have a friend that lives near the railroad tracks. She has super bad asthma and it would be very sad if something would happen to her. I would like you to study the impact of coal exposure on babies, young people and people with asthma. My understanding is that it goes into your lungs when you breath and it doesn't do pretty things. My friend Veronica works really hard and is a great artist and her mom and dad work really hard too. If she has to deal with complications because of coal in our town, what would the coal companies do to make her life and her family more comfortable with all of her problems.

In my life I don't usually don't like changes. If coal becomes a regular thing around my town people say it would change the climate and there will be dangerous consequences for everybody. Please study the impact of coal on global warming.

I would appreciate it if you would study the negative impact on air & water quality in Stanwood/Camano area should a coal train be built in Washington.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Marta Hozack

Marta Nielson (#1387)

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

marta nielson (#9837)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Olga, WA
Comment:
I'm a small vessel tradesman using the Rosario Strait between April and November approximately 4 times per month. I carry animal grain and other cargo between Bellingham bay ports and the San Juan Islands. I am concerned about the wake and consequent shoreline erosion caused by this wake. With up to three ships returning via Rosario strait on a daily basis, I question my vessel's safety and my personal safety along side of such huge ships - I could not be assured of outrunning or even avoiding a collision should the Coal ship lose power or control of it's steering as it takes a full 7 miles for it to stop.
Please address both the safety dangers to other ships as well as the shoreline erosion concerns in the upcoming EIS.

Thank you.

marta nielson (#9849)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Olga, WA
Comment:
As a resident of the San Juan Islands I enjoy both the beauty and bounty of the Salish Sea. I am concerned that there is not adequate protection from spillage of either the proposed transport of Coal or tar sands. The recent crash of a ship similar to those proposed for transit of the Salish Sea showed that there was inadequate clean up procedures, equipment, personel in place.

These large, single hulled vessels have a less than stellar history in terms of accidents.

Please address in the upcoming EIS whether there is adequate clean up procedures, personel and equipment to handle a massive spill - and whether this type of spill would result in damage that would be catastrophic to the marine environment of the Salish Sea.

Thank you.

marta nielson (#9859)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Olga, WA
Comment:
I have grave concerns over the construction of the Cheery Point terminal over one of the largest remaining marine estuaries in the North West. Plans for the terminal state that they are "environmentally" safe.

However, I ask that in your environmental impact statement you closely examine these plans and get up to three independent evaluations of them by parties not invested in the project.

The marine estuary of the proposed site provides the elemental key step into the marine food chain - that of feeder fish - and destruction of this resource will dramatically affect the health and welfare of both Salmon and Orcas in the Salish Sea. Consequentally the entire marine eco-system of the Salish sea may be irreparably damaged and/or distroyed.

Please include in your EIS specific statistica studies that relate to the reduction of marine resources that would occur with the building of this terminal.

thank you.

Martha Bray (#5744)

Date Submitted: 12/29/12
Location: Sedro Woolley, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I am very concerned about the proposed 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 proposed acceleration of coal shipments shows a blatant and cynical disregard for local communities as well as the global environment.

This proposal would have extremely negative impacts on my community that can not be mitigated. These include congestion and noise of more coal train traffic, delays to emergency responders, impacts to tourism and local businesses, and contamination of our air and local waterways and aquatic ecosystems.

There are so many concerns its hard to capture them all: potential damage fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents are just some.

Finally, we have no business shipping the dirtiest energy on earth across the ocean to burn in China when we already face a critically warming world.

All of these impacts must be included in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement, especially the escalation of climate change.

In addition the Environmental Impact Statement needs to assess the cumulative impact of all five of the proposed coal shipping terminals in the Pacific Northwest not look at the proposals piecemeal.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Martha Bray

Martha Bray (#6692)

Date Submitted: 01/03/13
Location: Sedro-Wolleey, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Martha Bray (#14413)

Date Submitted: 01/03/13
Location: Sedro-Woolley, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Martha Breneman (#4093)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
Dec 4, 2012

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

The increased train traffic through Spokane will have a very negative environmental and health inpact to my community. Daily several trains will carry tons of coal over our sole source of water, the pristine Spokane Aquifer and along our beautiful Spokane River. Additionally, our city is prone to air inversions which would mean that mercury particulates from coal and diesel would be held in our environment for extended periods of time, thus causing serious health issues for young and old alike. The negative impacts will go beyond polluting our water and our air, it will also impact our farmlands by contaminating our soil and crops.

Our business environment will also be negatively impacted by coal trains going right through the heart of our downtown; the resulting traffic congestion, noise and coal pollution will further harm our economic recovery. The health and safety of our citizens is also at risk when emergency vehicles are blocked at train crossings and unable to deliver critical care services.

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,

Martha Breneman
37 W 28th Ave
Spokane, WA 99203-1857
(509) 838-8415

Martha Burns (#10701)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I want you to study the effect of coal trains impact on passenger rail service. The need for new sidings. Impact on access to recreational facilities, parks, etc. Priority use for sidings, freight trains or passenger trains and the impact on their schedules. The issue of vibration created by these trains on unstable hillsides.
The effect of the proposed prospect for a large number of jobs, and how many of those jobs could be filled by present residents of Whatcom and how large an influx of new workers would be needed. Their impact on existing services.The duration of each specific job classification, wages, and number available. What happens when the job is completed?

Martha Draper (#4500)

Date Submitted: 12/07/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Martha Frederick (#369)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
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 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.

With Climate Change growing visibly and rapidly worse, we do not need to increase the opportunities for coal and oil producers to ship their products. This terminal would only hasten global warming!

Sincerely,

Martha Frederick

Martha Hammer (#14415)

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

Martha Hoxley (#5383)

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

Martha Jackson (#9146)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I am commenting as a Seattle resident and homeowner; a senior with asthma and chronic bronchitis; a cancer survivor; a longtime environmentalist and amateur botanist; and a former professional archaeologist who completed an MA and all coursework for a PhD in archaeology. From all of these points of view, the proposed coal trains are a prescription for disaster.

According to Burlington Northern's website, there are ongoing experiments in the Powder River Basin on applying a layer of chemicals on top of coal loads, to reduce loss of coal dust. They say they hope to reduce the amount of coal dust by 85% in this manner. Since it is estimated that 500
pounds of coal is lost from each freight car during a trip from the Powder River Basin, the railway apparently hopes to reduce this amount to only 75 lb per rail car. The trains will be a mile long, and comprise about 120 cars, so about 9,000 lb of coal dust will be lost per train. Eighteen trains per day adds up to 81 tons in every 24 hours, and over 24,000 tons in a year, assuming that trains run 3000 days per year---each and every year.

This amount of coal dust, containing arsenic, uranium, mercury, and lead, will be drastically destructive to croplands, livestock, and wildlife for a miles-wide swath on either side of the tracks. The health of rivers, lakes, and Puget Sound will be progressively destroyed, along with populations of many freshwater and marine species that depend on healthy waters. In addition, health will be negatively impacted for many thousands of people, including in several large urban populations along Puget Sound. Organic and other farmers as well as shellfish farmers and fishermen will be put out of business. Seattle's food security will be greatly reduced, because vegetables and dairy produced in the immediate area will no longer be healthy to eat.

My house in the Broadview neighborhood of Seattle is only one-third mile downwind of the tracks. I am afraid that the value of my property would be drastically reduced by the huge increase in air pollution and noise due to eighteen mile-long coal trains per day.. Yet I would have to sell my house and move, because I do not think I could expect to live into old age in a healthy condition with the additional air pollution. In addition, Seattle air quality is already negatively affected by coal burning in China, under certain atmospheric conditions; we cannot afford to end up breathing the pollution from massively increased coal burning in Asia.

This coal mining and shipping will create fortunes for Warren Buffett and other stakeholders. It will also create jobs for a few hundreds or thousands. But it will destroy our land, our health, and our economy----because our economy cannot survive if we don't have healthy air, water, and food. We need alternative energy, now---while we still have a planet that will support human life. The United States needs to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Climate change is happening, and a lot faster than predicted. It has the power to destroy us. Let's not sell our country, our health and our children's future for a mess of filthy pottage.

As a student of prehistory, I can tell you that a very long string of societies, stretching back thousands of years, have destroyed themselves by dint of destroying the environment they depended upon. We have the knowledge and the technology to change our ways; we must do so.

I request that all of the factors I mention be scrupulously and quantitatively addressed by the EIS, including degradation of the health of agricultural fields, orchards, and livestock; health effects on wildlife, including endangered species; effects on human health both from coal dust and from coal burning overseas; economic impact on farmers, orchardists, shellfish growers, and fishermen; reduced urban food security; depreciation of real estate along the railway tracks; and contribution to climate change, particularly in the northwestern United States and southwestern Canada.

Martha Koester (#6515)

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

Martha Koester (#10665)

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

The City of Seattle has completed a study showing that trains would effectively block emergency response vehicles at critical areas in Seattle and King County.

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.

Martha Koester (#14149)

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

* Blocking traffic in Seattle will lead to dangerously increased emergency response times..

* 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.

Martha Lopez (#9143)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live in a community close to the BSNF rail line on which up to 18 additional daily coal trains (9 full, 9 empty) would travel if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement 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?

Martha Martin (#13743)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
Global warming is a real threat to the planet. Exporting coal from the US is bound to worsen it.
Coal is best left underground. Renewable energy production to replace coal is needed urgently.

I strongly oppose constructing a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington, transporting strip- mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains across the Northwest, and exporting 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.

Martha Porteous (#11492)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: LaConner, Wa
Comment:
Remember earth day when you were a kid? I do. I was of that generation that sat baffled at terrifying statistics wondering, "How could my parent's and grandparent's generation have been so devastating to the world we live in? How could they have made such choices?"

And here we sit with a choice of our own. A thin and feeble promise for more jobs, unsustainable jobs, jobs that are dwindling even as they arrive. Jobs that will bring more harm than good to this delicate planet. Closer to home: jobs dependent on coal train traffic that will hurt our health and our down towns. Mount Vernon and Burlington will be places people stay away from in droves if they face the prospect of a long train wait every half an hour. I know I will. I'll be at home with my kids who will one day turn to me and say, "How could your generation have been so devastating to this world? How could you have made such choices?" I honestly don’t know what I'll tell them.

Martha Raaka (#6478)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
With the amount of coal trains passing through our state, I am very concerned about the resulting air quality for all. I have driven through the state of Wyoming where the coal trains initiate, and I remember well the smells long before we came upon the site. With so many open cars full of coal, I cannot believe that this won't affect our air quality and the health of many. Please study these questions in your scoping process.

Martha Schmidt (#8295)

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

Martha Scott (#2643)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Martha Terwilliger (#3034)

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

Martha Terwillinger (#1746)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Martha Thompson (#1919)

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

Martha Walsh (#13523)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
Dear Washington State Department of Ecology,

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

My concerns about the proposed coal terminal run the gamut from the additional vessel traffic in our inland waters to air quality issues near the proposed terminal sites, coal spillage in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, and other polluting consequences of transporting coal through the region. Coal dust has been deemed as a toxic threat to our health and our environment. Toxic coal dust is known to be responsible for asthma, COPD, cancers, infant mortality, heart attacks, strokes, atherosclerosis, stress, depression and anxiety etc. There are health effects of air pollution and fine particulate matter in the air.

Last time I rode my bicycle through Lowell, Washington, and crossed the railroad tracks next to the Snohomish River, I was saddened to think that coal trains might run on those tracks, leaving coal dust in the river and adjoining riparian and wetland areas that are home to so many fish, birds, and other species and leaving dust in the air I breathe as I ride past. There could be no positive impact from coal in this area.

The risk to the health of all residents of western Washington is too great to allow this plan to go forward.

Sincerely,

Martha L. Walsh
Seattle, Washington

Martha Williams (#1534)

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

Martha Wyckoff (#13531)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
My name is Martha Wyckoff. I have been active as a state and national board member of the Trust for Public Land as a volunteer since 1995. I am also active with the Seattle Art Museum as a board member and co-chair of the Olympic Sculpture Park committee.

Per the letter below please investigate health and human impacts resulting from increase coal dust.
Please investigate the potential impacts to Marine life due to the increase coal dust.
I am signing on as concurring with the letter attached below.

Sincerely
Martha Wyckoff.



Date: January 22 2013
Subject: Gateway Pacific Coal Export Terminal
January 22, 2012
My name is Mike Deller. I am the Washington State Director for the Trust for Public Land. I live in Mukilteo, Washington and work in Seattle. I am writing in regard to the proposed Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal at Cherry Point and the anticipated increase in coal trains and ship traffic to serve it.
The Trust for Public Land's mission is to conserve land for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and other natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come.
Since 1975 in the 12 Puget Sound counties alone, The Trust for Public Land has:
• Completed 151 transactions that conserved 19,883 acres of land valued at over $225 million
• 32 of these transactions were on the Puget Sound Shoreline, protecting 1,902 acres with a fair market value of $52 million
• Since 2006 as part of the Alliance for Puget Sound Shorelines, we completed 10 shoreline projects to conserve 890 acres valued at more than $30 million
As you can see, our efforts to conserve land around Puget Sound have been extensive and expensive. Giving countless Washington residents and visitors precious access to our shoreline has been made possible with hard work and millions of dollars in public grants and private donations. We want to make sure that those investments in public shoreline lands are protected for many generations to come. We want to be assured that the environmental review process will fully investigate the risk of potential harm to the Puget Sound marine life, shorelines and public space from potential coal dust release, coal spills or accidents.
At minimum, the following should be thoroughly investigated:
1. The human and habitat health impacts of the ongoing release of coal dust on shoreline and uplands from coal trains using the BNSF main line that hugs the Puget Sound shorelines through Pierce, King and Snohomish counties.
2. The result of train derailments along the many miles of coastal railway where wet-season mud slides greatly increase the risk of such accidents.
3. The impact of substantial increases in diesel emissions, dust and other accidental spillage from the increased train traffic.
4. The potential impact on marine life and shoreline habitat from coal ships voyaging through Puget Sound, the Straits of Juan de Fuca and into the Pacific, including the projected consequences if one of these ships should founder, or spill its cargo.
I urgently request that these potential environmental impacts are considered in detail. I appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Mike Deller
Washington State Director
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1520
Seattle, WA 98164

206-274-2916 - direct
425-422-2409 - cell

The Trust for Public Land
Celebrating 40 years of creating parks and conserving land for people.
tpl.org

Martin Box (#14416)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Martin Conyac (#6680)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Comment:
In this economic climate there are, unfortunately, those that don't recognize the importance of the construction of the bulk materials handling facility at Bellingham. I don't call it the "coal terminal" because there are other commodities to be handled and distributed, and the use of the word "coal" places too narrow of a focus on the capabilities of the terminal and the jobs to be created. The opponents of the construction of the terminal focus only on the coal, and even ignore the fact that coal has safely been distributed across the country by rail for many decades; its distribution by rail can be made even safer and more efficient by covering the open cars and constructing an enclosed building for the unloading/loading of not only the coal but also the other commodities.

One argument against the construction is that the facility will generate "Only" a "few" jobs. To that I say this: With a failing economy, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If the construction and operation of the facility creates only ONE new job, it's a step in the right direction. Anything else is a step in the wrong direction that only exacerbates our nation's problems.

The people opposed to the distribution of all the different commodities are ignoring the economic ripple effect of supplying those commodities to the businesses and manufacturers that use those commodities to make and supply the goods to our society that we all use.

So make a choice; either be a part of the problem, or be part of the solution by supporting the construction of the proposed facility that will grow the economy, not just locally but also more broadly than just that of Bellingham and Whatcom County.

In support of all business and industry, large or small, that makes America work,
Martin Conyac
Blaine, Washington

Martin Corey (#12322)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
Since before I was born, land- and mud-slides have affected the rail roadbed along the shores of Puget Sound, as shown by landslides just recently between Fairhaven and Seattle. In addition, the roadbed between Tacoma and Portland has shown to be less than stable. Possible derailments along this line would cause HUGE tieups for both freight and passenger service(not to mention if something happened in Seattle). However, simple derailments are not the question here(since we know that coal is not soluble in water), but since I've traveled extensively in areas of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, & Colorado, I've seen the areas adjoining the roadbeds coated with coal dust, simply from the pieces of coal abrading against each other, and the tidal and estuarine areas along Puget Sound(and the Columbia River) would suffer far more damage and impact the economy of the Northwest far more than the loss of some possible jobs at the proposed coal port near Cherry Point would.
My Grandfather was a civil and mining engineer in the coalfields of Southern Colorado before moving to Seattle in 1929 to work for the Corps(and be the head surveyor that laid out the holding area behind Grand Coulee), and I've been told that he and his family were always really happy that they moved from Colorado to the shores of Puget Sound.

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.

Martin Glynn (#4346)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Bozeman, MT
Comment:
Dear Mr. Perry:

If permitted, the Gateway Pacific Terminal will generate a massive increase in trains traveling through the region. The environmental impact study on this project needs to consider the following questions and concerns from communities along the way.

What is the cost of infrastructure needed to prevent increased train traffic from imposing devastating impacts on local businesses and public safety?

Who will pay for that infrastructure: local taxpayers or the rail companies, coal companies and their Asian customers?

What are the air quality and public health implications of dozens of coal trains passing through communities?

How will massive increases in coal train volume on rail lines that are already at or near capacity affect other shippers, including agricultural commodities that currently move approximately 40 million tons per year to ports in Washington and Oregon for export markets?

How will increases in coal train volume affect Amtrak passenger service through the Pacific Northwest and the vital tourism economy of the region?

How will increased coal related train traffic affect existing businesses near the railroad in towns and cities along the route?

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.

Why should we pay for and suffer the inconvenient consequences of the shipment of coal to foreighn countries??? Just to enrichen corporations at our expense when it does not benefit our citizens at all and decreases our natural resources forever. We may need them someday after a process to clean dirty coal ias discovered. China is already poluting the earth's atmosphere and burning our coal will make that even worse. This is a totally stupid use of our resources and will only increase global climate change. Please don't allow it! Thanks!
Sincerely, Martin Glynn, Bozeman, MT


Martin Glynn
417 W Spring Creek Dr
Bozeman, MT 59715

Martin Nickerson (#7348)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The problems which defy compensation involving the Gateway Terminal are so many and have such inclusive impacts that one letter could not do justice to my concerns.

As to noise, my house is located on the hill facing the transportation terminal. We hear the train horns every night and when the wind is right they wake us up at night disturbing our sleep. The squeal of train cars rounding the bends into the Fairhaven straight terminal stretch is equally disturbing. With more trains coming and going to the proposed terminal, we expect less sleep due to noise which will be bad for our health. We expect the dust from the open coal cars to add particulate matter to the currently relatively clean air as well. Multiple mile long trains will cause more level crossing closures, so we can expect inconvenience getting to the waterfront, more deaths due to conflicts and lower quality of life in marine parks due to noise, dust, and vibration.

I find it bizarre that Washington is busy closing the last of the coal fired electric generating plants in the State, partially to avoid the air pollution effects of burning coal and at the same time being asked to allow the construction of a coal port. The port will lead to coal use as a fuel which will add to pollution due to greenhouse gases in the world and particularly in Washington and Bellingham due to the prevailing west wind in the northern hemisphere.

Turquoise Hill is an Australian Company which his building hard rock mines in Mongolia and has booming coal subsidiaries. If their plans expand, it would seem likely that the US coal would have to compete at a disadvantage due to shipping with those developments which could leave the proposed development as a white elephant on Bellingham's doorstep. The waste that that could bring speaks for itself.

Martin Passmore (#11811)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
From:
Martin Passmore, 910 Donovan Ave, Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 671 5612
dc24volts@gmail.com
http://www.cedarcoastcarbon.com/

About me (enough to give some perspective on my POV):

I am 78, a retired mechanic; thanks to the UW, a 3-year cancer survivor. I have lost two close members of my family to cancers, so I take its causes very seriously. (The long-term resident pollutants from coal dust and combustion are not reassuring). I worked in shipbuilding, as an engineer in the merchant service, on construction (all based in the UK), and (in the US) mostly in fish plants. I also worked for short periods on farms, in the Norwegian woods, and trucking. I was born in a middle-class family, but I missed many years of school due to debilitating abdominal symptoms whose cause ultimately took me 60 years to identify. Trying to make up for the education gap I came to Washington to study biology, but had to leave and support a family the year that the last person leaving Seattle was politely asked to turn out the lights, and I was lucky to get a laboring job for my children's pre-school years.

What my father described as the great turning points in his life were the horrific stories he heard from older schoolmates returning from the trenches in WW1; the Depression; and the threat from fascism in the late 1930s, when he spent his savings on flying lessons preparing to join the RAF. I feel grateful for my own privileged life, and America has been particularly kind to me. For my remaining time, the cause that has become central, most deserving of effort, is turning back climate change.

My father described the horror of being a junior officer in the RAF command center on the night of the Luftwaffe blitz on Coventry. They were unable to mount a timely counterattack for fear of betraying the fact that the German codes had been successfully cracked.

We have one grandson: he is our sole bet on how to overcome the Darwinian Dilemma in the population stakes. For me the exasperation that resonates a little with my father's horrible experience is the apathetic generation-long delay in responding to all the evidence especially from ice*, the result largely of a wet blanket of well-funded denial** after the model of earlier deniers of CFCs and lung cancer. His generation had very little to work with, but they found the human strengths to win. We have an abuntance of means to choose from, but building community with enough heart to get it done in time against the numbers is the challenge.

My website, mostly on related topics, is cedarcoastcarbon.com

I very much appreciate the privilege of being able to offer comments upon the scope of issues to be covered in this forthcoming extremely important EIS.

* (movie "Chasing Ice")
** ("Merchants of Doubt" Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway)

Comments toward the Scope of the EIS for the Gateway Pacific Terminal

[I had prepared this as a web page, but at the last minute see no way to upload it as such. I will put some or all of it on my blog soon for easier reference]

From:
Martin Passmore, 910 Donovan Ave, Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 671 5612
dc24volts@gmail.com
http://www.cedarcoastcarbon.com/
Topics I am requesting EIS scope-coverage of:

GLOBAL:
Environmental:
Climate change:
Impact of adding this much CO2 to the atmosphere, and so indirectly to oceans.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how-many-gigatons-of-co2/
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQacidity.html
http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/carbcycle.html
http://math.350.org/
The US brokered the agreement at the Copenhagen UNFCCC conference in 2009 among about 140 countries, representing 80% of GHG output, to limit global temperature rise to 2°C. There is hope for a more binding consensus in 2015 for 2020, although this is an intensely political process, and not only within the US. But, assuming GHGs are really the cause of climate change, and that the rise is as fierce as professionals insist; then sadly, the balance of world opinion can all too confidently be expected to reach critical mass within the next decade or so. China, the intended customer, has already slowed their building of coal plants, and has an ambitious although not-yet-binding intention to include drastic reductions in future 5-year plans. We might be in the process of at last weaning ourselves from this underpriced toxin, but to begin exporting it at this scale after Copenhagen will seriously weaken our position in future negotiations.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-01-17/news/un-climate-change-conference-in-qatar-705986561/
7/8 of the world's fossil carbon is coal. Adding this much investment onto the already too-large coal-burning economy is a problem: the elimination of thermal coal in electricity production, despite—because!--of its dominance is the critical challenge, if there is to be any hope of staying below the 2°C ceiling. It is true that some amelioration could come from increased sequestration (CCS), but at considerable energy and financial cost without much addressing the other destructive effects of coal:
http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/enclyclopedia_of_energy_article.pdf
Unmined coal, left underground, is itself the ultimate CCS; it is a climate change asset, like forest, and has been since the Carboniferous Era. In all fairness, once carbon pricing gets underway, there may need to be some recognition of this.
Pollution health effects:
SOx, NOx;
Hg, As, Cd, Pb, Cr, others especially metals:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coal-pollution-damages-human-health-at-every-stage-of-coal-life-cycle-reports-physicians-for-social-responsibility-70367462.html
http://www.polywellnuclearfusion.com/CarbonWillKillUs/CoalPollution.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html
Direct environmental damage of mining and coal treatment upon native, cultivated and human communities, as in Appalachia:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Mining-the-Mountain.html?c=y&page=2
The increase in ship traffic's addition to the global atmospheric SOx burden because of the use of bunker fuel is complex. This explains the worry:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html
Now regulations are coming into effect to reduce sulfur, especially in US and northern European coastal waters, but there is concern for shippers about supply, price volatility, and lessened engine reliability:
http://www.tsacarriers.org/fs_bunker.html
Economic:
Effect of underpriced energy on delaying the introduction and scaling of necessary green alternatives; coal is overvalued in that the true (“Pigovian”) costs of its health and environmental effects are not reflected in its price to the consumer. This is true of all fossil fuel, but to an extreme in the case of coal.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=askBI3llM0Lo
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1028-hance_china_coal.html
Pricing of coal extracted from public lands is an issue (especially if so doing amounts to an unfair subsidy to a jobs competitor):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-coal-exports-idUSBRE89H0CI20121018
which elicits an interesting proposal for initiating a carbon tax:
http://grist.org/coal/enough-cheap-coal-using-public-lands-for-the-public-interest/

REGIONAL:
Environmental and economic:
Climate change:
Washington State, in consultation with other western states and BC, has made significant commitments to reducing GHG and addressing climate impacts:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2011ENV0005-000088.htm
The amount of coal this/these projects would export using our facilities would over its/their projected lifetime utterly dwarf any GHG emission-savings we have planned or could hope to accomplish.
Alaska is already experiencing effects close to the 2°C mark. This illustrates the disproportionate impact of global warming upon high latitudes, accelerating the process while remaining only statistically apparent in temperate zones:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/alaska.html
Impact of mine:
Water demand and damage in immediate area. Intent to lower pollution at point of use by remediation in vicinity of mines results in the local accumulation of dangerous amounts of toxic sludge:
http://www.sludgesafety.org/what-coal-slurry
Impact upon local ranching and other pre-existing economic activity:
http://www.standuptocoal.org/sunrise-coal-mine/damage-to-farmland/
Impact of rail transport:
Congestion, delays from at-grade crossings; problems intensified in Spokane area as other ports developed:
www.heavytrafficahead.org/pdf/Heavy-Traffic-Ahead-Exec-Summary.pdf
Increased risk of collisions: concentrated pollution from derailments. Whilst the following might not be rich in context it makes real how dramatic these events can be:
http://trainweb.org/brettrw/derail/bnsf/bnsfderail.html
Distributed pollution from dust (especially in windy Columbia Gorge) (room for dispute here, BNSF claims mitigation) and exhaust:
http://ecotrope.opb.org/2012/07/10753/
http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/sevendays/28883579-47/coal-trains-dust-railroad-jobs.html.csp
Aggravated engine noise and exhaust from idling trains stopped constantly for long periods in sidings, often near populated areas:
http://railway-technical.blogspot.com/2011/07/idling-diesels.html
Increased engine and siren noise, also vibration from moving trains. Here noise is approached with a matrix of 3 types of land use and increases in annoyance reported historically:
http://ntl.bts.gov/data/rail05/rail05.html
Impact of extra marine traffic on Great Circle route--along coast and through the Aleutians:
On fisheries, native communities and wildlife:
http://www.akrdc.org/issues/fisheries/overview.html
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh/nonfishing/impactstoefh112011.pdf
Possible severe impact of rare sinkings and strandings: BC, Alaska, Kamchatka, Japan and further into Asia. The remoteness and severe weather conditions along a route so close to inhospitable shorelines make this matter very important. This area has economic and environmental resources of great significance which are potentially vulnerable:
http://www.aleutiansriskassessment.com/passing.htm
Inability of impacted governmental jurisdictions now to raise taxes to the extent necessary for remediation and probable disaster-recovery expenses because of recent citizen initiatives and the 5%: 95% ratio of costs inflicted by pre-existing railroad legislation:
http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/newwaterfronttrack/
Political:
Public feeling in the area is overwhelmingly against the project. It appears to be deeper and on an even wider scale than was visible before the Iraq war, if the public attendance at the scoping hearings is a fair sample. For many of the affected communities it is a sort of "taxation without representation" issue, in that they see no benefits whatever, and the possibility of severe impacts way beyond the already-great probable ones. Here is one youthful view:
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/23/this-is-clean-coal-massive-coal-sludge-spill-dwarfs-exxon-valdez-disaster/

LOCAL:
Environmental:
Effect on eelgrass and herring spawning at Cherry Point, already identified as damaged critical habitat for the entire inland marine ecosystem:
http://www.wwu.edu/toxicology/cherrypointrisk.shtml
http://crosscut.com/2011/10/28/environment/21354/Big-Coal-meets-Cherry-Points-tiny-herring/
http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=1185
Issues around Native life and treaty rights:
http://treatyprotection.org/documentation/North_West_Indian_College_COAL_TRIAN_PROJ-cb_edit.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/us/tribes-add-powerful-voice-against-northwest-coal-plan.html?pagewanted=all

Possible magnified effect of expanded anchoring upon buried seabed pollutants;
Effect of washing and other cleaning activities upon groundwater, depending upon mean direction of flow:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_waste
Local effects of greatly increased rail and marine traffic on congestion, pollution, noise and risk (as above for region):
http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/key-facts
Risk of severe pollution (fuel and coal) from collisions due to increased ship traffic in sensitive marine areas and orca habitat (San Juan and Gulf Islands). Some studies claim non-linear collision risks past a certain density of any mode of traffic:
gulliver.trb.org/conferences/2001Waterway&Harbor/Harrald.pdf

Economic:
Lowering of property values:
http://climatesolutions.org/cs-journal/coal-train-traffic-would-impact-property-values
Impact upon revitalization of waterfront. Here are two conflicting views which need to be resolved, although it is hard to imagine how the projected scale of delays might conceivably be offset:
http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/cwb-studies-gpt-train-impacts-on-the-waterfront/
http://www.c4wwc.com/sample-page/bellingham-waterfront-redevelopment/
Loss to local companies of current high-amenities of area as recruiting draw, and so less eagerness for innovative enterprise to locate here. Should this become a trend impacting taxes and schools it could make Bellingham substantially less competitive:
http://www.psrc.org/assets/5585/IRBC2-Talent1109.pdf
Impediment to emergency vehicles;
Offloading of costs of amelioration to local taxpayers, to the extent even possible;
Future costs of restoration when the project is abandoned in the future, especially should this happen at short notice (a “Black Swan” event) from a collapse of Asian markets from some tipping point in climate, an unexpected scaling of Chinese use of fracked natural gas and/or investment in clean energy, or foreign population revolt against pollution:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/coals-toxic-sludge-20100317
http://www.abandonedmines.gov/ep.html

POSSIBLE REMEDIATION
Some reduction of the local effects of mining is conceivable, if the industry would be willing critically to examine possible synergies between savings and mitigation:
http://www.acarp.com.au/abstracts.aspx?repId=C3017
Negotiation with entities responsible for management and emergency services in affected areas, which would make adequate financial mechanisms and infrastructure available in a timely fashion, ideally in the form of adequate levies and posted bonds. Due to century-old legislation, this might be more feasible in the marine environment than the rail one; a recent possible model is the establishment and funding of the rescue tug at Neah Bay for Juan de Fuca tanker traffic.
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009jun00163.html
There really needs to be similar provision strategically located in the Aleutians funded from the freight rather than residents; and it is possible the USCG would welcome expansion of their present vessel-watch capability in Unimak Pass to Amchitka Pass and other western exits. (This situation can only become more urgent as sea traffic increasingly makes use of newly opening ice-free routes north of Russia and Canada):
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12443&page=142
http://www.foe.org/news/blog/2012-12-the-specter-of-arctic-shipping
http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/
The IMO has been proactive in promoting ballast transfers mid-ocean to reduce the migration of invasive organisms such as was consequent upon the opening of the Great Lakes Seaway:
http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/ballastwatermanagement/Pages/Default.aspx
(Although one spectacular incident was due to ballast transfer, likely due to a stability error):
http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/AJOC-March-4-2012/Offshore-Arctic-emergency-response-ready-for-more-ships/
Exhaust pollution:
The emissions of shore-based diesels have improved greatly in recent years, and the use of lower-sulfur fuel in the near future ought to help further. But the sheer quantity from substantial increases in traffic in combination with the number of toxics and carcinogens still identified in diesel exhaust remain a concern. If regulation of engine-idling in sidings forced reform of the traditional locomotive cooling systems to bring them in line with diesels in other applications, this would help, given the locally-concentrated nature of the current pattern.
ALTERNATIVES
(My understanding is that the examining agencies are only authorized to consider ways of mitigating impacts identified in the process. So what follows may only be context, but I believe it to be important context).
Economic policies:
The UK's Stern report now estimates the cost of reducing GHG emissions for a 2050 target of 550 ppm at an annual 2% of GWP, still considerably less than health expenditures, and perhaps double the level of current fossil fuel subsidies, depending on the accounting; and far less than the ultimate, or by some estimates the current costs of climate change:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/26/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/fossilfuel4.pdf
There is growing consensus that a carbon tax is the fairest and most effective way to reduce GHG emissions. This agreement is by no means limited to the green community:
http://www.carbontax.org/
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/can-republicans-warm-up-to-a-carbon-tax-20130118
http://carbonwa.org/
Technology and implementation:
The use of anhydrous ammonia as the major constituent in diesel or gas turbine fuel in fleet applications is one approach to the reduction of noxious emissions: NH3 is a relatively safe and inexpensive means of storing hydrogen as fuel:
http://nh3fuelassociation.org/
http://www.spg-corp.com/clean-energy-power-generation.html
Here is a disturbing but comprehensive examination of the Socolow/Pacala “wedge” approach to the climate threat:
http://grist.org/article/is-450-ppm-or-less-politically-possible-part-1/
And here are three unconventional and little-discussed alternative insights on the overall problem: two on the supply side and the other a fresh look at the models of greenhouse gas and its genesis and a new approach to solutions. I do not have the credentials to examine these critically, but they each strike me as deserving of expert scrutiny by independent authorities.
Thorium rather than uranium fission:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/04/liquid-fluoride-thorium-power-pros-cons/
A possible fast-track and scalable approach to fusion using boron, with claimed side-benefits for the disposal of current stockpiles of nuclear waste:
http://www.polywellnuclearfusion.com/NuclearFusion/pBReaction.html
Natural biological agents said greatly to influence cloud albedo—the greenhouse-effect modifier we all notice daily, especially here. Potential paramount role for forest:
www.permaculturenews.org/files/the_biology_of_global_warming.pdf
Employment:
Advocates for the project speak mainly about the prospect of family-wage blue-collar jobs, although there is as much disagreement about those numbers as there is about the net tax advantage. It is true that the alternative economic analysis deals more with the damage to professional job-prospects, and while a now-familiar argument for clean energy is about creating offshoring-proof jobs in all sectors, in all probability most of those would accrue to the strong marine sector from Anacortes south through Tacoma, rather than here in the north sound. But the working community in the area has long been exceptionally mobile, witness the deep connection with Alaska through the fishing industry and those who serve area refineries. In my experience, all sectors of the workforce value the exceptional amenities of the Pacific Northwest and do not want it damaged unnecessarily.

GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, ETC.
CFC: Chlorinated fluorocarbons. Formerly used as refrigerants, as propellant in consumer aerosol products, and in plastic foams
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
GHG: Greenhouse gas
CCS: Carbon capture and storage/sequestration
SOx, NOx: Oxide families of sulfur and nitrogen, containing major causes of acid rain, smog and some GHG
Hg, As, Cd, Pb, Cr: Mercury, arsenic, cadmium, lead, chromium
Pigovian: An economics which accounts for costs associated with production and use otherwise not borne by the seller of a product
“Black Swan:” Unpredictable large-scale disruptive events, some of the class of which are certain to happen
IMO International Maritime Organization
GWP Gross world product
“Wedge” Concept of addressing climate change through a combination of policies and existing technologies, each of which would address one of 15 or so sectors of the problem and so subtracting a “wedge” of the area under the curve of a graph of projected exponential increases of GHG/temperature rise
Thorium: Th232, two elements down from uranium; abundant, its main defect is said to be an inability to produce plutonium
Albedo: Power to reflect light or heat

Martin Schwartz (#6149)

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

Martin Shekell (#13540)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
Build it, Put people back to work. Bring money into the community. BNSF can have water showers evey 50-75 miles to keep any coal dust down. This is the Pacific NW. it rains here. that will also keep any coal dust down. Again, build this thing. Lets get people back to work.

Martin Stewart (#3105)

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

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. At a time when we are in desperate need of eliminating Energy Imports the last thing we should be doing is allowing the Koch Bros. and their criminal cohorts to rape and pillage, To destroy our environment our parks etc. Stopping this devastation should also be a matter of national security fueling China will economically destroy us!

Sincerely,

Martin Stewart
7570 SW Cherry Dr
Tigard, OR 97223-8042
(503) 968-2855

Martin Watterson (#3826)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Hello,
The negative impact on our community, county, state, country and world of the proposed terminal would be large. The potential short term economic gains for a relative few individuals will not outweigh the ultimate negative impacts. One only need look at the outrageous costs of trying to clean Bellingham Bay and the Salish Sea (Puget Sound) after damage created naively through the past century and a half of industry.

On a more simple, short term economic note, please review this recent post in the Bellingham Herald:


Alaska coal terminal lays off workers, cites drop in Asian demand (Politics Blog)
THE BELLINGHAM HERALD (JOHN STARK)
Published: Nov 30, 2012, 10:52 AM
A coal terminal in Seward, Alaska is laying off some workers because managers say there has been a drop in demand for its coal in Asia and elsewhere.
I am strongly opposed to this proposed terminal. At best there will be many negative impacts that we can predict and likely many unforeseen that we will regret in the future. Please do not support a coal terminal in Whatcom County or elsewhere in our state.

Sincerely,
Martin Watterson, MD
1406 West Illinois Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 220-1035

Martin Wells (#5115)

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

Martin Wormald (#1496)

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

Martin & Jasmine Loberg (#2184)

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

Martin & Jasmine Logerg (#2402)

Date Submitted: 11/02/12
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Martin & Sheryl Selch (#5562)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Impact
Locomotive engine, track & horn noise impacts psychological health

Significance
psychological impacts and associated medical costs
economic impacts on worker productivity due to loss of sleep
Reduction in real estate values in noise impacted areas
loss of revenue to local governments from reduced property tax receipts

Measurements
Document dba levels at and near crossings
Document dba levels at multiple distances from tracks under range of conditions: wind speed & direction, relative humidity, air temperature

Impact
Locomotive exhaust

Significance
Air pollution effects on health

Measurements
Particulates, other air quality metrics

Martin & Sheryl Selch (#5563)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Impact:
Ship engine exhaust while idling
Environmental impacts of coal freighter capsizing

Significance:
Air pollution
Water pollution

Martin & Sheryl Selch (#5564)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The economic and personal safety impacts on the citizenry of Washington must be included in the scope of the EIS.

1.Many businesses locate to Bellingham and other cities in Washington for the natural beauty and non-urban, non-industrial environment that many cities, especially Bellingham, offer. However, with increased train traffic through town, the impacts of noise and traffic congestion is sure to drive many of these businesses out of town in search of the conditions they originally came seeking. This will result in a loss of jobs in the area and this impact must be included in the net job count resulting from the GPT project.
2.The City of Bellingham has many public areas along the waterfront that will be adversely affected by increased train traffic. These impacts are likely to include the maiming or death of pedestrians crossing tracks, at both marked and unmarked crossing points. Examples of areas of significance in this regard are Boulevard Park, Larrabee State Park, Marine Park.
3.The City of Bellingham should not be responsible to pay for improvements to rail crossings to ensure safety. This cost should be entirely borne by the GPT developer.

Martin & Sheryl Selch (#5566)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Global climate change impacts

What are the impacts on climate change, of mining coal and shipping it to China for use?

Martine Springer (#7646)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
This is such a very, very important topic and I urge all involved to please look at what has already happen in Washington State.

Our government entities have already allowed the decimation of our most important herring spawning stock in Washington. They allowed development at Cherry Pt to occur in a manner that destroyed a spawning ground that was formerly as large as all other Washington spawning sites combined! Herring are the most important keystone species in the Salish Sea ecosystem, yet they are treated like vermin. Impacts from this dastardly policy are reverberating far and wide. The Salish Sea has experienced a sea bird crash that exactly matches that of the Cherry Pt herring stock: a 90% decline over the past quarter century. Yes, that's right - no one really cares about birds in our culture. But we've all heard about the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" as a leading indicator of our own demise. The herring crash impact has affected more than sea birds - ground fish, endangered salmon stocks, endangered orca whales, and more, are negatively impacted. What has already occurred is shameful and criminally negligent. Someday, our business and political leadership needs to realize that an intact ecosystem is essential to human survival and that destroying our natural capital is a crime against future generations. Someday, they need to learn that long-term thinking must replace their current myopic style of analyzing cost/benefit. I strongly urge you to drop this "quick and dirty" scheme and seek something "slow and clean" to build a sustainable economy in our state.

Thank you for responding to my comments.

Martine & J Elenbaas & Novak (#1968)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Marty Stitsel (#5116)

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

Marvin Wolff (#8846)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
My name is Marvin Wolff.

We have concerns about air quality that should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Study. Air quality in Los Angeles Harbor and Long Beach harbor was adversely affected by the emissions from ships being unloaded and loaded in the ports. The two ports took steps to mitigate this problem by installing port-side power supplies so that these ships could be functional without using their own generators. Installing these systems after the problems arose was more costly than if they had been installed initially. It would seem appropriate if the Gateway Terminal operators would install such systems as part of the initial construction project. It would both save money and keep the air cleaner in the future. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Marvin Wolff.

Mary Anderson (#14417)

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

Mary Armstrong (#2385)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I am a resident of Ferndale, Washington and regularly walk the beach at the site of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal.

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.

Your actions are important to me and to my community.

Thank you.


Mary Armstrong
5968 Abbey Rd
Ferndale, WA 98248

Mary Bartholet (#12814)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Shoreline, 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. Coal is devastating to the environment.

Mary Belshaw (#3630)

Date Submitted: 11/27/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mary Belshaw (#4728)

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

Mary Belshaw (#5674)

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

mary belshaw (#6528)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: everett, wa
Comment:
I live near the BSNF tracks in Everett and have witnessed slides along the tracks and was walking near the tracks just before a mudslide caused 7 trains to derail. As of January 4, 1013, 74 "blocking events" have hit the tracks between Seattle and Everett, causing delays and suspension of Sounder commuter trains along those tracks.

Please study the adverse and cumulative effects of those mudslides and how they are exacerbated by the huge increase of coal train traffic. We know that mudslides can derail trains and fear that the next derailment may be a coal train. Who will pay for that clean up? While waiting for the tracks to be cleared, are the trains idling? Diesel particulates from idling trains may be a serious health hazard. This is an accident waiting to happen.

mary belshaw (#6738)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: everett, wa
Comment:
I live part time near the mouth of the Elwha River on the Straits of Juan de Fuca. We watch the changes as the dams are dismantled and hear about the re-emergence of salmon varieties entering the river. I agree with Joseph Gaydos, VMD, Chief Scientist and Wildlife Veterinarian, UC Davis Wildlife Health Center, Orcas Island, in his Nov. 3, 2012 letter. He asks that the Co-Lead agencies study all the waters the vessels will be traveling, including the marine waters of Whatcom, Skagit, San Juan, Jefferson, and Clallam counties, as well as the waters of British Columbia. He lists the reasons that the Salish Sea is in a "non-resilient state of decay" and cannot survive increased vessel noise or a major oil spill. He requests an analysis of the effects of new potential stressors on efery species of animal that is threatened, endangered, or of concern. Thank you.

mary belshaw (#7731)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: everett, wa
Comment:
I garden in a low income neighborhood in Everett, WA near the BNSF tracks and worry that our garden food will be clean enough for my family with the addition of 18-20 coal trains. I agree with Dr. Arthur Winer, distinguished Professor Emeritus, Environmental Health Services Dept., School of Public Health UCLA who points out there is a disproportionate impact on low income communities which are closer to transportation corridors and that there needs to be air monitoring adjacent to and downward of train tracks. Further, there needs to be a focus on unregulated as well as regulated pollutants and because there are coal terminals in the US and British Columbia, this monitoring could be done now. Please study the cumulative adverse effects of coal dust and diesel particulates and their contribution to air pollution from Montana/Wyoming to Asia and back as the coal is burned. Thank you.

mary belshaw (#8735)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: everett, wa
Comment:
I live on Puget Sound in Everett,WA, and enjoy the close proximity of the beautiful San Juan Islands. I agree with Dr. Gary Green of Orcas Island who, on Jan.3 wrote about the potential impact that fugitive coal particles would have on the health on survival of a critical forage fish in the region. His concern is what will happen if even more coal is brought into the estuary of the San Juan Archipelago and Southern Georgian Basin.

Please study the cumulative effects of increasing coal particles in natural sediments along our fragile and precious coastal water, their toxicity to benthic organisims, and how far those particles would be distributed from their entry point.

Thank you.

Mary Benham (#5494)

Date Submitted: 12/24/12
Location: Spokane, 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 college town of Cheney, WA, where I work at Eastern Washington University as an advisor with the Honors Program.

There are already frequent long trains through Cheney and they must sound their loud horns at crossings. Many students live within a few blocks of the tracks. Increased coal trains will mean hourly very loud horn noise, day and night. This will disrupt sleep and make it impossible to keep windows open in hot weather.

It is not reasonable to inflict hourly long coal trains blaring their horns passing through the small community of Cheney. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal will have a negative impact of the city of Cheney and all parts of Spokane County that are within a mile or two of the tracks.

Mary Benham (#12942)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington.

My NEW COMMENT:

Spokane often has burning bans in the winter because inversions cause smoke and pollution to linger and cause serious breathing problems and allergic reactions.

The EPA needs to study the relationship between Spokane's yearly inversions and the increased diesil emissions the 60 per day coal trains will bring. I believe these trains typically have at least three engins when carrying full loads of coal,

Responsible agencies (EPA?) need to determine prior to permitting any ports on the coast if we need restrictions on the railroads during periods of inversion to reduce emissions and protect the health of the community.

This is a well documented and specific problem for Spokane.

As already stated:

This proposal would negatively affect Spokane 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.

Mary Bicknell (#308)

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.

Our salmon are already i danger of extinction in the Columbia river.
Coal dust can only harm water quality. Please don't let this happen.

Sincerely,

Mary Bicknell

Mary Branson (#534)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Centralia, WA
Comment:
There should be NO need for a coal export terminal ANYWHERE, certainly not such a beautiful place. . .

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,

Mary Branson

Mary Burke (#13043)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
We need to continually decrease dependence on coal all over the world because of the long term climate change resulting from the use of such fossil fuels. While there is an economic short-term return, the danger to the air quality and the environment are far more essential and ethical reasons to not proceed.

This decision brings ramifications to countless people for many, many years. The issue deserves objective, extensive study and full disclosure of both the pros and cons. There must be many open exchanges by all the communities affected.

Mary Carr (#4437)

Date Submitted: 12/04/12
Location: Spokane, 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.

I would have been at the Dec. 4 meeting in Spokane to voice my opposition, but I was home sick with the flu. My absence should not be misinterpreted as not caring. This will have a definite adverse impact on our city and our region.




Mary Carr
119 E. 17th Ave.
Spokane, WA 99203

Mary Chapman (#3942)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Location: Arlington, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mary Cheston (#419)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Coupeville, WA
Comment:
I know I am likely to get a positive response if I remain politically correct. But I ask you, how can all of you decision makers live with yourselves approving this project?

Shall we all just continue to ruin the entire planet, bad decision by bad decision?

It's unconscionable.

Mary Clark (#10526)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Redmond, OR
Comment:
I agree with Dr. Sara Mostad's comments. This project will be very damaging as it goes through the Columbia River gorge and the Pacific Northwest coastal area, not to mention that it will be burned in China and its pollution will increase global warming and come back to us here in the USA. Global warming is a real and imminent threat.

There are threats to human health which can reduce life expectancy and create health care costs to those involved. Who will pay those costs? Jobs and tax revenues must be balanced with damage to health and the world's climate and environment.

I live in Redmond, Oregon, and my daughter lives in Portland. She is being married this summer at Gorge Crest Vineyard on the Columbia River where her fiance likes to kite board. The gorge area is important to us and to many others. I urge you not to allow this damaging project to go through.

Mary Closson (#12775)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Wilsonville, OR
Comment:
I DO NOT want a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. I am a resident of the Portland, Oregon metro area and this terminal would affect the quality of life we enjoy here.

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 must put our health and quality of life first when considering such dangerous actions as a coal export terminal!

Mary Colborn (#11273)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Comment:
Climate change is a serious issue that adversely affects millions of people a year costing billions of dollars. NASA scientist James Hansen and others recommend that we don't continue our dependence on extracted carbon, that we must stop pulling carbon from the Earth, and must instead find renewable energy solutions.

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 need to fast forward our recovery from our addiction to fossil fuels. We mustn't destroy more pristine areas to feed our addiction. Don't pollute our beautiful state of Washington by opening it up to coal export. Please stop....

Mary Cole (#14120)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Everson, WA
Comment:
Please use great caution and thoroughly examine the impact of coal moving through our region. All six possible coal export terminals should be studied together, along wtih all areas the coal would pass through on its way to the terminals.

I am worried about the negative impacts of this coal chain in my community, on a personal, local, regional, and global level.

If we allow coal terminals and then later decide it was a mistake, it may be too late to mitigate the detrimental effects produced. Please support a cumulative and comprehensive area-wide environmental impact statement.

Mary Corcoran (#1580)

Date Submitted: 10/28/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
My concern regards, Blocked Emergency Response at Rail Crossings
Please include in your EIS study the impact this will have on the numerous rail crossings that will be affected along the entire route from Montana to the port. I feel this is very important due to the fact that the trains will travel through many highly populated areas.
Thank you

Mary Corcoran (#1627)

Date Submitted: 10/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I am concerned that it is estimated that during wind events, coal dust will be blown from coal piles to locations up to 5 miles away, as has been observed at the Point Roberts terminal, and it will be inhaled, in the water, covering the wildlife and/.or vegetation.
Please extensively study the affects of the possibility of such and event occuring and the mitigation necessary.
Thank you

Mary Corcoran (#1768)

Date Submitted: 10/30/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
My concern relates to how the quality of life that is nationally known as very high in Bellingham will be affected by over 950 annual transits of immense coal ships and an additional 18 coal trains passing through every day.
Please include this in the scope of the EIS.
Thank you

Mary Corcoran (#2131)

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

Mary Corcoran (#2303)

Date Submitted: 11/04/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
My concern regards the massive amount of water that will be taken from the Nooksak River to simply keep the piles of coal from starting on fire. In my mind the EIS needs to truly address the fact that a non renewable resource will be wasted on dirty coal and how will the run off from this affect the water quality in the long run.
Thank you.
Mary Corcoran

Mary Corcoran (#6332)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I agree with the comment of Chom Greacen. (The full comment is copied below) I too feel the party(s) responsible for the economic burden in the case of a disaster needs to be established before one shovel full of dirt is moved to begin this coal port.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Mary Corcoran

Name: Greacen, Chom
Date: Oct. 25, 2012
City: Lopez Island
Part: Multiple/not listed
Human environment: Human health, Traffic or safety, Other human environment topic
Natural environment: Wildlife or vegetation, Marine species, fish or fisheries, Water quality
EIS process: Alternatives, Area of potential effect
Comment: This comment concerns seismic risks and tsunamis.

The EIS study needs to analyze the risks and impacts of earthquakes/tsunamis to coal bulk carriers and the export terminal. A study by Oregon State University (see http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/node/13426) found that the northern “Cascadia subduction zone”, from WA to Vancouver island have a 10-15% chance of a mega-quake (magnitude 8 or greater) within the next 50 years. Another study by scientists at the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), Canada's premier agency for geoscientific information and research (under the Department of Natural Resources) also found the chance of up to 14% of a “great earthquake within 50 years. But the chance could be significantly higher (up to 40%) if the quakes occur in “clusters”, a concept not totally well understood by scientists yet (Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/about/workshops/PacNWworkshoptalks/AdamsCascCondProbUSGS06.pdf).

Questions:
In the worst case scenario, what would be the magnitude and location of quakes and tsunamis? What would be the extent and nature of destruction and damages to the coal vessels and export terminal caused by the “worst case” quakes and tsunamis?

The nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi complex was designed to withstand the “worst case” quakes and tsunami only to find out in hindsight that quakes worse than “worst case” do happen and the facilities were far from being 100% quake- or tsunami-proof as the engineers/government claimed. Are ships or the dock designed and built to be “earthquake-proven” or “tsumani-proven”? If so, how? If not, why not?

What would the resulting impacts (on ecology, property, public health, economy, etc.) from “worst case” damage to coal carriers and export terminal look like? What’s our current capacity to respond to or clean up spills or related damages? Is that sufficient? What would sufficient capacity look like? How long will it take to restore the health of our marine environment, shoreline ecology and island economy? What would be the estimated damages in dollars if such a “worst case” event were to happen?

Are there arrangements and plans being made by any agency or companies involved to increase our collective preparedness in case of such disastrous events? By whom? Is there sufficient funding to increase our preparedness to deal with such disastrous events? If not, where should the fund come from? SJ residents are not benefiting from increasing shipping traffic but have to bear a lot of risks.

Are there any provisions that require businesses that benefit from coal export (from mining companies to railways, terminal and shipping companies) to pay for increased preparedness and set aside sufficient funds for clean up activities and compensation damages (without residents having to engage in decades-long lawsuits to seek justice and redress)?

If the risk of a major earthquake and tsunami that can adversely affect coal carriers and terminal is not zero and there is no positive assurance that the resulting devastating impacts can be mitigated, the project should not get built in the first place.

Mary Corcoran (#6766)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Good Evening, I live in Bellingham, WA. While I am very concerned about the impact this terminal and the coal export will have on our community I feel this is something that is going to impact so many citizens in 5 states from the powder river basin to Bellingham and other ports that the study has to take all of this into account. Too much is at stake.
* Arch coal has agreements Ambre Energy and Kinder Morgan of the three proposed terminals on the Columbia River.

** Those terminals propose to ship a combined 82 million metric tons of coal per year, and would require a minimum of 27 round-trip rail passages from/to the Powder River Basin.

** All coal bound for the west coast will probably go west through the Columbia River Gorge, including trains ultimately bound for GPT (16 round-trip passages) and Coos Bay (3.6 train passages).

** Grand total round trip train passages IF every train is 1.6 miles long: 46.

** Grand total coal proposed to be exported through the five terminals proposed in Oregon and Washington: 155 million metric tons (for perspective, the U.S. exported 110 mmt of coal TOTAL in 2011). This is a seismic shift in U.S. export of this commodity, impacting a region of 5 states with an infrastructure system that was never designed for activity at this level.

The federal government must look systemically at the effect of all these proposals on rail communitieis in considering impacts to the environment, human health, traffic, economies, etc. Without a programmatic EIS that models all possible rail expansion, regulators have no basis on which to identify indirect impacts or measure cumulative impacts which include reasonably foreseeable future activities. The Surface Transportation Board should stop addressing proposed expansions in the Powder River Basin in a piecemeal fashion, and conduct a rail PEIS so that all potentially impacted populations can be given proper notice of how they may be impacted.

Thank you very much for accepting my comment,
Mary Corcoran

Mary Davies (#3631)

Date Submitted: 11/21/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mary Dulin (#871)

Date Submitted: 10/18/12
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
To EIS scoping authorities:

The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal will have serious impacts of the quality of life for residents of Western Washington. Consideration must be given to the various potential environmental impacts that a proposed terminal would have.

Impacts to air quality should be considered in all communities thru which the trains run - both the increased train fuel emissions and coal dust. What negative impacts will the trains, ships, and loading equipment have on the air quality? How will children with asthma or seniors with compromised lung function be impacted? How will the coal that falls from the train before arriving at the terminal affect local air quality?

Water quality must be considered - in event of a coal train derailment in all communities thru which the trains run, and in the vicinity of the proposed terminal. What negative impacts will the trains, ships, and loading equipment have on the water quality? How will the coal that falls off the train enroute to the terminal impact Puget Sound?

I understand the proposed terminal is near a marine reserve - what impact will the terminal have on local fisheries, wetlands, marine life, endangered orcas, etc?

The addition of 18 more trains will have a negative impact on traffic flows in towns such as Marysville, Edmonds, and other communities that have railroad crossings on major streets. Public safety will be negatively impacted as emergency vehicles and personnel are delayed.

The financial impact of noisy trains that are polluting our air and water and delaying traffic, including emergency services, must be considered, as all these factors will have a negative impact on the quality of life for all those who live or visit areas where the trains will be enroute.

The health impacts of the proposed terminal must be considered, including factors such as increased lung impairment and related treatment, and delayed emergency vehicles.

I hope that all impacts of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal will be considered.

Mary Dulin and Tom Benner
1216 W Mukilteo Blvd
Everett, WA 98203

Mary Duvall (#12979)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Clatskanie, OR
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.

Given the current air particulate pollution in China how can you even consider allowing further contribution of greenhouse gases via coal. Given that people are dying, children are sick with asthma, even when they don't go outside, heart attacks are doubling, how can you even participate in this insanity. No coal, no transportation of coal, no allowing foreign international corporations to destroy the quality of life here and across the earth. You have a responsibility to the citizens of this nation. Air, water, soil, the ability to breathe, drink water, eat unpolluted food, all of these are priorities for the survival of all biological species, including humans. Life before profit, please, in the end we all die if we get this wrong. And you are a link in the decision chain. Decide for clean air, please.

mary evitt (#11313)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: La Conner, WA
Comment:
Please consider the effects of a coal vessel sinking or colliding with other commercial shipping. Increasing traffic on our inland waters raises the risk of a mishap on Puget Sound and its environs. The damage to marine life could replicate the Exxon Valdez disaster!

Mary Evitt (#13518)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
Please consider the fallout from coal trains on people’s health in the USA and China. I grew up in a coal-fired England with choking fog, air particulates and lung difficulties. Pollution eased when burning coal was banned and substitutes found. Why turn back the clock to line the pockets of rich industrialists? Here in Skagit County, emergency vehicles often cross multiple rail lines to reach patients and for returning to hospitals. The coal trains will surely delay ambulances and could even bring them to a halt if there’s a problem on a rail line. In a mass casualty incident, clogged streets will increase fatalities in an area prone to earthquakes and flooding of the Skagit River.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Mary Evitt

Mary Ferm (#1228)

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

Mary Ferm (#2212)

Date Submitted: 11/02/2012
Location: Bainbridge Island, Wa
Comment:
My family has lived in the Puget Sound area since 1889, we are committed to staying in this area, and therefore we consider the long term impacts of developments, not just the short term "benefits". We treasure the healthy environment due to the relatively low pollution levels in the air and water. My grandparents were marine biologists, so we have a heightened awareness of environmental issues. Currently we live on Bainbridge Island, and my parents live on San Juan Island, my daughter lives in Seattle.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of coal ash to the air and water quality. Coal is full of toxins. Coal trains derail and spill, as happened earlier this year in another part of the county. Ash flies out of open train cars. A coal port would need to be designed so that ash is not released to the ambient air during transportation and transfer between containers. Ships use a very dirty type of fuel, and an oil spill would devastate the coastline on the west side of San Juan Island where my parents live and where we own property. An oil spill plan and equipment and personnel would need to be in place, funded by the coal port, not at public expense. This is a business expense, and should be built into the price of the product.
We are already struggling to keep Puget Sound clean. Victoria still discharges raw sewage into Haro Strait. Noctaluca red tide events are becoming so common it is difficult to harvest shellfish. Fish are so scarce that rockfishing was not allowed in 2012, and the orcas are few and undernourished. Additional pollution from coal ships could create a burden on the marine life that would make rebounds in these populations impossible.
I am skeptical about the number of jobs that the coal port claims it would create. Please study who would get these jobs: women or mostly men, current residents or new residents, young workers or mature workers. Who is it that needs jobs now in Whatcom Co, women or men, young workers or mature workers? Would these port jobs target the specific populations that need jobs?
I am confounded by the idea of using so much carbon-producing fuel to transport a low-efficiency fuel such long distances. Please study how much energy would be used to mine, transport by train, transfer to ships, and transport the coal to its destination, compared to how much energy it would produce when burned. What kind of efficiency would result from this, and how will the company mitigate its contribution of carbon to the atmosphere and resulting climate change and health impacts?
The argument that if we don't sell coal to China (or wherever), then someone else will is specious. Please study how our not sending coal to China would lower their supply, increase the price, and decrease consumption. This is what happens to our fuel prices in the US, for example, when there is a war in Libya or Iraq. The price goes up and we use less.
What impact will the burning of this coal in the Far East have on global air quality and west coast air quality, and resulting human health and impacts on agriculture? I have seen articles in the journal Science about how pollution in California is significantly contributed to by particulates generated in Asia. Just because we are "far away" does not mean that it will not impact our health here. A good study on black carbon and climate change and human health was published 13 Jan 2012 in Science, vol 335, p 183.
Please do a cost benefit analysis that includes all the health, agricultural and environmental costs of the entire operation, not just the small area around the coal port itself. The entire corridor along the train track, through the waterways, and the eventual burning of the coal needs to be considered.
Thank you,

Mary Ferm (#6182)

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

Mary Fiddler (#13158)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Comment:
When the pollution in Beijing has already reached unlivable levels, how can you even think of exporting coal to China? The pollution from their coal fired plants is already reaching our west coast. Do not destroy our future as well as China's, and line the pockets of the Coal industry CEOs, just for the sake of a few jobs now.

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.

Mary Forrester (#7628)

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

Mary Frederichs (#1404)

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

Mary Freundlich (#7657)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mary Froderberg (#7533)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Gateway Pacific talks about the jobs the terminal will produce. What about the jobs the terminal will destroy?
Herring spawn in the eel grass that grows at Cherry Point. Salmon eat the herring. Orcas eat the salmon. Tourists come to see the Orcas.
A Gateway Pacific Terminal pier & ships coming to load, will destroy the eel grass, as the other terminals at Cherry Point have. Hence, what is left of the fishing & tourism jobs will be destroyed.
Do we want to exchange pollution producing jobs for environmentally friendly jobs?

Mary Froderberg (#7772)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
A spokesman for Gateway Pacific Terminal, Donald Vincent, phoned me twice, then sent me a promotional packet for GPT in the spring of 2012. During the 2nd phone call, in response to my concern for the eel grass that grows at Cherry Point, he said, "eel
grass needs light to grow. GPT will install mirrors under the pier to reflect sun light."
Sounded like smoke & mirrors to me.

Then he said, "Don't worry, eel grass grows all up & down the Washington & B.C. Coasts. There are plenty of places for the herring to spawn." I know this is not true.
It seems to me GPT will say anything to get their way. To me, this demonstrates that if GPT gets their facility at Cherry Point, & gets their foot in the door, there is no telling what they will do.

May I ask you to study dishonesty at GPT?

Mary Froderberg (#10977)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please consider sulphur in coal being leeched out, becoming sulphuric acid & poisoning the ground along the tracks, the ground wherever coal dust falls, killing the vegetation, & polluting the air. Sulphur in coal becomes sulphuric acid when leeched out during extraction, exporting, burning, or when it gets wet.

If this coal is exported to Asia, burned there, the sulphuric acid in the atmosphere will end up here because of the prevailing winds.

Mary Froderberg (#10979)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please consider sulphur in coal being leeched out, becoming sulphuric acid & poisoning the ground along the tracks, the ground wherever coal dust falls, killing the vegetation, & polluting the air. Sulphur in coal becomes sulphuric acid when leeched out during extraction, exporting, burning, or when it gets wet.

If this coal is exported to Asia, burned there, the sulphuric acid in the atmosphere will end up here because of the prevailing winds.

Mary Froderberg (#11679)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Will you please consider the dishonesty of Gateway Pacific Terminal, & consequences of it, if the terminal is allowed to be built. There is no telling what they will do once their foot is in the door.

Instances of dishonesty that I know of:
1. In the beginning, rearranging the Cherry Point land without a permit.

2. Donald Vincent, spokesman for GPT, telling me eel grass needs sunlight to grow, so GPT will attach mirrors under their pier to reflect the sunlight.

3. Donald Vincent, spokesman for GPT, telling me eel grass grows all up & down the Washington & B.C. Coasts so herring have plenty of places to spawn. I know this is not true.

4. Since first proposal, the number of jobs GPT said it would furnish, kept growing.

5. If the terminal at Cherry Point is not built, GPT says we will have coal trains coming up the coast anyway, bringing coal to Canadian ports. This is not true.

6. We were notified of a GPT information conference call, in which we could ask questions. I must have given away my true colors to the screener because we were never allowed to speak. Neither was anyone else who might have had a troubling question. Only enthusiastic proponents of GPT spoke. One told a lie about opponents of the terminal. One person questioned the veracity of what he had been told by GPT & was immediately cut off.


roGPT says there will be trains going up our coast & through all the cities & towns anyway, delivering coal to the Canadian terminals. That is not true.

Mary GREENOUGH (#11533)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
In view of the negative impact of the terminal do we want that for Bellingham? The fact that Bellingham has several places in town where the streets ( C street ti be exact) someone will be seriously injured or killed. With 40 trains going through town daily as reported in the paper there it will cut off the waterfront area businesses from the rest of the city. Also the air quality with all the coal dust is a real concern. We will have more children and adults with lung problems.

Mary Gropp (#6023)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Comment:
Please address the issue of underwater vessel noise, and the potential impact on all marine animals. A recent study by UW researchers found that the effect of noise produced by marine vessel traffic on marine organisms is not fully understood, but likely affects fish and squid, as well as marine mammals. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020054352_pugetnoise04m.html
Baseline data of current levels of vessel noise needs to be compared to the probable increase caused by the addition of the proposed very large ships traveling the waters of the Salish Sea to Cherry Pt.

Mary Gropp (#6024)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Comment:
Please address the issue of underwater vessel noise, and the potential impact on all marine animals. A recent study by UW researchers found that the effect of noise produced by marine vessel traffic on marine organisms is not fully understood, but likely affects fish and squid, as well as marine mammals. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020054352_pugetnoise04m.html
Baseline data of current levels of vessel noise needs to be compared to the probable increase caused by the addition of the proposed very large ships traveling the waters of the Salish Sea to Cherry Pt.

Mary Gropp (#6083)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
Please study the cumulative release of copper from rail traffic into marine and wetland environments, and please study the potential effects of rail traffic-generated copper pollution on the local marine and wetland ecosystems.

The increased rail traffic created by the Gateway Pacific Terminal project would travel for many miles very near the shoreline of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea; the rails also pass through numerous wetland areas, and over rivers passing from the Cascade Mountains to the salt water. Also, the Cherry Point Terminal lies in the immediate uplands of a crucial herring spawning ground. All of these are sensitive to increased copper accumulation.
Copper is an environmental contaminant that is highly toxic for aquatic plants and animals (see extensive documentation in comment submitted by Richard Steinhardt, December 5, 2012).

The accumulations of toxins added by the increased rail traffic of this project needs to be considered on its own; the toxin accumulations also need to be looked at on top of the current pollutant load of all other current uses of the Puget Sound basin.

"Long-term Management of Track Ballast- A Case Study In Prevention and Recycling of Large Waste Flows" Ulrich Kral, Vienna University of Technology and Paul H. Brunner, Vienna University of Techology presented at the 2010 ISWA World Congress

This study shows that significant amounts of copper are released from level sections of railways where trains are neither accelerating nor braking. 9.4 kilograms of copper per kilometer of railway were estimated to be lost to the environment per year. 9.4 kilograms per kilometer per year equals 200 pounds per six miles per year.

http://www.railway-research.org/IMG/pdf/b4_kral_ulrich.pdf

http://www.iswa.org/uploads/tx_iswaknowledgebase/Kral.pdf

Mary Gropp (#6085)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
My name is Mary Gropp. I have lived in San Juan County for 35 years. In the mid-1970's I attended Western Washington University in Bellingham. At that time the Georgia Pacific pulp mill was still actively working; the air quality of downtown Bellingham was poor, and the stench often spread up the hill to my apartment. During this time, many of the active stores and businesses left downtown, and the area became unwelcoming.
Now my son lives in Bellingham, and I enjoy visiting the downtown area. The farmers market, small restaurants and interesting shops have combined with new offices, condominiums, and the development of walking and biking trails have brought a new vitality, welcoming to residents and tourists alike.
Please evaluate the adverse impact that the proposed increased train traffic will have on Bellingham. Consider the noise, the disruption of traffic, and the impact of coal dust spread along the tracks and into the air. What significant impact will this have on the economy, and on tourism? How will businesses be effected, when downtown once again becomes a dirty, unhealthy and unwelcoing place to do business?
Thank you.

Mary Gropp (#10199)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I am a 40 year resident of San Juan County. I raised my two sons here, now one lives in Bellingham. They are young adults now, and not a day passes that I don't worry about their future- often my worries are due to the environmental degradation, and the responsibilities to address severe problems, that we are passing on to the next generations. I want them to be able to have children, to raise them in a place that is healthy.
I am writing to express my concerns about proposals involving coal mining in the Powder River Basin and the transport, export, and burning of this coal in Asia which are under consideration in the Pacific Northwest. In particular, I am very concerned about the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point. Though the GPT is closed geographically to me, we need to address the potential impacts of this proposal at the global level.
I am seconding the concerns addressed in an earlier comment: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6908
In particular,
"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."

"... through a cumulative analysis for the proposed GPT, determine the total amount of CO2 emissions that would result from the mining, transport by rail, export by cargo ship, and burning of 48 million tons of Powder River Basin coal over the life of the project. How will all these emissions impact and accelerate climate changes in Washington state? In particular, what will be the impacts on the glaciers of the North Cascades, on ocean acidification that is detrimental to marine ecosystems and shellfish, on precipitation that contributes to river and stream flow in the summer months that is crucial to salmon and agriculture?

Thank you for addressing these concerns.

Mary Gropp (#10201)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I am a resident of San Juan County, the only county in the state entirely surrounded by ocean water. Vessels inbound and outbound from the Cherry Point refineries, British Columbia container, coal, and tar-sands terminals, and the refineries at Anacortes all use the narrow shipping corridors around our islands. Projected ship traffic from the proposed Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal will add an additional 972 Panamax and Capesize ship transits through our waters each year at full build-out.

Residents of San Juan County live in the cente of this shipping traffic, so we are concerned about the added impact of the GPT coal ships, to the already heavy vessel traffic. The EIS for the GPT needs to reach farther than the impacts to the Cherry Point site. The marine transport issue needs to be fully considered.

Therefore, I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement fully and completely include the linked and cumulative activities of transporting 50 million tons of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming by rail to the proposed export terminal at Cherry Point and then transporting those millions of tons by ship through the Salish Sea to Asia.

I write in agreement to the specific suggestions and concerns expressed by San Olson of Lopez Island: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6044
Please conduct a thorough, comprehensive vessel traffic study which should at least include the points he deliniates in his comments.
Thank you.

Mary Gropp (#10203)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I am a 40 year resident of San Juan County. I am writing to express my concern about the impact of vessel traffic in and out of the Gateway Pacific Terminal. Please include in the EIS the potential impacts of vessel noise, potential oil spills, traffic safety, bilge water pollutants, and diesel exhaust fumes- not only on the Salish Sea, but along the entire shipping route. All vessels that enter the Salish Sea bound for ports in Washington and British Columbia go through the Straits of Rosario or Haro around the San Juans, and return, exiting at the Strait of Juan de Fuca to follow the Great Circle Route. The EIS should include this entire route.

I endorse and agree with the points about vessel impact made by San Olson of Lopez Island in two comments:
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/1567
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6044

Thank you.

Mary Gropp (#10206)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I want the studies conducted described by Dr. Greene in his comment of January 3, 2013
incorporated into the EIS for the Gateway Pacific Terminal.

http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/5913

Mary Gropp (#10208)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
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. I also request that the scope of the EIS include a study of the risk and all impacts of fugitive coal dust en route to and from the coal mines in the Powder River Basin to the GPT terminal at Cherry Point.
The toxic elements in coal dust have been documented; at what point do mercury, arsenic, cadmium, uranium and other elements in coal reach "dangerous" levels in our soils, waters, and that which we consume?

I agree with the specific comments, documentation and requests made by Mary Ruth Holder, who has researched this issue extensively:
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6108

Mary Haberman (#9803)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I have lived, played and worked as a teacher in Bellingham for over two decades and value the natural beauty and commitment to sustainability of this special community. I am very concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed GPT project on our community’s environment and that of the entire planet. In particular, I urge you to include in your statement, the impact GPT project will have on carbon emissions and climate change.

Coal is a major contributor to pollutants in the atmosphere that have increased climate change. Climate change has resulted in dramatic changes that have a significant potential to get worse. We are seeing increased natural disasters (hurricanes, monsoons), rapid reduction of glaciers and ice, rising sea levels and droughts. Human and animal habitats are disappearing and water supplies are depleted. Here in Whatcom County we may also see our glaciers disappear and with decreased glacial run-off, our clean hydroelectricity capacities will be significantly diminished. (EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/northwest.html )

With the proposed terminal, up to 54 million metric tons of coal a year will be exported to China. At a time when the US has reduced its reliance on coal and we use none for electricity in our community, it doesn’t make sense to encourage its use elsewhere. In 2005, coal burning accounted for 41% of CO2 emissions worldwide. 40% of all global electricity comes from coal burning and by 2030 the world demand for electricity may double! Emissions may get much worse if we continue on this course! (Source: Epstein, Paul R. and others “Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal” in Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1219 (2011) 73–98 c_ 2011 New York Academy of Sciences.)

I do not see a way for this environmental impact to be mitigated. Coal shipped to China will be burned and cause huge emissions. The environmental impact affects us all, wherever the coal is burned. (China recently surpassed the US as the number 1 country in the world for carbon emissions.) A better plan would be encourage alternative energy use for China and other developing countries.

I believe we are in a pivotal time in human history when we are aware of the damage we are doing to the environment through fossil fuel use and know we need to change. It is vital that the EIS make it crystal clear just much the coal going through our community will contribute to pollution, atmospheric change and climate change.

Thank you for your time.

Mary Haberman

Mary Hanson (#1430)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mary Hayden (#7315)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Oregon City, 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.

This is a NO BRAINER.

Coal-burning power plants are the PRIMARY SOURCE of 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.

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.

The Army Corps of Engineers shouldn't make a decision on any permit until an area-wide EIS is completed to analyze the impacts of ALL FIVE coal export proposals in the Pacific Northwest.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Ms. Mary Hayden

Mary Heath (#14418)

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


Mary Hebblewhite (#14012)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
WE - my FAMILY OF TEN VOTERS - 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.

We will be risking too too much in the area, AND WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER OUNCE OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE OR ANOTHER DROP OF ACIDIFICATION IIN THE OCEAN OR ANOTHER DEGREE OF CLIMATE/OCEAN WARMING.

Our fisheries are strained by overfishing, and on top of that acidification, mercury, and ocean warming further hurt the fish populations....indeed, adicification (from the carbon emissions) weakens the reefs and also the bones of fish!

Coal is the single biggest contributor to the US's share of global warming emission.

Let's get priorities straight...tipping our climate and surface lakes and oceans and streams... melting our poles...spreading desertification,...'sending the agricultural belts north" ...parching Texas...etc....We need sun and wind...not coal.

At the very least, examine the risks to the immediate environment very very thoroughly. Americans have had enough oil spills (the Gulf, Kalamzaoo, Exxon Valdez, other off shore accidents) and we know better now than to just buy what these fuel companies say before they begin their projects ....Government exists to protect us from what corporations/capital enterprises are very very prone to rush us into. Government has EVERY RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY to SLOW THIS DOWN and SCRUTINIZE. There is no emergency.

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.

Mary Hogan (#5762)

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

Mary Holubec (#12908)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect the quality of living in the entire Pacific Northwest region and beyond by polluting our air and water, by increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, and increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents. I am pleading with you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement and I thank-you for doing so.

Mary Jensen (#6231)

Date Submitted: 01/07/2013
Comment:
I’m concerned that the transportation of coal through my community of Bellingham will affect my health and result in an increased dependency on asthma drugs, not only for me but for others along the transportation route with similar or related conditions. Please study the health impacts of airborne toxic coal particulate matter, especially PM 2.5 size, during transportation and related, regular spillage through the cities and counties along the proposed train route.

Mary Jeppesen (#978)

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

In addition, the transport of coal brings new health hazards to those living in the community.

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

Sincerely,

Mary Jeppesen
4320 NE 57th St
Seattle, WA 98105-2246

Mary Jokela (#5117)

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

Mary Keeler (#1068)

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.

We have no business continuing to use this fossil fuel!


Mary Keeler
1122 NW 83rd Street
Seattle, WA 98117

Mary Kikikis (#9754)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
These trains are too many, too long, too dirty, too noisy, too dangerous to be running along our rails. Through big & small towns. Blocking busy traffic crossings. Holding up ferry loading & unloading. Sounding horns loudly & frequently. Ruining the ambiance & quality of life in many communities. Increasing risks of derailment & collisions. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

Mary Kimmich (#620)

Date Submitted: 10/09/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

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

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

Mary Kimmich

Mary King (#12461)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Milwaukie, OR
Comment:
Do you care nothing about the future of the planet? How dare you even consider exporting the coal we don't allow to other countries where their defenseless citizens will suffer from its pollution.
Coal is a devastatingly evil power source and you know it.

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.

Mary Kingland (#1344)

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

Mary LeDonne (#7741)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
I have many concerns regarding the shipping of coal from the US to China, but these concerns are specific and local.
Traffic: Bellingham has the opportunity to create a tourist destination with the redevelopment of the Georgia Pacific water front site. This redevelopment brings jobs and financial benefits to Bellingham from hotels, restaurants, retail stores, equipment rental, water sports and tours. If train traffic is increased to accommodate coal shipments there will be delays to get the site causing both construction delays with related increase in redevelopment cost. Once the site is redeveloped the increased train traffic will make the waterfront a less appealing destination for tourists, by increasing the time to get to the site, and degradation of the serenity of the site by the added noise of trains.

Water Quality: Ferndale already has issues trying to provide good drinking water to its existing residents. An enormous amount of water is needed to keep the coal storage piles cool so that they don't spontaneously combust. Where will the needed water come from?

Mary Leitch (#14074)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the acquiring of coal in the USA - we do not want dirty, cancer causing energy forms FOR CORPORATE PROFITS!!

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.

Mary Loquvam (#2017)

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

Mary Lynch (#6142)

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

Mary Manous (#5275)

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

Mary Marie (#4035)

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

Mary Marinkovich (#13391)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Comment:
Politicians have sold out to a Citizen's United standard which says that corporations are free to profit at the expense of the habitat that all need in order for the earth to be a viable habitat. Coal interests have at least the obligation to post bond, and to pay for mitigation measures so that the harm done to the environment will be repaired by those who cause it.

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.

Mary Masters (#469)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Orcas, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Orcas Island, in San Juan County, WA. I'm writing to because 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, threatening endangered species such as the Southern Resident Killer Whale population and Steller Sea Lions that reside several months/year in our waters, harming existing businesses, 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 believe the best option for coal in the U.S. is to leave it in the ground. The adverse impacts of coal mining alone upon climate change via global warming, even without considering the negative impacts of coal transport listed above, warrant eliminating coal mining/burning from our energy future and focusing on renewable energy options.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mary Masters

Mary Masters (#986)

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I live in the San Juan Islands and work as a marine naturalist, sharing information about our unique marine ecosystem, it inhabitants and economical, social and cultural values with thousands of children and adults every year. I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

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

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

Sincerely,

Mary Masters
123 Falling Tree Rd.
Orcas, WA 98280

Mary McLean (#2931)

Date Submitted: 11/12/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mary Mele (#6172)

Date Submitted: 01/07/2013
Location: Bellingham,, WA
Comment:
I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on public health and the environment from the various proposals to transport coal from Montana and Wyoming to terminals on the Pacific Coast for export to Asia for two main reasons: 1) it would have negative impacts on the residents, the quality of life, and the environment in Whatcom County; and 2) it would contribute to similar negative impacts for the residents, the quality of life, and the environment in the Pacific Northwest in general.

A lot of our life is lived along the coast: we walk along Boulevard Park in Bellingham nearly every day, I work close to the water, as most of us do, and at night I hear the trains. The idea of increasing train traffic for such short-term and short-sighted gain deeply distresses me. Who is pushing this and why? The huge balance of benefit is NOT on the side of those who live here. We're being railroaded, to coin a phrase.

Mary Mele (#6211)

Date Submitted: 01/07/2013
Location: BELLINGHAM, Wa
Comment:
Climate change. What about climate change? I think we should look at how this project - the whole scope of it - will contribute to climate change. We are experiencing the negative effects of climate change now. How will this accelerate the problem? It certainly will not mitigate it.

Mary Mele (#7790)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: BELLINGHAM, Wa
Comment:
I ask that the EIS measure wind speeds and direction at the site, model how often wind gusts will create fugitive dust storms, and design mitigations to eliminate fugitive dust reaching the fragile aquatic environment, such as halting loading operations when winds are over a certain speed and requiring covered coal storage.

Mary Metzger (#10367)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern:

My name is May J. Metzger and I am a resident of Whatcom County, am writing to request the environmental and economic impacts of the proposed coal shipping terminal be examined.

I am concerned about the impact the increased diesel particulates and coal dust will have upon the children and adults in my county and state and especially on those living close to the train tracks, as we do. Given the increasing train traffic of approximately one train every 40 minutes, environmental impacts will seem to build. How will the proposed terminal impact the health of the citizens along its route?

On both a larger and smaller scale the environmental impact of the coal trains precipitated by the proposed shipping terminal appear to be great. For example, train noise already disrupts our nightly sleep and I wonder how such noise which exceeds the legal limit for noise, if only temporarily, will be made a permanent part of the lives of those along the train route?

As well, given our lives in a waterfront community, I wonder how the costs of preparing for climate change come from the support of global sales of coal and will drain needed resources from our local economy?

Bellingham, where I live with my family, is in the mist of major economic transition following the departure of the Georgia Pacific Mill. I am concerned about how the train traffic will slow our economic transition to a economy that depends upon its livability. Many cities today are measured by standards of livability that include walkability ratings. Bellingham has scored increasingly highly in such measure. Consequently, I am concerned about the effect of train traffic on our city core given the noise and traffic disruptions the increased train traffic will bring.

Last, as an employee of Western Washington University, I am well aware of the fact that our salaries at WWU compare poorly with other comparable universities. But the quality of life here – the environmental values, the strong schools and city center, the innovation that youth and educational enterprise bring – offsets such economic disparities. I wonder consequently how the economic impact of the increased train traffic and environmental effects of increasing noise, pollution and traffic disruption upon the economic health of my city will be accounted for?

Thanks very much for your consideration.

Mary J. Metzger
2518 Walnut St
Bellingham, WA 98225

Mary Miller Chapman (#3167)

Date Submitted: 11/15/12
Location: University Place, WA
Comment:
Please do not increase the terminal in Bellingham to allow coal to come through Washington state. This threat is not in the best interests of our air and water quality, among other hazards.
Thank you for considering my request.

Mary Miller Chapman, Ed.D.
3805 SOUndview Drive West
University Place WA 98466

Mary Mullen (#1522)

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

Mary Mullen (#7897)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please calculate the carbon footprint for the process from coal extraction and rail transport through shipping and burning overseas and then determine the impact it would have on climate change.

Mary Mullen (#14272)

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

Mary Mullen (#14273)

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

Mary Murphy (#14419)

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

Mary Nash (#1987)

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

Mary Newman (#3220)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
See Attached
Attached Files:

Mary Nilssen (#2482)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mary O'Farrell (#13679)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Camano Is, WA
Comment:
My comments and two photos are in the attached JPEG file.
Please call if any problems with the attachment.

Mary O'Farrell
(360) 387-4397
Attached Files:
Attached Image:


Mary OConnor (#5919)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Coupeville, WA
Comment:
I do not want the Custer Spur to be built and/or put into use. Coal is dirty to transport, and to ship....and it should not be shipped to other countries who may or may not use it in any responsible way. I also worry about industrial accidents at the port that would impact our local environment.

Mary Paterson (#8072)

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

Mary Peete (#2200)

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

Mary Pollard (#4098)

Date Submitted: 12/03/12
Location: Spokane Valley, 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. Diesel particulate is documented as so small those living nearby could not escape the tiny particulate in their homes. It creates permanent damage to lungs of those with respiratory problems to begin with shortening their lives are actually causing death. Air quality in Spokane has problems because of the air inversions already. More trains going through and adding to the pollution. 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.
Our area has the deepest and most transmissivity of the aquifer. This is our sole source aquifer.
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.




Mary Pollard
17216 E. Baldwin Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99016

Mary Ratermann (#10050)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Burlington, WA
Comment:
My name is Peggy Ratermann, and I live in Burlington, very close to the rail line that would bring the coal trains north to the Gateway Pacific Terminal. While I have numerous environmental concerns about this project, I am also worried about the degradation of the quality of life those of us who live near the lines can expect. With the increased traffic our property values will decrease, and I would like to know how property owners can be compensated in the future. I feel it is unreasonable to expect us to not only accept increased wait times at each crossing, but also to see our home values deflate and the community we have built so carefully be adversely impacted.

Thank you,
Ms. Ratermann

Mary Rausch (#2387)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Comment:
Nov 3, 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.
Also, I feel that coal is a hugh polluter and we shouldn't be sending it to other coountries.

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

Sincerely,

Mary Rausch
15201 Admiralty Way
Unit C7
Lynnwood, WA 98087-2437

Mary Rausch (#13559)

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. Coal is a dirty and filthy form of energy and I don't feel we
should be sending it to any country. I urge you to consider these
impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Please don't let this happen!

Mary Rawlins (#1783)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
Comment:
October 27, 2012

Army Corps of Engineers Scoping Hearing

As a resident of Whatcom County I care deeply about the Salish Sea marine life; we raised our children here and sea kayaked and taught them about the marine ecosystem we want them to be able to show to their own children; anyone who does want to preserve the life in the waters around Bellingham should oppose the Cherry Point Terminal. Impacts to worry about are the acceleration of the already severe declines in the herring population, eelgrass destruction, and the large increase in coal dust and bulk carrier traffic that will negatively impact marine life. Ballast water will bring in invasive Japanese eelgrass, Chinese mitten crabs, algal bloom and other plants and shellfish that are impossible to get rid of and severely damage the ecosystem. Increased acidification of coastal waters due to fugitive coal dust from the coal pile at Cherry Point and ship loading is a major concern, and talk of mitigating this with sprays on the coal before it is shipped seem absurd to me so I would hope that this is checked out for credibility as a solution to coal dust, and what the effects are of what they plan to spray on the coal.

Thank you for including in your considerations the negative impacts on marine life of the increase of coal dust and invasive species that would occur due the shipping terminal, increased tanker traffic, and the increase in the coal trains themselves.

It seems very odd not to even mention the MUCH larger picture of the dangers of burning all this coal in the first place rather than leaving it in the ground. The life- threatening global impact of man-made climate change really is something everyone, including the Army Corps of Engineers, should be considering along with the more local impacts, even though there is little political leadership in this country pointing the way toward dealing with this unpleasant and difficult reality.

Mary Rawlins

Mary Rawlins (#2223)

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

Mary Repar (#5639)

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

Mary Repar (#5640)

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


Mary Repetski (#9912)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I ask that you please scope the effects that increasing the size of the Gateway Pacific Terminal will have on the surrounding marine life. The Gateway Pacific Terminal is located near the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve, a bio diverse community teeming with dozens of plant and wildlife species; some of which are endangered. With the enlarging of the facility, how much more vessel traffic can the area expect? As it is, the Puget Sound area is experiencing more noise pollution than previously thought, as report in the Seattle Times. (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020054352_pugetnoise04m.html). Noise pollution caused by ferries and ships is a stress on marine habitat and has shown to effect animals from the herring to the orca. What sort of noise pollution will the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve experience with increased coal transportation to Asia?

In addition to this, I would like the scope to include information concerning the coal dust and how it will affect the water quality and marine life. The Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve is a spawning area for many of the fish that live there, making it a sensitive to contaminants and pollutants that enter it. The Reserve is the largest spawning ground for the Cherry Point Herring who is a keystone species for the habitat. This particular fish species’ population is already in critical condition. What will increased coal contaminants have on their species as well as everything else?

Thank you for your attention

Mary Roberts (#800)

Date Submitted: 10/11/12
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Mary Ross (#13480)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Mary Rouleau (#10294)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Arlington, WA
Comment:
You know, I can't pare down my objections as to why I believe the coal train should NOT even be considered. Following are just a couple of thoughts that I'm quite sure other people have elaborated on quite elegantly and with crucial data to support their objections.

Jobs? Only a hand-full of jobs and not worth the decimation of the Pacific Northwest.

Influx of outside money into the economy? You can't be serious - and also not the decimation of the Pacific Northwest.

Just as a sidebar, perhaps those who will benefit from this travesty should be forced to live within 1/2 mile from the rails.

I certainly hope this issue isn't the same as when LongAcres was built. Having worked on that issue, I was informed that unsuspecting citizens were still encouraged to voice their opinions LONG after it was a "done deal"

Mary Sandoz (#4501)

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

Mary Sebring (#1560)

Date Submitted: 10/27/2012
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
Hello,
I am requesting an indepth survey of all impacts of the GPT project to the Marysville area, particularly the effects of coal dust on human, animal, fish, and plant life, the traffic delays and the expense of infrastructure to the public to accommodate this privately owned operation.

Mary Sebring (#6858)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
Please consider the effect of the increased rail traffic on the value of our homes. We live in Marysville, which will be bisected by the train traffic several times per day. The increased noise, filthy coal dust and waits at crossings will likely have an adverse effect on our property values. We are in forced retirement and our home is a large part of our retirement plan. We can not afford for the value to go down.

Furthermore, we are concerned about the illnesses derived from coal dust inhalation, on humans, plants and wildlife. Coal dust is also ugly. Please study the impact of coal dusted buildings and vehicles and how a communitiy's attractiveness to its residents and potential residents is affected. Also, how far does the dust travel from the train? Does it damage car engines? Traffic lights? Other mechanical devices? Does it damage rooftops? Lawns?

There are numerous negatives on the coal train/port debate. I can only think of one positive--jobs. These new jobs, however, are not worth the huge hits to our environment, safety, economy and quality of life. Please protect us and deny these permits. My husband lost his job 16 months ago, but neither one of us are supportive of these new coal related jobs.

Our mayor tells us that Marysville cannot cope with the extra waits at train crossings. We cannot build over and underpasses at our current crossings. It just isn't physically possible. Please consider how train traffic will slow down and clog our streets. We do not want our pretty little city to become unlivable.

Very sincerely,
Mary Sebring

Mary Slavkovsky (#13297)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
Dear GPT,

I am a Seattle resident. I am writing to share my voice in opposition to the coal train. I am against the production of coal as it is a temporary source of energy, and I am deeply concerned about the environmental impact to the air quality and the ecosystems along the train track, both on land and in along the shore of Puget Sound. I currently live in Ballard, close to where the train will pass. I am concerned about air quality deteriorating in my neighborhood with the passage of the train. Effectively, my body and my Spirit need the support of clear air and also the preservation and the health of the land from both the mountains in Montana, to the west side of Washington State. I am a firm supporter of cleaner energy and reduction of our carbon footprint. I believe it is time to become current with our energy, and I see a coal train as a step away from that.

Thank you,

Mary Slavkovsky

Mary Solum (#13026)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
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.

We Bellinghamsters take our environment seriously. Once it has been destroyed, it cannot be replaced. So it is critical to us that the quality of our water and other resources be protected from commercial interests that appear to have only their own profits in mind. If they were at all serious, they would at least cover their loads as truckers are required to do.

Thank you for protecting our precious resources. Best wishes in these efforts.

Mary Stamp (#13830)

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.

I am also concerned about the pollution from coal dust and diesel from additional trains passing through Spokane. In Spokane, the added train traffic would cause delays at crossings for people on their way to and from work, shopping, appointments and daily activities, plus it would impede access of emergency vehicles. Our area would be affected by possible derailments that could damage our aquifer and only source of drinking water. In Spokane, it would impede business and jobs, especially detracting from the area's draw of nature, wildlife and beauty. If all five ports are built 30 more one- to two-mile trains a day would come through carrying coal and 30 more returning empty.

Coal is a dirty, outdated, toxic fossil fuel. It's a boom - bust commodity. The market is volatile. It does not make sense to invest in such infrastructure rather than developing clean, sustainable energy sources and job that would keep our area healthy and safe.

There is much more at stake than the immediate environment around the proposed Cherry Point port. The full impact of developing each of the proposed ports throughout the region needs to be taken into account for an Environmental Impact Statement.

Mary Tanner (#9678)

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

I am a resident of the San Juan County for a dozen years. 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,

Mary Tanner

Mary Teesdale (#2142)

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

Mary Teesdale (#7027)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I agree with Bill McGown on the subject of anchors and chains disturbing the underwater ground sediment. This will certainly have a deleterious effect on the aquatic plant and animal life in this area. The eel grass beds in the Cherry Point area support the herring which are the bottom of the food chain for northern Puget Sound.

Having a lot of large boats coming in this area will negatively effect our fishing and crabbing populations. We, in this area - MOST IMPORTANTLY - need to support and protect our food supply for now and for our future. This is more important than money and/or jobs for a few of us (who mostly live somewhere else).

I would like you to thoroughly study this impact and publish your results. Thank you for pursuing this line of inquiry.

BTW, I was impressed by your ability to listen to everyone. It made me feel like there is some fairness in this democracy. I know you will do the best thing for us people, the land and the waters - and protect us until 500 years in the future.

Merry Teesdale

Mary Toland (#5342)

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

Mary Tucker (#6168)

Date Submitted: 01/07/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I am a year-round resident of Orcas Island & live within view of the proposed Cherry Point Coal Terminal site. I quote another comment writer, John Venett (Jan. 4, 2013), as he echoes one of my many concerns & also comes from a voice of experience in living near a coal export facility site. I do not want to see this happen to our Salish Sea:

"I oppose the Cherry Point location for a Coal Export site.

I have lived near a coal export site (in Los Angeles harbor) and have learned first hand that there is no way to control the amount of residue that a coal pile produces. The prevailing South-Easterly winds will carry coal dust to the Birch Bay area. The loading of ships (usually done via conveyor belt) will cause untold amount of dust to be introduced into the waters of the sound.
Also, the number of ships that would transit the area would be an environmental disaster "waiting -to - happen".

Please do NOT approve the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal."

I request that you research thoroughly how coal storage & transport between trains & ships on site at Cherry Point would impact the local environment in air & water quality & resulting affects on humans & wildlife. In addition, please include potential impact of oil spills. Thank you for your consideration of this most important issue. Our children & future generations may also thank you.

Sincerely,
Mary Louise Tucker

Mary Tucker (#6171)

Date Submitted: 01/07/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
As a year-round resident of Orcas Island, living within view of the proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal site, I have deep concerns over this issue & implore you to examine thoroughly & with the utmost care the environmental impact this would have on our region. In this comment, I will focus on the Marine environment in particular & wish that I could attach the Nov. 3, 2012 comment by Dr. Joseph Gaydos in which he speaks both knowledgeably & eloquently on this subject. I ask you to give particular attention to:
1. Oil/Coal Spill Risks
2. Orcas & other marine mammals, fish, birds & the food web that supports them.
3. Salmon & Fisheries
4. Tourism & other economic costs, such as property values
5. Impacts on Coast Salish Tribal lands & resources

This issue deserves all the attention it can get, as I foresee the potential of dramatic permanent & life-altering affects on both humans & marine life. I chose to live here because I value what this region has to offer in unspoiled natural beauty. Yet even here there are already numerous signs of environmental stress due to human impact. We are at a critical crossroads were we must weigh & decide what is of lasting value to us. I propose we act now to protect the invaluable & irreplaceable resources of the Salish Sea. Thank you for your consideration of this most important issue. Our children & future generations may also thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Louise Tucker

Mary Tucker (#6295)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I am a year-round resident of Orcas Island & live on the eastern shore of the island, within view of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal site at Cherry Point. My property is water front with beach access. My husband & I chose this property to build our home on & as a place to raise our children because we love & value the beauty of this unspoiled marine environment. My children & I have photographed & identified numerous marine species over our 10 years here. Learning about the living things we share this place with has fostered in us a respect for what has survived here far longer than we & has resulted in our growing protective of them. In addition, it grieves us when we see what the changing currents wash up on shore that does not belong: quantities of human debris. Frankly, anticipating a large scale coal operation on the shore opposite us alarms me. I quote Michael Riordan's December 22, 2012 comment: "Lighter coal dust particles would stay in the water for hours or days — drifting northwest, southeast and west with prevailing currents and winds. A small fraction of this suspended coal dust would likely reach Lummi Island and Orcas Island 7–10 miles away." If the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal comes to fruition, I am positive there will be effects that reach our home shores & beyond. That such a construction project & operation is even being considered as a positive thing in this setting is beyond my comprehension. Decades from now, what will there be to feel pride in? Monetary profit from the sale of dirty fuel to Asia, or perhaps something of far greater value? What if our region could become a model to the rest of this nation, even the world, for recognizing & protecting our irreplaceable & invaluable natural resources & finding ways to promote the recovery of those that are suffering from our past abuse & neglect. I'd love to see new jobs arise in the realm of environmental studies, cleaner energy sources & conservation in addition to protecting our present industry of tourism, rather than promoting dependency on out-of-date energy sources. Coal is dirty fuel from its source to its consumption, with the potential for irreparable, far-reaching, negative impact. People come to our region, live here, because of something that can't be found anywhere else. Now is the critical time to recognize what we have & make the choice to save it. Our children & future generations may thank you. I thank you for your thorough consideration of this critically important issue. Below, I again quote Michael Riordan, duplicating his request for the following studies/actions:

"Studies and Actions Requested
I therefore respectfully request that the following questions be addressed
in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal:
1. Based on real experience at other coal terminals using similar equipment
in similar conditions — for example, the Westshore Terminals in Delta, BC
— what coal-loading efficiencies could be achieved in actual practice under
normal operating conditions? What quantity of coal would consequently
escape into the waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve per year? How
much of the coal lost would fall directly to the sea floor, and how much of
it would drift away to other regions, near and far, of Georgia Strait?
2. What measures could be taken by terminal managers to reduce coal lost
during the ship-loading process — for example, by mandating stricter
operating procedures, regular equipment inspections and servicing, and
halting the coal loading in high-wind conditions? At what wind speeds
should loading be halted and the ship hatches closed to prevent losses?
3. What are the likely impacts upon Cherry Point marine life — principally
the Cherry Point herring that spawn there every spring and Dungeness
crab that feed on the sea floor — of the coal that would accumulate in the
Reserve during the many years the terminal would operate, despite these
measures? What are the likely impacts on the eelgrass beds, which help
filter carbon dioxide out of the seawater, reduce its acidity, and store the
carbon? What about the impacts further distant from Cherry Point — for
example at Lummi Island, Orcas Island and the Outer Islands north of it?
Thank you for your serious consideration of these questions and impacts, which I
— and many others — consider very significant. Without satisfactory resolutions
of these crucial questions, the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal project should
not be permitted to proceed."

Respectfully,
Mary Louise Tucker
Eastsound, WA
Attached Image:

Mary Tucker (#6358)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I agree with the comment by Greacen Chom of Lopez, Oct.25, 2012 concerning seismic risks and tsunamis & ask for this to be thoroughly researched as well:

"The EIS study needs to analyze the risks and impacts of earthquakes/tsunamis to coal bulk carriers and the export terminal. A study by Oregon State University (see http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/node/13426) found that the northern “Cascadia subduction zone”, from WA to Vancouver island have a 10-15% chance of a mega-quake (magnitude 8 or greater) within the next 50 years. Another study by scientists at the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), Canada's premier agency for geoscientific information and research (under the Department of Natural Resources) also found the chance of up to 14% of a “great earthquake within 50 years. But the chance could be significantly higher (up to 40%) if the quakes occur in “clusters”, a concept not totally well understood by scientists yet (Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/about/workshops/PacNWworkshoptalks/AdamsCascCondProbUSGS06.pdf)."

It is imperative, given where we live, to take this into consideration. I believe it extremely likely that sufficient study & analysis will reveal that these very real risks & the potential wide scale catastrophic impact would tip the scale heavily toward abandoning this project altogether.

Respectfully,
Mary Louise Tucker
Eastsound, WA

Mary Tucker (#6787)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I am resubmitting this letter written on Jan. 8th, as it hasn't posted & I'm concerned that my inclusion of an attachment might have caused it to be lost:

I am a year-round resident of Orcas Island & live on the eastern shore of the island, within view of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal site at Cherry Point. My property is water front with beach access. My husband & I chose this property to build our home on & as a place to raise our children because we love & value the beauty of this unspoiled marine environment. My children & I have photographed & identified numerous marine species over our 10 years here. Learning about the living things we share this place with has fostered in us a respect for what has survived here far longer than we & has resulted in our growing protective of them. In addition, it grieves us when we see what the changing currents wash up on shore that does not belong: quantities of human debris. Frankly, anticipating a large scale coal operation on the shore opposite us alarms me. I quote Michael Riordan's December 22, 2012 comment: "Lighter coal dust particles would stay in the water for hours or days — drifting northwest, southeast and west with prevailing currents and winds. A small fraction of this suspended coal dust would likely reach Lummi Island and Orcas Island 7–10 miles away." If the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal comes to fruition, I am positive there will be effects that reach our home shores & beyond. That such a construction project & operation is even being considered as a positive thing in this setting is beyond my comprehension. Decades from now, what will there be to feel pride in? Monetary profit from the sale of dirty fuel to Asia, or perhaps something of far greater value? What if our region could become a model to the rest of this nation, even the world, for recognizing & protecting our irreplaceable & invaluable natural resources & finding ways to promote the recovery of those that are suffering from our past abuse & neglect. I'd love to see new jobs arise in the realm of environmental studies, cleaner energy sources & conservation in addition to protecting our present industry of tourism, rather than promoting dependency on out-of-date energy sources. Coal is dirty fuel from its source to its consumption, with the potential for irreparable, far-reaching, negative impact. People come to our region, live here, because of something that can't be found anywhere else. Now is the critical time to recognize what we have & make the choice to save it. Our children & future generations may thank you. I thank you for your thorough consideration of this critically important issue. Below, I again quote Michael Riordan, duplicating his request for the following studies/actions:

"Studies and Actions Requested
I therefore respectfully request that the following questions be addressed
in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal:
1. Based on real experience at other coal terminals using similar equipment
in similar conditions — for example, the Westshore Terminals in Delta, BC
— what coal-loading efficiencies could be achieved in actual practice under
normal operating conditions? What quantity of coal would consequently
escape into the waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve per year? How
much of the coal lost would fall directly to the sea floor, and how much of
it would drift away to other regions, near and far, of Georgia Strait?
2. What measures could be taken by terminal managers to reduce coal lost
during the ship-loading process — for example, by mandating stricter
operating procedures, regular equipment inspections and servicing, and
halting the coal loading in high-wind conditions? At what wind speeds
should loading be halted and the ship hatches closed to prevent losses?
3. What are the likely impacts upon Cherry Point marine life — principally
the Cherry Point herring that spawn there every spring and Dungeness
crab that feed on the sea floor — of the coal that would accumulate in the
Reserve during the many years the terminal would operate, despite these
measures? What are the likely impacts on the eelgrass beds, which help
filter carbon dioxide out of the seawater, reduce its acidity, and store the
carbon? What about the impacts further distant from Cherry Point — for
example at Lummi Island, Orcas Island and the Outer Islands north of it?
Thank you for your serious consideration of these questions and impacts, which I
— and many others — consider very significant. Without satisfactory resolutions
of these crucial questions, the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal project should
not be permitted to proceed."

Respectfully,
Mary Louise Tucker
Eastsound, WA

Mary Tucker (#6973)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I have lived on Orcas Island for 10 years, on the north-eastern side. The view from my family’s waterfront home includes the Cherry Point site for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal. As I share the concerns about the potential seriously adverse impacts on local air quality voiced by Arthur M. Winer of Eastsound in his comment of Jan.7, 2013, I would like to add my voice to his & duplicate his request for the following studies regarding these impacts (My comment continues after the quote.):

“Need for Comprehensive Study: It is therefore important to measure and/or model the downwind concentrations of air pollutants, and resulting human population exposures, within 3 kilometers of the rail lines which would be used by diesel locomotives for the proposed GPT project along the entire length of those rail lines.

Need for Comprehensive Study: It is therefore important to assess the potential health impacts that could result from chronic and cumulative exposures to diesel exhaust particulates over periods as long as decades for populations living, schooling or working within the downwind plumes of GPT-related diesel locomotives.

Need for Comprehensive Study: It is therefore important to assess the potential health impacts that could result from chronic exposures to ultrafine particles over periods as long as decades for populations living or working within the downwind plumes of GPT-related diesel locomotives.

Need for Comprehensive Study: It is therefore important to assess the potential health impacts that could result from chronic exposures to heavy metals and PAH over periods as long as decades for populations living or working within the downwind plumes of GPT-related diesel locomotives.

Need for Comprehensive Study: It is therefore important to assess the potential health impacts that could result from chronic and cumulative indoor exposures over periods as long as decades for populations living, schooling or working within the downwind plumes of GPT-related diesel locomotives.

Need for Comprehensive Study: It is therefore important to assess the potential for extensive environmental justice-related disparities in exposure, health, noise and other impacts resulting from GPT Project rail transport of coal, with resulting diesel locomotive emissions, through minority and low-income neighborhoods in major urban centers of southern and western Washington.

Need for Comprehensive Study: It is therefore important to quantitatively determine the extent and combined impacts of both regulated and un-regulated (e.g. UFP and DEP) emissions at, adjacent to, and downwind of the GPT facility from all combustion sources within the facility, with particular attention to the health impacts on adjacent and nearby communities.”

While all of the above are important & I do have concerns about their cumulative affect over time on our air quality here on Orcas, as well as throughout the San Juan Islands & beyond, I anticipate even broader impact from the shipping activities cited in Arthur Winer’s point “C” below:

“C. Ship Emissions at Loading Facilities and Within the Salish Sea
Because of the generally poor quality of fuel used in international bulk carriers, especially the high sulfur content of bunker fuel, and the extensive idling of ships when in port and while waiting offshore, the air pollutant emissions at the GPT facility and within the Salish Sea from coal carriers are expected to be egregious. Such emissions have the potential to significantly degrade air quality and visibility not only locally at the facility itself but throughout the region, especially given the large numbers and frequency of such carriers in connection with this proposed coal exporting facility. Again, to adequately assess these impacts requires modeling with high spatial resolution, and not simply modeling anticipated air quality at a few widely scattered air monitoring stations.

Need for Comprehensive Study: It is therefore important to quantitatively determine with high spatial resolution the extent and impacts of both regulated and un-regulated (e.g. DEP and UFP) emissions at, adjacent to, and downwind of the GPT facility from all combustion sources associated with the facility, with particular attention to the health impacts on adjacent and nearby communities.”

Mine is one of those nearby communities that would be directly affected by this dramatic increase in shipping activity in these local waters. My family & I have our home on Orcas Island largely because we value living & raising our children in a cleaner & healthier environment, as well as one of exceptional beauty. It is distressing to me as I continue to learn how many ways the Gateway Pacific Terminal project would impact & threaten all this that we value so highly. My hope is that the multitude of voices expressing concern will be heard & that the results of all requested areas of study will weigh so heavily against this project that it will never come to fruition. I would also hope we can move forward to a time when our focus & energies can shift to developing new & even exemplary clean energy resources, & developing & promoting in our local communities jobs that help sustain & support our unique environment. I thank you for your consideration of this most important issue.

Respectfully,
Mary Louise Tucker
Eastsound, WA

Mary Tucker (#7956)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I am a year-round resident of Orcas Island & a mother of two children. My husband & I chose this place to make our home in 10 years ago because we value the yet unspoiled beauty that exists here & want a healthy environment for living & raising our children. Our home is on the northeast side of the island, within view of the proposed site for the Gateway Pacific Terminal. We are well acquainted with the winds that blow year-round, as described in Michael Riordan's comment of Jan. 10, 2013. Those from the north or northeast hit us head-on. We know first-hand how strong these winds can be, though we have yet to experience the strength that our neighbors who have lived here longer can remember. It is common for these winds to gain strength in winter months, frequently blowing hard for 2 to 3 days straight. I wholeheartedly agree with Michael Riordan's Jan. 10 comment, quoted below (My own comment continues after the first quote & at the end of the second.):

"EIS Comment on Wind-Blown Coal Dust From the Proposed Cherry Point Terminal, which I sincerely believe will have significant adverse impacts on the local and marine environments if the Gateway Pacific Terminal is allowed to proceed without appropriate mitigations. I have suggested a few possible mitigations that might reduce, but will probably not eliminate, these impacts."

I duplicate his request for the following:

"Studies and Actions Requested
In summary, the Gateway Pacific Terminal should be designed to limit, if
not completely eliminate, fugitive coal dust in the strong gale-force winds that
can be expected to occur annually. Otherwise, Fraser Gap winds from the NE
and ENE will blow this dust out into the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve, Georgia
Strait, and possibly as far as the San Juan Islands. If the facility is designed only
for the average winds, unacceptable releases of fugitive coal dust will inevitably
occur during the strongest winds that arise. And before construction can begin,
measures designed to control fugitive coal dust should be demonstrated to work
successfully beyond a reasonable doubt. Terminal planners might have to include
certain operational restrictions, such as halting coal transfers when wind speeds
exceed that for which fugitive emissions can be easily controlled. (At the Seward
facility, for example, no coal can be transferred to carriers when the wind speed
9
rises above 12 knots, or 14 mph.15) A far better alternative would be to eliminate
the open storage piles entirely and instead build a totally covered storage facility,
which would probably be smaller and have less shipment capacity. Such covered
storage facilities indeed exist — for example, at the Amstuv BV Coal Terminal in
Amsterdam, the Baltic Coal Terminal in Ventspils, Latvia, and the Hsin-Ta Fossil
Power Station in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.16 If Gateway Pacific Terminal proposers
cannot confidently assure Whatcom County planners and the WA Department of
Ecology that unacceptable releases of fugitive coal dust will definitely not occur
from open storage piles, then a covered coal-storage facility is the only possible
option remaining, short of abandoning plans to build the terminal.
I therefore respectfully request that you address the following questions in
the Environmental Impact Statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal:
1. What are the actual wind speeds that can reasonably be expected to occur in
and around the coal storage piles and transfer operations, including the effects
of local topography and surface features? What local winds speeds will occur
during the gale-force Fraser Gap winds that arise regularly in this vicinity?
2. What is the likelihood that large quantities of coal dust will be entrained by
these winds and blown into the waters of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve,
necessarily including the effects of turbulent air flow around the piles? Given
the high winds at Cherry Point and 48 million tons of coal to be shipped each
year, how many tons will find their way into these waters annually?
3. What measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate these fugitive coal-dust
losses — for example, by halting operations during high winds? And if these
measures are deemed to be insufficient by regulators, can terminal planners
instead design a facility with covered coal-storage piles and operations?
4. What will be the likely impacts upon marine life — principally the herring that
spawn nearby every spring and Dungeness crabs that feed on the sea floor —
of the tons of coal dust that will inevitably accumulate in the Aquatic Reserve
and adjacent Georgia Strait waters during the many years the terminal would
operate? What are the probable impacts on eelgrass beds, which help filter
carbon dioxide out of the seawater, reduce its acidity, and store the carbon?
Thank you for your serious consideration of these questions and impacts, which I
and many others consider extremely significant."

I am one of those individuals who considers these potential impacts extremely significant. If this coal export facility comes to fruition, I fully expect the San Juan Islands & surrounding marine environment to be adversely affected. I expect our home environment to be adversely affected. I expect the air we breathe to be adversely affected. The resulting damage has too much potential to be extensive, with ongoing irreversible repercussions: sea floor...herring...salmon...whales...us...planet.

From a neighbor who cares deeply about what may be forever lost, thank you for your serious & thorough consideration & careful weighing of all potential impacts.
Mary Louise Tucker
Eastsound, WA

Mary Tucker (#10059)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
As an Orcas Island mother of two living directly across the water from the proposed site of the Gateway Pacific Terminal, I am writing to say that I agree with a comment by Carolyn Gastellum of Anacortes, dated Jan. 12, 2013. Her comment concerns the mining, transport & burning of coal & both its local & global effects, all of which the Gateway Terminal & others like it would contribute toward significantly if allowed to come to fruition as planned. I quote (My own comment continues throughout.):

’“Coal is the highest carbon emitter of the major fossil fuels....Scientists say emissions must peak within the next five years if the worst effects of global warming are to be avoided.” (Fiona Harvey, The Guardian, October 28, 2012)

“If the countries of the world continue burning coal the way they do today, it will be impossible to achieve the reductions in carbon emissions needed to have a reasonable chance of preventing the worst consequences of global warming.” (Union of Concerned Scientists, Options for Coal Around the World, May 1, 2009)’

I duplicate all of Carolyn Gastellum’s requests for studied areas of potential impact, quoted below:

“Please include in the scope of the EIS various statutes that fall under the category of the public trust doctrine. Under SEPA and NEPA federal and state agencies have an obligation to consider the broader implications of the GPT including climate change impacts. For example:

From SEPA: “The agency perspective should be that each generation is, in effect, a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal.” SEPA, WAC sec. 197-11-440(5)(c)(vii)

Therefore, through a cumulative analysis for the proposed GPT, determine the total amount of CO2 emissions that would result from the mining, transport by rail, export by cargo ship, and burning of 48 million tons of Powder River Basin coal over the life of the project. How will all these emissions impact and accelerate climate changes in Washington state? In particular, what will be the impacts on the glaciers of the North Cascades, on ocean acidification that is detrimental to marine ecosystems and shellfish, on precipitation that contributes to river and stream flow in the summer months that is crucial to salmon and agriculture?

What are the projections for extreme weather events in Washington that may increase due to the possible burning of coal that might be exported from Cherry Point and Longview? What would be the projected economic impacts due to climate change induced extreme weather events like landslides in the winter due to greater than normal precipitation or drought in the summer due to a decrease in precipitation in our state?

How much would the burning of the Powder River Basin coal in Asia that is proposed to be exported from both Cherry Point and the Longview Terminal offset the goals established by Washington State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as adopted by our state legislature in 2008?”
“Washington State adopted greenhouse gas reduction standards via legislation adopted in 2008. (RCW 70.235.070(1)(a). The statute establishes that by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels. By 2035, GHG emissions are to be 25 percent below 1990 levels and by 2050, they are to be 50 percent below 1990 levels.” (James Wells, Don’t Pee In The Pool!, January 5, 2013)

In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, what are the health impacts from the mercury and other air pollutants that comes across the Pacific ocean from coal burning power plants in Asia? Levels of those pollutants can be detected now in our glaciers and waterways. How much worse would it be over the life of GPT if that terminal is permitted? How much worse would it be if both the GPT and the terminal at Longview are permitted?

Finally, please do a rigorous cumulative analysis of CO2 emissions from the GPT as well as the four other coal export terminals that are being proposed in Washington and Oregon. What would be the overall climate change effects due to burning approximately 150 million tons of coal over the life of the proposed export terminals?

What would be the climate change, economic, human health, and ecosystem benefits if Powder River Basin coal is not mined, transported by rail, exported by cargo ships, and burned in power plants in Asia? I would like a comparative analysis that clearly shows the detriments of the coal export terminal proposals if they are allowed and the overall benefits to people in Washington and Oregon if the five proposed terminals are not permitted.”

(I agree that the above analysis would be a valuable addition to other impact studies that are being requested, to compare & weigh the benefits of not going through with the Gateway Terminal project against the impacts of allowing it to go forward. I am requesting this as well.)

”We must not foreclose future options for our children and grandchildren by accommodating increases in coal burning in Asia or any other place on the planet. It is the responsibility of our generation to take the lead in transitioning away from coal burning and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions and toward clean, renewable energy sources. Time is of the essence.”

I add my own voice to Carolyn Gastellum’s & implore you to take seriously your role as trustees of the environment for succeeding generations. I care deeply about the kind of world my children & grandchildren will inherit from this present generation’s environmental choices. Your choices in these issues have the potential to be ones that both my & your children & grandchildren will be grateful to you for.

Respectfully,
Mary Louise Tucker
Eastsound, WA

Mary Tucker (#10136)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
I & my family have been Orcas Island residents since 2002. I am a mother of two children, one still attending school in Eastsound. We chose to live on Orcas because of the unspoiled beauty of this place. Our home is on the northeast side of the island, within view of the proposed site of the Gateway Pacific Terminal. For this reason, among many others, we have a keen interest in whether or not this project comes to fruition as planned. I have just read a well-written & comprehensive EIS comment regarding climate change that was submitted too recently to be posted online yet. The comment comes from James Wells of Bellingham, WA, regarding the “Greenhouse Gas Contribution of China Burning Our Coal”. I quote his comment extensively here, as I agree with Mr. Wells & duplicate his request, as follows (My own comment continues after.):

”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]

…One regulatory question is whether the applicable law allows for consideration of an effect that may occur outside the US. The clear answer: Yes it can. It’s right in the applicable SEPA law:

“[A] lead agency shall not limit its consideration of a proposal's impacts only to those aspects within its jurisdiction, including local or state boundaries.” (Wash. Admin. Code sec. 197-11-060(4)(b))

Next: Can the impact of combustion emissions, including carbon dioxide emissions, be considered?

Again, Yes. The United States EPA has recognized the materials emitted from combustion, including Carbon Dioxide, as pollutants that threaten human health and the environment.

At play is the combination: Considering combustion emissions, including carbon dioxide, that originate overseas.

A key consideration is the concept of the Public Interest. The agencies should broadly consider the public interest in this case, because the project needs to use government resources rather than just private assets. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions is relevant to public interest, because global warming and ocean acidification represent a very serious threat to our environment and the livability of our planet.

In the case of GPT, there are at least three major government-controlled resources that are required for the project to go forward:

- The pier requires a shoreline lease from the WA State Department of Natural Resources
- The coal is mined from federal government land in Montana and Wyoming

- Large water withdrawals from the Nooksack River are needed for dust control and other purposes

This request to use government resources is profoundly different from meeting regulatory requirements for an activity on private land. The applicants have no title to the government resources, and so for access to be granted, the proposed activity needs to be in the public interest. This is especially applicable to the waters of the state due to the Public Trust Doctrine, as explained on the WA Department of Ecology web site: "The essence of the [Public Trust] doctrine is that the waters of the state are a public resource owned by and available to all citizens equally for the purposes of navigation, conducting commerce, fishing, recreation and similar uses and that this trust is not invalidated by private ownership of the underlying land."

In another example, leases to mine coal from public lands have been granted on the basis that the coal will provide a stable domestic energy supply. The current practice of shipping coal from federal lands to British Columbia for export to Asia is in conflict with the justification for the coal leases, and a massive expansion of such export would also be. No export terminal should be permitted prior to conducting a complete review of the basis for the lease to mine the subject coal, and coal whose lease was justified on the theory of providing for domestic energy supplies should not be allowed to be exported.

The GPT project will also require exercise of a key government power, which is: Eminent Domain. This means seizing land from other private owners, whether or not they want to sell, in order to allow the project to occur. This is another point whether the question of the Public Interest is applicable.

The project is also inconsistent with certain federal or state laws or policies.

- Copenhagen Accord

The United States is a signatory to the Copenhagen climate accord, which agrees in concept to large reductions in GHG emissions worldwide. Large new coal export schemes are clearly inconsistent with the intent of the document.

- EPA has Recognized CO2 as a Pollutant

The US EPA has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and has started to regulate CO2 emissions. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) state that any new coal-fired power plant in the US must meet a very tight standard for low CO2 emissions. If we build a new export terminal for the purpose of supplying coal to be burned in a manner that does not meet these new standards, then that undermines the entire purpose of the NSPS standards. The EPA has also commented on a different coal export proposal that resulting CO2 emissions should be considered.

- WA State GHG Reduction Standards

Washington State adopted greenhouse gas reduction standards via legislation adopted in 2008. See RCW 70.235.070(1)(a). The statute establishes that by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels. By 2035, GHG emissions are to be 25 percent below 1990 levels and by 2050, they are to be 50 percent below 1990 levels. The coal terminal, if permitted, would emit tens of millions of metric tons of CO2 per year, wiping all of those reductions, and more. Since CO2 is a global pollutant, it would be futile to reduce local emissions while facilitating an increase elsewhere. [For reference, all GHG emissions in all of WA state are about 100 million metric tons / year]

- WA State Panel on Ocean Acidification

In November of 2012, the Governor of Washington State released an executive order initiating action on ocean acidification. The executive order states, in part, “I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the state of Washington … do, effective immediately, hereby order and direct … The Office of the Governor and the cabinet agencies that report to the Governor to advocate for reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide at a global, national, and regional level.”

- SEPA Standards

The SEPA standard itself recognizes the world-wide scope of environmental issues.

SEPA considers “each person’s” right to a “healthful environment” to be “fundamental and inalienable” Rev.Code Wash. Sec. 43.21C.020(3), “[r]ecognize[s] the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems,” and directs agencies, “where consistent with state policy, [to] lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment….” (RCW 43.21C.030(1)(f).) “

The above paragraph ends my quote from Mr. Wells’ comment. He has done an excellent job of pointing out numerous potential violations of public environmental responsibility, even world-wide, that the Gateway Pacific Terminal’s coming to pass could incur. I agree that it is an essential aspect of comprehensive evaluation & study of potential impacts of this project that it be given world-wide scope. May we have the wisdom to learn from history, perhaps even from environmental disasters such as The Dust Bowl era: though something may seem monetarily profitable in the present, it may have dire long-term consequences, far larger than we are capable of envisioning; perhaps even bigger than we have the ability to repair or the power to control. The health & well-being of future generations is in the hands of our present generation. Alternatively, our state could choose to be among those willing to lead the way in exploring & implementing exemplary clean energy resources. That would be something to be proud of.

Respectfully,
Mary Louise Tucker
Eastsound, WA

Mary Tucker (#11487)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
This is my final EIS comment regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, which, if built, would become an unwelcome new neighbor across the water from my home on the northeast side of Orcas Island. This project is supposed to be about new jobs & benefits to our local economy. It might be more accurate to say it is really about promoting mining, transporting & burning of coal in a day & time when we have enough knowledge about such that it should be universally unacceptable. Maybe it’s really about economic benefit to a few who are already well off, at the expense of a great many who would not benefit from the environmental impacts; at the expense of a great many precious natural resources, already suffering the effects of past & present irresponsible human impact; at the expense of our children, grandchildren & future generations. It is these children, my own children that I write on behalf of now. It is not easy to change what we have grown comfortable with in our daily lives. How many among us do not rely in some measure on fossil fuels? But we know too much to not move forward in a mass effort toward change, especially if we have any care for what we leave behind us when we are gone. I have heard it put this way: “When I go, I want to leave a fine sunset.” We could be proud to leave behind us a cleaner, healthier world for the generations that follow. We could be a community that takes the lead in exploring & implementing exemplary clean energy resources & providing new jobs in this realm. We could be remembered for our efforts toward saving the invaluable natural resources our region is known for before it was too late. We could potentially leave a little more beauty behind us when we go.

I think it appropriate to listen to a voice from history. The following two quotes come from PBS.org, gleanings from Ken Burns’ documentary film, The Dust Bowl:

Writer Timothy Egan calls the Dust Bowl "a classic tale of human beings pushing too hard against nature, and nature pushing back."

We want it now – and if it makes money now it's a good idea. But if the things we're doing are going to mess up the future it wasn't a good idea. Don't deal on the moment. Take the long-term look at things. It's important that we do the right thing by the soil and the climate. History, is of value only if you learn from it.
Wayne Lewis, Dust Bowl survivor

REQUESTED AREAS OF STUDY:
As an alternative to the GPT project, I request that you study potential new jobs & means of boosting our local economy from an environmental standpoint: in the fields of environmental research, protection & restoration; organic, non-GMO farming practices; & exploration of clean energy resources, to name a few. Please analyze the potential long-term benefits of abandoning reliance on coal export to fix what ails our economy & how this could positively impact our present industry of Tourism, property values, human health & well-being, local marine life, the health of our planet & future generations.

Thank you.
Respectfully,
Mary Louise Tucker
Eastsound, WA

Mary van der Veen (#801)

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

Mary Van Der Veen (#13016)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
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.
The increased CO2 emissions will contribute to global warming, causing increased floods. droughts, forest fires, reduced snowpacks in the Himalayas, Andes, Caucasus and Central Asian mountains, thereby reducing available water for irrigation in the summer and thus a decrease in food production. In turn, this already has led to increasing food prices, increased malnutrition and political instability in the affected areas.

Mary Van Der Veen (#13018)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
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.
The increased CO2 emissions will contribute to global warming, causing increased floods. droughts, forest fires, reduced snowpacks in the Himalayas, Andes, Caucasus and Central Asian mountains, thereby reducing available water for irrigation in the summer and thus a decrease in food production. In turn, this already has led to increasing food prices, increased malnutrition and political instability in the affected areas.

Mary Wallon (#12986)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Coal is a fuel of the last century; it has had numerous negative effects on our environment, and before we continue use of it we must take a look at those effects. For this reason, 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 through the Northwest, and I urge you to consider the impacts of coal mining and transportation in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Please conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of the proposals to bring coal on trains through Washington from Montana.

Mary Water (#8656)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Comment:
My main concern is the impact of increased train traffic, especially in Spokane County. Even if the coal cars are covered, which doesn't seem to be required, there will be an increase in air pollution and noise from the trains and from the cars which will be backed up at crossings even more than now occurs.

Overall, I have concerns over increased pollution from the mining, transport, and burning of coal, contributing to global warming at a time when we should be doing all we can to minimize the effects.

Mary Weathers (#3129)

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

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

I am very much against the construction of a coal export terminal on the coast of WA. We do not need the fallout of increased traffic, pollutions, delay of emergency vehicles, damage to water at the terminal site. There is an increased potential for serious shipping accidents and excelerating climate change that is going out of control already. Please consider these impacts in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

Mary Weathers
6921 E Jamieson Rd
Spokane, WA 99223-1845
(509) 448-6462

Mary Weathers (#5384)

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

Mary Westring (#3073)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a 12 year resident of Bellingham and a School Counselor in the Burlington Edison Schools.

I am concerned about the noise impact of the trains and how this will effect our communities. Will it disrupt classrooms close to the track? Will it impact our children's sleep and, therefore, ability to learn?

In your environmental impact study, please address the impact the noise will have on our communities' health and well-being.

Mary Westring (#3074)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a 12 year resident of Bellingham and a School Counselor in the Burlington Edison Schools.

I am concerned about the impact that the transportation of coal will have on our already endangered waters and aquatic life.

In your environmental impact study, please address the impact of the increased vessel traffic, coal dust and diesel emissions on life in the Puget Sound.

Thank you,
Molly

Mary Westring (#3076)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a 12 year resident of Bellingham and a School Counselor in the Burlington Edison Schools.

I am concerned that the environmental impact process will focus on too narrow an area.

In your environmental impact study, please take into consideration the effects of coal transport through every community that is included in its route. The consequences of this plan to ship coal from Wyoming to China are far-reaching - don't leave out the communities along that route that do not have a voice in this process.

Thank you,
Molly Westring

Thank you,
Molly

Mary Westring (#3077)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a 12 year resident of Bellingham and a School Counselor in the Burlington Edison Schools.

I am concerned that the dangers inherent in the transportation of coal from Wyoming to China will create costs on our communities that may be overlooked in the environmental impact study.

In your environmental impact study, please study the economic liabilities of the risks involved along the entire transport route and determine who will be liable. If you find risks to human and/or environmental health, who will pay for their mitigation? If trains fall off of the tracks, who will pay for the cleanup? If boats collide, who will be liable for their clean-up?

Thank you,
Molly

Mary Westring (#3078)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a 12 year resident of Bellingham and a School Counselor in the Burlington Edison Schools.

I am concerned about the economic impact the coal terminal and coal transport will have on our community. The biggest argument I have heard in support of the terminal is that it will create jobs.

In your environmental impact study, please study the reality of this arguement. How many jobs will actually be created? Will they be short term or long term? And how many jobs are at risk of being lost? How will the coal trains effect fishing? Farming? Local businesses?

Thank you,
Molly

Mary Westring (#3079)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a 12 year resident of Bellingham and a School Counselor in the Burlington Edison Schools. I have chosen to live in Bellingham because of the amazing natural beauty, recreational opportunities, and rich the quality of life here.

I am concerned about the impacts that the coal terminal and coal transport will have on our local economy and quality of life. Many people visit our area to take advantage of the many recreational opportunities that we have to offer. Many others run thriving businesses based on these opportunities.

In your environmental impact study, please study the potential impacts that coal transport may have on our quality of life and tourism economy.

Thank you,
Molly

Mary Westring (#3080)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a 12 year resident of Bellingham and a School Counselor in the Burlington Edison Schools. I have chosen to live in Bellingham because of the amazing natural beauty, recreational opportunities, and rich the quality of life here.

I am concerned about the impacts that the coal terminal and coal transport will have on our local economy and quality of life. Many people visit our area to take advantage of the many recreational opportunities that we have to offer. Many others run thriving businesses based on these opportunities.

In your environmental impact study, please study the potential impacts that coal transport may have on our quality of life and tourism economy.

Thank you,
Molly

Mary Whitemore (#934)

Date Submitted: 10/22/2012
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Comment:
Oct 22, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

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

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

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

At a time when we should be encouraging greed, renewable energy here and throughout the world, a dirty coal depot seem hypocritical and wrong.

Sincerely,

Mary Whitmore
2410 206th Pl SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036-8701

Mary WillAllen (#2617)

Date Submitted: 11/03/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Mary Williamson (#5043)

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 neighborhood and 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.

We are already experiencing dramatic negative effects of climate change in the U.S. and worldwide. The environmental damage and the economic and political consequences of climate change are devastatingly real and must be carefully considered in any review of proposals to export coal from the U.S. We should not bow to pressure from coal companies and resource extraction industries on this topic -- their narrow concerns are at odds with our national interests and with the pursuit of global health and economic prosperity.

Sincerely yours, Mary Williamson

mary wirkus (#9952)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Rexburg, ID
Comment:
Mental deterioration

Mary & J.Peter van der een (#8862)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It is a moral issue. Burning additional tons of coal in Chinese power plants will release enormous additional quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. In Europe such emissions are taxed. I request the EIS co-lead agencies to provide data on expected increased emissions of CO2. In addition, to provide data on the tax to be paid, based on the European data, to at least partly offset the increased droughts, floods, inundation of low lying coastal areas such as parts of Bangladesh, the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean atolls and islands. Moreover, the reduction of food production as a result of the increased global warming (e.g. Russia and the Middle East several years in succession, the US last year, Pakistan due to Indus river floods, China due to decreased winter moisture storage in the Himalayas) causes significant increases of food prices. This affects mostly the poorer countries and the poorer people in the wealthier countries. Coal exports from the US will be partly to blame, and it is morally imperative that they be taxed to provide food for the areas most affected.

Mary & J.Peter van der een (#8863)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It is a moral issue. Burning additional tons of coal in Chinese power plants will release enormous additional quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. In Europe such emissions are taxed. I request the EIS co-lead agencies to provide data on expected increased emissions of CO2. In addition, to provide data on the tax to be paid, based on the European data, to at least partly offset the increased droughts, floods, inundation of low lying coastal areas such as parts of Bangladesh, the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean atolls and islands. Moreover, the reduction of food production as a result of the increased global warming (e.g. Russia and the Middle East several years in succession, the US last year, Pakistan due to Indus river floods, China due to decreased winter moisture storage in the Himalayas) causes significant increases of food prices. This affects mostly the poorer countries and the poorer people in the wealthier countries. Coal exports from the US will be partly to blame, and it is morally imperative that they be taxed to provide food for the areas most affected.

Mary & J.Peter van der een (#8864)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It is a moral issue. Burning additional tons of coal in Chinese power plants will release enormous additional quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. In Europe such emissions are taxed. I request the EIS co-lead agencies to provide data on expected increased emissions of CO2. In addition, to provide data on the tax to be paid, based on the European data, to at least partly offset the increased droughts, floods, inundation of low lying coastal areas such as parts of Bangladesh, the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean atolls and islands. Moreover, the reduction of food production as a result of the increased global warming (e.g. Russia and the Middle East several years in succession, the US last year, Pakistan due to Indus river floods, China due to decreased winter moisture storage in the Himalayas) causes significant increases of food prices. This affects mostly the poorer countries and the poorer people in the wealthier countries. Coal exports from the US will be partly to blame, and it is morally imperative that they be taxed to provide food for the areas most affected.

Mary & J.Peter van der Veen (#7918)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The present numerous level crossings of the existing railway, notably in the Seattle/Everett/Bellingham area, will cause up to 6 hours of additional traffic delays at each crossing ( 18 additional trains each way, 10 minutes wait each time, total 360 minutes). Obviously, the construction of over- or underpasses will be required prior to the operation of the coal trains to the proposed new coal harbor at Cherry Point.
We have been informed that 90% of the cost has to be paid by the taxpayers in the affected rail corridor. No estimates have been provided by the companies requiring the permits. Those estimates should be given as soon as possible.
We came to Bellingham as retirees, attracted by the scenery, healthy environment, presence of the Western Washington University. The expected increased real estate tax as a result of the need to pay for the overpasses most likely will lead to a decreased number of retirees seeking to live here. Please look into its negative impact on the economy pf our community.

Mary & J.Peter van der Veen (#7930)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
We live near Chuckanut Drive, and use it regularly to visit family in Oak Harbor,WA. Also, when we have visitors from out of State or foreign countries, we use it to show them the scenic area we live in.
Occasionally the road is blocked due to rockslides or falling rocks. partly as a result of the vibrations by coal trains and other heavy cargo trains passing below the highway. People living near the tracks are reporting vibration in their houses during the passing of the trains is obvious.
Please measure the amount of vibration which is expected to cause the more frequent interruption of traffic on this scenic road as a result of the expected large increases of coal trains, and its impact on tourism and, thereby, on the economy of our local community (including, in particular, Fairhaven). Moreover, this winter's increased mudslides (and train derailment) causing the interruption of AMTRAK trains from Seattle to Vancouver, are likely to increase when the railway will be used frequently for the 18 coal trains a day, and the 18 empty trains returning Southbound).

Mary & Larry Laissue (#5673)

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

Mary & Will Allen (#730)

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

Mary Agnes Villanueva (#14654)

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

Mary Alice Eberle (#13061)

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 the Cherry Point / Bellingham area by increasing traffic, polluting the 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.

Allowing this terminal would also negatively affect our state with some of the same concerns. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Environmental studies are for our own protection. Let as turn all our energy toward creating jobs that can provide clean energy for our state.

As a child we had a coal room like many other people in the day. I can assure you that coal dust has a very efficient way of spreading in any area through which it travels.

Let Washington state be a leader in clean energy industry and thwart any energy that most certainly would pollute our atmosphere.

Mary and Gilbert Masters (#6788)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

We are property owners in San Juan County. We are 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. We 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.

We are especially concerned about oil and coal spill risks. Questions that concern us, and which should be addressed by objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies include:

1. How will GPT's marine vessel traffic increase collision risks with tankers and other cargo ships in the area?
2. What would be the effects on our region of a catastrophic oil and/or coal spill?

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

Sincerely,

Gilbert and Mary Masters
Orcas Island
______

Mary and Gilbert Masters (#8984)

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

We are residents of San Juan County, WA and Mary is a marine naturalist working in the ecotourism industry there. We are 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. We 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.

We are 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 us, 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,
Mary and Gil Masters
______

Mary and Gilbert Masters (#8996)

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

We are residents of San Juan County, WA and Mary is a marine naturalist working in the ecotourism industry there. We are 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. We 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.

We are especially concerned about the impacts to orca, marine mammals and birds. Questions that concern us, and which should be addressed by objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies 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 adverse impacts, please consider a no build option.

Sincerely,

Mary and Gil Masters
______

Mary and Gilbert Masters (#9280)

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

We are residents of San Juan County, WA and Mary is a marine naturalist working in the ecotourism industry there. We are concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) were to be built. We 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.

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

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

Sincerely,
Gil and Mary Masters
______

Mary Anderson Dearing (#4749)

Date Submitted: 12/14/2012
Location: Sumner, WA
Comment:
Dear Decision Makers,
In evaluating the merits of the increase to train traffic I would like to request that you consider the impact to the property values of those who own property abutting or nearly abutting the rail lines.
I live at 618 McKinnon Avenue in Sumner, WA, Pierce County, this is a property that abutts the rail bed.
We are disrupted by rail noise and whistles every time a train passes, but more significantly, the heavier the train the greater the vibration that passes through the ground and impacts nearby structures. I have had many things fall from shelves and cabinets, very heavy trains have awakened me from sleep in the middle of the night, wondering if I should shelter from an earthquake.
I know that only 9 of the 18 mile and a half long trains per day will carry coal, but we know that will be a heavy load and it may very well have a negative impact on the structural stability of my home.
Now, let's consider who buys homes that abutt to the rail line. Who rents them. This is never high end property. In my case, I spent most of my working career in clerical jobs because as a woman, my college degree didn't mean a higher level until I was into my 40's. I spent 2 decades as a single mother. I have not had much of an opportunity to build wealth, and this home represents all the wealth, all the retirement planning I will ever get to do. My husband and I invested in this home with the expectation of having it paid off, and of aging in place with the ability to pay for property taxes and upkeep out of our combined social security payments when the time comes. This home will probably eventually be sold to meet our final end of life expenses. If additional very heavy rail traffic erodes the final value of our home or erodes our ability to quiety enjoy it, the cost to us is enormous. Because our ages are advanced, 58 and 67, we do not have career time left for financial recovery. This heavily increases the chance that we will beome dependent on the community for services after retirement, adding to the financial burdens our city, county and state goverments already bear.
When I try to image what mitigation might be possible, I can think of two. One is for some agency to step forward and buy the property from me. The problem with that solution is that market value of my home does not allow me to buy another piece of property outright and extending a mortgage burden is not something I expect to be able to afford. Also, I do not expect to be able to match the location of my home in terms of it's small city setting with good access to public transportation that allows me to remain mobile without depending on others should either of us ever loose our ability to drive.
The other possible attempt at mitigation that I can think of might include the erection of sound barriers along the railbed. That offers a particular problem for us because as avid gardeners, we would loose significant access to sunlight. We already enjoy the benefits of growing many fruits and vegetables organically at home, and we don't want to see those benefits of nutrition and exercise lost. We already loose a little space everytime the train company decides to improve the railbed by reinforcing it with more rock or soil thrown down the embankment. The train company enjoys right of way on my property, but does this mean that I am forever required to allow them to increase the size of that right of way without any further negotiation, mitigation, or compensation?
These concerns by their nature apply to only a portion of the community, but the rail line is long, and I expect it may affect a population that exceeds in size the number of individuals who will benefit from new employment opportunities at Cherry Point and on additional train runs. Like many other commenters I am concerned about broader impacts to human and environmental health and welfare, but I believe those concerns are well addressed by other testimonies, and that the economic injuries to persons living along the rail lines are an equally legitimate cause for concern.
Thank you.
Mary Anderson Dearing
618 McKinnon Avenue
Sumner, WA
Pierce Co.

Mary Ann Burke (#11025)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Coupeville, WA
Comment:
Please study the effects of burning all the coal on the oceans, air quality and
life in general on the planet.
Thank you.

Mary Ann Dow (#8280)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the transport of coal, transfer for exporting at a new port and increased large shipping on the Salish Sea. The threat to the health of our region is too great. We should not be trading away our future regional health so corporations can make money exporting coal to be burning in Asia. The pollution adds to ocean acidification and blows right back over here. We must switch from fossil fuel use to clean, sustainable energy. The time to change was yesterday.

Mary Ann Kirkpatrick (#7656)

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

Mary Ann Sun (#4351)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: SEattle, WA
Comment:
Dec 7, 2012

Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology WA

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

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

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

I am in the park at Blue Ridge every day. Families live there and will be victims of the additional noise and traffic. Coal trains will turn neighborhoods into a right of way. Not acceptable.

Also, why ship coal to China and then breathe the air that comes from the exhaust.
We are creating a monster.

Sincerely,

Mary Ann Sun
7522 24th Ave NW # 6
Seattle, WA 98117-4403
(206) 783-6724

Mary Ann & Ray Walters & Heffley (#1929)

Date Submitted: 11/01/12
Comment:
We are writing to express strong opposition to the Gateway Pacific terminal and the coal train which would pass along the Bellingham waterfront. We have been planning to buy a house on the waterfront for years, but with this issue in the balance, we need to wait for the outcome before making a decision. It's sad to think that the entire character of the scenic waterfront and the people who reside there, are in jeopardy.

Our concerns relate to environmental impact of the coal train on the surrounding area, the increased noise related to the frequent trains ( very frequently, all day and night), traffic problems and safety concerns near the train crossings, and the adverse impact on the character of the entire waterfront because of the coal train. Additionally, we have significant concerns about the impact on the watershed and fishery in the proposed terminal area. Millions of gallons of ballast water will be emptied into Puget Sound waters. We are asking for a thorough study of these effects on the marine ecosystem. Furthermore, there are tribal considerations in the Cherry Point area. Furthermore, we are extremely concerned about the cost to taxpayers, as well as the numerous and documented health and safety hazards directly related to the coal train issue.

The community of Bellingham has made it abundantly clear that we do not welcome nor support the Gateway Pacific terminal plan. Support of the coal industry runs contrary to current conservation policy related to green energy alternatives. The benefits do not outweigh the environmental and human cost. Please do not allow the coal train and the port to ruin our wonderful community.

MaryAnn Walters and Ray Heffley

Mary Ann and Frank Graffagnino (#13945)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
My husband and 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. We 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, my husband and I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

PLEASE TAKE THE RIGHT, FAIR, JUST AND HUMANE ACTION AS URGED ABOVE.

Mary Anne Joyce (#3495)

Date Submitted: 11/23/12
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
Mr. Randall Perry
US Army Corps of engineers

Dear Mr. Perry:

I am writing because I oppose the Pacific NW becoming a gateway for coal exports around the world. Not only is coal contributing to global climate change, but the proposed coal export terminals in Washington State also pose a huge threat to the Columbia River Gorge and its residents.

Proposed export facilities in Bellingham and Longview would result in an estimated 50 additional uncovered coal trains, with 120 cars per train, traveling each day through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) estimates that each coal car would lose 500 to 2000 pounds of coal during this trip, mostly in the form of coal dust. Based on BNSF own estimates, this means that many thousands of pounds of fugitive coal dust would be deposited in the Gorge every day, damaging the human health and the environment.

Air quality is already degraded in the Columbia River Gorge. Between the dramatic increase in diesel emissions due to the volume of trains and the amount of coal dust dislodged during transport, coal exports would significantly harm air quality in the Columbia Gorge and result in the risk of higher rates of cancer, emphysema and asthma.

The doubling of rail traffic caused by coal export proposals would result in significant congestion and long transportation delays in rail communities, cutting off river access, hurting local businesses, inconveniencing commuters and delaying response times for emergency vehicles. Rail traffic in the Gorge is already near capacity. Coal export proposals would likely result in efforts to expand rail capacity into environmentally sensitive areas in the Columbia Gorge.

Coal export terminals and the associated transportation of coal through this region would result in degrading the beautiful natural environment of the Columbia River Gorge, negatively impacting air quality, and harming the health and economies of local communities.

Coal export does not provide any benefit to communities along the transportation route and comes at a terrible cost to our health, environment and public safety. Please do not allow these projects to go forward.

mary Anne Joyce

1724 SE 48

Portland OR 97215

Mary Anne Rangel (#1117)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

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

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

Added by Mary Anne Rangel

I just read the last issue of the Sierra Club Magazine in which is highlighted the effect of coal on people in many states. It sends a clear message and enforces my belief that coal is the dirtiest form of energy and can cause many, many problems to people and the planet as a whole. People have been severely harmed with asthma, heart problems, lung damage, etc. in many places where coal is mined, used as an energy source and transported. This has been documented. Don't let this harm come our way, especially since the plan is to export it all to China. King Coal just wants to be even richer.

Mary Anne Rangel





mary anne rangel
251 South Garden ST
Bellingham, WA 98225

Mary Anne Rangel (#5560)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Mt. top removal coal mining is widely known to be one of the worst practices because of the permanent and devastating impact on drinking water and mountain ridges. The effects of coal bed discharge waters on the vegetation and soil ecosystem are known to be very harmful in the Powder Rive Basin of Wyoming. See "Effects of Coal Bed Discharge on the Vegetation and Soil Ecosystem of the Power River Basin, Wyoming" by Strauss, Tisdall, Gronin, Friedel, and Berquist. If the Cherry Point Coal terminal is permitted and built, up to 540 million tons of coal could be excavated from the Powder River Basin to be exported to China. How will this increase of production, the building of the terminal to export it and the rail transportation of the coal mitigate the increased damage done to the Powder River Basin area?

Mary Anne Rangel (#5565)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
BNSF states in its website that at least nine additional full and nine empty (each one and a half mile long) trains will pass along the west side of Washington on its way to Cherry Point should it be developed for the export of coal. These trains would pass right through downtown Bellingham, loosing 3 per cent of its load on the way or 1,780,000 short tons of coal dust. How will the bad effects of this coal dust be mitigated? Also, these trains will cause traffic delays, annoying for many and potentially dangerous for others in need of emergency vehicles on the other side of the tracks. How will this be avoided if Cherry Point is developed and the 18 or so trains pass through Bellingham?
How will the health risks of this tremendous increase of trains (coal dust and traffic problems) be mitigated?

Mary Anne Rangel (#5568)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
First of all, like many others, I do not believe that anyone has the right to remove mountain tops for personal profit, ie. for coal. Having said this, I refer to how Mt. top mining displaces farmers and ranchers in the Powder River Basin who depend on the land for a living by eliminating the use of land for crops and grazing. Also, this mining degrades the water sources of the area. Furthermore, in Wyoming, only 4% of the acres have been sufficiently reclaimed for bond release and fewer even in Montana. Farmers and ranchers have not been compensated for their losses due to this mining. See "Exporting Powder River Basin Coal: Risks and Costs.", WORC, Jan. 20, 2011. How can these farmers and ranchers be compensated if mining increases to supply up to 540 million tons of coal a year to China? Again, I do not believe in anyone having the right to Mt. top removal for mining coal. Living near the North Cascades I am awed by their beauty and can't imagine the tops of any of them being removed.

Mary Anne Rangel (#5569)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Who will pay for the damage done to the ecology of Cherry Point (the wetlands there which would be destroyed) and the waters around it in the event of a bulk carrier failure? How will fill fishermen be compensated for loss of fish populations and how will further damage to the the eel beds at Cherry Point be avoided? How will the Lummi people be compensated for fishing losses? Who will pay for any clean-up in the event of vessel failure or oil spills from vessels?

Mary Anne Rangel (#5570)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
SSA Marine says it will be paying $10 million annually in taxes. However, federal law prohibits railroads from paying more than ten percent of the cost for safety improvements such as at-grade crossings. Who will pay for these improvements? We all will and public coffers will be seriously impacted.

Mary Anne Rangel (#5571)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The shipping of the tremendous amounts of coal to China through Cherry Point will result in approximately 150 million tons in new greenhouse gases annually. This impact cannot be mitigated. China says it has "clean coal" technologies but there is no such thing as "clean coal". While we are trying to be a coal free state, why are we willing to put our health and our planets health at risk by shipping coal through Washington to China? The pollution from China will come right back to us through the air. How can this impact be mitigated?

Mary Anne Rangel (#5572)

Date Submitted: 12/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The shipping of the tremendous amounts of coal to China through Cherry Point will result in approximately 150 million tons in new greenhouse gases annually. This impact cannot be mitigated. China says it has "clean coal" technologies but there is no such thing as "clean coal". While we are trying to be a coal free state, why are we willing to put our health and our planets health at risk by shipping coal through Washington to China? The pollution from China will come right back to us through the air. How can this impact be mitigated?

Mary Anne Rangel (#6050)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In the Salish Sea the Orca whales and many other marine species would be adversely affected by the tremendous increase of sound from the increase of some 450 annual round trips of vessels needed to for the Gateway terminal if built.
Also, there would likely be an increase of invasive species in our pacific waters due to the cargo ships returning from China after leaving the coal there that would be filled with bilge waters form Asia to stabilize the ships and this water would likely hold eggs and larvae of species native to Asian waters but invasive to ours. This water would be discharged into our waters to make more room for coal back to Asia. Thus, invasive species would enter our waters, causing danger to the health of our marine food web. Orca whales, salmon and many other species of our waters would be in danger. How will the tremendous increase in noise and the entrance of invasive species be addressed? How would the ill effects of these two factors be mitigated?

Mary Anne Rangel (#6092)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Re-reading an article "The High Cost of Cheap Coal", National Geographic, March 2006, I become more concerned about the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point, Whatcom County. It would be processing and shipping coal from mountain top mining plants in Wyoming and Montana, thus helping the dirty coal mining there to continue. This article points out, as we know, that coal puts out the most carbon dioxide per unit of energy of all fossil fuels and therefore presents a bigger threat to global warming than any other. The article then concentrates on the ill effects of mountain top coal mining and all the tremendous damage it has done to people and the environment in West Virginia and (now is doing in the Powder River Basin). Residents in these areas pay a high price in noise, air and water pollution. "What the coal companies are doing to us and our mountains is the best kept dirty little secret in America." (residents of the coal mining areas in West Virginia) The mitigation of all the damage done by mountain top mining would certainly not be aided by the building of the terminal at Cherry Point or any other place in Washington or Oregon. The demand for coal for these terminals would just cause more damage in the Powder River Basin.

Mary Anne Rangel (#6094)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Recently a Shell Oil Company broke loose from a Shell tug boat and ran aground in Kodiac Alaska. This is one more example of what can happen in turbulent waters. There is an increase in risk of such accidents if terminals shipping tremendous amounts of coal to Asia are built and put into use in the Northwest. Single-hulled cargo ships that would support the Cherry Point terminal, specifically, require no tug boat escorts. If a vessel full of coal collides with an oil tanker or if it runs aground, the spill of coal or worse both coal and oil, would be a catastrophic event. How can such accidents possibly be avoided? If they happen, who will pay for them and their clean-up and how will sea life in the area be protected and/or saved?

Mary Anne Rangel (#6119)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It is established by the Washington State Department of Transportation that the most restrictive choke point for the rail line to the terminal in Whatcom County along the I-5 corridor is the section of track running next to Samish Bay below Chuckanut Drive. There is no room to double the track and no way to accommodate the number and weight of the trains needed for operations at the terminal. Thus, the question of inter-depence becomes important. How would the trains get through Samish Bay? Where else would the rail lines be routed? How would they be routed and at what cost to the agricultural land, parks and recreational areas, businesses and residences in the areas where this routing and/or connecting east and west (such as at the Custer Spur) might occur?

Mary Anne Rangel (#6120)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
After looking at the record of coal train derailments I have become very worried about the frequency and effects of them. Since 2010, there have been more than 40 coal train derailments in the United States, in some cases, causing death (St. Charles VA, Dec. 11, 2012, killing one man; Elliott City, MO, August, 2012, two college students killed) These derailments leave toxic coal everywhere around them and cause deaths. How can these derailments be prevented along the I-5 corridor should the terminals in Washington be permitted and production and transportation and shipment of tremendous amounts of coal to Asia be allowed?

Mary Anne Rangel (#8583)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
According to the Jan. 17th issue of the Seattle Times, Beijung, China suffered one of its worst rounds of air pollution ever. This pollution can be attributed to China's huge production of coal burning energy. The New York Times article of Jan. 11, 2006 talked about the lesser known exports of China; "a brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate changing gases from the smokestacks of coal burning power plants". This soot was seen that year in a dense cloud over Soel, Korea and some researchers in California, Oregon and Washington recorded "specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other by products of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountain detectors." These specks can enter our lungs, causing cancer and heart problems. The Guardian of Jan.12, 2012 published an article about China wanting to and trying to produce clean forms of energy (solar, etc)but is still burning tremendous amounts of coal. According to the article, coal burning is the largest source of carbon dioxide emission in the world and at the time of the article, China accounts for half of all the coal burned on the planet. Why would we want to contribute to this tremendous coal consumption, knowing that the pollution from coal burning in China would come right back to us? How does permitting any coal export port in Washington, ie., Cherry Point, mitigate the future potential for more climate change and pollution over Washington from China? China officials say they want to change to cleaner forms of energy. If they do, they won't even need our coal. For the time being, however, why ship them ours, from a state soon to be coal burning free?

Mary Anne Rangel (#8590)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
As a child I had pneumonia and I worry about my lungs and any damage possibly caused by the emissions of coal transported through Bellingham. I know that coal dust particles are dangerous to human health. How can these damages be mitigated in the event of tremendous amounts of coal transported by rail?

Mary Anne Rangel (#9777)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I agree with James Well's impact statement that the agencies involved in this environmental impact study should consider Carbon Dioxide and other pollutant emissions from the coal at its point of combustion (ie. China).We should not be sending our cheap coal to China when we are on our way to becoming coal combustion free. China and the companies proposing the terminal at Cherry Point and the transportation of coal through our state by rail will tell us that if they don't supply the coal, someone else will or China will mine more of their own. It is immoral and us to contribute to the CO2 levels in this world. According to RCW 70 235 070 (1) (a) emissions of CO2 should be reduced to previous levels. The coal terminal, if permitted, would emit tens of millions of metric tons of CO2, wiping out all possible reductions. There is no point in reducing local emissions while helping an increase elsewhere. According to the Wash. Admin. Code Sec. 197-11-060 (4) (b), "A lead agency shall not limit its consideration of a proposal to impacts to those within its jurisdiction, including local and state boundaries. Therefore, I ask that the agencies consider the emissions of pollutants at the point of the coal emissions.

Mary Anne White (#1512)

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

Mary Catherine Dunphy (#11332)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Miles City, MT
Comment:
The hundreds of millions of tons of coal that will be shipped will, when burned, greatly pollute Planet Earth's atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which will accelerate global warming. It will be a crime against humanity because the carbon dioxide and the effects of global warming will affect all of humanity and every species on Planet Earth. It will "gas the planet" and could even be considered a chemical or biological weapon of mass destruction. Please consult with the climate scientists about the facts. Please contact Dr. Steve Running, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and/or Dr. James Hansen of NASA. The World Bank in November, 2012 issued a report entitled, "Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4 Degree Celsius Warmer World Must be Avoided." Ask yourself: "What is the difference between destroying the planet by nuclear explosion or climate change/global warming?" Is it merely the speed at which the destruction happens? Is it the difference between choosing to be executed by the electric chair or be hanged? We must be proactive in slowing down global warming. The experts tell us time is not on our side. Will you listen? Please listen and stop this disaster from happening.

Mary Ellen Haker (#4422)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
Dec 6, 2012

Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology WA

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

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

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals. I LIVE 2-3 BLOCKS FROM THE RAILROAD TRACKS. ARE THE PROMISE OFJOBS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIVES -- OR QUALITY OF LIFE?

Sincerely,

Mary Ellen Haker
1120 W Sprague Ave Apt 704
Spokane, WA 99201-4032
(509) 714-1574

Mary Ellen Shields (#11043)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern;

I am a recently retired pediatrician who has practiced medicine in Whatcom County for 32 years. I have primarily practiced pediatrics in the Community Medicine arena, working with low income children. I completed a Fellowship in Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine after my Pediatric Residency and maintained an interest in this field throughout my career. As a pediatrician, I am very concerned about the potential health impacts of the proposed coal terminal locally, as well as the health impacts of the shipping of coal both by rail and by sea.

The specific impacts of concern to me include the deleterious health effects of diesel particulate matter (DPM), which have been well documented in numerous studies, and include increased cancer risks, as well as cardiac and pulmonary morbidity and mortality. These health effects are particularly harmful to the more vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly. I am also concerned about the health impacts of coal dust and combustion leading to environmental contamination by heavy metals leading to carcinogenic, neurological, cardiac and pulmonary problems, again particularly in the very young and very old. Mercury carried in the air from coal burned in China has even been shown to contaminate water in the Great Lakes and locally in Lake Whatcom. Also the health impacts of inhaled airborne coal dust, also well studied in the scientific/medical literature, must be assessed. In addition noise pollution, delays in obtaining Emergency Medical Services due to blocked railway crossings, increased accidents at crossings and along the entire transportation of coal corridor are of concern. In addition there are the more global health concerns related to the effects of using coal as a source of energy generation with its dominant effects on increased global warming.

I strongly believe that the scoping process should include a formal and independent Health Impact Assessment to address the above concerns. This would include a careful review of scientific data to localize and quantify the health impacts and risks to the communities along the railway corridor as well as the area of the proposed terminal here in Whatcom County.

In addition I would like the EIS to include a careful look at the effects this project would have on water, particularly the water of Puget Sound. There are already