EIS Home > EIS Library > Scoping Report > Appendix G - All Scoping Comments > Public (T - Z)

T Jones (#4274)

Date Submitted: 12/09/12
Comment:
I hope that the Gateway Pacific Terminal will be approved and built with good but reasonable protective measures in place.
Regards,
T. Jones

T Lyn (#9060)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Whitefish, MT
Comment:
We already know that transport of mineral resources can have significant impact away from the source and processing terminal. Just look at Libby, MT and the impacts William Grace had on the region and throughout the nation. The government, including EPA turned it's back, on the impacts for years. People have died. People have been sick. People are still dying. People are still sick. The contaminants are still in our communities.

I am very concerned with the impacts on my local area by this proposed project and look forward to the environmental review process fully protecting my home along the railroad tracks of Idaho, Montana and Washington. Any decision must fully protect all human and natural resources located along any route that may be used for transport of minerals bound for the Cherry Point Terminal.

Having a home in Whitefish, MT near a significant rail depot I am extremely concerned with the potential for environmental degradation. Whitefish already has a Superfund clean-up site from unregulated activities. Further contamination of any kind, even the risk of such contamination is totally unacceptable.

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 send results of the scoping process, DEIS, EIS and any other related documents in paper format to the above address. I request paper as I do not have reliable electronic access.

T Abe Lloyd (#5083)

Date Submitted: 12/14/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Tabitha Borchardt (#6834)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
My husband and I live on Capitol Hill, we've lived in Seattle for over a decade now. At night, because of the topography of Seattle, or the reflection of the clouds, or something else, it sounds like the trains in the SODO/Georgetown area are just a couple blocks away. Increasing the number of trains will mean increasing this noise that often keeps us up at night and disturbs our quiet evenings. I understand some trains and the noise that comes with them is, of course, necessary to a big city.

When I moved to Seattle in 1999, from the pristine Glacier Park area of Montana, I started to get bronchitis and respiratory infections every year, and in the last five years I also developed asthma. I feel every shift in pollutants. I can't walk along arterial roads because the car emissions give me attacks. When people start lighting up their wood stoves in the winter, the city air becomes unbearable to the point where I can't go outside some days. The coal trains unloading their dust along the route would be one more major pollutant in our city, another hazard that increases respiratory ailments in our community and makes life harder for those coping with asthma.

With all of the problems we're starting to see with drought and forest fires, it seems like a terrible idea to have highly flammable coal chunks and dust being spread all along the tracks from here to Wyoming. We are risking creating fires in a couple of our precious national parks, and creating a health hazard for the animals that live near there.

Please say no to coal trains. Any short-time economic benefit or small number of jobs cannot possibly outweigh the damage that would be done to our community human health and the health of all the beautiful areas where the trains will rumble through, from here to Glacier Park, and beyond.

Taina Litwak (#13848)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington (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.

Tal Connor (#6468)

Date Submitted: 01/04/13
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 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.

As an additional, personal comment, I would like to add that it sickens me to see the means taken to make big corporate profits. We are living in an increasingly smaller world, with an increasing number of poor people, and it is truly up to corporate giants to make positive changes in the world. The politics of convincing the poor that these irresponsible business practices are helpful to us, are disheartening. A public victory against the richest in our nation would give me and many others, a glimmer of hope for mankind.

As a native Montanan, a Bellingham resident, an elementary school teacher, and the son of social workers, I passionately add my voice to the public's criticism.

Thank you,
Tal B. Connor

Tal Sturdivant (#2295)

Date Submitted: 11/04/2012
Location: Friday Harbor, Wa
Comment:
Please study and report to us the increased marine collision risks that will result from additional coal terminal shipping in the waters of northern and southern Puget Sound. There seem to be absolutely no public benefits in these plans - but you must at least tell us the increased risks involved.

Tal Sturdivant
Friday Harbor

Talitha Thalya (#4688)

Date Submitted: 12/13/2012
Location: Olympia , wa
Comment:
I have read may studies about how burning coal causes acid rain. We are now experiencing global acidification of our waters causing our food chain to become severely challenged. We are seeing mass beaching of aquatic life and the list goes on. Our health and security is threatened. We can not ignore these things and think oh let some other section of business fix it. This is now the business of survival of life which has a right to thrive. We want corporate profits to come from clean technologies.

Tamalyn Kralman (#1798)

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

Tamar Clarke (#8643)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
We feel that coal trains will adversely impact the environment as well as an unwelcomed constant noise and traffic presence in our town. Please find other ways to transport the coal.

Tamar Clarke

Tamara Compton (#9696)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Our waste disposal service company is located right next to an ungraded rail crossing over which a great number of trash trucks needs to travel daily. If those trucks have to be rerouted in order to perform their service what will the impact be on surrounding streets? What time and cost factors will increase because of this disruption?

The Puget Sound and its marine life is already endangered by the U.S. Navy's use and the increase in cruise ships in the area. Adding additional marine traffic, especially potentially hazardous cargo ships, may strike the final blow to the health of our water and animals.

The costs to provide all the infrastructure changesrequired to deal with the increased rail traffic will not be borne by the companies that stand to profit from this terminal but by the already stretched tax payers and governments in the area concerned. The companies should be required to bear all costs or no deal.

Tamara Grunhurd (#5419)

Date Submitted: 12/26/2012
Location: Bellingham, wa
Comment:
Please study the impact that the daily movement of 18 trains of over 100 cars each, each car filled with coal, will have on the railway, surrounding topography and land surrounding the railway. I am afraid that such a heavy, heavy load going over the tracks multiple times each day and rumbling through residential communities will have on adverse, premature-wear effect on the rail lines themselves, the lands they sit on and traverse. The tracks travel along very sensitive areas along the coastline, with bluffs on one side and bays, inlets and sounds on the other. With the propensity for landslides these areas experience, I can't imagine that the tracks or trains will create a very efficient route of transportation. Landslides from Seattle to Everett plague rail lines daily every winter; with the increased loads, including frequency and tonnage, I expect that not only will those lines be inefficient for the coal trains, they will be damaged further by the coal trains and more landslides and unusable rail lines will be our fate. I am also concerned about areas along the coastline that have not yet been affected, but will surely be negatively impacted by the immense tonnage and frequency of these trains: the miles of dirt bluffs that hug the coastline where tracks have been built. Old neighborhoods inhabit these bluffs, and homes are built on them. Not only will the architecture/construction of these homes not withstand the heavy below-ground reverberations of these trains, but the bluffs they are built on may certainly suffer damage, erosion and perhaps collapse.
What kind of reparations or compensation will these homeowners receive if their houses and/or land are damaged or destroyed? How will this threat undermine their investment in their home, and will they be compensated for any loss of value their property experiences as a result of these trains?

I have many, many concerns about the coal trains and the multitude of ways they will negatively affect our region, but the question of these rail lines is one that I don't believe has been addressed.

My elderly parents own a condo right above the tracks, on the corner of W Holly and Broadway in Bellingham. Not only are the trains disturbing visually and aurally, at all hours of the day and night, but we can actually feel the condo vibrate with under-earth rumblings as the trains approach. The condo that they live in was built on a bluff, but the concrete pilings are secured way under ground, and the construction of the building is solid. However, there are historic homes built on either side of them that are certainly not going to withstand years of heavy, long trains plying the rails nearly 20 times every day. Not to mention that many of the homes are built close to the bluff; it is their property. What happens if the bluff erodes or is damaged or collapses? What then? Who pays? Where will people live if their home or property is damaged, by no action or fault of their own? I think it is criminal that we are allowing a conglomeration of corporations to railroad us into accepting a business proposition that will certainly line their pockets, but that we will certainly pay for on many levels as they will refuse to be held accountable for the damage their activities will cause to not just our community, but along the whole coastline where tracks are laid.

Please include these issues as a part of the scoping project.

Tamara Mathews (#12914)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
My family has asthma, we need less pollution in the air on this planet!
Using coal anywhere on the earth ruins the environment for everyone.
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.

Tamara Wood (#465)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Snohomish, 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.
Money is not everything!

Sincerely,

Tamara Wood

Tami Eiford (#2002)

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

Tami Kannenberg (#942)

Date Submitted: 10/21/12
Location: Oak Harbor, 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.

Earth- it's the ONLY home we've got; protect and respect it.

Sincerely,

Tami Kannenberg
34938 State Route 20 Trlr 54
Oak Harbor, WA 98277-9253

Tammy Benson (#1096)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Oct 22, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I am very worried about the prospect of an export terminal at Cherry Point. There are too many unanswered questions. From water quality, herring habitat, the impact on orcas - to land issues - both environmental, human and to the city of Bellingham which has a fantastic plan to clean-up the bay and reinvigorate our waterfront. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

tammy benson
3655 Toad Lake Rd
Bellingham, WA 98226-7813

Tammy Domike (#250)

Date Submitted: 10/03/2012
Location: Hoquiam, 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 need clean exports and industries that do not harm our state. Coal is too dangerous for all the above reasons.

Sincerely,

Tammy Domike

Tammy Domike (#11968)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Hoquiam, Wa
Comment:
I agree with James Wells of Bellingham, and ask you to consider all the ramifications of exporting coal to China.
"In public discourse, we have repeatedly heard a defeatist and misleading suggestion that people in China will just acquire coal from elsewhere, dug out of mines that do not currently exist, and burn that coal instead, if we do not export coal to them. That may or may not occur. If it does, that other coal will cost them more than importing coal from the USA, and thus they would probably use less. But in all cases it’s never morally acceptable to be part of something harmful on the theory that someone else, somewhere else, is going to do it anyway.

Broadly, in permitting activities, agencies are required to evaluate an activity for the entirety of what it is, not as compared to some imaginary other circumstance that may or may not occur. This particular coal, if shipped to Asia to be burned, will create the pollutants. If not, then those pollutant emissions will not occur at that place and time. Therefore the full effects should be considered. "

These impacts need to be evaluated, and I request it be studied thoroughly.

As Kate Bowers, Bow, WA points out, these rich corporations should not be allowed to put the people of Washington state at risk for extreme profits, without substantial monetary damage deposit, and I agree with others that the $500B price tag is too small.

Tammy Grantham (#2767)

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

tammy pollard (#7566)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Eastsound, wa
Comment:
My husband Paul and I have lived in the San Juan Islands for over 18 years. Some of the biggest reasons for our move were better air quality and very little noise pollution and an increased quality of life in general. The proposed new Coal terminal would have dire repercussions in all of those areas. I agree with Arthur Winer’s comments and research on possible increased air pollution as a result of the coal dust, additional ship and train traffic, etc. “The frequency of diesel locomotives passing through highly populated areas under the proposed GPT project would make these rail lines essentially “line sources” for locomotive diesel exhaust, thereby producing chronic downwind air pollution impacts in adjacent populations, similar to those observed for roadways with diesel (and gasoline) vehicle traffic. These line-source emissions from the diesel locomotives themselves would be exacerbated by the air pollution from large the numbers of cars and trucks idling for long periods of time while long and slow coal trains cross roads with no over- or under-passes” “The serious health effects of the air pollutants regulated under the NAAQS have been recognized for decades.” “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”
We live on the water and we are also concerned about the noise from the increased ship traffic, possible contamination of the waters and our food supply if there were to be any oil spills (and increased boat traffic would surely increase the potential for oil spills or other catastrophic events).
Christopher Greacen has some excellent comments about the possibility of earthquakes 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).” “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?”
We feel that a much more in-depth analysis of the coal terminal is needed with regard to air pollution, noise pollution, and contamination of our waters.
Thank you
Tammy and Paul Pollard

Tammy and Paul Pollard (#8629)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
My husband Paul and I have lived in the San Juan Islands for over 18 years. Some of the biggest reasons for our move were better air quality and very little noise pollution and an increased quality of life in general. The proposed new Coal terminal would have dire repercussions in all of those areas. I agree with Arthur Winer’s comments and research on possible increased air pollution as a result of the coal dust, additional ship and train traffic, etc. “The frequency of diesel locomotives passing through highly populated areas under the proposed GPT project would make these rail lines essentially “line sources” for locomotive diesel exhaust, thereby producing chronic downwind air pollution impacts in adjacent populations, similar to those observed for roadways with diesel (and gasoline) vehicle traffic. These line-source emissions from the diesel locomotives themselves would be exacerbated by the air pollution from large the numbers of cars and trucks idling for long periods of time while long and slow coal trains cross roads with no over- or under-passes” “The serious health effects of the air pollutants regulated under the NAAQS have been recognized for decades.” “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”
We live on the water and we are also concerned about the noise from the increased ship traffic, possible contamination of the waters and our food supply if there were to be any oil spills (and increased boat traffic would surely increase the potential for oil spills or other catastrophic events).
Christopher Greacen has some excellent comments about the possibility of earthquakes 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).” “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?”
We feel that a much more in-depth analysis of the coal terminal is needed with regard to air pollution, noise pollution, and contamination of our waters.
Thank you
Tammy Pollard

Tanja Kaneea (#1714)

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

Tanja Wilcox (#11026)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please find my comments in the attached letter.
Attached Files:

Tanner Dewitt (#13609)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Comment:
Dear whomever this may concern,
My name is Tanner Dewitt and I am attending Bellingham High school here in Bellingham, Washington. I have a concern on how the coal trains and coal dust will affect the wildlife. My concern is that the coal dust will harm the wildlife, and cause huge health problems. This includes marine wildlife and of course humans also. The coal could fall from the present used cars, and its dust could spread through the air. Animals of all species could consume it, including humans causing health problems such as in the lungs. As a solution I feel the impact could be greatly avoided by creating a sealed tube-like car that could transport the coal to its particular destination. This car would be sealed containing all the “Dust Particles” that are still lacquered down, while containing all the coal. This will eliminate the worry of dust spreading or coal falling out of the car. The side benefit is that trains are a good way of lowering gas emissions. A train can transport one ton of coal 495 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. I think the continuation of the coal terminal construction should proceed along with its mitigations. I would like to see if a new tube like sealed car be made also.
Thank you,
Tanner Dewitt

Tanya Baumgart (#8327)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In my life as a forty year resident of Whatcom County, water rights, quality, and consumption have often been at the forefront of our political conversations. In reviewing the plans for the coal terminal at Cherry Point, I see that dust control will be obtained by spraying water on the enormous piles of coal in the holding areas.

As the wife of a fisherman I am very concerned about the impact of drawing down water from the Nooksack on the ability of salmon to complete their migration. We already have a significant number of users impacting this resource. My question is, “Can we really afford to waste millions of gallons of our precious water resource watering coal just to keep the dust down?”

It is imperative that a comprehensive study of who has water rights and the quantity of potential and existing water consumption tallied to ascertain whether it is even feasible to utilize water to contain the dust. Would there be enough water without sacrificing salmon species?

Tanya Baumgart (#8345)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Re: Comment with regards to Gateway Pacific Terminal Scoping

As a fishing family in Whatcom County we have been held accountable to work around bird species that come into contact in fishing areas. Cherry Point Reach is one of the most heavily utilized areas in Whatcom County for bird habitat. Nearly 140 avian species have been recorded at or immediately adjacent to the Cherry Point Reach. Considering that this quantity represents 40 percent of the 344 species that have been recorded in Whatcom County, it is imperative to factor in the decimation of habitat that this development will ensure. SSA Marine must be able to provide protections to mitigate the harm it will cause.

Even more critical is the fact that eight species of these birds are listed on Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife’s website as either monitored, candidates for listing, or sensitive. When considering using this area as an international terminal that will ship primarily coal, in particular impacts on the four State Monitor[i] species (Green Heron, Turkey Vulture, Osprey, and Caspian Tern), the two State Candidate species[ii] (Brandt’s Cormorant, Pileated Woodpecker), and the two State Sensitive[iii] (Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon) species must be tabulated and determined.

Please scope the impacts to bird populations, particularly the listed species, caused by the habitat destruction of this project.

Thank you,

Tanya Baumgart

Tanya Braumiller (#1970)

Date Submitted: 10/26/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Tanya Fan (#13160)

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

Having coal go through our community is not acceptable. We hired you to take good care of our community well being. Including our air, water, environment. That comes before jobs. If we can't live in our community due to pollution, there won't be a need for jobs.

Tanya Hladik (#1793)

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

Tanya Hladik (#10989)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I am a lifelong resident of Whatcom County. The proposal of the coal terminal in our county concerns me for many reasons.

1) I wonder about the impact that this project will have on the beautiful natural environment of our county. Can you scope the effects of the coal terminal on the bay and the various species that call the bay home? I wonder too on the effect on the vegetation surrounding the tracks. Can you scope the impact of the coal trains on vegetation that surrounds the tracks? How will the air quality be effected by this project? How will coal dust effect the birds in our county?

2) I live in Belllnham close to the train tracks. The current volume of trains already creates a significant amount of noise as they pass through town. Can you please scope the impact of the noise of the increased traffic of the trains as they pass through town and how this will affect humans and other species.

3) I am concerned about the human health issues that may be associated with the increased coal dust in the air. Would you please scope the impact of coal dust on human health?

4) I am concerned about coal dust entering water, both the bay and any streams along the train tracks. I ask you to scope the impact of coal dust on water quality in our area.

5) I am aware that the site of the proposed Cherry Point terminal is land that the Lummi Nation considers an ancient burial site. As someone who cares deeply about the Lummi Nation, I would like the impact of disturbing this site to be scoped.

6) I would like the impact of the increased train traffic to be scoped.

7) I would like the impact on property value along the route of the coal trains to be scoped.

Tanya Kitterman (#10322)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The noise, traffic and health concerns of this project have been well discussed. I am concerned mainly with the big picture. The Pacific Northwest region has made a commitment to climate friendly energy. Expanding our coal industry is the opposite of what we should be doing. It will be possible to mitigate traffic concerns at railroad crossings, or figure out ways to prevent the spread of coat dust. But taking this coal out of the ground (at considerable expense and use of energy) and sending it to China to be burned is irresponsible and not forward thinking given the climate change crisis we are in now. By rejecting this project, our region is in a position to show some leadership in energy policy in this country.

Tanya Murphy (#9853)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I’m concerned that this project will negatively impact our community’s health, local commerce, and our green reputation that we have all worked so hard to build over the decades. Please study the impact of coal dust in regard to health as well as the environmental impact to the bay and surrounding areas.

Tanya Tavenner (#3036)

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

Tanya Tavenner (#3190)

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

Tanya & Tom Ekamovich & Rennison (#808)

Date Submitted: 10/18/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Tanya, Jim, Sydni, Monika Baumgart (#1993)

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

Tara Dalton (#2012)

Date Submitted: 11/01/2012
Location: , WA
Comment:
I am a long time resident of Lopez Island. I oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest to be sent to Asia. While this proposal does provide jobs for awhile, it may negatively affect many communities along the route by increasing congestion and noise with more coal train traffic, pollution, the ill effects of coal dust, delaying emergency responders, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and oil spills, all of which in turn could also harm the economy of these communities.

I cannot claim to know all the details of the plan, but from what I’ve read, I am concerned about the risk of accidents and oil spills in Puget Sound. Our island community depends on these waters in many ways (fishing, crabbing, boating, whale watching, tourism and everything related to the beautiful natural environment), all of which could be devastated by a major oil spill. What precautions are being taken to protect the waters and the sea life of the Salish Sea? Who will pay for the damage done if an oil spill should occur?

Thank you for this opportunity to have our voice heard.

Tara Dowd (#10115)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
Please do not increase traffic on our railways. I adamantly oppose the coal traveling through this state and through what is left of our environment and our precious waterways and human and animal habitation.

Tarang Khangaonkar (#3931)

Date Submitted: 12/05/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Ecology and EPA have developed a comprehensive water quality model of the Puget Sound Georgia Basin. The tool is weel suited for the assessment of impacts and alternatives analysis.
1. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/PugetSound/DOModel.html
2. http://www.springerlink.com/content/647x62351587376g/?MUD=MP

Taylor Christensen (#14623)

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

Taylor Dennen (#10486)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
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.

It is the wealth our nation enjoys which enables us to invest in the quality of our environment. While prevervation is important, our economic well being also must weighted. Approriate infrastrucure to enable coal export must proceed.

Taylor Storrer (#11253)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Hello my name is Taylor and I am a senior at Bellingham High School. I read that the coal trains running through Bellingham would have a negative effect on the salmon population as well as other marine life, and the trains will further the pollution, as well as the chemicals furthering the extinction of salmon. The environmental impacts of the coal trains would harshly affect the salmon. The trains would not only damage the air in Bellingham, but also put the marine life at huge risk. The coal transporting opens greater risks for oil spills and collisions. Coal dust can reach the marine life and put them at risk. Putting the salmon at even more risk than they already are in will hurt the species. Not only salmon would be affected, but also any other species of marine life that are confronted with the negative effects of the pollution. I think the coal terminal should continue, but I think that extra precautions should be taken to protect the marine life. Please study the side effects of the coal terminal because preserving marine life is extremely important.

Taylor Werner (#1802)

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

Ted Curphey (#3064)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Rochester, WA
Comment:
I worked in directly related industries for years, even unloading coal trains at the Centralia Steam Plant at Centralia, WA for 5 years. I worked as both a conductor/switchman and locomotive engineer. I was right in the thick of it, working in all kinds of weather, coal dust and everything. I never saw anything that I would object to on enviromental grounds. The fact is that coal is part of the natural environment in western Washington. It's all through the ground in many layers ranging from inches to several feet thick. If you look closely where logging roads cut across hillsides, you can see all the seams of coal interlaced with rocks and other soils. Daily, coal is washed down the streams and into the sound, and has been for millions of years. A little bit of coal dust won't wreck the environment, as it's already part of the environment. And the Wyoming coal is even cleaner than the stuff that is in the ground locally, containing less of most harmful trace elements.
Wildlife will see little impact from the operation. While working at Centralia, the wildlife was up close and personal. I had to take some caution as the deer were abundant and quite used to the operations, and would often come within 20' of us working. They could easily slip under the trains between the hopper bays, and would even do it when the train was moving slowly without provocation. Even when inching the train along at night unloading coal, deer would use the light from the locomotive headlight to forage on grass along the tracks, and move along with the train. Hawks would perch on the edge of coal cars looking for prey, even just feet from the locomotives. I saw all manner of wildlife in abundance around the Steam Plant. Rabbits played fast and loose underneath the conveyors that carried coal to the stockpile. Every once in a while I'd see a coyote or a fox on the hunt. Ducks and Geese were particularly fond of the settling ponds, and I even took a photo of swarm of geese many thousands strong once while working. I found that many wild animals loved the relative safety around the plant, largely free from the predators that were more abundant elsewhere.
I never did see coal dust as a major issue. Water suppression systems kept most of the dust at bay, and the little that got by the sprayers didn't make it far as gravity quickly pulled the heavy dust to earth. I never suffered any ill effects from the dust either, as workers we spent of our time in environmentally controlled control rooms.
I spent many days in the Hanaford Valley working around the plant with a clear view of Mount Rainier. Any smog never came from the plant, but instead had drifted down from the metropolitan areas to the north (Tacoma/Seattle).
Already, there is a large amount of coal moving through the state on the BNSF (and occasionally on the Union Pacific) heading to export via Canada (Roberts Bank and Price Rupert). Denying this terminal will not stop the coal trains moving through the state, they will continue north passing within a few miles of the proposed terminal on the way to Canada. I strongly support the terminal with no affiliation with any of the parties involved. I simply just believe we sorely need the jobs.

-Ted Curphey

Ted Ebert (#428)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Coupeville, 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 a company can send Coal to China, which incidentally presently is storing imported coal because they have a surplus that will last for years.

Ted Gosingski (#2443)

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

Ted Hensold (#4457)

Date Submitted: 12/10/12
Location: Tum Tum, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

ted jonsson (#8922)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
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 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 no one has made an issue of these trains going under downtown seattle!what precautions are mandated to prevent a catastrophic flaming enferno under Seattle!
Thank you.


ted jonsson

Ted Kozlowski (#3107)

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

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

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 Columbia Gorge is a national scenic heritage area; most definitely, its natural treasures already are impacted by current freight train traffic. Enough is enough here. Personally, I do not understand how Burlington Northern and other carriers tolerate the damage that coal dust already does to their tracks, with costly derailments being one prominent type.
Even outside the Gorge, and most certainly in urban areas near train lines, heavy coal train traffic would be a serious health and environmental hazard. Once the coal is shipped over the ocean, coal damage would return in the form of toxic, climate-altering emissions.
Certainly the pursuit of today's dollars cannot be judged to override protection from the deleterious effects such pursuit will produce over a far longer term,.

Sincerely,

Ted Kozlowski
5409 SW Schols Fry Rd Apt 25
Portland, OR 97225-1624
(971) 212-1159

ted mcknight (#8032)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Comment:
My wife and I were shocked when we first learned of the proposed Cherry Point Terminal and the trains that would stock it. But we were even more surprised at the defeatist attitude of some of our friends, who seemed to think it was a "done deal." We feel there is absolutely no justifying this development, from an enviromental perspective (local, national, and global), or from a public health and quality of life perspective. The trains alone would leave a trail of toxicity,noise pollution, and social disruption in communities from Boise to Bellingham, and the terminal would irreversibly damage the land and groundwater of Cherry Point and the fragile marine ecosystem and fishery of this part of Puget Sound. The people of this region need to stand together against the greedy hypocrites who seek to exploit our environment and our resources in the name of corporate profits. Please do the right thing.

Ted na (#826)

Date Submitted: 10/16/12
Comment:
I propose bargaining increased passenger train service for the privilege to construct the deep water terminal. The increase in public transportation could offset the environmental effect of the terminal.
Ted
Sent from my iPhone=

Ted Ohlswager (#7051)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Bellingham and Whatcom County have been in national publications as desirable retirement locations. Retirees do not need employment, bring with them consistent revenue, and purchase local services and goods. What impact will coal trains and freighter traffic have on in-migration of retirees? How will this effect the local economy, employment, and tax base?

Ted Ohlswager (#7057)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
The value of property affected by the railroads, shipping and coal terminal has been estimated to decrease between 5 and 20%. Property values in the northwest in part reflect a high quality of life which will be decreased by coal shipment and loading. What are the costs of decreased property values for property directly impacted as well as overall due to lowered quality of life?

Ted Ohlswager (#7061)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
The proposed shipping, storage and loading of coal will have major reductions of value for property directly impacted and possibly for all property in Whatcom County as the general quality of life is perceived to decline. As property taxes are a major source of funding for local government, what will be the impact on their revenues? How will the impact be equitably mitigated?

Ted Ohlswager (#7062)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Along with the rest of the northwest, Whatcom County is looking to increased exports (including agricultural) for economic stability, growth and jobs. Transportation resources including shipping and rail are limited. What impact will the extremely high volume of coal transport have on using these resources for other uses including export? What will be the cost of upgrading these resources for these other uses if the resources are already fully used for coal transport?

Ted Ohlswager (#7064)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
What will be the impact of vibrations from a high volume of very heavy coal trains on the rail tracks and bed, and on adjacent landscape? Specifically, what impact will there be on the volume and severity of mudslides? What will be the costs of dealing with any increase and who will pay them? What will be the impact and costs for other rail traffic including passenger?

Ted Ohlswager (#7065)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
What will be the impact of invasive species, accidents, and congestion from a high volume of large foreign ships on local fisheries, ocean water quality, and recreation? What will be the cost of impact on tourism and recreational boating? What will be the cost of impact on commercial fishing?

Ted Ohlswager (#7066)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Bellingham and Whatcom County growth plans target tourists and green (often high-tech) employers. The local life quality, including environmental quality and outdoor recreational opportunities are critical to attracting these "job-creators". What will be the impact of coal transport, storage and loading on these key attractions? What will be the cost to public and private financing if these desired areas of growth are negatively impacted?

Ted Ritter (#359)

Date Submitted: 10/02/12
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
Thank you for your email informing me of the comment period and inviting my input.

This is to provide my opinion on the scope to be addressed by the EIS for the Gateway Pacific Terminal and Custer Spur modifications (GPT).
Considering that I do not know the details of the project and all the routes, products, and processes, this will not be comprehensive. As I write I realize I can only address about 10% of what should be studied.

The EIS should address all potential impacts. There are direct impacts such as more trains, and indirect impacts such as loss of productivity when more trains negatively impact lifestyles and add stressors to an environment, and the 'exported' indirect impacts of the end use of the coal, burning it where there are few environmental regulations and horrific air pollution is the norm. Regardless of whatever the 'legal' reach of the EIS may be, it would be incorrect to ignore the impact of burning coal, given all we know about fossil fuel emissions. All impacts need to be logically and realistically addressed, quantified, and considered.

Impacts to native salt water fish species, in particular the 'feed fish' such as herring and the ripple effect of any herring population loss on the larger species, such as salmon. There are books such as 'Four Fish' that address this issue, and the EIS should thoroughly address this. The health of our marine populations is a local and global concern, and the EIS must address any impact to the marine environments at both local and global levels.

Impacts to local water quality due to construction.

Impacts to local water, to the quality of life of people living along the coast, and to the marine population (particularly mammals such as Orca and dolphin pods) due to increased shipping traffic.

These analyses should include the impact to other industries. One issue presented by the GPT developers are the claims of added jobs; has this been aligned with the impact of the GPT on reduced fisheries population and its long-term impact on jobs in the fisheries industry, both direct (fishermen and fish processing) and indirect (marine supply, boat and fishing equipment sales, tax revenues, and so on). Is there a net gain or loss in long-term jobs in the community, what kind of jobs are gained / lost, and how does this influence the secondary tier of businesses, schools, healthcare, and so on. It is possible the net effect of the GPT will be job loss, and the EIS should assess this. The EIS needs to quantify this aspect with a very broad look at the existing and projected scenarios with GPT and without GPT situations.

Local impacts to traffic and businesses, including safety response times and related services, due to increased train traffic.

Local impacts to traffic and businesses due to increased vehicle traffic.

Impacts to environment including health of plants and animals due to shipping coal along the route from the source to the boundary of our jurisdiction including the threat and impact of train and barge spills along sensitive environments. There are derailments in the news every week, it seems, and another today.

The EIS needs to assess the extent of added shipping on the navigational and communicative environments of marine mammals. It is known that the undersea environment is negatively influenced by human activities, creating noise pollution that impact marine mammals. What is the effect of adding coal barges and related ship traffic into this environment?

Impacts to the global environment due to the continued burning of coal as a fuel. Pollution in China from coal-fired electricity generators is so thick in places one cannot see across the street. Coal is a dirty fuel, and its use should be minimized based on the pollutant information currently available. This needs to be illuminated and included as a part of the assessment.

Impact to the tourist industry and to the appeal of Bellingham, Birch Bay, and Whatcom County nationally and internationally. Will being a major coal shipping port impact the impression potential tourists have on the region? Will it reduce vacation travel to the area? Will it affect the desirability of WWU to students? Will it affect the desirability of people seeking employment in an area of 'clean industry'? We need to understand this.

Finally, the EIS must be performed in an environment that minimizes external influences from all sides of the issue. CH2M Hill needs to structure its EIS team to be separate from its industrial engineering and construction and management businesses, and any real or perceived conflicts of interest closely monitored. In my business I have had experience with this firm and I am not confident that they can put the need for absolute independence ahead of future corporate prospects, many of which are in the energy industry. The process must have strong independent oversight and be completely auditable by the public.

Thank you,

Ted Ritter
Bellingham, WA

Ted Royal (#1545)

Date Submitted: 10/27/2012
Comment:
It's been rumored that ships from China will be filling up with ballast water from their harbors that have aquatic life that will be discharged into the Salish Sea upon arrival with invasive species of sea life that would be very harmful for our part of Puget Sound. Is this going to be part of the scope?

Ted Royal (#1546)

Date Submitted: 10/27/2012
Comment:
If one train car full of coal loses 500 pounds of coal from PRB to here, where does it go? This is a fact according to BNSF.

Ted Royal (#1547)

Date Submitted: 10/27/2012
Comment:
If the coal sits out in the open, and according to what I hear, it will sit directly on the ground, how will it be stopped from leeching into local wells and the ground and the sea? What about the wind (that is ever present on the waterfront) blowing the dust around. How will that be stopped?

Ted Yellman (#574)

Date Submitted: 10/07/12
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
We need to start taking control of our future and the Cherry Point project is a good place to start doing that. The last thing we should be doing is shipping cheap coal to China to further accelerate burning up our planet. If they insist on doing that, they should find their coal somewhere else.

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,

Ted Yellman

Tedd Judd (#11801)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
- I am Tedd Judd, a neuropsychologist with an office located in the Bellwether office complex in Bellingham, WA. This is located near the Burlington Northern railway tracks and many of my clients reach our offices via routes which cross the tracks.

I would like for you to direct your consideration to the impacts on scheduling that any increased train traffic will cause for professionals such as myself if the GPT is completed.

All professionals such as doctors, medical specialists, counselors and other therapists, dentists, lawyers, accountants, and so forth usually work on very tight schedules. We count on our clients arriving on time and we need to send them out on time so that we can attend to our next client. An increased number of trains of more than a mile and a half will inevitably cause many traffic delays throughout the day. This will mean that clients arrive late. And the late arrival of even one client in the earlier part of the day can set off a domino-kind of effect making the professional late for all other appointments during the day.
I know this scenario quite well because many of my clients have head injuries and already have difficulty with meeting schedules…I can only imagine the difficulties it would cause to other professionals such as doctors who see many patients per day. Therefore, while this might not sound significant if just one professional were to be impacted, if this occurs throughout our social system, it could cause significant disruption, slowed services, and ultimately lots of professional time lost.

Given these concerns, I request that this be studied as part of the EIS. Perhaps sociological or time-management analyses can be carried out.

Possible mitigation measures would be to require that the maximum train size be set at a much lower number of cars so that crossing waits would not be raised from their current levels. Or, alternatively, BNSF could be required to build, at THEIR OWN EXPENSE, overpasses for all current crossings.

Again, I respectfully request that this aspect of the impact of more and longer trains on railroad crossing wait times be thoroughly studied.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Tedd Judd (#11807)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am Tedd Judd, a neuropsychologist with an office located in the Bellwether office complex in Bellingham, WA. This is about 800 yards from the Burlington Northern railway tracks that run along the waterfront.

I would like for you to direct your consideration to the impacts that increased noise pollution that this project will generate if the number of coal trains/day is significantly increased.

As a neuropsychologist I often see clients who are very sensitive to issues of noise due to neurological issues such as a head trauma, illness, etc. My work with them often involves testing, which requires a quiet environment so that they can focus intently on the task at hand, and/or doing relaxation training which also requires a calm, quiet setting. The current noise from moving train traffic and especially train switching near my office is occasionally disruptive to these processes but tolerable.
However, it is my understanding that while there are currently 4 coal trains/day, this volume would be increased to 18 per day. Each loaded coal train is very noisy as they include both pushing diesel locomotives and the cars make considerable high-pitched noises when rolling due to their heavy weight. I fear that such an increase in noise pollution would be very disruptive to my clients and would likely make it quite untenable to use my office for the purposes mentioned above.

It will be imperative that any analysis of such impacts include not simply measures of decibels of noise but, in addition, measures of the actual impacts such noises and vibration have on people working within a certain range of the tracks. This could be done by surveys, questionnaires, etc; psychologists are good at developing these types of measures. The scoping request from the group Whatcom and Skagit Physicians provided you with a long list of references for scientific studies of the effects of noise pollution on mental health; I request that you consider these carefully.

I am unable to suggest measures to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts other than to keep the number of trains to a minimum. The acceptable alternative will be to deny permission to construct the Gateway Pacific Terminal so that there is no need for more trains.

Again, my request is for noise pollution to receive careful and thorough analysis as part of the EIS. This should include not only how it will impact residents’ sleep and daily lives but also what the impact will be on the professional abilities and practices of many different professional disciplines.

Respectfully submitted, Tedd Judd, PhD, ABPP

Teddy Deane (#1294)

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

Teddy Deane (#6299)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, , WA
Comment:
I retired to San Juan Island in 2000 with my wife and we built a house on Garrison Bay. I am a career musician and artist (Past President of San Juan County Arts Council). A principle goal of the SJCAC is to create the San Juan Islands as an artistic destination as our economy depends almost entirely on tourism centered around our natural resources. This goal is severely impacted by and at odds with the operations connected with the GPT. The potential economic impact of increased vessel traffic needs to be evaluated by EIS in respect to: e.g. increased vessel related noise, potential for a catastrophic oil spill, potential of striking marine mammals and birds, increased pollution associated with diesel engines and coal dust, and all risks associated with the denigration of the natural environment which is our main tourist attraction and the heart of our economy.

Teddy Teddy Deane (#11052)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, , WA
Comment:
I live with my wife on san Juan Island, WA where I retired in 2000 attracted by the natural beauty and lifestyle that is here. I feel threatened by common sense concerning the lack of safety provisions and compensation for the GPT project should an accident occur.
I agree with Kate Bowers from Bow, WA in her comments at the Nov. 29 Ferndale, WA Scoping Meeting. I agree with the following statements:

"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 occur, PIT could be dissolved in bankruptcy".

I ask that SSA and Carrix guarantee all obligations of PIT, including union contracts, incident response and cleanup, and site restoration when the coal market ends.

SSA/Carrix should be required to post a bond.

I ask that the EIS measure the cost of a worst-case scenario, from a spill of 500 thousand gallons of bunker fuel in the San Juan Islands (where I live), to an explosion at the terminal or a derailment in a highly populated area like downtown Mt. Vernon or Bellingham. Set up the bond so that it is replenished as funds are withdrawn; and make SSA/Carrix guarantee any and all damages associated with activities related to the terminal regardless of who is ultimately held by the courts to be liable – the coal owner (some subsidiary of Peabody Energy), the coal transporter (BNSF), or the terminal operator (PIT).

I have seen response by corporations to environmental disasters and I have seen the miscarriage of justice many times over. This safety provision would require the corporations involved to guarantee their responsible clean-up of a potential and very likely disaster, considering the extensive nature of the project. I believe it is the right thing to do.

Tedine Roos (#12790)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Comment:
Shipping coal is harmful to the entire Northwest and to the world. The fossil fuel stranglehold is killing the planet. Many more jobs are destroyed than the proposed coal exports would make. This project must be stopped.
Tedine Roos
Vancouver, WA

Tee King (#139)

Date Submitted: 09/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Bellingham could potentially be adversely affected by earthquakes and/or tsunamis. What effect would these have on the proposed terminal? What safeguards will be in place, and should they fail, what effect will spillage of both coal and oil from associated barges have on the local ecology? How will the increase in rail traffic affect evacuation safety in the case of such a disaster?

Tee King (#11648)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I would like to know the effects on transportation at any point where a coal train might be stopped by protesters and/or other activists; if there are 18-20 scheduled daily, I imagine the back-up of that kind of train traffic will be extremely costly not only to the companies depending on the freight of that coal, but other companies that depend on rail traffic not being blockaded by conscientious citizens who are fighting courageously and ardently to stop the removal, freight, and burning of coal. I can imagine that law enforcement issues might also figue into this quite prominently. Please study how activism will affect the flow of these blasted trains carrying poison to kill us all.

Tee King (#11690)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I expect you to do a study on what happens to the inner workings of our organic planet as the coal veins are diminished, then disappear. It is possible that these pockets of fuel are fuel that the earth burns to keep itself in check, and without it, the planet cannot regulate itself. Because this will be North America's largest shipper of coal, thecitizens who live here have the right to know the consequences of removing the coal from the ground; what affects the earth halfway around the planet affects us all.

Tehani Montaron (#3349)

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

teo rempel (#10300)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Why are we shipping a very valuable resource, coal, to China and other nations who use the coal to further pollute the Earth's atmosphere and our lives? Why not leave it in the ground for future generations or use it in domestic, clean-burning power generation? Furthermore, the shipping lanes from the mines to the export sites on the Columbia River and Cherry Point in Washington will create major traffic problems, not to mention coal-dust pollution along the way . Teo Rempel

teo rempel (#10301)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Why are we shipping a very valuable resource, coal, to China and other nations who use the coal to further pollute the Earth's atmosphere and our lives? Why not leave it in the ground for future generations or use it in domestic, clean-burning power generation? Furthermore, the shipping lanes from the mines to the export sites on the Columbia River and Cherry Point in Washington will create major traffic problems, not to mention coal-dust pollution along the way . Teo Rempel

Terence Wahl (#2339)

Date Submitted: 11/05/2012
Comment:
I have lived in Bellingham for over 80 years and next to the BN Railroad for 57 years. My family operated a business for many years and participated in civic affairs and contributed to making Bellingham what it is today. I served on the county park board for 12 years and later on the Greenways board.
I am aware that railroads, developers, construction workers, employees of new facilities, some businesses in the local area, etc. and, supposedly, governments would benefit from the proposed action. However, there will be costs resulting from the proposed port and train traffic. Who pays over the long-haul? Homeowners, property owners, and businesses monetarily and in changes in the quality of life.
Residents adjacent to the railroad are already subjected to loud noise and vibration, locomotive exhaust, dirt. and dust. There are reportedly only 3 coal trains going north and 3 going south at present. Nine more each way are planned. That would mean 24 coal trains per day, along with four passenger trains and several regular freight trains. That’s at least one heavy, loud train per hour plus existing rail traffic. The quality of life will worsen for virtually all community residents - auto and bus traffic tie-ups at crossings, waterfront access, necessary passing tracks included. Major impacts will affect the remaining environmental and natural resources including fisheries and wildlife - for over 50 years I conducted field studies in ornithology, including the MESA study of marine birds for NOAA in 1978-79. I published a number of reports, papers and books on the subject area.
I have three specific concerns here. Actions to be included in studies:
Vibration and slippage. Areas with sloping hillsides are vulnerable and slippage and settling is noted already. In this area, Chuckanut, Bellingham waterfront below the Boulevard and north Bellingham from Squalicum Creek to the Fort Bellingham area are specially vulnerable. Monitors should be set up to obtain long-term vibration and slippage data. Some property owners may as yet be unaware of occurrence. Every property owner adjacent to the railroad should be interviewed re: that and noise, dust and dirt. Who is liable for damages?
Toxicity. Thorough, objective, long-term study of toxicity and damage possible from coal dust and diesel exhaust. We cannot afford to find out 5-10 years in the future that the dust is poisonous. Potentially very dangerous, we cannot allow it to spread along the right-of-way or downwind endangering, for example, the safety of children, safety of fruits and vegetables grown by residents. And property values will suffer, of course. Hold off decisions for 5-7 years (as in the case of prescription drug approval) while important studies are done. And, who is liable for poisoning people and the environment?
Cost. Beyond those concerns, there will be losses in property values. What will be the cost of loss to property owners? What happens to property taxes, from standpoints of property owners and governments? Study and analysis of the total cost of the project to communities and adjacent areas is necessary. This cost is potentially very large and beyond any net benefits in property tax revenue and employment. The damages and losses should be paid by the operators, developers, and cities from the projected income, profits and tax revenues.

Terence R. Wahl
Bellingham

Terence & Robin Wahl (#1506)

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

Teresa Allen (#9964)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
As a rural landowner, lifelong teacher of young children and current grandmother, I strongly agree with Vicki Johnson's opposition 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. This proposal would negatively affect my county 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.

It could not help but also affect the health and quality of life of future generations living in the Pacific Northwest. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Additionally, I sincerely hope this state can afford the loss of revenue that will happen once people begin suing for damages to their health.

Teresa Allen (#9976)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
As a mature person with some education in Biology and Ecology, as well as first hand experience maintaining and nurturing rural acreage and teaching generations of children, I am writing to express my concern about the long term, widespread effects of coal trains from their strip mined source, through land where food is grown and humans and wildlife live, along major and minor watercourses of the Northwest, and into the ocean to affect another level of life in the waters and on the sea floor.

I agree with the studies described by Dr. Gary Greene of Orcas Island, www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/5913, in his comment of January 3, 2013, and am requesting that this impact be thoroughly studied.

Teresa Allen (#9981)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
As a mature person with some education in Biology and Ecology, as well as first hand experience maintaining and nurturing rural acreage and teaching generations of children, I am writing to express my concern about the long term, widespread effects of coal trains from their strip mined source, through land where food is grown and humans and wildlife live, along major and minor watercourses of the Northwest, and into the ocean to affect another level of life in the waters and on the sea floor.

I agree with the request for thorough study of the implications of vessel risk for our local waters and for the entirety of their route submitted by San Olson in October (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/1567) and want this area thoroughly studied.

Teresa Allen (#9991)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I agree with the "Whatcom Docs" and Dr. Mostad's statement of May 2011 that a Health Impact Assessment should "determine how many excess deaths and hospitalizations would be expected." We can and should go further and measure lost life expectancy, and do not limit those measures to Washington's populations living and working in rail communities, but consider those living in proximity to rail lines from the terminal to the Powder River Basin. Then, quantify those medical consequences: who, exactly, will pay for the hospitalizations? What share will be borne by private insurers, individuals out-of-pocket, treatment providers for unreimbursed costs, and the public through government-funded benefits programs. Terminal boosters tout jobs and tax revenues; we should demand that those economic benefits be offset by directly and indirectly related health care costs. Then, as a society we would be forced to do that which we have always avoided: identify precisely how many years of life and mortalities we are willing to "pay" for a net economic benefit, if there even is a net benefit of the proposed economic activity.

As a resident of Whatcom County who chose to live here for environmental reasons, a parent, a grandparent and lifelong teacher, looking beyond my narrow self interest, I request that a thorough study be done of this aspect of the scoping.

Teresa Anderson (#10821)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
To: Whatcom County, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

High Bank destabilization.

I live at 3947 Cliffside Drive. Cliffside Community is built along the cliff overlooking Bellingham Bay. There are 42 homes on Cliffside Drive, Bellingham, WA (approximately 100 residents). The BNSF train track runs very close to our homes. Proximity of tracks to our homes ranges from 70’ to 200 yds.
And just east of Cliffside Drive, the tracks are within a few feet of the edge of the bluff.

I have serious concerns about the destabilization of our high bank from the vibrations caused by additional train traffic, from the significant weight of coal trains and from the way that the rail companies route their drainage water away from their tracks.
Currently when the coal trains rumble by, I feel the vibrations in my house, and glasses in the cupboards clink.

1. Please do studies, do actual, local measurements on the effects that the vibrations from increased coal train traffic would have on bank destabilization for our properties and for the bluffs all along the shoreline corridor of Bellingham, Chuckanut, Everett, Edmonds, Seattle, etc.
2. Include studies on how BNSF routes the drainage of water away from their tracks and the impacts that has on our properties and our high banks.
3. Include costs to mitigate these problems and who would pay for them.

Respectfully submitted,
Teresa Anderson

Teresa Burrelsman-Stern (#1656)

Date Submitted: 10/29/12
Comment:
Dear EIS reviewers,
I realize transportation of coal via railroads is regulated by federal transportation laws etc. However, as the train will be passing through and along dense Seattle neighborhoods, such as mine of Ballard, it seems reasonable to push for some common sense protective measures - including COVERING COALS loads. As dust is a known issue, it's time to put environment and PEOPLE's HEALTH as a top priority and take basic precautions.

If construction trucks have to cover dusty loads, why would not a train??? I really would prefer not to export coal to China however an EIS review can't stop that! But it should at least focus on how to do so without harm to our local communities and ecosystems.

Thank you,
Teresa Burrelsman-Stern

Teresa Chegin (#4702)

Date Submitted: 12/13/2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Dec 13, 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.

A recent article in the Seattle Times stated that traffic problems created by the coal trains going through Seattle could make it difficult for Seattle firefighters to get to some areas in the city.
This is one more problem that will be created by exporting coal in Washington state.

Sincerely,

Teresa Chegin
411 N 90th St
Apt 201
Seattle, WA 98103-3700

Teresa Chegin (#8074)

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

Teresa Dix (#829)

Date Submitted: 10/16/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
I moved to Mount Vernon six years ago because I loved the beauty of the Skagit valley and I was drawn to the smallness of the town. I came here for peace, beauty and a safe clean environment.
My concerns about the number of trains that will be coming through my town are the impacts this increased traffic will have on me and my community.
Specifically, how will increases is rail traffic effect levels of service on local, city and county roads. What will be the risk factors involved concerning emergency vehicles that may have to wait for long trains before they could get me or some family member to the hospital. I attended a city meeting where a spokesperson for the railroads said that the bulk of costs for infrastructure improvements that would be needed to ease such safety concerns would fall on the tax payer. I am not willing to pay increased taxes in order to help make the coal or railroad companies any wealthier than they already are. The increased noise and long waits at rail crossings is not worth the few 89 permanent jobs that Whatcom County will gain.
I request that any burdens that may fall on the city, or the individual taxpayer be examined and fully disclosed before any permit be given to expand the coal terminal at Cherry Point.
Thank you for your consideration concerning this matter, Respectfully, Teresa Dix Mount Vernon
98274

Teresa Dix (#854)

Date Submitted: 10/12/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
To Honorable Peter Goldmark, Mr. Ted Sturdevant, Mr. Tyler Schroeder, Mr Randel J. Perry:

Dear Sirs:
When I think of the Expansion of the Cherry Point Terminal I think of the asbestos company J.R. Grace and Phillip Morris of the tobacco industry. I think of many U.S. companies that have over the years poisoned the American people, directly or indirectly because profits were favored over people. With regards to the transportation of coal from the Powder River Basin to Bellingham, Washington, and then on to China I would like for the EIS scope to include the impacts of the burning of this coal and it's contribution to Global Climate Change.
Please include what impacts the blowing back of pollution (mercury, sulfur dioxide and other toxic chemicals) from Asia will have on the Puget Sound region. Also I would like for you to consider our moral obligations with respect to the people of China. How moral is it to send them the coal Americans no longer will burn because we are turning to the use of cleaner energy sources. If we will not poison our own people with dirty coal, why should we poison the poor Chinese people...however, the science does tell us that no matter where the coal is shipped and burned we will be making the planet a sicker place to live.
As a citizen of Mount Vernon, Washington I think we should have the courage and the leadership to move beyond coal. We should focus on creating long term clean energy jobs, and we should send to China non-toxic products made in Washington.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Teresa Dix
Mount Vernon, Washington
3124 Dakota Drive

Teresa Dix (#855)

Date Submitted: 10/12/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
To The Washington State Commissioner Of Public Lands Peter Goldmark, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Ecology, Whatcom County PLanning and Development Services:
My name is Teresa Dix and I am expressing my concerns about the possible impacts the expansion of the Cherry Point Terminal may have on my health and the health of all persons living along the rail lines from Powder River Basin to the city of Bellingham, Washington.
I moved to the Puget Sound area thirty-six years ago because I could no longer tolerate the pollution in the Ohio River Valley. Not far from my home was the Morton Salt company which stored mountains of salt on acres and acres of land. The salt leached into the ground water contaminating the river and local wells. The salt swirled in the wind infiltrating the soils making it difficult to grow food. The salt powder entered our lungs when we breathed, probably contributing to health/lung issues family members deal with to this day.
So you can see why I am very concerned about the health of families from Wyoming to Washington. How will coal dust impact the water, soil and lungs of citizens. I know the Whatcom Docs have signed on with similar concerns which also include issues of heart and lung disease, asthma, and even cancer.
I am requesting that the EIS process include a complete survey of the coal related,health impacts on every community along the rail lines and near the terminal. No one should be made to breathe polluted air for the creation of eighty-nine permanent jobs in Whatcom county.
Thank you for your consideration concerning this matter.
Respectfully,
Teresa Dix
3124 Dakota Drive
Mount Vernon, WA

Teresa Dix (#870)

Date Submitted: 10/18/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
To whom this may concern:
For twenty-five years I taught environmental education to adult and children in Washington, State, eight of those years I taught at a marine sanctuary in Edmonds, Washington. This was my investment in protecting the waters of Puget Sound, this was also my investment in the future of our children.
I have strong concerns about the impacts the extension Of the Cherry Point Terminal will have on Puget Sound waters, especially about the impacts on the fragile intertidal areas near the proposed coal storage site as a result of blowing coal dust, increased numbers of coal ships in and out of this port, about the acidification of the waters and the impact this will have on the specific rare herring that are the basis of the marine food chain. I also have concerns about shipping accidents, the coal vessels size and it's record for accidents. Who will clean up the mess when there is an accident, who will pay for the destruction of marine habitat, are the few jobs to be created worth the risks to one of the most beautiful and live-filled environments in our nation.
Please make sure that each of these concerns is included in the scoping process.
Certainly Washington can do better. Why not invest in clean energy jobs. Why not transport things to other nations that would do less harm to our local and global environments.
Thank you for your consideration,
Teresa Dix
3124 Dakota Drive
Mount Vernon, WA 98274

Teresa Dix (#2251)

Date Submitted: 11/01/12
Location: Mt Vernon, WA
Comment:
> Global Climate Change is not a "hoax." In the aftermath of Hurricane
> Sandy please consider in your review the impacts that sending more
> dirty coal to China will have on global warming. My daughter travels
> to China on business frequently, she brings home photos of polluted
> cities, air quality that is harmful to all living things. She descibes
> the unrest of the Chinese people because they are sicked by the air
> they breathe. Why would we want to contribute to the suffering of the
> people in China. Why would we contribute to our own suffering in the
> light of sea levels rising, storm surges and devastation to our own
> people in the United States.
>
> The impacts contributing to Global Climate change begin with the
> mining in Wyoming/Montana, it is increased by the transporting of the
> coal via trains and ships, and then it is burned. The fallout of
> China's use of coal has been measured by U of Washington scientists
> showing significant amounts of mercury and other toxic chemicals in
> our
> (Northwest) water and soil.
>
> Please consider all of these impacts in the decision making process.
> Please consider putting forth thoughtful dialogue concerning the
> creation of jobs in Washington State that will not cause more
> suffering on the planet.
> Thank you.
> Respectfully,
> Teresa Dix

Teresa Dix (#2677)

Date Submitted: 11/08/12
Location: Mt Vernon, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:


Teresa Dix (#6684)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Comment:
> Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 9:19 PM The World Bank estimates
> that 700,000 people die each year in China due to coal burning
> pollution. Asian coal fired power plants are a major source of climate
> change pollution and release CO2, mercury, and other toxic air
> contaminants that have been shown by University of Washington
> scientists to travel from Asia to the Pacific Northwest coast in three
> days. These contaminants poison our air and water and soils.
>
> We can do better than export Powder River Basin coal to Asia to
> enhance the wealth of multinational coal corporations.
> Please consider other ways of building a sustainable prosperity in
> Washington State other than exporting more coal from the Cherry Point
> Terminal.
>
> Please study all the environmental and societal costs our state would
> have to pay for the shortsighted plan of shipping U.S. coal to Asia.
> Please consider the impacts the increased train traffic will have on
> all of the communities along the rail lines: traffic back ups due to
> long waits at train crossings, the impacts the long train waits will
> have on emergency transportation to hospitals, the loss of revenues to
> our towns due to the increased train traffic, study health impacts due
> to increased pollution from trains, and backed up auto traffic, ships
> pollution carrying the coal, study who will pay if there is a major
> spill in puget sound or along the rails in one of our towns, study the
> possible loss of tourism and businesses in our communities due to this
> train traffic.
> In Mount Vernon where I live the noise from trains has increased
> substantially over the six years since I moved here. I find the train
> whistles and the long waits at train and road intersections already to
> be a nusance.
> Finally, if I may return to my opening statement about the poor people
> of China...please consider doing a mental examination of how wrong it
> is for Americans to be adding to the burden of the Chinese people by
> dumping our cheap dirty coal on them when we are eliminating coal
> burning plants in our own country because we know how toxic coal
> pollutants are. Maybe those who are overseeing this scoping process
> would even consider visiting the cities in China for a month to
> experience firsthand how rank and filthy the air is there due to coal
> burning plants.
>
> Thank you for your time and your consideration concerning these
> matters.
>
> Respectfully,
> Teresa Dix
> Mount Vernon, Washington
>

Teresa Dix (#8875)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
Satisfying people's demand for coal and oil is important business. Each of us is deeply indebted to the companies who provide the energy we need to live, and for many the good paying jobs to make a living.

Presently, in Washington state the focus is on creating good jobs and SSA Marine and Peabody coal are promoting the expansion of the Cherry Point Terminal with the promise of bringing jobs to our state.

I would ask the review board for this proposed project to study the most recent research about job creation, please study how many jobs would be created if the focus of the project was creating sustainable jobs.

The best research so far says that if increasing employment is the goal a strong push FROM fossil fuel extraction would be favored.
A recent International Panel on Climate Change report shows that a one million dollar investment in wind and solar energy generated forty percent more jobs over ten years than an equivalent investment in the coal industry.

An update for the U.S. electrical power sector compared employment from coal and natural gas to that of low-CO2 energy options. Renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power were found to generate more jobs than fossil fuel approaches.

If our focus is on good paying jobs, please consider the fact that Peabody Coal strongly opposes organized labor. Please study Peabody's history concerning past bankruptcy...and it's request to the court to cancel employee pensions and health care support. Please study Peabody's history concerning the health and safety of it's (fewer than 30% union) mine workers. It should concern all union workers that Peabody unsustainably strips coal from public lands and practices anti-union business. Please study how we are burning this coal a million times faster than nature stored it for us.

If jobs are the focus of this Cherry Point Terminal expansion, please ask the question and study if our investment of time and money would be better spent on the things that have a future...sun, wind, wave and currents, geothermal, tides etc.

Please study if it makes economical sense to line the pockets of Goldman Sachs, SSA Marine, and Peabody coal by sending our coal to Asia to burn which will only add to our climate change problems, and due to blow back from China bring the toxins back to our states land and soil and air, and for what?

If the answer is jobs, please study if those jobs will be worth the pollution, the public safety issues, the noisy trains, the loss of tourism, the loss of local business, and the impacts these things will have on our health and overall satisfaction living in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

Thank you for your consideration concerning this matter.
Respectfully,
Teresa Dix
Mount Vernon, 98274

Teresa Dix (#8876)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
Satisfying people's demand for coal and oil is important business. Each of us is deeply indebted to the companies who provide the energy we need to live, and for many the good paying jobs to make a living.

Presently, in Washington state the focus is on creating good jobs and SSA Marine and Peabody coal are promoting the expansion of the Cherry Point Terminal with the promise of bringing jobs to our state.

I would ask the review board for this proposed project to study the most recent research about job creation, please study how many jobs would be created if the focus of the project was creating sustainable jobs.

The best research so far says that if increasing employment is the goal a strong push FROM fossil fuel extraction would be favored.
A recent International Panel on Climate Change report shows that a one million dollar investment in wind and solar energy generated forty percent more jobs over ten years than an equivalent investment in the coal industry.

An update for the U.S. electrical power sector compared employment from coal and natural gas to that of low-CO2 energy options. Renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power were found to generate more jobs than fossil fuel approaches.

If our focus is on good paying jobs, please consider the fact that Peabody Coal strongly opposes organized labor. Please study Peabody's history concerning past bankruptcy...and it's request to the court to cancel employee pensions and health care support. Please study Peabody's history concerning the health and safety of it's (fewer than 30% union) mine workers. It should concern all union workers that Peabody unsustainably strips coal from public lands and practices anti-union business. Please study how we are burning this coal a million times faster than nature stored it for us.

If jobs are the focus of this Cherry Point Terminal expansion, please ask the question and study if our investment of time and money would be better spent on the things that have a future...sun, wind, wave and currents, geothermal, tides etc.

Please study if it makes economical sense to line the pockets of Goldman Sachs, SSA Marine, and Peabody coal by sending our coal to Asia to burn which will only add to our climate change problems, and due to blow back from China bring the toxins back to our states land and soil and air, and for what?

If the answer is jobs, please study if those jobs will be worth the pollution, the public safety issues, the noisy trains, the loss of tourism, the loss of local business, and the impacts these things will have on our health and overall satisfaction living in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

Thank you for your consideration concerning this matter.
Respectfully,
Teresa Dix
Mount Vernon, 98274

Teresa Hopkins (#12445)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Kirkland, WA
Comment:
I am writing regarding the the proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington which would entail transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships through my state and other Northwest states. I strongly oppose this proposal.

The increased traffic congestion, pollution and environmental risk (especially to our waterways) due to the transport of this stuff through my state is bad enough, but its end game that will increase our global warming challenge is what I absolutely cannot tolerate. It is not fair for someone to make money at this venture that will cause the rest of us to have to pay more money to mitigate its effects!

The very name, Environmental Impact Statement, must surely encompass the drastic effects of global warming that the transport of this material will aid. If is doesn't, something is seriously wrong with our laws. At the very least you have to consider the real negative effects of increased traffic and pollution and the serious environmental risks of transport accidents.

Please consider all environmental aspects of this and the other coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons through the Northwest. If you properly do that, then rejection of these proposals can be the only credible outcome.

Teresa Kendall (#13243)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Plains, MT
Comment:
I live in Plains, Montana, a small town on Highway 200 in Western Montana. Plains is on the route of the train tracks running from the coal fields in Eastern Montana to the proposed export terminal in Cherry Point, Washington. Plains already sees many coal trains going through everyday, and these are in addition to the other freight trains going through town. I can't even imagine more coal trains making it even more difficult to get from one side of town to the other, causing horrible noise pollution, air pollution, and causing fire danger in the summer months.
Coal is the largest cause of global warming, but it brings in big bucks to the state of Montana, so some people are ignoring that fact and shipping the coal to China where they have little, if no environmental safeguards. So where does that dirty air end up? Where are some of the worst effects of global warming being felt with droughts, high temperatures, and low snowpack? Montana. It's kind of like the chickens coming home to roost!
I know I could have put my thoughts down more eloquently and more concise, but I think you can get the general idea that I think this proposed coal export terminal is a very bad idea. Please listen to the experts and people like me who have to suffer the consequences of your actions if you allow this terminal to be built.

Teresa Mccormick (#12475)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and the transport of more coal through the Northwest. This activity would negatively impact my community by increasing congestion and noise, polluting our air and waterways, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds, increasing tanker traffic and the risk of shipping accidents and, last for far from least, 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. The Army Corps of Engineers must conduct an area wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

To blindly elevate commerce above biosphere protection is insanity.
Review this proposal thoughtfully and responsibly.

Teresa McQueen (#4407)

Date Submitted: 12/11/2012
Comment:
The gateway pacific coal terminal project requires a full and serious environmental impact review at the very least. Considering the vast environmental impact data already known about coal use, we really need to just stop its use, not even review these export projects that further escalate our toxic exposures to coal in the air, the ground, the water. We have cleaner energy options that should be where our investments are made to create a safer and sustainable way of living on this planet. It would boost our economy, save us money in the long run through less energy use, less catastrophic clean ups, less health impacts to all living things. Coal export projects just perpetuate the opposite of all that and continues to put everything and everyone at risk. Please just deny this project from even being considered. End it now. Thank you.

Teresa Nemeth (#6584)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
It's almost bizarre that global warming isn't included in any of these lists. The evidence is clear that burning coal is the worst thing we can do in terms of climate change, the effects of which are increasingly devastating. For Washington State to facilitate the burning of more coal in Asia is insane. Please stop this plan and make another that actually makes sense.

Teresa Nevins (#5511)

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

Teresa Van Haalen (#2332)

Date Submitted: 11/05/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
November 19, 2012

To: Co-Lead Agencies, EIS process
RE: Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and Custer Spur
From: Teresa Van Haalen, Ed.D.

My name is Teresa Van Haalen, and I am a veteran teacher and administrator in our public schools. I live in Bellingham and would like to take this opportunity to address serious environmental concerns that I have regarding the proposed shipment of coal to China from Whatcom county.

Please study the impact of China’s burning of coal to date, and resulting particulate matter and resultant CO2 drifting across the Pacific to US western shores. According to Cliff Mass, a noted meteorologist at the University of Washington, global warming is a serious issue with the earth warming significantly in the next 50 to 100 years because of increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases. (1) Coal is one of the worst fossil fuels in terms of CO2 production per unit heat. In fact, in 2006, China surpassed the United States as the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide, the most important manmade gas causing climate change. In 2009, China contributed a quarter of the world’s total carbon dioxide from energy consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Dan Jaffe, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Washington-Bothell has found levels of ozone on Mount Bachelor, Oregon, “evidence of an increasingly large cloud of toxic substances carried by the jet stream across the Pacific Ocean” (2).

Beyond the moral issues of selling toxic substances to countries who could be considered our “competitors” (do we sell drugs to the addicted?), I am concerned that the food we eat, our quality of life and general health will be affected by the size and rapid growth of China’s appetite for US coal. To control pollution that is causing increased levels of mercury in the blood, and heart and lung disease, we absolutely need to think globally.

I am writing to insist that we proceed no further with coal exports to China until we have thorough and accurate data on: 1) Particulate “fall out” from transporting coal from the Powder River Basic to Bellingham, 2) the amount of particulate matter crossing the Pacific to the west coast, 3) the content of this matter, 4) projected increases in CO2 emissions, and 4) likely health and lifestyle implication from this pollution. Evidence thus far indicates that the impact of transporting and burning coal in China is foreseeable, significant, and cumulative.

Thank you.


1. Mass, Cliff. Cliff Mass Weather Blog. June 2, 1012. url: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/06/coal-trains-really-bad-idea.html

2. Simons, Craig. China’s Rise Creates Clouds of U.S. Pollution. Weblog, November 11, 2011, Alicia Patterson Foundation. url:
http://aliciapatterson.org/stories/china’s-rise-creates-clouds-us-pollution

Teresa Vaughn (#6823)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
Obvious issue here: bottom line is NO NO NO NO. Destroying our beautiful valley for coal? I want a deep, full, expansive study.

Look deeply at all of it.

Deeply.

Teresa Vinup (#3283)

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

Teresa Williams (#9971)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am writing to comment on the railroad traffic impacts from the Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal. I live in Bellingham, Washington.

I request that you consider the impact of air pollution that results from coal dust blowing off of train cars. I have observed impacts from coal dust currently blowing from the trains that are now being routed through Bellingham. Our white fiberglass boat is in a marina about one-quarter of a mile away from the tracks. Each week there is a patina of black coal dust on the boat – so that a finger will turn black from one short swipe. The dust (and the streaks that accumulate from rain water mixed with the coal dust) have permanently etched the boat’s finish. If that kind of damage results from a limited coal trains, I feel that the consequences of coal dust from frequent passage of coal cars must be measured and considered. Because the trains run next to the water and through neighborhoods, the coal dust will go into the water, polluting the water ways; will be inhaled by humans and other animals; and will be etched into surfaces of structures. If the project is allowed to go forward, then mitigation of this particular damage should be required in the form of covering the loads.

There are of course a myriad of other effects from coal train traffic, but this is an issue that is within my personal experience. I hope that you will seriously consider all concerns about the adverse affects on all communities that are on the proposed route.

Teresa Z Anderson (#10742)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
To: Whatcom County, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

We live at 3947 Cliffside Drive very close to the RR tracks.

We are concerned about the increased train traffic’s adverse affect on us, as well as the entire region from mines to ports.

We are one of 42 homes on Cliffside Drive, Bellingham, WA. This represents approximately 100 residents. These homes are very close to the BNSF RR tracks, ranging in proximity from 70’ to 200 yds.

Cliffside Drive is the only street by which we can access our homes. The RR tracks cross it at the entrance to our community. Increased train traffic will cut off the only road access to our community, thus delaying essential and emergency services. This would be a very serious impact. As it is now, long coal trains cause delays for us; usually 4 – 8 minutes for a coal train to pass.

An increase of 18-20 trains daily, especially the long coal trains, will greatly increase delays for residents traveling to and from our homes as well as for the businesses, trades people, and deliveries that cross the tracks many times each day. 18 trains daily, multiplied by 5 minutes is 90 minutes of delay, daily.

We have a number of elderly residents and we are also concerned about emergency services being delayed or prevented from reaching our residents. At times, trains are stopped, completely blocking the crossing.

At our crossing, we do not see an easily mitigated option. Perhaps a train trestle could be built and the Cliffside Drive road could be dug down to pass under it. But local tax payers cannot afford this. SSA and BNSF would have to bear the cost.


1. Please include in the EIS what such mitigations would cost and who would pay for them.

2. Please include the impact on our Cliffside community from the proposed increase of train traffic, the delays, the blocking of roads in the EIS studies.

3. Please research and include the impacts to our access and our health in the event of a derailment.

4. And please research these traffic concerns, and derailment concerns for the entire rail corridor that these coal trains will travel from mines to ports and back. There are a tremendous number of communities and businesses that would be impacted by the proposed coal train traffic and proposed coal terminals at Cherry Pt and the others along the Pacific coast.

5. The impact on the entire region needs to be included in the EIS.

6. And please include studies on the cost of rail improvements, adding side rails, safety improvements to the RR crossings and who would pay for those.

Respectfully,
Teresa Anderson

Terese VanAssche (#3655)

Date Submitted: 11/30/2012
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
I have so many concerns about the proposed Cherry Point terminal, it is hard to include all of them. But I will start here.
1 - The huge increase in tanker traffic on the Salish Seas and Straits of Georgia will impact every single living thing that lives on the water, fishes on the water, recreates on the water. A herring population in decline at this time will have the death toll sounded if the multi-berth docks and piers are built. What about "incidental takes" on sealife? When the piers are built, is it OK to have that take, which really means it is OK to kill a threatened Orca Whale population that is distinct to these seas, as well as kill the herring food source, which will ripple all the way to the top of the food chain, the Orca. A symbol of our Salish Seas, and we cannot do better than this to protect them?
2. The Lummi have a treaty right, by the Boldt decision, to the salmon that feed upon that herring population. For that reason alone, any impacts to the survival of the Cherry Point herring cannot be tolerated.
3. Industry has not proven to be good neighbors to any of us. Diesel and petroleum industry releases are not good for my neighborhood. Intalco had spills and emission releases that killed cows, and polluted ground water. I have real concerns about the effects of coal dust blowing onto the BP-Arco Refinery tower sensors, which protect all of us from gas build-up and explosions. Please study the cost of an explosion at the BP Refinery.
4. Any spills of coal into the waters of our seas, rivers, and leaching into groundwater will acidify that water and kill whatever lives in it, as well as become undrinkable for humans. As global warming continues, and droughts, which we experienced severely this summer, any drinkable water is becoming more and more precious. Water is life, not Coal = life as someone claimed at the Ferndale scoping hearing.
5. The public process has been perverted by the paid shills at GPT / SSA Marine. By stacking the participants line with purportedly paid people to be placeholders for the illustrious, but dishonest and misinformed mayor of Ferndale. He does not speak for me or my neighbors and most definitely not for my son. I want this unfair and potentially illegal hijacking of the public comment process investigated!
6. The impact and costs to all of our communities from global warming due to burning of coal needs to be included in the study of the impacts of this shipping terminal, as it's main purpose is to ship coal to China to be burned. That will have an impact on my community and indeed globally!
7. Train crossings are a big problem already, and the nightly noise we endure from many less trains than are proposed to be added by this project. Therefore,the noise to all of the impacted communities along the rail lines need to be part of the scope of the EIS study. The amount of coal dust dumped onto our communities, the infrastructure necessary to bypass or build over train tracks should not be a public cost, but I imagine that cost will be transferred to the taxpayer. We gain no benefit by being made whole by the industry that creates these impacts.
8. Times have changed, and the type of products hauled by trains has certainly changed in the 150+ years that we have had cross-country rail lines. I want these impacts to be studied - the cumulative impact of coal, as well as other types of hazardous materials hauled through our communities. Trains derail all the time, and many times this is due to lack of infrastructure maintenance. BNSF is guilty in that case. And the impact to our communities in a spill situation is largely the city's responsibility. That is not a fair burden to our budget-struggling towns. Ferndale is one such town.
9. Emergency response times and any costs associated with them to the impacted communities. A delay of even 10 minutes will make the difference to many vulnerable adults and seniors. My son has Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy, and a fast response time by emergency responders is essential if he has a medical emergency. He suffers with respiratory ailments as a result of his health condition, and can land in the hospital easily from more and more coal and other air pollutants.
10. You as regulators have taken on a monumental task to protect the citizens of Whatcom County and indeed all of Washington State from the impacts of a project that will have such a toxic substance as coal shipped. At little short-term benefit to our citizens, and great public and private cost. I trust you to exercise stringent diligence in carrying out your duties, and to err on the side of caution when in doubt. The agencies are tasked with environmental protections for us, not a futile exercise in going through the motions to say well we did the paperwork. I want to see that on the ground protection, not as a pass-through for the developers and fat cats over the average citizen. We may not be wealthy, but we should count. Stand up for what is the right thing for our mother planet, as well as all citizens, flora and fauna upon in. The 2-leggeds and 4-leggeds deserve no less.
Thank you,
Terese VanAssche
P.O. Box 1356
Ferndale, WA Physical address: 5581 Second Avenue, Ferndale 98248

Terese VanAssche (#3700)

Date Submitted: 12/02/2012
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
I would like the effect of blowing coal dust onto the BP-Arco Refinery sensors to be studied. My understanding is that the sensors on their towers and facilities are there to detect any gas or fume leaks from their plant. If coal dust blows onto these sensors, what will be the effect? As both are highly combustible and explosive, this would be a major heath and safety hazard to the Cherry Point and surrounding community areas. Many farms are located nearby the refinery and the proposed coal shipping terminal site. An explosion of great magnitude will also have seismic effects on a seismically active area.
The effects on human health and safety, as well as wildlife and marine life in the Salish Sea needs to be addressed in the scope of the EIS.

Terese VanAssche (#3701)

Date Submitted: 12/02/2012
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
The number of rasberry and blueberry farms in Whatcom County is astouding. I was recently visiting Detroit, Michigan and the blueberries in the store were produced in Lynden, Washington. I would like the effect of blowing coal dust onto berry and other agricultural products (from the trains traveling through our agricultural areas enroute to Cherry Point) to be studied. Berries cannot be washed before sale or they will rot. I know, I am also a grower of berries as well as a lot of our food, organically. Many good jobs in agriculture are a backbone of our economy in Whatcom County. What will be the economic impact of a loss of that revenue??

Terese Vanassche (#4624)

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

Terese VanAssche (#5149)

Date Submitted: 12/20/2012
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
I have now attended scoping hearings in Bellingham, Mount Vernon, Ferndale and Seattle, regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, to ship coal, lots of coal, to China. Very few have come and spoken in support of this terminal, outside of Ferndale. As a resident of Ferndale I believe the process was rigged and taken over by the GPT interests, as they have admitted paying people to stand in line. Regardless, many in attendance in Ferndale were opposed. Among those that spoke, I am in solidarity with the Lummi elders and council leaders speaking of the ancestral history of the and burial sites of their Lhaq’temish – (People of the Sea) at Cherry Point (XWE'CHI'EXEN). As the burial sites are documented, and have already been violated by the illegal bulldozing by SSA Marine earlier in 2012, my position is this.
1) Take all alternatives off the table, and do not build. To go a step further, repatriate these lands back to the Lummi people for their ceremonial and fishing use as protected in the Boltd decision.
2) Any future options for GPT to purchase the Cherry Point industrial park lands should be discontinued, and the land sold to Washington State DNR, for the purpose of future protection of the tidelands that support eel grass. The eel grass has been so damaged by the existing industrial development at Cherry Point, any further industrial development and tanker traffic will decimate what is left, and bring the herring population at Cherry Point to an end. The economic and social impacts of this to a "people of the sea" cannot be measured, but should never happen. Enough is enough!

Terese Wanassche (#2170)

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

Teri Mathis (#4390)

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 believe that exploitation and mutilation of our nationally owned resources and our individual and community health and well being to benefit a few profiteers is a crime.
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.

Sincerely,

Teri Mathis
3407 E 62nd Ave
Spokane, WA 99223-7245
(509) 443-0315

Terrance Hutchinson (#13726)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
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 the Gateway Pacific project is allowed to go forward, the orcas, marine mammals, birds and valuable salmon, herring and other fish who make the Salish Sea their home will be at greater risk from oil and coal spills, as well as more noise, air and water pollution. Coal ships, some twice the size of oil tankers allowed to call on Washington ports, carry up to 2 million gallons of bunker fuel, don't have tug boat escorts or double hulls and have the worst maritime safety records.

Even more, the millions of pounds of coal would be transported by train between the terminal and the Powder River Basin, barreling through cities and towns in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, leaving a cloud of harmful coal dust in its wake. This doesn’t even account for the catastrophic climate impacts from burning that coal.

Terrance Stanton (#13838)

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.

Terri Danz (#7454)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Auburn, WA
Comment:
Dakini International Logistics Inc. strongly supports the development of the new terminal in Whatcom County as a critical method to increasing Washington State trade with the world, and adding jobs.

Terri Drahn (#9918)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Lopez, Wa
Comment:
I am 20 year resident of the San Juan islands and have raised my family here. I am strongly opposed to the coal terminal export at Cherry Point. The increased vessel traffic alone increases the likelihood of an oil spill into the pristine waters with devastating effect on the marine life. I am also concerned about the safety of other recreational vessels as vessel traffic from freighters increases.

Additionally, the air quality of China is already horrific. How can we justify sending more coal to China so they can continue to burn it? Have we no conscience? We can and must be better than that. Please further study the devastating impacts on ALL of us from this proposed terminal. Thank you.

Terri Jones (#12407)

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.

Coal dust results in health-related issues as well for the communities that the trains will pass through, as well as creating significant coal dust at the final stop at Cherry Point. This will, in turn, create a higher need and demand for necessary healthcare for people in these communities.

Supplying another country with copious amounts of coal will expand the crisis of climate change in the world - whether politicians want to believe that climate change is a reality or not, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? The US has cut back on its reliance on and use of coal; how can we in good conscience supply great quantities to another country all in the name of profits for company owners, and at the expense of everyone else in the world?

One of the most over-used phrases used by these companies is that this
"will create jobs." Perhaps, but at what cost? Isn't it
time to look forward and see how this additional coal use will affect the areas it passes through, as well as how much more pollution will fill the air. What good are a pitiful handfull of jobs when compared with the multiple health injuries that this energy source will cause?
Isn't it better to support alternative energy sources and create jobs that way?

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.

Terri Mitchell (#9891)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
The impact of coal shipping and shoreline construction on marine life and ocean water must be included in the EIS. Specifically the impact on endangered species such as the Southern Resident Orca and their primary food source Chinook salmon.

Terri Plake (#7958)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Ferndale , WA
Comment:
EIS Scoping Committee:

I live close to the proposed terminal at Cherry Point. Cherry Point is a beach and natural area that I enjoy walking, birdwatching, and infrequently seen orca whales. With my family we enjoy picnics, campfires, beach combing. I know that many other local families enjoy the beach and is part of our life heritage. We access the beach via Gulf Road.

My concern is that I do not see public access. I can't imagine being able to go there anymore with a pile of coal - conveyor belts, noisy ships, anytime it is windy (which is often) having coal dust blowing around from the stock piles.

I ask that you please study the impact to public access and enjoyment of Cherry point due to the proposed stockpile and ship port.
Sincerely,
Terri Plake

Terri Plake (#10831)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Ferndale , WA
Comment:
My Name is Terri Plake.
I strongly oppose the proposal for building the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point.
I live close by the proposed project. I am deeply concerned about the impact of the large number of huge Cape-sized ships that would traffic in and out of the Salish Sea.

Please study the impact of the increased engine noise on marine mammals, specifically the Orcas I have seen in the area and the resident pods that frequent the San Juan Islands.

Please study the most probable impact of invasive species that would accompany the ships from China both attached to ship bodies or in bilge water that is a threat - on the local ecosystems. The potential for disastrous disruption of ecosystems is high., Please refer to this paper for a detailed discussion.
http://www.cbd.int/invasive/doc/marine-menace-iucn-en.pdf

Please study the impact of the ship traffic on our local fishing industry. How can fishers be out in the water safely with so many ships in the narrow channels. How many people will lose their fishing jobs as fishers, as fishing guides, or as Coast Salish way of life because they are displaced by ship traffic.

Thank you very much for studying these impacts.
Sincerely,
Terri Plake

Terri Plake (#10848)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Ferndale , Wa
Comment:
Dear Scoping Committee,

My Name is Terri Plake. I live close to the proposed GPT at Cherry Point. This area is special to me for its beauty. I am strongly opposed to this project for many many reasons. I often walk on the beach to watch migratory birds feeding.

I am concerned about the eel grass beds and ecosystem that Cherry Point provides.
Please study the complete impacts of the proposed shipping terminal to the Cherry Point ecosystem Cherry Point is a designated State Aquatic Reserve. An entire ecosystem depends on what is left of the eelgrass beds - According to the WA State Dept. of Natural Resources
"Cherry Point historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and provides a nearshore migratory corridor for Chinook Salmon, an endangered species, and provides significant habitat and feeding area for migratory waterfowl populations. "

"Whatcom County recognizes through recent amendments to their Shoreline Master Program and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan the need to protect this valuable habitat, with amendments limiting the number of piers and establishing a development moratorium along the Cherry Point Shoreline."

"Ensuring environmental protection is a management objective for state-owned aquatic lands (RW 79.90.455(3))"

To me this is a strong statement that the Cherry Point ecosystem must be preserved. Coal dust is dirty and blows to coat everything. It is WINDY out there and the wind blows HARD.

Please do a complete study on the impacts of having a large coal export facility on the health of the ecosystem.
Thank you,
Terri Plake

Terri Plake (#10868)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Ferndale , WA
Comment:
Dear Scoping committee,

My name is Terri Plake. I am a licensed geologist in the State of Washington. in the early 1990's I assisted Whatcom County Planners in the development of the Critical Areas Ordinance for the Growth Management Act as mandated by the State. I was involved in the identification of critical wetland areas. The Salt Marsh at Cherry Point was designated as a Category 1 Wetland by our team. It supports a unique flora not seen in other coastal areas in Whatcom County. . Great Blue Herons feed here.

Initial plans for the terminal construction located the pier right on top of the wetland. Later drafts show the pier to the north of the wetland - but looks like runoff, or a spill would impact the wetland. This is not OK.
Please study the impact to the quality and function of the salt marsh and to the other wetlands on the terminal site.
Thank you,
Terri Plake

Terri Plake (#12566)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
I live closeby to the proposed terminal on Aldergrove Road. I am very concerned about the impact to my life on my farm from this proposed project. Be it coal dust, noise from trains, diesel fumes from ships and trains, increased traffic on my narrow road from construction. The use of water from the Nooksack River to water down the coal dust.

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.

Terri Wilde (#3032)

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

Terri Wilde (#9861)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Rockport, WA
Comment:
The EIS should study the cumulative effects that the various elements of the project will have on climate change and the environment in general. Our growing understanding of human activity's ability to radically alter the climate, demands that we consider this as part of the total effects on the environment. For instance, one must consider emissions from the mining and railroads and the long distance shipping as well as the emissions released from the coal burning in China. The global implications of a project this large cannot be ignored. What would be the financial, environmental and human costs of of that much carbon dioxide and other pollutants release into the environment? What would be the costs of sea level rise and radical weather events? How would that affect local agriculture and seafood production?
I also believe the risk of a shipping accident in Puget Sound or other waters is rather high. The effects of a spill into the Sound or other waters should be considered. What would be the costs of such an incident to the Orca population, the salmon runs, the oyster beds etc.? What affects will the construction of the terminal have on the nearby sensitive herring breeding grounds? What would be the cost in jobs in the fishing and tourist industry?
On another note, I have heard the industry suggest that a "sealant" would be sprayed on the open coal trains to prevent dust. I am concerned about the toxicity of such a sealant on human and environmental health. Ingredients of something used like that should be public and tested before use.
Also in the totality of considering this project, the effects on quality of life for humans should be regarded; i.e. tranquility, beauty, clean air, health, livable cities, alternative transportation options that may include rail use, commitment to tribal treaties, accessibility, sense of community etc.

The alternatives to be considered should include radical conservation measures and a transition to renewable energy sources. We should consider the effects of our actions on the next seven generations and the world's population as a whole. The potential gains from this project seem fleeting, for a very few and stemming from great folly. I propose we use wisdom rather than money to guide our decisions.

Terrie Brown (#4387)

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 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. We definitely need to move past the stone age of using coal and tearing up our planet to heat with. It's bad enough 3rd world countries sacrifice their lives to build cheaper items for greedy corporations for our country, I truly believe we shouldn't endanger our citizens health to satisfy a few politicians!!

Our world is being ravaged with climate change and harvesting coal to export would certainly jeopardize this country!!

Sincerely,

Terrie Brown
1743 E Liberty Ave
Spokane, WA 99207-4769

Terrie Ward (#13146)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Mountlake Terrace, 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.

Terry Anderson (#5644)

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

Terry Anderson (#5721)

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

Terry Bode (#6689)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Location: Ferndale, WA
Comment:
I am for the terminal.

Terry Cannon (#12937)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Hubbard, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
If the growing consensus among scientists, citizens and rational lawmakers is our need to lessen our dependence on dirty coal, why would we want to export millions and millions of tons of the stuff so someone else across the ocean can but it and pollute our precious air. We all breathe the same air! We have one atmosphere per planet. That's it and the time to quit screwing it up is now.

Terry Carlson (#427)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: APO, AE
Comment:
I do not want my state to participate in the exportation of coal. I am opposed to the construction of a coal export terminal in Washington.
Such a terminal would have profound negative consequences to Cherry Point or any other Washington city chosen instead mainly from local pollution and local environmental degradation. Wost of all it would contribute to our mutual destruction by making a significant contribution to negative global climate change. I urge you to consider these issues when finalizing the Environmental Impact Statement.

Terry Cok (#14060)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
Short term profits for one corporation should not trump long term destruction of sensitive ecosystems and human health.

Thus, 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.

terry crockett (#5907)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
I live in Birch Bay Washington about 1.5 miles north of the proposed Gateway Terminal, just next to the Birch Bay State Park. I ask that you make the following considerations. The wind blows from the south for a better part of the year. The gale force winds can be as dangerous as any classic northwest storm. If this terminal is put into place it will cover the Birch Bay area, oceans and gulf Islands in coal dust.

North of this site the human population is around 5000. The voices that you cannot hear are the hundreds of thousands of Birds, fish and wild life that inhabit the lands and waters north/northwest of the site. The dust impact from coal movement on the site in addition to being transported out 3000 ft to barges will in short order kill the natural habit of these creatures and cover the small community of Birch Bay in Coal dust. This alone will effect all the Gulf islands, farmlands and waterways of Northwest Washington State.

I ask that you make a fair and responsible conclusion that the impact of this terminal on Washington State will have catastrophic impact on our community, long term natural environment and human health.

There has been much said regarding the health,environment impact , noise and train traffic on this project. What I don’t here is anyone from the coal side providing any solutions.

This is a very high price to pay for 50-100 jobs in the long term.

Please consider the above along with the thousands of other concerned citizens of Washington State that are questioning the value of this project.

Thank you,

Terry Eaton (#5727)

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

Terry Faires (#10842)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
Coal Trains will ruin everything in their paths from the Mine to the Shipping Port. Spills, poor air quality, danger to environment, This is just WRONG! All so China can burn coal and pollute the whole planet??? INSANITY.

Terry Forsyth (#3432)

Date Submitted: 11/26/2012
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
GATEWAY PACIFIC COAL TERMINAL (GPCT)
Environmental Impact Study: Scope Requests Related to Bellingham, WA
November 24, 2012

I have read the GPCT key facts online report regarding trains and traffic and the Save Our San Juan Islands handbill. I believe when all the studies are finished, Bellingham, WA will be the unbeatable choice because it is the only natural deep-water harbor access on Pacific coast, least distance from coal fields and least population for trains to pass. So to help create an all-encompassing scope for the EIS, I submit the following

SHIPPING COAL SAFELY THROUGH THE SALISH SEA

The Save Our San Juan Islands handout states 974 coal ships per year. Already, a tug boat is stationed at Neah Bay, west of Port Angeles, WA, for escorting oil-laden ships from the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Anacortes, WA refinery. This tug boat operation should probably be expanded to at least four operational tugs plus one more for back-up to escort ALL movements of coal ships between the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the terminal. The use of escort tugs should bring peace with the local environmentalists because it did with movement of oil-laden ships within these waters. Having an overnight sleeping facility for not more than two tug crews may be necessary at Cherry Point.

BASIS OF OBSERVATIONS FOR THIS WRITING

Current public planned operation is 18 1.5-mile trains are being considered to haul all the coal at 9 trains each way per day. There was no indication of additional trains in the future but 8 more trains per day are included to cover that possible expansion for a potential 26 trains per day, 13 trains each way.

US Dept of Transportation is looking into some sort of high speed passenger trains plus increased frequency passenger trains between Bellingham and Portland. I suspect high speeds at 100-120mph on existing tracks and not the 220mph train on exclusive track coming to California hoping to start construction December 2012.

Per recent report regarding proposed basketball/ice hockey arena discussion, Port of Seattle is expecting to expand its personnel either by or to 100,000 within a defined timeframe to meet future shipping requirements resulting with significant increase in traffic east through the Stevens Pass/Cascade Tunnel and south towards Portland.

Cascade Tunnel with its traffic through Stevens Pass and the line to Portland both appear essentially single-rail operations with Stevens Pass appearing more single-rail than Seattle-Portland.
Pendleton, OR and Wenatchee, WA already have operating rail road support facilities.

GPCT website states current Washington rail system is nearing saturation.

GPCT website states the 35mph train will take 6-7 minutes to pass. With train lines surrounded by closely built structures in historical communities and slow speed operations, commencement of higher speed coal and freight trains through these communities on existing rights-of-way is impossible.

The Seattle-Everett track is aligned beside the base of a sandy cliff for several miles. These tracks are often closed enough times per year due to landslides during periods of heavy rainfall to affect coal transport schedules, to wit: This line was closed beyond 24 hours the week of November 18, 2012 for landslide repair.

Seattle experiences heavy rainfall approximately 7 months a year and the Seattle-Everett tracks are closed due to mudslides and landslides for more than 24 hours approximately 5 times a year.

Regarding some community concerns:

a. Seattle, Edmonds and mudslide concerns are eliminated if coal trains used Stevens Pass exclusively.

b. Marysville will require at least one separation that crosses both the railway and I-5 (a block apart) as one overhead crossing with new access roads to permit uninterrupted 24 hour emergency vehicle passage across the tracks with first crossing no sooner than about 2 blocks north of main east-west street of town where I-5 finishes returning from elevated to surface-level roadway.

c. I have not been to Stanwood to make an observation.

d. All Mount Vernon concerns are removed with a new double track railway passing to west side of town starting from below town northward to beyond Cook Rd. Current track passes through downtown and immediately next to I-5 which is at base of mountain side providing no downtown bridging capacity and uninterrupted access to local hospital from downtown.

e. All Burlington concerns are remedied by continuing the new railway at west side of Mount Vernon north to beyond Cook Rd.

f. Bellingham. I understand the water in Bellingham gets very deep, very quickly. It appears a tunnel may be necessary: shortest unobstructed distance through town, right-of-way acquisition plus constructing a new line through the city and noise containment may make the difference acceptable.

Save for Stanwood, all communities from Seattle and northward have been addressed by the above.
The project display boards at the November 2012 Friday Harbor, WA meeting showed minimal holding area for coal trains so the appearance is planning a Just-In-Time delivery operation with immediate terminal exit which means the coal trains will be on very tight schedules.

PROPOSED EIS CONSIDERATIONS

The EIS needs inclusion of the high speed rail study’s projection of required service needs regarding lead clearance of the trains the US Dept of Transportation is proposing between Portland and Bellingham. Expectation is the mix of that number of miles, proposed increase of traffic to/from the greater Puget Sound ports plus your coal trains—which will probably include a priority as well to prevent the coal trains from collecting on side tracks—will surely result in a required double rail service from either Everett or Vancouver, WA to Bellingham. US Dept of Transportation may help with design and construction grants to help move along their project.

EIS will need to address enough holding track to accommodate the number of northbound trains expected from Wyoming/Montana to Seattle when the Seattle-Everett track is impassable so track operations may continue unimpeded. Wyoming/Montana trains could continue east but the returning trains may also require long waits due to minimal holding track at the mines.

With Washington state rail system approaching saturation, it appears EIS needs to review expanding all major rail lines to double rail and which expansion provides the longest viability until resaturation.

Since Washington state rail systems dump into Idaho then Montana and into Oregon, the EIS needs to review needs for establishing continuous double rail from Washington eastward to Montana and also additional rail traffic through Oregon to Salt Lake City, Utah. It would be hard to believe with all the traffic from Chicago to Salt Lake City feeding Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles that the line from Salt Lake City to any point in Wyoming is not already a minimum of double rail. EIS may need to address the potential of a third rail requirement in the Salt Lake City-Wyoming segment because traffic growth to the California cities may also affect future coal train scheduling.

To create a continuous double track service between Vancouver, WA and Bellingham, WA will be greatly expensive for an approach to Bellingham. Reducing expansion to rural areas only will have limited freight movement improvement with the EIS review needing to determine how long this double track through rural-areas only approach will take to reach saturation. Working with the US Dept of Transportation EIS review is recommended.

The coal trains will need 24-hour operation thus night noise will require EIS addressing. Construction of concrete barrier walls similar to those along federal highways in residential areas will be required in close residential areas for both sound plus safety for children and animals.

EIS needs a quick review of rebuilding the line over Snoqualmie Pass to address its inability towards helping the transportation issue. This would relieve all potential track crossing issues with the existing BSNF line over Stevens Pass during design and construction of the second line. This option would permit a less expensive second line by refurbishing a current grade versus boring a new 8.5 mile tunnel and to create a whole new approximate 100-mile rail bed between Everett and Wenatchee with two options.

a. To Seattle via south end of Lake Washington. This option would result in the trains entering Seattle through heavy residential areas. Moreover, this track would return to the mudslide, landslide issue of unreliable access because it would require passing the cliffs between Seattle and Everett.

b. To Everett via Bellevue. This option has the Snoqualmie line diverting north using the abandoned BSNF line through Bellevue, currently being changed to a foot trail, and connect with the Stevens Pass line between Monroe and Everett. This option would surely never pass the political tests.

ALTERNATE GPT SITES

Vancouver, WA already has all rail needs already in place, quick start-up capacity and billions less expensive to prepare. This site removes the need to build a second rail through residential areas, community upheaval and essentially destruction of small communities between Portland, OR and Bellingham, WA. This site also removes constructing the proposed line between Pendleton, OR and Everett, WA which would take several years longer to reach coal terminal operation. Understand the site is next to an oil docking facility which will face fire issues. Last, this site also has the unending expense of dredging the Columbia River which will only increase annually.

RECOMMENDATION

Build a new track between Pendleton, OR and Wenatchee, WA and continue construction with a second tunnel and track over Stevens Pass to Everett, WA.

The new Everett-Pendleton line would provide:

a. 100% weather accessibility for all coal trains through Washington to Bellingham.

b. The less noise-objectionable approach for the coal trains from Vancouver to Everett.

c. Removal of all community disruption between Seattle and Portland related to the coal trains.

d. Ability to reduce freight traffic on the Seattle-Portland line by filling excess capacity with general goods trains which makes easing design of higher speed passenger service between these cities for US Dept of Transportation.

e. The least high-density exposure to coal dust for Washington and Oregon populations.

f. Political acceptability in both Washington and Oregon for the proposed Bellingham coal terminal.

g. Uninterrupted double rail capacity in and out of Puget Sound for coal and freight for decades beyond expanded-life of spotty expansion of current single rail to double rail service between communities between Seattle and Portland requiring the revisit of this very issue before end of this century.

h. Relief from facing rail transportation in/out greater Puget Sound issues for more decades than any other option which the EIS will need to calculate and present.

A cost analysis may find the expenses of fuel, engine maintenance and personnel for the additional guestimated 175 miles for Montana trains to go around the Cascades so to avoid Stevens Pass is similar to the cost of crossing Stevens Pass.

All coal trains could follow proposed GPCT plan for all coal trains to enter Puget Sound via Union Pacific rail until weather forecasts cast concern of Seattle-Everett section mudslides thus requiring redirection of all coal trains through Stevens Pass where at that time all non-coal traffic above the double track passage saturation through Stevens pass would be redirected to the Union Pacific lines.

Right-of-Way acquisition using public domain is not available because the final owner of the land would be a corporation, eventually by Hathaway Investments, which is a private firm and not with final ownership by a county, state or federal organization i.e. airport, freeway, public building—the intent of original writers of public domain law.

Sharing the second line over Stevens Pass construction cost between BSNF and GPT may be possible because all benefit from the additional second line. There also may be federal funding through infrastructure grants plus if the goal is to relieve freight use on the Portland-Seattle line, there may be funding from the high speed rail consideration to promote this concept.

MISCELLANEOUS CONCERNS

Coal dust. Norfolk and Western has two lines hauling coal from West Virginia to Norfolk via Richmond, VA with a line on both sides of the James River in Richmond. It would require a comparison of speeds as to how much dust the average train expels after so much distance but it seems the distance the trains travel before they arrive to the Richmond SMSA would find since there is no discussion of coal dust by the time the trains reach Richmond, the Seattle SMSA would find no concerned discussion of coal dust in Seattle. If the Northwest region trains travel faster than West Virginia-Virginia trains, it argues the dust from the Northwest region trains is aired long before reaching western Washington.

I look forward to any questions you may wish to ask.

Terry Forsyth (#3672)

Date Submitted: 11/28/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Files:

Terry Forsyth (#4990)

Date Submitted: 12/18/2012
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
EIS CONSIDERATIONS
FOR
EAST OF CASCADE MOUNTAINS

In my prior submission I argued building a new line and tunnel over Stevens Pass will be required because the current Washington rail system has almost reached saturation before your many and probably priority-demanding trains commence operation. Recall, also, the Ports of Seattle are planning to expand which will absorb and exceed the current rail system capability by itself, i.e. the 100-unit oil trains to Grays Harbor, WA. Last, it avoids the ever-crumbling cliff between Seattle and Everett which, at the time of this writing, had a mudslide this weekend that pushed a freight train off the track and stopping all rail traffic again for a few days. This is the second over 24-hour halting mudslide within four weeks: November 26 and December 16, 2012.

The number of freight trains would dramatically increase with the second line. My unfounded projections are the current single line through Stevens Pass allows maximum average of four trains per hour due to trains having to stop so opposing trains can get through the Pass, too. With two tracks going only one direction each would allow a maximum of two trains every 12 minutes. This calculates the current maximum number of trains at 96 and with two tracks at 240 trains per day through Stevens Pass. I submit the current rail system to the east coast is incapable of managing that increased number of trains as well. Regardless of avenue from the coast, a continuous new rail line will be required east from either Wenatchee or Portland.

Where that new line should be placed requires review in your EIS. The big picture has only two routes from Seattle-Portland to the east coast: Either through Spokane or Salt Lake City. At least one of these directions will need a second continuous line beyond the mining sites which I recognize may be beyond the intended scope of the EIS you are creating but may need preliminary addressing for determining the best bang for your buck. A new line via Spokane could serve both Seattle and Portland but would only serve them and requires building the new rail all the way to Chicago because, to my knowledge, there are no alternative routings to assist with decreasing operation stress on current single line until reaching Chicago. If my proposed Wenatchee-Pendleton line was double rail and most new Seattle and east freight traffic used this new line, that second double rail would only need to continue to Salt Lake City where the additional eastbound traffic could be directed to either Cheyenne or Denver. If a new line was required beyond Salt Lake City to Chicago, it would also service additional traffic from the Bay Area and Los Angeles thus a much better value for the money spent.


WENATCHEE TO MONTANA

Current single rail line from Wenatchee to Spokane arrives at Spokane by going through at least two adjacent cemeteries that are nestled between a high ridge of solid basalt and a cliff. Building a new line through this area would be impossible.

Reversing direction here, I propose having the heavy coal trains leave Spokane over a new trestle designed for their heavier weight crossing I-90 at the east end of the ravine and connect south of the existing trestle and continue through Cheney to where the Spokane-Portland line crosses my proposed Wenatchee-Pendleton line where the coal trains would turn north for Stevens Pass. The railroad right-of-way through Cheney is already several tracks wide so there would be no destruction of any part of the city for getting a new track through the town. This direction also puts construction through the least populated route west of Spokane.

From Spokane, if there has never been a second rail through the mountains on the current route, you may want to consider reopening the abandoned line to Montana via Coeur d’Alene, ID and Missoula, MT. A review of that line’s documents may be required to learn of their right-of-way maintenance issues and snow delays to help determine route utilization feasibility.


WENATCHEE TO SALT LAKE CITY

I have no personal in depth observations to this routing except a new line around La Grande, OR would be easily feasible by circling north of I-82 with the city on the south side of the interstate where the ground is flat.

Terry Forsyth
Friday Harbor, WA

Terry Forsyth (#7424)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Comment:
People: 48,000,000 tons at $50/ton is $2,500,000,000 per YEAR. At $2.5 trillion in revenue a year, trite or immaterial concerns like personal property value, road crossings, noise of passing trains, coal dust, human health, global warming, marine life and any other issue that may get in the way IS NOT going to stop this project. Already public is construction of a new Montana to Seattle rail line--only effect we may have is HOW it gets to Bellingham, NOT IF. Should a new line over Stevens Pass be constructed, all the coal dust, rail traffic and host of other issues is avoided while allowing the maintenance of their shipping schedule by avoiding the ever-crashing mudslides the 20 miles south of Everett plus Edmonds and Mulkateo (sic) areas.

When finished, the EIS will present how this project can be accomplished, not how it can be stopped. The people paying for this are only interested in getting coal on ships by 5 years: EIS finished 2014, permits and legislation finished 2015, design completed while EIS scoping, EIS completion and permits are sought (3 years to finalize design and design details), 2 years max to construct (24/7 where possible), coal to China by 2018 is the timeline I see.

Terry Forsyth (#9681)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY CONSIDERATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS


OTHER MEGA TRAINS TO PORTS IN PUGET SOUND

Sharing same Everett-Bellingham track, Billings Gazette writes Nov 26, 2012 how Tesoro and BP have refineries in Anacortes and Cherry Point with total capacity of 354,000 barrels a day but only receiving 70,000. Their inclusion into the case of rail improvement requirements is a necessary addition to this study.


BELLINGHAM, WA

In my first writing I wrote getting through Bellingham for least cost would be a tunnel under the town. With the coal terminal just north of Bellingham and trains waiting for their turn through the terminal, they could wait before Bellingham. With sufficient track to hold two trains at terminal side of the tunnel (third train being unloaded), the single rail tunnel would meet the train schedule requirements by just alternating train passage as extension of the Cherry Point terminal.

My first writing also brings up US Dept of Transportation desire for high speed rail between Bellingham, WA and Portland, OR. Current rail station site would be unacceptable for such a station because it is in an isolated no-place spot southwest of town near a historical town (Fairhaven). The ideal spot for such a terminal that I see is east of I-5 near the northbound States Avenue and Iowa Avenue exit: Away from historical Fairhaven, away from downtown Bellingham, this is a light industrial area with minimal residential upheavals, unlimited land access for parking, near immediate interstate access, generally cheaper land acquisition cost, central to Bellingham SMSA—and I see a tunnel as preferred access because it prevents destruction of community and lifestyle of the area. So my point is your EIS needs to know an approximate area the USACE is studying the area for this project’s terminal and access so you know where to avoid with your tunnel.


EDMONDS-EVERTT

Mud and landslides in this area this year has all but stopped passenger rail service and almost daily disruptions to freight operations. In order to prevent coal train operations, the EIS needs to address purchasing all the houses facing the water then remove about 30 feet of ground so future landslides have a place to land with road access for its removal so to end future slide disruptions.


EVERETT, WA: ELIMINATION OF FACILITY EXPANSION NEEDS

Current freight trains over Stevens Pass have four locomotives. My understanding is the coal trains will require six. If the coal trains had eight locomotives, it seems this would allow the train to return to Wenatchee without having to stop at Everett for changing locomotives. If true, then the additional locomotives from Wenatchee would eliminate any expansion of the Everett facilities. Moreover, the expansion of the Wenatchee facility would be where there is lots of available, affordable land whereas Everett expansion would be much more expensive. Note that fueling engines at Cherry Point terminal may be necessary due to long-term idling at Everett/Marysville and Bellingham/Cherry Point Terminal.

As alternate, a required stop at Everett could be used for switching two engines so enough fuel is made certain for getting to Cherry Point then back to Wenatchee. Limiting Everett facility use to only refueling via engine swapping, additional facility needs would be an internal function and believe this requires EIS review.


MARYSVILLE, WA

Creating double track through Marysville brings essential destruction to downtown identity. This town is also close to Everett, WA, approximately 3 miles apart. Thought is single track may work here by having a side track before Everett and after Marysville so the trains get through town if continuous double rail is provided from Marysville to the edge of Bellingham, WA. This would essentially mirror the Bellingham comment above.


MOUNT VERNON, WA

In my first write I proposed constructing a double track on a new right-of-way west of town that continues northward to also bypass Burlington, WA. The high speed Bellingham-Portland rail proposal will surely enjoin in this new line which will eventually include a new terminal and probably at the WA 20 crossing. Mount Vernon constructed an intermodal terminal about 4 years ago which includes a new train station. The removal of the passenger trains from the main line will provide a place for coal trains to pass passenger trains at this stop.


SEATTLE

Recent radio comment was the proposed coal train operation already intends to build a new line from Montana to Seattle with another source saying via Vancouver, WA. The EIS will need to address how to get a new line through downtown Seattle after the new highway tunnel is dug in the same vicinity of the current two-track tunnel.


STANWOOD, WA

Like Mount Vernon, WA, a double track mainline bypass but this time to the east of town needs review. Also like Mount Vernon, while the passenger trains are diverted to current line, coal trains will be able to pass the passenger trains while they are stopped at this station.


MONTANA/WYOMING TO SEATTLE ROUTING CONSIDERATIONS


DIVERTING HEAVY TRAINS AROUND SPOKANE

Costs of significant rail increase resulting from Montana coal trains plus the new bridge over the west Spokane gorge and continuing the second track from Spokane towards the Tri-Cities juncture my proposed Pendleton-Wenatchee line for essentially only Montana coal would have only pointed use. Thought is the coal EIS needs to review if more value is received by improving the track from Butte, MT south to Pocatello, ID then west to the Salt Lake City-Portland line where track improvement for the Wyoming coal trains to Pendleton, OR (completed by prior discussion) vs. through Spokane/Cheney, WA. Returning empty coal trains would be well within weight limitations for their return to Montana through Spokane.

The oil trains to Grays Harbor, WA, methanol trains to Tacoma, Port of Seattle expansion and the other terminals wanting to create/expand will, in total and with all certainty, overwhelm the Portland-Salt Lake City line capacity even with the new line through Stevens Pass.

It is possible the capacity between Salt Lake City and east may also be facing saturation with those lines preferring expanded capacity between Seattle-Chicago via Spokane and St. Paul. The EIS will need this inclusion should via Spokane for full trains be the final decision.

Also, if the Wyoming-Salt Lake City-Portland line is evaluated as not recommended for reasons such as Los Angeles and Bay Area demands are also increasing track availability to saturation, constructing a new line from Wyoming coal fields northward to Montana needs inclusion in this EIS. This option may be more valuable than expanding capacity for everyone—and removes the coal dust issue through Salt Lake City.

Terry Garrett (#10281)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Attention should be drawn to the fact that this scoping does not fully represent the reality of the change that would be brought to the Northwest if the coal shipping terminals are allowed to be built.

The allowable areas of the scoping period are of scientific findings only. There are two other areas of human activity that are not touched on by this scoping process that are well known, would be greatly effected by this project if allowed to continue, and I would like to have them included in the process for a complete environmental impact statement.

To examine only one third of any given thing and call it the whole is either insanity, an outright lie, or reeks of religious fundamentalism.

The three areas of human activity are art, morals, and science. Neither of these can answer questions posed by the other two.

Neither show true reality alone. It is only examination together that true reality becomes apparent.

As an example well known to us in the Northwest:
If it is raining outside science would have us go, or look, outside and if indeed, rain is falling, we would call that objective truth, the validity claim for science, truth, or ‘it’ value.

But that tells us nothing about the beauty of rain. I may think it is beautiful but the next person may think just the opposite. There is no scale in which beauty may be measured. That is decided by the individual, the ‘I’ that is personal. Science leaves it out since it is not an ‘it’ but an ‘I’ value.

If someone is left out in the rain, knowing that it is truly raining does not tell us what to do about it. There is no scale or measurement that might tell us the justness, or appropriateness, of our actions. This comes from our morals or the good that we agree on together. Science leaves this out because it is not an ‘it’ but a ‘we’ value.

These things are learned from great minds of our shared history.

I would like the scoping process to take in the writings of Plato on the I, We, and It.

I would like the scoping process to take in the writings of Immanuel Kant, on the Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime Morals and Ethics.

I would like the scoping process to take in the writings of Howard Gardner, on Truth, Beauty and Goodness Reframed.

I would like the scoping process to take in the writings of Jurgen Habermas, Justification and Application for his validity claims of Art, Morals, and Science.

With these other two realms absent from the scoping, science might as well be a religion called scientific existentialism, seeing only ‘it’ values.
Just as subjective idealists would only be focused on the ‘I’ value and postmodernists only focus on the ‘we’ value.

Please include this in the scoping. Don't do 1/3 of the job. tg

Terry Garrett (#10288)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Attention should be drawn to the fact that this scoping does not fully represent the reality of the change that would be brought to the Northwest if the coal shipping terminals are allowed to be built.

The allowable areas of the scoping period are of scientific findings only. There are two other areas of human activity that are not touched on by this scoping process that are well known, would be greatly effected by this project if allowed to continue, and I would like to have them included in the process for a complete environmental impact statement.

To examine only one third of any given thing and call it the whole is either insanity, an outright lie, or reeks of religious fundamentalism.

The three areas of human activity are art, morals, and science. Neither of these can answer questions posed by the other two.

Neither show true reality alone. It is only examination together that true reality becomes apparent.

As an example well known to us in the Northwest:
If it is raining outside science would have us go, or look, outside and if indeed, rain is falling, we would call that objective truth, the validity claim for science, truth, or ‘it’ value.

But that tells us nothing about the beauty of rain. I may think it is beautiful but the next person may think just the opposite. There is no scale in which beauty may be measured. That is decided by the individual, the ‘I’ that is personal. Science leaves it out since it is not an ‘it’ but an ‘I’ value.

If someone is left out in the rain, knowing that it is truly raining does not tell us what to do about it. There is no scale or measurement that might tell us the justness, or appropriateness, of our actions. This comes from our morals or the good that we agree on together. Science leaves this out because it is not an ‘it’ but a ‘we’ value.

These things are learned from great minds of our shared history.

I would like the scoping process to take in the writings of Plato on the I, We, and It.

I would like the scoping process to take in the writings of Immanuel Kant, on the Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime Morals and Ethics.

I would like the scoping process to take in the writings of Howard Gardner, on Truth, Beauty and Goodness Reframed.

I would like the scoping process to take in the writings of Jurgen Habermas, Justification and Application for his validity claims of Art, Morals, and Science.

With these other two realms absent from the scoping, science might as well be a religion called scientific existentialism, seeing only ‘it’ values.
Just as subjective idealists would only be focused on the ‘I’ value and postmodernists only focus on the ‘we’ value.

Please include this in the scoping. Don't do 1/3 of the job. tg

Terry Garrett (#10332)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I would like the scoping process to look at the fuel carrying pipelines that parallel the train tracks going out to and from Cherry Point.

These pipelines are not required to be hydrostatically tested under current law. They have been in place for possibly decades.
As a working scuba diver I am required to hydrostatically test my diving tanks every five years do to well known physics of metal fatigue. These pipes may have been manufactured at a higher stress level but the physics doesn’t change.

Case in point:
In talking with neighbors that live along Eldridge Ave in Bellingham I have been informed that many of their houses, sometimes over a hundred years old, have foundations that are shaking so much since the coal trains that already going through town-that people who have lived for decades in these houses with no problem of dust must now dust every couple of weeks. One has said there is now a crack in the foundation that wasn’t there until the heavier coal trains have begun to go through town. The weight of these trains is making a difference already.

This tells me that regardless of the settlement time on previous in-place structures (in this case the pipelines along the tracks going out to Cherry Point) with the added weight and inconstant weight distribution along the tracks, creating a shaking motion, (or pressure, no pressure) there may also be a place of settlement creating a stress point on the pipeline which could result in a burst.

Just one scenario but, you being the engineers, will find more if you include a full scoping of the pipeline/railroad track relationship. Please do.

Our community has already had three children killed on June 10, 1999 due to this kind of disaster. I know many of this community would be pushed beyond the breaking point if such a thing were to happen again.

Check it out. It’s in everyone’s best interest. tg

Terry Hayes (#5681)

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

Terry Maag (#12532)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Nampa, ID
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
Also, we don't need to be exporting this type of energy. We nee the energy here to become energy self sufficient!

Terry Marshall (#10286)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
My name is Terry Marshall and I have lived on Lopez Island in the San Juans since 1983. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point for shipment of millions of tons of coal in hundreds of vessel transits through surrounding waters would most certainly impact my life and my community. I am a kayaker. I eat from local waters. I highly value and cherish the natural environment we live in and the wildlife we share this place with. My livelihood depends in part on the local fishing and shellfish industry and a healthy local economy.

Please conduct a thorough study to measure the impact on the environment, wildlife, economy, public health and community well-being, of the proposed transiting of the Salish Sea waters by large vessels hundreds of times annually, carrying millions of tons of coal.

What ecological, environmental, and social impacts would result from collisions, groundings, and other accidents that these vessels might incur?
What would be the ecological, economic and social damage and cost of a large oil spill in the areas of the route these vessels will be using?
What would be the damage and cost of a coal or bitumen spill?
What resources exist to address accidents such as these? Are the resources adequate? Who will pay for these costs?
What are the potential impacts on orcas who are already being impacted by existing vessel traffic noise, and on other marine mammals, other wildlife, and humans, of the cumulative increase in noise from these vessels?
What will be the social and economic costs to the local fishing, recreational boating, and other tourism activities of this increasing vessel traffic?
What will be the ecological, economic, and health costs of the cumulative increase in air and water pollution caused by this vessel traffic?
What impacts to biodiversity in the Salish Sea can occur from the release of invasive species from these vessels?

If these questions cannot by adequately answered and/or there is no feasible mitigation for these problems, please consider the no-build option for the proposed Gateway Pacific terminal.

Terry Marshall (#10309)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
My name is Terry Marshall and I have lived on Lopez Island in the San Juans since 1983. The proposed Gateway Pacific terminal at Cherry point for shipment of millions of tons of coal in hundreds of vessel transits through surrounding water would most certainly impact my life and my community. I am a kayaker. I eat from local waters. I highly value and cherish the natural environment we live in and the wildlife we share this place with. My livelihood depends in part on the local fishing and shellfish industries and a healthy local economy.

Please measure the impact of the construction and operation of the proposed Gateway Pacific terminal in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve on the existing ecosystem, the food chain that depends on that ecosystem, the larger food web in the Salish Sea including humans, and on the commercial and recreational fisheries and tourism connected to that food web.

What kinds of disturbance to the local ecosystem, herring populations, juvenile salmon, and other fish, birds and wildlife that directly depend on that ecosystem will be caused by the construction and operation of the proposed terminal?
What impact will this have on the salmon, orcas, and other fish, mammals and birds in the surrounding waters?
What will be the impact on the ecosystem, herring populations, salmon and other fish, orcas and other marine mammals and birds be from coal dust disturbed by movement and weather at the proposed terminal site, from the continuous movement of vessel traffic in that location, and from the water and air pollution created by those vessels?
What will be the ecological and economic impact should the herring populations become decimated or further endangered? How will commercial and recreational fisheries and tourism be impacted?
What impact would an oil, coal, or bitumen spill in this area have on the ecosystem? What resources are available for addressing this kind of impact? Who will provide them? Who will cover the costs?

If these questions cannot be adequately answered and/or there is no feasible mitigation for these problems, please consider the no-build option for the proposed Gateway Pacific terminal.

Terry Marshall (#10325)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
My name is Terry Marshall and I have lived on Lopez Island in the San Juans since 1983. The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point for shipment of millions of tons of coal in hundreds of vessel transits through surrounding waters would most certainly impact my life and my community. I am a kayaker. I eat from local waters. I highly value and cherish the natural environment we live in and the wildlife we share this place with. My livelihood depends in part on the local fishing and shellfish industries and on a healthy local economy.

Please include in your study a measurement of the cumulative increase in biological, environmental, public health, social, and economic impacts on the Salish Sea and the Pacific Northwest by the burning of the thousands of tons of coal that will be exported from the proposed terminal.

What will be the effects of the cumulative increase in sulfur dioxide pollutions?
What will be the effects of the cumulative increase in mercury emissions?
What are the potential consequences of the cumulative increase in C02 levels?
What are the economic costs to shellfish industries of the cumulative increase in mercury emissions and C02 levels?
What are the economic costs to communities from the decline in commercial and recreational fishing and tourism?

If these questions cannot be adequately answered and/or there is no feasible mitigation for these problems, please consider the no-build option for the proposed Gateway Pacific terminal.

Terry Nichols (#413)

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.

Not only would transporting the coal from Montana and Wyoming through the Columbia Gorge severally damage one of the most beautiful areas in the country, the coal emissions from China would track back to us via the jet stream, doubling the poisons we would receive. The few jobs that would be created would not be worth what we all would have to pay.

Sincerely,

Terry Nichols

Terry Nichols (#2457)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
Nov 5, 2012

Scoping Hearing Comments Cherry Point Scoping Comments WA

Dear Scoping Hearing Comments Scoping Comments,

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

I live a quarter mile from the tracks the 120 coal trains per day (60 coming and 60 returning) will travel and the health hazards this will impose upon my family is truly frightening. Also, the Columbia Gorge where I live is a unique and beautiful thing to see, but the damage the coal trains would do to this incredible area would be devastating and downright criminal. I hope you will not just sit in a sterile office and decide the fate of this proposal. I urge you all to go see some existing coal terminals and the routes the coal takes to get there and actually see the damage this would impose. Only then could you actually asses whether the few short term jobs this would provide is worth the unending damage to the environment and health of this part of the country. I fear the deep pockets of the coal companies and railroads will buy the necessary approval. At a time when global warming is showing up more frequently, we simply can't let that happen
- it's not worth it.

Terry Nichols
18321 SE 44th Lane
Vancouver, WA 98683

Sincerely,

Terry Nichols
18321 SE 44th Ln
Vancouver, WA 98683-8279
(360) 254-0952

Terry Tyler (#13141)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Bend, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
it seems these people wont quit trying to destroy our environment and our health in the name of pollution and waste how do we make them stop trying????

Terry Walker (#13567)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Brier, WA
Comment:
Change the atmospheres gas mix and alter that exact composition and you change the planets climate. CO2 from fossil fuel has that exact effect.
It does not matter where the coal is burned the CO2 does not stay in the vicinity where it is burned for long because the storm systems continuously move the air all over the planet.

Consequently, I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic. Inevitably coal will contribute to the pollution of our water and ultimately it will pollute the air we breathe and contribute to accelerated climate change. The consequence brings harm to existing business, the traffic back up caused by mile long trains may delay commuters and emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, and increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents.

The most serious consequence however is exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Failure to shut down coal carries a price that future generations will have to carry. Failed application of design intelligence to hold the impacts of coal currently accumulating will inevitably be blamed on those making bad decisions in the context of the environment to serve up good decisions in the special interests of a few who will profit.

Terry Wechsler (#707)

Date Submitted: 10/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
After my husband retired as a Colonol in the US Army Medical Corps, we settled in Eugene, OR, where he worked as a physician before we settled here -- permanently, we hope -- two years ago. We spent more than we wanted on our dream home with the Bay view in South Bellingham, and have been stunned by the increase in frequency and volume of trains passing below our home. The trains wake us during the night, yet Bellingham can't install a Quiet Zone until BNSF agrees to track relocation for waterfront development, and apparently they won't approve relocation without expansion of tracks or sidings through our downtown and beloved Boulevard Park.

Please conduct a cumulative regional Rail Traffic Study that considers existing and all reasonably foreseeable future rail traffic to GPT and the four other proposed coal terminals. By regional, I mean Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. In determining total number of trains -- in conjunction with passenger, other freight, and coal trains going to B.C. -- please determine:
1. Which routes would be used and by how many trains;
2. What upgrades would be required (new tracks or sidings) and where property condemnations would be necessary for that construction; and
3. Who would bear what proportion of the costs for those expansions (BNSF, state funds, federal funds directly or through the states such as with stimulus funds).

After the rail traffic analysis, please conduct a vehicle impact assessment, particularly in communities such as Spokane and Billings since so many rail communities could receive 48-60 trains, determining legth of delays at all at-grade crossing, crossings without alternative routes, etc. For crossings with unacceptable delays, please measure the costs -- and who will bear it (BNSF, local community, state, federal government) of:
1. Building over- or underpasses;
2. Creating quiet zones;
3. Setting up a system for emergency vehicle dispatchers that facilitates routing of first responders (whether fire, safety, or medical).

I support the request of the Whatcom Docs for a thorough Health Impact Assessment, but that assessment must consider costs to the public as individuals or taxpayers, and private parties such as healthcare providers and insurers. Also required is a thorough Economic Impact Assessment as previously requested by Protect Whatcom that considers the full spectrum of public costs from decreased home values to lost tourist dollars.

Terry Wechsler (#3168)

Date Submitted: 11/15/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I have a question about two provisions of the 1999 Settlement Agreement settling claims relating to permitting the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposed in 1992 and permitted by Whatcom County in 1997, and ask that the EIS clarify the issues.

In the 1999 Settlement Agreement App. H, Agreement for Gift Conveyance and Public Access, there is a gift conveyance to the county to occur when PIT obtained all permits and a lease from DNR, prior to construction. Pacific International Terminals agreed to transfer to the county by statutory warranty deed the saltwater marsh and adjacent uplands on the SW corner of their property, illustrated in Ex. B (http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/plan/current/gpt-ssa/pdf/1999-settlementagreement.pdf, at pdf p. 114). However, the project map submitted with the proposal which is the subject of this EISshows a rectangle of land designated "Parcel 14, Owned by Others Under P/S Agreement." (Permitting Drawings, March 2012, Conceptual Utility Plan, see https://secureaccess.wa.gov/ofm/iprmt24/Portals/_1357/images/default/09%20-%20Attachment%20D_Drawings_Packet%201.pdf, at pdf p.2.) If the land "owned by others under P/S agreement" is the conveyance referred to in the settlement agreement, please explain the discrepancy between the two documents. The current illustration designates a parcel much smaller and situated more easterly.

The 1999 Settlement Agreement App. H also describes agrant by way of easement or license for public access to a beach area south of Gulf Road including tidelands from the eastern boundary of the property south approximately 600 feet to the west. That grant is illustrated at EX C.

Please scope in the EIS the public's ability to fully enjoy the benefits of the gift conveyance and grant of easement or license agreed to in the Settlement Agreement, and describe how that enjoyment would be impacted by operation of the proposed terminal at full build-out and operations. Also, please clarify the apparent difference between the lands granted in the Settlement Agreement and those designated in 2012 Permitting Drawings.

By copy of this e-mail I am asking county officials if there is some subsequent agreement between PIT and the county that would clarify the difference between the land described as a future gift conveyance in the Settlement Agreement, and the current description in the Conceptual Plan.

Thank you very much,

Terry J. Wechsler
304 Morey Ave.
Bellingham, WA 98225
360-656-6180 (r), 541-913-5976 (c)

Terry Wechsler (#3621)

Date Submitted: 11/30/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live in Bellingham, which has great water because we divert all we need from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack River to Lake Whatcom. We get melting glaciers and snow pack. Ferndale used to drink glacier water; now it drinks ground water, and from what I hear, they don’t like it so much.

Pacific International Terminals claims they would use a state-of-the-art dust and fire suppression system for that 80 acre pile of coal that’s about six stories high. That system requires ...water. 1.9 billion-with-a-“B” gallons of water per year from PUD, though the Project Information Document (PID) averages it to 5.3 mil. gallons per day. To put that in context, that’s more water than Ferndale uses daily; half of what all of Bellingham uses. It’s about a third of the water PUD currently supplies to six industrial and fifty irrigation customers in the Cherry Point area.

The PID describes a system that will use less water when it rains, more in the summer dry months when, of course, the Nooksack has the lowest flow. And according to a study done by a professor at Western for her master’s thesis,[1] because of the effects of global climate change on the Nooksack, summer flow in the Middle Fork could decrease by over 8% in the future.

The EIS must consider future water resources based on changing climate scenarios and determine how GPT’s state-of-the-art dust suppression system, that depends on our best water source, would impact this region’s homes, farms and industries in the worst case scenario over the proposed life of the terminal. For Ferndale, the EIS must specifically address whether it will EVER be possible for PUD to supply their water in the future if the largest coal terminal in North America were competing with you.

[1] Dickerson, Susan E., Modeling the Effects of Climate Change Forecasts on Streamflow in the Nooksack River Basin. MS thesis. Western Washington University, Bellingham, 2010. Web Nov. 29, 2012, http://kula.geol.wwu.edu/rjmitch/Dickerson.pdf.

Terry Wechsler (#4091)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
When I spoke with Hadley Rodero and Haley Reutimann during the key stakeholder interviews, the final question was what did I want to say that hadn't been addressed regarding the appearance of fairness at the scoping meetings. My answer was that, understanding there is no legal requirement to hold public hearings at this stage of the regulatory process, having offered to do so, "You're gonna need a bigger boat."

The general perception of the scoping meetings to date has been that your consultant has run exceptionally well-organized meetings and done everything possible to ensure attendees are aware of the information the agency co-leads want to hear addressed by the public. Until the Ferndale scoping meeting, the only complaint I heard was that the co-leads could have allowed everyone who wished to orally comment the opportunity to do so without setting arbitrary limits on the number of speakers. Until now, I did not share that concern because these meetings are more process than legally required. I feel rather differently after sitting through 74 pro-jobs statements in Ferndale.

Your scoping guide makes clear that "[c]omments about the merits (pro or con) of the proposal ... will not be considered in determining the scope of the EIS." In materials I co-authored for comment writing workshops (local activists have trained over 2000 individuals in three counties in how to comment), we have stressed this fact, and urged leaving statements of opinion for letters to the editor. We have been most impressed with how many oral scoping comments by persons we know oppose the terminal focus solely on impacts that must be scoped and/or alternatives and mitigations, and never address the speakers' personal viewpoints.

By now you are well aware of the practice of SSA Marine, directly and/or through their proxy, Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports (ANJE), to hire placeholders to arrive as many as eight hours early to take as many speaker slots as possible. This was particularly effective in Ferndale. What you may not know is that GPT "employees" (presumably SSA Marine employees) are policing the line ensuring "red shirts" are not talking to "green shirts." They are confrontational and seemingly deliberately rude. I felt intimidated in Ferndale, and a friend in Spokane described an incident that can only be described as a deliberate attempt to provoke hostility.

First, I note the contradiction that ANJE feels justified in the practice of hiring placeholders supposedly because union members ... are working (this statement was reported by the press). The subject of comments of those in green tee-shirts is exclusively the need for jobs so presumably the union halls are filled with out-of-work members. Further, terminal opponents also have lives and jobs, so that remark is actually rather silly.

Second, I find it offensive that self-identified ANJE employees are allowed to testify at all. That group is, essentially, the proponents, whose opportunity to speak to the agencies was in the permit applications. SSA Marine and BNSF have met with regulators behind closed doors for years, beginning long before the establishment of the MAP team. Salish Land Policy Solutions expressly requested early in the process that the public be represented on the MAP Team and was told that would not be "appropriate." Today, the co-leads have established policies that should ensure no undue influence through direct contact with proponents, yet that is what is happening through the scoping meetings. A partial list of ANJE members is at the bottom of this e-mail.

Third, from the beginning, SSA Marine officers and paid spokespersons have stated publicly they want a full and thorough EIS, claiming they will build the most environmentally sound coal terminal the world has ever seen. Assuming that to be true, it remains for the FEIS to conclude whether the impacts of even such a terminal as promised would be so significant and incapable of mitigation that its construction would not merely offend environmental standards but actually be against public policy.

Proponents claim it is premature to take a position in opposition to the terminal before the "facts are known," yet they have presented 10,000 signatures from people who are essentially saying they are pro-jobs and tax revenues. That is mere political posturing, but hijacking scoping meetings has a much more insidious effect when it gives a false impression to terminal supporters about the nature of their statements. A local union member commented on the Bellingham Herald's blog, about the Ferndale hearing, "We will be submitting our comments by mail in numbers to big to ignore. [sic]" http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/politics/gateway-pacific-terminals-strong-showing-at-scoping-meeting-creates-a-stir/comment-page-3/#comment-379138#storylink=cpy

When the Scoping Report does not consider pro-jobs statements "comments" within the meaning of SEPA and NEPA for purposes of determining the scope of the EIS, as it must, presumably many citizens will feel betrayed and that their voices have not been heard. One means of attempting to educate that population about what scoping comments are -- and are not -- is to hold another scoping meeting in Ferndale and announce that the reason is because so few individuals who came to "comment" had the opportunity to do so. Whether you choose that course or not, we would ask that you clearly communicate to SSA Marine and ANJE about what is and is not appropriate participation in the regulatory process at this stage. Also, please police the lines in Vancouver and Seattle. There is no reason individuals should not be allowed to converse with each other in a respectful way free of verbal intimidation.

The SEPA handbook states, "An important part of SEPA is the opportunity for citizens and other agencies to review and comment on many proposals. When an opportunity to comment on a SEPA document is missed or ignored, the opportunity to have a beneficial effect on the proposal is often lost." Again, we are very aware that of the many opportunities to submit written comments, but the purpose of the extra process -- the scoping meetings -- was purportedly to give the public a vehicle via which they felt they are being "heard" by the agency co-leads. Intended or not, it certainly served, in the first three meetings, all of which I attended, as an opportunity for communities to hear the perspectives of their neighbors near and far. The northern part of the county should not be denied such an opportunity merely because it would not benefit project proponents.

Please consider this letter a request under FOIA and the Washington Open Records Act for copies of all communications between agency co-leads and/or your consultant with GPT/BNSF project proponents, the subject of which is scoping meetings, limited to the subjects of this e-mail. Please consider this a continuing request, and forward future correspondence on these subjects. In the alternative, please continue to maintain the correspondence page on the Whatcom County Planning Department's GPT page and add a correspondence page to the MAP Team website.

Thank you for your attention.

Terry J. Wechsler
Bellingham, WA
360-656-6180 (r), 541-913-5976 (c)
Alliance for Northwest Jobs & Exports Members (Partial List):
http://createnwjobs.com/about-us
• Ambre Energy North America, Inc.
• Arch Coal
• BNSF Railway
• Cloud Peak Energy
• Montana Rail Link, Inc.
• Peabody Energy
• Pederson Brothers Incorporated
• Portland & Western Railroad, Inc.
• SSA Marine
• Union Pacific

Terry Wechsler (#4217)

Date Submitted: 12/07/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
On or about December 7, 2012, a bulker collided with a trestle at Westshore Terminals at Delta Port, British Columbia (see photo below). That trestle supported a coal conveyor similar to that described in the Project Information Document for the proposed GPT coal terminal. According to a Westshore employee, the conveyor has an emergency braking system such that only a "tiny bit of coal" was discharged into the water.[1]

The photo below reveals more than a "tiny bit" of coal in the water. I would ask that the EIS for GPT address the braking system for the coal conveyor proposed by Pacific International Terminals and, based on volume of coal and the speed at which it would be conveyed, and response time for the braking system, please quantify exactly how much coal would be released into the water if the conveyor were breached under various scenarios (earthquake, bulker without rudder control or lost engine power, crew error, etc.). Also, please describe the cleanup process and the environmental impact on the aquatic environment of both the coal and the cleanup.

________________________________________


Thank you very much for your attention.
Terry J. Wechsler
304 Morey Ave.
Bellingham, WA 98225
360-656-6180 (r), 541-913-5976 (c)
[1] Metro Vancouver/CKNW, Liza Yuzda, "Accident at Delta Port," December 7, 2012, http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx?ID=1836424 (Dec. 2012).

(image attached)
Attached Files:

Terry Wechsler (#9697)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The EIS must include a herring study that determines what past impacts caused the 90% decline in the Cherry Point herring population. Then, based on that information, the study should determine how current and reasonably foreseeable future impacts will further contribute to their decline, considering vessel traffic, industrial discharges into the water, etc.

The 1999 Settlement Agreement relating to the 1997 Shoreline Substantial Development and Major Project Permits does not govern this study, as the currently proposed terminal is a "new" proposal. While the requirements of that agreement may serve as a "floor" of necessary studies, it should not govern the scope of a study for the currently proposed coal terminal. Were a herring study's scope of work to be based on the Settlement Agreement, one issue that would not be studied is the effect of fugitive coal dust in eel grass beds and sediment on the sea floor in and near herring nesting and spawning grounds.

Further, since the settlement agreement was signed in 1999, the Cherry Point herring population has declined precipitously. They were in a state of crisis but are now on the verge of extinction. It is imperative the EIS determine what is happening and why. That herring population may not be recognized by the federal government as a genetically unique species for designation as endangered, but their unique and vital role as a food source for numerous species, several of which are endangered, was recognized. No regulatory determination can be made unless it is based on sound science, and to date, the science has been wholly inadequate in addressing precisely what is causing the decline of the Cherry Point herring population. The EIS must adequately address the issue.

Terry Wechsler (#9702)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The Project Information Document, in sec. 4.3.6 Stormwater Management, describes a system of "water quality basins" where runoff will be diverted for sediment settlement. Sec. 4.5.5 Dust Control is completely silent about the water runoff from those operations which will require an average of 5.33 mil. gallons of water per day for dust suppression on the coal pile and, presumably, cleaning covered conveyor systems and other areas where coal dust can accumulate and spontaneously combust. It must be assumed that the runoff from these operations related to dust, fire, and explosion suppression, are being treated as "stormwater runoff," but the PID is not clear on that subject.

The EIS should address specifically how runoff from terminal operations will be captured and how design of the terminal will ensure all runoff containing sediment treated. Particular attention should be paid to surfaces that are not impermiable, such as the floor of the coal "patio."

Once runoff has been diverted to the water quality basins, as sediment settles over time, it seems intuitive that large amounts of coal dust "sludge" will accumulate. The PID is silent as to how that sludge will be handled. What will be the nature of that sludge, e.g., how toxic is it? How will it be removed, and where will it be taken and stored? Will the basins be designed such that the sediment can not escape and enter the environment? And when coal is no longer shipped from the terminal, how will the basins, and their contents, be removed? The expense to do so will be enormous, and if Pacific International Terminals were to declare bankruptcy, it is quite reasonable to assume cleanup of those basins would become the responsibility of the citizens. The EIS should determine the cost to remove the basins and their contents in current dollars and, adjusting for inflation, in 10 years and 20 years. A reasonable mitigation would be to require SSA Marine -- and not PIT -- to guarantee it will conduct that cleanup by posting an adequate bond.

Terry Wechsler (#9806)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The terminal proponents insist on referring to GPT as a “multi-modal” terminal for various commodities. The Project Information Document states that the coal terminal would be built in Stage 1 and a second, other commodities terminal – initially shipping Canadian potash and calcined coke (a byproduct of BP Cherry Point operations) – would be built in Stage 2, after at least ten years, if market conditions warrant.

SSA Marine, through its subsidiary Pacific International Terminals (PIT), started the permitting process for the other commodities terminal in 1992, obtained permits to build it from Whatcom County in 1997, reached settlement after an appeal of the EIS for that terminal in 1999, and took no action to obtain other permits or a shoreline lease to actually construct that terminal, probably because it was not economically viable.

Today’s EIS must not simply reiterate the proponent’s stated purpose and needs for the currently-proposed terminal, because SSA Marine and its spokesmen have been so disingenuous about the nature of that which they are proposing depending on who their audience is. They have described GPT, variously, as a conduit for Washington products when addressing state and local politicians, and for U.S. grain when lobbying support from federal and other state officials.

The reality is that PIT proposes to build the currently-proposed terminal because the enormous profits associated with coal justify the construction costs. Ostensibly, once the pier were built and “paid for” by coal, it would be a simple enough matter to add other commodities and, when the coal market evaporates, use the coal terminal for other commodities.

The EIS should measure the cost of converting the Stage One terminal from coal to any other commodity, including but not limited to determining the cost to remove the 80-acre coal patio, water quality basins and accumulated sediment, etc., if necessary. If they would not be removed, the EIS should discuss under what scenarios that would occur.

The EIS should also determine if the terminal is financially viable to operate without coal. PIT claims in Stage Two it would export Canadian potash and BP’s calcined coke by-product. The coke is literally a stone’s throw away, at BP Cherry Point. The Canadian potash would presumably be shipped through GPT if Asian demand exceeded Canadian export capacity. GPT, being the nearest terminal in North America, would be the next most geographically convenient terminal, but how likely is it those two conditions – foreign demand and lack of capacity at Canadian ports – will occur?

In the absence of coal, and if there is no need to export Canadian potash from a U.S. terminal or not enough demand to export in quantities through GPT to financially justify terminal operations, what other commodities could be shipped through GPT? The Project Information Document mentions wood chips, sulfur, and wheat. The reality is there is no significant excess capacity of wheat being grown in the western U.S. to increase exports, and it would take years to “ramp up” production. Is it viable that the terminal can and would convert to grain after a massive expansion of crops designated for export product? Is it feasible the U.S. could ever increase wheat production to have enough excess capacity to export tens of millions of tons per year given weather patterns (droughts, floods, etc.) and the political backlash that would result from a major expansion of growing GMO wheat? Absent wheat, is there a need for additional port capacity to export enough wood chips and sulfur to justify GPT’s existence?

Also, because the proponents and politicians describe GPT as a vehicle for the export of Washington products, the EIS should describe with specificity what those products are and why GPT is necessary and economically viable for their export. Longview can export huge quantities of grain. Agricultural and other products can be shipped more cheaply on the Columbia River because of the differential between shipping costs associated with barges versus trains. The EIS must identify the Washington producers which would benefit from an additional port with the capability of berthing cape class vessels.

Finally, the EIS must determine if GPT is competitive enough to attract commodities other than coal, coke, and Canadian potash. Vancouver to the north and Seattle, Tacoma, Longview, and Portland to the south are but some of the existing ports with thriving terminals and longstanding relationships with exporters. Could GPT win enough contracts, in competition with existing ports, to financially justify its operation?

Terry Wechsler (#13695)

Date Submitted: 01/12/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I understand the co-lead's e-mail address is not working, so I am re-submitting a comment to you. The pdf is an attachment to the docx comment.

One of the problems with the co-leads' online submission form is that it will not accept Word or pdf attachments, so there is literally no way to submit certain types of comments electronically at this time if the comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov address is not working. When I submitted by e-mail yesterday, I didn't get a message telling me there was an error and my e-mail had not gone through. Will CH2M Hill have a way of retrieving those e-mail submissions? Why wasn't there a press release notifying the public e-mail isn't working? How are we going to notify people their comments submitted by e-mail may not have gone through and should be re-submitted?

Thank you,
Terry J. Wechsler

Online message, 1/12/13: "Email comments are not being accepted at this time. If you have a scoping comment or another question, please use the online comment form. We apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that this has caused; we are taking action to resolve the issue."
Attached Files:

Terry Weschler (#12183)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Comment:
Please see attached.
Terry J. Wechsler
Bellingham, WA
360-656-6180 (r), 541-913-5976 (c)
Attached Files:

Terry Wissler (#6451)

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

I am quite concerned about the proposed construction of a coal export facility at Cherry Point. The adverse effects of increased ocean acidification and escalation of climate change from such a massive endeavor is alarming. I see no way that this could be "mitigated"

Although the coal to be shipped will be burned in China, it is clear by now that climate change is a global problem, and I do not think we should be contributing to it at this point in history by agreeing to ship massive quantities of coal to "someone else" to burn.

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 Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals -- and the burning of this massive amount of coal -- on ocean acidification, increased carbon dioxide emission, and impact on climate change.

Thanks you,
Terry Wissler

Terry Wood (#6288)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Eastsound, WA
Comment:
As a concerned resident of Orcas Island since 1989 it is my responsibility to be an active participant when it comes to noise pollution, air pollution and water quality this proposal could affect. Orcas is an exception to the rule and this proposal would remove one of the last unspoiled frontiers know to the USA / World!
Please perform due deligence in your studies, before acting.

Terry & Marcella Williams (#1394)

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

Terry Anne McEachen (#14193)

Date Submitted: 10/18/12
Location: Birch Bay, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Tess Morgan (#929)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Location: Seattle, 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.

Permanently damaging injury and travesty to salmon runs, our shores and the Duwamish River are preventable. Please consider the long term gain over the dollar a ton short term lease of Bureau of Land Managment budget gains.

Thank you for your time and special attention.

Sincerely,

Tess Morgan
4701 SW Admiral Way # 71
Seattle, WA 98116-2340

Thaddeus Gireig (#3964)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Thaddeus Gireig (#3965)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Thane Keith (#2874)

Date Submitted: 11/12/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Sir/Madam,

Whatcom County, WA is going to consider whether to permit a project to build a deep water terminal to ship 48+million tons of coal per year to China. The enormous amount of air and water pollution this project will result in from coal mining, transporting by diesel trains, storing, shipping and then burning in China will affect not only the Whatcom County area but will also affect where I live and where everyone lives on this planet. Please study the effects of this huge amount emissions will have on climate change. Please consider this project along with the other 4 proposed similar projects all along the west coast. Combined these facilities will send over 150 million tons of coal to China yearly.
Thane Keith
235 S Garden st.
Bellingham wa 98225

The Caprio Family (#4277)

Date Submitted: 12/09/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
December 9, 2012

Mr. Randel Perry
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
Care of: GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
1100 112th Avenue Northeast, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004

Dear Mr. Perry:

RE: OUR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED COAL TRAIN PLAN

We live a mile from the rail corridor in Mount Vernon, Washington, and are strongly opposed to using that rail corridor for additional freight traffic (coal trains).

To get to I-5 or to drive to the closest hospital emergency room and most local schools, residents in our large neighborhood need to cross those tracks, which wind at street level through downtown and south Mount Vernon.

Even now, we often must wait for slow-moving, mile-long freight trains passing through the street-level crossings. Though these trains are a routine holdup, fortunately there are few enough so we can manage our lives around them.

However, the addition of possibly 18 trains of this length per day (one every 80 minutes, assuming they’re evenly spaced out over 24 hours) coupled with the freight traffic already moving through town will seriously impede the ability of residents in our neighborhood to get to jobs and schools (public transit and school buses need to cross the street-level tracks as well) or evacuate in the event of a major emergency. Only two streets in Mount Vernon have an overpass over the tracks, and they are widely-spaced apart (we and our neighbors actually need to cross the tracks at street level before we can reach the closest due to how the tracks wind through town).

Mount Vernon’s street-level crossings make the risk for a train accident rise with each new train added per day. With so many trains stopping traffic so often, it’s inevitable drivers will begin driving around closed crossing gates (playing “beat the train’) in an emergency or if they’re just in a heedless hurry. It takes a long time and a long distance to stop a mile-long train, so anything on or even near the tracks when a train comes through poses a major rail hazard. We’ve been lucky, so far, in that no major rail accident has occurred in Mount Vernon in memory. That luck may well run out soon if so many more trains start coming through town.

We strongly urge you not to move forward with this plan UNLESS or UNTIL the federal government, and the State of Washington are willing to work closely with local residential communities along the proposed rail route to first upgrade to overpass arterial street-level crossings in residential neighborhoods and crossings in proximity to large schools and hospitals. Until such time as that might take place, we strongly oppose moving forward with the coal train plan.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
The Caprio Family
818 W. Hazel
Mount Vernon, WA 98273

The Galbraith Family (#8407)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Comment:
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to protest the allowance of coal trains to run through Seattle up to Bellingham.
We are living in one of the most beautiful, pristine, healthy states and allowing these trains to run will slowly change that. There is not much that won't be effected by the trains. The dusts, air born and able to be carried to the water, will pollute the sound, as well as all of the wetlands and protected areas. But beyond that, closer to home and to our hearts, are our children! How could you even consider allowing these trains to come through and spew dust that will end up in our children's lungs? Coal is a nasty substance, and the health effects of breathing in coal dust read loud and clear! Protect our children! Why should they suffer due to your lack of foresight?
As we become more aware of the harm we do to the environment we need to make changes in our practices to reflect our knowledge. Because we know that coal is dirty energy, we are not choosing to use more of it when there is other energy available. Why support China in its choice to poison its country and our environment when there are many other alternatives?
Do the right thing! Say NO!

Sincerely,
The Galbraith Family

The Tetu family (#1979)

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

Thelma Follett (#56)

Date Submitted: 09/24/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
RE: Scoping under NEPA/SEPA for Environmental Impact Statement – Gateway Pacific Terminal

Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies:

Please scope the health, environmental and safety impacts and establish the probable quantity of coal dust lost per each train coal car during coal train transit through Bellingham and Whatcom County.

When GPT is operating at full capacity exporting 54 million metric tons of coal per year, a minimum of 9 trains consisting of 150 coal cars each will travel through Bellingham each day (Coal Train Quick Facts, online).

BNSF has stated that “the amount of coal dust that escapes from PRB coal trains is surprisingly large….BNSF has done studies indicating that from 500 lbs. to a ton of coal can escape from a single loaded coal car” (Sightline Daily, August 10, 2011) According to BNSF, “other reports have indicated that as much as 3% of the coal loaded into a coal car can be lost in transit” which, when calculated, “suggests that coal trains would release as much as 300,000 tons of coal dust…every day of the year” (Stopping coal: A renewed moral imperative,” Beyond Toxics, July 11, 2012).

Health
“Coal trains…release coal dust into the air, which degrades air quality and exposes nearby communities to dust inhalation”…resulting in “increased asthma, wheezing & cough in children…a “wide range of health problems associated with exposure to heavy metals designated as hazardous air pollutants, such
as lead, selenium and mercury,”…carcinogens “depending on its (coal dust’s) chemical composition,” and possible lymphomas” (“Community Health Impacts of Coal Mining & Transportation,” Alaska Community Action on Toxics, retrieved September 24, 2012).

Environment
“Dust expelled during transit at cross load wind speeds in excess of 20 kilometers per hour is deposited near the tracks… the dust impacts vegetative growth cycles and the diversity of plants, changes soil chemistry, and washes into waterways where it can physiological and genetic impacts on species such as salmon. The level of damage to plants, soil, and water is dependent on the amount of dust and its chemical composition…. coal dust in waterways tends to remove oxygen from the water column and that is not good for wetlands or aquatic creatures(“Coal Dust is Complicated but Real Problem,” ReSources for Sustainable Communities, May 17, 2011).

Safety
In the past two months there have been at least 6 coal train derailments claiming the lives of four persons. Another derailment occurred just four days ago causing 31 coal cars to go off the tracks and sparking a grass fire (“Coal Train Derails Near Oktaha,” September 20, 2012).. Coal dust is the culprit. “BNSF has determined that coal dust poses a serious threat to the stability of the track structure and thus to the operational integrity of our lines” (“Two More Coal Train Wrecks — The Epidemic Continues,” July 17, 2012).

Mitigation
BNSF claims that ongoing “studies” and “experience” are sufficient to provide solutions to shippers for required mitigation of coal dust (“Coal Dust Frequently Asked Questions” online, retrieved September 24, 2012). However, Queensland Rail has found through literature review and trials that mitigating measures such as load profile (“appears to only have a minimal impact on reducing fugitive coal and does not act to decrease the frequency of severe dusting events”) and suppressants (issues with variations in water consumption, cost and “chemical effects on rolling stock”), while showing promise, have a long way to go for 100% effectiveness(“Coal Loss Literature Review, Coal Loss Management Project Queensland Rail, January 11, 2008).

Additionally, compliance is difficult to monitor and enforce. Industry reports indicate that BNSF’s “guidelines for dust suppression aren’t being enforced or widely followed” (“An open letter to BNSF CEO on coal transport,” Sustainable Business Oregon, September 19, 2012).

Sincerely,
Thelma Follett

Thelma Follett (#84)

Date Submitted: 09/26/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Thelma Follett
P. O. Box 28804
Bellingham, WA 98228

September 26, 2012


RE: Scoping under NEPA/SEPA for Environmental Impact Statement – Gateway Pacific Terminal


Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies:

Please scope the health impacts to Washington State of atmospheric pollution from the burning of Powder River Basin/GPT shipped coal by any of the proposed project customers including (but not limited to) China and India.

In April, 2006, an American satellite spotted a cloud of pollutants generated from coal combustion in Northern China crossing to the West Coast. These pollutants, including microscopic cancer causing particles of “sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts,” were then detected on mountaintops by researchers in California, Oregon and Washington mountaintop detectors (“Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow,” June 11, 2006). Additionally, pollutants like ozone (asthma and heart disease) and mercury (a neurotoxin) are linked to coal burning byproducts that cross the Pacific Ocean in ever increasing amounts from China (“Northwest Coal Exports, Some common questions about economics, health, and pollution,” September, 2011).

Project proponents claim that if the Chinese “don't burn our coal, they'll burn something worse" (“Would a Washington state coal port mean a damn thing to the environment,” Crosscut, December 30, 2011). However, Powder River Basin coal, although “somewhat cleaner,” is still, like all coals, an extremely polluting form of energy” with the added drawback of producing “less energy per pound than the coals that are more commonly burned in modern power plants” and thus, requiring “50 percent more mining, shipping, and burning” (“Northwest Coal Exports, Some common questions about economics, health, and pollution,” September, 2011).


Sincerely,
Thelma Follett

Thelma Follett (#513)

Date Submitted: 10/05/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Thelma Follett
P. O. Box 28804
Bellingham, WA 98228

October 5, 2012

RE: Scoping under NEPA/SEPA for Environmental Impact Statement – Gateway Pacific Terminal

Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies:

Please scope the reasonably foreseeable future impacts with regard to the ultimate economic cost and expense to the taxpayers of Whatcom County for the construction of an export terminal for a commodity (coal) which has in the past and is currently experiencing a regressive, dwindling and variable international market.

Include within the scoping process definitive answers to hard questions posed to the project proponents (SSA Marine (controlled by Goldman Sachs), BNSF, and Peabody Energy concerning the projected international market for Powder River Basin coal both at project start-up (estimated for 2016) and at full build-out.

“Spikes in commodity prices such as coal are usually quite temporary because they trigger two well-known responses. First, they discourage use of the now more costly commodity or encourage more careful and efficient use of it. Demand declines. In addition, the higher prices justify bringing more expensive sources of supply on line,
increasing the supply. Both of these market responses tend to push the price back down again. That sort of adjustment is evident in world coal markets right now. Both metallurgical and thermal coal prices are coming down… Instead of looking at selling PRB coal for $130 a ton to Asia, potential coal exporters now face a price of about $80. $50 per ton of potential profit has simply disappeared” (“The Rush to Export Coal: A National Frenzy,” June 4, 2012:3).

Current indications of the volatility of the market include:

Powder River Basin Coal

• “China is the world’s biggest consumer of thermal coal,” “a key driver for global coal markets;” however, with coal cargoes already piled high in Chinese ports which stopped importing coal at the end of May due to a “weakening coal demand because of a slowing economy and more electricity being generated by hydropower,” coal is “set to see long-term declines in demand growth because of shifting policy priorities…Beijing aims to reduce reliance on coal as an energy source and may ultimately cap coal production too, although such a cap would be difficult to enforce” (“Fading fortunes: China’s demand for ‘big coal’ wanes,” July 17, 2012).

Additionally, in Q2 of this year “almost all railroad companies took a beating from a slump in its coal freight businesses” (Union Pacific’s Coal Freight Business Rebounds from Powder River Basin Activity,” August 30, 2012).

Appalachian Coal

• Citing “coal’s past cyclicality,” the WSJ this week warned investors that China’s slowing growth is “taking a brutal toll on Appalachian coal mines and coal towns” and as the Chinese economy is slowing “so is its steel industry.” (The Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2012: A 1-2).

This WSJ article also touches on the recent bankruptcy of Patriot Coal Corp. (a subsidiary of Peabody Energy) which left 22,000 miners and retirees without pensions or health benefits. Peabody Energy, “convinced that Asian demand has triggered a ‘supercycle’ that will last at least 20 years,” is slated to become the major coal export client of the Gateway Pacific Terminal despite the fact that “historically, the global coal market has been famously volatile” (“Coal on a Roll,” August 24, 2011).

Sincerely,
Thelma Follett

Thelma Follett (#679)

Date Submitted: 10/13/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Thelma Follett
P. O. Box 28804
Bellingham, WA 98228

October 13, 2012


RE: Scoping under NEPA/SEPA for Environmental Impact Statement – Gateway Pacific Terminal


Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies:

RE: “purpose and need” for the PIT/GPT

“The purpose of the project is to develop and operate a multimodal deepwater bulk terminal for export and import of dry bulk commodities to meet international and domestic demand” (“Scoping Meeting Materials,” slide 17 cited in “Coal Port: Tell Me about the No Action Alternative,” “Get Whatcom Planning, October 1, 2012).

•“China’s and India’s plans to build more coal-fired power plants to meet electricity needs aren’t feasible because of a lack of water needed to cool the plants…water constraints will also probably prompt China to use more natural gas than it is currently targeting, since gas-fired generators also use less water than coal-fired ones” (“China, India Lack Water for Coal Plant Plans, GE Director Says,” June 7, 2012).

•“With China set to vaporize water equal to what flows over Niagara Falls each year, and India’s industrial water demand growing at twice the pace of agricultural or municipal use, Asia’s most populous nations will have to reconsider energy projects to avoid conflict between cities, farmers and industry” (“Asia Risks Water Scarcity Amid Coal-Fired Power Embrace,” September 11, 2012).

•“…as global energy consumption continues to increase…this will place the energy sector into greater competition with other water users for already limited freshwater resources in many regions of the world. This competition for water resources will impact future energy development and could have significant impacts on energy reliability and energy security in regions around the globe” (“The Global Water Crisis: Addressing an Urgent Security Issue, 2011-2012,” pg.19).

Please scope the GPT/PIT argument for “need” (the international demand cited above) in the event that the anticipated “coal to Asian markets” (http://gatewaypacificterminal.com/the-project, retrieved October 13, 2012) does not materialize.


Sincerely,
Thelma Follett

Thelma Follett (#3642)

Date Submitted: 11/30/2012
Location: Belingham, WA
Comment:
Thelma Follett
Bellingham

November 29, 2012

RE: GPT Scoping Comment

Please honor with a scoping study one of the earliest pioneer residents of Whatcom County – the White Clover (trifolium repens).

Phoebe Judson, the founding mother of Lynden, praised the white clover which rapidly covered the cleared ground with what she called a “loving mantle of charity” that covers “a multitude of sins’ (1).
White Clover is regularly sown in Whatcom County pastures and hayfields.
The benefits of White Clover include:
• Improvements to soil quality, water infiltration and erosion control (2).
• High desirability and nutrition for livestock (3), deer and elk (4).
• Preferred diet of honey bees which comprise a small but important Whatcom County hobby and market niche (5).
• The White Clover is high in protein and all parts of the plant are edible making it a valuable survival food for humans (6).
• Medicinal uses include treatment for arthritis, fever, tapeworm and kidney disease (7).
• Culinary uses include bread flour, salad greens, soups and teas and is a
White clover is adversely affected by:
• Heavy metal bearing coal dust and diesel soot (8)
• Anthropogenic climate change leading to drought and restricted water conditions or excessive CO2 uptake (9).
Please scope:
• The actual amount of White Clover lost during construction and operation of the GPT terminal (10).
• The potential economic loss to farmers in a 12 mile radius of the GPT terminal whose clover plantings are threatened due to heavy metal deposition of coal dust and diesel soot.
Let us not forget that our famous pioneer author , Ella Higginson compared the White Clover to the best of American citizens which “ must, and shall constitute the only aristocracy of the United States, an aristocracy not of wealth, but of intellect; not of superficial accomplishments, but of broad and human education; not of show, but of unimpeachable character. (11).

References included.

Thelma Follett

References
Online references retrieved November 25, 2012
(1) Phoebe Goodell Judson, "A Pioneer's Search for an Ideal Home,” 1925: 99.
(2) Laura Whelan, “Clover provides nitrogen for soil, forage for cattle,” Mississippi Agricultural News, March 11, 2004; “Whatcom County Seeding Recommendations,” http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/pasture/seeding_recomendations.htm; Jody Smith et al., “White Clover,” Sustainable Agriculture Cover Crops, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Hawaii, August, 2002.
(3) White Clover, Trifolium Repens L., Plant Symbol = TRRE3, Plant Fact Sheet, United States department of Agriculture, Natural resources Conservation Service, http://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_trre3.pdf.
(4). Allied seed, L.L. C., http://www.alliedseed.com/products/White_Clover/index.php.
(5) R. M. Goodwin et al., “Number of Honey Bee Visits Required to Fully Pollinate White Clover (Trifolium repens) Seed Crops in Canterbury, New Zealand,” New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, March 2011: 7 -19; Conservation Evidence, www.conservationevidence.com/individual-study.php?id=1436; Mount baker Bee Keepers Association.
(6) “White Clover Flour,” http://blog.lammer-heindel.com/food/white-clover-flour, retrieved November 25, 2012; Ttrifolium Repens,” Wikipedia, retrieved November 25, 2012; “Clover - A nutritious edible weed,” http://www.squidoo.com/trifolium#module59166732.
(7) http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-medical-uses-of-trifolium-repens.htm, retrieved November 25, 2012; http://montana.plant-life.org/species/trifol_repe.htm; Vareishang Tangpu et al., Anticestodal Activity of Trifolium repens, Pharmaceutical Biology, 2004: 656 -658.
(8) Towseef Mohsin Bhat et al., Synergistic Cytotoxic Stress and DNA Damage in Clover (Trifolium repens ) Exposed to HeavyMetal Soil from Automobile Refining Shops in Kashmir-Himalaya,” International Scholarly Research Network, ISRN Toxicology, 2001; Barrutia O et al., “Plant tolerance to diesel minimizes its impact on soil microbial characteristics during rhizoremediation of diesel-contaminated soils,” Sci Total Environ. 2011 Sep 1;409.
(9) Chang-Quan Wanget al, “Scavenger Enzyme Activities in Subcellular Fractions of White Clover (Trifolium repens L.) under PEG-induced Water Stress,” J Plant Growth Regul (2008) 27:387–393; Gleadow RM et al., “Changes in nutritional value of cyanogenic trifolium repens grown at elevated atmospheric CO2,” J Chem Ecol. 2009 Apr;35(4):476-8; “CO2 Effects on Plants Increase Global Warming,”May 2, 2010, http://carnegiescience.edu/news/co2_effects_plants_increase_global_warming_0.
(10) Construction and operation of the terminal will permanently displace 329 acres of vegetation (including 69 acres of pasture and hayfields). Although project proponents claim that their project will “not affect existing vegetation communities,” white clover in the project area will be adversely affected by the operation of the terminal, which at full build-out may stockpile at the very least 48 million metric tons of coal (sometimes blowing dust that is deposited from 5 to 12 miles away) and will run as many as nine, mile long trains per day, emitting toxic diesel soot and coal dust.
“Construction Related Effects” (5.2.2.1) and “Operational Effects” (5.2.2.2), Revised Project Information Document, Gateway Pacific Terminal, Whatcom County, Washington, Pacific International Terminals, March 2012; “Quick Facts,” www.coaltrainfacts.org; John Galt comment to the Bellingham Herald, John Stark, “Laura Ruderman clarifies stance on Gateway Pacific coal ports,” March 16, 2012; scoping comment, Don Frantz, Custer, Nov. 9, 2012, Custer.
(11) Ella Higginson, “Clover Leaves,” The American Reveille (Bellingham), September 8, 1912: 4.

Of Further Interest
Norman L. Taylor, Clover Science and Technology, American Society of Agronomy, 1985.
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. 5 vols. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Carbon Dioxide, Populations, and Communities - Page 315 Christian Körner, Fakhri A. Bazzaz – 1996.
Wang Z-Y, Ge Y. 2006. Recent advances in genetic transformation of forage and turf grasses. In vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant 42: 1–18.
Jiang et al. 2010; Jiang Q, Zhang J, Guo X, et al. 2010. Improvement of drought tolerance in white clover (Trifolium repens) by transgenic expression of a transcription factor gene WXP1. Functional Plant Biology 37: 157–165.
Ma X-F, Wright E, Ge Y, Bell J, Xi Y, Bouton JH, Wang Z-Y. 2009. Improving phosphorus acquisition of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) by transgenic expression of plant-derived phytase and acid phosphatase genes. Plant Science 176: 479–488.
Ludlow EJ, Mouradov A, Spangenberg GC. 2009. Post-transcriptional gene silencing as an efficient tool for engineering resistance to white clover mosaic virus in white clover (Trifolium repens). Journal of Plant Physiology 166: 1557–1567.
Stewart CN. 2007. Biofuels and biocontainment. Nature Biotechnology 25: 283–284.
Strauss SH, Kershen DL, Bouton JH, Redick TP, Tan H, Sedjo RA. 2010. Far-reaching deleterious impacts of regulations on research and environmental studies of recombinant DNA-modified perennial biofuel crops in the United States. Bioscience 60: 729–741.
Washington Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Endangered, threatened and sensitive vascular plants of Washington (20 October 2002). Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington. Washington Natural Heritage Program.

Thelma Follett (#4598)

Date Submitted: 12/12/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Pacific International Terminals, Inc. / SSA Marine markets the Gateway Pacific Terminal project as meeting the National Export Initiative and National Security Policy “need” to address the “global demand for dry bulk commodities”… “including but not limited to coal” (1). If built, the terminal would be shipping initially mostly coal, up to 48 million metric tons of coal annually (2).

In light of last month’s published findings from Governor Gregoire’s Blue Ribbon Panel on ocean acidification we now know that the “need” to export coal from Washington State to be burned in coal-fired power plants must be re-evaluated.

The Ocean Acidification study reveals that there is an “urgent need to slow ocean acidification” which is adversely affecting Washington State’s shellfish industry. Ocean acidification can only be reversed by immediately reducing the sources that cause the problem; i.e., the global carbon dioxide emissions caused by burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal. The report calls on Washington State to become a leader for the rest of the world in accomplishing global emission reductions designed to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, stabilize global temperatures, and maintain ocean pH at a level that protects shellfish, other organisms, and marine ecosystems (3).

A recent World Bank report finds that “based on an estimate of the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and surface ocean acidity only very low emission scenarios are able to halt and ultimately reverse ocean acidification…if mitigation measures are not implemented soon to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then ocean acidification can be expected to extend into the deep ocean” and concludes that the World Bank “has determined to become a leading advocate for ambitious action on climate change, not only because it is a moral imperative, but because it makes good economic sense” (4).

Obviously, with regard to ocean acidification alone, we cannot now seek to meet the global bulk commodity “need” SSA Marine and its multi-national corporate allies are determined to satisfy.

Please scope the practicalbility of the PIT/SSA Marine GPT proposal with regard to the two divergent future scenarios presented below:

1. The “Business As Usual” Scenario recently projected by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research would seem to encourage the PIT project:
“Based on the government forecast, the fossil fuel (coal, natural gas and oil) share of U.S. energy consumption will fall only slightly in the future, from 84.3% of total U.S. energy demand in 2010 to 80.1% in 2040. On the other hand, the future of renewable energy as a fuel source is not looking so bright, in terms of its contribution to America’s future energy demand (5).

A caveat here though – Sourcewatch has identified the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research as “an extremely influential, pro-business, conservative think tank and a member of the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council which actively lobbies against global warming science (6). Frankly, I find the creators and advocates of this this scenario to be knowingly irresponsible and guilty of crimes against humanity.

2. The Energy Revolution Scenario advocated by Greenpeace in which fossil and nuclear fuels are phased out resulting in a “drastic reduction in CO2 levels and a share of over 80% renewables in the world energy supply by 2050 ensuring a future built on “energy efficiency and renewable energy, economic development and the creation of millions of new jobs for the next generation” (7).

Although technically challenging, “the main obstacle is political” in implementing the five key principles behind this scenario which will be to:

• Implement renewable solutions, especially through decentralized energy systems.

• Respect the natural limits of the environment

• Phase out dirty, unsustainable energy sources

• Create greater equity in the use of resources

• Decouple economic growth from the consumption of fossil fuels.

Those of us who have major concerns about this project are not luddites and, I imagine, neither are the members of the World Bank. We understand that U.S. citizens and citizens of developing countries have now and will have in the future energy needs that enhance the individual’s quality of life. However, we are indeed facing a world climate crisis that will require better solutions than the GPT proponents offer through this project.

I suggest no action on this project proposal at this time.

Sincerely,
Thelma Follett

References

(1) Revised Project Information Document, Gateway Pacific Terminal, Whatcom County, Washington, Pacific International Terminals, Inc., March, 2012: 1-5, 3-1, 5-93.
(2) http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/key-facts.
(3) Ocean Acidification: From Knowledge to Action:, Washington State’s Strategic Response, Washington State Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification, November, 2012: xvii, 9, 35.
(4) Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided, A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, November 2012: ix,x, 11, 25.
(5) http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12
(6) www.sourcewatch.org
(7) “Energy[r]evolution: A Sustainable Energy Outlook, European Renewable Energy Council and Greenpeace International, June, 2010:7 -9.

Thelma Follett
P. O. Box 28804
Bellingham, WA 98228

December 12, 2012

Thelma Follett (#4849)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Concrete, the most widely used building material in the world (1), ranks second to coal as the world’s dirtiest industrial material (2). The manufacture of the material is one of the worst CO2 generating processes in the world, with five to eight percent of manmade CO2 coming from concrete production (3). Typically, creating 1 ton of traditional cement releases 1 ton of CO2 into the atmosphere (4).
Although “opportunities to mitigate” have been identified (5), to date “companies have not demonstrated that clean concrete can be produced to meet industry demands, or that the energy used to build new ‘green’ production plants won’t counter its ecological benefits”(6).
We are forced to conclude that currently, despite best efforts, “carbon concentrations are rising in the atmosphere every time we use concrete” (7).

Projected and Possible concrete usage associated with the GPT project
In their “Revised Project Information Document,” PIT describes various concrete structures planned for the project including “Approximately 8,000 square feet of new buildings”(8). Project proponents claim that “at full capacity, the Gateway Pacific Terminal will create 4,400 new jobs during construction and 1,250 new jobs through its operations” (9) resulting in an “induced employment impact” of jobs created “throughout the local economy”(10).

Please scope:
1. The amount of concrete (and resulting CO2 emissions from its manufacture) required in the construction of the Gateway Pacific Terminal. Please also determine how much concrete will be required for other structures and buildings PIT has indicated will be on the site.
2. In order to service the estimated over 4000 workers project proponents estimate will be created with food, clothing, shelter, fuel, school, and emergency services, how many buildings in communities and areas adjacent to the terminal will have to be built and approximately how much concrete might need to be manufactured for this?
3. What is the estimated number of BNSF overpasses having to be built at crossings along the entire route and how much concrete will be required in their construction?
4. The Global CO2 emissions from cement production in 2007 were 377 million metric tons of carbon in 2007(11). Considering the large number of coal-fired power plants slated to be built in India and China alone resulting from promised shipments of coal out of Cherry Point, please estimate how much CO2 will be emitted globally in the manufacture of concrete used in the construction of these plants?

References
(1). “Concrete CO2 Fact Sheet,” National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, February 2012: 3. Please note that this publication, which downplays the CO2 emissions from cement and concrete manufacture, makes the following revealing disclaimer, “The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association and the other organizations cooperating in the preparation of this publication strive for accuracy but disclaim any and all responsibility for application of the stated principles or for the accuracy of the sources.”
(2) Katherine Rowland, “Can carbon capture technology help clean up construction?” November 16, 2012, http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/can-carbon-capture-technology-help-clean-construction.
(3) Megan Treacy, “Concrete Structures Could Last 16,000 Years,” June 18, 2009, http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/2814.
(4) “San Francisco 49ers Buy Low-CO2 Concrete for New Stadium,” http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/05/22/san-fracisco-49ers-buy-low-co2-concrete-for-new-stadium/May 22, 2012.
(5) Madeleine Rubenstein, “Emissions from the Cement Industry,” May, 9, 2012, http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-industry.
(6) Rowland, op. cit.
(7) Comment posted to Jaymi Heimbuch, “New Miracle Concrete: A Carbon Storage Solution?” January 8, 2008, http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1954/81.
(8) Pacific International Terminals, Inc.,“Revised Project Information Document Gateway Pacific Terminal, March 2012: 4-3; 4-17; 4-18; 4-23; 4-65; and, 4-66.
(9) http://gatewaypacificterminal.com/economic-benefits/local-state.
(10) Martin Associates, “The Projected Economic Impacts for the Development of a Bulk Terminal at Cherry Point,” July 2011:2.
(11) “Concrete CO2 Fact Sheet”: 7.

Thelma Follett (#6580)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Belingham, WA
Comment:
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. has generated numerous reports and surveys for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal project and is the authorized agent for the project proponents (1).

In July, 2011, AMEC conducted improper clearings on the proposed GPT project properties resulting in environmental and archeological damage and a lawsuit (2). This land clearing, “done without required permits,” turned up shell midden material” disturbing the site of a village that might be thousands of years old” contributing, along with other considerations, in “turning the Lummi nation against the project (3).

The parent company of AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. is AMEC plc (4). “AMEC`s environmental services business operates from a network of 100 offices across the Americas as well as locations in Germany, Italy, Netherlands, UK, Russia and Peru. It provides extensive environmental services around the globe, including oil and gas developments in Russia, construction support services to the U.S. Air Force, and assistance to major mining projects in Canada and South America” (5)

Until recently, the parent company, was in long-term litigation as a defendant in personal injury litigation arising out of the World Trade Center debris-removal operations which plaintiffs (construction workers, firefighters, policemen, and others) argued that they were given inadequate protection against environmental toxins(6). And, incidentally, some find it curious that AMEC was intimately involved with regard to renovations immediately before, debris (evidence destruction) after, and post destruction renovations of 9/11 buildings(7).

AMEC pcl once had the dubious honor of being listed as one among ten excoriated “planet trashers” (8).

I am concerned that an environmental agency at the local level which shows blatant disregard for the environment combined with its parent company at the multinational level which also shows a blatant disregard for environmental concerns would be conducting studies and suggesting mitigations which some might accept without question for a project of the size and importance of the Gateway Pacific Terminal.

I ask that you investigate fully the acceptability of relying on AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. as an authorized agent or almost sole authority with regard to studies concerning the Gateway Pacific terminal project, especially that of the “Preliminary Conceptual Compensatory Mitigation Plan” (February 28, 2011).


Sincerely,
Thelma Follett

(1) Pacific International Terminals, Inc., “revised Project Information Document,” March, 2012.
(2) Gordon Thomas Honeywell “Settlement Communication,” November 23, 2011; “”ReSources files lawsuit against coal port developer’s ground disturbance last summer,” The Bellingham Herald, December 13, 2011.

(3) “Coal port debate packs Squalicum High School,” October 27, 2012.

(4) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC) is a full-service environmental and engineering consulting company offering professional engineering, scientific, and regulatory solutions to clients in North America and to strategic international markets,…AMEC is proud to have acquired the talented resources of Shapiro and Associates in 2005, as well as Steward and Associates, and Geomatrix in 2008…AMEC’s Pacific Northwest office locations include Bothell, Lynnwood, Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland…AMEC’s Environment & Infrastructure division is part of the global AMEC, a focused supplier of high-value consultancy, engineering, and project management services to the world’s energy, power and process industries…AMEC’s Natural Resources, Power and Process and Earth and Environmental businesses employ over 29,000 people in more than 30 countries globally. For further information, please contact us or visit www.amec.com” (http://www.djc.com/en/firms.html?firmid=2000023619, retrieved January 2, 2013); “AMEC plc, the international project management and services company, announces the acquisition of the business and selected assets of Shapiro & Associates, Inc., the US environmental consulting company. The value of the net assets being acquired is US$30,000 (£17,500)” (AMEC acquires US environmental consulting company 11 July 2005).
(5) “AMEC expands environmental consultancy with acquisition of UK Environmental Advice Centre,” March 8, 2005, http://www.amec.com/page.aspx?pointerid=5d15cc9ebb72421db178661644b4c938.
(6) “In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation,United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit,” FindLaw, 2011; “Managerial Judging: the 9/11 Responders' Tort Litigation,” Alvin K. Hellerstein,et al., Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Research Papers, Accepted Paper Series, Research Paper No. 298 October 2012.
(7) “Renovation to revolution: Was the Pentagon attacked from within?,” June 15, 2012, http://digwithin.net/2012/06/15/from-renovation-to-revolution-was-the-pentagon-attacked-from-within/#_edn3;
(8) “British construction company AMEC intended to be part of a consortium to build the planned Yusefeli dam in Turkey. If built, the Yusufeli Dam would flood 18 towns and villages, drown the homes of 15,000 people and displace a further 15,000. Affected communities have not been properly consulted and adequate plans for resettlement have not been made. AMEC withdrew from the Yusufeli construction consortium in March 2002, following a commercial review of the project, but continues its involvement in the project through its 46% shareholding in European construction firm SPIE. AMEC is also involved in the planned Chalillo Dam in Belize, as well the building of the environmentally destructive Birmingham Northern Relief Road,” “Ten planet trashers: why corporate accountability matters,” June 1, 2002, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/0601corp.html.

Thelma Follett (#7128)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The marbled murrelet is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (1).
The marbled murrelet is especially vulnerable at this time since the Obama administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service have issued a "consent decree" with the timber industry that will strip away murrelets' "critical habitat"… allowing the species to spiral toward extinction” (2). “Murrelets urgently need more, not less, habitat protection” (3). “Federal conservation efforts haven’t come close to reversing or even halting the decline of the Marbled Murrelet” (4). “The declines were most dramatic off the Washington coast….we can expect to see it go extinct” as ‘the species is rapidly declining across most of its range” (5).
The Gateway Pacific Terminal project proponent’s “Avian Baseline Inventory Report” has concluded that the marbled murrelet “is non-resident in the study area and would not breed in the study area” (6). However, discovery of the marbled murrelet is notoriously difficult. “Marbled murrelets are very difficult to detect when not at sea, making it hard to determine whether or not birds are using a given stand of forest. Apparently, this has led to high rates of false negatives among forest surveys, meaning that occupied stands are often misclassified as unoccupied, and consequently lost to timber cutting, because no murrelets were found there” (7).
“Concurrent radar and audio-visual surveys in the Santa Cruz Mountains and on the Olympic Peninsula found that ground observers missed 71-100% and 77-90%, respectively, of the murrelets detected on radar, even when provided with the birds’ bearing and travel direction by the radar operator in the California study (Cooper and Blaha 2002; Singer and Hamer 1999)” (8).
It is entirely possible that the surveys conducted on behalf of the GPT applicant missed the presence of marbled murrelets. “Radar surveys in Washington and British Columbia consistently have detected murrelets in stands earlier than 45 minutes before sunrise (9) and yet the avian surveys conducted in the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal project area did not begin until “one-half hour after sunrise” (10). Marbled Murrlets have been spotted at Cherry Point. “Marbled Murrelets also gather in loose but sizeable aggregations where fish runs appear to be heavy, as in Hale Pass, Whatcom County, during the season when Pacific herring (Clupea harengus) are spawning near Cherry Point” (11).
“Avian Baseline Inventory Report” authors acknowledge that “WDFW priority bird species, known to occur within the Cherry Point Aquatic reserve include the marbled murrelet” (12). And, although, marbled murrelets are known to nest in old growth forests, marbled murrelet nests have been found in “western red cedar and deciduous red alder (13) which has been identified in the forested areas of the proposed project site (14).
Please scope the types and extent of the protocols used to survey specifically for the marbled murrelet both inland and at sea in the proposed project area?
1. Please ascertain whether or not habitat assessment for marbled murrelet included a ‘walk-though’ of the entire project area, looking specifically for the presence of platforms or, in younger-aged areas (15).
2. Was a radar survey used to detect the presence of marbled murrelets at stands?
3. Were survey stations strategically placed to observe marbled murrelet potential nesting sites which, in younger –aged stands, occurs in micro-sites separated by areas of unsuitable habitat?
4. Did the survey protocol require that the survey for marbled murrelets in the proposed project area be conducted over two consecutive years (16)?

In light of the precarious status of the endangered marbled murrelet, I suggest no action on the permits for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal project until the actual presence or absence of the marbled murrelet is discovered for the proposed project area.

References:
(1) U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon / Washington, Endangered Species Act, http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/esa.php).
(2) http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/o/2167/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=1176.
(3) (“Obama Administration Proposes to Strip Nearly 4 Million Acres of Protected Habitat from Threatened Seabird,” Center for Biological Diversity, October 24, 2012, http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2012/marbled-murrelet-10-24-2012.html).
(4) (Robert Johns, “New Study Finds Population of Threatened Marbled Murrelet down Almost 30 Percent in Last Ten Years,” American Bird Conservancy, http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/121221.html.
(5) “New Study: Threatened Northwest Seabird Numbers Drop 30 Percent,” December 21, 2012, http://earthfix.opb.org/flora-and-fauna/article/new-study-threatened-northwest-seabird-numbers-dro/.
(6) “Avian Baseline Inventory Report,” Gateway Pacific Terminal, Whatcom County, Washington, AMEC Environment and Infrastructure Inc., June 15, 2012: iv.
(7) “Refining the Inland Survey Protocol,” Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, http://www.sei.org/murrelet.html#Inland Survey).
(8) “Methods for Surveying Marbled Murrelets in Forests: A Revised Protocol for Land Management and Research,” Diane Evans Mack et al. editors, January 6, 2003: 8).
(9) Ibid.: 19.
(10) Op.cit., “Avian Baseline, Inventory Report”: 11.
(11) http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/diglib/washington-seabird/88-06-Marbled-Murrelet-P68-71.pdf.
(12) Op. cit., “Avian Baseline, Inventory Report”: 8; and 40.
(13) Op. cit., “Methods for Surveying Marbled Murrelets in Forests: A Revised Protocol for Land Management and Research,” Diane Evans Mack et al. editors, January 6, 2003: 2).
(14) Op.cit., “Avian Baseline, Inventory Report”: 5-17.
(15) “Potential habitat that should be surveyed for murrelets is defined as (1) mature (with or without an old-growth component) and old-growth coniferous forests; and (2) younger coniferous forests that have platforms. A platform is a relatively flat surface at least 10 cm (4 in) in diameter and 10 m (33 ft) high1 in the live crown of a coniferous tree. Platforms can be created by a wide bare branch, moss or lichen covering a branch, mistletoe, witches brooms, other deformities, or structures such as squirrel nests. It is important to note that murrelets have occupied small patches of habitat within larger areas of unsuitable habitat (Nelson and Wilson 2001)” (page 2) “Platform presence is more important than tree size, which alone is not a good indicator of platform abundance…therefore, any forested area with a residual tree component, small patches of residual trees, or one or more platforms should be considered potential murrelet nesting habitat” (Op. cit., “Methods for Surveying Marbled Murrelets in Forests: A Revised Protocol for Land Management and Research,” Diane Evans Mack et al. editors, January 6, 2003:3).
(16) Ibid.: 13.

Thelma Follett (#10127)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Whatcom County code has provisions which “establish ethical standards, requirements and restrictions” for its elected officials “in order that the public trust may be maintained” (Whatcom County Code, 2.104.010).
With regard to ethics, Whatcom County must require no less from those it does business with “in order that the public trust may be maintained.”
Goldman Sachs owns 51% of SSA Marine.
From Doneswatch online (http://www.occucards.com/drone-attacks/):
• Leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, Goldman Sachs engaged in some of the worst financial fraud the world has ever seen, including packaging and selling billions of dollars in subprime housing derivatives and other worthless securities to small and mid-level investors while hiding the fact that they were simultaneously betting against these same securities. Through such fraud Goldman Sachs decimated the 401(k)s, pensions and mutual funds of thousands of Americans.

• Despite blatantly violating the Securities Act of 1933, which “prohibits deceit, misrepresentation, and other fraud in the sale of securities,” and despite a 650-page Senate subcommittee investigation report accusing them of defrauding clients, not a single official of Goldman Sachs has been prosecuted. Rather, the corporation was rewarded, receiving more government bailout funds than any other investment bank.


• Goldman Sachs also manipulates the commodities markets. Using its enormous capital reserves, the company is able to purchase and hoard rice, wheat and other food commodities, thereby inflating global food prices and making hundreds of millions of dollars for speculators. At the same time, poor families in the U.S. struggle to meet basic nutritional needs, and starvation increases in the developing world.
For a lengthy and well-referenced list of Goldman Sachs’ crimes against humanity and moral decency go to “Goldman Sachs” at Sourcewatch.
Please scope the ways in which Goldman Sachs’ business involvement with Whatcom County will thwart Whatcom County’s elected and appointed officials from ensuring that “the public trust may be maintained.”

Thelma Follett (#12074)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is now!
On January 9, 2013, “the country experienced its warmest year on record Climate Central notes, "In response to global warming, some extreme events, such as heat waves, are already becoming more likely to occur and more intense."

Soot causes twice as much global warming as previously thought.“Black carbon, which is released from diesel engines, coal-fired power stations and wood-burning stoves, has a warming effect of 1.1 Watts per square metre, which is about two thirds the warming effect of carbon dioxide, the principle man-made greenhouse gas…a four-year study into soot, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmosphere, involved hundreds of scientists from around the world and was carried out under the auspices of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme based in Stockholm and the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project. Cutting 'black carbon' emissions could help to cool the planet, according to scientists” (Steve Connor January 15, 2013, The indeendenthttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/soot-causes-twice-as-much-global-warming-as-previously-thought-8452746.html)
A HufPost comment from 01/12/2013 states:

As an earth scientist my complaint about this article is the repetition (esp. in the photo gallary section) of "3 to 6 foot" rise in sea level "by 2100".

This "estimate" is WAY TOO LOW.

More accurate would be to say that it will be AT LEAST 6' higher by 2100 and _possibly_ as much as 60' higher!

Why 60'?

There's about 30' worth on Greenland. There's about 60' worth that's presently on land but is sliding into the sea at the Ross Ice Shelf - AND there's a positive feedback loop which is accelerating the rate at which it is flowing into the sea. There's ANOTHER 20' + on low-lying coastal areas around the globe - such as the southern tip of South America - which would melt and join the sea were sea level to rise another foot or three - the more that melts, the more that will melt, in another positive feedback loop.

That's about 110' worth of sea level rise that's reasonably foreseeable. The ONLY question is how soon?

NOTE: We scientists were forced to tell you it would take 50 years for the northwest passage, when it _actually_ took only five from the time the most recent predictions were made. Expect the same "conservative" estimate reporting to continue.”

Please scope the reasonably foreseeable near time (not future) indirect and direct impacts of the gateway pacific Terminal project on radical climate change.

Thelma Schreifels (#2990)

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

Thelma Schreifels (#3188)

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

themeos drossos (#1553)

Date Submitted: 10/27/2012
Location: ferndale, Wa
Comment:
I write in strong support of the Gateway Terminal Project. I have carefully studied all of the issues surrounding all aspects of this proposal and I am satisfied that the proponents have done their homework. The benefits far outweigh the negatives, many of them grossly exaggerated by the opponents. We have an opportunity to realize the creation of many good paying, permanent jobs.

Cordially, Themeos Drossos
Ferndale

Theo Hytopoulos (#8836)

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

Theo Pratt (#2499)

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

Theodora Tsongas (#11957)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Date: January 20, 2013

To: Whatcom County, Washington, Washington Department of Ecology, US Corps of Engineers

From: Theodora A. Tsongas, PhD, MS
Environmental Health Scientist, Portland OR

Re: Comments on scope of draft EIS for proposed Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal at Cherry Point and Custer Railroad Spur

I am an environmental health scientist with 37 years experience evaluating the adverse human health effects of exposure to environmental contaminants in air, water, and soils. My experience includes work in public health as an environmental epidemiologist for the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Colorado Department of Health, and the Oregon Public Health Division (now Public Health Authority) as well as academic appointments at the University of Colorado, Washington State University, and Portland State University, teaching environmental health, environmental science, and epidemiology. My research has included epidemiologic studies of community exposure to and health effects of drinking water contaminants as well as air, water, and soil contaminants near a large hazardous waste site. I have served as a member of a number of scientific advisory groups including the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s Air Toxics Advisory Committee. I am a member of the Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health, the Climate Change and Health Topic Committee of the Environment Section of the American Public Health Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I am submitting these comments on the scope of the draft EIS for the proposed coal terminals at Cherry Point and elsewhere in the region, because I am very concerned about the very real potential for coal mining, transport, export and burning to adversely impact the health of the planet and its people. I wish to consider three points in the development of the EIS for the proposed coal terminal: 1] the need for implementation of the precautionary principle in decision making, to prevent the many irreversible adverse health impacts on the people of the county, the state, the region and the globe, with 2] special consideration of the exacerbation of climate change by exploitation of coal resources and 3] the adverse health impacts of coal dust and diesel emissions during transport and storage of coal.

We need to shift the “questions on which we base our environmental protection efforts. Given our uncertainty and ignorance and the vast complexity of ecological systems, we can no longer ask what level of harm is safe. We need to question basic human activities” such as resource exploitation, and learn from “millions of years of ecological self- regulation.” (Raffensperger and Tickner 1999, pg. 352)

The EIS will, by definition, provide information to guide decisions that affect the health of the public, and public health decisions, now and in the future. The concepts of precaution and prevention have always been at the heart of public health practice: identifying and avoiding risks to the health of populations and identifying and implementing protective interventions. Precaution can guide public health decisions under uncertainty. “… human activities cannot be risk - free, precaution can stimulate more health-protective decision-making under uncertainty and complexity.” (Martuzzi & Tickner 2004, pg. 13)

“ To persist in mining and burning coal will condemn future generations to catastrophic climate change, which is clearly the biggest health problem of the future.” (Castledon, Shearman, Crisp, & Finch 2011) The EIS must consider the impacts of coal transport and burning on climate change and air quality/pollution. We cannot expect to mitigate the damage, after the fact, something we know from the overwhelming scientific evidence cannot be mitigated. It is better to prevent the adverse impacts by careful consideration of the larger impacts before allowing a terminal to be built. And if the scientific evidence indicates that there are legitimate concerns about irreversible effects of an action, then the prudent agency takes precaution (as in the Precautionary Principle) in its decision-making, to prevent those adverse effects. The burden of proof before the fact is on the applicant for the permit, not the Federal, State, County or local jurisdiction.

The scope of the environmental impact statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal must consider the adverse impacts on global climate resulting in numerous adverse effects on human and ecosystem health and human welfare. The EIS must consider in its scope, the local, regional, national, and global implications of the mining, transportation and export of coal, because building a terminal and expanding rail lines will have unintended, irreversible effects by opening a gateway for this outdated and pollution-ridden industry. The EIS must also consider the details of local impacts, not only of climate change on health and ecosystems, but also of the toxic effects of exposure to coal dust and diesel exhaust, the adverse effects of air and noise pollution, as well as transportation impacts and interference with commerce for the people and communities along the routes being used for this transportation and exportation. It is necessary, here, to reiterate the need to include with the EIS a thorough, independent, health impact assessment (HIA). The scope of this EIS, if inadequate, can come back to haunt us, soon. We must have real data on the public health impacts of this proposed business activity in the short term as well as the long term.

The EIS must consider air contamination issues near rail lines and on site at the terminal, including exposure of downwind human populations to regulated and un-regulated air
pollutants, including coal dust; diesel exhaust particulates including ultra-fine particles from diesel locomotives; heavy metals; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The health impacts of these pollutants are well documented in the scientific literature. (Lockwood et al. 2009). Ship emissions at and near loading facilities, from bunker fuel, for example, should also be evaluated for their impact on cumulative exposures to air pollutants. The EIS must include a thorough review of potential adverse health impacts due to exposure to toxic air pollutants. Including an Health Impact Assessment in the EIS could facilitate this.

Because data from fixed-site air monitoring networks used for jurisdiction-wide air pollution monitoring are inadequate to assess local or personal exposures, the EIS should include an evaluation of current exposures of residents and workers utilizing personal air monitors, indoors and outdoors, near existing rail lines and in and near coal terminal facilities. Similarly, the EIS should identify and include an evaluation of plans for more rigorous and continued worker exposure assessments for on-site emissions at the Gateway Pacific Terminal Facility and beyond-fence line monitoring of personal exposures and community exposures at or near any terminal or rail line that is to be permitted.

Precautionary decision making normally takes into account questions of the distribution of exposure, vulnerable subgroups, and environmental justice in general. (Martuzzi & Tickner 2004) The EIS needs to include evaluation of the distribution of exposures and vulnerable subgroups near rail lines and the proposed coal terminal, and employ values driven by environmental justice in evaluating impacts on communities.

The EIS must include data on the true costs of the activities of the coal terminal and its transportation links, including the economic, social, and commercial burdens on all communities impacted by it, in terms of viability of towns and businesses, jobs lost, and the reality of a mountain of friable and combustible coal sitting for short or long periods of time in a scenic area home to tourism and sensitive ecosystems, upon which we depend for our livelihoods as well as our quality of life.

The millions of dollars in public costs due to climate change, resulting from crop failures, wildfires, storms and flooding, drought, vector borne diseases, heat stress, loss of property and destruction of a still viable human habitat, among many others, will not be paid by private profit making interests who will benefit from coal export and sale. The public will bear the burden of adverse impacts. The EIS must consider internal and external costs of this proposal compared with alternatives.

Think Globally, ACT Locally to make changes. You have an opportunity to make a courageous stand to protect the health of the planet and our supporting ecosystems. We will support you every step of the way. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

References:
William M Castleden, David Shearman, George Crisp, Philip Finch. The mining and burning of coal: effects on health and the environment. Medical Journal of Australia 195 (6), 19 September 2011.

Alan H. Lockwood, Kristen Welker-Hood, Molly Rauch, Barbara Gottlieb. Coal’s Assault on Human Health. A report from Physicians for Social Responsibility. November 2009. www.psr.org/coalreport.

Marco Martuzzi & Joel Tickner, eds., The Precautionary Principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children. World Health Organization, 2004.

Carolyn Raffensberger & Joel Tickner, eds. Protecting Public Health & the Environment. Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Island Press, Washington DC, 1999.

Theodore Ramon Medina (#13328)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Spokane , WA
Comment:
My name is Theodore Ramon Medina.

I am a retired employee of the Community Colleges of Spokane. I instructed classes in basic computer use for people with disabilities including physical, mental, cogitive and emotional disabilities.

I would like you to address the following concerns:
• the effects of coal dust on medically fragile citizens in my community including my wife who has asthma
• the efffects of the burning coal on the same group (we can see the smoke coming off the coal cars as they pass through our city)
• the cost of cleaning up the coal dust coming off of the coal cars to the community
• the effect on the flow of traffic in our city with the increased number of trains passing through our community
• the cost to the public of upgrading and maintaining the train tracks
• the cost to the public of builing the ports to transport the coal overseas
• the effect on our air quality of the burning of the coal at its destination in primarily China

Thank you. This messge sent on Januray 21, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Theresa Dix (#1604)

Date Submitted: 10/25/12
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
To all this concerns:
I would like to request that any environmental review concerning the expansion of the Cherry Point Terminal consider in its scope the impacts that increased trains carrying tons of coal through my community of the City of Mount Vernon will have on business, and on property values.
I moved to Mount Vernon because it is presently a beautiful place to live and it lends itself to the growth of a variety of business opportunities.
I have read several articles that show that increased train traffic through a community, devalues homes and businesses are hurt.
Please make sure that studies are done with respect to my concerns.
I also would hope that the groups overseeing this proposal would make sure that all towns and cities along the coal train rails are considered in the environmental review. Homeowners no matter where they live should not have to subsidize the railroads or the mining companies, we should not have to lose our quality of life in order to support 89-100 full time jobs.
Thank you for your consideration,
Teresa Dix
3124 Mount Vernon, WA
98274

Theresa Gibney (#12736)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
Mr. Perry,

I am responding to what I understand to be a public comment period ending on Monday, January 21st for input into the Environmental (and other? assessment) of the impact of a proposed addition of significant rail traffic in the State of Washington to transport coal to be shipped from a State of Washington port to customers across the Pacific. I believe the docket number is COE-2012-0016, but could not find this on your website to verify this.

I am: Theresa Gibney, 7420 NW Valley View Drive, Corvallis, OR 97330. I am a citizen of Benton County, Oregon. I have friends who are sports fishermen in both Washington and Oregon, friends who eat an above average amount of fish, and friends who are planning to raise families along these rail routes in Washington.

And all of us on the West Coast live downwind of the places where this coal is to be used, in Asian economies. Oregon is planning to shut down its last coal fired plant (in 2020), in part because the costs of scrubbing the concentrations of mercury out of the flues is high. The data collected during this decision showed just how much mercury pollution comes from the use of coal in the NW. Other recent studies have shown that mercury contamination makes its airborne way to our shores, from China.

My request for scoping the pending Environmental Impact Statement is this:

1) The US Army Corp of Engineering should consider the full range of environmental and health impacts that may occur from this proposed rail traffic/shipment of coal, including an analysis of impacts if this proposal if matched up with the other 5 proposals for coal shipment that I am told are “in the pipeline.” In short, 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 most concerned about :
a) the health impacts on pregnant women/fetus from (additional) coal dust and mercury concentrations in air, water, and the food supply from coal dust and coal that will be distributed from open coal cars and from cracks or external contamination (dust) from closed coal cars (if any),
b) The health and environmental impacts from the combustion of additional coal upwind of the States of Washington, Oregon, California, and Alaska including mercury contamination carried to our States by the Trade Winds and the CO2 emissions from burning coal,
c) the environmental impact from reduction in commuter rail (due to expected 1.5-4 hour delays on Amtrak routes), and
d) the negative impacts on Washington and Oregon’s fish populations and the people and wildlife that eat these fish.

2) Additionally, please submit information gathered or summarized in this effort to State of Washington and national economic development organizations, so that an analysis of the net gain or loss (long term) of jobs, tax revenues, and competitiveness of American products (including fish) can be included in this analysis.

I am most concerned about the negative economic impacts of (additional) mercury poisoning/impacts on a) Oregon and Washington’s fishing industries as mercury concentrations rise and
b) about the consumer and taxpayer health costs from the impacts of air, water, or food supply born contaminants, especially those on pregnant women/fetuses and those who eat an
above average quantity of fish (sports fishermen and those who avoid factory raised meats).

Thanks for your service to the public, in carrying out your responsibilities in carrying out EIS work as part of your permitting responsibilities.


Theresa Gibney

Theresa Gibney (#13729)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
I am responding to what I understand to be a public comment period ending on Monday, January 21st for input into the Environmental (and other? assessment) of the impact of a proposed addition of significant rail traffic in the State of Washington to transport coal to be shipped from a State of Washington port to customers across the Pacific. I believe the docket number is COE-2012-0016, but could not find this on your website to verify this.

I am: Theresa Gibney, 7420 NW Valley View Drive, Corvallis, OR 97330. I am a citizen of Benton County, Oregon. I have friends who are sports fishermen in both Washington and Oregon, friends who eat an above average amount of fish, and friends who are planning to raise families along these rail routes in Washington.

And all of us on the West Coast live downwind of the places where this coal is to be used, in Asian economies. Oregon is planning to shut down its last coal fired plant (in 2020), in part because the costs of scrubbing the concentrations of mercury out of the flues is high. The data collected during this decision showed just how much mercury pollution comes from the use of coal in the NW. Other recent studies have shown that mercury contamination makes its airborne way to our shores, from China.

My request for scoping the pending Environmental Impact Statement is this:

1) The US Army Corp of Engineering should consider the full range of environmental and health impacts that may occur from this proposed rail traffic/shipment of coal, including an analysis of impacts if this proposal if matched up with the other 5 proposals for coal shipment that I am told are “in the pipeline.” In short, 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 most concerned about :
a) the health impacts on pregnant women/fetus from (additional) coal dust and mercury concentrations in air, water, and the food supply from coal dust and coal that will be distributed from open coal cars and from cracks or external contamination (dust) from closed coal cars (if any),
b) The health and environmental impacts from the combustion of additional coal upwind of the States of Washington, Oregon, California, and Alaska including mercury contamination carried to our States by the Trade Winds and the CO2 emissions from burning coal,
c) the environmental impact from reduction in commuter rail (due to expected 1.5-4 hour delays on Amtrak routes), and
d) the negative impacts on Washington and Oregon’s fish populations and the people and wildlife that eat these fish.

2) Additionally, please submit information gathered or summarized in this effort to State of Washington and national economic development organizations, so that an analysis of the net gain or loss (long term) of jobs, tax revenues, and competitiveness of American products (including fish) can be included in this analysis.

I am most concerned about the negative economic impacts of (additional) mercury poisoning/impacts on a) Oregon and Washington’s fishing industries as mercury concentrations rise and
b) about the consumer and taxpayer health costs from the impacts of air, water, or food supply born contaminants, especially those on pregnant women/fetuses and those who eat an
above average quantity of fish (sports fishermen and those who avoid factory raised meats).

Thanks for your service to the public, in carrying out your responsibilities in carrying out EIS work as part of your permitting responsibilities.

Theresa Goldston (#8145)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
Bringing numerous heavy loaded long trains on only one rail line that bisects dozens of towns, cities and residential home sub-divisions and also sited along geographical areas riddeled with constant land slides is absolutely ludicrous. AND this will not be just coal for there will need to be all sorts of trains carrying other products to justify the existance of a large port.
AND all those huge heavy loaded ships will bisect the pristine, but fagile San Juan Islands- toxic wastes spilled there will take decades to wash free and the movement and pollution of these monster ships will desecrate our San Juan Islands.
The port needs to be located at the mouth of the Columbia River where the tracks meet the coast. Running vast amounts of trains up the single rail line along Washington States heavily populated coastline is insane. Good bye to Amtrak. The grid lock that will be created through the heavily populated coastline is totally irresponsible!

Theresa Jacobs (#10340)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Hello. My name is Theresa Jacobs. In May 2012, my husband and I moved from Michigan to Seattle to pursue our dream of living in the Pacific Northwest. We wanted to live in a location with natural beauty, accessibility to the outdoors, and a community that focuses on environmental concerns. In September, we purchased a little waterfront home in the North Beach neighborhood. It is one of the early beach cottages built in 1928. It is a dream come true to live on the Puget Sound. It has been amazing to share a habitat with bald eagles, hawks, sea lions, and whales, among other wildlife and marine life. We dream of raising children on this property and teaching them the importance of taking care of wildlife and the environment.

The train tracks border our property and the Puget Sound. There are already numerous trains that go by our house each day. Inside my house, I can identify the trains passing by according to the noise and vibrations. Subtle noise and vibrations is a passenger train. Coal trains are loud, long, and violently shake my house. The coal trains wake us in the middle of the night. The proposed terminal at Cherry Point would add an additional 18 coal trains per day to the rail traffic.

The proposed terminal at Cherry Point and the increased transport and export of coal threatens our dreams. I want to live and raise my children in a safe, naturally beautiful, and clean environment. I have many concerns regarding the impact on the safety and health of humans and wildlife. Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel. Increased coal train and ship traffic would release toxic coal dust and diesel exhaust along the rail lines, clog the railroads, ports, and roads, and risk my family’s health, pollute the air and water, and continue to stoke climate change. We can do better.

I request that this EIS include analysis of the following areas:

AIR QUALITY: How will the increased volume of coal trains and tanker traffic impact the air quality?

WATER QUALITY: How will the increased volume of coal trains and tanker traffic impact the water quality of the Puget Sound, rivers, and lakes?

HEALTH AND SAFETY OF HUMAN RESIDENTS: The mining, transportation, and combustion of coal releases numerous toxins into the air. According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (2009), “coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to 4 of the 5 leading causes for mortality in the US: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.” In addition, a 2010 Study by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency & The University of Washington stated, “Diesel emissions remain the largest contributor to potential cancer risk in the Puget Sound.”
- How will cancer, heart disease, stroke, 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?

HEALTH AND SAFETY OF WILDLIFE AND MARINE LIFE:
- How will the Cherry Point terminal impact the wildlife and marine life, particularly coal dust, light, and noise?
-How will the increased volume of coal trains affect various natural habitats along the train corridor?
-How will the increased ship traffic affect the marine life in the Puget Sound and rivers?
-How would endangered species be affected by the construction of the terminal and the increased transport and exportation of the coal?
-How will this impact the fishing industry?

NOISE AND VIBRATIONS:
-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 in proximity to the tracks?
-Increased noise and vibrations can lead to cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment in children, sleep disturbances, and exacerbation of mental health disorders (i.e., depression, stress, anxiety, etc.). How will the chronic noise exposure affect the health and quality of life of people living, working, and playing nearby?
-How will the increased noise and vibrations affect wildlife/marine life in the water and airborne?

TRAFFIC PROBLEMS: How will the coal trains affect motor vehicle traffic, transportation, emergency vehicle response times and the flow of commerce along the rail corridor?

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT / CLIMATE CHANGE: What will be the contribution to climate change from the coal that is planned to be shipped and subsequently burned in power plants and factories outside the United States?

Please carefully research and consider these concerns.

Sincerely,
Theresa Jacobs

Theresa Kardos (#13918)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
As an environmental educator, a parent, and a citizen who cares deeply about environmental quality and biodiversity, 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.

Climate change is already putting stress on many organisms, indeed on entire ecosystems. The ultimate impacts of acidification and other effects of global warming on oceans is unknown but will be disruptive of current food webs. If the Gateway Pacific project is allowed to go forward, the orcas, marine mammals, birds and valuable salmon, herring and other fish who make the Salish Sea their home will be at greater risk from oil and coal spills, as well as more noise, air and water pollution. Coal ships, some twice the size of oil tankers allowed to call on Washington ports, carry up to 2 million gallons of bunker fuel, don't have tug boat escorts or double hulls and have the worst maritime safety records. This is a time when we should be doing everything possible to protect wildlife and marine creatures, not threatening them further. In the face of the looming uncertainties of climate change, taking such huge risks with the environment such as approving the Gateway Pacific Terminal project would be wildly irresponsible.

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.

Theresa Nuccio (#4543)

Date Submitted: 12/11/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
To whom may concern:

Please do not approve or invest any public funds in the Gateway Pacific Terminal project.

The rail cars to transport coal will run through highly populated areas at a rate of up to one hundred extended length trains a day. Coal dust will add to local air pollution; creating increased health risks for children, elderly, and the many otherwise healthy adults with respiratory disorders. The increased train traffic will also affect levels of diesel fumes and other pollutants from engines, and this will impact the same groups. Traffic patterns will obviously be disrupted. It would be reasonable to expect increased injuries and fatalities at traffic and pedestrian crossings, simply due to the tremendous increase in the number and length of trains. Noise pollution is a documented risk for human health, and these effects will be increased all along the train corridors. Fossil fuel pollution is a predictor for the increased incidence of cancers and heart disease, also affecting the same corridors.

Infrastructure problems will need to be solved all along the rail lines, much of it at public expense. Increased need for various crossings and maintenance of tracks to prevent environmentally damaging accidents will be required. The investment in the port itself provides infrastructure for an industry that is only viable for a limited time to begin with, leaving the northwest with its very own version of the "rust belt" in the years to come.

Washington States gets only 4% of its total energy from coal fired power plants. The people of Washington State do not want to invest in this type of energy, even when it is being exported elsewhere.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Theresa Nuccio
1631 16th Ave., #216
Seattle, WA 98122
206.324.5616=

Theresa Parakh (#6537)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
To: Whatcom County, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

I am Theresa. Parakh, 3923 Cliffside Dr. Bellingham, WA 98225. My husband and I moved to Bellingham in 1966. We bought our house at 3923 Cliffside in June 1967 primarily because of the “million dollar” marine view and a fairly quiet family friendly and safe community for us. Our daughter was born in January 1967.

My husband and I are over 80 years old, as are some other residents of Cliffside Community. We are deeply concerned about the significant adverse impacts of additional coal trains passing through the railroad crossing across Cliffside Drive. The only ingress or egress is across the railroad tracks. This restricted access has the significant impact of delaying emergency medical vehicles and fire trucks from coming into our community. This is a community with about 42 homes, approximately 100 residents. We have, in the past, had a number of emergency vehicles come in to provide assistance to a number of residents. In addition to the emergency vehicles, our residents and business personnel would face additional delays every day. Traffic delays would adversely affect our property values. Our property values would also be negatively affected due to potential sloughing of the Cliffside bluffs due to serious vibrations caused by the heavy coal train traffic.

Study: Please include in the EIS studies the significant adverse impacts described above to
-- delays to emergency vehicles
– delays to other daily traffic,
-- property values,
-- high bank destabilization from coal train vibrations and drainage routed away from RR tracks. Include not only these impacts on our Cliffside Community, but also these impacts to Bellingham, Whatcom County, and all along the proposed routes the coal trains would travel from mines to ports.

Possible Mitigations
1. Reroute the coal trains to avoid trains blocking access for emergency vehicles.
2. Place significant amounts of money in escrow accounts to amply compensate residents for loss due to delay of fire fighting equipment and medical emergency vehicles which could result in loss of life, injury, and property losses.
3. Provide ample funds to purchase and relocate homes; provide the residents with virtually same views, amenities, including semi-private beach of the Cliffside Community Association.
If the above mitigations are not done, then the proposed GPT and additional coal trains should not be permitted.

Sincerely,

Theresa Parakh

Theresa Parakh (#6548)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
To: Whatcom County, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

I am Theresa Parakh, 3923 Cliffside Dr. Bellingham, WA 98225. My husband and I moved to Bellingham in 1966.
We bought our house at 3923 Cliffside in June 1967 primarily because of the “million dollar” marine view and a fairly quiet family friendly and safe community for us. Our daughter was born in January 1967.

We are concerned about noise from coal trains.

There are 42 homes on Cliffside Drive, Bellingham, WA. This represents approximately 100 residents. These homes are very close to the BNSF RR tracks,
ranging in proximity from 70’ to 200 yds.

We are concerned about the increase of coal trains traveling through our community. We would be adversely impacted by the noise of trains sounding their horns, the noise from the heavy engines pulling the coal trains and the terrible screeching sound of metal on metal.
Currently we experience these disturbances day and night, it disturbs our sleep, and it would be terrible to have this noise disturbance increase.

Studies show that this kind of noise disturbs sleep - (http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/docs/appendix-D.pdf )

Please include studies in the EIS on how the noise from the increased coal train traffic would impact our lives, our sleep, our health.
To mitigate train noise, some cities have established quiet zones, in which safety modifications are made to public crossings; exempting trains from their horn soundings at the modified crossing. However, the high cost of significant improvements at public crossings borne by cities and taxpayers has been a deterrent. Moreover, once a crossing is converted into a quiet zone, liability shifts from the railroad to the city for any traffic or personal injury incurred within the quiet zone. (http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/key-facts#noise)

Please include the impact to the homes, schools, businesses all along the train routes from the mines to ports. We are one of thousands of neighborhoods affected by this SSA proposal.
Please include studies in the EIS on how the noise from the increased coal train traffic would be mitigated, the cost of such mitigations, and who would bear that cost in our neighborhood, in our city and all along the rail corridor the coal trains would travel.
Sincerely,
Theresa Parakh

Theresa Parakh (#6551)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
To: Whatcom County, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

I am Theresa Parakh, 3923 Cliffside Dr. Bellingham, WA 98225. My husband and I moved to Bellingham in 1966.
We bought our house at 3923 Cliffside in June 1967 primarily because of the “million dollar” marine view and a fairly quiet family friendly and safe community for us. Our daughter was born in January 1967.

There are 42 homes on Cliffside Drive, Bellingham, WA. This represents approximately 100 residents. These homes are very close to the BNSF RR tracks, ranging in proximity from 70’ to 200 yds.

We are concerned about the adverse effects from increased diesel emissions and from coal dust particles. We are concerned about the coal dust particles in the air. We are also concerned about the pollution it will contribute to surface water – uranium oxide, mercury, etc.

Please include these concerns and study how this will affect
~ the air in our area,
~ the surface water in our area; the coal trains travel very close to the shoreline of Bellingham Bay and the estuary of the Nooksack River
~ the Bellingham Bay, the fish and marine life
~ people with asthma and respiratory illnesses living near the tracks,
~ the air and surface water pollution of the thousands of homes, schools, businesses, communities all along the rail corridors the coal trains will travel from mines to ports.

Each coal railcar loses roughly 500 pounds of coal dust during each trip to the coast – more than 30 tons per train on average. This coal dust goes into air, water, and land. It also accumulates on the tracks, increasing the risk of derailments.15 In addition to coal dust, all of these trains are powered by diesel engines. In areas where the trains will be idling (e.g., Laurel, Montana), the unhealthy increase in diesel emissions could be substantial.
(http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/docs/New-Coal-export-factsheet-FNL-4-12-111.pdf )
Sincerely,
Theresa Parakh

Theresa Reiff (#13979)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington or at any other location.

Transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming or other states to the coast for export is counter-productive to efforts aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and global warming.

In addition, this proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal will negatively impact communities and the environment in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere 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;
- threatening endangered orcas, salmon and herring with increased high-risk freighter traffic in the Salish Sea and Pacific Ocean;
- encouraging the continued use of coal by the importing countries.

Information from scientific studies on global warming and pollution seem to indicate that this project is going in the wrong direction.

I strongly urge you to look beyond short-term profit and consider the long-term impact on communities and the environment.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Northwest and the Salish Sea to China

Over the years, international discussions have attempted to convince China to reduce their use of fossil fuels in an effort to cap climate change.

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

Theresa Trebon (#2815)

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

Therese Finn (#2444)

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

Therese Goldston (#3202)

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

Therese Iwaniak (#4427)

Date Submitted: 12/06/12
Location: Glendive, MT
Comment:
Dear Mr. Perry:

If permitted, the Gateway Pacific Terminal will benefit the econcomic growth of the country. The policies of our current administration will continue to lead us to economic collapse. Our only hope for recovery is the development of our own natural resources. I am confident the environmental impact study will take into consideration all of the concerns the from communities along the way.

In my state, where road conditions become a hazard, they are addressed through local, state, and federal funding. The costs of infrastructure are budgeted every year, and it is up to the localities to prioritize projects. Tax revenues generated in the states for construction and job growth outweigh the exaggerated concerns promulgated by groups such as WORC.

If the WORC people haven't noticed, it is the taxpayers who are currently funding infrastructure improvements, and those taxpayers include rail companies, coal companies and taxes are based on the revenues derived from their Asian customers.

I live in a community, Glendive Montana, that has a major BNSF repair facility right through the center of the town. There are two underpasses and a quiet zone crossing that allow adequate traffic flow and mitigate noise at the signalized crossing. Impacts can be addressed similarly. Our county population is @6,000.

Do the WORC people really think that transporting commodities to the tune of approximately 40 million tons per year to ports in Washington and Oregon for export markets should be tranported by semi? The environmentalists should really be in favor of the fuel (and carbon footprint) savings related to rail transport.

I am confident adequate studies will be done to address impacts and support expanding coal development and exports via rail.
Sincerely,

Therese Iwaniak

Therese Iwaniak (#5084)

Date Submitted: 12/14/12
Location: Glendive, MT
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Therese and Jamie Jensen (#831)

Date Submitted: 10/16/12
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Comment:
We are opposed to trains carrying coal passing so close to our house
and residential neighborhood. Coal is dirty and toxic, containing
lead, arsenic , and mercury . All of which would be released into
the environment as dust in uncovered train cars!

Thiel Larson (#4313)

Date Submitted: 12/09/12
Location: Bend, 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. 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 air we breathe, the amount of carbon dioxide per million in our atmosphere,creating global warming is climbing 60 times faster than expected. We must stop this suicidal slide toward an unlivable climate. We must stop using coal, not shipping it to China to send back to us as pollution. Have the courage to stand for what is right. Say NO!




Thiel Larson
63598 Hunters Cir.
Bend, OR 97701

Thom Pence (#13507)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
I wish to voice my concerns about the proposed Cherry Point project that would permit a huge volume of coal to be rail hauled from Montana and Wyoming to that terminus and then ocean shipped to Asia.

I will mention but not linger on the obvious disconnect between the immediate need to control greenhouse gases and the shipping of the most polluting of energy sources that would effectively, by its use, seriously hamper if not totally negate concurrent attempts to clean up the atmosphere.

I will confine my interest in this study to inquiring about the pre-burning effects of coal dust as they relate to this proposal.

I would like to see existing studies incorporated into this project that show the long term effects of coal transport (coal dust contamination) on the environment (terrestrial, aquatic, atmospheric and health to all living systems, not just human health). This should include the area immediately along the path of transport, around loading/unloading facilities and emanating out from all sites as dictated by the movement of airborne and water transported coal dust. If these studies do not currently exist then they should be undertaken at existing long term sites of comparable activity and proximity to the ocean environment to provide meaningful comparison for the proposed project. It would be unconscionable to contemplate a project utilizing such a known toxic substance as coal without exhausting all research techniques to ensure that the use of the substance is in the best overall interest of the public and the environment.

Has a study indicated where tidal movement can be expected to move and settle out the dust from the port facility and thus affect the marine environment at some(?) distance from the port? Does the railroad route pass by Puget Sound or along river or stream tributaries that empty into the Sound? Is there a cumulative effect on the Sound? What is the expected dead zone that will be created around the immediate port facility? Is it imminent that the adjacent wildlife refuge near Cherry Point will be affected or even destroyed? If a coal ship broke up while transiting the San Juan Islands, apart from the obvious effects of oil spillage, what long term effects would a sunken ship full of coal do to the marine environment? Could it be effectively salvaged?

To what distance from the terrestrial transport route do current studies show will be measurably and negatively affected? At what point do coal dust accumulations become so great that ground water will be affected by the metals of cadmium, lead, arsenic and mercury which are known to be found in coal dust? It is obvious from the company's own reports that the dust cannot be easily contained because of its small size and combustibility. Is the company willing to pay the real cost of information discovery and later mitigation in order to transport this toxic resource safely? If not, then it should simply not be allowed to be transported and put the rest of the world in jeopardy just in the name of profit.

It is not legitimate to say that a substance is safe if the studies necessary to prove its efficacy are not first performed. The American public has seen enough "DDT experiences" already.

Any public agency which reviews this project should be looking at the overall benefits to both its human constituents and the rest of the environment that supports us all.

Thank you for receiving my comments.

Sincerely,

Thom Pence
Forester - Retired, USDA Forest Service

Thomas Aadt (#1396)

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

Thomas Ball (#4264)

Date Submitted: 12/10/2012
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
I dont' see how a few hundred jobs in the short term will out-weigh the possible environmental impacts that will be had by having MORE train cars driving through our area of Washington with no coverings. I also think it is important to remember that in the last 30 years there have been two derailments, that had those derailments had coal would be a huge cleanup. I also don't see how this falls in line with our state's desire to create sustainable jobs. Dock jobs to move coal to China are temporary at best. Finally, this type of venture doesn't fall in line with what we no doubt want to do in terms of getting away from fossil fuel use and distribution.

thomas copeland (#10027)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: everson, wa
Comment:
If the Gateway EIS does not include this project's impact on global warming, then the EIS is bogus, and we are all doomed. Why would a responsible government process make it easier for China to build coal fired electric plants?

Thomas Davison (#5682)

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

thomas derleth (#5153)

Date Submitted: 12/20/2012
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I would like several issues addressed in the EIS.
1) Marine environment protection. The increased vessel traffic would increase the likelihood an accident and oil comtamination of the Salish Sea. A similar problem is being addressed in Australia, where they plan on two mairine accidents per year. UNESCO has warned the World Heritage classification of the Great Barrier Reef may be dropped if protection of the reef isn't adequate and the associated loss of tourism revenue. There has already been at least one coal ship that has hit the reef and spilled oil and damaging part of the reef. This seems like the same type of issue being discussed here.
2) Coal is dirty. There is no whitewashing this issue. I would request careful evaluation of the air and water damage caused by coal dust and coal spillage.
3) The air quality issue is important. The increase of diesel burning by trains having multiple locomotives and vessels idling while loading and I presume in the equipment used for loading the coal at the loading facility all add carcinogens and harmful particulates to the air of the region. This is in a region where wood burning stoves have been banned without controls on emissions, and where we have days of air quality advisories that limit burning and emissions. I would like careful review of emissions and potential health effects.
4) The increase in train traffic will take a toll on the local quality of life, safety, and clearly impact any potential increase in passenger traffic by rail, which if increased might help total transportation emissions by reducing single car commuting and travel. We already have mudslides along the route that stop train travel. Where will these coal trains park when the tracks are closed by mudslides? I would like review of the entire issue of transportation for the region and the associated problems and how this project will affect regional transportation planning.
5) The final issue is the qualilty of life. The proposal appears to give no clear data on the extent of employment and revenues to cities and counties. I would like clear, evidence based answers to the benefits vs costs (externalities) that the people of the region will bear to enhance to profits a few powerful companies. I would like careful review of this balance and why people along the route of the trains and around the coal loading facilities need to pay the price with what seem like few positive returns.
6) There is one alternative to this project's approval and it is disapproval. There is no guarantee that companies make money, especially if it hurts many citizens. Therefore disapproval is a valid option.
Thank you.

Thomas Dolese (#12838)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
19 January 20013

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

I'd like to comment on the scoping phase of the EIS for the coal transshipment terminal proposed for Cherry Point (Whatcom County, WA). I would like the concerns I've addressed below to be considered, researched, documented and treated in the EIS.

I ride my bike through Boulevard Park on my way from home in Fairhaven to my work downtown. I’m concerned that the number and length of trains will make bike commuting impractical and will effectively segregate parts of town from each other. Not only for bicycle traffic, but also for pedestrians and car traffic. Already, the freight trains have a big noise and vibration impact on our residence in Fairhaven and all the additional traffic on the rails will reduce our quality of life in our home. How will this be mitigated?

I'm concerned about the health impacts of the coal dust. What are the health affects on my family and the families along the route of the coal transport? Are there cancer risks associated with the coal dust and lung diseases along with other health hazards? Who will determine what level of risk is acceptable?

What are the impacts on global warming of mining this coal, transporting it by rail, shipping it to China and burning it there? What are the health consequences to people in China, Montana, Idaho and Washington from the pollution caused by the extraction, transportation and burning of the coal? I think it's time for the citizens for this earth to look at energy sources that take into account global warming and burning coal shouldn’t be one of them.

What is the economic impact on what my house is worth in Fairhaven with the increase in coal train traffic? What will be the impact on the quality of life of all of us along the coal transport route?

Thanks,

Thomas Dolese

Thomas Dotinga (#9432)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, Wa
Comment:
Recent studies conducted by Gibson Traffic Consultants in the western Washington cities of Seattle, Edmonds, Burlington, Marysville, Mt Vernon, and Stanwood (a study in Bellingham is currently underway) suggest potentially severe consequences due to the proposed increase in rail traffic intensity associated with GPT. Adverse effects include increased risk of accidents, impacts to the city’s level of service, decreased ability to provide effective emergency response times, and possible interference with the local freight delivery systems affecting the local economy.

I have lived on the East Side of Mount Vernon and attended Skagit Valley College for the past few years. The Rail line passing through Mount Vernon essentially divides the town in half. I have been late to work and late to school in-part due to the current train traffic. There is no realistic detour to this problem seeing as how the tracks literally divide the town in half. Adding 18 more trains to this already busy rail system could push this area toward perpetual gridlock.

Thomas Eagan (#6841)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
In addition to the many land-based considerations (traffic, pollution, noise, etc.), and the global considerations (CO2 emissions, diesel use/exhaust) my immediate concern is for the vast increase in very large shipping in the confined waters that would be used to access the Gateway Pacific terminal.

These waters are already heavily used by tankers, container ships, bulk carriers, and every sort of commercial and recreational vessel imaginable. An accident would be catastrophic to the marine environment and the likelihood of one goes up with every additional vessel transit. In addition, the added marine noise will certainly further compromise the already difficult environment for our marine mammals and their food supply.

Other than a few dozen permanent jobs, this project is a losing proposition for all.

Thank you.

Thomas Frederick (#7725)

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

Thomas Garrison (#8454)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
There have been no negative documentations as to the dust from the coal in the rail cars. Furthermore, it's easy enough to use contained cars for transport.
There has been no documentation of negative effects from a coal car rail accident.

Therefore, I submit that those who continue to keep our community from reaping the benefits of the Gateway Pacific Terminal be given less voice. Thus far, too much emphasis has been put on what "could" negatively impact our community instead of the positive effects that are guaranteed should the project move forward.

The slight possibility of negative effects, even if they were to be true, are issues that can be reversed. Our technology today allows us to move forward with this type of project in order to provide a more sustainable future for our community with the security that any negative effects will be minimal as well as reversible.

Stop listening to those who have a great income and are determined to undermine anything that would promote change to their environment.
Instead, listen to what is necessary for our community as a whole - not for just a few.

Thomas Gilmore (#3409)

Date Submitted: 11/25/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am concerned about the amount of heavy metals (mercury, cadmium, lead, etc.) that will be released from burning coal in China?

1. Do you have any data on the amount of heavy metals that are currently landing in our water supplies (oceans, lakes and rivers) on the West coast from coal burning in Asia?

2. How much mercury, cadmium, lead is currently in Lake Whatcom or Bellingham Bay? In the Mt Baker snow packs? In our soils?

3. How much mercury, cadmium, lead, etc. is currently in salmon, mussels, etc? Will shell fish will become too toxic to eat?

4. What levels of heavy metals are currently in the entire plant and invertebrate aquatic food chain?

5. What are the projected increases of heavy metal contamination after 1, 5, or 10 years of Chinal burning coal from the USA?

Thomas Gilmore (#3477)

Date Submitted: 11/29/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. What are the chemicals in the BNSF coal spray that helps keep down coal dust?
2. If these chemicals get into ground water what is there effect?
3. If these chemicals get into ocean water what is there effect?

Thomas Gilmore (#5920)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the increased amount of air borne pollution from the Bulk Cargo Ships.
How much additional pollution will these foreigh ships which burn bunker fuel produce?

Below is an article about the new EPA Emission Standards for US flagged ships.
Will these Bulk Cargo Ships from other countries be able to meet these new standards?

Will there be a requirement that bulk cargo ships be US flag carriers?

New EPA Emissions Standards Aim to Torpedo Air Pollution from Ships

From Larry West, About.com Guide December 22, 2009
Ads

Federal Tax ID (EIN)www.gov-tax.comGet your Tax ID Number in minutes. Fast, Secure online form.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just announced that it has finalized a rule that sets tough new engine and fuel standards for large U.S.-flagged ships--such as container ships, tankers and cruise ships--which will reduce air pollution by cutting emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide.

The new regulation, which will take effect in 2011 and will be administered under the Clean Air Act, harmonizes with international standards and is expected to lead to significant air quality improvements nationwide.

"Port communities have identified diesel emissions as one of the greatest health threats facing their people--especially their children," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson in a statement.

Jackson also noted that stronger standards will help make large ships cleaner and more efficient while protecting millions of Americans from the harmful effects of marine diesel emissions, which can travel hundreds of miles inland as well as affecting coastal communities. The EPA reports that more than 40 U.S. ports are in metropolitan areas that do not meet federal air quality standards.

"These new rules mark a step forward in cutting dangerous pollution in the air we breathe and reducing the harm to our health, our environment, and our economy," she said.

By itself the rule would have limited effect because it applies only to U.S.-flagged ships, and the EPA estimates that approximately 88 percent of all vessel calls to U.S. ports are made by foreign-flagged ships.

But the new rule is part of the EPA's coordinated strategy to reduce harmful marine diesel emissions. It is designed to work with a joint U.S.-Canada initiative announced earlier this year, which would create a 200-mile buffer zone off the coasts of both the United States and Canada. Any large vessel operating within that zone would be required to burn cleaner fuels and meet strict emissions standards.

The plan for the U.S.-Canada buffer zone requires the approval of the International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency that oversees shipping. The agency approved the plan in principle in July, and a final vote is scheduled for March 2010.

Once the coordinated strategy is fully implemented, it will reduce ship emissions of nitrogen oxides by 80 percent compared to current levels, and will cut emissions of particulate matter by 85 percent. By 2030, the EPA estimates the reduced marine diesel emissions will prevent between 12,000 and 31,000 premature deaths and 1.4 million lost work days annually. The estimated value of health benefits in 2030, as the result of reduced marine diesel emissions and less air pollution, is between $110 billion and $270 billion annually--up to nearly 90 times as much as the projected $3.1 billion cost of achieving them.

Thomas Gilmore (#5921)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned with the effect of increased train diesel exhaust on human health.
Exposure to this exhaust may result in cancer, exacerbation of asthma, and other health problems.
Questions:
1. How much more additional pollution will be added to WA states air by running these coal trains 365 days a year?

2. Can you calculate the increased health care cost for this additional pollution?

3. What would it cost to have all trains be converted and use only natural gas?

Please read the attached article about the effects of diesel train exhaust on humans?


WHY IS DIESEL EXHAUST AN AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM?

Diesel exhaust is a mixture containing over 450 different components, including vapors and fine particles. Over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust are considered toxic air contaminants by the State of California. Exposure to this mixture may result in cancer, exacerbation of asthma, and other health problems.

For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. As a result, diesel engines account for an estimated 26 percent of the total hazardous particulate pollution (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in our air, and 66 percent of the particulate pollution from on-road sources. Diesel engines also produce nearly 20 percent of the total nitrogen oxides (NOx) in outdoor air and 26 percent of the total NOx from on-road sources. Nitrogen oxides are a major contributor to ozone production and smog.

WHAT ARE THE HEALTH EFFECTS?
Diesel exhaust has been linked in numerous scientific studies to cancer, the exacerbation of asthma and other respiratory diseases. A draft report released by the US EPA in February 1998 indicated that exposure to even low levels of diesel exhaust is likely to pose a risk of lung cancer and respiratory impairment. And in August 1998, the State of California decided that there was enough evidence to list the particulate matter in diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant - a probable carcinogen requiring action to reduce public exposure and risk.

Dozens of studies link airborne fine particle, such as those in diesel exhaust, to increased hospital admissions for respiratory diseases, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia, heart disease and up to 60,000 premature deaths annually in the US.

The health risk from diesel exposure is greatest for children, the elderly, people who have respiratory problems or who smoke, people who regularly strenuously exercise in diesel-polluted areas, and people who work or live near diesel exhaust sources. Studies have shown that the proximity of a child's residence to major roads is linked to hospital admissions for asthma, and there is a positive relationship between school proximity to freeways and asthma occurrence. Truck and traffic intensity and exhaust measured in schools were significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
Cleaner alternatives to diesel engines are readily available. Alternatives include electric, liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG) buses and trucks. Although initial purchase prices may be higher for alternative fuel buses and trucks, federal, state, and local funds are available to offset these higher costs. These funds are specifically earmarked for clean technologies and would not otherwise be available for these purchases.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For more information on diesel emissions and air pollution, as well as on federal regulatory initiatives, visit the US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources website at www.epa.gov/oms.

For a comprehensive look at the health and environmental problem of diesel emissions, see the Natural Resources Defense Council report, Exhausted by Diesel at www.nrdc.org/nrdcpro.

Thomas Gilmore (#5922)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
How many jobs would be created by the coal port project?
How many jobs would be lost due to the coal port project?

Statement:
There is a great deal of rhetorical confusion about precisely how many jobs will be created and sustained by the Gateway Terminal Project. Peabody and SSA have offered divergent claims about job numbers, ranging from less than a hundred to upward of 4,000, but analysis of the Project Information Document by the Bellingham Herald on May 21, 2011 shows that 89 full-time jobs will be created by the end of the first phase of construction. Then, depending on demand, the number could grow to 160 jobs by 2017 and 213 jobs by 2026.
The applicant’s traffic impact summary in their land use application to Whatcom County states a maximum of 213 jobs at build-out. Pacific International Terminals/Gateway Pacific Terminal commissioned a study by Martin Associates, and then a review by three local economists.

The jobs study and the review were fairly consistent in their findings, projecting the employment of 44 terminal operators at the Cherry Point site. Tug operators, railroad workers, ILWU workers, tug and ship pilots, and maritime services also factored into their 430 “direct jobs” figure.

There has yet to be a thorough analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed GPT coal terminal, though one could be called for as part of the environmental impact statement.

Such an analysis could approximate a net gain or loss of jobs, and a net gain or loss to the economy. It could take into account not only the number of permanent number of jobs created at the terminal site and the tax revenue associated with the terminal, but also job losses, damages to small businesses and fisheries, opportunity costs (such as loss of tourism revenue), and taxpayer expenses for upgraded safety and infrastructure along the rail corridor. It is more difficult to quantify losses to quality of life and regional identity.

Thomas Gilmore (#5923)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
How many overpasses will need to constructed for this GPT project?
What will be the total cost of overpass construction to alleviate traffic congestion in WA state?
Will the Federal government provide any money for this construction?

Statement:
Findings have shown that increases in rail traffic have the potential to result in diseconomies as a result of traffic delays,” according to a paper taken from a University of Texas Transportation Center study. Recent studies conducted by Gibson Traffic Consultants in the western Washington cities of Seattle, Edmonds, Burlington, Marysville, Mt Vernon, and Stanwood (a study in Bellingham is currently underway) suggest potentially severe consequences due to the proposed increase in rail traffic intensity associated with GPT.

Adverse effects include increased risk of accidents, impacts to the city’s level of service, decreased ability to provide effective emergency response times, and possible interference with the local freight delivery systems affecting the local economy.

Thomas Gilmore (#5931)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Will BNSF and SSA Marine be required to post a multi- billion dollar bond to pay for environmental damage?

What is the calculated percentage for a regular derailment to occur?

Do oil trains make the rail system less safe for coal train shipments?

How many of these oil trains will pass thru WA State in the next 5 years?

What is the calculated percentage for a catastrophic rail or shipping accident to occur?

What would it cost to insure the railroad and shipping companies against
pollution of Puget Sound?

Please see attached article:


Published on Thursday, January 3, 2013 by Common Dreams
'An Accident Waiting to Happen': As Rail Increasingly Transports Crude, Opponents Sound Environmental Alarm

Rails see 'game-changing opportunity for their business'
- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

As oil production in the Bakken area of North Dakota and Montana skyrockets, rail companies are capitalizing on pipeline gaps and reaping profits by transporting the crude while environmental watchdogs call the practice "an accident waiting to happen."

Reuters reports that "it's a booming business for North America's railroads, and should remain an important niche market for years to come."

“BNSF has been hauling Bakken crude out of the Williston Basin area for over five years. In that time, we have seen the volume increase nearly 7,000 percent, from 1.3 million barrels in 2008 to 88.9 million in 2012,” Dave Garin, BNSF group vice president, Industrial Products, stated in September. “We see this trend continuing and we are committed to serving this growing market now and in the future.”

Union Pacific Corp. chief executive Jack Koraleski also sees the continuing oil boom as profit boom for his industry. "We think we're going to continue to grow the oil business. The rate of growth will slow from its current over-excited pace, but we still think it will continue to be a good business for us," he told Reuters.

And Jeffery Elliot, a rail expert with the New York-based consulting firm Oliver Wyman, told the Associated Press, "The railroads are looking at this as a unique opportunity, a game-changing opportunity for their business."

While rail executives see dollar signs by hauling the oil, critics warn the risk of disaster is high.

"This is all occurring very rapidly, and history teaches that when those things happen, unfortunately, the next thing that is going to occur would be some sort of disaster," Jim Hall, a transportation consultant and former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, told AP.

AP adds that the Association of American Railroads even acknowledged that the likelihood of a rail accident could be double or triple that of a pipeline problem.

"It's an accident waiting to happen. It's going to be a mess and we don't know where that mess is going to be," Wayde Schafer, a North Dakota spokesman for the Sierra Club told AP, and described using rails over pipelines as "the greater of two evils."

As environmentalists concerned over spills continue to thwart pipeline progress and advocate for clean energy, the new stage of direct actions may be on the nation's rails.

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org

Thomas Gilmore (#6010)

Date Submitted: 01/04/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. What safety training will the foreign coal ship crews have? Who will do the training?
2. Which agency will monitor the on going training.
3. Will the crews be proficient in English?
4. Will Americans be part of the crew?
5. Will safety inspectors be stationed at the Cherry Point terminal?

Statement:
The International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) code specifies how coal is loaded, unloaded, and transported by cargo vessel for international shipments. Recent changes to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea made the IMSBC code mandatory for all cargo vessels regardless of age, size, or character.

Shipping concerns. Under the provisions of the IMSBC code, coal is regulated as a hazardous material when transported in bulk by cargo vessel. The code contains provisions for shipping papers, trimming the cargo, segregation, temperature monitoring, and gas detection. All of these provisions will generally apply to coal because of its unique physical and chemical properties.

Health concerns. Exposure to coal dust generated from processing, transporting, or handling coal can cause pneumociosis (black lung), bronchitis, and emphysema. The permissible exposure limit for coal dust is a time-weighted average of 2.4 milligrams per cubic meter over the course of a working period, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Coal may also deplete the available oxygen in cargo holds and compartments. Some self-heating coals may give off carbon monoxide, which can be toxic at an air concentration as low as 50 parts per million.

Environmental concerns. Although coal is generally not considered toxic or hazardous to the environment, it should be handled carefully and efficiently to minimize releases. Coal can be released into the environment during loading and unloading operations or during routine cleaning (cargo sweeping) operations. Releases from these operations may be prohibited, restricted, or allowed depending upon whether or not they occur in environmentally sensitive areas, coastal or inland waters, or the open sea.

Fire or explosion concerns. Some coals may self-heat spontaneously and emit flammable gases, such as methane. A concentration between five percent and 15 percent methane in air can be flammable or explosive when exposed to a source of ignition. When methane is released from coal stowed on a cargo vessel, it can build up in the cargo hold, thus creating the potential for fire or an explosion. Some self-heating coals may also spontaneously combust during transportation. However, spontaneous combustion is not common. If it does occur, it usually only affects some of the stowed cargo.

Thomas Gilmore (#6011)

Date Submitted: 01/04/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. What types of monitoring equipment will be used at the coal pile?

2. What types of monitoring equipment will be use of the coal trains?

Thomas Gilmore (#6041)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In order to reduce the air pollution from coal trains and oil trains BNSF should be required to run only natural gas locomotives.
What would be the cost of new natural gas train engines for BNSF trains?

Please read the attached article:

Canada
Natural gas-powered locomotive drives CN into eco-friendly(er) future

National Post Wire Services | Sep 28, 2012 1:08 PM ET
More from National Post Wire Services
Canadian National Railway/HO
Canadian National Railway/HO A new natural gas-fired locomotive from Canadian National Railway is shown in this recent handout photo. Canadian National Railway is testing two natural gas-fired locomotives in Alberta's oilsands region to see if it's feasible to switch from diesel to a fuel that's cheap, plentiful and relatively clean.


Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Email
Comments
More

Canadian National Railway is exploring whether its feasible to use cheap and relatively clean natural gas to power its trains instead of diesel.

CN has retrofitted two of its existing diesel-fired locomotives to run mainly on natural gas. It’s testing the locomotives along the 480-kilometre stretch between Edmonton, a key energy processing and pipeline hub, and the oilsands epicentre of Fort McMurray, Alta.

Longer term, CN and three other partners are looking at developing an all-new natural gas locomotive engine as well as a specialized tank car to carry the fuel.
CN Railway/handoutA new natural gas-fired locomotive from Canadian National Railway is shown in this recent handout photo. Canadian National Railway is testing two natural gas-fired locomotives in Alberta's oilsands region to see if it's feasible to switch from diesel to a fuel that's cheap, plentiful and relatively clean.

Natural gas giant Encana Corp. (TSX:ECA) is providing the fuelling, which, along with maintenance, will be taking place in Edmonton.

Energy Conversion Inc., the U.S. company that’s supplying the conversion kits to CN, says the move will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 70 per cent over a locomotive duty cycle.

“Natural gas has a lower carbon content compared with diesel fuel, so that locomotives using natural gas — if the railway technology employing this form of energy ultimately proves viable — would produce significantly fewer carbon dioxide emissions,” said CN chief operating officer Keith Creel in a release.


Railcars currently carry machinery and construction materials up to the oilsands, and extraction byproducts such as petroleum coke and sulphur south.

Natural gas is currently cheap and plentiful in North America, so there are likely cost benefits to the railway as well, though a CN spokesman said it’s too early quantify what the impact might be. CN says it already uses nearly 15 per cent less fuel than the industry average.

For the longer-term project, CN is working with Caterpillar Co. subsidiary Electro-Motive Diesel, green engine-maker Westport Innovations Inc. (TSX:WPT) and Quebec gas distributor Gaz Metro.

The group expects to test the new engines in a laboratory in 2013 and road-test the prototypes in 2014.

Over the past several years, technological advances have unleashed huge volumes of natural gas from shale formations across North America. A major supply glut has resulted, leading to depressed prices.

Some companies, including Encana, have been pushing for cheap, plentiful natural gas to be used as a transportation fuel. Proponents see industrial trucking and public transit fleets being the first to adopt the technology, rather than everyday consumers.

Natural gas is also being used to fuel equipment in the energy industry.

Earlier this week, CanElson Drilling Inc. (TSX:CDI) and SaskEnergy, a Crown corporation of the Saskatchewan government, announced they’re teaming up to develop a high-capacity, compressed-gas transfer operation in Weyburn, Sask.

Under the agreement, CanElson’s CanGas subsidiary will work with SaskEnergy’s Bayhurst Energy subsidiary on a plan to transport compressed natural gas by truck to drilling rigs in the field.

CanElson (TSX:CDI) said it will spend $9 million of its previously announced $20-million investment in CanGas to establish a fleet of 30 CNG delivery trailers and convert all of its 14 drill rigs in Saskatchewan to use both natural gas and diesel.

Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press

Thomas Gilmore (#6042)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
What is being done by BNSF to reduce the number of mud slides on the track from
Seattle to Bellingham, WA?

What is the risk of future mud slides slides causing a coal train derailment in WA state?

What are the most frequent causes of coal train derailments in the USA?

Thomas Gilmore (#6125)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
To reduce train engine pollution require BNSF to use hybrid train engines.

See article below.

First Converted Hybrid Train with Regenerative Braking Could Be a Game Changer

Christine Lepisto
Transportation / Public Transportation
January 1, 2013


© Jet-Foto Kranert, courtesy of Deutsche Bahn AG

Hybrid cars and hybrid buses have been around so long now, they have become a normal option in automotive transportation.

In theory the transition to hybrid power for trains should be easy, since many already have drives for both diesel and electric motors -- which are used alternatively, depending upon whether the tracks have electric power supplied (in Europe, just over half of the train tracks are electrified, on average).

First Converted Hybrid Train Starts Carrying Passengers

screenshot from Google Maps/Screen capture

But due to factors like the longer capital investment planning cycles, the sensitivity to reliability, and the more extreme conditions faced by trains, hybrid technology has been slow to leap onto the tracks, where it has been limited mostly to shunting locomotives which have particularly high energy losses. That is about to change, with the first converted hybrid train taking passengers in Germany, part of a hybrid train pilot project.

The first hybrid train project will carry passengers between Aschaffenburg und Miltenberg, southeast of Frankfurt on the Main. The route has 14 stops in just 37 km (22 miles), therefore many opportunities to recharge batteries with regenerated braking power.

Hybrid Power Pack Replaces Diesel Engines

© Courtesy of Tognum

A Siemens Desiro Classic VT 642 locomotive was refitted with batteries and regenerative braking capacity for the project. Where two 275 Kilowatt diesel engines once reigned, two 315 Kilowatt-rated hybrid power packs now drive the train. Tognum daughter MTU provided the new drive system -- intended to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by diverting energy captured during braking to batteries for later use.

In addition to reducing fuel consumption, the MTU hybrid power pack supports emissions-free movement in sensitive or populated areas such as in the station area. Braking energy can be stored in a lithium-ion battery and used for starting, accelerating, or for supplying electrical loads on the train. Battery packs sit on the roof, where they are cooled by the air streaming across the top of the train while it is in motion.

Converted Hybrid Locomotive a Game Changer
If the pilot project succeeds, the capacity to convert existing locomotives to hybrid diesel technology could significantly speed up adoption of energy saving tricks on train lines, because the train companies do not have to wait for their existing equipment to wear out before making investments in hybrid conversions of existing locomotives.

Tags: Germany | Hybrid Cars | Renew

Thomas Gilmore (#6327)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
In the past corporations have declared bankruptcy and walked away from what later
became a Super fund clean up site at public expense.

1. What will it cost to clean up the GPT site?

2. Will the corporations be required to post a cash bond for this clean up program?

Thomas Gilmore (#6329)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the 72 mudslides that have covered the BNSF track during the month of Dec. 2012.

1. What is being done to prevent these mudslides?
2. Who pays for these projects?
3. What happens if coal trains block traffic for 24 hours?
4. What plans have been made for emergency vehicles if city streets are blocked?

Thomas Gilmore (#6622)

Date Submitted: 01/10/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live in Bellingham WA and my drinking water source is Lake Whatcom. If the coal from the GPT is burned in Asia, how much mercury will be deposited in my drinking water?

Questions:
1. How much mercury is in a ton of coal from the Powder River Basin?

2. Who will monitor the drinking water Hg levels for the next 5, 10, 20 years? What will this monitoring cost?

3. What happens if the levels exceed EPA safe levels?

4. Who pays to bring our drinking water back to its original purity?

5. How much mercury is currently in our local lakes and rivers?

Please read the article below.

Published on Thursday, January 10, 2013 by Common Dreams

Poisoned Planet: Doubling of Ocean Mercury Levels Threatens Global Health

UN report exposes toxic legacy of coal, gold, and a world bent on extraction
- Beth Brogan, staff writer

The world's rivers, lakes, and oceans are suffering the severe consequences of modern industrial mercury pollution, according to a new UN report, which also warns the health of the entire planet and its inhabitants face a perilous future if serious action is not soon taken.

Hundreds of tons of mercury from sources such as coal-fired power plants, gold mining and other industrial processes have seaped into the world's water systems over the past century, dramatically increasing health and environmental risks for people all over the world, according to the Global Mercury Assessment 2013 released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The report comes just days before representatives of countries are scheduled to meet in Geneva to discuss a proposed, legally-binding treaty to reduce global mercury emissions.

In July 2012, negotiators rejected a stand-alone article on health, contending that the treaty should be primarily focused on the environment. But advocates for stricter emissions restrictions say mercury poisoning is devastating those in developing nations, and demand the treaty address the health implications as well.

“Millions of people around the globe are exposed to mercury on a daily basis, in artisanal mining and elsewhere," said Juliane Kippenberg, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. "There is a dire need for stronger prevention and treatment of mercury poisoning.”

Mercury, which accumulates in fish and climbs up the food chain, poses the greatest risk of nerve damage to pregnant women, women of childrearing age and young children, according to the AP.

Over the past 100 years, mercury in the top 100 meters of the world's oceans has doubled, according to the study. Waters deeper than that have seen mercury concentrations increase by 25 percent, and rivers and lakes contain an estimated 260 metric tons of mercury that was previously held in soils.

Uruguayan environmental affairs Minister Fernando Lugris, who chairs the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the treaty talks, says the "time for action is now" is an interview that accompanied the UNEP report.

Lugris notes that because mercury pollution that occurs today will have long-lasting health impacts for years to come, it is "imperative that we act now to reduce future emissions and releases to the maximum extent possible in order to stop adding more to the global environment."

The Guardian reports that the health effects of mercury poisoning include "brain damage and the loss of IQ points in unborn children, injuries to kidneys and heart, and results in tens of billions of dollars in healthcare costs every year in the US alone."
Of the treaty under consideration at the International Negotiating Committee on Mercury (INC5) next week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marc A. Yaggi write in the Guardian:

Coal barons and mining magnates are profiting from poisoning the rest of us. As coal consumption dwindles in the US, these companies are exporting their deadly product to the rest of world. A recent report from World Resources Institute (WRI) estimates that almost 1,200 additional coal-fired plants are planned for development around the world.

But the mercury treaty is likely to call simply for reductions on a per facility basis, rather than an overall reduction in mercury emissions to air and and water. As a result, the treaty could legitimize increased mercury pollution as the number of coal-fired power plants increases globally. Moreover, there is no agreement that the treaty should even require existing facilities to apply the best available techniques to reduce mercury releases.
[...]
Those of us who care about public health and clean water, must stand strong and shame the spineless diplomats in Geneva into crafting a treaty that truly prevents the devastating environmental and public health impacts of mercury.
____________________________

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
Source URL: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/10-1

Thomas Gilmore (#6807)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the water that will be used at the coal port.

1. Will the storage facility be lined or unlined?
2. If lined, how will the captured water be treated or recycled?
3. If unlined, what types of pollutants will get into the ground water?
4. Will the treatment facilities be able to handle excessive rain water?
5. Will any run off get into the bay.

Thomas Gilmore (#7412)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
This project will be built near an earthquake fault line (see article below)

Questions:
1. How much earthquake damage will the terminal at Cheery Point be able to withstand?

2. Will the BNSF rail lines and bridges in WA state be able to withstand a magnitude 7, 8, or 9 earthquake?

3. What plans exist to protect clean up the GPT site from earthquake damage?

Discover Magazine
The Giant, Underestimated Earthquake Threat to North America
FROM THE EXTREME EARTH 2012 ISSUE
The Giant, Underestimated Earthquake Threat to North America

The enormous fault off the coast of the Pacific Northwest has been silent for three centuries. But after years of detective work, geologists have discovered that it can unleash mayhem on an epic scale.

By Jerry Thompson|
Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Just over one year ago, a magnitude-9 earthquake hit the Tohoku region of northeastern Japan, triggering one of the most destructive tsunamis in a thousand years. The Japanese—the most earthquake-prepared, seismically savvy people on the planet—were caught off-guard by the Tohoku quake’s savage power. Over 15,000 people died. 

Now scientists are calling attention to a dangerous area on the opposite side of the Ring of Fire, the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a fault that runs parallel to the Pacific coast of North America, from northern California to Vancouver Island. This tectonic time bomb is alarmingly similar to Tohoku, capable of generating a megathrust earthquake at or above magnitude 9, and about as close to Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver as the Tohoku fault is to Japan’s coast. Decades of geological sleuthing recently established that although it appears quiet, this fault has ripped open again and again, sending vast earthquakes throughout the Pacific Northwest and tsunamis that reach across the Pacific. 
What happened in Japan will probably happen in North America. The big question is when.

On I-5, the main north-south interstate highway, 37 bridges between Sacramento and Bellingham, Washington, collapse or are knocked off their pins. Five more go down between the Canada–United States border and downtown Vancouver. Nineteen railway bridges along the north-south coastal mainline of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway are wrecked as well. The runways of every major coastal airport from Northern California to Vancouver are buckled, cracked, and no longer flyable.

Thomas Gilmore (#7416)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Rail Infrastructure Development in WA State

1 Will there be a comprehensive economic and traffic analysis of rail traffic in WA state?

2. Will you considers the potential impacts of all 6 proposed terminals on the region?

3. How many oil trains will be traveling to the refineries in Anacortes and Cherry Point?

4. What impact will this additional traffic have on Amtrak fast train service from Portland
to Vancouver BC?

Thomas Gilmore (#7429)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. Will the scoping report include an earthquake evaluation of the site and rail links?
2. What tsunami damage is being planned for at the GPT site?
3. Are there any emergency preparations in Whatcom county for an earthquake similar to the one that hit Japan’s east coast on March 11, 2011?
4. Could all the coal pile end up in the bay after an earthquake?

Geologic Description

The coastline of the northwestern U.S. and Canada is
bordered by an active subduction zone where the Juan
de Fuca plate is subducting, or being pushed, beneath
the North American plate. Currently, the subduction
zone is considered locked (that is, it is not slipping).
Strain is therefore accumulating on the locked
interface between the plates. Plate convergence is
estimated to be between 3 and 4 centimeters per year
and possibly as high as 5.8 centimeters per year (the
long-term geologically estimated rate).
The M9.0 Cascadia scenario is based on an
approximately 1,000 kilometer (620 mile)-long
rupture of the Cascadia subduction zone megathrust
fault. The rupture extends from Cape Mendocino,
California, to central Vancouver Island, Canada. This
scenario is based on geologic evidence that indicates
such ruptures occurred on the megathrust in the past:
The last rupture was on January 26, 1700. Geologic
evidence suggests that the average recurrence of
~M9.0 earthquakes along the Cascadia megathrust is
about 500 years, but recurrence intervals vary,
ranging from about 250 years to over 1,000 years.
The effects of these earthquakes include strong
ground shaking that goes on for several minutes,
subsidence and/or uplift of coastal areas, liquefaction,
and tsunami. Aftershocks will be both strong and
numerous (possibly M7 or higher).

Type of Earthquake
Most earthquake hazards result from ground shaking
caused by seismic waves that radiate out from a fault
when it ruptures. Seismic waves transmit the energy
released by the earthquake: The bigger the quake, the
larger the waves and the longer they last. Several
factors affect the strength, duration, and pattern of
shaking:
 The type of rock and sediment layers that the
waves travel through.
 The dimensions and orientation of the fault
and the characteristics of rapid slippage along
it during an earthquake.
 How close the rupture is to the surface of the
ground.
Figure 1. ShakeMap for a M9.0 earthquake on the
Cascadia megathrust. The black polygon offshore is
the modeled fault rupture for this scenario.
U N D E R S T A N D I N G E A R T H Q U A K E H A Z A R D S I N WA S H I N G T O N S T A T E
Modeling a Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake on the
Cascadia Subduction Zone off the Pacific Coast
FEMA
Washington Military Department
Emergency Management DivisionPage 2 of 4 / 2012–2013
Subduction Zone Earthquakes: Subduction zone
earthquakes occur where the Juan de Fuca oceanic
plate is being forced under the North American plate.
An earthquake is produced when pressure that has
built up along this zone causes the plates to slip
suddenly and rapidly past each other. Shaking from
the M9.0 earthquake modeled in this scenario will be
felt over the entire region and may last for several
minutes. This event is similar to the 2011 Tohoku
earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
Aftershocks: Unlike deep earthquakes, such as the
M6.8 Nisqually earthquake in 2001, which usually
produce few or no aftershocks strong enough to be
felt, a M9.0 subduction zone earthquake will be
followed by thousands of aftershocks, a few of which
could be large enough to cause additional damage and
produce tsunamis.
Other Earthquake Effects
Tsunamis: A M9.0 Cascadia subduction zone
earthquake is expected to generate a massive tsunami
that will reach the coast of Washington about 20 to 30
minutes after the earthquake; waves may continue to
strike the coastline for the next 12 to 24 hours.
(Tsunami waves will also travel across the Pacific
Ocean.) Delta failures and landslides caused by the
shaking may also create or amplify tsunami waves.
Liquefaction: If sediments (loose soils consisting of
silt, sand, or gravel) are water-saturated, strong
shaking can disrupt the grain-to-grain contacts,
causing the sediment to lose its strength. Increased
pressure on the water between the grains can
sometimes produce small geyser-like eruptions of
water and sediment called sand blows. Sediment in
this condition is liquefied and behaves as a fluid.
Buildings on such soils can sink and topple, and
foundations can lose strength, resulting in severe
damage or structural collapse. Pipes, tanks, and other
structures that are buried in liquefied soils will float
upward to the surface.
Artificial fills, tidal flats, and stream sediments are
often poorly consolidated and tend to have high
liquefaction potential.
Landslides: Earthquake shaking may cause landslides
on slopes, particularly where the ground is watersaturated or has been modified (for example, by the
removal of stabilizing vegetation). Steeper slopes are
most susceptible, but old, deep-seated landslides may
be reactivated, even where gradients are as low as
15%. Catastrophic debris flows can move watersaturated materials rapidly and for long distances,
mostly in mountainous regions. Underwater slides are
also possible, such as around river deltas.
Figure 2. Tsunami damage at
Onagawa, Ishinomaki, after the
M9.0 Tohoku earthquake near
Japan’s east coast on March 11,
2011.

(Photo: NOAA/NGDC: Shunichi
Koshimura)
BE PREPARED WHEREVER YOU ARE:
Develop a plan and a disaster
supply kit. When you’re
prepared, you feel more in
control and better able to keep
yourself and your family safe.
LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU
CAN DO: www.emd.wa.govPage 3 of 4 / 2012–2013
Hazus Results for the
Cascadia Subduction Zone Scenario
Hazus is a nationally applicable standardized
methodology developed by FEMA to help planners
estimate potential losses from earthquakes. Local,
state, and regional officials can use such estimates
to plan risk-reduction efforts and prepare for
emergency response and recovery.
Hazus was used to estimate the losses that could
result from a M9.0 earthquake on the Cascadia
subduction zone. Such an event is expected to
impact 23 counties in Washington. Among the most
affected by the earthquake are Clallam, Grays
Harbor, Jefferson, King, Mason, Pacific, and Pierce.
(These estimates do not include losses due to
tsunami impacts.)
Injuries: The number of people injured in this
scenario will be high. Estimates vary by location,
ranging from several dozen (as in Jefferson County)
to nearly 2,000 (in King County). Although many
of the injuries will not be life-threatening, people in
every county will require medical attention and,
in many cases, hospitalization. Potentially lifethreatening injuries and fatalities are expected; these
are likely to be more numerous if the earthquake
happens during the afternoon or early evening.
Damage: King County will have the greatest
number of damaged buildings (more than 130,000).
For other counties, the number is lower, but it often
represents a much greater proportion of the county’s
building stock (as in Clallam, Grays Harbor, Pacific,
and Mason counties). Most of the damaged
buildings will be residential, but the number of
commercial and industrial structures is also
extremely high. The degree of damage will vary,
but extensive damage to thousands of buildings is
expected in Clallam, Grays Harbor, King, Mason,
Pacific, and Pierce counties. Structural collapse
(complete damage) of thousands of buildings is also
expected (more than 3,000 in Clallam County).
Economic Losses Due to Damage: Capital stock
losses are the direct economic losses associated with
damage to buildings, including the cost of structural
and non-structural damage, damage to contents, and
loss of inventory. For this scenario, the estimates are
substantial, ranging from more than $78 million in
Jefferson County to over $3 billion in King County.
Income losses, including wage losses and loss of
rental income due to damaged buildings, are high:
King County alone accounts for over $1 billion.
Impact on Households and Schools: The number
of people without power or water will be highest in
King County (followed by Pierce, Grays Harbor,
Pacific, and Clallam). King, Grays Harbor, and
Pierce counties will have the highest number of
displaced households and individuals in need of
shelter. The functionality of many schools will be
seriously affected by the earthquake. In Pacific
County, functionality will initially be as low as 12%.
Debris Removal: Following this earthquake, debris
(brick, wood, concrete, and steel) will have to be
removed and disposed of. King County alone
accounts for more than 1 million tons, Grays Harbor
for 740,000 tons, and Pierce for 583,000 tons.
Estimates vs. Actual Damage: Although this M9.0
earthquake was modeled using the best scientific
information available, it represents a simplified
version of expected ground motions. The damage
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE
End-to-end length of fault (kilometers) 1,100
Magnitude (M) of scenario earthquake 9.0
Number of counties impacted 23
Total injuries (*severity 1, 2, 3, 4) at 2:00 PM 7,534
Total number of buildings extensively damaged 43,681
Total number of buildings completely damaged 8,768
Income losses in millions $3,811
Displaced households 18,385
People requiring shelter (individuals) 11,630
Capital stock losses in millions $11,994
Debris total in millions of tons 5.68
Truckloads of debris (25 tons per truckload) 227,240
Table 1. Summary of significant losses in the M9.0
Cascadia subduction zone earthquake scenario. Among
the most affected counties are Clallam, Grays Harbor,
Jefferson, King, Mason, Pacific, and Pierce.
*Injury severity levels: 1—requires medical attention, but not
hospitalization; 2—not life-threatening, but does require
hospitalization; 3—hospitalization required; may be life-threatening
if not treated promptly; 4—victims are killed by the earthquakePage 4 of 4 / 2012–2013
resulting from an actual earthquake of similar
magnitude is likely to be even more variable and
will depend on the specific characteristics and
environment of each affected structure.
Other Tools: Community planners can also look at
how a large earthquake may impact local resources
and people’s lives and livelihoods. The following
graphs illustrate variations in such impacts: The first
shows the levels of shaking that residents are likely
to experience; the second shows the possible impact
on different services and business sectors. Note that
in King County, a greater number of residents will
be exposed to very strong shaking, whereas Grays
Harbor, Pacific, Mason, and Clallam counties,
although less populated, will experience even more
intense ground motions.
Figure 3. Number of residents and employees affected by the M9.0 earthquake projected for the Cascadia subduction zone.
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) classes indicate peak ground acceleration (PGA) values and the impact of the shaking.
V. Rather Strong
(PGA 3.9–9.2 g)
Felt outside by most. Dishes and windows may break. Large bells ring. Vibrations like large train passing close to
house.
VI. Strong
(PGA 9.2–18 g)
Felt by all; people walk unsteadily. Many frightened and run outdoors. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Books
fall off shelves. Some heavy furniture moved or overturned. Cases of fallen plaster. Damage slight.
VII. Very Strong
(PGA 18–34 g)
Difficult to stand. Furniture broken. Damage negligible in buildings of good design & construction; slight–
moderate in other well-built structures; considerable in poorly built/badly designed structures. Some chimneys
broken.
VIII. Destructive
(PGA 34–65 g)
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings (partial collapse);
great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, walls. Heavy furniture moved.
IX. Violent
(PGA 65–124 g)
General panic; damage considerable in specially designed structures; well designed frame structures thrown out
of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings: partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

Thomas Gilmore (#8214)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. How much coal dust is already in the BNSF tracks in WA state?
2. Who will independently monitor when the railroad ballast will need to be replaced
to prevent derailments?
3. How many derailments have occurred in WA state in the past 10 years?

Laboratory Characterization of Coal Dust Fouled Ballast Behavior

http://www.arema.org/files/library/2008_Conference_Proceedings/Laboratory_Characterization_of_Coal_Dust_Fouled_Ballast_Behavior_2008.pdf

Laboratory Characterization of Coal Dust Fouled Ballast Behavior
Erol Tutumluer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Paul F. Kent Endowed Faculty Scholar
Corresponding Author
Phone: (217) 333-8637
Fax: (217) 333-1924
E-mail: tutumlue@uiuc.edu
William Dombrow
Graduate Research Assistant
Phone: (217) 333-6973
E-mail: dombrow@uiuc.edu
Hai Huang
Graduate Research Assistant
Phone: (217) 244-6064
E-mail: hhuang14@uiuc.edu
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory
205 North Mathews Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Draft Manuscript Submitted for the
AREMA 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition
September 21-24, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT

Thomas Gilmore (#8727)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the health effects of mercury that is released when coal is burned.

Questions:
1. How much mercury is in a ton of Powder River Basin coal?
2. When this ton of coal is burned in China how much vaporized mercury is released?
3. Of the released mercury from China, how much mercury ends up in our Whatcom county water or salmon?

Information:
Coal combustion Print
Friday, 23 September 2011 15:28

Coal combustion

Due to the weathering of volcanic rocks and the accumulation of mercury in ancient sediments, mined coal subsequently contains mercury.

Although small quantities of mercury may be emitted while coal is stored and handled, most mercury is released from the combustion stack after it is burned. The boilers operate at temperatures of 1100 ̊C and the mercury in the coal is vaporized and released as a gas. Some of the released mercury may cool down and condense as it passes through the boiler and the air pollution control devices. The amount of mercury in coal that is not emitted into the atmosphere during combustion is trapped in wastes such as bottom ash and recoverable fly ash.

Mercury emissions from Fossil fuel combustion for power and heating, amount to 45.6% of the Global Mercury Emissions and are the largest anthropogenic source of emissions globally.

Up to 95% of mercury releases from power plants can be reduced. This can be achieved by taking direct measures to reduce mercury emissions, by optimizing control systems for other pollutants, improving coal treatment and improving plant performance.

Relevant legislation and NGO policy work

In the EU

The EU adopted the Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCP) , which entered into force in 2001. The overall aim of the LCP Directive is to reduce emissions of acidifying pollutants, particles, and ozone precursors. Control of emissions from large combustion plants - those whose rated thermal input is equal to or greater than 50 MW - plays an important role in the Union's efforts to combat acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone as part of the overall strategy to reduce air pollution. The directive mainly addresses and sets emission limit values for NOx, SO2, and particulate matter. Through these measures, mercury releases are also expected to be reduced.

Furthermore, the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive (96/61/EC), has been in place since 1996 and also refers to the Cement production sector. The Commission has undertaken a 2 year review to examine how the legislation on industrial emissions could be improved. As a result, the Commission adopted on 21 December 2007 a Proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions recasting seven existing Directives (the IPPC Directive and six sectoral Directives) into a single legislative instrument. One of these six sectoral directives is the LCP directive. Following the co-decision process on this Proposal, the Directive on industrial emissions 2010/75/EU (IED) has been adopted on 24 November 2010 and published in the Official Journal on 17 December 2010. It has entered into force on 6 January 2011 and has to be transposed into national legislation by Member States by 7 January 2013. IPPC and now IED sets out the main principles for the permitting and control of installations based on an integrated approach and the application of best available techniques (BAT) which are the most effective techniques to achieve a high level of environmental protection, taking into account the costs and benefits. For more information on the directive please visit the EC website. The benchmarks or criteria on which BAT relies are described in the BAT Reference Documents (BREFs). The first Large Combustion Plant BREF was published in 2006. Its revision is expected to start in 2011.

Through the implementation of the IED, the role of the BREFs will be strengthened. After a BREF is completed, it should be subject to BAT conclusions that are adopted through a comitology decision (implementing act). The right of initiative however rests with the Commission. BAT conclusions contain parts of the BREF, their description, information on applicability, including BAT Associated Emission Levels (BATAELs) for different pollutants (meaning emission levels that can be achieved for a pollutant if the industry is implementing BAT) as well as associated consumption levels and monitoring. It may also include site remediation measures “where appropriate”. Within 4 years after publication of the comitology decision on the relevant BAT conclusions, local authorities should review and update all the permits to the respective industries in order to make sure the industrial activity operates according to the requirements set out in the BAT conclusions. The provision in the IED requires that Emission Limit Values (ELVs) for pollutants set out in the permit should not exceed the relevant BATAEL. However the permit writer may derogate in specific cases and set higher ELVs under certain conditions. An assessment needs to demonstrate that the application of the BATAEL would lead to disproportionate higher costs compared to the benefits due to the local conditions (technical characteristics of the plants, or geographical location or local environmental conditions). In any case no significant pollution may be caused and a high level of protection of the environment as a whole is achieved. Environmental Quality Standards also need to be respected. These derogations are subject to public participation and scrutiny by the public concerned, which includes NGOs.

Globally

At UNEP level , under the request of the Governing Council Decision in February 2009 (GC 25/5) Para29, a study was carried out , "The paragraph 29 study." A study on various mercury-emitting sources . The focused sectors in the study were coal combustion, cement manufacturing, non-ferrous metal production and waste incineration. The study summarizes and evaluates efficiencies and costs of potential measures to reduce mercury emissions to air from the mentioned sectors. It also presents a global atmospheric mercury emissions inventory and update and evaluation of trends in global mercury atmospheric emissions (1990-2005). (see also http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/MercuryPublications/ReportsPublications/tabid/3593/Default.aspx)

Under the ZMWG work similar projects have been funded to look at emissions from the above mentioned areas in the countries of focus- India, Russia, and China. The projects were carried out by the respective NGO representatives of these countries - Toxics Link (India), EcoAccord (Russia) and with the input from GVB (China).

Emission Estimate of Passport-Free Heavy Metal Mercury from Indian Thermal Power Plants and Non-Ferrous Smelters (2010)
MERCURY EMISSION SOURCES IN RUSSIA - The situation survey in six cities of the country, June 2010

Important work is also being carried out under the UNEP Global Mercury Partnership on Mercury Control from Coal combustion. Further relevant documents have been developed under these initiatives.

Several measures are also being taken in other parts of the world.

US federal regulation of coal fired power plants can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/hg/control_emissions/index.htm

A summary of state initiatives to control mercury from coal-fired power plants is also provided at: http://www.4cleanair.org/ click on “State Utility Mercury/Toxics Programs” . See also http://www.epa.gov/hg/regs.htm#regs

The ZMWG has been following this issue closely and has been giving respective feedback at the global mercury negotiations. See also the ZMWG fact sheet on Mercury Air Emissions and Continuous Emissions monitoring Systems (CEMS) (Jan 2011)

Thomas Gilmore (#8728)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the health effects of mercury that is released when coal is burned.

Questions:
1. How much mercury is in a ton of Powder River Basin coal?
2. When this ton of coal is burned in China how much vaporized mercury is released?
3. Of the released mercury from China, how much mercury ends up in our Whatcom county water or salmon?

Information:
Coal combustion Print
Friday, 23 September 2011 15:28

Coal combustion

Due to the weathering of volcanic rocks and the accumulation of mercury in ancient sediments, mined coal subsequently contains mercury.

Although small quantities of mercury may be emitted while coal is stored and handled, most mercury is released from the combustion stack after it is burned. The boilers operate at temperatures of 1100 ̊C and the mercury in the coal is vaporized and released as a gas. Some of the released mercury may cool down and condense as it passes through the boiler and the air pollution control devices. The amount of mercury in coal that is not emitted into the atmosphere during combustion is trapped in wastes such as bottom ash and recoverable fly ash.

Mercury emissions from Fossil fuel combustion for power and heating, amount to 45.6% of the Global Mercury Emissions and are the largest anthropogenic source of emissions globally.

Up to 95% of mercury releases from power plants can be reduced. This can be achieved by taking direct measures to reduce mercury emissions, by optimizing control systems for other pollutants, improving coal treatment and improving plant performance.

Relevant legislation and NGO policy work

In the EU

The EU adopted the Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCP) , which entered into force in 2001. The overall aim of the LCP Directive is to reduce emissions of acidifying pollutants, particles, and ozone precursors. Control of emissions from large combustion plants - those whose rated thermal input is equal to or greater than 50 MW - plays an important role in the Union's efforts to combat acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone as part of the overall strategy to reduce air pollution. The directive mainly addresses and sets emission limit values for NOx, SO2, and particulate matter. Through these measures, mercury releases are also expected to be reduced.

Furthermore, the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive (96/61/EC), has been in place since 1996 and also refers to the Cement production sector. The Commission has undertaken a 2 year review to examine how the legislation on industrial emissions could be improved. As a result, the Commission adopted on 21 December 2007 a Proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions recasting seven existing Directives (the IPPC Directive and six sectoral Directives) into a single legislative instrument. One of these six sectoral directives is the LCP directive. Following the co-decision process on this Proposal, the Directive on industrial emissions 2010/75/EU (IED) has been adopted on 24 November 2010 and published in the Official Journal on 17 December 2010. It has entered into force on 6 January 2011 and has to be transposed into national legislation by Member States by 7 January 2013. IPPC and now IED sets out the main principles for the permitting and control of installations based on an integrated approach and the application of best available techniques (BAT) which are the most effective techniques to achieve a high level of environmental protection, taking into account the costs and benefits. For more information on the directive please visit the EC website. The benchmarks or criteria on which BAT relies are described in the BAT Reference Documents (BREFs). The first Large Combustion Plant BREF was published in 2006. Its revision is expected to start in 2011.

Through the implementation of the IED, the role of the BREFs will be strengthened. After a BREF is completed, it should be subject to BAT conclusions that are adopted through a comitology decision (implementing act). The right of initiative however rests with the Commission. BAT conclusions contain parts of the BREF, their description, information on applicability, including BAT Associated Emission Levels (BATAELs) for different pollutants (meaning emission levels that can be achieved for a pollutant if the industry is implementing BAT) as well as associated consumption levels and monitoring. It may also include site remediation measures “where appropriate”. Within 4 years after publication of the comitology decision on the relevant BAT conclusions, local authorities should review and update all the permits to the respective industries in order to make sure the industrial activity operates according to the requirements set out in the BAT conclusions. The provision in the IED requires that Emission Limit Values (ELVs) for pollutants set out in the permit should not exceed the relevant BATAEL. However the permit writer may derogate in specific cases and set higher ELVs under certain conditions. An assessment needs to demonstrate that the application of the BATAEL would lead to disproportionate higher costs compared to the benefits due to the local conditions (technical characteristics of the plants, or geographical location or local environmental conditions). In any case no significant pollution may be caused and a high level of protection of the environment as a whole is achieved. Environmental Quality Standards also need to be respected. These derogations are subject to public participation and scrutiny by the public concerned, which includes NGOs.

Globally

At UNEP level , under the request of the Governing Council Decision in February 2009 (GC 25/5) Para29, a study was carried out , "The paragraph 29 study." A study on various mercury-emitting sources . The focused sectors in the study were coal combustion, cement manufacturing, non-ferrous metal production and waste incineration. The study summarizes and evaluates efficiencies and costs of potential measures to reduce mercury emissions to air from the mentioned sectors. It also presents a global atmospheric mercury emissions inventory and update and evaluation of trends in global mercury atmospheric emissions (1990-2005). (see also http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/MercuryPublications/ReportsPublications/tabid/3593/Default.aspx)

Under the ZMWG work similar projects have been funded to look at emissions from the above mentioned areas in the countries of focus- India, Russia, and China. The projects were carried out by the respective NGO representatives of these countries - Toxics Link (India), EcoAccord (Russia) and with the input from GVB (China).

Emission Estimate of Passport-Free Heavy Metal Mercury from Indian Thermal Power Plants and Non-Ferrous Smelters (2010)
MERCURY EMISSION SOURCES IN RUSSIA - The situation survey in six cities of the country, June 2010

Important work is also being carried out under the UNEP Global Mercury Partnership on Mercury Control from Coal combustion. Further relevant documents have been developed under these initiatives.

Several measures are also being taken in other parts of the world.

US federal regulation of coal fired power plants can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/hg/control_emissions/index.htm

A summary of state initiatives to control mercury from coal-fired power plants is also provided at: http://www.4cleanair.org/ click on “State Utility Mercury/Toxics Programs” . See also http://www.epa.gov/hg/regs.htm#regs

The ZMWG has been following this issue closely and has been giving respective feedback at the global mercury negotiations. See also the ZMWG fact sheet on Mercury Air Emissions and Continuous Emissions monitoring Systems (CEMS) (Jan 2011)

Thomas Gilmore (#8737)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. What measures will BNSF take if coal trains derail and dump coal or coal dust into the Columbia river or any other rivers, lakes, streams or ocean water in WA state?
2. Will the coal cars be required to have covers?
3. Will safety checks of tracks be required weekly?
4. How will the derailment safety plan be funded?

Arcticle:
05 July 2012, 2:18 PM
David Lawlor
Three Coal Trains Derail In One Week
Accidents are an ominous harbinger for the Pacific Northwest

On Monday, a coal train derailed in Washington on its way to Spokane, spilling tons of coal and coal dust alongside the tracks. Then, on Wednesday afternoon, a coal train near Chicago derailed bringing a bridge down with it and killing a passenger in a car below. Finally, on Wednesday night, a train near the small town of Pendleton, Texas derailed, spewing coal from 43 rail cars.

In other words, it’s been a bad week for coal trains.

Aside from the unfortunate motorist near Chicago, the train derailments luckily did not result in multiple human injuries or deaths. For residents of the Pacific Northwest, the three derailments are an ominous harbinger of the threat presented by the potential increase in the region’s coal train traffic.

With domestic demand for coal waning in the United States, coal companies seek to ship as much coal as possible from Montana and Wyoming’s Powder River Basin to emerging Asian economies. Thus, there are six coal export terminal projects currently proposed at Pacific Northwest ports: Longview, Wash.; Bellingham, Wash.; Grays Harbor, Wash.; Coos Bay, Ore.; the Kinder Morgan terminal at Port of St. Helens, Ore.; and the Ambre Energy project with facilities at the Port of Morrow and the Port of St. Helens, Ore.

If the coal export terminals are constructed in Washington and Oregon, the region will see a dramatic increase in rail traffic as trains haul coal from the Powder River Basin to the ports. For example, according to the nonprofit group Coal Train Facts, if the proposed coal export terminal in Bellingham were to become operational, “the total number of coal train trips per day (arriving full, leaving empty) would be in the range of 16 to 18 (nine loaded and nine returning). Each of the coal trains would be approximately a mile and a half in length, made up of 125 to 150 cars.”

Common sense tells you that sometimes trains derail. Common sense also tells you that significantly increasing train traffic will result in more derailments. Therefore, this week’s three coal train derailments are an unpleasant prelude of what’s in store for Pacific Northwest communities if coal export facilities there become a reality.

“If we see a tremendous increase in coal trains, we’ll see a tremendous increase in derailments,” Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Washington’s Columbia Riverkeeper, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s that simple.”

Earthjustice’s legal team, led by attorney Jan Hasselman in Seattle, is working to stop the development of coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest. Hasselman and crew already successfully stopped the first attempt to build an export terminal in Longview, Wash., and recently sent a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, impelling the agency to conduct a programmatic environmental impact statement to examine the cumulative environmental impacts posed by the proposed coal export terminals.

As these derailments illustrate, the stakes are extremely high for the Pacific Northwest in the fight against the proposed coal export terminals. A similar derailment in downtown Seattle or in another heavily populated area has the potential to be an enormous disaster. Hopefully the potential impact of such a derailment will be seriously considered by the Army Corps of Engineers as they move through the process of reviewing proposals for export terminals.

Thomas Gilmore (#9234)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I would like to see an objective scoping report of the true cost of the GPT coal port project.
From what I have read so far the public is subsidizing the profits of a few corporations.
Please focus on the economic facts of this project because this coal project will impact the traffic of 75 cities and towns. We need a complete examination of the road infrastructure cost for Whatcom, Skagit, King, etc. counties before approving this project.

Questions:
1. How many railroad crossing are there on this 1,200 miles of rail line?
2. How many of these rail crossings will need overpasses built to avoid traffic delays?
3. How much will each of these railroad overpasses cost?
4. How much of this cost will be covered by the tax payers in each city, county, and state?
5. Will existing overpasses need to be modified or improved to handle coal trains?

Thomas Gilmore (#9732)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I agree James Wells submission on climate change and US and WA legal requirements
I have 3 questions:
1. . Climate change could potentially destroy my home and killing my loved ones. Super storms like the ones hitting the east coast of the US are no joke. Is BNSF or SSA Marine willing to pay for a flood insurance policy for thousands of families or businesses in WA state?

2. China has plenty of cheap solar panels -- make the Chinese use them on every building in the country. Why should coal companies be allowed to sell a valuable US national coal resource to China when we may need coal gas in 50 years.

3. Will you please study the effects of carbon dioxide and other pollution releases from burning coal?

Commentsfrom James Wells that I believe the scoping process needs to address.

Greenhouse Gas Contribution of China Burning Our Coal

James addresses the thorny issue that while NEPA and SEPA clearly require greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution of a proposal – in this case, the terminal itself – it is difficult to get regulators to consider the contributions of more geographically remote, though related, activities.

In our case, the coal, once exported will be burned in Asia and though we all know what that will mean for GHG contribution, terminal proponents are already arguing that shouldn’t be scoped since China will burn someone’s coal, if not our PRB coal.

James’ core thesis is that this refusal to consider the end use of a product which is the purpose of the proposed activity, when that product is coal, given our local and national policies generally with respect to GHGs and global climate change, is simply against public policy.


Mr. Webb requests 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, (actually 140+ million metric tons if all coal ports are built) where it will be burned, resulting in air pollution that will cause impacts in the United States (in addition to the effects on nearby populations in China). The pollution includes carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that also causes ocean acidification. [The combustion also releases harmful pollutants such as mercury, but this comment is focused on CO2]

In public discourse, we have repeatedly heard a defeatist and misleading suggestion that people in China will just acquire coal from elsewhere, dug out of mines that do not currently exist, and burn that coal instead, if we do not export coal to them. That may or may not occur. If it does, that other coal will cost them more than importing coal from the USA, and thus they would probably use less. But in all cases it’s never morally acceptable to be part of something harmful on the theory that someone else, somewhere else, is going to do it anyway.

Broadly, in permitting activities, agencies are required to evaluate an activity for the entirety of what it is, not as compared to some imaginary other circumstance that may or may not occur. This particular coal, if shipped to Asia to be burned, will create the pollutants. If not, then those pollutant emissions will not occur at that place and time. Therefore the full effects should be considered.

One regulatory question is whether the applicable law allows for consideration of an effect that may occur outside the US. The clear answer: Yes it can. It’s right in the applicable SEPA law:

“[A] lead agency shall not limit its consideration of a proposal's impacts only to those aspects within its jurisdiction, including local or state boundaries.” (Wash. Admin. Code sec. 197-11-060(4)(b))

Next: Can the impact of combustion emissions, including carbon dioxide emissions, be considered?

Again, Yes. The United States EPA has recognized the materials emitted from combustion, including Carbon Dioxide, as pollutants that threaten human health and the environment.

At play is the combination: Considering combustion emissions, including carbon dioxide, that originate overseas.

A key consideration is the concept of the Public Interest. The agencies should broadly consider the public interest in this case, because the project needs to use government resources rather than just private assets. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions is relevant to public interest, because global warming and ocean acidification represent a very serious threat to our environment and the livability of our planet.

In the case of GPT, there are at least three major government-controlled resources that are required for the project to go forward:

- The pier requires a shoreline lease from the WA State Department of Natural Resources
- The coal is mined from federal government land in Montana and Wyoming

- Large water withdrawals from the Nooksack River are needed for dust control and other purposes

This request to use government resources is profoundly different from meeting regulatory requirements for an activity on private land. The applicants have no title to the government resources, and so for access to be granted, the proposed activity needs to be in the public interest. This is especially applicable to the waters of the state due to the Public Trust Doctrine, as explained on the WA Department of Ecology web site: "The essence of the [Public Trust] doctrine is that the waters of the state are a public resource owned by and available to all citizens equally for the purposes of navigation, conducting commerce, fishing, recreation and similar uses and that this trust is not invalidated by private ownership of the underlying land."

In another example, leases to mine coal from public lands have been granted on the basis that the coal will provide a stable domestic energy supply. The current practice of shipping coal from federal lands to British Columbia for export to Asia is in conflict with the justification for the coal leases, and a massive expansion of such export would also be. No export terminal should be permitted prior to conducting a complete review of the basis for the lease to mine the subject coal, and coal whose lease was justified on the theory of providing for domestic energy supplies should not be allowed to be exported.

The GPT project will also require exercise of a key government power, which is: Eminent Domain. This means seizing land from other private owners, whether or not they want to sell, in order to allow the project to occur. This is another point whether the question of the Public Interest is applicable.

The project is also inconsistent with certain federal or state laws or policies.

- Copenhagen Accord

The United States is a signatory to the Copenhagen climate accord, which agrees in concept to large reductions in GHG emissions worldwide. Large new coal export schemes are clearly inconsistent with the intent of the document.

- EPA has Recognized CO2 as a Pollutant

The US EPA has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and has started to regulate CO2 emissions. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) state that any new coal-fired power plant in the US must meet a very tight standard for low CO2 emissions. If we build a new export terminal for the purpose of supplying coal to be burned in a manner that does not meet these new standards, then that undermines the entire purpose of the NSPS standards. The EPA has also commented on a different coal export proposal that resulting CO2 emissions should be considered.

- WA State GHG Reduction Standards

Washington State adopted greenhouse gas reduction standards via legislation adopted in 2008. See RCW 70.235.070(1)(a). The statute establishes that by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels. By 2035, GHG emissions are to be 25 percent below 1990 levels and by 2050, they are to be 50 percent below 1990 levels. The coal terminal, if permitted, would emit tens of millions of metric tons of CO2 per year, wiping all of those reductions, and more. Since CO2 is a global pollutant, it would be futile to reduce local emissions while facilitating an increase elsewhere. [For reference, all GHG emissions in all of WA state are about 100 million metric tons / year]

- WA State Panel on Ocean Acidification

In November of 2012, the Governor of Washington State released an executive order initiating action on ocean acidification. The executive order states, in part, “I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the state of Washington … do, effective immediately, hereby order and direct … The Office of the Governor and the cabinet agencies that report to the Governor to advocate for reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide at a global, national, and regional level.”

- SEPA Standards

The SEPA standard itself recognizes the world-wide scope of environmental issues.

SEPA considers “each person’s” right to a “healthful environment” to be “fundamental and inalienable” Rev.Code Wash. Sec. 43.21C.020(3), “[r]ecognize[s] the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems,” and directs agencies, “where consistent with state policy, [to] lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment….” (RCW 43.21C.030(1)(f).)

Thomas Gilmore (#10802)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The harmful health effects of coal dust blowing into communities from enormous, open-air coal piles at export terminals are well documented. Coal dust has been shown to cause bronchitis, emphysema and tumor growth in animals. It can also pollute soil, water and plants. The threats from coal dust are just one reason that I asking for a thorough environmental review of all coal terminals proposed for the Pacific Northwest.

Question:

1. How can we be sure that wind-driven coal dust at the proposed shipping terminals will not pollute nearby communities?

2. What will the coal companies do to take care of the people made sick by their coal dust?

Well, let’s take a look at what is happening at existing coal export terminals.

Recently, Sightline Daily’s Eric de Place reported on the pollution generated by coal export terminals in Australia, the world’s leading exporter of coal. In his piece, de Place quotes a report prepared by the coal transport industry describing the problem:

“Across Australia, dust from trains carrying coal and iron ore is a persistent problem. For residents next to a rail track in the Bowen Basin or Hunter Valley, it can on the worst days mean dust obscuring windows, dirtying washing and penetrating homes.”

Residents near Gladstone Port in southern Australia report having to wipe down all home surfaces at least once daily to remove coal dust that drifts over from a nearby coal export terminal.

Closer to home, the coal export facility in Seward, Alaska is notorious for polluting the nearby community with blowing coal dust. On bad days in Seward when coal dust lingers in a cloud over the town, visibility is reduced considerably. Aside from the coal dust, coal conveyor belts frequently drop chunks of coal into the bay. These images from Seward tell the story.

And the situation is the same at dirty, polluting coal export terminals at Point Roberts and Prince Rupert in British Columbia.

No matter how vehemently backers of the proposed coal export projects proclaim that advanced techniques and technology can suppress coal dust at the terminals, their arguments just don’t hold up to reality. These existing coal terminals serve as a harbinger for the Pacific Northwest and illuminate what is at stake—the health of the region’s citizens.

Thomas Gilmore (#10980)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. Would more jobs be created by allowing more oil trains rather than coal trains?
Please read attached articles.

2. If oil trains are or soon will be running to local refineries, would coal trains cause too much congestion on current railroad track capacity?

3. Are there better economic uses for WA state rail capacity than just hauling coal from Montana and Wyoming?

Trains delivering oil to Washington refineries from Montana, North Dakota
November 26, 2012 12:28 pm  •  Associated Press
Article #1
TACOMA, Wash. — The oil boom in the Great Plains states is affecting refineries, ports and other businesses in Washington.
Oil trains are delivering crude to refineries in the state as Alaska's production falls. And there are proposals to export oil from the Port of Grays Harbor to West Coast refineries and possibly Asia.
A 103-car oil train that arrived from North Dakota last week was the first of what's expected to be weekly trains at a new $8 million rail yard at the U.S. Oil refinery in Tacoma.
Trains also are delivering oil from North Dakota and Montana to the Tesoro refinery near Anacortes, which recently completed a $55 million rail yard. BP has applied for permits for a $60 million rail yard at its Cherry Point refinery north of Bellingham.
The refineries still process crude oil from Alaska and other sources. The Tesoro refinery has the capacity to receive 50,000 barrels of crude oil a day by rail, but its total capacity is 120,000 barrels a day.
The BP refinery would receive about 20,000 barrels a day by rail, less than a tenth of its 234,000 barrel capacity.
"So North Slope and other crudes shipped by tanker will remain its primary source of oil," BP said in a statement.
U.S. Oil spokeswoman Marcia Nielsen said it's shifting some of its feedstock procurement to the Great Plains because of better availability and price.
Shipping oil on a 1,200-mile "pipeline with steel wheels" adds to the cost, but it would take years to build new pipelines and pumping stations.
Meanwhile, The Daily World in Aberdeen reported Monday that two companies want to export crude oil from the Port of Grays Harbor on the Washington coast.
Westway Terminals plans to build two more tanks at the port where it already exports methanol. Its permit application to the city of Hoquiam said it could handle near 10 million barrels a year, or about 128 trains a year.
Another company, US Development, is looking at the port's Terminal 3 to load oil from trains onto ships.
Both proposals have drawn opposition from citizen groups that were formed to oppose a coal export terminal.
Friends of Grays Harbor and Citizens for a Clean Harbor are concerned about the risk of spills and the impact of train traffic.
The Port of Tacoma also has received proposals for a bulk liquids handling facility on the former Kaiser aluminum smelter site on Blair Waterway.
Port spokeswoman Tara Mattina said she could not discuss proposals because of ongoing negotiations.
The new oil fields are affecting the Northwest in other ways.
The biggest beneficiary is Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which owns most of the rail lines across the northern United States between Puget Sound and Chicago.
The Port of Olympia has found new business importing oil field supplies, including special sand used in the hydraulic fracturing drilling process. The Bradken foundry in Tacoma is expanding to make large metal castings used in the energy industry.

Article #2
http://earthfix.opb.org/energy/article/oil-trains-on-the-rise-in-the-northwest/
Oil Trains On The Rise In The Northwest

Dec. 4, 2012 | KUOW

SEATTLE — As regulators in the region weigh the potential impacts of trains full of coal moving along the Columbia River and the shores of Puget Sound, trainloads of oil are quietly on the move.
There are billions of barrels of oil in the Bakken shale formation – located in North Dakota and Montana mainly.
And some of that oil is now making its way to refineries in Puget Sound.

View Oil trains in a larger map
Dale Jensen, the spill program manager for the Washington Department of Ecology, says oil trains are a new concern for him.
“This is kinda the sleeper that has come on very strongly in such a very short period of time,” he says.
Each one of these trains can carry 50,000 barrels of oil. Right now the oil trains are bound for two refineries in Puget Sound – U.S. Oil in Tacoma and the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes – but there could be more on the way.
BP has applied for a permit to expand the access rail capacity for their Cherry Point refinery near Bellingham. The port of Grays Harbor is considering exporting Bakken crude oil as well.
Jensen says oil train accident could cause major environmental damage.
“You’re dealing with a liquid that can move very quickly,” Jensen says. “It can get into the groundwater. It can get into the streams. It can get into the rivers…I’m really concerned about this.”
Frank Holmes, with the Western States Petroleum Association, says oil companies are prepared to respond to an oil train accident.
“The major companies that are our members have nation wide, world wide oil spill response teams that can respond.”
Right now Washington is still refining more oil from Alaska than from the Great Plains, though that’s starting to change as the amount of oil coming out of Alaska has dropped from a high of 2 million barrels a day to under 600,000 barrels a day.
Much of the Alaskan oil arrives by ship. The state collects a 5-cent tax on each barrel of that oil and uses the money to support the program that will deal with the environmental clean up if an accident occurs.
The thousands of barrels of oil that are transported by train don’t pay that tax. That means they’re not paying into the state clean up fund. Frank Holmes says that shouldn’t change. “Before looking at expanding the oil tax we probably should look at finding ways to have those other sectors that Ecology is looking after contribute to the program.”
Holmes says cargo ships and recreational boaters should pay into the fund as well.
Oil that arrives at Washington refineries by pipeline is also not taxed the 5-cents-per-barrel for clean up.
© 2012 KUOW


John Burke • a month ago

Oil trains are now traveling along the Columbia River west of Portland. I work outdoors near Highway 30. I was told by a railroad work crew member that oil trains are going west on the railroad that lies in between highway 30 and the river at night. He mentioned they come from Conoco.

Article #3
Oil train from the Bakken heading to Anacortes, WA

Bakken Dispatch | Jan 10, 2013 | Comments 0 | Filed Under: Videos
http://www.bakkendispatch.com/oil-train-bakken-heading-anacortes-wa

Here’s a video that will give you an idea of the scope and volume of oil coming out of the Bakken. It’s a very long BNSF tanker train on it’s way to the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes, WA. A local saw the train coming off the main line onto the spur to Anacortes and positioned himself to catch it on video as it went by.
BNSF’s goal is to run trains like this six times a week, shipping a total of 50,000 barrels of oil to the Anacortes refinery. Tesoro expanded their receiving capacity to handle the new trains, and can unload two of these trains per day. Each train is about 100 cars long.
As we mentioned back in June of last year, Tesoro has even considered shipping some of this oil to its refinery in Kenai, Alaska. Their facility in Washington is capable of taking in a lot more oil than they’re permitted to process. And, oil from the Bakken is higher quality crude than that from the North Slope.
More evidence that the whole industry, particularly domestically, is in a state of flux, and the Bakken is right at the center of that.

Thomas Gilmore (#11034)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Letter for addressing Treaty and Archaeological Concerns

My name is __Thomas Gilmore_____ and I live in ______Bellingham, WA__. I respectfully request that various impacts upon tribal nations be given due consideration.

Please study:

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

Possible infringement of international and treaty rights, and the consequences of such infringement.
Any disturbance of archaeological sites, burial sites, and sites of cultural importance.

As recognized in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Plan, the Lummi Nation and other tribes have treaty rights in the Salish Sea, as usual and accustomed fishing grounds.

1. 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?

2. How might the construction and operations of GPT, and the transport and storage of bulk commodities, including coal, affect the full and proper observation of all relevant rights and treaties?

Xwe’chi’eXen (Cherry Point) is known to have deep spiritual and cultural significance. A burial ground and a sacred site, it is associated with the creation story of the Lummi People and the First Salmon Ceremony. For over 175 generations, Lummi ancestors lived and fished at Xwe’chi’eXen, and it was part of the (now much smaller) Lummi Reservation as established by the Point Elliott Treaty.

It was the first site in Washington State to be listed on the Washington Heritage Register and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supported by the President of the United States, includes the right to maintain and protect archaeological and historic sites. I request that a third party archaeological study of cultural significance at Cherry Point be done in accordance with Lummi tribal code, and approved and accepted by a Lummi Nation cultural commission.

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

Thank you,

Signed _______Thomas Gilmore____________________________________


Note: In the summer of 2011, SSA Marine illegally graded and cleared land without permits on the site for their proposed Gateway Pacific coal terminal at Cherry Point. Both Whatcom County and the U.S. Corps of Engineers required SSA to reach agreement on land disturbances with local Tribes. Five months later, at the time SSA submitted the new GPT application, SSA still had not resolved these outstanding violations. A description, with appendices, of these events can be found here.

Relevant Documents:

Point Elliot Treaty
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Announcement of the U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples & Initiatives to Promote the Government-to-Government Relationship & Improve the Lives of Indigenous Peoples
Information on Cherry Point
Sovereignty and Treaty Protection for the Lummi Nation

Thomas Gilmorer (#8177)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
1. What is the value of the salmon catch that is taken from the Salish sea?

2. Salmon feed on herring, will all the shipping traffic increase the turbidity of the water in the Salish sea and destroy the phytoplankton and zooplankton that herring feed on?

3. What is the current density of phytoplankton and zooplankton off Cherry Point?

4. Will coal dust in the water destroy phytoplankton and zooplankton off Cherry Point?

5. What studies have been done on these organisms and chemicals released from coal dust?

6. Will coal dust clog the gills of the feeding herring as they swim in the waters off Cherry Point?

Information From Wikipedia - Herring

Young herring feed on phytoplankton and as they mature they start to consume larger organisms. Adult herring feed on zooplankton, tiny animals that are found in oceanic surface waters, and small fish and fish larvae. Copepods and other tiny crustaceans are the most common zooplankton eaten by herring. During daylight herring stay in the safety of deep water, feeding at the surface only at night when there is less chance of being seen by predators. They swim along with their mouths open, filtering the plankton from the water as it passes through their gills. Young herring mostly hunt copepods individually, by means of "particulate feeding" or "raptorial feeding",[110] a feeding method also used by adult herring on larger prey items like krill. If prey concentrations reach very high levels, as in microlayers, at fronts or directly below the surface, herring become filter feeders, driving several meters forward with wide open mouth and far expanded opercula, then closing and cleaning the gill rakers for a few milliseconds.

Copepods, the primary zooplankton, are a major item on the forage fish menu. Copepods are typically one millimetre (0.04 in) to two millimetres (0.08 in) long, with a teardrop shaped body. Some scientists say they form the largest animal biomass on the planet.[111] Copepods are very alert and evasive. They have large antennae (see photo below left). When they spread their antennae they can sense the pressure wave from an approaching fish and jump with great speed over a few centimeters. If copepod concentrations reach high levels, schooling herrings adopt a method called ram feeding. In the photo below, herring ram feed on a school of copepods. They swim with their mouth wide open and their opercula fully expanded.

Thomas Glombecki (#1050)

Date Submitted: 10/16/12
Location: Edmonds, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

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

This is a very bad way to create a few jobs that will destroy my Puget Sound. Coal is not the answer for a ever warming world. We already have huge methane plumes erupting in the Arctic Ocean floor now. This must be stopped.

Thank You for taking your time to read this.


Thomas Glombecki
23629 97th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020

Thomas Gordon (#14266)

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

Thomas Hahney (#6981)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am concerned about the possible construction of the Gateway Pacific Terminal. I am concerned at multiple levels: personal, local community, county wide, state, Pacific Northwest, national, and international. And my concerns fall into multiple areas: disruption to local business and recreation caused by increased rail traffic, health issues associated with the mining and transportation of coal, and ecological issues associated with this same mining and transportation. However my main concern is with the short-term possible gain of jobs in the mining, transportation, construction and port management areas vs. the short, and especially, the long-term dangers to national and global ecologies. Until coal is actually used in the global environment in an ecologically responsible manner that does not harm life we need to decrease its use more and more. I am very concerned that any short-term gains or solutions will ignore the long-term major issues. We need to look for long-term global solutions to the use, conservation, and creation of energy that are sustainable, clean, and healthful to all life.

Thomas Hall (#13593)

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

Also, please read andact in accordance with the Statement of all the MDs in Whatcom County ,prepared over months ofcareful Reseach also involving yhe aauniversiyu of Washington School of Medicuine. It is virtually unheard of for a Medical Community to prepare such a carefully outlined Statement.

Thomas Hons (#10280)

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.

I am strongly concerned by the numerous negative consequences of the proposed coal projects, and demand that they be studied thoroughly.
I have found coal dust along the railroad tracks at the mouth of the
White Salmon River along the Columbia River. A 12 day BOD
(Biochemical Oxygen Demand) test of a tiny amount of the material shows significant oxygen demand, even without full dissolving of the material. This could cause significant oxygen demand on rivers that the coal dust leaches into.
Furthermore, the diesel exhaust from the heavy coal trains is a factor that will add how much material to the air.
Train and vehicle collisions is another major concern. I've witnessed a train and log truck collision at the Maple Street crossing in Bingen, WA, which has significant log truck traffic going into SDS Lumber Mill, along with the Walnut Street crossing in the same city.
Also, the inevitable coal train derailments will add significant environmental, social, and logistical nightmares.

Thomas Jamieson (#12082)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Shoreline, WA
Comment:
I live in Shoreline, WA, just across the street from the BNSF ROW. I would like the impacts to be studied from the following perspectives.



1. Fire hazard of shipping uncovered sub-bituminous coal through an urban area. There was a fire in Shoreline last summer which involved the BNSF ROW just north of the wooden pedestrian overcrossing in Shoreline's Saltwater Park. The Shoreline Fire Department has not released the cause of that fire, though they suspected arson. I would like the impact study to determine if the Shoreline environment is susceptible to spontaneous combustion fires from unstable sub-bituminous coal.

2. Health, air quality, safety, and noise risks in Shoreline residential area due to trains waiting to pass through Edmonds. Edmonds has a single track. Shoreline has 2, and has provided for the addition of a third track. I have seen coal trains idling in front of my home for over an hour. My family is exposed to both coal dust and diesel fuel for a much longer period than what would be indicated by passing trains alone.

3. Aesthetics degradation. 18 additional mile and half long trains per day, even if they were carrying beanie babies, would be consitute a severe degradation to the aesthetics of our neighborhood.

4. Derailment potential. The Shoreline-Edmonds leg of the BNSF is prone to mudslides, which increases the risk of derailments. This risk compounded with northbound trains stacked up in Shoreline waiting to traverse Edmonds, and the volatile sub-bituminous coal literally constitutes an ongoing powder keg in front of my home.

5. Property values reduction to view home owners in the Innis Arden and Richmond Beach neighborhoods, as a result of all of the impacts previously named.

6. Property rights violations. Individual property rights must be safeguarded. 18 addiitional trains represents a dramatic increase in payload, possibly well the net public good to be achieved for the Shoreline area.

In summary, I see no good to come of this for my family in Shoreline. This project will create a nuisance for us, a health and safety hazard, an eyesore and earsore, and will chop away at our property values.

Thomas Killorin (#7882)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Lake Forest Park, WA
Comment:
This massive coal train and processing plant plan is an outrage and an insult to the people living in Western Washington - particularly those living in or near the proposed facility near Bellingham.

Thomas LaVelle (#8762)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I was the Project Engineer and later the Construction Manager for AtlanticRichfield's Wyoming coal mine, Black Thunder. For a number of years it was the largest surface (strip) mine in North America. During the design significant efforts were made, continually, to work with internal and external enviromental groups to comply with all existing and anticipated rules. Then during costruction even more groups and experts were involved with the daily compliance with the guidelines established during design and solving unanticipated situations that came up as the construction progressed. And it was all done successfully.
As many as 18 trains a day left this mine. Places where traffic was intolerable wwere mitigated with over or underpasses. Coal blowing off the open cars was resolved with a spray or by covers on the car. Losses were estimated to be as much as 2% initially which would be 2 tons per car and would be an intolerable expense.
One of the coal mine's customers had a legal requirement that the sulfur content had to be below a specified level, and known, prior to shipment. A method was devised to segregate this customers coal and test it to everyones satisfaction. The design changes were made and implemented without significanyly impacting construction or the integrity of the design.
Any and all enviromental concerns will be addressed, discussed , mitigated and approvals gained before the construction begins.
In 1980 the AtlanticRichfield EPC group was ask to perform a technical evaluation of a Cherry Point Coal Handling/Load-out Facility. Our (short version) conclusion was building such a facility was known technology, what was going to tke time, energy and money was working the enviromental concerns.

Thomas Lindsey (#6348)

Date Submitted: 01/08/2013
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
GPT/BSNF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
c/o CH2MHILL
1100 112th Avenue, NE, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004

12/6/12

Subject: Gateway Pacific Terminal @ Cherry Point

Scoping Request: Global Warming Consequences

Certainly the most pressing issue reaching far beyond the impacts and the many concerns of citizens, local economies, and even the degradation of the environment surrounding the proposed project from extraction to terminal is the global ramification on the now undeniable fact of a fragile planet in peril. Hardly a day goes by without hearing about Arctic ice melt, Greenland glacial slide, increased permafrost methane release across Siberia and Alaska , extreme weather events, West Antarctica ice shelf break up and increasingly, information about the possibility that feedback loops are beginning to magnify the problem.

In the November issue of Scientific American ( ScientificAmerican.com/nov2012/climate-change ) an article by John Cary, Global Warming, Faster than Expected ? ,proposes that the continuing compilation of new data suggests that although there is still some dissension and debate among climate scientists the consensus is that given the right conditions the carbon dioxide levels could activate a feedback mechanism combining a wide variety of unstable systems that would result a rapid and dramatic rise in global temperatures. One extreme model proposed by Euan Nisbet of the University of London where his “nightmare scenario” puts the climate on a fast track to rapid warming leading to as much as five meter rise in ocean levels by 2100 (Also speculated by James E. Hansen in Climate Change: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects )

Granted, these are extremely complex issues but some of the most brilliant minds in the world are forecasting dire consequences if we don’t begin to consider the consequences of our current actions. This is why it is imperative that you give thoughtful consideration to the implications of these proposed fossil fuel shipments to China and the factor into the scope of this complexity the resulting carbon emissions from the more than 54 million tons that would be exported from this terminal alone let alone millions from other terminals in the state.

I’m sure you understand that the decisions you render have consequences beyond the local.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thomas A Lindsey, Architect
5706 Edens Road
Guemes Island, WA 98221
talin95@hotmail.com
206-849-8356

Thomas Malterre (#12104)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
Tom Malterre, MS, CN
Jan. 22, 2013
Human Health, Air Quality
Bellingham, WA
Multiple/not listed

I am a Bellingham resident, father of five, and a certified nutritionist with two degrees in nutritional sciences. Beyond my busy private practice in Bellingham, I currently work with the Autism Research Institute as a faculty member and participant in their scientific round table. As a result I have seen numerous children with neurological disorders including ADD/ADHD, and autism spectrum disorders. Recent research and clinical findings have been pointing to environmental toxins as the prime reason for the increase of incidence in ADD/ADHD, autism, and numerous other health disorders including asthma, and eczema. According to my collegue Dr. Stephen Genuis, and Dr. Cluadia Miller, our immune systems are becoming intolerant to normal environmental signals as the level of toxins increases in our environment. Both Drs./researchers are speaking of a toxicity induced loss of tolerance. Of particular interest in this adverse alteration of the immune system is mercury. Mercury levels have been steadily increasing as China and other Eastern Asian countries continue to choose antiquated filtering methods in their coal fired power plants.

It has long been known that mercury is one of the most harmful of all toxic substances. As the largest consumers of coal on the planet, China has significantly increased both the tons of coal burned every year, and the tons of atmospheric mercury that is emitted from their coal burning as well.

Sci Am 2008
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=price-of-coal-in-china-climate-change&print=true
“Coal accounts for more than 70 percent of all of China's energy—from electricity to giant chemical plants that turn the dirty, black rock into liquid fuels. China uses more coal than the U.S., Europe and Japan combined—three billion metric tons in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And, even as China adds wind farms, nuclear power plants and other electricity sources at a pace that surpasses anywhere else in the world, coal accounts for more than 80 percent of its electricity, the main reason that China has passed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.”
Mercury containing air pollution that is produced in Asia travels to the United States via air currents in a mass termed the “Brown Cloud”. Alaska is attributing 20% of their environmental mercury to the delivery of this metal from Asian air pollution.
http://www.akaction.org/Publications/Coal_Development/Toxic_Trade_Map_poster_mercury_final_8x10.pdf
“In 2008, Asia (China, Korea, Japan) became the largest source of man-made atmospheric emissions on the planet, contributing over 50% of the total. Part of this pollution, caused largely by the increasing combustion of coal, forms what is called the brown cloud, visible from space, that takes about a week to cross the Pacific ocean to the Western U.S.- including Alaska- where it accounts for as much as 15 percent of total air pollution.”

“Of major concern is that coal combustion releases mercury into the atmosphere and this dangerous neurotoxin is one of the pollutants carried to Alaska by the brown cloud. At least 20% of the mercury in the state is attributed to Asian coal plants and industry, and it is deposited onto coastal waters and inland where it ends up in the local food chain, threatening the health of the state’s wildlife, ecosystems, and human communities.”

Scientists have been warning of harmful health consequences of rising mercury levels in the air, water, soil, and food . As a result, 140 nations have participated in a convention to discuss setting limits on the use of and exposure to mercury.

Tough Talk over mercury treaty. --- Nature
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23302836
Qiu J. Tough talk over mercury treaty. Nature. 2013 Jan 10;493(7431):144-5.

“All agree that action is needed urgently to reduce mercury emissions, which pose risks to the environment and human health.”

“According to a draft version of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2013 Global Mercury Report, about 6,500 tonnes of mercury was emitted into the air in 2010.”

““Once emitted into the air, it’s like a genie that has escaped the bottle,” says David Streets, an environmental scientist at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. “It takes decades or even centuries to get it fixed.””

“The UNEP report points out that mercury concentrations in the upper 100 metres of the oceans have doubled in the past century; top marine predators in the Arctic Ocean contain up to 12 times more mercury than in pre- industrial times, and contaminated seafood is a significant source of human exposure. The World Health Organization (WHO) rates mercury as one of the top ten chemicals of major public health concern — it can damage the brain and is a particular hazard for fetuses.”

Mercury has adverse impacts at minute levels in the human body. This recent report from the IPEN (International Persistent Organic Pollutants Elimination Network) showed that 82% of human hair samples, and the vast majority of fish samples had mercury levels above safe limit recommendations of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). These are strong indicators we may have already reached a point of needing to take immediate action to reduce our environmental exposures to mercury.



IPEN- (International Persistent Organic Pollutants Elimination Network) partnered with the Biodiversity Research Institute (BRI) Report on:
Global Mercury Hotspots.
http://www.briloon.org/uploads/documents/hgcenter/gmh/gmhSummary.pdf

“Coal combustion is a key contributor to atmospheric mercury emissions and subsequent global deposition.”

“Fish samples from around the world regularly demonstrate mercury concentrations exceeding human health advisory guidelines based on the USEPA reference dose. Between 43-100% of the fish from nine countries exceeded safe consumption of one 170g (6 ounce) fish meal per month.”

“Hair samples from around the world regularly demonstrate mercury concentrations exceeding human health advisory guidelines based on the USEPA reference dose. More than 82% of the human hair samples from Cameroon, Cook Islands, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Tanzania, and Thailand exceeded the USEPA RfD level of 1.0 ppm.”

After four years of meetings and negotiations, on January 19th, 140 nations have agreed on numerous measures to reduce mercury in our environment. Although some organizations are arguing that the steps proposed to be taken are too small, all agree that steps are necessary.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/01/nations-agree-on-global-mercury.html?ref=hp

“The Minimata Convention—named for a city in Japan where thousands of people were injured or killed by mercury poisoning—will require its signatory nations to phase out the use of mercury in certain types of batteries, fluorescent lamps, and soaps and cosmetics by 2020.”

“The agreement also requires countries to limit emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants, waste incineration, and cement factories.”

“Coal power plants and unregulated gold mining are the world's two largest sources of mercury emissions and releases into the environment.”

“The delegates agreed to limit mercury amalgam use in dental fillings, and to phase out the use of the element in medical thermometers and blood pressure devices.”

“The treaty will, however, allow the use of mercury as a preservative in vaccines.”

“The Zero Mercury Working Group, a coalition of non-governmental organizations that lobbies for strong mercury protection measures, said the treaty is a step in the right direction. It said, however, that limits on the two main sources of mercury contamination are disappointingly weak. Controls on coal-fired power plants don't go into effect for 5 to 10 years, the group noted in a statement.”

Referring to work done my David Evers (Executive director of Maine’s Biodiversity Research Institute) that demonstrated the ubiquitous and dangerous nature of mercury, Derrick Jackson from the Boston Globe summarized the dire state of affairs in our mercury laden world in his article entitled “All of earth now a mercury hotspot”.

Boston Globe Post ---
All of earth now a mercury hotspot.
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/01/09/all-earth-now-mercury-hotspot/pOyPxr2EuGhV959OEbokuN/story.html

““We can do all we want in the US, but we’re still downwind from Asia and we still eat tuna from all over the world” Evers said.”

“…a third of the 5.4 million babies born each year in the European Union come into the world with unhealthy exposures to mercury, which can cause learning disabilities that result in billions of dollars in lost economic benefit.”

“First, the birds tried to warn us how mercury is embedded in the ecosystem, from marsh to forest. Then the fish tried to warn us, from river to sea. Now, our very own hair is telling us how this very old toxin presents very new problems. That thought should create enough urgency to bring about an international solution.”

With 140 countries agreeing that mercury is a major health issue, and that the burning of coal one of the primary sources of mercury in our environment, I request that proper statistical analysis of atmospheric mercury, as well as mercury in water, soil, and human tissue samples be estimated, and safety be assured before allowing a continuation of this insanity.

Thomas McCarthy (#9188)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Comment:
Concerning the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point: It is difficult to understand why this is even being proposed except for the money to be gained by those concerned with this project. From further contributing to global warming, to exportation of raw materials, to probability of invasive species, to inevitable multiple ecological catastrophes - it is difficult to draw up a short list as to why I am opposed. There is no reason other than short sighted greed that this project should go forward.

thomas mclaughlin (#11166)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: deming, wa
Comment:
The proposed rail and ship transfer of coal from central US to China via rail and shipping needs to have the following studies in additon to others before such an undertaken can be deemed a value to anyone other than the owners of the natural resource.

Migration disruption of terrestrial animals between habitat zones split by increase of rail traffic.

Disruption of aquatic mammals life cycle by increase of shipping traffic.

Increase of potential loose of local county, state capitol to manage the required massive change of infra structure to accommodate the scale of this project,
which will subsequently take money from need social programs and emergency.
services .

Shoreline containment from increase hydro carbon gases released by the burning of coal.

Anticipated rail and shipping incidents leading to contamination of both shore lines and in land massive coal spills from rail accidents. Emergency plans for rail blockage for weeks to clear other trains in transit.

Continued feeding of China's epidemic proportion of cancer. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=China_and_coal

Studying the international money control that has brought Peabody to increase the political strength of China. Which directly relates to the potential general welfare for every citizen in the near path of this transfer as well as world wide impact.

If we fail to recognize the cost of what we may need to repair or that which will not be repairable then we need to study the legislation that manages the course of review.

Thomas Munyon (#11275)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
It is the 21st Century and all the world is looking at leaner and greener ways of doing things. Yet, anything coming to our most northwesterly port location is going to following a rail corridor that meanders to the southwest and then turns north through all the major metropolitan areas of the Puget Sound. Those who want to build and use the port should also have to build themselves a more direct access route to the port. The utter inefficiency and the intolerable nuisance of using the current route is unacceptable.

Thomas Olsen (#102)

Date Submitted: 09/27/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See Attached
Attached Image:

Thomas Parsons (#8147)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Orcas, WA
Comment:
It always comes as a terrible surprise when tankers, cruise ships and cargo ships run aground, and break up or leak petroleum products, but it happens frequently enough to know that it will occur, sooner or later, either once or several times, especially with the large volume of ship traffic contemplated by this proposal.
The San Juan Islands and other shores in the Salish Sea, and their marine life and wild life, are exquisite examples of relatively unspoiled nature at its best.
Let's study this proposed project thoroughly, to see if it is suitable for this area, and if so, what conditions must be imposed to protect the area from damage, clean up damage, require multiple tugs 24/7, and require adequate bonds from the shipping companies to provide funds to repair damages.

Thomas Peterson (#12118)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Comment:
I have watched those hundred car trains being stacked up in Helena, I've seen them lumber, two or three per day, over old and outdated trestles, bridges and overpasses. I never want to see dozens of them per day pounding through along that same outworn infrastructure. If there was ever any reason to believe that these trains will have no ill effect, it should have been soundly rebuked by the shoddy performance of normal rail traffic through the Everett are in the last few months. The coal and railroad companies assure us that there is no problem. But when the Marysville bridge gives out or the line between Everett and Lynwood is either permanently buried or loses its underpinning, the coal and railroad companies will be banging on every Mayor's door and demanding that their city pay for what the coal and railroad companies don't see any need to do now.

Thomas Plank (#6921)

Date Submitted: 01/12/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
Coal Pieces / Cold Pizzas
I saw the question asked if the coal companies were trying to pacify us with the public hearings on the proposed coal transport to Whatcom County. I believe that is the case. They apparently don’t have to have the approval of Cities, Counties or the State of Washington to do so. China wants the coal and Whatcom County wants to create a few hundred new jobs.
It should be apparent that these new jobs could put at risk many more. All along the corridor traffic will be halted; business access will be compromised, with the resulting delays being costly. The fisheries along the Columbia River could be in peril after accumulated coal dust chokes out the salmon. Many unforeseen risks could occur.
There should be some recourse for the hundreds of thousands that these trains will impact. The risk to the population should be more important than the few hundred jobs that will be created.

The preceeding statement was pubished in the Skagit Valley Herald.
1-09-2013 under the Title:" At what cost?"

Thomas Pothitakis (#14211)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Thomas Purvis (#2234)

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

Thomas Ritley (#7797)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Hansville, WA
Comment:
The proposal to build coal export terminals are adverse to the environmental interests of Washington and Whatcom County citizens. The only benefit is to produce MONEY for the coal industry at the environmental expense of the state of Washington.

It is your job to not allow the environment risks and certain degradation to the streams, rivers, and Puget Sound area.

It's time to say no to industry that is not interested in the environment their dangerous products pass thru.

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

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

Thank you,

Thomas Ritley

Thomas Ritley (#12832)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Hansville, WA
Comment:
There is no limit to the downside for the proposed shipment of coal from West Coast ports. There is only one upside: MONEY !

It is your job to represent your citizens. To do your job, you must say NO to the coal export 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 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.

Thomas Schilperoort (#5090)

Date Submitted: 12/18/2012
Location: Lynden, WA
Comment:
Please just build the terminal and the additional rail lines, if necessary. The process involved in this simple project should be indicative of why it's so hard to get anything built or mined in the U.S. any more. How are we going to get out of the recession if the greens continue to block jobs and progress. Yes, I said progress. I believe all reasonable objections to the project have been answered. We're burning daylight, let's get going!

Thomas Semple (#7366)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Comment:
I have concerns about the aesthetic effects that increased rail use will impose upon the people along the route. Currently trains are a visual nuisance that draw attention for a few minutes per day. With the increased volume there will be very little time that the ugliness and noise of these huge trains aren't drawing attention away from the beauty of our natural environment. This beauty of our wetlands, wildlife, vegetation and views make the northwest a desirable place to do business, encourages tourism and enhances the lives of those who live here. Bringing these trains through in greater volume will diminish our quality of life, not to mention lowering of property values.

Thomas Semple (#12248)

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


As a resident of both Montana and Washington I strongly urge you to consider the overall impact on all areas that will be touched by this operation. From the destructive mining practices that will damage the ecosystems of the areas they will be extracting the coal from. To the negative impacts on the ecosystems and communities that the transport systems will effect (railways, shipping lanes, shorelines) including runoff, air pollution from coal dust, air pollution from diesel railway engines and tanker engines, noise pollution during extraction and transport, pollution from spills and bilge dumping, and last of all pollution from burning the coal at the final destination.

It is my belief that ignoring these overall impacts will create widespread pollution and degradation of the environments throughout the corridor of extraction and transportation and I feel it only fair to look at the overall effects in all of these areas.

To ignore or not address any of these issues would be neglectful and will cost us (citizens of Washington, Idaho, Montana) in the future. Although short term job gain may seem advantageous now, the cosst of cleanup in the future far outweighs these minimal positive affects.

Thank you for considering my point of vies

Thomas Smith (#5221)

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

Thomas Specht (#5258)

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

Thomas Starr (#7459)

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

Thomas Stuen (#847)

Date Submitted: 10/14/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Officials:

I am an attorney. My office in Bellingham for the past 29 years has been on the former bluff above the landfill where the train tracks run three blocks away.

I request that you evaluate the following issues:
(1) How will future employment at the now undeveloped former GP facility be affected by the nearby passing of the coal trains?
(2) What is the financial cost to the City of Bellingham due to delay and or failure of redevelopment of the GP site resulting from the presence of the trains?
(3) How serious is the noise pollution the coal trains will bring? During a recent deposition, the proceedings had to freeze until the train horns stopped.
(4) What is the probability that the railroads will require a second track/siding through Bellingham, and what would be the impacts of the use of a siding of the required length?
(5) Are there ecological risks resulting from the dumping in the Straight of Georgia of large volumes of Chinese water used as ballast in the coal ships?

Thomas E. Stuen
Attorney at Law
Raas, Johnsen & Stuen, P.S.

Thomas Turner (#4050)

Date Submitted: 12/06/2012
Location: Lynnwood, Sn
Comment:
Coal shipments by rail through our state may generate some jobs but the long-term degradation of our pristine northwest environment will cost far more jobs in the future.

Thomas Tuxill (#10270)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a retired physician and am writing because of the concern my wife and I share for the health and safety of Bellingham residents and for the environment because of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export facility at Cherry Point.

I agree completely with the following comments that have already been submitted by John Tuxill, PhD:

I believe that the scale and substance of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) coal export facility at Cherry Point carry far-reaching consequences for all residents of Whatcom County and the state of Washington. I regard a detailed, comprehensive, and thorough Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at a scale commensurate with the scale of the GPT (i.e. regional and global as well as local) to be of the utmost importance. I respectfully request that the EIS please address, in a programmatic fashion, the following impacts on the natural and human environment, and possible mitigation requirements:

1) Please determine the total amount of CO2 and black soot emissions that would result from the mining, transport by rail, export by cargo ship, and burning of millions of tons of coal exported annually through the port. U.S. demand for coal is forecast to remain steady or decline slightly for the foreseeable future, so one cannot argue that the coal exported through Cherry Point would be burned anyway whether or not GPT is built. Instead, the coal-related emissions would be a direct, specific, and non-duplicable result of building and operating the Export Facility. They must be considered in the EIS for it to be credible.

Accordingly, please study how the resulting CO2 and black soot emissions will impact and accelerate climate changes in Washington state. Please study the emission-related impacts on ocean acidification patterns affecting marine ecosystems and shellfish; on the future status of glaciers in Washington state; and on snowmelt and rainfall contributing to river and stream flows, particularly summer flows that are crucial to salmon populations and agriculture. Please include projections for extreme weather events in Washington (e.g. drought, landslides and flooding from high rainfall events) that climate modeling suggests may increase due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Please assess how CO2 and black soot emissions from the GPT export facility will 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)

2) Please evaluate the environmental and health impacts from the mercury and other pollutants that would result from burning over 40 millions of tons of coal exported annually through the GPT. Pollutants produced by burning coal in Asia are known to be transported in the atmosphere across the Pacific Ocean, and have a measurable negative impact on the air quality and environmental health of Washington state. Please model and assess the cumulative impacts of all known pollutants subject to long-distance transport that would result from burning over 40 millions of tons of coal exported annually through the GPT.

3) Please also study and model the diesel particulate pollution that would result from locomotives and ships transporting coal through our region to and from the GPT. I specifically request that you determine how many excess deaths and hospitalizations would be expected in Washington state from diesel particulate matter from GPT-related diesel locomotive and ship traffic. Please include comparisons of baseline and expected rates of asthma, cancer, stroke, and heart attack. My family lives less than a mile from the BNSF rail tracks, so this information is of great importance for our future health.

4) Please conduct a thorough, comprehensive, vessel traffic study that addresses the increased environmental risks associated with the ship traffic generated by the Gateway Pacific Terminal along the full North Pacific route to Asia. The long-distance movements of fish stocks, marine mammal populations, and ocean currents clearly demonstrate that the North Pacific Ocean is an integrated ecosystem. For the vessel traffic study to be credible and meaningful, it must address environmental impacts and risks not just in Washington state, but also in Canadian and Alaskan waters.

Accordingly, please study the increased risk of collision or grounding of all vessels while navigating shipping lanes around the San Juan and Gulf Islands. Please identify the measures that would be needed to reduce the risks to vessels, shorelines, and public safety from shipping accidents. Please evaluate the increased risk and consequences to the economy, wildlife, and the environment by any oil or cargo spill in or near the San Juan or Gulf Islands. Please assess the economic consequences of increased ship traffic and oil spill on the shellfish, tourism, recreational boating and fishing industries of the San Juan Islands. Please study the harmful effects on marine mammals of mechanical and surface sound propagation into the Salish Sea and the waters surrounding the San Juan and Gulf Islands that would result from increased ship traffic associated with the GPT. Please specifically identify how additional ship noise will affect the foraging, rearing of young, social interactions, and survivorship of federally listed Southern Resident Killer Whales. Please also assess the increased potential for vessel strike to marine birds and mammal species due to the ship traffic associated with GPT.

Please also assess the environmental risks of larger and greater numbers of ships using the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Unimak Pass, Alaska along the great circle route
to Asia. Please include evaluation of the environmental consequences of being unable to contain an oil spill along the more remote British Columbia and Alaskan coasts along the great circle route.

5) Please examine the potential for disturbance of benthic sediments and fauna caused by cargo ships dropping and dragging anchors and chains on the sea floor while they wait to transfer materials at the GPT. The sheer size and number of ships involved could mean significant physical disruption of the sea floor at favorable anchoring sites. I am concerned about the potential impacts on benthic fauna, including the disturbance of sediments that have accumulated heavy metals and other pollutants via deposition from past industrial activities and environmental contamination. Each year I make multiple crabbing trips in Bellingham Bay and nearby areas, and I am concerned about the status of the Dungeness crab resource and potential health effects from eating crab that may be bioaccumulating pollutants

6) Please address the potential environmental impacts of coal dust (i.e. “fugitive coal particles”) that would escape from the GPT via wind transport while in storage at the site. Coal dust contains a number of carcinogenic and neurotoxic compounds, including mercury, lead, cadmium, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Please assess the impacts of fugitive coal particles on populations of Pacific Sand Lance, Pacific Herring, and other forage fish in the Cherry Point Marine Reserve and adjacent waters downwind of the GPT. Please address how such contaminants are likely to impact marine food webs, including salmon populations, marine bird populations, and marine mammal populations, all of which feed directly on forage fish. Please address potential food web impacts (including the concentration of persistent environmental pollutants from fugitive coal dust) on federally listed species such as Southern Resident Orcas, Coastal Bull Trout, Nooksack Chinook Salmon populations, and Marbled Murrelets, and proposed mitigation steps for these impacts. Each year I make multiple crabbing trips in Bellingham Bay and nearby areas, and I am concerned about the status of the Dungeness crab resource and potential health effects from eating crab that may be bioaccumulating pollutants that originate from coal dust or other industrial activities associated with GPT.

7) Please address the potential environmental and human health impacts of fugitive coal particles (both dust and chunks) that escape from rail cars while in transit to GPT from coal mine sources in Montana and Wyoming. Please include study of how other trains using the same tracks moving at higher speed might disperse the fugitive coal particles that originate from GPT train traffic. I live less than a mile from the BNSF tracks that would carry coal through Bellingham, and obviously have an abiding interest in the health of my family and our surrounding natural environment as it may be impacted by fugitive coal particles.

8) Please study the environmental impacts of the water withdrawals that will be needed to maintain the dust and fire suppression system for the coal that will be piled and stored at GPT. The water demands for GPT are estimated at 1.9 billion gallons per year—equivalent to half the water demands of the entire city of Bellingham. Please assess the impacts that these levels of water withdrawals will have on the Nooksack River ecosystem, including flora, fauna, federally listed species such as Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout, and wetlands function. Please assess these impacts taking into account modeling of future Nooksack River flow levels likely to occur under regional climate change (such as reduction of glacier-derived meltwater as temperatures warm and glacier volume shrinks in the North Cascades ecosystem). Please study how the GPT water withdrawals will impact other water users (such as irrigated agriculture and public water supplies) along the Nooksack River floodplain in Whatcom County.

9) Please study the impacts of GPT site infrastructure development and operations on the Cherry Point Marine Reserve. Specifically please address potential impacts on the Reserve’s eel grass beds, foraging and rearing habitat for all resident and transient salmonid species (including federally listed coastal Bull Trout and Chinook Salmon stocks), ecologically unique staging and spawning habitat for Pacific Herring, habitat for shellfish and Dungeness crab. Please assess how the Cherry Point Marine Reserve will continue to meet conservation goals (as specified in the Reserve Management Plan) for all of the above species and habitats in light of GPT-related impacts, and all mitigation steps that will be necessary. Given the currently depressed populations of prominent species at Cherry Point such as Pacific Herring and marine birds (e.g. Marbled Murrelet, Western Grebe), ecological restoration of the Reserve has emerged as a management priority for the future. Please study how development of the GPT site will contribute to the ecological restoration of Cherry Point Marine Reserve.

10) Please study the impacts of GPT site infrastructure development and operations on freshwater wetland ecosystems at Cherry Point. Specifically please address potential impacts on wetland ecosystem function and resilience (including potential downstream effects) and on key wildlife habitats such as heron rookeries, and waterfowl staging and wintering grounds. Please assess the impact of habitat fragmentation at Cherry Point resulting from GPT site development.

I believe that my concerns expressed here accurately reflect how the potential impacts of the GPT proposal will unfold at regional and global scales as well as locally. I would like to reiterate that the EIS must similarly examine impacts at region and global scales. I find it very disturbing that so far the Army Corps of Engineers has not taken a comprehensive, programmatic approach to their review of environmental impacts of GPT and other coal export facility proposals around the Pacific Northwest—an essential step to ensuring a credible environmental impact review.

Thank you for taking my above comments into consideration, and I look forward to seeing the results of the scoping process.

Thomas G. Tuxill, M.D.

Thomas Wake (#11523)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bow, Wa
Comment:
There is a Marbled Murlet nesting area within 1000 feet of the railroad tracks. The location is where to tracks cross the outlet of Colony Creek. Will the increased diesel engine exhaust have a negative impact on this endangered bird?

Thomas Wake (#11527)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bow, Wa
Comment:
The effects of a coal spill, caused by a derailment along Samish Bay, should be studied.

Thomas Walstrom (#1130)

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

Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology WA

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

and Whatcom County Council:

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest. It would increase traffic, pollute our air and water, harm small businesses, delay emergency vehicles, and increase hipping traffic and noise and block access to boat launch ramps. The coal export terminal would also hurt our environment by damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents, impacting sound pollution, 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,

Thomas Walstrom
3612 Julia Ave
Bellingham, WA 98229-3200
(360) 733-1593

Thomas Webber (#11638)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Coal is not a reliable source of investment for energy consumption. In the long run (10-20 years) the coal industry will become deficient compared to alternative sources like nuclear reactors. The negative effect to the community would outweigh the potential gains to short term investors. This project does not weigh in the cost to remove the industry after it dies out. If you let big industries use Bellingham as a way to make an extra dollar, they will keep as much to themselves as possible and the state and it's people will be forced to pay for the expenditures.

Thomas WEood (#8975)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Unionville, IN
Comment:
Intermodal traffic is increasingly beoming the life-blood of the nation. Ship to rail provides the least intrusion on the environment and reduces truck traffic that is known for its pollution as well as wear and tear on public roads and highways. As existing ports are already facing congestion from traffic load, the need for additional ports should be obvious. Building ports in a location that allows for direct rail service is the best way to expedite shipments while having the least effect on the environment

Thomas Wicks (#405)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington and I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

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.

Time and time again, citizens like me keep demanding a coal free society because of pollution. Please consider how to lessen the Environmental Impact by stopping this terminal.

Thomas William (#4020)

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

Thomas Wood (#11563)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Bellingham. Lately I have been considering a partnership in a gallery in Fairhaven. The threat of significant increases to rail traffic, specifically frequent long, heavy trains, and a possible siding, along the waterfront of Bellingham has made Fairhaven seem a much less appealing location for investment. The business would depend on a quality environment. If Fairhaven looses its waterfront connectivity and peaceful quality, it would no longer be an appropriate place to invest in an art gallery. This has become a major determinant in my decision. Just the idea of the possibility is discouraging. Surely there are other investors with similar concerns.

The scoping process should look closely at the costs to the community of the coal train traffic directly resulting from the GPT project. Weigh the costs resulting from lost economic development opportunities. Waterfront access is of primary importance to the livability of Bellingham and Fairhaven and without it economic development in terms of the arts and recreation will be impacted in an extreme way. If the coal train goes through, there are jobs that won’t be happening. These costs need to be studied, including impacts to aesthetics, noise, real estate values, tourism, local bike, pedestrian, and auto traffic. My personal interest is in the Fairhaven community but the entire rail corridor should be considered.

Thomas & Beverly Slater (#765)

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

Thomas & Patsy Gilmore (#3556)

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

Thomas & Robin Donnelly (#3669)

Date Submitted: 11/26/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Thomas & Robin Donnelly (#3766)

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

We live on San Juan Island and 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.

Our oceans and air do not need more carbon!! We personally have noted a marked decrease in the number and variety of species while living here and also sailing in the Salish Sea. We are very concerned with aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change.

As a pediatrician my husband is also very concerned about the effects of coal dust from train transport and pollution from burning coal, no matter where it is done.

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

The best answer is NO to coal.

Sincerely,
Thomas J. Donnelly, MD
Robin D. Donnelly






Dr. Thomas Donnelly
56 bazalgette pt rd
Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Thomas & Robin Donnelly (#5023)

Date Submitted: 12/15/12
Location: Friday Harbor, WA
Comment:
Dear Mr. Randel Perry, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

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 initiates an economic and environmental disaster. We live on San Juan Island and have already noticed a sharp decrease in numbers and varieties of species. The prospect of an oil spill from these huge super-coal ships would be divestating.

The shipping of coal also has a detrimental effect on the health of those along the route. The burning of this coal, where ever it is done, also is hazardous and greatly contributes to global warming.

Please say 'NO' to Coal.

Thank you,

Thomas J. Donnelly, M.D
Robin D. Donnelly

thomas c hall (#7489)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I am totally opposed to the construction of any sort of stucture to handle Coal Exports from anywhere in Washington State to China , or ant Eastern Country.

thomas c hall (#9021)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I OBJECT ENTIRELY TO THE FLAWED CONCEPT OF a[-sELLING VALUABLE PUBLIC cOAL AT 1870S PRICES b] allowing for- profit Corporations to mark up the Federal costs by 100 times to selll to China, and then KEEP these prices, when they should go to the Federal government,
c] ignore the extensive Toxicological Analysis done by 200 + Doctors in Whatcom County, PROVING the hazard to Human life if this project is continued 4] allow the ongoing LIES about the number and Union-relatedness on jobs to be created.

In fact, the history of Peabody Coal is 100% antiunion; and the History of the already existing Local Canadian CoalPort , which is 1/8 the size of the one proposed for Whatcom County, is virtually NO union jobs after construction, Majority are $Executive type jobs in International commerce, non-unionized executive functions.

Thomas E. Metke (#743)

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

Thomas H. Oldfield (#13293)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Comment:
1401 Regents Boulevard, Suite 102
P.O. Box 64189
Fircrest, WA 98466 Phone (253) 564-9500
Fax (253) 414-3500
www.tacomalawfirm.com

I encourage the Department of Ecology to apply the broadest scope and most careful examination of the environmental impacts when examining the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point project, including the entire geographic area that will be affected by the transportation of coal to the facility from the point of origin. In addition to the immediate local impacts of the facility, the transportation-related impacts will be substantial. The increased rail volume will have a significant increase throughout the entire rail corridor, particularly with increase in noise, air pollution, traffic impacts, and the related economic harm and harm to public safety resulting from these impacts. In addition to articulate releases from the cargo itself, the railroad engines will discharge significant particulate pollutants. In addition, the trains will cause significant noise pollution. In order to avoid significant economic impact on the communities through which the trains will pass, it will be necessary to construct numerous bridges, overpasses, and other infrastructure to mitigate the traffic impacts. Even with that construction, there will be significant increases in pollution as vehicles set idle waiting for the numerous additional trains to pass at grade-level crossings.
Beyond the land transportation concerns, there are numerous concerns regarding the impact of the proposed terminal on the marine ecology both near the terminal and on the greater Puget Sound marine ecology that need to be considered closely. This includes the possible environmental damage arising from collisions of the additional freighter traffic with the numerous oil tanker that already proceed through the congested waters of Rosario Strait to the area where the proposed coal terminal would be built.
Thank you in advance for your critical review of all aspects of the project.
Thomas H. Oldfield

Thomas H. Oldfield
OLDFIELD & HELSDON, PLLC
253-414-3510 - Direct
253-229-9983 - Cell

Thrinley Di Marco (#2541)

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

Thumid Clark (#13437)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Lummi Island, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Thurid Clark (#14209)

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

Tiffany Ferrians (#1732)

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

Tiffany Loomis (#12421)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
There needs to be more sustainable fuel alternatives being developed and distributed nation and world wide. As members of this earth we need to maintain more responsible ways of living on it.

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.

Tiffany Sacknoff (#169)

Date Submitted: 10/01/2012
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
If this project goes through what will be done to assure no coal dust will blow into the surrounding communities? I have 3 young children that play outside and I don't want them inhaling coal dust. I strongly oppose this project because of the health hazards mostly. It's not a risk I'm willing to take with my children or my own health.

Tim Bernthal (#2902)

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

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

There are 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 also urge you to study the impacts on businesses located near the rail lines from the delayed access for customers to use their places of business. I urge you to work with local Chambers of Commerce to estimate and quantify the potential loss of business because of delayed access for customers.

Tim Bernthal

Tim Blanchard (#1239)

Date Submitted: 10/19/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Tim Carson (#528)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. The problem I have with this is not environmental but economic. Obama said he would have electric rates go sky high (which they are) and to break the coal industry. I have seen many trains pulling 100+ cars of only coal from east to west through Spokane. A friend of mine whom is a rail road conductor said that the pictures I sent him were destined for China by the codes on the rail cars. For that reason alone, this needs to stop..

Sincerely,

Tim Carson

Tim Cathersal (#1904)

Date Submitted: 10/25/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

I know you've already heard many of the strong arguments against coal in our community, involving negative affects on health, noise, traffic, safety, etc. These are some of the most important reasons we cannot allow this venture into the Pacific Northwest, just so that some few people can make money selling coal to China.

But there is another reason, which is probably outside of your normal area of concern.

I am marketing professional, and I am concerned about the brand of the Pacific Northwest. We have established ourselves in the minds of the nation and the world as a place which respects our people and our natural environment. This venture would be a hypocritical sell-out of the brand we have tried so hard to develop, and would affect our reputation and thus our tourism.

Thank you.


Tim Cathersal
1009 34th Street
Bellingham, WA 98229

Tim Clark (#13037)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Lopez, WA
Comment:
To whom it may it may concern,

Please accept the attached comments as a scoping letter regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific terminal in Whatcom County, Washington.

Sincerely,

Tim Clark
Attached Files:

Tim Douglas (#11276)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I respectfully request that the potential impacts of slope failure be studied due to vibration created by more frequent, heavily-loaded trains. Along the route through our state, there are many locations where slopes are composed of glacial moraine material, layers of impermeable clay overlaid with porous gravel and sand. In wet weather, vibrations can trigger slope failure, impacting water quality, natural habitat and damaging upland property..

Tim Douglas (#11296)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
What are the potential impacts of train derailments and cargo spillage along the train routes through Washington state? Thorough mapping of streams and wetlands along the routes should be completed to ensure that spilled cargo does not adversely impact habitat, fish rearing areas as required in endangered species recovery plans.

Tim Douglas (#11861)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I request that you include in the environmental assessment an analysis of lost economic opportunity due to increased train movement between Bellingham's central waterfront and its downtown district. The analysis should include:
*Impacts of traffic interruptions and loss of access to potential businesses on the redeveloping central waterfront. Access across at-grade crossings will be reduced as trains travel through in greater numbers.
*Number of new jobs that will be lost if businesses do not locate in the central waterfront area due to traffic interruptions for their customers and employees.
*How much will the property tax burden shift to other City properties if the central waterfront does not redevelop as anticipated in the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan?

Tim Douglas (#11868)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I concur in the questions raised by the Washington State Department of Health in its January 18, 2013 scoping letter regarding the analysis of human health risks of the proposed projects. I urge you to address their concerns in the analysis required by the EIS process.

Tim Douglas (#12596)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Tim Douglas, residing in Bellingham, WA. I formerly served as Director of Washington State's Community, Trade & Economic Development Department, Mayor of the City of Bellingham, and member of the Board of the Association of Washington Cities. These experiences give rise to a number of matters that I respectfully request be addressed in the EIS for the Gateway Pacific Terminal project:

1. Number of at-grade rail crossings along the route of proposed coal trains within the State of Washington (including all cities, towns and counties). The study should establish the cumulative number of minutes/hours during a 24 hour period in each community that traffic will be interrupted due to the increased number of coal trains passing through.

2. Number of both small and large businesses whose services or production will be impacted by the traffic interruptions in #1 above, including production materials, parts, goods for sale, employee and customer access. Particular attention should be given to contemporary just-in-time manufacturing and retailing. Failure of a production component, material or worker to arrive on time or a product to be shipped on schedule will affect competitiveness. Potential business failures and job losses should be identified. This is particularly true with the aerospace industry and its many suppliers in the state. Mitigation measures to avert traffic interruption should be identified.

3. The interruption of emergency medical or fire response. Each medical service has a minimum response time requirement for its vehicles and personnel. The study should review the amount of time lost in each service area when rail crossings will be blocked by trains. Lost response time would have a direct impact on human health, mortality rates and loss of property to fire. The study should estimate potential increases in fire insurance rates where response times decrease. Mitigation measures in communities along the entire rail route in Washington state should be identified.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tim Ereneta (#13956)

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 am also concerned about the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project on tribal cultural resources, treaty rights, and interests in the region. 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.

Tim Ferris (#12291)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Comment:
I sure would like to see the upside with all the jobs and postitive economic impact this would bring to Seattle. Does this bullying stuff from these environmental organizations even consider the upside. Seems like it very well may be a good plan to proceed to me.

Tim Forbes (#1528)

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

Tim Hesterberg (#9005)

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

Tim Hostetler (#1955)

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

Tim Hostetler (#11057)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
The BNSF currently owns two rail ROWs through Whatcom and other counties in Western Washington: the coastal route; the rail to the east (S. Fork Nooksack River valley in Whatcom).

Both the federal governments in Canada and the United States, along with British Columbia and the States of Washington and Oregon, have invested significant amounts of public money to improve the passenger rail service on the coastal route.

This EIS must evaluate the impacts of this action on both the coastal and eastern rail ROWs:

- impacts to the passenger rail usage of the coastal route;
- financial costs necessary to improve the eastern route for use by GPT.

In addition, some of the refineries in Whatcom and Skagit Counties are already contracted to receive oil from the North Dakota fields via rail. Although separate from GPT, this must be evaluated on the total impacts to the coastal route and passenger rail. There must also be an economic (i.e., impacts passenger rail, agricultural uses) and environmental (i.e., wetlands, river crossings), analysis for a rail spur from this eastern route to Cherry Point.

Finally, should the coastal route be the preferred alternative, there must be an economic analysis of all infrastructure improvements (e.g., bridges, tunnels) necessary for mitigating the impacts of this action to local governments.

-

Tim Knapp (#11484)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Tim Knapp and I am a commercial fisherman. I am concerned about the impact this project will have on fisheries.
Would you please address the following in your study
1. The effect of an accidental sinking of one of these VLBC in the Salish Sea or along the route to the delivery port. We have spent millions in habitat restoration and other measures trying to mitigate human impacts in an attempt to keep the salmon stocks in the area healthy. I would like to know that this project won't jeopardize that work.
2. I agree with the comments of Sanford Olson (6044,1567) completely and am concerned with the response capability along the route for a marine incident.
3. The effect of coal dust drifting into the Salish Sea and from and accidental spill of the water used to suppress the dust into the local surface water on the marine ecosystem. I agree with Joan Casey's comment on water usage and control. After seeing the coal dust events at the Westshore Terminal in Canada I want to make sure this project doesn't need a 7 million dollar upgrade as an afterthought.
4. Lastly make sure and include the entire project from mine to the exiting of American Territorial Water in your study not just the delivery terminal. The trains transit along many rivers and watersheds and will have a significant impact on fisheries in the event of a derailment or from inadequate dust suppression.

Thanks for your consideration,Tim Knapp

Tim Larson (#2898)

Date Submitted: 11/12/12
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.

I also urge you consider the issue of long-range transport of air pollutants (including particulate matter) from China to the Western U.S. Burning of exported coal in China is likely to affect the ability of Seattle and other western U.S. urban areas to be in attainment for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

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.




Tim Larson
6326 21st Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98115

tim lydon (#9869)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: girdwood, ak
Comment:
Hello and thanks for the opportunity to comment on a project that could change the Northwest.
The EIS should certainly take into study the impacts of climate change from the transport and burning of coal in the Asian market. It does not matter that Asian countries will burn other sources of coal. But the EIS should study the US contribution to climate change through the coal export process and subsequent foreign burning of the coal.

The EIS should study the impact of mercury, soot and other pollutants generated by coal burning in Asia and transported to US shores by weather. Mercury in fish, especially oceanic salmon, should be studied. The contribution of the soot to wastage of snow fields and glaciers should be studied. Again, it doesn't matter that Asia may still burn coal on their own. The study should show US contribution to soot, mercury and other pollutants, in the same way climate should be treated.

Ocean acidification needs to be studied as well. The contribution to ocean acidification from the transport (ships, trains) and burning of the coal has grave implications for Northwest communities and the US fishing industry.

Of course, the EIS should include impacts to communities along the rail system from WY to WA. This includes coal dust, diesel pollution from trains, and traffic delays, noise and all other impacts.

Marine species, wetlands, salmon habitat, cultural resources such as Native sites, should all be studied.

In general, this is an awful project that should never be approved. It benefit a few industries and provide a modest amount of jobs, but the costs to climate, culture, scenery, traffic, marine species, tourism, air quality, human health, wildlife and other social, economic and environmental resources is far too great. It would change the character of places like Bellingham, Seattle and other Northwest communities.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Tim Lydon

Tim McCarthy (#7609)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Vancouver , Wa
Comment:
I believe that the damage done by increasing the number of trains carrying coal and traveling thru southwest Washington far outweigh the business gains to the coal companies.
Lets keep Southwest Washington as clean as possible and keep our rivers and streams safe for all concerned.

Tim Mcdonnell (#13632)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
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 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,
Tim McDonnell

Tim Merrill (#10879)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Portland, Or
Comment:
My religion holds that we must respect God's creation. It seems to me that desecrating our natural environment with the mining and transportation of coal is short sighted and morally wrong. Why should we take our natural resources and sell them to countries, who may be our potential enemies? If coal is a clean resource why don't we use it locally? If not, why send it to be consumed elsewhere only to have the pollution that results be carried back to our country and, particularly, our state? It seems to me that we should not only look carefully at the issues noted above but at the big picture. Why aren't we acting in our own, national interest and becoming more energy independent?

Tim Norgren (#6150)

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

Tim O'Malley (#9035)

Date Submitted: 01/18/2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Comment:
Please help our country to improve its exports by construction of the GAteway Pacific Terminal. BNSF has been a very good supporter of the enviroment and local communities. The area needs good solid emplyment for families and this is ther perfact way to do.

If the enviromentals do not like this let them come up with the same benifits to the local communities as the Gateway Pacific Terminal does. Other wise let them pack up and go home.

Tim Paxton (#12038)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Comments:

Burlington Northern SF Train Engineers have recently shown themselves to be immature crazed noise zealots when running their horns as they proceed through Bellingham. In some kind of vindicate display of petulance they have laid on their train horns more than I have noticed in the last 32 years. That plus the engine noises are intolerable.

2. Several abandoned and documented Coal Mines beneath major portions of the Burlington Northern SF tracks in downtown Bellingham and are a hazard for collapse from over use with heavy coal cars. Sooner or later the tracks will collapse when the mines beneath them collapse.

3. An underground Coal Seam fire could occur which could under mine the tracks through Bellingham and North of downtown. Anecdotally, a local architect reports that a RiteAid store excavation on Northwest Avenue exposed a coal mine/seam which was set alight accidentally. The fire burned for weeks and easily could have spread under Birchwood and downtown and under rail tracks. There is no guarantee future construction will not expose more coal seams which could be set alight accidentally and cause subsidence. Many of the coal mines are undocumented and have not been surveyed properly.

4. Tidal action in the abandoned Coal mines under downtown Bellingham and Birchwood where tracks cross them could also cause collapse or subsidence.

5. Several large diameter, high pressure Natural Gas lines serving the former GP site and the Encogen Power plant could be damaged by the crossing of BNSF coal trains over grounds which are fill and subject to liquifaction and cross above coal mines left un supported and un filled and affected by decades of tidal washing causing erosion that is currently unknown. A pipeline explosion is not unknown in Bellingham and could one caused by Coal Trains could cause tremendous damage to buildings and numerous fatalities.

6. BNSF tracks cross numerous riparian zones which are critical habitat for endangered species includine Bull Trout, Chinook Salmon, and avian species including Bald Eagles, Golden eagles, Falcons, Hawks, Heron. Increased usage may cause further extinction.

7. Vibrational action of heavily loaded Coal Trains may shake loose toxic deposits of mercury, hexavalent chromium, furans, radioactive waste, dioxin, and other known toxins found at the abandoned Georgia Pacific Site.

8. No Action option should be further studied as total economic costs for shipping Coal to China and elsewhere is studied. Recent Air pollution levels in China show increased health risks for Chinese residents and also for anyone living downwind, which includes Bellingham and the U.S. West coast.

9. Coal dust may react with the extensive Flouride contamination at Cherry Point and Ferndale and Lummi Reservation releasing more toxic contamination through acid / flooding combinations combining with toxic releases from aluminum smelter operations.

10. Herring populations at the proposed site have plummetted in recent decades and further study is needed to design mitigation and revival of these critical fish populations.

Tim Richardson (#3235)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Leavenworth, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.
But of course we all know this effort will make little to no difference in your decision with no check attached. All we can hope for is it may break through the uglyness and greed and appeal to your social conscious.

Sincerely,

Tim Richardson

Tim Stone (#295)

Date Submitted: 09/26/12
Location: White Salmon, wa
Comment:
I have seen the coal trains rolling through the Columbia Gorge and the spew which they put out. It is disgusting and unnecessary. 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,

Tim Stone

Tim Stone (#3857)

Date Submitted: 12/05/2012
Location: White Salmon, WA
Comment:
The Columbia Gorge is allready one of the most polluted areas in the U.S. These poluting elements include many forms of carbon. Coal trains would add immensly to the levels of carbon in the Gorge.

The world in perhaps irrecovocably headed toward the inability to grow food due to global warming. The addition of coal transportation and coal burning would hasten this end.

The event of huge coal spills should be considered an inevitable major ecological disaster.

Tim Stone (#7213)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: White Salmon, WA
Comment:
Any meathod or action that will increase the transportation and use of coal is wrong headed in its simplest form.

Today the residents of Bejing are being asked to stay in their homes as the pollution level increases to over 900 times the safe level.

This pollution is primarily from the use of coal in area manufacturing plants. Far from staying in China, this pollution travels the world, creating acid rain and poisioning water.

The transportation of coal, in open cars through half of the U.S. it's transportation on ships and its further transportation and storage in Chinese terminals is the most polluting of all energy forms and should be phased out entirely.

We cannot afford to be penny wise and pound foolish any more. The very continued existance of life as we know it is at stake.

Stop the mining, transportation and use of coal.

Tim Surratt (#7888)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My primary concerns relate to the impact of the trains along the existing tracks in Bellingham. I believe it is well quantified that significant delays will be encountered at the grade crossings in various areas. While there are ways to get around these points, they add significant travel time which will incur the following potential costs:
1. Delay response to medical and police emergencies. This is a special concern given that the Coast Guard station would be effectively isolated for significant periods of time.
2. Direct loss of revenue for businesses on the water side of the tracks. Personally, there are some places I would think twice about going to simply to avoid a long wait.
3. Lost productivity at businesses along the water. Materials shipments to and from these places will incur extra delay. People working there will incur delay. Delay is an economic waste. Please refer to any text on Lean Manufacturing and the application of those principles to all businesses. Wait time is one of the seven deadly sins of waste. Productivity is improved by the elimination of waste (pun not intended). The economic viability of every business in the area would decrease by some amount. Suppose it was a mere 2%, how much of a cost would that be?

Having done some number of cost-benefit analyses, I know that economic benefits in terms of revenue, jobs, etc. are easily quantified and stated. Economic costs, such as those outlined above, are not as easily quantified and tend to be under estimated if included at all. I encourage those evaluating this project to look very carefully at the 'hidden' costs so that a reasonable decision can be made.

What if the interests proposing this project were required to build infrastructure (rail or other transportation means), to go around rather than through areas of significant population or business density? Would the project look as "cost-effective" in that case? I would be surprised.

Tim Thomsen (#7567)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Friday Harbor, Wa
Comment:
Imagine the pollution and noise of these coal freighters plying this sensitive ecosystem every day. Imagine an accident spewing thousands of tons of coal into these waters. Imagine the effect on orca whales, harbor seals, coastal wetlands, marine birds and human recreation. This is a very special corner of the world. Don't destroy it!
Attached Image:

Tim Thomsen (#9238)

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

I am a long-time resident and sea kayaker in San Juan County. I have owned and operated a sea kayaking company for thirty-two 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 (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.

Tim Vandergoore (#5373)

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

Tim White (#8216)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Orcas, WA
Comment:
Dear GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies,

I am a 20-year San Juan County resident and former wildlife biologist. I am concerned about the continued vitality of the Salish Sea, where coal ships would make over 950 transits per year if the Gateway Pacific Terminal were to be built. I request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement include the entire coal transportation corridor so that communities along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration.

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

Sincerely,
Tim White

Tim Wittman (#4210)

Date Submitted: 12/09/12
Location: Guemes Island, WA
Comment:
No To Coal Trains

Please SAY NO to coal trains in our area. The adverse impact on the beauty and tranquility of our area, a land that boasts a quality of life second to none; beauty that draws tourists from around the globe, along with artists and photographers, is far too great.

I am reminded of the situation, years ago, when Italco made plans to build an Aluminum Plant on Guemes Island. That was back in the 1960's. Looking back on those days, everyone, including the supporters of the time, would agree 100% that this would have been a catastrophic decision had it been allowed to go through. We are face with the same situation with the proposed Coal Train idea.

Jobs are important, and I have no doubt that the coal trains would provide employment to many people. At the same time, the expense to our environment, life styles, our culture, and our future heritage is too high a price to pay.

If the coal train project would provide such a great boom to our economy, why not put on your thinking caps and figure out a way to ship it to an area that is already set up with the infrastructure and facilities to make it happen? Seattle, Tacoma for example.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Dr Timothy Wittman
Guemes Island, Washington
December 8, 2012

Tim & Sally Thomsen (#1291)

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

Timothy Ball (#7043)

Date Submitted: 01/13/2013
Location: Underwood, WA, CA
Comment:
I am strongly opposed to this project. The following summarizes my concerns.

1) Visual impact of additional rail traffic through the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area
2) Noise pollution. These large trains are very noisy and disruptive to surrounding communities.
3) Air pollution. Coal dust is a know carcinogen and blows freely from uncovered coal cars.
4) Impact on fish and wildlife
5) Climate change; Shipping coal to China where it will be burned in power plants with much lower environmental standards that here in the US will simply add to greenhouse gas emissions of which the US will ultimately pay a price.
6) Economic; Why would a industrialized nation like the US ship a valuable raw resource to another country to be processed/consumed when it could be used at home in a manner that creates more jobs and prosperity.

Timothy Burnett (#12307)

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.

I am especially concerned about the impact this project will have on the ability of our emergency services vehicles to respond when blocked by coal trains on the tracks.

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.

Timothy Colman (#12304)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Please consider this letter I agree with in making your decision on coal exports. I have a kid @ Western, and love the university and Bellingham. I vote no on the coal export.

Coal is a dead end. We need to follow President Obama's new commitment to fight climate change, and this starts here with coal in Washington state.

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.

Timothy Dragila (#3828)

Date Submitted: 11/30/12
Comment:
Regarding coal trains passing through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area:

I believe coal has an important role to play in America's energy future and in helping this country achieve energy independence. The issue is shipping vast amounts of it through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. I've read estimates of from 20 to 50 uncovered coal trains passing through the Gorge a day, each a mile-and-a-half long. That would transform the Gorge from a National Scenic Area into an industrial zone, with significant amounts of coal dust on the ground and in the air.

I hope you are able to use your authority to help prevent this.

Thank you very much.

Timothy Dwyer (#10829)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern:

As a high school science teacher, avid SCUBA diver and concerned resident of San Juan County, WA, I am writing to ask you to study the impact of the projected rise in ocean-going vessel traffic through the San Juan Islands and Strait of Juan de Fuca related to the proposed Cherry Point Terminal on our local marine biodiversity through potential biological invasions. The San Juan Archipelago is home to hundreds of marine species inhabiting both hard rock and soft bottom communities (Elahi and Sebens 2012) and I’ve personally observed and identified over 350 different species of fish, invertebrates and macroalgae during some 500 dives in the area. I find this diversity remarkable because less than 50 miles away in Puget Sound and Hood Canal, the number of species declines sharply, in my experience. This makes the waters of the San Juan Islands a “hot spot” of biodiversity and an ecosystem that supports commercially and recreationally important fishes and benthic invertebrates including urchins, sea cucumbers and Dungeness crab.

Next to habitat loss, rapid range expansions of non-indigenous species – so-called “biological invasions” - are the leading cause of species extinctions (Wilcove et al. 1998). Invasive species in marine systems have the potential to out-reproduce, outcompete or outright consume native species that have evolved no natural defenses to the new arrivals. In the course of their spread, these bio-invaders homogenize existing marine ecological communities leading to likely declines in ecosystems services such as food production, oxygen release, nutrient cycling, shoreline stabilization and flood protection, among numerous others (Stachowicz et al., 2002). Direct costs of biological invasion losses and control efforts nationwide number in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually (Carlton 2001).

Trans-oceanic shipping has been identified as a major pathway for the transport of invasive species through both ship hull fouling and ballast water uptake and discharge (Carlton and Geller 1993). Coastal species attached to a ship’s exterior or drawn into its tanks can survive for months in dormant or larval stages before being released into similar environments half a world distant from their point of origin (Carlton 1996). While measures have been put in place locally to limit these introductions through offshore ballast water exchange areas, a recent study found that an appreciable risk of non-indigenous species introductions still existed even in vessels reporting off-shore ballast water exchange before entering Puget Sound (Cordell et al., 2009).

With the potential dramatic increase in vessel traffic likely carrying non-indigenous marine species from all over the world associated with the proposed bulk commodities terminal at Cherry Point, I respectfully request you examine the impact of multiple marine biological invasions on the marine ecosystems of the San Juan Islands, Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Sincerely,

Timothy Dwyer
San Juan Island, WA


References cited:

Carlton, J. T. 1996. Patterns, process and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biological Conservation, 78: 97-106.

Carlton, J. T. 2001. Introduced species in US Coastal Waters: environmental impacts and management priorities. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.

Carlton, J. T. and J. B. Geller. 1993. Ecological Roulette: the global transport of non-indiginous marine organisms. Science. 261: 78-82.

Cordell, J. R., D. J. Lawrence, N. C. Ferm, L. M. Tear, S. S. Smith and R. P. Herwig. 2009. Factors influencing densities of non-indiginous species in the ballast water of ships arriving at ports in Puget Sound, Washington, United States. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19: 322-343.

Elahi, R. and K. P. Sebens. 2012. Consumers mediate natural variation between prey richness and resource use in a benthic marine community. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 452: 131-143.

Stachowicz, J. J., H. Fried, R. W. Osman, R. B. Whitlatch, 2002. Biodiversity, invasion resistance and marine ecosystem function: reconciling pattern and process. Ecology, 83(9): 2575-2590

Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience, 48: 607-615.

Timothy Knopf (#4655)

Date Submitted: 12/13/2012
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
I am Timothy Knopf, and I live in Everett, Washington.

I request that the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Pacific Gateway Terminal in Cherry Point, Washington be expanded to consider the following areas:

First, the effects to human health from coal dust lost during shipment across Washington State in open-topped rail cars. I am also concerned about the effects of coal dust pollution on wildlife and vegetation and on the bodies of water crossed by or adjacent to the rail line.

Secondly, the effects on human safety caused by the increased delay of traffic, including fire trucks, ambulances and other emergency vehicles at grade level crossings from Spokane to Cherry Point caused by rail traffic to the PGT.

Finally, the risk to the Salish Sea posed by 900 new passages of massive "Capesize" ships carrying coal from the PGT. I am concerned by the environmental danger of collision or grounding due to shipping congestion in a fragile environment.

Each open car of the nine daily coal trains of between 100 and 150 cars could lose from 500 to 2,000 pounds of coal dust over the 1,300 miles from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point. That's 400,000 to 2.7 million pounds of coal dust every day. In a year that's 63 to 370 tons of coal dust lost per mile!

How will this affect people, particularly those with breathing difficulties, along the train route?

How will this affect the food in our gardens and the crops in farmers' fields?

How will it affect the lives of two million people when coal trains double the rail traffic they face at grade level crossings?

How will it affect the Salish Sea if a coal ship sinks and dumps its cargo?

I ask that these environmental consequences be examined, each of which extends well beyond the Pacific Gateway Terminal and the Custer Rail Spur.

Timothy Knopf (#9006)

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

Timothy Manns (#6104)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
January 6, 2013

Attn: Mr. Randel Perry, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Ms. Alice Kelly, Washington State Department of Ecology; and Mr. Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County Planning Department

RE: Scoping Comments for GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS, Topic: Effects on human health

Dear Mr. Perry, Ms. Kelly, and Mr. Schroeder:

My name is Timothy Manns. I am a citizen of Mount Vernon, Washington, now retired. My wife and I have lived at our present address for the past 20 years. Our house is 2,000 feet east of the rail line where it passes through downtown Mount Vernon.

Living here we have always dealt with a considerable amount of grimy dust, we assume generated by I-5 and the railroad, which parallel each other at the base of the hill on which our neighborhood sits. We are concerned about the effects on our health of the 18 coal trains per day which will supply the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point. We understand that these coal cars will be uncovered, as are the cars of the several daily coal trains passing through here now. The many additional coal trains will add substantially to the potentially carcinogenic particulates we’re already breathing. We are also concerned about the effects on our health of the exhaust from the locomotives’ diesel engines. And we are concerned about the health effects of the coal dust and diesel exhaust on the hundreds of children attending Lincoln Elementary School several blocks from our home and even closer to the tracks.

In preparing the GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS please include impacts of the coal trains (both coal dust and diesel exhaust) on children's health in Mount Vernon, particularly the students at nearby schools. Please also study the effects of the health of all of us who live within a mile of the railway along the entire route from where the coal is mined to the terminal at which it would be unloaded. Please include an analysis of the increased health costs in the communities impacted by the entire coal export project and a description of alternatives for how these costs will be covered and who will pay them.

Another health-related concern we have is the delay in emergency response which will increasingly occur as more and more long coal trains move through Mount Vernon. The nearest fire station to our home is on the other side of the railroad tracks. People living west of the tracks, which includes downtown Mount Vernon and extensive residential areas on both sides of the Skagit River, are separated from Skagit Valley Hospital by the tracks. Eventually overpasses could be constructed (for which we know we would end up paying all but a very small amount of the cost), but in the meanwhile, how many people will suffer because emergency vehicles can’t rapidly reach their burning home, accident scene, or medical crisis?

We ask that the E.I.S. include a study of the impacts of increased rail traffic on emergency response in Mount Vernon and all other communities between the source of the coal and the proposed Gateway Pacific terminal, including both fire and emergency medical response.

It goes without saying that our health and that of our fellow community members as well as those living elsewhere is very important to us. Any project with the potential to affect the health of so many people must receive careful and very detailed scrutiny.

We ask that you study not only the impacts of the trains that would be running to Cherry Point but also the cumulative impact of these trains along with those now beginning to supply petroleum to the Tesoro Refinery in Anacortes, WA, and proposed as part of the planned very large Tethys bottling plant in that city. These trains are all in addition to the daily train traffic we already experience at 6 major rail crossings in our city.

We appreciate your attention to our concerns as you prepare the E.I.S. for the Gateway Pacific Terminal project.

Sincerely,

Timothy R. Manns
1220 South 11th St., Mount Vernon, WA 98274

Timothy Manns (#6109)

Date Submitted: 01/06/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
Dear Mr. Perry, Ms. Kelly, and Mr. Schroeder:

I have lived at 1220 South 11th Street in Mount Vernon, Washington, for the last 20 years. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad track passing downtown Mount Vernon is 2,000 feet west of my home. From the time we moved here, we’ve heard a modest amount of train noise each day, including loud and prolonged whistles at night, and we’ve learned to live with that.

Now we’re faced with a sudden quantum leap in the amount of rail traffic. At capacity, the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal will bring 18 uncovered coal trains per day through our neighborhood. Those trains will be in addition to the ones now beginning to supply the Tesoro refinery at March Point in Anacortes and those that will supply the gigantic Tethys bottling plant also planned for Anacortes. These trains pass through Mt. Vernon going north to Burlington before turning west towards Anacortes. Even without the Anacortes-bound trains there will be a substantial increase in coal and other dust, diesel exhaust particulates and fumes, and noise.

Now that we’re retired, our home is a particularly important asset to my wife and myself. We request that the GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS include analysis of how coal dust from the uncovered train cars and the prolonged stopping of street traffic at the many rail crossings in Mount Vernon will affect the value of our home. We request that such a study include not only Mount Vernon but all the communities along the rail line from the source of the coal to Cherry Point. We request that the EIS address the cumulative impacts of all the projected rail traffic related to GPT and other major projects on real estates values near the rail line from the source of the coal to Cherry Point.

We are also concerned about how increased delays at the rail crossing between downtown Mount Vernon and I-5 exit 226 will affect the economic viability of the downtown businesses. Many of these businesses are struggling, and we are concerned that the heart of our community will not survive the effects of traffic disruption. Potential customers will give up and take their business elsewhere. We therefore request that the E.I.S. include an analysis of the potential impact of the cumulative rail traffic on Mount Vernon’s economy, both in terms of dollars and of jobs.

Please include in this analysis the costs that would be borne by us if overpasses or underpasses were to be constructed to ease traffic flow across the tracks.
A decline in the value of our home because of the proximity of the rail line and the potential decline in the local economy will affect our ability to afford retirement.
We appreciate your attention to these requests for an adequate EIS scope for the proposed GPT project.

Sincerely,

Timothy Manns

Timothy Manns (#9956)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
January 20, 2013

My name is Timothy Manns. I’ve lived in Mount Vernon, Washington, for the past 20 years. I’m writing to request that impacts on tribal nations be given due consideration in the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and the associated train and ship operations.

Please study the following in order to consider these impacts:

1. Potential damages of the project’s construction and subsequent operations to the Nooksack River, to Salish Sea ecosystems and fisheries, and to Cherry Point itself.

2. Impacts on traditional tribal livelihoods, natural resources, food sources, culture and religion.

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

4. Any disturbance of archeological sites, burial sites, and sites of cultural importance, including disturbances which may already have occurred at the proposed site due to the unpermitted work performed there.

The management plan for the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve acknowledges that the Lummi Nation and other tribes have treaty rights in the Salish Sea at 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 established by the Point Elliott Treaty. It was the first site in Washington State to be listed on the Washington Heritage Register and is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supported by the President of the United States, includes the right to maintain and protect archeological and historic sites. I request that a third party archeological study of cultural significance at Cherry Point be done in accordance with Lummi tribal code and be accepted as valid only when approved by a Lummi Nation cultural commission.

I am not a member of any indigenous group, but I understand the fact that the Lummi Nation and other recognized tribes have by law the status of independent governments and have a government-to-government relationship with the State of Washington, the U.S. Government, and other governmental entities. It thus strikes me as inappropriate that the Lummi Nation and possibly other recognized indigenous groups with rights at least in the vicinity of Cherry Point are not involved in the E.I.S. process as equals with the Washington Department of Ecology, Whatcom County, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

I believe that we have a moral and legal obligation to ensure that the rights of the Lummi and other indigenous people are recognized and protected in the preparation of the E.I.S. and the possible implementation of the GPT plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely

Timothy R. Manns

Timothy Manns (#10062)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
January 20, 2013

My name is Timothy Manns. I agree with the scoping comment letter submitted by Environmental Planner (Habitat Program) Brian Williams on behalf of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife dated January 17, 2013.

I live in Mount Vernon, Washington. One of the things I value most about this area is the fish, birds, and mammals still present here. They add in very important ways to my enjoyment living here. I also feel a moral and ethical obligation to see that wildlife and its required habitats are preserved both for their own sakes and so that future generations of people can enjoy wildlife as I do today. Many species have declined in the Northwest and are in trouble for a variety of reasons ranging from degradation of specific habitat areas to stormwater runoff affecting Puget Sound’s water quality to acidification of marine waters by CO2 build-up in the atmosphere.

I agree with the entire comment letter submitted by Brian Williams for Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. It is comprehensive in addressing not only the many potential impacts on wildlife and habitat at Cherry Point but also the impacts all along the rail lines from Wyoming to Cherry Point and along the routes to be traversed by coal ships leaving Cherry Point. I also strongly agree that the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 and global warming from burning the coal exported from Cherry Point and, cumulatively, from all other proposed terminals in the U.S. and Canada need to be addressed in this E.I.S. The suggestion by some that the analysis should be confined to the area of the terminal is ludicrous when there are potentially so many significant effects over this much, much larger geographic area. Any reasonable person would agree that these effects are part of the whole picture and should be included.

The one thing I would add to WDFW’s description of topics to be studied in relation to wildlife and wildlife habitat is the effects on the public’s opportunities to watch wildlife and the associated economic effects on local economies when these opportunities decline. Birding, for example, is an activity involving thousands of residents and visitors to Skagit County, where I live, particularly in winter when snow geese, trumpeter and tundra swans, bald eagles and other raptors, and other species are here in great numbers. Many of these are in areas traversed by the rail line leading to Cherry Point and could be adversely impacted by coal dust, train-associated noise and accidents, and diesel particulates and fumes.

If any harmful effects of this coal export project on the human or natural environment would not or could not be 100% mitigated, I recommend the "no action" alternative.

Sincerely,

Timothy R. Manns

Timothy Manns (#10082)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
January 20, 2013

My name is Timothy Manns. I live 2,000 feet from the BNSF mainline passing through Mount Vernon, Washington. I agree with the scoping comment submitted December 14, 2012, by the Mayor and City Council of Mount Vernon.

I share my elected officials’ stated concerns about the impacts the increased number of trains bound for Cherry Point could have on the economic vitality of downtown Mount Vernon, the availability of evacuation routes during Skagit River floods, and interference with rapid response to fire and other emergencies from the main fire station.

I am aware that current law requires railroads to pay as little as 5% of the cost of certain infrastructure improvements and that we taxpayers could well end up paying for overpasses costing tens of millions of dollars each. I agree with the statement in the City’s letter that the project proponents, not the taxpayers, should pay costs for any such needed infrastructure. Any other approach is offensive in the extreme, particularly when this City and its residents stand to gain absolutely nothing from the proposed project.

The City of Mount Vernon’s letter mentions the need to study impacts on those living near the rail line. I would specify that you should at a minimum study the health effects of the noise created by the increased number of passing trains (engine, brake, and whistle noise), particularly during normal nighttime sleeping hours, the health effects of diesel particulates and fumes, and the health effects of coal dust from uncovered coal cars. All of these things will affect me, my family, and many other Mount Vernon residents as well as residents in the many other communities through which the BNSF lines run from Wyoming and around Cherry Point.

This is our city and the green light for distant corporations to make huge profits potentially at the expense of our wallets, health, and safety should not be given until all impacts and mitigation are analyzed. If the potential effects cannot be mitigated 100%, I urge you to recommend the "no action" alternative.

Sincerely,

Timothy R. Manns

Timothy Manns (#10396)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I have been a resident of Mount Vernon, Washington, for the past 20 years. I agree with Carolyn Gastellum in her comment on the GPT project in which she references the public trust doctrine:

“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.” (Comment 6908 http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6908)

This project and the other coal export terminals proposed for the Northwest would clearly take our nation away from, rather than towards, meeting necessary goals in reducing the burning of fossil fuels. I am very concerned that the United States is not acting quickly enough or effectively enough in moving toward sustainable and environmentally benign ways of producing energy. If we do not greatly improve our progress towards these goals, our descendants, and some of ourselves, will surely pay the price in many ways. In addition to the detrimental impacts on humans, there will be catastrophic effects on the plants and animals with which we share this planet. Their fates and ours are intertwined.

I agree with Carolyn Gastellum’s urging: “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?”

Those who argue that the E.I.S. for the Gateway Pacific project should focus solely on Cherry Point are unrealistically narrowing the scope of impacts of a project which will affect humans and the environment not only from Wyoming to Washington State but around the world because of the reality of global warming.

I also agree with Carolyn Gastellum’s request that the effects of not mining the Powder River Basin coal should be studied as part of this E.I.S.: “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.”

Thank you.

Timothy McHugh (#11875)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Deming, WA
Comment:
Even if the most responsible EIS is done, I don't think we could even begin to scientifically understand the expansive damage this coal terminal proposal shall have if constructed. From the mines and miners, to the rails and all the farms, vegetation and wildlife on the route, to the cities, neighborhoods and homes along the way, with children frolicking nearby, people exercising or just going about their daily business, to the ports and shipping lanes and all the oceanic wilderness beneath, this idea would cause hideous and immeasurable devastating affects. I am very much opposed to this proposal and believe that no exports of coal should take place. Coal should be left in the ground and other means should be explored. We do not need to encourage China to live in the dark ages of energy usage and need to greatly curtail our own energy usage. In addition, jobs is definitely not reason enough to do anything with far reaching devastation. People have said no to nuclear and we're saying no to coal and coal exports, all nasty propositions.

Sincerely,
Timothy McHugh & Kristina Coyne McHugh
5990 Truck Rd.
Deming, WA 98244

Timothy Merriman (#2197)

Date Submitted: 10/27/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Timothy Randolph (#12988)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I want to express my extremely strong opposition to the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, WA. This project goes against all rational analysis of its merits and should not be allowed. This project would damage the the transportation infrastructure of Seattle and the Puget Sound region, negatively impact Washington's environment and exacerbate climate effects from this dirty coal, the worst possible source of energy. No one benefits, except a large corporation that has no interest in these issues. Any jobs benefit is vastly outweighed by the large negative impact on other local businesses---tanker and rail traffic, pollution, water quality/fisheries, local emergency responders.

The transport strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest for shipment to China (further exacerbating pollution and climate change) is just a very bad idea. I urge you to consider all of these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Our state's leaders and citizens have made a strong commitment to responsible use of resources and clean, low-carbon energy production. I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to FULLY assess the cumulative impact of each these proposal for shipping coal through our state.

Timothy Siegfried (#5411)

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

Timothy Siegfried (#14204)

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

Timothy & Elizabeth Reisenauer & Marshall (#1862)

Date Submitted: 10/23/12
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
To whom it may concern,

My wife, two daughters and I live less than 100 feet from 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. Our family home directly abuts the rail line. We request that the GPT Environmental Impact Statement encompass the entire transportation corridor so that residents along the rail and marine routes are given due consideration. Questions that concern me, and which objective, rigorous and comprehensive studies should address include:
FISHERIES & THE PUGET SOUND: One of our daughters is a third year student at the Ocean Research College Academy (ORCA) a school on the Everett waterfront which is situated less than 600 feet from the line. Originally funded by the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation, and now supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, ORCA is the only early college in the nation that uses the local marine environment as the unifying theme to integrate core academic disciplines. It provides opportunities for students to engage in active scientific inquiry and in-depth study using a state of the art, dedicated oceanographic research lab designed for collaborative and independent research and a marine science underwater monitoring station. Her education depends on a clean Puget Sound. How will oil/coal spill risks; salmon, crab and herring fisheries; orca whales; tourism; boating; collision risks; 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? How might fishing and recreational boating be affected by the additional capesize and Panamax coal ships in our waters? By how much will accident and collision rates increase? Specifically:
ORCA, MARINE MAMMALS & BIRDS: Specifically we need to know would the noise, pollution and physical presence of the additional huge vessels affect our orca populations. How would construction and operation of the coal port and the continuous transiting of coal ships affect other marine mammals, fish, birds, and the food web that supports them?
OIL/COAL SPILL RISKS: We also need to specifically know 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?
SALMON & FISHERIES: Finally we need to know how would construction and operation of the coal port; up to 100 acres of pulverized coal in open, near-shore storage; and the coal ships themselves (size, pollution, noise, anchor dragging, etc) impact the crab, herring and salmon fisheries.
NOISE: Our family and our neighbors along the rail line have experienced profoundly disturbing coupling noise, engine noise, and structural damage from rail vibrations due to even normal traffic and activity on the line next to our home. These factors lead, in the last 5 years to a negotiated noise reduction and speed agreement with BNSF in lieu of a class action law suit. The addition of so many new trains would likely significantly worsen these issues and violate the brokered agreement. How will the noise and vibrations of unusually long, heavy and frequent trains impact noise, property values and the structural integrity of our 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? HUMAN
HEALTH & SAFETY: Diesel exhaust from trains has also been a problem in our back yard in the past. How will asthma, cancer, heart disease, and other health risks be affected by air and water pollutions associated with coal transport and export? Will a class action law suit be necessary to address increased health conditions caused by these transit issues. 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?
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?
TOURISM & OTHER ECONOMIC COSTS: How would lost beauty, decreased orca populations, damaged fisheries and more crowded waterways affect our tourism industry? How would property values be affected? How much will we, the taxpayers, ultimately pay for costs directly and indirectly associated with GPT?
Please address these in the EIS study. You may fee free to contact us at summitcg@premier1.net, or (425) 870-6166

Sincerely,

Dr. Timothy M. Reisenauer
Dr. Elizabeth T. Marshall

Tina Glover (#10262)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
Traffic into Marysville is already a nightmare. At least one overpass should be built over the rails. Perhaps the trains could be scheduled for primarily nightime runs, and on a set schedule so night travelers could take the new overpass.

Rail cars containing coal should be covered at all times, but particularly when we have a temperature inversion as air quality is already horrible without the addition of coal dust.

I also question how the small number of jobs will justify the economic hardship which Marysville will feel due to the difficulty facing people trying to access town to shop.

If the site is built in Canada, surely there are ways we can insure that we are not negatively impacted by the rail traffic through our area. Maybe we can add an inconvenience surcharge to China's coal prices????

Tina Knox (#9008)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Tina Rhea (#13946)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
The Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal plan needs a carefully-considered Environmental Impact Statement. This is a massive project plan with the potential for very serious harm.

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.

Tina Rose (#10529)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Olga, WA
Comment:
I live on the east side of Orcas Island and I am very concerned about the effects of the proposed coal terminal on all aspects of the environment and quality of life, both in the islands and on the mainland. Please study carefully that which will affect the following areas which are crucial to our way of life:
1. Effects on Air Quality: Coal Dust in particular. fine particulate in the air we breathe is connected with lung disease in the long term and seriously affects people with asthma in day to day life. I walk outdoors every day and breathe the air deeply. I dread the day when it is unhealthy to do so. Would our many farm gardens be coated with a fine layer of coal dust? This would be an unthinkable harm to our local farmers and gardeners, and those of us who eat only local produce.
2. Effects on Marine life: particularly any form of run-off into the marine environment from the industrial site and from the coal train tracks . maintaining the diversity of marine life is essential to the health of our environment.
3. Effects on recreational boating due to increased big boat traffic: small boating is a part of the way of life here, and is also essential to our tourist industry.
4. Economic effects on the islands from damage to the cleanliness, and aesthetic beauty of the area: the beauty and relative quiet in the islands is a great part of what makes them a destination for tourists. If that business diminishes, the economic viability of our communities will be severely adversely affected . what will be the noise level from the boats and trains? what will be the effects on air and water quality ? please study the effects of all possible effluents and outflows. what will be the effects on the wild bird population? on the whales?
5. Effects of oil spills in case of accidents to the large coal carriers. this is so important, as our beaches could be ruined for decades to come by such an event and they do happen.
6. Effects to our air quality by the very large amounts of coal that will be burned in china, the effluents from which will be carried here in the air currents. this is much more coal than is allowed to be burned her in the US where there are limitations in consideration of air quality.

Tina Louise Pallasch (#12824)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
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.

There are other options for energy then fossil fuels ... I encourage that research.

Tip Johnson (#6014)

Date Submitted: 01/04/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am almost sixty years old and have lived in my Bellingham home for over 40 years. I served on the Bellingham City Council for 8 years, and on numerous community boards and committees. I founded a small boatyard in Fairhaven and operated it for a couple decades, pioneering recreational small boat access to local waters. I have over 5,000 hours sailing, paddling and rowing here. SInce my childhood days, digging clams and catching salmon, I have witnessed a steady decline in marine wildlife, and a steady increase in environmental problems. I doubt the effectiveness of our environmental regulation system and believe it requires critical reevaluation before permitting additional large scale projects in critical habitats. I have several related scoping concerns.

There appears to be a radical disconnect between environmental regulation and protection. Regulators charged with protecting the environment wrote permits for refineries and smelters at Cherry Point and thus eradicated half the herring population of Puget Sound. This is categorically unacceptable and must be remedied. This important resource was promised to First Nations in 1855 and traditionally founded a food chain supporting local people, salmon, seal, orca and many other species. Mitigation, monitoring and management have proven wholly inadequate and must be improved.

It is negligent to write additional permits allowing more pollution in this critical habitat before existing environmental problems have been identified and remedied. The herring population should be restored to pre-permit levels. In the long term, they are more important than jobs and business profit. They are food for our entire region. Scoping should address long-term, qualitative environmental opportunities including food chain integrity and quality-of-life issues related to wild salmon protein. These need to be quantified, especially in terms of human health, cutter and the environment, and compared to the project's alleged economic benefit. The public and the environment can no longer afford to subsidize environmentally destructive businesses.

Too much has already been taken from the public. Permits shift liability to the public, shielding business from claims for damages. This practice should be carefully evaluated against Article 12 of the Washington State Constitution, which expressly prohibits special privileges or immunities. The failure of environmental regulation must be taken into account. The study should include and be based upon a worst case scenario, consistent with prior environmental experience. Regulators should adopt a zero-tolerance position on fugitive coal dust emissions. Findings at other coal ports suggest this could prove fatal to already impaired area herring populations. Proponents should be required to provide completely closed delivery systems with loss detection and collection.

The coal port has become widely unpopular and coal is hazardously flammable. Throughout the region, many are already visibly upset with a regulatory framework that seems predisposed to permit the activity. It is a recipe for disaster. Anyone can buy road flares at automotive supplies, or flare guns at marine supplies. Accelerants of every imaginable kind are widely available at hardware stores and fuel stations. Some disgruntled idiot will eventually set one of these trains on fire. Once started, copycats will look for similar spectacular results. Whether stationary or underway, burning coal trains present serious health and safety threats to the community. The cars should be equipped with secure, inflammable covers and automatic fire suppression devices. Adequate security staffing of sidings and overpasses should accompany every passage. The railroad should be required to return to staffing a trailing car, whether reserve engine or caboose. Project proponents should be required to fund training and the needed equipment for local agencies likely to be first responders. These workers must not be left improperly equipped and the community cannot be left at risk. The study should assess the risks of burning coal trains for both sidings and mainlines along their routes.

Much of our community's prime waterfront real estate abuts the shoreline railroad. These neighborhoods have already seen substantial devaluations as a result of the financial crisis and recession. Coal train activities and impacts causing further devaluation could spur mounting frustrations. This is known to exacerbate social and family problems, and lead to domestic strife and sometimes violence. Sufficient social systems should be in place to provide shelter and counseling to family members who are threatened or who have difficulty coping with economic loss. Failure to anticipate and address these stresses could result in serious community tragedy. The study should quantify likely changes in property value and anticipate a potential increase in family problems. Proponents should be required to provide local funding for outreach and social services that can address these problems.

Many BNSF employees are members of the local community. Others work regionally. In either case, railroad employees will become increasingly vulnerable scapegoats for a magnificently unpopular project as impacts from the activities are felt. Their work will often occur in areas not always well supervised by local law enforcement. Proponents should be required to provide adequate security supervision for routine maintenance by rank-and-file crews. The study should evaluate what additional security is required for workers to be reasonably assured of workplace safety. Crossings at busy intersections may need to be monitored to prevent frustrations from being expressed.

The study should specifically evaluate each crossing for its potential to interrupt the provision of emergency services due to increased rail traffic. Proponents should be required to fund additional facilities for fire and police to assure that rail traffic cannot prevent timely emergency medical service, and that delays cannot be exploited to benefit criminal activity.

The shoreline sections of railroad present special risks to the nearshore habitat of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea. Coal is only one concern. We recognize the need to protect water quality and increasingly spend public money to treat effluent, reduce emissions, pretreat, regulate, manage risks and reduce exposures. We need to examine the risks of transporting bulk toxic chemicals on a shoreline route notorious for routine landslides and derailments. The study should quantify these acute risks and chronic exposures from preservatives leaching from railroad ties, herbicides routinely applied to grades and incidental general leakage, including grease, oil and other wastes. The capacity of the nearshore habitat to absorb these risks should be assessed. Proponents should provide equipment and crews proximate to high risk areas to assure that timely response and complete clean up is possible.

Finally, in 1855 local tribes were guaranteed access to their usual and accustomed fishing grounds as condition to their mass cession of lands to the U.S. government. Not until 1869 did Congress generally authorize railroad expansion to this region. The study should comprehensively review the record of government and business consultation with tribes over the use of their usual and accustomed fishing grounds for shoreline railroad grades. The railroad's title to shoreline rail routes may be irreconcilably clouded or highly encumbered, potentially undermining or eliminating their authority to apply and their ability to service the proposed terminal.

Tip Johnson (#6229)

Date Submitted: 01/07/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I would like to report spellcheck error in my earlier submission. Paragraph 3, sentence 5 should read "…human health, culture and the environment." Thank you,
Tip Johnson

Todd Boyle (#6492)

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

Todd Citron (#11596)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attachment for original version, which might be easier to read...

Todd Citron
PO Box 982
Bellingham, WA 98227
360-715-3453
GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
c/o CH2M HILL
1100 112th Ave. NE, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004
eMail: comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov
Submitted via online form at: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment
January 21, 2013
Regarding: Scoping EIS for GPT / Custer Spur project.
Train & Vessel Traffic: Economic impacts.
Dear sir/madam:
My family of five and I have lived and worked in Whatcom County for 24 years. Please include for the scope of the EIS the following areas of inquiry related to the potential economic impacts this project might have on our local community.
1) As a tax payer I fear that there will be adverse economic impacts due to increased train & vessel traffic, and I am particularly interested in:
 Due to the creation of the terminal will there be increased train traffic on the route through Whatcom County that causes safety and traffic problems?
o If so, then mitigation of those problems should be calculated and born by Gateway Pacific as per Whatcom County Code 20.88.130 (6) that states that a “proposed major development…will not impose uncompensated requirements for public expenditures for additional utilities, facilities and services, and will not impose uncompensated costs on other property owned.”
 Due to the creation of the terminal will there be increased train traffic on the route from Wyoming through Whatcom County that causes safety and traffic problems?
o If somehow the costs to mitigate those costs are not deemed part of the project cost born by Gateway Pacific, and the public will participate in those mitigation costs, then those costs paid by the public should be included and offset against any claims for cost benefits of the project.
 Due to the creation of the terminal will there be increased train traffic through Bellingham that decreases the free access to the current parks (Larabee, Boulevard, Marine, Zuanich, Little Squalicum Beach) along the waterfront?
o If so, my paid (through taxes) use of these parks is limited. How does Gateway Pacific mitigate this impact or reimburse taxpayers for loss of use?
 Due to the creation of the terminal will there be increased vessel traffic through the Strait of Georgia and Rosario Strait?
o If so, what will the impact be to local and regional fishing industries and to marine life?
o If so, what are the expenses related to accident mitigation and the creation of or addition to emergency response capacity?
o If so, does that increase the chance of boat to boat collision or boat to rock collision?
 If so, if there were a major coal or oil spill into Northern Puget Sound, what would the economic impacts be due to loss of fishing, tourism, shoreline private and public property destruction?
2) As a business person I fear that the train traffic through our community will have an adverse effect on the economic diversity and vitality of the county, and I am particularly interested in:
 Due to the creation of the terminal will there be increased train traffic through Bellingham that decreases the free access to the former Georgia Pacific site? (I have already heard of one large new business to the area that had initial interest in a downtown Bellingham waterfront location, but has decided to look elsewhere due to the train traffic.)
o If access to the waterfront development site is reduced, how will that affect the economic prospects of the redevelopment itself, and how will that affect the ability for the Port of Bellingham and the City of Bellingham to attract dynamic and vital companies to Bellingham?
o How will that potential loss of business investment slow or reduce the potential tax base over time?
o How will the potential loss of local diverse business investment (for example, light industry to technology), and their ancillary support businesses (for example, construction to software consultants) compare with the local cost benefit claims for the terminal project?
 Due to the creation of the terminal will there be increased train traffic through Bellingham that reduces access to the ferry terminal at the foot of Harris Avenue?
o If so, will this affect the ability for the ferry terminal to operate at full capacity?
o There is competition among cities to have this Alaska Ferry operation -- could this potential reduction in access to the ferry terminal precipitate a departure of the Alaska Ferry operation moving to another city?
o What would the economic impact of its departure be on tourist industry and the dozens of businesses that depend on it?
Thank you for your time and commitment to this process.
Sincerely,
Todd Citron
Attached Files:

Todd Citron (#11602)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Todd Citron
PO Box 982
Bellingham, WA 98227
360-715-3453
GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
c/o CH2M HILL
1100 112th Ave. NE, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004
eMail: comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov
Submitted via online form at: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment
January 21, 2013
Regarding: Scoping EIS for GPT / Custer Spur project.
Train and Water Vessel Traffic: Health and Safety impacts.
Dear sir/madam:
My family of five and I have lived and worked in Whatcom County for 24 years. Please include for the scope of the EIS the following areas of inquiry related to the potential health and safety impacts this project might have on our local community.
1) Due to increased rail and boat vessel traffic resulting from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, will there be an increase in diesel emissions throughout the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County?
 Do diesel emissions in the amounts resulting from this traffic pose a public health hazard?
o If so, how will Gateway Pacific propose to mitigate the emissions, pay for the mitigation* and / or compensate the victims of the health hazards?
2) Due to increased rail and boat vessel traffic resulting from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, will there be an increase in coal dust emissions throughout the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County?
 Do coal dust emissions in the amounts resulting from this traffic pose a public health hazard?
o If so, how will Gateway Pacific propose to mitigate the emissions, pay for the mitigation* and / or compensate the victims of the health hazards?
3) Due to increased rail and boat vessel traffic resulting from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, will there be an increase in noise emissions throughout the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County?
 Does this level and duration of noise emissions in the amounts resulting from this traffic pose a public health hazard?
o If so, how will Gateway Pacific propose to mitigate the emissions, pay for the mitigation* and / or compensate the victims of the health hazards?
4) Due to increased rail traffic resulting from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, will there be an increase in risk to rail / car accidents throughout the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County?
 If so, how will Gateway Pacific propose to mitigate the risk, pay for the mitigation* and / or compensate the victims of the accidents?
5) Due to increased rail traffic resulting from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, will there be an increase in risk to rail / pedestrian (or bike) accidents throughout the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County?
 If so, how will Gateway Pacific propose to mitigate the risk, pay for the mitigation* and / or compensate the victims of the accidents?
6) Due to increased rail traffic resulting from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, will there be any risk to public safety due to limited access from one area of the city or county to another?
 Will paramedic response times and services of City of Bellingham's Fire and Police Departments as well as Whatcom Medic One and Fire District 7 be reduced?
o If so, how will this problem be mitigated and how will that be paid for?*
7) Due to increased rail traffic resulting from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, will there be any risk to public safety due to an increase risk of train derailment or coal car fires?
 If so, how will this problem be mitigated and how will that be paid for?*
8) Due to increased boat vessel traffic resulting from the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, will there be any risk to public safety due to an increase risk of boat to boat or boat to shore accidents?
 If so, how will this problem be mitigated and how will that be paid for?*
Thank you for your time and commitment to this process.
Sincerely,
Todd Citron
*Note: mitigation of problems should be the responsibility of Gateway Pacific as per Whatcom County Code 20.88.130 (6) that states that a “proposed major development…will not impose uncompensated requirements for public expenditures for additional utilities, facilities and services, and will not impose uncompensated costs on other property owned.”
Attached Files:

Todd Citron (#11608)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Original version attached for better readability.

Todd Citron
PO Box 982
Bellingham, WA 98227
360-715-3453
GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
c/o CH2M HILL
1100 112th Ave. NE, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004
eMail: comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov
Submitted via online form at: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment
January 21, 2013
Regarding: Scoping EIS for GPT / Custer Spur project.
Cumulative Scope.
Dear sir/madam:
My family of five and I have lived and worked in Whatcom County for 24 years. Please include for the scope of the EIS the following areas of inquiry related to the cumulative impacts this project might have on our local community, the region, and the world.
It is sensible and appropriate to analyze the cumulative impacts of all currently proposed coal export facilities and/or dry bulk terminals within Washington and Oregon in a Cumulative Impact Analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act.
1) How will increased rail traffic all along the route affect existing freight traffic?
 What will those economic impacts be?
2) How will increased rail traffic all along the route effect existing passenger train traffic?
 What will the economic impact be?
 Will current schedules be reduced?
 Will future expansion of public commuter systems using passenger rail be limited?
3) Will an increase in the burning of coal or a longer period of burning coal in Asia raise sulfur dioxide emissions?
 What will the health effects be?
 How will victims be compensated?
 Will this increase lead to an increase in acid rain in the United States?
o What will the environmental and economic impacts be?
4) Will an increase in the burning of coal or a longer period of burning coal in Asia raise mercury emissions?
 What will the health effects be?
 How will victims be compensated?
5) Will an increase in the burning of coal or a longer period of burning coal in Asia raise carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
 Will this increase lead to an increase in ocean acidification?
o What will the effects be on marine life?
o What will the environmental and economic impacts be?
o What will the effect be on climate change?
6) Will an increase in the burning of coal or a longer period of burning coal in Asia contribute to global climate change?
 What will the economic impact be?
 What will the safety and health impacts be and how will victims be compensated?
7) How will the increased access to coal and the reduced price of coal to Asian markets reduce those countries’ incentive to use more efficient means of energy production and develop cleaner energy systems?
Thank you for your time and commitment to this process.
Sincerely,
Todd Citron
Attached Files:

Todd Davison (#5946)

Date Submitted: 01/04/2013
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
It is odd that you do not have global warming as a category. As many believe that human causes of global warming unchecked may lead to the end of human civilization and billions of deaths through dislocations of coastal populations famine and the resultant wars and destruction. Perhaps the Nazi's in Germany would have had a public comment period for citizens concerned about trains going to Auschwitz and all concerns would be listed and allowed except for any one's concern about genocide, killing humans, and morality, or that other countries might go to war to stop the trains.

It is clear form the science that continuation of burn coal anywhere on the planet is not a good thing, and in light on global warming science and the known effects on humanity and the planet burning coal anywhere on the planet in the amounts resulting from the proposed coal trains is immoral, and is in fact passing a death sentence on many hundreds of thousands of people, not even including a global warming future, if the aggregate totals just for cause and effect of pollution are taken into account and summed up for a long time period of 50 or 100 years. Not to mention the cases of lung disease and cancer for more hundreds of thousands or millions.

And it is not one train to one port, lets not be untruthful, it is proposed for there to be a coal train to several other ports. And it is not just the trains, it is the impact of mining all this coal and the environmental destruction at the point of production, the impact of the ships at each port, the impact of the ships sailing the ocean, at the destination ports, and the subsequent transport of coal at the point of distribution over seas. Finally the impact of the coal being burned in electric generation or industrial processes in places where we have no control over the process and outcome.

I see nothing in here about the conditions of workers in the coal mining, rail transport, shipping, both here and at the other end of the transportation. Nothing about the impact of burning 600 coal cars full of coal daily in China or India or wherever it ends up going.
Nothing about the impact of what those nations do with the electricity generated, do they use it to drive low wage labor factories and power up and heat homes and offices designed to low energy efficiency standards?

I strongly oppose this whole project end to end as an inappropriate use of technology and resources and an immoral action based on our knowledge about global warming and the effects on humanity. I check all of the above and add:

Global Warming
Human And other Species Genocide
Inappropriate Use of resources
Unnecessary utilization of harmful outdated processes
Inefficient and unregulated production of energy for Inefficient and unregulated Use.

Alternatives:

Energy Efficiency. Solar Power. Wind Power. Move away from a Consumer Culture.

Sicerely,

Todd A. Davison

Todd Elsworth (#11319)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Bellingham, Wa
Comment:
Please consider the potential impacts of a major marine disaster as a result of increased vessel traffic as the coal is transported through the San Juans and beyond.

todd entrikin (#10370)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: bellingham, wa
Comment:
I have many concerns about the coal terminal,but my main is about effect the extra trains and ships would have on puget sound water, specifically samish bay, which is already fighting major pollution problems.

Todd Nelson (#1699)

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

Todd Pierce (#42)

Date Submitted: 09/24/2012
Comment:
We need jobs; it will be built, either here or Canada.
The trains have been and will continue to roll through the US.
BUILD IT HERE
Thank you,
Todd

Todd Shuster (#2431)

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

Todd Witte (#6583)

Date Submitted: 01/09/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS
c/o CH2M HILL,
1100 112th Avenue NE Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004

Dear Scoping Committee,
I am a physician and work at both Northwest Gastroenterology seeing outpatients and also care for inpatients at St. Joseph Hospital in Bellingham. Every day I care for patients primarily with gastrointestinal (GI) diseases/problems, and yet every day I see the impact that other non-GI conditions, including respiratory diseases or the medicines needed to treat them, have on the GI system.

Having my wife be personally affected by poor air quality in the past, I am deeply concerned about the potential health impacts of massive coal export from our region.
My wife is originally from British Columbia. When she moved away to the Virginia/Washington DC area, she began having asthma problems, and it was so bad that she was eventually on fairly high dose inhaled steroids every day (Flovent 220 2 puffs mcg twice daily). This lasted more than 6 years, until we moved/returned here to the Pacific Northwest, where the air quality is so good that she has been able to stop all asthma medicines, and unless she has a really bad cold, she doesn’t even need to use an albuterol “as needed” inhaler. It has been this good for the past 5+ years, since we moved here! I would hate to see our air quality ruined or even made as bad as Virginia/Washington DC, which doesn’t even seem all that bad when you live in it, and have her and many like her, need to go on respiratory medicines, for something that is preventable if we keep our air clean.

There are many potential serious health impacts that merit close scrutiny. I request that the Environmental Impact Statement for the Gateway Pacific Terminal include a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment.

In particular, this Health Impact Assessment, should include careful study and modeling of the impacts on human respiratory conditions, including but not limited to development and worsening of conditions such as asthma/COPD, from the train/ship traffic and/or coal terminal. This assessment should also include pollution effects on worsening of related conditions such as, heart attack, stroke, cardiopulmonary and all-cause morbidity and mortality; rates of cancer; healthcare costs for excess morbidity of asthma/COPD, cardiovascular disease, ALL cancers (even colorectal cancer is affected by smoking/pollution!).

I request that these health impacts be assessed throughout the state, not just Whatcom County, as the coal trains would pass through all the major population centers in the state on its way to the Gateway Pacific Terminal.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Todd N. Witte, MD
Board Certified Internal Medicine & Gastroenterology

Tom Anderson (#3315)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Billings, MT
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Tom Andre (#12542)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Sedro Woolley, WA
Comment:
My 6th grade class was given a research project on the topic of coal trains. I stated the question "As the future generation living in this Skagit Valley, what do see as positive and negative effects of coal trains in our valley?"

They did the research and overwhelmingly came back and said the coal trains will have a negative impact on their lives in the present and the future. When an 11-12 yrs. old kids look at the issue and they can see the impact and realize this is the wrong path, we need to listen. It is their future and they do not have a say.


We (Mr. Andre's) 6th grade class 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.

Tom Barron (#3241)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Beaverton, 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.

The beauty, not to mention the natural resources, of the Pacific Northwest is it's strong point. I see no reason for a foreign, for-profit company to critically damage those attributes merely for the sake of their $$$ profits. They should have thought about transportation issues before they signed the contract with China.

Tom Barron

Tom Barron (#5016)

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

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


I assume you realize that in approving these coal

exports through Oregon and Washington, you

will decimate the Columbia River Gorge as a

place of extreme beauty and tourist destination.

Current residents will leave the area, cafes and

motels will close. More medical personel will

be needed to counter-act the increased lung

disease.

I'm sure you already know this, and being willing

to continue encouraging these exports reminds me

of the bullies in grade school.


Sincerely

Tom Barron

Tom Barron (#5085)

Date Submitted: 12/15/12
Location: Beaverton, OR
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Tom Barron (#5412)

Date Submitted: 12/20/12
Location: Beaverton, OR
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Tom Barron (#5709)

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

Tom Barron (#12931)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Beaverton, OR
Comment:
The main issue with the coal terminal is HOW DOES THE COAL GET THERE?
The numerous trains must go through the Columbia River Gorge, through Vancouver, etc. etc. These trains will cause irreperable damage to nature and people. PLEASE STOP THE COAL COMPANIES FROM BULLYING US..

Tom Bayley (#8460)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Seattle, Wa
Comment:
I write as a lifetime Orcas Is. part time resident to protest the proposed Bellingham coal terminal. The traffic resulting from this would be huge and court disaster in the Straits, already crowded with oil tankers. The trains through Seattle, Edmonds and Mt. Vernon would contaminate the air and block traffic flow. The coal ships will inevitably bring invasive species to our waters. Last, it's now proven that maritime traffic affects our orca population, already beleaguered. A coal terminal in Bellingham is not a good idea.

Tom Black (#4328)

Date Submitted: 12/07/12
Location: Vancouver, 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 support coal trains and export of USA coal to foreign countries. Thankfully, our nation has a great abundance of coal, and should take advantgage of the ability to export this plentiful resource, thereby bringing income back to the USA. Additionally, it would provide us with numerous good jobs for our citizens......all of which would be stong incomes along with fantastic benefit programs.

The USA and our Political leaders need to truely declare a war on lack of jobs, and a war on high energy costs by supporting scientific reasearch/study to innovate and invent technology that allows conversion of this National Treasure of plentiful coal into
alternative, green energy gases, etc. Where is Obama on This
opportunity? Regards, TRB

Sincerely,

Black Tom
13915 NW 10th Ct
Vancouver, WA 98685-1397

Tom Burke (#4751)

Date Submitted: 12/14/2012
Location: Sumas, Wa
Comment:
I would like to see the project go through without an enormous amount of "todays" studys and and resistance from the opposition groups; some of which would oppose ANY changes in the county relating to growth, although I am a bit concerned with the train traffic and how that would all work out, considering I cross tracks back and forth from/to the marina. I need to get up to speed on recent news on the subject and wonder other than the Herald what my best source would be.

Tom Coffey (#14208)

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

Tom Craighead (#13234)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
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.

As many passenger train riders will tell you, the rail lines both north and south of Seattle are not reliable. It seems that at least once every winter a mudslide forces closures.

With this chronic problem, can you imagine multiple coal trains backed up. How much trouble and cost would that create?

This is a bad idea!

Tom Culhae (#3484)

Date Submitted: 11/25/12
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
As a citizen of Olympia Washington, I would like to go on record as strongly opposing the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. My concerns include:

• Noise due to the 18 additional daily mile-and-a-half long coal trains that would rumble through Olympia and numerous other towns in western Washington.
• Traffic delays, due to spike in rail usage, and other effects on jobs & local businesses in Olympia and many other towns in western Washington.
• Taxpayer investment in infrastructures and upgrades that ultimately benefit privately-held corporations and are a net loss to the economy of Washington.
• The effects of a degraded marine environment and/or altered regional identity on fisheries, property values and quality of life in Western Washington.
• Global impacts due to coal combustion and it’s connection with climate change.

In short, the negative aspects of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project far outweigh any benefits for the state of Washington and this project should not be permitted.

Tom Culhae
1916 Arietta Ave SE, Olympia, WA
360-456-3857

Tom Culhane (#3410)

Date Submitted: 11/25/2012
Location: Olympia, WA
Comment:
As a citizen of Olympia Washington, I would like to go on record as strongly opposing the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. My concerns include:

• Noise due to the 18 additional daily mile-and-a-half long coal trains that would rumble through Olympia and numerous other towns in western Washington.
• Traffic delays, due to spike in rail usage, and other effects on jobs & local businesses in Olympia and many other towns in western Washington.
• Taxpayer investment in infrastructures and upgrades that ultimately benefit privately-held corporations and are a net loss to the economy of Washington.
• The effects of a degraded marine environment and/or altered regional identity on fisheries, property values and quality of life in Western Washington.
• Global impacts due to coal combustion and it’s connection with climate change.

In short, the negative aspects of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project far outweigh any benefits for the state of Washington and this project should not be permitted.

Tom Ehrlichman (#3386)

Date Submitted: 11/24/2012
Comment:
This is not a formal scoping comment. It is a comment on process for a scoping meeting.

Your EIS website states that, due to the size of the turnout at the first three scoping meetings, the size of the room for the Seattle meeting was changed and expanded.

Shouldn't the time period for the meeting also be expanded? Three hours seems like a very small allocation of staff time to accommodate the expected turnout of thousands at the convention center.

In consideration of the public's interest in the proposal for the largest coal terminal in North America, we are requesting a decision and notice to expand the time period for the Seattle meeting from three hours to five hours.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom Ehrlichman, Center for Salish Community Strategies (#14665)

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

Tom Forbes (#6899)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Bellevue, wa
Comment:
I favor the Gateway Pacific Terminal near Bellingham. China will import coal from somewhere else if it is not exported from the USA. As every intelligent person knows, commodities such as coal, oil and wheat are fungible.

However, I believe there should be a requirement for the coal cars to be covered in a manner similar to grain cars. This would basically eliminate coal dust from passing trains.

Question: Is it possible for the coal trains to use the route east of Everett instead of the Columbia River route in order to bypass the cities of Portland, Vancouver and Seattle?

Tom Forbes

Tom Forbes (#7324)

Date Submitted: 01/11/13
Location: Bellevue, 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.

I support coal exports, but believe the hopper cars should be covered to reduce air pollution from coal dust. This would alleviat a significant portion of the envoronmental issues associated with exporting coal. I suspect the technology exists to do this as all grain cars are covered.

As any intelligent person knows, coal and oil are fungible energy sources. If coal is not exported from the USA, it will be exported from Canada, Australia or other countries with excess coal reserves.

Tom Forbes

Sincerely,

Mr. Tom Forbes

Tom Gilmore (#9862)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
I’m concerned that the costs of this coal terminal far outweigh any long or short term economic benefits to Washington state or Whatcom County. Please include the No Action Alternative. Do not allow this project to be permitted.

Tom Goetzl (#2552)

Date Submitted: 11/08/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Climate change is already posing great impacts upon our human environment. It is poised to become an even greater threat to future generations. It is an indisputable fact. It must be mitigated. The most direct way to accomplish that is to reduce carbon emissions by reducing the use of the fossil fuels that most contribute to them.

I am a resident of Bellingham, WA and the father of a 7 year old. I am concerned about the environment which he will inhabit over the course of his lifetime. That concern extends to destructive storms and extreme weather conditions, the continuing degradation of clean water and air, access to sufficient food supplies, and the disappearance of jobs here in the United States as our manufacturing base continues to erode and more and more of our jobs are "exported" overseas.

Exporting our finite fossil fuel resources to other countries, including China which has been rapidly developing its industrial and manufacturing capacity, enabling them to successfully relocate jobs from the U.S. to their own shores is contrary to our national interest. We must not "fuel" this accelerating environmental degradation.

This scoping process must carefully and critically examine the claim that this proposed coal terminal will create local jobs. That claim should specifically be tested against the number of jobs that will likely be lost as a result of its installation, both those lost locally as a direct and indirect consequence of a degraded environment here and those that will over time be lost to China as its industrial and manufacturing capabilities are increase and the temptations by American businesses to "export" ever more jobs become irresistible.

I respectfully request the EIS scoping process include this important inquiry.

Tom Goetzl (#2694)

Date Submitted: 11/11/2012
Comment:
Clearly the terminal project may create some jobs; equally clearly the terminal project will destroy some jobs. The scoping should investigate carefully the scale of the former relative to the scale of the latter. In doing so, the scoping should consider not only job losses within our immediate community (through a degraded environment along the water front and increased noise, pollution and traffic along the rail line but ALSO the INEVITABLE job losses as China's ability to fuel its industrial base enables China to attract the relocation of ever more manufacturing enterprises out of the U.S. and into China thereby destroying ever more good American jobs within the U.S.

(PS the choices under "EIS process" are very unclear.)

Tom Goetzl (#6729)

Date Submitted: 01/09/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
This past few weeks has already seen several serious landslides which have interrupted rail traffic between Bellingham and Seattle. Whether these problems are worsened by the constant pounding of passing trains or not is something you must study. You must also study where, in the inevitable event that the tracks become blocked again and again, the increased number of trains will be "parked" while the lines are cleared. Any of these events would negatively affect our community here in western Washington. If they cannot be prevented, they must be mitigated. What plans will you propose to impose upon the coal and rail industries to accomplish that mitigation so that they do not result in costs to already beleaguered taxpayers.

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

Thank you.

Tom Goetzl

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.

Tom Goetzl & Family (#6708)

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 and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains and ships throughout the Northwest.

This proposal would negatively affect our national security. The Pentagon (Department of Defense) has publicly gone on record stating that climate change poses the greatest current threat to our American national security. It is indisputable that mining and transporting coal which will then be burned in China and elsewhere will greatly contribute adversely to the deterioration of our climate systems. As those climate changes lead to more unstable and violent weather conditions, global sources of clean water and food supplies will be reduced.

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

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

Sincerely,

Tom Goetzl and family


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 all Americans for the following reasons.

To the extent to which mining, transporting and transshipping more coal to China and other nations facilitates their construction of even more manufacturing capacity, it will inevitably result in the relocation of more Americans industries over seas. That in turn will cause even further job losses in my country. The total number of those job losses will likely dwarf any few jobs that will be created by the construction of a Cherry Point coal terminal.

I urge you to consider the adverse impacts of exporting fuels which will diminish jobs in America as you prepare your Environmental Impact Statement.

I also urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a nation wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals on American employment.

Thank you.

Tom Goetzl and family

Tom Gooch (#2693)

Date Submitted: 11/11/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
While some entities with a project subject to an EIS may be able to mitigate negative aspects in their proposed project, the Gateway project is damaging and offensive on so many fronts, and over such a vast area, that no amount of mitigation will produce an acceptable outcome. This project should be denied in it's entirety.

The vast increase in rail traffic and the resulting noise, pollution and congestion will damage the quality of life and economic health of Western Washington (and other areas) many-fold more so than any economic benefit of the project. The drop in real estate values of those properties impacted by the rail traffic is significant enough so as to fundamentally change the character and economy of the state. This aspect alone is ridiculously lopsided. To allow a handful of corporations to profit at the colossally disproportionate expense of individuals and the collective community can only be characterized as obscene. This impact is so widespread and disruptive, that meaningful mitigation at a viable cost simply cannot be envisioned.

The pollution, and specifically the diesel particulate of this increased rail traffic may be measured in a number of ways, but it may be impossible to measure the number of lives that will suffer or be lost due to the increased pollution. Diesel exhaust is widely recognized and acknowledged to be a complex brew of deadly carcinogens. State and federal governments are working toward increased regulation and mandated measures to reduce the exposure of workers and the public to diesel exhaust. This knowledge and related efforts cannot be excluded from THIS EIS.

To keep this concise, I won't include nor expand on the lengthy list of other damaging impacts. The items above should be significant enough that further comment would be superfluous. In the most simple explanation, this project's numerous damaging effects CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY MITIGATED.

Tom Gordon (#14231)

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

Tom Hannon (#3453)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Location: Spokane, WS
Comment:
I would like to be able to access the detailed studies that the three agencies have undertaken by staff or commissioned from consultants. I don't believe I can make valid comments without analyzing and evaluating the models, data sources and assumptions on which the various decision metrics are based.

Please add links to the studies on your website. Without those links I am concerned at only the priviledged few will have access to the underlying studies.

Tom Hannon (#11749)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
I hope that the scope of the EIS is restricted to the environmental and economic impacts within the immediate area and vicinity of the proposed facility. I don't think it is necessary to expand the analysis and evaluations to all places within the borders of the state of Washington and I certainly don't expect or want the assessments to speculate on the environmental impacts that could stem from the use of coal at it's intended destingation.

Although I wish the scope could be restricted, I doubt it will be. Therefore what I do want to stress and suggest that the agency study partners only use data that is as reliable and available as the information that the agencies have and recieve from the various partners to the Port endeavor (ie Railroads). I am pretty confidant that the rail lines (as regulated common carriers) have long been keeping records on freight miles, accidents, exposures and the like and they probably have that data for every mile of line owned and operated and they have likely have had that data for decades and decades.

Other data sources that your analysts and analytic partners elect to use, must be of the level of accuracy, detail and completeness of the data from the rail companies or the other partners to the endeavor. If the social science data on for example coal dust drift in Spokane County doesn't exist, then don't manufacture data substitutes.
The evaluations must also use and rely on realistic probabilities of occurrence, not estimates developed by the BOBSAT method (Bunch of Bureaucrats Sitting Around Table).

Thank you

Tom Mallard (#3775)

Date Submitted: 12/03/2012
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
Tom Mallard
15860 NE 15th St Apt B4
Bellevue, WA 98008-2742

December 3, 2012

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


As a supporter of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal in Whatcom County, yet a worrier about the coal issue as it will pollute all avenues it takes at the volumes stated with coal dust, a known pollutant that easily gets into our rivers and lungs.

Add with the current CO2 level of 394-ppm, Pliocene level, that mean sea-level will rise 70ft/20m higher than today when it finally balances out.

By recent evidence we'll have 3ft/1m more sea-level within 50-years, then within the next half-century another 6.5ft/2m for about 10ft/3m more sea-level within a century so it would be wise to put that into the plans now.

That's from burning coal, we can't keep burning coal, it doesn't matter where on the planet it's burned, we can't use fracked gas or tar sands either, it's all fossil and guarantees sea-level will go up.

Now that Washington has legalized pot that implies hemp can be grown for fiber in Eastern Washington on arid lands with much less water and no pesticides in such volume as to supply an export of fiber and fiber products as they have for a century now supplied grain from the eastside.

So to need the port, develop a sustainable product instead of coal and it has my vote, otherwise I'll fight using the coal and every move made to use it, that's how serious sea-level rise is to every port in the world.

While to most the issue of CO2 level being in the Pliocene and that forcing sea-level along with it doesn't ring a bell, one would think Sandy would add urgency to make the choice away from fossil fuels creating the problem.

Thank you for consideration of these thoughts, you face important choices that will affect the next century.


Sincerely

Tom Mallard

Tom Mallard (#5000)

Date Submitted: 12/17/12
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
December 17, 2012

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


We can expect 10ft/3m more sea-level within a century now.

CO2 emissions are the main reason so burning this coal assures this rise in ocean level as it goes to 70ft/20m higher to balance 394-ppm CO2, Pliocene Age levels and that's where the evidence is from.

So, to burn that coal is to push sea-level that much higher.

Instead, please consider agricultural and product export development with the same funds.

Consider pot is legal therefore hemp plantations on the east side of the Cascades now legal & can be more productive than the dimishing harvest from winter wheat now going into drought.

Your choice for a future, higher sea-levels & coal-dust is a known carcinogen & can't be eliminated from train routes in spite of rhetoric, or, a sustainable, organic, global resource based on what to expect from climate.

Hopefully money won't matter.

For your children not mine,

tom


Sincerely

Tom Mallard

Tom Mallard (#5290)

Date Submitted: 12/19/12
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
December 19, 2012

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


Jobs but not for a coal-centric terminal, no one can burn that coal, 80% of known world reserves of oil, coal and gas have to stay in the ground if you don't want sea-level 70-feet higher in about 300-400 years.

No sweat, 3-ft in 50-years, 10ft total within a century from CO2 being back in the Pliocene, where most of that coal came from 2-million years ago at 394-ppm CO2.

We can ship a lot of agricultural products and with pot legal consider developing a hemp industry, a bountiful crop per acre per year of the world's finest organic fiber, easy on water and no pesticides needed.

By the ton, that removing CO2 and emitting O2 as a process.

Night and day to the planet and sea-level, 10ft more ocean within a century. Sandy was a slap in the face, that was a 12-14ft storm-surge, add it onto 10ft more ocean for the picture.

We need the jobs, develop arid-lands organic agriculture to export for a real future, burning that coal has no future.

Thanks for your consideration,

tom mallard


Sincerely

Tom Mallard

Tom Mallard (#7700)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: BELLEVUE, WA
Comment:
As an alternative to stimulate economic growth and create tens of thousands of jobs all over the eastern Cascades not just coal-oriented consider grow industrial hemp east of the Cascades by the hundreds of square miles, takes far less water and no pesticides and is a world's finest fiber with 10-times the growth to harvest than fast-growing trees.

That is not only worth $-billions a year it has many products, the Pendleton Mills can fire up jobs as an example, the oil is now a proven cancer-curative for many types, thus it can produces tens of thousands of jobs using local PVs for power on the sunny side!

This is a huge advantage to manufacturing in our area and not send jobs to China, not poison the atmosphere burning anymore coal instead producing a CO2 sink in semi-arid to arid areas, the ground will have more shade so possible to upgrade soil moisture over time.

This potential is so much better for economics and the planet please seriously consider it.

Tom Mallard (#11541)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Bellevue , WA
Comment:
January 18, 2013

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


As an alternative to stimulate economic growth and create tens of thousands of jobs all over the eastern Cascades not just coal-oriented consider growing industrial hemp east of the Cascades by the hundreds of square miles, takes far less water and no pesticides and is a world's finest fiber for many textile products.

That is worth $-billions a year in gross-sales as it has many products, the Pendleton Mills can fire up jobs as an example, hemp oil is now a proven cancer-curative for many types, thus becoming a major supplier to the world is timely and produces tens of thousands of jobs all over the area not just along the coal route and now we can use solar-cells for power on the sunny side!

This is a huge advantage to manufacturing in our area and to not send jobs to China, to not poison the atmosphere burning anymore coal and instead producing a CO2 sink in semi-arid to arid farm and ranch lands, the ground will have more shade so possible to upgrade soil moisture and fertility over time.

This potential is so much better for economics and the planet please seriously consider it.

The idea is to take the terminal capacity desired and use a sustainable and healthful product base to fill that capacity instead of coal which we really can't burn to keep sea-level where it is.

Sea-level math: In the past century sea-level rose 35cm/1ft, within 50-years there will be 1m/3.3ft and within a century 2m/6.7ft for a total of 3m/10ft, do the designs of these docks provide for sea-level rising 10ft/100-yrs or will they be flooded in the current design?

Then, consider how many homes along Puget Sound will be at risk by the time it's that high.

Then, we re-entered the Pliocene Age long ago now at 395-ppm CO2, about like the age when the coal was laid down over a million years ago.

When sea-level balances out to 395-ppm it will be over 20m/70ft higher, and there is nothing stopping it, this within 499-years.

That's the reason to not burn the coal and put in hemp as a cash crop to create the jobs and fulfill capacity for the terminals.

It'll be much cheaper moving hemp than coal in all respects and no, you can't get high on industrial hemp plants unless you want to smoke an acre or two but the oils cure cancer.


Sincerely

Tom Mallard

Tom Mallard (#13534)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
January 22, 2013

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:


As an alternative to stimulate economic growth and create tens of thousands of jobs all over the eastern Cascades not just coal-oriented consider growing industrial hemp east of the Cascades by the hundreds of square miles, takes far less water and no pesticides and is a world's finest fiber for many textile products.

That is worth $-billions a year in gross-sales as it has many products, the Pendleton Mills can fire up jobs as an example, hemp oil is now a proven cancer-curative for many types, thus becoming a major supplier to the world is timely and produces tens of thousands of jobs all over the area not just along the coal route and now we can use solar-cells for power on the sunny side!

This is a huge advantage to manufacturing in our area and to not send jobs to China, to not poison the atmosphere burning anymore coal and instead producing a CO2 sink in semi-arid to arid farm and ranch lands, the ground will have more shade so possible to upgrade soil moisture and fertility over time.

This potential is so much better for economics and the planet please seriously consider it.

The idea is to take the terminal capacity desired and use a sustainable and healthful product base to fill that capacity instead of coal which we really can't burn to keep sea-level where it is.

Sea-level math: In the past century sea-level rose 35cm/1ft, within 50-years there will be 1m/3.3ft and within a century 2m/6.7ft for a total of 3m/10ft, do the designs of these docks provide for sea-level rising 10ft/100-yrs or will they be flooded in the current design?

Then, consider how many homes along Puget Sound will be at risk by the time it's that high.

Then, we re-entered the Pliocene Age long ago now at 395-ppm CO2, about like the age when the coal was laid down over a million years ago.

When sea-level balances out to 395-ppm it will be over 20m/70ft higher, and there is nothing stopping it, this within 499-years.

That's the reason to not burn the coal and put in hemp as a cash crop to create the jobs and fulfill capacity for the terminals.

It'll be much cheaper moving hemp than coal in all respects and no, you can't get high on industrial hemp plants unless you want to smoke an acre or two but the oils cure cancer.


Sincerely

Tom Mallard

Tom Matelich (#10697)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
My name is Tom Matelich and I am currently a student at Gonzaga University in Spokane. Please scope the amount of wasted energy used on trains as they commute back to the Powder River Basin to pick up more coal. With the increase of traffic in the train lines due to the addition of the new coal trains, this traffic will need to be as efficient as possible. The coal trains will be empty after they drop off the coal to Cherry Point. Is there any way to fill these empty trains with a material to send to the Powder River Basin area in order to save energy? If there is no way to fill the trains going both ways, how much energy is actually being gained from the coal after the subtraction of the wasted energy from the empty commuting coal trains? Even if the energy required to transport the empty trains is small, this wasted energy will continue to add up over time. Also, these empty cars will congest the lines and could cause delays for full shipments of goods or people that need to be on time. How much will these empty cars effect railway traffic and is the empty commute back to the Powder River Basin worth congesting up the rail ways further?
Thank you for your attention to my comment. You may email me at tmatelich@zagmail.gonzaga.edu if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Tom Matelich

Tom O'Leary (#1923)

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

Tom Pickett (#13077)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Comment:
Dear Sir(s),
I live and work 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. The 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? I own a business in the historic downtown Mount Vernon area. The building that houses my business shows signs of structural weakness through age. Will increased exposure to vibration excellerate the the deteration? Will chronic noise exposure affect the health and quality of life of people living, working, shopping 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? Most businesses in the downtown Mount Vernon area are small in size and a continual disruption of even 5% may in fact cause many business to fail.

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?

All of these impacts and more must be throughly examined before a permit is issued.

Sincerely,
Tom Pickett
Dear Sir(s),
I live and work 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. The 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? I own a business in the historic downtown Mount Vernon area. The building that houses my business shows signs of structural weakness through age. Will increased exposure to vibration excellerate the the deteration? Will chronic noise exposure affect the health and quality of life of people living, working, shopping 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? Most businesses in the downtown Mount Vernon area are small in size and a continual disruption of even 5% may in fact cause many business to fail.

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?

All of these impacts and more must be throughly examined before a permit is issued.

Sincerely,
Tom Pickett

Tom Reeve (#11857)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am a waterfront resident of Lopez Island, living with my family on our farm along one of the routes that would be used by vessels servicing the proposed terminal.

I'm writing to request that the EIS for this project address issues related to vessel traffic. Our waters are already substantially impacted by vessel traffic and the opening of this terminal would greatly increase that impact.

Impacts include those involved in normal operations, negatively impacting the tranquility that makes our islands desirable for residents and tourists, negatively impacting the recreational boating and fishing that brings many people and their spending to our islands, and negatively impacting the local marine environment through acoustic pollution. This negative impact can be very subtle - for example recreational fishing is driven not only by fish abundance but also by the appeal of the experience available while fishing (views, wildlife viewing, tranquility, etc.).

Impacts also include the low probability, high impact scenarios involved in accidents or malicious incidents. Whether those incidents directly involve vessels servicing the terminal, the increased traffic due to the terminal will expand both the risk and the damage (environmental, economic and social) resulting from an incident.

We have had past experience with accidents (e.g. the 2007 collision of the tugboat Sea King with the tanker Allegiance off Lopez Island) and spills (luckily relatively minor to date). There is also risk of terrorist incident (as evidenced by the increased homeland security presence in these waters after September 11, 2001).

I would request that the EIS fully evaluate the short and long term impacts to species, communities, fisheries, the local economy and the social fabric of the communities that would be made by normal operations as well as the increased probability of an accident or incident involving vessel traffic in our waters.

These potential impacts affect all the communities along the routes of these vessels, extending well beyond our San Juan Islands and across international borders. The economic impacts extend even further - to all the economies that rely on these waters for resources or for the transport of materials.

These impacts could include permanent and irreparable harm to those communities, both through direct effects and indirect effects, including the long term desirability of those communities for future visitors and residents. Indirect damage may include a decline in local population, which could compound many negative economic and social consequences.


I have attached a document that I believe captures some of the risks that you should address, including some that I have not listed here. It also includes and references studies and data that should be considered in the scope and analysis of the EIS, suggests research that should be conducted to fully understand these impacts and possible mitigation. Please include the issues, information and proposals in this report as you determine the scope of the EIS and ensure that they are addressed in the EIS.

As always, if there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.
Attached Files:

Tom Reeve (#11882)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am a waterfront resident of Lopez Island, living with my family on our farm along one of the routes that would be used by vessels servicing the proposed terminal.

I'm writing to request that the EIS for this project address issues related to noise associated with the terminal itself as well as both land and water traffic associated with the operations of the terminal.

The opening of the terminal will have local operational noise impact, but also impact along all truck and train routes servicing the terminal and along vessel routes associated with the terminal. These impacts include those of traffic that changes route in order to avoid terminal related traffic, congestion or restrictions.

Noise impacts could negatively impacting the tranquility that makes our islands (and other near-route communities) desirable for residents and tourists, negatively impacting the recreational boating and fishing that brings many people and their spending to our islands, and negatively impacting the local marine environment through acoustic pollution. This negative impact can be very subtle - for example recreational fishing is driven not only by fish abundance but also by the appeal of the experience available while fishing (views, wildlife viewing, tranquility, etc.). The impact can be social (increased stress in local populations - human or wildlife), economic (decline in property values in places impacted by noise), or environmental.

I would request that the EIS fully evaluate the short and long term impacts to species, communities, fisheries, the local economy and the social fabric of the communities of the noise associated with this proposal.

These potential impacts affect all the communities along the routes of these vessels, trains and trucks extending well beyond our San Juan Islands and in some cases across international borders.

These impacts could include permanent and irreparable harm to those communities, both through direct effects and indirect effects, including the long term desirability of those communities for future visitors and residents. Indirect long term damage may include a decline in local population, which could compound many negative economic and social consequences.

I have attached a document that I believe captures some of the risks that you should address, specifically those associated with underwater noise. But I should be clear that my concern extends well beyond underwater noise or vessel traffic noise. The document includes and references studies and data that should be considered in the scope and analysis of the EIS, suggests research that should be conducted to fully understand these impacts and possible mitigation. Please include the issues, information and proposals in this report as you determine the scope of the EIS and ensure that they are addressed in the EIS.

As always, if there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.
Attached Files:

Tom Reeve (#11906)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am a waterfront resident of Lopez Island, living with my family on our farm along one of the routes that would be used by vessels servicing the proposed terminal.

I'm writing to request that the EIS for this project address issues related to invasive species. The vessels serving this terminal have the potential to introduce invasive species into our waterways through externally carried organisms and through ballast water. They also have the potential to take organisms from our waters (whether native or introduced) to every other location along their route.

The scope of this could be felt across many waterways, both locally and internationally.

I am also concerned that the rail traffic associated with the terminal could have a similar role in transporting invasive species (whether native or introduced) along the route of the trains.

The impact can be severe to local ecologies and economies. I would request that the EIS fully evaluate the short and long term impacts to species, communities, fisheries, the local tourist and agricultural economy of this risk.

I have attached a document that I believe captures some of the risks that you should address, including some that I have not listed here, focused on the aquatic risks. It also includes and references studies and data that should be considered in the scope and analysis of the EIS, suggests research that should be conducted to fully understand these impacts and possible mitigation. Please include the issues, information and proposals in this report as you determine the scope of the EIS and ensure that they are addressed in the EIS.

As always, if there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.
Attached Files:

Tom Reeve (#11924)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am a waterfront resident of Lopez Island, living with my family on our farm along one of the routes that would be used by vessels servicing the proposed terminal.

I'm writing to request that the EIS for this project address issues related to air pollution and coal dust.

Impacts include those involved in normal operations and through unexpected major releases. The air pollution and coal dust released in the operation of the terminal; the truck, train and vessel traffic serving the terminal; the mining of the coal shipped through the terminal; and the eventual burning of the coal shipped through the terminal potential for significant negative impacts for the people near the terminal and its associated routes as well as other species (whether wildlife or agricultural).

I would request that the EIS fully evaluate the long term impacts to species, communities, agriculture, and economies of both air pollution and coal dust associated with this proposal.

These potential impacts affect all the communities along the routes of these trains, trucks and vessels, extending well beyond our San Juan Islands and across international borders. The social and economic costs associated with negative health impacts are complicated to measure but vital to understanding the impact of this proposal.

I have attached two documents that I believe capture some of the risks that you should address, including some that I have not listed here. They also include and references studies and data that should be considered in the scope and analysis of the EIS, suggests research that should be conducted to fully understand these impacts and possible mitigation. Please include the issues, information and proposals in this report as you determine the scope of the EIS and ensure that they are addressed in the EIS.

As always, if there is no positive assurance and insurance from those involved against any potentially significant impacts, please consider a no build option.
Attached Files:

Tom Reeve (#11959)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am a waterfront resident of Lopez Island, living with my family on our farm along one of the routes that would be used by vessels servicing the proposed terminal.

I'm writing to request that the EIS for this project address issues affecting agriculture along the transportation corridors impacted by this proposal.

There are many agricultural operations along the truck, train and vessel routes that will see increased traffic due to this proposal - including our livestock operation on Lopez Island.

The EIS should include any anticipated impacts to agriculture along those routes. Those impacts could include negative impacts from noise, particulate matter, air pollution and catastrophic pollution risks associated with the proposal. The people along the route who are involved in the operation of farms should be considered as impacted by any such risks.

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

Tom Reeve (#12022)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Lopez Island, WA
Comment:
I am a waterfront resident of Lopez Island, living with my family on our farm along one of the routes that would be used by vessels servicing the proposed terminal.

I'm writing to request that the EIS for this project address issues related to delays associated with the truck, train and vessel traffic associated with the operation of the proposed terminal.

Impacts include those involved in normal operations such as traffic delays at rail crossings, commercial and recreational vessel delays in the waterways surrounding the San Juan Islands, and delays experienced by the Washington State Ferries when they have to cross increasingly congested vessel lanes.

As someone dependent on the ferries, I already experience delays when ferries must wait for commercial vessels to pass - sometimes causing rerouting and often taking several sailings before the boats can return to their scheduled times. These delays could increase substantially with the increased vessel traffic this proposal will generate in both Rosario and Haro Straits.

Similarly, I already experience sporadic delays at railroad crossings along the route, which will become increasingly likely with the numerous and long trains that would service this terminal.

The EIS for this project should include an analysis, working with the Washington Department of Transportation, of the impact of these delays. The increased operational burden on the systems should be analyzed as well as the impact of these delays on ferry passengers, freight and drivers.

When I have to get to a meeting in the Seattle area, I can predict my travel time in the current environment. If the ferries are more likely to be subject to disruption or delay, or trains are more likely to delay my arrival at the ferry, I may miss sailings or have to add substantial buffer times to my commute. Given the infrequent sailings to some of the islands, missing a boat can cost me 3-4 hours or much more (sometimes overnight). Hundreds of thousands of people would be more likely to suffer such consequences if this terminal is opened. And, given that much or our goods travel to and from the island on the ferries, there could be significant commercial disruption of such delays. This could amount to a significant cumulative economic and stress burden on people utilizing these routes and people relying on these routes to provide them with goods.

Similarly, the increased train traffic is likely to increase the negative impact of an incident (e.g. a landslide) on the rail corridors along Puget Sound. This past winter has seen numerous closures of the rail corridor between Seattle and Everett. The increased likelihood that a slide would hit a train would seem to indicate a risk of longer closures, both for passenger and freight traffic. Likewise, the additional train traffic would imply a longer recovery time from any closure that does happen as delayed trains have to catch up on their routes.

I would request that the EIS fully evaluate the impacts to communities and commerce of the potential delays along these rail and vessel routes. The Washington State Department of Transportation should be consulted to understand their history of delays caused by marine traffic (I know the track this) and to model the impact that increased marine traffic would have on their schedules.

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

Tom Rodal (#781)

Date Submitted: 10/17/2012
Comment:
My name is Tom Rodal. I am concerned that increased train traffic could disturb restaurant dining experiences along the railroad lines.

Toursits come to specific locations such as scenic Chuckanut Drive to have a quality dining experience, as do local patrons. These experiences could be disrupted by noise, heavy vibration, coal dust, air pollution or odor, or blocked crossings to get to the venue. This in turn could significantly impact the revenues of the restaurants, as well as other tourist businesses. The degradation of these experiences could impact the reputation of destinations such as Chuckanut Drive.

Please study how increased rail traffic will impact restaurants and other similar businesses near the rail lines.

Tom Soumas (#9977)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Comment:
I am writing in support of the project and related infrastructure required to be built in support of the operation. This project will provide considerable ongoing tax revenues, great jobs for local wage earners, and clean industry for the area.

Once completed the Bellingham area will enjoy multiple sources of revenue from the facilities, rail operations and vessels calling on the Port.

A further long-term benefit is that this facility will also aid in the balance of trade for the United States through export of goods to our neighbors across the Pacific Rim.

Please give this project due consideration and move ahead with the approval processes.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Tom D. Soumas, Jr.

Tom Stamey (#3063)

Date Submitted: 11/18/2012
Location: Ft Worth, tx
Comment:
For decades many states have contributed to the energy this nation uses. We in Texas for example, (others too) have had oil and gas wells in our cities, farms, ranches, school yards and any other place you can name. Some of it smelled, was noisy, caused high truck and railroad use but, we survived it. In fact we thrived on it. It provided good paying jobs and provided the entire nation with the energy it needed to make our modern lives so pleasant. Oil to power our cars, factories, ships, railroads , trucking industry, and countless commercial products that make our lives easier, along with coal to provide electricty to industry and homes. During all that time we damatically INCREASED our life expectancy.

Now it is time for Washington and Oregon and some others to step up and carry forward this most honorable tradition of helping the nation with jobs and furnishing energy to other countries that want to buy it. You can not just be takers and users. You have an obligation to join in the work of this country and the world.

The hysteria surrounding these projects can be drawn down to reality very quickly if you just consider what your lives would be like if your gasoline, other oil products, and electric power were taken away from you. Life without them would be horrible compared to todays standard of living. Surely those with the ability to reason and think should understand that. If you can not, you need help.

Tom Suttmeier (#3717)

Date Submitted: 12/02/2012
Location: Sandpoint, Id
Comment:
I live in Sandpoint on the River. I can tell you that the noise at present is absolutely the worst environmental pollution I have ever experienced. Coming from San Francisco that is saying something. Because of the current saturation of trains I rarely sleep more than two three hours a night. To add a third more trains with their heavy loads and relentless air horns would be no less than criminal. You cannot have any more of my life!.
Secondarily with a railroad bridge as old as this one it is not if but when. As a retired San Francisco Police Captain I can also tell you that the impact on safety and the resulting traffic tie-ups will fray tempers and result in substantial road rage, I have witnessed this already and know the added traffic will result in anger that will be directed at motorists, the railroad and the County. The movement of fire, paramedic and ambulances not to mention police and sheriff vehicles will most assuredly jeopardize public safety due to the numerous crossings that have no alternative routes through-out the City
In summation this is a really bad idea. While some may profit the human toll is incalculable to mental health, the economy, the life blood of tourism and to the quality of life in economic terms and the damage to the County and City of Sandpoint.
Please do not kill our community!.

Tom Tantriella (#5086)

Date Submitted: 12/14/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Tom Weathers (#7595)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Deming, WA
Comment:
I have great concerns regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal. My concerns are focused on three primary points; the negative effect to public safety resulting from the transportation issues associated with the proposal, public health issues and the adverse effect to the environment (local, regional and global). I had thought that with the breadth of discussion, the general consensus would arrive at the folly of this proposal. Sadly, it would appear individual greed and shortsightedness may facilitate this modern day “Pandora’s Box” to become a reality.

I recently retired from my firefighting career after 35 years of service. I began this vocation in Arizona and ended as a Fire Chief in King County, Washington. I also am an instructor for the National Fire Academy, a certified university educator and considered an expert in emergency preparedness. In addition, I have earned undergraduate and graduate scholastic degrees. In response to critical events, I am not one to react indiscriminately or thoughtlessly. I relay this not as a position of personal ego enhancement but to reveal that I have been successful in my professional efforts and have worked hard to earn the trust and respect of coworkers, peers, elected officials and communities.

In examining the proposed rail routes for the Pacific Coal Terminal, they show many road crossings. When evaluating the number of trains initially proposed and knowing this number would eventually grow, it is obvious many traffic routes will be affected. Emergency response delays would be from a few to many minutes and possibly much more (derailments often take at least 2 days to clear). For emergency services to effectively mitigate these delays, multiple response units could in some instances be dispatched. Clearly this duplication of emergency response comes at a great financial cost. In some locations, there is no realistic way to lessen the response impact. In these events the communities will have no other choice than to accept the increase in injury severity, the loss of life and/or the increased loss of property that will result from these delays. Of course, although not feasible, over/underpasses could be constructed at the crossings for many millions of dollars. As I understand it, these costs would be the responsibility of the citizens paid through additional taxes, not by the railroad, the coal terminal or others associated with this proposal. In short, there is no viable economic or ethical system that would mitigate the negative impact caused by trains blocking traffic avenues. Obviously I have not even mentioned the personal inconveniences and loathsome features associated with the trains (delays, noise, graffiti, pollution, etc.).

I worked over 20 years for the Flagstaff, Arizona Fire Department serving the city and the surrounding communities. Flagstaff is a town that is bifurcated by the railroad system. There are now three overpasses to allow unimpeded vehicle traffic (although there were only two during my tenure) along the approximate 10 mile corridor of the city limits. Every other arterial that crosses the railroad tracks is controlled by standard gates. As an emergency responder, it was common for the response to be delayed or at times halted due to a train blocking road access. The Band-Aid answer to this was to have a collateral response by emergency vehicles responding from different station(s). This did work at times when those resources were available, but when they were not available or all the resources were needed, response to the event was delayed. There were many alarms where this delay directly led to a negative outcome. I vividly remember watching a house burn while waiting for the blocking train to clear the tracks. Worse yet, I remember seeing the bystanders at a vehicle accident scream and wave in frustration as a father perished while we were again waiting to cross the tracks. These events are but two of many that were adversely impacted due to regular inaccessibility caused by the trains.

My concerns for the environmental damage this project will cause cover a broad spectrum and for the most part have been eloquently and accurately presented by others. I have no doubt that the use of fossil fuels destroys the environment and plans to increase the use (whether locally or globally) is a bad idea. Health problems from coal dust are real, whether they are carcinogenic, respiratory or systemic in nature. The impact to Bellingham Bay and the ground over which the coal would be transported is undesirable. Proponents who argue against these realities remind me of those who supported DDT, Thalidomide, cigarette smoking, nuclear emissions, hazardous waste dumping, etc. In every case, the long term consequences were catastrophic regardless of how well-meaning or intentioned the original concept.

I will close with the reminder that the role of the elected who will decide this issue is for the betterment of the common good. They need to critically evaluate the situation and make an accurate prediction of what will occur as a result. They should have no difficulty understanding that a coal transport operation is rife with long term negative consequences and harmful to all, regardless of where the individual is currently aligned on the topic. I fear the “patriots” supporting this measure will have no Daniel Webster to save us if they convince the elected to sell our souls for potential short term profits and personal gain.

Tom Williams (#44)

Date Submitted: 09/24/2012
Comment:
This project should go forward. Ample environmental protection standards are established to protect the environment. This project will be clean and efficient. I have observed the Tswassen coal shipping facility for 30 years. It has not damage the environment and Cherry Point will not either. Do not allow the radical environmental left sabotage this project. Please allow this project to provide jobs and growth so future generations may enjoy the same standard of living we all have enjoyed.

Thank you

Tom Williams (#167)

Date Submitted: 10/01/2012
Location: Bellingham , WA
Comment:
I agree, I don't think the "getting the coal here" is a insurmountable problem. The problem is the product, COAL. Until coal can be used as an clean energy source it sure as heck shouldn't be sold to China or other environmental bad actors . Obviously the coal mining industry is looking for new markets due to the ascension of natural gas as a cheaper "cleaner" energy source . Also obviously they do not buy into the concept of Global Warming, or even local or world wide air pollution. The coal promoters feel the pollution risk is fine as long as they can sell coal.. The air quality in areas where these coal fired plants exist is polluted, many times it's extremely polluted. Jobs are the LAST thing these Coal Corps are concerned about, that is just political advertising used to sell their plans. Business isn't just business in the case of coal. In the case of planet Earth , "Dilution is the solution to pollution" can no longer be the overriding mantra where coal is concerned.

Tom & Debbie Pawlak (#721)

Date Submitted: 10/11/12
Comment:
See attachment
Attached Image:

Tom & Mary Mosher (#5862)

Date Submitted: 12/27/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please see to it that the EIS fully addresses the adverse environmental impacts in the Spokane area. We live in the Latah Creek valley, about 4.5 miles south of I-90. We are particularly concerned about the increase in coal dust particulates in the air from the open coal carst due to the dramatic increase in the number of trains heading west through Spokane. We urge ONLY covered/sealed cars.

Tom and Mary Mosher

Tom & Mary Mosher (#5863)

Date Submitted: 12/27/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please see to it that the EIS fully addresses the adverse environmental impacts in the Spokane area. We are particularly concerned about the greatly increased potential conflict of vehicle/pedestrian conflicts with the estimated 50 train per day increase over the current west bound train traffic heading west through Spokane.

Tom and Mary Mosher

Tom & Mary Mosher (#5865)

Date Submitted: 12/27/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please see to it that the EIS fully addresses the adverse environmental impacts in the Spokane area. We are particularly concerned about derailments in the Spokane area. Please address the emergency response time and capabilities of the full-time and volunteer response teams. Also, please address the effect of derailments on our surface waters, our Aquifer, air quality, and our human, flora and fauna environments.

Tom and Mary Mosher

Tom & Mary Mosher (#5866)

Date Submitted: 12/27/12
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please see to it that the EIS fully addresses the adverse environmental impacts in the Spokane area. We live in the Latah Creek valley, about 4.5 miles south of I-90. We are particularly concerned about the increase particulates in the air from diesel exhaust due to the dramatic increase in the number of trains heading west through Spokane. We urge only the newest diesel engines or only retrofit engines meeting the current diesel engine standards.

Tom and Mary Mosher

Toni Bistodean (#2515)

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

Toni Bistodean (#3300)

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

Toni Long (#4708)

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

I 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 will negatively affect my community in the following ways:

1. It will increase traffic congestion and noise for commuters and slow response times for emergency responders.

2. It will limit access to neighborhoods, schools, business corridors and ferry terminals close to the tracks, lowering property values and driving away investors for new residential, retail and commercial developments in waterfront and rail-adjacent communities in King County.

3. It will pollute our air and local waterways, harming existing businesses, damaging aquatic ecosystems and fishing grounds at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for serious shipping accidents and escalating climate change. Diesel exhaust is associated with asthma, cardiopulmonary disease and increased incidences of cancer. Therefor, coal exports would make thousands of Northwest residents sick with serious respirator health problems in communities along the rail line.

4. Already coal-burning power plants in Asia produce pollutants such as mercury that travel to the West Coast of North America where they poison our fish and food supply. For example, the proposed terminal site at Cherry Point would span 1200 acres, fill 131 acres of wetlands and sit directly on herring grounds, which are a primary food source for Chinook salmon.

5. Based on research conducted by the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies (Chattanooga, 2011), experience has shown that the number of jobs projected to result from production and transport of coal have been grossly overstated -- multiple times they have been reduced by 75% of projections.

6. The Pacific Northwest is famous for its pristine waterways along the coast and inland. The pollution caused by the coal proposals will severely impact the quality of life for residents near those areas and for the hundreds of thousand visitors to the area each year, resulting in a significant impact on the economic viability of tourism and fishing and the many businesses that support them.

7. Exporting coal promotes deeper global fossil fuel dependence and slows the transition to cleaner alternatives that will produce better, long-term jobs in clean energy.

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

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

Toni Long




Long Toni
2311 N. 38th Street
Seattle, WA 98103

Toni Montgomery (#99)

Date Submitted: 09/27/2012
Location: Vancouver, WA
Comment:
I live on the rail line. I am concerned in all areas of the pass through areas. We are in Clark County and are very concerned for the economic impact more coal trains will have on job growth, housing starts, the devaluation of property, related health costs, infrastructure costs, clean up costs as trains derail due to coal. I live right on the rail and the coal dust is present on my plants, patio, furniture, windows. I know it is in my lungs with the coal that I clean up every day. I helped save a federally endangered chum salmon spawning grounds which is passed over each day by coal. I live at the bottom of the Columbia River Seeps and dust is washed into the Columbia River.Why is this type of pollution allowed? Why is coal allowed to impact a Federally protected Salmon? We tax payers can,t afford coal through the State. Jobs are inflated as the Port of Morrow reported only 10 jobs would be created. Coal plants are automated and do not require the amount of jobs coal claims. Do we need to sacrifice all of the pass through City,s in Washington along with our produce areas and the possibility of killing off our pollinators, bees, for a very few jobs. This proposal by big money and foreign owned business will bankrupt our State. We are part of the building industry and coal will destroy us. We won't be able to sell our home to move. The study of all Coal Ports needs to include the comprehensive impact to all the route the trains full of coal take. We pass through areas will pay the high costs with no economic benefits and this has to be included. Coal Ports will cost us everything, pad the pockets of a few very wealthy and give few jobs right at the Port. The cost is just to high and we can,t afford it.

Toni Montgomery (#3818)

Date Submitted: 12/03/12
Location: VAncouver, WA
Comment:
Toni Montgomery
13816 SE 35th St
Vancouver, WA 98683-7790

December 4, 2012

The Honorable Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS


Dear null EIS:



As my husband and I are in the building industry we request a Comprehensive EIS to include every where that coal travels in Washington State. We know that everyplace that coal travels it pollutes and will destroy our economy and most probably bankrupt our State. Who will want to purchase a home in a coal corridor? Who will want to open a business in a coal region? We will see a further economic downturn in Washington all along the rails. We request a study on the impact of coal dust on our agricultural areas and most importantly to the bees that will carry coal back to the hives during pollination. We need a study of the impact of coal dust on our vineyards. This could stop our burgeoning wine production. These trains pass schools, what effect to children? The trains pass our Columbia river and endangered Federally Protected Chum Salmon Spawning grounds. How much more chemical damage can our fish populations stand?

Please use the laws we now have to protect us from the toxins and danger of coal.

A Port Commissioner in the Port of Morrow stated that the Boardman site will only give 12 jobs. Do we ruin two States with millions of dollars in infrastructure costs that the taxpayer will have to pay? Do we sacrifice all of us for a handful of jobs? The costs are to high.

Please do the comprehensive study for all areas that coal travels. What are the coal and railway people afraid you will find? Let's do the Comprehensive EIS and find out.



















.


Sincerely

Toni Montgomery

Toni Montgomery (#5619)

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

Toni Prothero (#13211)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Taos, NM
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 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.

Toniann Reading (#2736)

Date Submitted: 11/13/2012
Location: , WA
Comment:
I am deeply concerned and opposed to this project based on the impacts to air quality, human health, traffic impacts and those added air/health detriments related to stalled traffic patterns due to additional rail traffic, plus noise & quality of community life issues from additional rail traffic. I am also opposed based on the overall impact of coal being burned anywhere on the planet at this stage of climate change!

Toniann Reading (#12581)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Sultan, 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.

* 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. This is insane, to be virtually poisoning ourselves in the long run at great cost just for short term profits for private industry!

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.

Tony Angell (#6862)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Seattle, , WA
Comment:
To Whom it May Concern:

It is with a grave sense of concern that I write to express my very serious reservations over the proposed coal terminal and the eventual shipping of this product through the Salish Sea for export to Asia.

For more than fifty years I have made this region the focus for my work as a writer/naturalist and artist. Over that time I have published a number of books that have related to the uniqueness of this region and the species dependent upon it. The degree that further development of the regional wetlands and use of the adjacent waters will compromise the remaining vitality of this area is profound. Proceeding with the Gateway Pacific Terminal is unacceptable should we expect to sustain and restore the vital marine systems that our ecological, cultural and economic way of life here require.

My research and published work has made it very clear that our natural heritage in this region has continued to diminish dramatically. There has been no satisfactory analysis of this proposed activity that would suggest that proceeding would do anything other than accellerate the decline of the diversity and richness of our remaining fisheries and marine bird populations.

I would strongly recommend that a halt be put to this plan. Business as usual will be one very serious impact on what little remains of the original integrity of the natural heritage of the Salish Sea and greater Puget Sound.

Thank You,

Tony Angell
Author, Artist
Lopez Island and Seattle Washington

Tony Angell (#8496)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Seattle, , WA
Comment:
To Whom it May Concern:

Regarding the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, I have previously expressed my concerns regarding the impact on the marine ecosystem of the Salish Sea and the Greater Puget Sound Area. My remarks are based on more than fifty years of study of the wildlife of these waters and my observations demonstrating the continuous decline of the biological diversity here and the essential habitat supporting it. Study after study have indicated that the native fisheries (including salmon, rock fish and herring) are but a fraction of what they were during the middle of the past Century. With few exceptions the same can be said for the marine birds that breed here or are winter residents. That our resident and visiting pods of orca whales is under continuous pressure is common knowledge. THE EXTRAORDINARY increase in commercial boat traffic that this proposal promises will place this remnant of our natural legacy in even greater jeporady.

It is one thing to note how the noise pollution of boat traffic has a deliterious affect on resident marine animals, but OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE is the fact that this proposed increase in commercial boat traffic will bring INVASIVE SPECIES to these water at an unprecedented rate. The millions of tons of ballast water from the Asian Pacific released into the Salish Sea prior to coal loading will contribute an order of magnitude number of problematic animals and plants that can overwhelm the fragile marine ecosystems here.

I strongly recommend that this short sighted proposal be rejected.

Most Sincerely Yours,

Tony Angell

Tony Fichera (#13023)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Medford, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect my community by increasing traffic, polluting our air and water, harming existing business, delaying emergency vehicles, increasing shipping traffic and noise, damaging aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. In Southern Oregon,we live in an area that gets air stagnation warnings from time to time.Adding additional air impurities will only serve to further deteriorate our air quality.
My opposition could be based solely on that fact alone,but it isn't.This is a no-brainer. Please protect the air quality and area ecosystems for generations to come.

Tony Goucher (#9453)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Blaine, Wa
Comment:
My name is Tony Goucher and I am a senior at Blaine High School. I am a resident of Birch Bay and have been wanting to get my concerns about the coal terminal into consideration for the local area. I have been very interested in how the coal terminal at Cherry Point would impact the local economy. Not in the fact of the amount of money and jobs it will create, but how the jobs will be bid. I am currently at the part of my life where as a 17 year old I am curious how the local job market will be for someone out of high school. Will the locals of the area be able to get jobs at the coal terminal without any experience? How could this impact the jobs that are available for people of Birch Bay, Blaine, Custer and Ferndale?
Now with this sort of thing I would like to see studies on how a coal terminal impacts local economy, and how the jobs get distributed towards the people who are in a close proximity to the area of location of the terminal.
The way that a community can thrive is if they have a coal terminal at Cherry Point that would hire local people with experience, and also hire a younger generation that can learn the ropes of an industry that could possibly be the headstone of a community for years to come.
Please study the way jobs at the coal terminal will help the local people of the surrounding areas and the benefits of a coal terminal compared to the cons of a terminal that could bid out all the jobs to out of county workers.

Tonya Nave (#3134)

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,

We don't want or need dirty coal. We need to be building clean energy sources and accompanying jobs.
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,

Tonya Nave
8630 SW Avon St
Tigard, OR 97224-5675
(503) 670-4673

Tordis Busskohn (#1988)

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

Tori Wise (#3236)

Date Submitted: 11/20/2012
Location: Desert Aire, 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.

Haven't any of you learned anything from our history? You cannot make these kinds of decisions in a vacuum and they will have a historically horrendous reaction from your decision. Why don't you try something new and innovative instead of the same old decisions to poison our planet and kill off the people? Think it over and show some initiative! We did NOT elect any of you to just be seat warmers. You are there to represent US, not big industry, but the people who voted you into office. Think it over and use the brain that God gave you. Please! The one thing that has set this state apart from so many others is it's past record on the eco systems. Look at how they have saved and protected the Salmon. Now you want to kill them. Do you really believe that the people of this state saved the Salmon for you to now poison the water and kill them off with your coal shipments?

Sincerely,

TORI WISE

Torolf Torgersen (#14203)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Files:

Tory Schram (#194)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I [DO] 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.

Tovah Rainsong (#7975)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
The Buddha said that it is not a question of separation. If the minds of the people are impure, so is their land. We as a species can not exist without the land to support us, nor vice versa. Therefore, I feel it is imperative that we learn to control the negative impulses, such as greed and ignorance, which is the fundamental source of suffering for all of us. Our land, our home needs care -- a stewardship approach therefore, since caring for ourselves is the same as caring for the environment. And dirtying the environment with coal dust is not the way to do that. I looks to me like a greedy grab for money by a few people who would make money at the expense of the quality of life for all of us. Our air, water, land is already suffering for what we have done -- perhaps without realizing the impact at the time, but now we know. We are killing our oceans, eliminating species, and this proposal is counter to everything a conscious individual knows to be right.

I also feel it is polarizing and unproductive to set people who want good paying jobs against people who want to protect the quality of the environment. Hello, can't we create jobs that are environmentally friendly? I think that should be our approach. Let's put our minds to work and come up with something that is better for all of us. We've created the environmental problems, and we can fix it, but we can't hesitate! Let's get on the right track about this coal train thing! It's definitely not in anyone's best interests! Let's create environmentally friendly jobs and be good stewards of our planet!

Tove S. Christiansen (#2548)

Date Submitted: 11/08/2012
Comment:
I am concerned of the consequensies of the coal transport and the coal burning all over the world. Let's not contribute to the global warming. I am a member of Naturvernforbundet in Norway and I support their work in UN and internationally to
make our globe be a healthy place to live for all people.
Keep on the good work! Please study the impact of burning coal in Asia on climate change and global warming. The air belongs to all of us. Thank you.

TR Ritchie (#14202)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:


Tracey Parker (#358)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: La Conner, 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 moved to Bellingham in 1980 after a vist in 1979. The area was so beautiful that I came back right after I graduated from College. I now live in Skagit County after 20 years in Bellingham. I still feel like I am on a working vacation.

Frankly, I am sick about the proposed coal export. We all know about global warming. We all know about the impacts of dirty coal. As stated earlier, I strongly oppse the coal terminal. New jobs can be created by developing clean, renewable energy.

In closing, please do not build this coal terminal. Please do not ruin my community and my home.

Tracey Parker (#3200)

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

Tracey Westerholm (#10374)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
Coal dust contains heavy metals that are toxic to all life when inhaled or ingested. Unknown amounts would blow from open air storage piles at the terminal and from uncovered train cars, settling on the Puget Sound and mixing into the water. There, it would result in the killing of eelgrass. Without healthy eelgrass, the herring populations that use it to spawn will die. Without herring, the salmon populations that eat them will plummet, as will the populations of seals and orca whales that eat the salmon. Numerous other species whose fate is interlinked with these well-known ones will be affected. This food web is already in peril. Puget Sound salmon sport higher levels of carcinogenic PCBs in their tissues than any other Pacific salmon population. The Sound's orca whales are dying off, being more contaminated with PCBs than any other orcas in the world.
These ecosystem impacts are very foreseeable because if the terminal is built, nine full coal trains will pass up the coast every day with a mile and a half each of uncovered cars. BNSF estimates that from 500 pounds to 1 ton of coal dust will be lost from each car in transit, and there is also the time-proven risk of derailments dumping coal overboard. The coal that would wait in gigantic piles at the terminal will be subject to inevitable coastal winds (Cherry Point has a reputation for being windy), resulting in direct pollution of the marine reserve at Cherry Point.
Even if covers are put on the coal cars, and even if the dust blowing off the piles at the terminal can be somehow mitigated, it is still projected that 160 acres of eelgrass estuary would be filled in to accommodate the terminal. This would have a devastating direct impact on Cherry Point herring.
I urge decision-makers to conduct thorough studies on how the coal dust from the terminal's operation would affect the health and population levels of keystone marine species over time, because the ecosystem is already very stressed, and additional stressing will soon lead to its collapse.

Tracy Bennett (#8900)

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

Tracy Cereghino (#4142)

Date Submitted: 12/07/2012
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
My name is Tracy Cereghino and I moved to Bellingham in 1988 to attend WWU and stayed because of the natural beauty and close knit community. My husband, two children and I enjoy spending time at the local parks and trails and shopping and eating at local shops and restaurants in Fairhaven and downtown Bellingham.

The proposed coal train project is very concerning - I want to know how 18 coal trains running through Bellingham would impact our community. I request that the EIS study the impact of 18 coal trains on our air quality and noise pollution. I also request that the EIS study the economic, safety, health and recreation impact from the proposed waterfront train track that would block Boulevard Park.

Please consider the long term impact of this proposed project. Please do the right thing for the communities and environment that would be impacted by the coal trains - do the research, study the impacts and make a decision based on real science and economics.

Thank you,
Tracy Cereghino

Tracy Crossman (#14200)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Conway, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:


Tracy Farwell (#1056)

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.

Lets not send the bill for yet more environmental damage to future tax payers to create gains for the 1%.


Tracy Farwell
3503 47th Ave NE
seattle, WA 98105

Tracy Farwell (#13217)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
Sickening air pollution in China goes where? It dissipates on prevailing winds eastward. It makes landfall on the US west coast, only to nullify our long standing efforts to maintain air quality. We are seriously unwise to export polluting fuel coal, and China is equally unwise to import it. Who is writing the Pacific Rim EIS ?
Foolish negligence matched only by foolish action.

This is why 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.

Tracy Fleming (#4358)

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 am a life-long research biologist. To export coal to a country with some of the worst pollution problems and standards on the planet is not only irresponsible, but stupid. This proposal is ridiculous given what we now know about global warming and the effects of burning coal / carbon production on exacerbating climate change. Add on top of that transportation costs and associated pollution (let's burn more fuel and create more carbon). Then there's the local damage and pollution.
Such things as increased traffic, damage to small businesses, delay of emergency vehicles, air and water pollution, increased shipping traffic and noise, damage to aquatic ecosystems at the terminal site, increased potential for serious shipping accidents in one of the most scenic and sensitive marine locations on the west coast (home, for instance, to an iconic orca pod already proposed as endangered), etc.
All of this, so one of most environmentally damaging industries in America can increase its bottom line profit under the guise of creating a few local jobs that don't remotely offset the global and local damage? I can't believe you're even entertaining this at all, let alone seriously.

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 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. Then, do the right thing . . . turn this whole mess down!

Sincerely,

Tracy Fleming
2516 NE 148th St
Vancouver, WA 98686-2123
(360) 609-3412

tracy king (#12094)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Maple Falls, wa
Comment:
I request that the scope of the EIS be expanded to include the effects of the project on global climate change. The EIS should include an analysis of the effects along the entire rail route from Wyoming to Bellingham.

The EIS must include an analysis of the effects of burning coal in China, where they have few environmental regulations, on the health of the Chinese people and western North America.

Will the increased burning of coal in China mean an increase in pollution and 'acid rain' in the mountains of Washington? By how much and what is an acceptable amount?

Will the burning of coal in China have a negative effect on western North American amphibian populations?

What are the environmental effects of coal mining in the powder river basin?

Thank you,

Tracy King.

Tracy Montaron (#2240)

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

Tracy Montaron (#2797)

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

Tracy Montaron (#6026)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
Please study the cumulative impacts on the marine environment of 467 Cape-sized ships a year being loaded with coal and shipped through the fragile Puget Sound to China. Please include in your study the effects on the eel grass and herring beds near Cherry Point from clearing the site, coal dust, coal spills, fuel spills, disturbance from ships, and other pollutants. Please also include in your study the effects of these pollutants and disturbances on the orcas in Puget Sound, which are a threatened species. These are impacts that cannot be mitigated, and would permanently alter the marine environment in the Puget Sound. Thank you.

Tracy Montaron (#6027)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
Please study the cumulative impact on human health of 18 1 1/2 mile long uncovered coal trains passing through our towns each day. The noise from these trains will interfere with restful sleep, which is necessary for good health. The diesel particulate matter from these trains go deep into the lungs of people who breathe the fumes and cause serious health effects, including cancer. The accumulation of coal dust on the tracks causes derailments, toxic metal poisoning in the soil near the tracks, and the coal dust in the air causes respiratory health effects.

These impacts cannot be mitigated, and will cause permanent damage to the health of people living along the tracks. These impacts should be studies on all residents who live within several miles of the tracks, from Wyoming through Washington to Cherry Point. Thank you.

Tracy Montaron (#6028)

Date Submitted: 01/05/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
Please scope the economic impacts of 18 more trains going through historic downtown Mount Vernon, each 1 1/2 miles long, carrying uncovered loads of coal. Our town is in the midst of a development project which will protect the town from floods and bring new economic growth to the downtown area. The train tracks bisect the downtown, and when a train of that size goes through, it blocks access to the town from I-5 for up to ten minutes. That would be nearly ten minutes out of every hour, more if you include all the trains that already run through the town. There is no way to mitigate these effects. BNSF has already informed the city council that they will pay no more than 5% of any improvements, leaving taxpayers to pay the rest, a cost we cannot afford.

This project would have a significant, permanent adverse impact on our current downtown businesses, on businesses who may or may not decide to locate here, and on tourists and shoppers who may decide to avoid our downtown due to the constant presence of dirty, noisy coal trains. I am asking you to consider the large amount of jobs that would be lost in our town, and other towns along the tracks from Wyoming through Washington, compared to the small amount of jobs that would be created at Cherry Point, in the scoping process.

Thank you.

Tracy Montaron (#7188)

Date Submitted: 01/14/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
I am a resident of Mount Vernon and agree with the comment made by Mary Ruth Holder, which you can view at: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6108. I, too, am concerned about the coal dust from 18 trains a day. My family lives within two miles of the tracks, and we obtain our food from a local organic farm which is less than one mile from the tracks. Please include in the scoping process the impacts of these coal trains on our food supply. Thank you.

Tracy Montaron (#7922)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Mount Vernon, and one who cares greatly about the health of the marine life in the Puget Sound, I agree with the following comment by Michael Riordan:

http://signon.org/sign/terminal-coal-trains?mailing_id=8065&source=s.icn.em.cr&%3Br_by=266731&r_by=5642029

Thank you for your consideration.

Tracy Montaron (#8297)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
I agree with Mayor Buxbaum of Olympia's comment:
"Burning coal leads to increased emissions of greenhouse gases and climate change. In turn, the EIS must assess the negative impacts to quality of life, public health and the environment which are associated with climate change. This includes the impacts of climate change in our community; ocean acidification, increased liklihood of reduced snowpack, flooding, summer droughts, and forest fires risk, and quality of coastal and near-shore habitat."

Thank you for your consideration.

Tracy Montaron (#8491)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Mount Vernon, WA, I realize how dependent this area is upon the beautiful Puget Sound. Our fishermen, tribes, and tourism industry depend upon a healthy Puget Sound for their very existence. Please take into consideration the following comments by a man who says it better than I ever could, San Olson:

http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/1567

I agree with his comments, and want these impacts thoroughly considered in the impact statement. The introduction of these giant cape-sized ships into the Puget Sound jeopardizes the health of the sound, our environment, and our economy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tracy Montaron (#9276)

Date Submitted: 01/19/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Mount Vernon who lives less than two miles from the train tracks,
I agree with the following comment posted by Dr. Sara Mostad:
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6353.

We have several elementary schools very near the tracks as well, each with over 500 students attending. Please consider the health of these children and other human beings when studying the cumulative effects of diesel particulates on our health.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tracy Montaron (#10584)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Mount Vernon and a mother of two, I agree with the following comment submitted by Carolyn Gastellum:
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6908

As we move away from burning coal in this country because we have found it devastating to health and the environment, it is morally wrong to ship it to China to have them burn it and ruin their health and environment. We are all connected, and we have got to stop contributing to global warming now, for the sake of all future generations. Please consider the cumulative effects on burning all this coal on our environment.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tracy Montaron (#12880)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Comment:
My name is Tracy Montaron and I live in Mount Vernon. 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 for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Tracy Montaron

Tracy Ouellette (#2130)

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

Tracy Ouellette (#2137)

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

Tracy Ouellette (#2147)

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

Tracy Ouellette (#3003)

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

Tracy Salter (#14199)

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

Tracy Spring (#1717)

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

Tracy Spring (#14197)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Tracy Spring (#14198)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Tracy Tackett (#4156)

Date Submitted: 12/08/2012
Comment:
Exporting coal for use at locations with no intent to meet our air quality standards that the US should ban.
If I make the huge leap that such equivalent air quality standards were enforced, there are other impacts that need to be mitigated if any such plan is pursued. The current proposal is not adequate. Any shipping routes need to avoid the San Juan island. The island are a resource and playground for Washington citizens, tourists, and wildlife. Increased shipping traffic negatively impacts all of those users.
Finally I am concerned about the air quality impacts from the coal transport in the trains within puget sound.

Tracy Tomashpol (#3791)

Date Submitted: 12/02/12
Location: Anaheim, CA
Comment:
Dear Mr. Perry & Army Corps of Engineers,

The US is lucky to have abundant supplies of coal, and we should exploit our own natural resources like coal and natural gas before importing from often unreliable overseas sources.

However, the proposal to transport so much uncovered coal by train through the Columbia Gorge tips the scales against the environment too far. I urge you to either STOP this proposal entirely, or require complete mitigation of the effects of the coal transportation through the Gorge.

Sometimes it seems that the arguments between the environment and sound energy policy propose a zero-sum game. But there are alternatives to the transport through the Gorge, and I think they're worth exploring AND paying for.

Thanks to some of the sound environmental ideas of people who came before us, we enjoy beautiful national parks. Those parks are enjoyed by millions who visit, from all income levels, and millions more watch programs about them, buy calendars with gorgeous vistas and dream of visiting. It' the same with the Gorge.

I don't live in the Gorge, but I've been able to visit several times over the past twenty years. It's thrilling to see the same areas first seen by Lewis & Clark centuries ago, and to know that this pristine area, while touched by human hands in a way that has changed it tremendously over the past 200 years, still offers any visitor beautiful trails, a stunning river, early native people's cultural history, and fresh air. I live in a city - Los Angeles - packed in with millions of others. I drive on congested freeways and breathe polluted air. I'm grateful when energy prices are low ... but I'm also grateful that I can drive for an hour east of Portland and arrive at the Gorge.

I was there in late September, when the hills were golden with the end of season grasses, the wind, as it so often does, was blowing strongly, and the Columbia rolled on, as it often does. While walking on one of the trails overlooking the river, I could see the snaking line of the railway and watch railcars making their way westwards. Had those railcars been filled with coal - uncovered - the dust from the coal would have coated the hillside where I stood. The beautiful trees and grasses would eventually die, and coal dust runoff would foul the river, affecting the entire ecosystem.

Coal has been a valuable resource for the US, but anyone who has visited areas where coal has been torn out of the earth knows that coal companies have taken a huge toll on the human communities near mines. Coal has polluted streams and rivers, made some of the beautiful wild spots of the eastern seaboard ugly scarred pits, and done little to advance the human welfare of the miners who risk their lives extracting it. I want coal fired plants to have a source of fuel, but I'm willing to pay more in order to keep the Gorge clean as a legacy for people today and in the next generations, and to keep it clean for the animals who form part of a vital ecosystem.

Please do NOT allow the increased level of coal transport through the Gorge.

Thanks for your time.

Tracey Tomashpol
434 S Westridge Circle
Anaheim CA 92807=

Tran Phung (#1910)

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

Travis Dickson (#11387)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Everson, WA
Comment:
My comment has to do with the economic impact to area businesses both downtown and along the Harbor. I request that a study be made along these lines: how does the extra train traffic/noise/etc influence shopping in downtown areas and along the harbor; specifically businesses within the Squalicum Harbor business complex and nearby: Hi Tech auto, LFS, and restaurants. I think it's important to do a thorough survey of cosummers to see if this would impact their shopping. Indirectly, businesses in the west part of downtown may be negatively impacted as well.

There has been a real effort to bring people into downtown both to shop and to live. I would like to see downtown continue to grow and flourish into a center for commerce, public access, and leisure, retirement (in the case of the Leopold), and more.

Thanks for hearing me out,

Travis Dickson -- Avid Bellingham downtown shopper

Travis Johnston (#13682)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Bozeman, MT
Comment:
Please see attached doc for comments on Docket NO. COE-2012-0016 Thank you
Attached Files:

Travis Webb (#13887)

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 respectfully 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 respectfully urge the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for doing what is right for the health and well-being of all Americans.

Treacy Frye (#10748)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Marysville, Wa
Comment:
I have very big concerns about the overall impact on those of us that live on or very near the tracks.i worry about our health from all those uncover cars going right by our house.That many more loud horns and backed up traffic.No thanks

Treva King (#14194)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Trevor Hilpert (#7705)

Date Submitted: 01/10/13
Location: Fall City, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Trevor Pitsch (#10191)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Dear Regulatory Agencies,
I am an anesthesiologist practicing in Bellingham, working in the inpatient setting at St. Joseph Hospital and Skagit Valley Regional Medical Center. Every day I care for patients with a variety of acute and chronic life-threatening health problems. I am deeply concerned about the potential health impacts of massive coal export from our region.
There are many potential serious health impacts that merit close scrutiny. I request that the Environmental Impact Statement include a comprehensive and cumulative Health Impact Assessment.
In particular, this Health Impact Assessment should include careful study and modeling of the air pollution from the diesel locomotives and ships transporting coal through our region. Also, I am concerned of the air quality impact of the burning of coal in places without strict air pollution regulations like here in the US. It scares me to see the images of smog being generated out of China and to think that is entering our atmosphere and circulating worldwide. What they do overseas affects the health of all of us on planet Earth.
I specifically request that you determine how many excess deaths and hospitalizations would be expected, across the entire state of Washington, from diesel particulate matter associated with the diesel locomotives and ships from the Gateway Pacific Terminal. Such an analysis, should, at a minimum, compare baseline and expected rates of asthma, stroke, heart attack and cancer. There is abundant peer-reviewed medical research establishing irrefutable links between diesel pollution and the above noted diseases.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Trevor Pitsch MD
Attached Image:

Trevor Tregellas (#607)

Date Submitted: 10/09/12
Location: Marysville, WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

The impact on Marysville residents would be devastating, unless every coal car is sealed, and new overpasses are built at every crossing. Who pays the cost?

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.

Trevor Tregellas

Trevor Tregellas (#3196)

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

Tricia Synco (#31)

Date Submitted: 09/22/12
Comment:
To Whom It May Concern,

After reading the facts of the negative impacts from coal trains, I strongly urge you to be against the plans to bring coal trains to NW/bellingham. Please think of the future, our children and quality of life of others and negative impacts on our food/ecosystem.

Thanks for reading,
Tricia Synco

Tricia & Steve Trainer (#1346)

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

Trillium Swanson (#4511)

Date Submitted: 12/07/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Trillium Swanson (#5087)

Date Submitted: 12/14/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Trillium Swanson (#14195)

Date Submitted: 01/14/13
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Trina Blake (#7886)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
The earth is undergoing a dramatic shift in climate due to human activity. Coal is one of the biggest offenders in terms of being a dirty fuel. Burned it creates horrible particles that are breathed in along with carbon which accelerates global warming (no matter where it burns). The air quality in Beijing alone should prevent any further use. But coal is also dangerous and deadly to be dug out of the earth (miners die every year), to transport (more hazards, more carbon) and in everything about it. It is cumulative in its impact. So I am requesting a cumulative environmental, health impacts and economic impact statement of all these proposed coal terminals.

Trina Sherwood (#281)

Date Submitted: 10/03/2012
Location: Union Gap, 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 a citizen of Washington state of the United States, I am voicing my opinion today to help protect the natural resources of this land. This land and resources were not created to be handled with mismanagement and carelessness of bureaucracy. We are only here to protect future use of these lands and our future generations to be able to utilize the natural resources without dangerous implications.

Please rethink your proposal and find an alternative solution.

Sincerely,

Trina Sherwood

Trina Sherwood (#3085)

Date Submitted: 11/14/12
Location: Union Gap, WA
Comment:
Nov 14, 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.

Our quality of life and love of our land is what sustains us. When decisions are made without the consensus of the people then where is democracy? I am speaking on behalf of the land I love and cherish because I am a direct descendant of the Mid-Columbia River Indians.

I have family that live on both sides of the Coumbia River and we worship at our longhouse located nearby Cherry Point. I am very upset over the possibility of coal being exported along my precious river.
Please take into consideration all the future generations who do not need this toxic coal being shipped on the Columbia River. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Trina Sherwood
2808 Main St
Union Gap, WA 98903-1755
(509) 480-2109

Trish Reading (#8453)

Date Submitted: 01/12/13
Location: Portland , 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.

It may seem like the only route to the Pacific Ocean, but the Columbia River NATIONAL SCENIC AREA just isn't the place to send through 100 coal trains a day:
dropping bits of coal,
spewing out diesel pollution,
increasing noise pollution,
and increasing the source of allergies from coal dust and smoke returning via air currents across the Pacific Ocean to the US from China!

And what about the liability of a coal train accident: who will be responsibile for cleaning up the cars and spilled coal?

Please rethink your plans!

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. Trish Reading

Tristan Smith (#7762)

Date Submitted: 01/15/2013
Location: Bellingham, W
Comment:
We moved with our two young children to Bellingham to take advantage of the beautiful setting and natural surroundings. An increase in the amount of coal train traffic passing through our neighborhoods and along our waterfront will make it harder to enjoy our city in a healthy way.

Noise, polluted air, and less access will make our waterfront difficult to enjoy.

Please study these probably impacts:
- Noise impact on waterfront parks
- Air quality impact on waterfront parks
- Health impacts of open coal cars
- Health impact of diesel locomotives
- Noise impact on Bellingham quality of life

Troy Paulsen (#5766)

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

Trudi Stuart (#8874)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
It's NO on Coal Trains and Capitalism without a Conscience! We can convert our coal into liquid fuel. The Germans did it in WW II. The technology is there. I see no benefit to the environment, or our people in shipping coal to China, or elsewhere. How is the EPA enforcing the "12 Microgram Limit"? Are YOU doing all you can to reverse Global Warming? If you do, this plan should make you really angry! thank you for letting me comment. Trudy Stuart.

Trudy Deaton (#3434)

Date Submitted: 11/26/2012
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
Birch Bay has been a sanctuary for a great variety of migrating birds to rest and feed on herring which thrive in the Bay's healthy eelgrass. My concern is the introduction of coal and/or coal dust toxins into the water eventually building to the levels where the ecology is disturbed.

The following is from an article written by British Columbia Provincial Government:

Eelgrass meadows support a complex web of interrelated creatures, thanks largely to billions of microorganisms such as bacteria, diatoms and algae. These microbes attach to eelgrass leaves and form a film that is grazed upon by larger animals. Microbes also help to break down dead plant matter. This material, called detritus, provides the primary nutrients for many of the plants and animals that live in and nearby eelgrass beds. The structure of eelgrass plants also provides sheltered habitat for many species. Some of the more easily recognizable members of eelgrass communities include:
Fish such as juvenile Pacific salmon, herring, pipefish, sole, perch and smelt
Invertebrates such as isopods, amphipods, polychaete worms, crabs, sea stars, clams, snails, anemones, sea urchins and many others
Birds including many species of diving and dabbling ducks, herons and gulls
Mammals such as harbour seals and river otters
The importance of eelgrass to juvenile salmon is of particular concern since salmon in turn affect many other ecosystems, and are important to the economies and cultures of human communities. When young salmon first emerge from streams as smolts, eelgrass beds in estuaries provide them with a sheltered area where they can gently acclimate to the salt water. The abundant food allows them to grow large enough to survive in the ocean.
Detritus is also exported to other ecosystems. It nourishes terrestrial plants, either through the feces of birds or by being washed up on shore. Detritus can also be washed out to sea by currents, and provides nutrients to deep sea ecosystems as remote as thermal vent communities 30,000 feet below the surface.
In addition to its biological roles, eelgrass is physically important to shoreline ecosystems and human development. Its rhizomes help to trap sediment and anchor shifting sands, and its leaves dampen wave action. This helps to prevent beach erosion.
What threatens eelgrass?
Eelgrass beds can be destroyed by dredging with large machinery, which is often done to construct ports, wharves and other coastal structures. Dredging also stirs up sediments that can bury eelgrass plants.
Construction of seawalls, breakwaters, groynes and other structures can alter coastal sediment processes that are necessary to retain the fine sediment in which eelgrass grows.
Structures such as docks and wharves can “shade out” eelgrass, preventing sufficient sunlight from reaching the plants.
Excessive sediment from streams can reduce light penetration and cover plants. This can come from logging, construction and natural events in watersheds, and be transported by streams to coastal areas where eelgrass grows.
Pollution, including nutrients (e.g. fertilizers) and chemicals (such as oils, heavy metals, pesticides, solvents, etc.) can damage or kill eelgrass.

Trudy Stuart (#2469)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Comment:
Health matters prevent me from attending tonight's meeting at SVC. My comment is short and i hope that it will add to others that much more eloquently describe concerns. I already feel the effects of the coal trains. I no longer can sleep with an open bedroom window. Traces of the coal dust are on my window sills and in my throat. My gutters hold a layer of black, paper-like material. What is all that coal power used for in China? China is adjusting its "One Child" rule. Already, when you look at the amount of human collateral China possesses, compared to the United States, the future looks frightening. All we need is an alliances of Russia with China and we'll be cooked! Probably with the help of COAL! Trudy Stuart.

Trygve Steen (#11932)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Portland, OR
Comment:
I write this scoping comment from the perspective of a Professor of Environmental Science, with an advanced degree in environmental toxicology. The EIS for this proposed terminal needs to be totally in depth and comprehensive. There will be highly significant environmental impacts from this proposed facility: including the facility itself; including its ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES, especially rail transport of coal; and including the environmental consequences of further carbon emissions that will be facilitated by promoting coal export.

Coal transport activities deserve in depth analysis, especially the coal dust hazards along the entire rail lines and in the port facilities as well. Further, the intensified rail and harbor traffic will subject substantial numbers of people to fine particulate pollution from diesel combustion as well as sulfur oxide pollution in association with harbors. In addition, impacts on efforts to develop high speed rail calls for in depth analysis, because of the projected coal train traffic impacts.

Pollution and climate change implications require very detailed analysis: clearly the basic carbon dioxide emissions in such large quantities (with implications for climate change); appropriate modeling of the pollution plume from China to the Pacific Northwest airsheds (heavy metals; sulfur and nitrogen oxides; as well as reactants producing ozone).

There are also significant social and economic issues related to ordinary people bearing costs (pollution and health), while corporate entities make huge amounts of money even as they avoid paying appropriate - fair royalties to states and the Federal Government. The detailed economic analysis of exporting coal to China needs to include implications for job growth here in the United States. Supporting the huge energy requirements of Chinese manufacturing activity has important economic and strategic implications for the US economy as well as national defense.

In summary, for this EIS to be a responsible effort, the ANALYSIS NEEDS TO BE DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD.

Thank you for your consideration of this brief comment and for doing an EIS that fully does this project justice.

TS & Rivkah Applegate & Sweedler (#1262)

Date Submitted: 10/09/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Turtle Farahat (#5651)

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

Twyla Lindall (#12540)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Gold Hill, OR
Comment:
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE OF US WHO OPPOSE COAL EXPORT OF ANY KIND. tHE NEGATIVES ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY POSITIVE RESULTS FROM THOSE THAT CONTINUE TO THE DAMAGE THAT WOULD BE DONE TO OUR ENVIRONMENT AND PERSONAL HEALTH.

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.

Ty Adams (#3456)

Date Submitted: 11/27/2012
Comment:
While I am in favor of providing for good jobs, I do not think those good jobs should overshadow the safety to the citizens that live or work near the proposed site.

As a resident of the area, I have had to endure many delays as rail cars travel northbound-southbound. These trains can be extremely long. If they are intended to take the siding out to Cherry Point or take on cars at the siding, they need to slow down, stop, or even backup, creating more delays. This can limit access to two major roads to the Cherry Point - Birch Bay area.

While there is emergency services within the affected area, advanced life support does not and is affected by train traffic. Adding additional train traffic to this area could severely hamper delivery of critical life saving care as the only other major access to the area is at least another four miles North and can also be affected by this same train traffic.

This area is an island divided by a rail line and the residents and businesses located here have no other recourse other than this EIS or move.

An alternate method of accessing this area by vehicle needs to be developed at one of the southern crossings (Birch Bay-Lynden Rd or Grandview Rd) which is closest to advanced life support.

With heavy rains in the winter, building an underpass for vehicles is not feasible. Pumps break down and get clogged as well as needing electricity to run which fails reliably in this area during the heavy storms.

Creating an overpass for the train or vehicles is the most viable solution, but with the height needed for truck traffic to the area and length the overpass would need to be for a train, a vehicle overpass is the most likely of solutions.

Ty Campbell (#12886)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
I vehemently 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, devaluing real estate, increasing the potential for serious shipping accidents and exacerbating climate change. I strongly urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through the continued burning of such fuels with only serve to increase the greenhouse effect and so throw our climate out of balance. We are experiencing record droughts during the summer and record lows during the winter due to a climate thrown out of balance by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and it needs to stop now if our children are to live in a healthy world. We are already seeing food prices rise due to this ignorant and irresponsible practice and tropical storms intensify. The pollution caused by this proposed coal export terminal will ravage our lungs, our communities, and our earth and greatly contribute to the destruction that poisons and disillusions us all.

I live only miles from the tracks that these coal trains would be traveling on along with many of my friends young and old. In particular, I have friends with very young children, two sweet little girls, that live in Ballard directly above the proposed coal train route. They have told me in person that they are already considering moving to protect their children from the coal dust. I have heard that each coal carrying train car looses between 500 lbs. and one ton of coal dust en route from the source to the dock. That comes to hundreds upon hundreds of tons of coal dust wafted onto our streets and into our homes each year! Is this the 18th century or what?! That is completely unacceptable. Through downtown Seattle! Not to mention the hypocrisy of "pursuing" clean energy alternatives in Washington and yet seriously considering the export of 48 million tons of coal a year??!!
And it is already a hassle enough to wait for the trains in downtown Seattle.

This "Coal export route" i.e. "Washington toxification route" is ridiculous and would be the most destructive thing to my home, my city, and our dignity as self-respecting human beings. I urge you to strongly consider these concerns in the Environmental Impact Statement, though this monstrosity would irreparably damage much more than just the environment.

Ty Tice (#12349)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
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.
Furthermore, the shipment of coal anywhere contributes to global warming and climate and is contrary to President Obama's stated intention. Instead of transporting coal our Nation needs to enact a carbon tax discouraging its use. Please 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.

Tye Mergan (#5124)

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

Tyler Kennedy (#809)

Date Submitted: 10/08/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Tyler Leedom (#524)

Date Submitted: 09/25/12
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
It is like i would tell my daughter, this is a poor choice. 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,

Tyler Leedom

Tyler Leedom (#844)

Date Submitted: 10/15/12
Comment:
My name is Tyler Leedom and i am a physician here in Whatcom County as well as a concerned citizen and father. The reasons for opposition of increasing the amount of coal through Whatcom county to Cherrypoint seem endless so I will only mention a few. First off I moved up here to the great Northwest for its clean air and water. If we increase the amount of cool through the County over the long-haul that can only lead to a decrease in water and air quality. I also see it is irresponsible and unethical to send Coal across seas to China of whom has little regulation on how it is converted into energy not to mention we will regain the pollution in the jetstream after it's burned. 50 years from now when China no longer wants our coal and our waterways and beautiful landscape is hurting nobody is going to care about the devastation except for its current citizens which is why I am writing. Please do not allow this atrocity to occur.
Thank you for your time.
Tyler Leedom

Sent from my iPhone=

Tyler Miller (#8419)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
(please excuse my spelling errors)
The coal trains would negitivle affect the way I as a person live in that it would
A. Create more traffic because trains woulg be passing by more offten and affect my driving timeing consitarbly
B. Yes it "might" create more jobs BUT the jobs that it creates will cause health problumes to the workers and would affect the overall living conditions of the people working around it
C. The coal trains would cause great problums to the evirometal community of our citys which should be protected and not be carisly destroyed at a push for more money and power

Tyler Wilson (#14617)

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

Tyson Boston (#1949)

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

Ueli Stadler (#12534)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. In general terms, I find it completely unconscionable to allow coal exports knowing that this coal will most likely end up in coal power plants in China and other countries with an extremely poor record of protecting air quality. It is in everybody's interest that coal is allowed to be burned only in plants that have the best possible technology in place to absolutely minimize any green house gas and pollutant emissions. Just to name one example, Bejing currently suffers from extreme air pollution which causes respiratory problems for many of its residents. It is absolutely wrong for us to allow for those problems to be exacerbated just because we want to allow some extractive energy companies to reap a profit from publicly owned resources at the expense of people in other parts of the world.

Furthermore, 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.

Ulrich Steidl (#9024)

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

I fully support the fight against the coal export terminals by the Power Past Coal coalition and others, for all the negative impacts listed below. But by far the biggest reason is that we HAVE to drastically reduce the amount of carbon we put in the atmosphere if we want to prevent catastrophic consequences in the decades to come. Imagine the destruction of Sandy or Kathrina had the sea level already been 3 ft higher! And even here in Seattle, in Myrtle Edwards Park, part of the bike path was flooded recently during a high tide / storm day. This whole plan is misguided in against our national interestest. Yes, in the short term some jobs are created here. But that is also true for selling advanced weapons to the Taliban. It's still a shortsighted, stupid idea.



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

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

Thank you.


Ulrich Steidl

Understanding Israel (#11970)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Kent, WA
Comment:
- Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS Comments: I am concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal and all the aspects of that project. This seems like a local issue but it has regional, national and global implications. Please study every possible environmental impact from mining the coal from the ground, shipping the coal to port via train, loading and shipping the coal onto ships, transporting on ships, and burning the coal in China. Also, study the social impacts, job loss and negative impacts on businesses and tourism nearby and along the train route and all current and proposed routes from mines to ports.
I would also like studied the effects long and short term on burning coal in China and how it effects the west coast and all parts of the United States and how it impacts climate change. Thank you.

Ursula Mass (#7709)

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

Uzma Haroon (#4816)

Date Submitted: 12/15/2012
Comment:
What will happen to the water and air quality in the ports?

V Dwight Schrag (#4190)

Date Submitted: 12/09/2012
Location: Bellevue, WA
Comment:
Please add my contact information to your list of people who wish to receive updates on progress/meetings/review sessions.

Comments already provided (three different submittals), latest on December 6th/7th.

Please consider how difficult or impossible you have set this up for public comments without spelling out details of the entire scope of project(s). Lack of transparency is extreme and probably illegal. Such gross lack of project definition is highly questionable. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit approvals have been Vetoed in recent years by EPA for failing to assess public comments properly in Virginia; and coming to wrongful conclusions about the totality of project impacts.

Gateway Pacific Projects could be compared (by me) to asking the public to comment on placement of a Nuclear Power Reactor in downtown Seattle's waterfront .... without telling the public details of "who, what, how, how much, where, when, why, for what purpose, past experiences, disaster scenario's likely"; plus Review Agencies giving out only a few measly tidbits of information about codes, standards, specifications, operational factors, and the entire life cycle of materials used/transported and personal health factors; how people/animals/plants will likely to be harmed by such projects. .... On and on. Get my point?? Thank you.

V. Gadman (#5140)

Date Submitted: 12/19/2012
Comment:
I live in Hope, Idaho and currently endure freight trains, including coal trains, within 75 yards of my office. The impact of the proposed increase in rail traffic will be a terrible hardship for my business with increased noise and pollution. I am calling on you to deny the pending removal-fill permit for Ambre Energy’s Morrow Pacific coal export project. This project threatens our public health and safety and the environment.

Bonner County alone will see as many as an additional 66 trains per day traveling along and over Lake Pend O’Reille and threatening our natural resources. Our little community will experience a severe degradation in quality of life with the increased number of these trains. With over half the proposed trains dedicated to coal, and with the BNSF estimate that each uncovered car loses between 500 pounds and a ton of coal dust en route, there are concerns about train derailments, the effects of dust on human health, local clean water supplies, and on the marine environment. I urge you to deny the permit because Ambre’s dirty coal export project will compromise the health and safety of Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Montana citizen's – please deny the permit.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Vadis Hester (#8946)

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

Vaelrie Shahan (#10863)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I am a bird watcher. I also participate in the Whatcom Christmas Bird Count. For a number of years I have counted in the area surrounding Lake Terrell. This area is teaming with wildlife and to tear down the surrounding environment causes more isolation of some species. This is what caused the the decimation for the Spotted Owl and in turn worked so well for the Barred Owl.

I can readily imagine what the chaos of noise and lost environment would do next to the preserve that surrounds Lake Terrel.

This is a bad idea!

Val Stewart (#9010)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Val Stewart (#9011)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Val Veirs (#2434)

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

Val & Laura Matthews (#2191)

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

Valerie Alexander (#342)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: La Center, 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 will end up with the toxic mercury and other materials from Asia. It is so irresponsible to allow this to happen.

Valerie Alexander (#8330)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: La Center, WA
Comment:
I am a descendent of the Cascade Chinook Indian Tribe from the Columbia Gorge. I am also a member of the Grand Ronde Tribe. I am hoping that you will not permit shipping of coal through the Columbia River Gorge, or any other Washington route, for that matter. My concern is what we are allowing to happen to the generations to follow us. We owe it to our descendents to protect our environment locally and world wide. Thank you,
Val Alexander

Valerie Anderson (#5358)

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

Valerie Blackmore (#12611)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Saint Helens, 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.

Aren't we supposed to be cleaning up the planet, instead of making it dirtier by shipping and burning coal, one of the dirtiest fuels known to man? Global warming will kill us and the planet if someone doesn't take action AGAINST the big non-renewable energy companies who are only in it for the short-term monetary gain. Let China develop their own renewable energy sources instead of burning dirty coal.

Valerie Carlton (#5214)

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

Valerie Huddleston-Kohler (#13436)

Date Submitted: 01/21/13
Location: Camano Island , WA
Comment:
My name is Valerie Huddleston-Kohler.

I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, WA.

I strongly oppose the export of any coal particularly to China where it will be burned in sub-par coal burners that drastically impact air quality. Children in China have the right to breathe clean air even if their government doesn't agree. We all have the right to breathe clean air and burning coal contributes to greenhouse gasses as do the trains, trucks and ships that transport and mine it.

I strongly oppose the coal resource depletion this plant will cause.
There might come a day when we develop ways to use coal that are not as damaging to the environment and we will regret we have depleted this resource so significantly that our own citizens will suffer. And why are we doing this for a fraction of its actual value? To give China more of an edge in manufacturing by supplying them with cheap power while so many of our own businesses suffer?

I strongly oppose the damage to: small business, schools, already decreased real estate values, hospital access, bus routes, the loss of some park use, farm land and animals from coal dust pollution and the profound damage caused by coal mining itself.

I strongly oppose the damage the proposed plant will cause to the Cherry Point site and the surrounding area. The irreparable damage to the actual land. The destruction of the herring spawning area and the ruination of a beautiful place revered by the native population as sacred. The potential for fire right at the waters edge. Coal dust and runoff into the sound. How will there every be safety precautions sufficient to protect the water during significant wind events or even just on a windy day? And will all the trains, empty and full, be covered to prevent damaging the waterways all along the route?

I strongly oppose a permitting process that does not allow local communities any say. These communities will be paying for capital improvements and so they should be included in the permitting process. Every community from Bellingham right back to the sources in Montana and Wyoming.

My belief is that my community and those around us will suffer significantly and see no rewards. I want these above impacts thoroughly studied. I can't understand how this can possibly be found to be acceptable.

Thank you.

Valerie Huddleston-Kohler

Valerie Lyon-Parker (#2635)

Date Submitted: 11/04/12
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Valerie Manuel (#8050)

Date Submitted: 01/16/2013
Location: mount vernon, wa
Comment:
I support the coal terminal. With these hard economic times the jobs this opportunity brings are critical to the day to day life of citizens in the area. The indirect stimulation of our economy will increase jobs, small business profits and standard of life for many residents.
Many coal trains cross this county every day. They have not turned our environment into a black, soot covered mess. Coal companies don't want to see their profits blowing off the top of the cars any more than we want it.

Valerie Mihaylo (#12894)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: Boise, ID
Comment:
Please do not construct a coal terminal at Cherry Point, Washington.
Thank you.

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.

Valerie Peyer (#14047)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
Remember what our earth looked like before these corporations started ripping her apart. Can she repair herself?, Probably not. The only think we as a society can do is change how we treat her.

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.

And finally try to remember earth is the only planet we can live on and it is time we take care of her before we destroy everything beyond repair.

Valerie Phimister (#13127)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
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.
These are serious and irreversible changes to our environment economy, and quality of life. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Valerie Rongey (#352)

Date Submitted: 09/24/12
Location: Spokane Valley, WA
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington. This proposal would negatively affect 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.

Spokane already can barely handle the train traffic we have, our farmers and loggers and manufacturers already are at the limit of being able to schedule their shipments.

Please protect Spokane from these toxic trains!

Valerie Rose (#9030)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: Mount Vernon , WA
Comment:
Dear Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Council:

As a frequent Amtrak rail passenger in WA state, I hope you will include in the EIS an economic analysis of the impact of the proposed coal trains on the existing passenger and freight traffic on the lines in WA, ID and MT. The Amtrak Cascades train is already frequently delayed by existing freight traffic - 10 to 18 more freight trains a day, each over a mile long, will delay the Amtrak trains even more. Please also include analysis of the impact of these proposed trains on existing freight traffic, which support existing businesses in these states.

Sincerely,

Valerie Rose

Valerie Rose (#11266)

Date Submitted: 01/18/13
Location: Mt. Vernon, WA
Comment:
As a resident of Skagit County, I am very concerned about the proposed increased rail transportation of strip-mined coal from MT and WY - and the subsequent shipping of this coal to China. The danger of a rail or ship accident is too high a price to pay. In the EIS, please include analysis of the environmental impact of the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, WA on the endangered salmon and Orca populations.

Valerie Rose (#12753)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Mt. Vernon, WA
Comment:
As a farmer in Skagit County, I am very upset about the proposed increase in rail traffic through this important agricultural region. In your EIS, please evaluate the potential economic impact of 18+ trains a day, over a mile long, on all the businesses along the proposed rail routes, including farming and fishing operations. Also please evaluate the impact of the proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point WA on the region's fishing fleets and shellfish farms.

The proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point would also destroy eelgrass beds, habitat for young salmon (fry) and krill - the latter is an important food for Orca whales. Please include analysis of the environmental impact of the proposed coal trains & export terminal on the already-engdangered.Orcas.

Valerie Rose (#13307)

Date Submitted: 01/13/13
Location: Mt. Vernon, WA
Comment:
As an organic farmer in Skagit Valley, WA, I strongly oppose the proposed increased coal train traffic through Skagit County. The trains will interfere with local businesses (including my farm,) which are already struggling to survive the Great Recession. Please include a thorough analysis of the potential economic impact of increased coal train traffic on businesses along the rail routes. Also, please study the impact of increased coal dust and diesel exhaust on the health of agricultural products grown along the rail lines.
Please include analysis of the economic impact of the proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point on local fisheries. Salmon depend on the eelgrass at Cherry Point to hide young fry from larger fish. This unique area is also the habitat for krill and other creatures in the food web that support the endangered Orca whale population. I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently 5 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 EIS on the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Valerie Shubert (#6535)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Valerie Shubert (#8005)

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

Valerie Shubert (#8523)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Comment:
See attached.
Attached Image:

Valerie Steel (#9943)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Everett, WA
Comment:
January 20, 2013

GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies c/o CH2M HILL
email submission for Public Comment regarding the EIS for the Gateway Pacific Terminal
My name is Valerie Steel and I live in Everett, Washington less than a block from the BNSF Bayside switching yard. I earn my living as a real estate broker and my place of business is directly above the railroad tunnel that was bored in the 19th century under downtown Everett. I request the agencies address the following issues involving the shipment of coal from Montana to China.
The cumulative impacts of full operations of all proposed terminals must be considered in order to comprehensively determine the broad scope impacts. This includes costs to taxpayers, financial implications to existing businesses and damage to property owners. You have the authority to determine injury to humans, animals, degradation of the environment in the United States and abroad.
What will the expenses be for local and state governments to alleviate traffic back-ups at at-grade crossings? What will the coal companies and railroad costs be? What is the time-frame for constructing above or below grade crossing for either the railroad or general vehicular traffic?
The Port of Everett claims that 40% of all jobs in Washington are trade related. What is the impact to freight mobility for all of the existing businesses that use the rail lines and highways: how much disruption? will the coal trains have precedence? what are the financial implications? What are the impacts to existing jobs? Compare these results to the proposed benefits of coal shipments through Washington.
The bluffs along the Salish Sea between Edmonds and Everett are considered critical areas by Snohomish County because of frequent landslides (at least 73 have occurred between November 20th and January 20 - one caused the derailment of 7 cars on a freight train). And because of high probability for liquefaction in an earthquake (much of the “land” is merely river sediment held in place with boulders) - the windows in my home and the pictures on the walls rattle when the trains are idling in the switching yard. Calculate the probable increase in landslides due to increased and substantially heavier railcars on the limited tracks that are currently used to move goods and people. Note that passenger service must be suspended for a minimum of 48 hours after a slide. Determine the impacts of increased slides on Amtrack which is part of the interstate and international transportation system and which taxpayers subsidize and to Sounder service which is a link in the taxpayer-supported Puget Sound transportation system. How will the increase in number and weight of cars affect the vibrations we currently experience? Who will pay to remediate the damage to foundations and other structural components of buildings, sidewalks, and stairs caused by more frequent and powerful vibrations due to coal trains?
What will be the cost, and who will pay, to reinforce and possibly expand the train tunnel that is approximately 8 blocks long and runs under downtown Everett? Determine the disruption to existing businesses and street traffic during the re-construction.
I agree with all previous comments directing you to determine and quantify the impacts of carbon in the atmosphere, ocean acidification, degradation to the sound, disruption of nesting, breeding and feeding grounds for birds, fish and sea mammals, and harm to human health due to pollution (coal dust, diesel exhaust and vehicle emissions due to traffic back-ups) and permanent injury or loss of life due to the inability of emergency vehicles to get to their intended locations be it a hospital, a fire or some calamity. Additionally, I am specifically asking you to consider the harm caused to people in China who currently suffer from some of the worst air pollution on earth and which will only increase if we ship cheap coal to that country. Is it possible that the United States will be charged in an international court for destruction of the planet?
You have the lives of future generations in your hands and must make your determinations based on long term benefit to the majority of humans and other species - not immediate profit for a few.
Respectfully,

Valerie Steel
2112 Rucker Avenue, #6, Everett WA 98201 ~ 425.308.6052 valerie@greeningproperties.com



Valerie Stewart (#4786)

Date Submitted: 12/13/12
Comment:
Here is my comment. Thank you for your consideration:

How Coal Trains will Severely Impact the City of Edmonds submitted by Val Stewart Edmonds Planning Board 12/13/12

The City of Edmonds is studying the potential local traffic and safety impacts of this proposal. An increase in coal trains running through downtown Edmonds would increase delays at railroad crossings by between one and three hours per day by 2026, according to a Seattle Department of Transportation commissioned study. This study suggests that 18 coal trains per day, each one more than a mile long would pass through our town. These delays would increase police and fire response times for emergencies in the affected areas. The Ferry dock is located on the shoreline side of the tracks at grade. The addition of these long and numerous coal trains daily will seriously impact the loading and offloading of the ferry. Daily gate down times at railroad crossing would increase with coal train operations depending on the length of train and how fast it is traveling. There are residences, businesses, industry, parks including the underwater park and a nature preserve, the Port of Edmonds and our Senior center on the shoreline side of the tracks as well. Blocked train crossings affect response time for fire responses, technical rescue groups, hazardous materials responses, and emergency medical responses where rapid response times are especially important. We have two downtown crossings which receive high volumes of motorized and pedestrian traffic on a regular basis. Within the last 4 months, downtown Edmonds has experienced the repercussions of two incidents involving trains where safety and emergency vehicles were not able to cross for hours. One was a stalled train and the other was a train truck collision. These types of occurrences are likely to happen much more often with increased volume of heavy and long trains carrying coal.
We need to make sure that we are protecting our local economy and our shoreline environment. The Environmental Protection Agency should ask the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an area-wide study that would include livability and impacts on small towns along the rail route. We need a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement to help inform policy makers on this proposal.
For Edmonds, this would be an experiment on how much impact our marine ecosystem could withstand before irreversible affects to the food chain from the bottom up are realized. Hard studies on pollution emissions, dust, noise and vibration need to be conducted. Edmonds has one of the last remaining estuarine marshes along the Puget Sound Shoreline. It has already been severely compromised by human degradation so far and we are now doing a study to see how we can restore habitat for salmon. We’re going in the wrong direction here.
Let’s tap our creative ingenuity and compassion as humans to come up with solutions that are in harmony with nature. No one can dispute the negative health impacts of burning coal or the cumulative exposure to toxins that workers will be subject to when processing it on both ends.... then there are the global effects on climate and atmosphere.
Short term solutions to our energy issues are not the answer to our consumptive lifestyle. I ask the question, what are your values? Is making money at the expense of public safety and the health of our citizens and the environment worth the risk?
Attached Files:

Valerie Tarico (#8335)

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

Valerie Waley (#8660)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Comment:
My concern is regarding the infrastructure of the railroads themselves. With the amount of traffic of the proposed additional trains hauling coal, are there going to be any studies concerning the safety of the structures of the rails and trains. I feel deeply that this is very much a safety concern and hope that research will be looked into regarding this.

Thank you
Valerie Waley

Van Bergen (#12373)

Date Submitted: 01/20/13
Location: Hansville, WA
Comment:
I live near the water on the west side of Puget Sound, and use the Edmonds ferry. Increased coal train traffic for the Gateway Pacific coal terminal would destroy the ferry and public transit schedule at that grade crossing.

That's just the personal inconvenience; even worse, it would pollute the area with coal dust, hurt local business so much that it would increase unemployment instead of employment.

Even worse, it would encourage coal use and thus accelerate climate change, which will have much worse effects on our economy and wellbeing than mentioned above, likely beyond our imagination, and possible lead to the end of live on Earth. Coal export is an absolutely terrible idea no matter which way you look at it.

Please consider all of these impacts in the scope of your Environmental Impact Statement - and make it an *area-wide* EIS.

Van Riker (#4270)

Date Submitted: 12/10/12
Location: Seattle, WA
Comment:
As a concerned citizen I make a plea to stop the new coal train exports.

We don't need the extra traffic or the major pollution that these uncovered cars will cause. They will change the state in manner that is only detrimental to the balance of nature and public health.

Thank you for your consideration.

Van Riker
634 NW 114th Place
Seattle, WA 98177

Vanda Randall (#1224)

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

Vaness Andreano (#10968)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Comment:
I am concerned about more air pollution and toxins impacting health and well being. I am also concerned about noise pollution. Please include studies on these impacts.

Vanessa Hamilton-Highfield (#1093)

Date Submitted: 10/22/12
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
Oct 22, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

I live in Birch Bay and 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 every living thing in its path; humans, wildlife, fishing, - and don't get me started on the increased carbon pollution!

Please, PLEASE study the impact of this project on mammals; I urge you to consider these impacts in the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

Vanessa Hamilton-Highfield
8195 Comox Rd
Blaine, WA 98230-9550

Vanessa Morgan (#3996)

Date Submitted: 12/06/2012
Location: Portland, Or
Comment:
I do not support the transport of coal trains through my home city (Portland, OR) or any populated areas. Areas with rail shipping through them are already subject to noise and air pollution on a daily basis; these negative impacts have a disproportionate effects on lower income families and minorities. I have serious concerns regarding coal dust and additional diesel particulates in the transport corridor, as well as in the GPT area.

Additionally, the proposed GPT is part of a habitat that has been seriously degraded by human activities in the last 100+ years. Various projects using valuable Federal, State and local monies have attempted to restore fresh and saline marshes in the Pacific Northwest. This project will be a step backwards, effectively erasing the good work done to restore and protect the remaining wetlands in this area. Regardless of the planned environmental protections, there is no doubt the immediate environment will suffer - coal is inherently messy, dusty, toxic and hard to contain. Thus, this proposed project, positioned right at the edge of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia, will inevitably lead to the degradation or elimination of the 600 acres of wetlands on this site OR in adjacent areas. These wetlands have tremendous value to both wildlife and water quality in the areas nearby, including native eelgrass beds within the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve.

Vanessa Santarsiero (#13732)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Comment:
I strongly oppose the construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point in Washington state as well as the transport of strip-mined coal from Montana and Wyoming on trains thruout the Northwest and the export of coal by ship through the Salish Sea and the Pacific!

The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would negatively affect communities in the Pacific Northwest by polluting the air and local waterways & delaying emergency responders, plus damaging local aquatic ecosystems. The proposal would threaten endangered orcas and increase high-risk freighter traffic in the 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 for Gateway Pacific.

There are currently five coal export proposals that would transport as much as 150 million tons of coal annually through the Pacific Northwest. All the ships from these proposed projects are bound for China meaning that their routes will impact the San Juan Islands and Unimak Pass near Alaska’s Aleutian Peninsula. The Army Corps of Engineers must conduct an Environmental Impact Statement to assess the cumulative impact of these proposals.

Your kind consideration of these alternate proposals is greatly appreciated.

Varya Fish (#5795)

Date Submitted: 01/01/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the impact of increased coal consumption by China upon air quality in the Pacific Northwest. I've traveled in China and seen their current level of air pollution because of coal-burning industries. We live in a global community, and I believe increased coal burning in China would adversely affect our air. Thank you.

Varya Grace (#5794)

Date Submitted: 01/01/13
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
Please study the impact of increased coal train traffic upon current Bellingham waterfront businesses. Will these businesses survive if increased coal train traffic affects their current level of customer traffic?

Vasyl Sofinuonyuu (#14645)

Date Submitted: 01/16/13
Comment:
see attached
Attached Image:

Velma Heckman (#10483)

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

Before making any decisions regarding exporting coal in open cars, or coal at all, using the Columbia River Gorge in the National Scenic Area, The Army Corps of Engineers needs to thoroughly look at all five coal export porposals for the Pacific Northwest.

I attended the hearings open to the public at Clark Community College recently and heard hundreds of testimonies re: the negatie impacts of the cars that presently run through the gorge. People testifying were
orchard owners, people living along the tracks etc. People attending
this hearing were not just young "radical" people but doctors, business men & women, restaurant owners etc.

My feelings are that because of the environmental issues re: health, rivers, streams, air quality etc, coal should not continue to be
considered a feasible energy souce for this country. Look at China
and its smog.

Venice Wong (#12252)

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.

Thank you.

Also- although Bellingham started off as a coal mining/exporting town I would love to keep that as part of our great past.

Venilde Tena (#4110)

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

Vera White (#983)

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Anyone can see the visible damage that the coal trains cause going through my beautiful Columbia River gorge. This must stop.

Sincerely,

Vera White
1919 W 34th St Apt 69
Vancouver, WA 98660-1298

Verda Christie Trudell (#8395)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bellingham, WA
Comment:
I live at 444 S. State Street, apt # 212, Bellingham, WA 98225. I live on the bluff above Boulevard Park which abuts the railroad property. I am concerned that the coal trains to and from the Gateway Pacific Terminal will impact the well-being of all of us who live here. Please assess: The vibration, fumes and coal dust, and the noise.

Verena Giebels (#787)

Date Submitted: 10/17/2012
Comment:
The railways through Skagit County (and in other places like Whatcom) are not made for such highly frequent use. They are leading right through town, for example in Mt. Vernon and Burlington. Railway crossings are level to the road. The crossing are often used just for moving trains to a different track. In Mt Vernon the train station is so small that the gates have to close, just when the (too long for the station) passenger train is coming through. ALL OF THIS ALREADY MEANS: WAITING IN YOUR CAR, AS A PEDESTRIAN AND BACKING UP TRAFFIC.
The trains hunk their horns day and night when passing a crossing. I find the noise very disturbing, and don't even want to imagine, how it will be with more and more trains.
The long waits are extremely disturbing when I am thinking of emergency vehicles waiting at the gates of a railroad crossing. It can become a life and death issue.

I am a business owner in Burlington and frequently my clients come in late for an appointment, because they had to wait at the railroad crossing. I do not run out for a quick errand anymore, because I might get stuck and late for clients myself.

Thank you

Verena Giebels (#788)

Date Submitted: 10/17/2012
Comment:
I am very concerned about the huge vessels coming back from China loaded with water from over there (they need the weight to be able to travel). When this water is released in the ocean here in the US, they would wash out the vessel from left overs of coal and coal dust, contaminating the water with heavy metals etc. Not only that. Water species from the water in China will be getting here in masses and we do not even know, what that would mean for our environment-will they take over species here?

Verena Giebels (#8415)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
My name is Verena Giebels and I am business owner in Burlington, just a block away from an at-grate train crossing. Some of my clients are already coming late for their appointments due to waiting time and traffic congestion around the train tracks. I am concerned that I am loosing clients and my business in the long run, because of the extra and often unpredictable amount of time it takes to get to my office. An other concern is that tourist coming through the area will withdraw from visiting Skagit over time, because of all the disadvantages the trains are bringing (air pollution, noise, etc). Tourists are part of my clientele as well.
Please study the adverse impact the train traffic will have to businesses. Not only in Burlington and Skagit area, but all along the way from Montana and Wyoming to Whatcom County.
Thank you.

Verena Giebels (#8479)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bow, wa
Comment:
My name is Verena Giebels and I chose to move to the Pacific NW (Skagit) 9 years ago because of the beautiful natural environment/wildlife and the recreational possibilities the area has to offer. I agree with Sanford Olson in his comment on this subject (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/6044).

We need to protect our environment for the sake of the wildlife that has not been destroyed yet, our life quality now and for future generations. I believe that humans and computers are not able to evaluate the impact this coal terminals will have as a whole. But please do your best to study the cumulative impact. Thank you.

Verena Giebels (#8510)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bow, wa
Comment:
My name is Verena Giebels and I chose to move to the Pacific NW (Skagit) 9 years ago because of the beautiful natural environment/wildlife and the recreational possibilities the area has to offer. My family and friends are frequently visiting Larrabee State Park and other places with access to the ocean. It is a way to relax and recharge, just by hanging out on the rocks or going out with a kayak or canoe. We also enjoy concerts and walks at Boulevard Park in Bellingham. We are thankful for this wonderful recreational possibilities close to home. In all these places we have to cross at-grate train tracks.
Please study
-the impact on accessibility to these recreational areas and the danger of crossing tracks with increasing traffic
-the cumulative impact of noise, toxic mercury from diesel and coal in the air that we breath when are around there and resulting health issues
-the economic impact of decreasing tourism, when these areas are not as valued for recreational visits.
These areas are used by thousands of people for recreation and socializing, not only from Skagit and Whatcom County.
Thank you.

Verena Giebels (#8526)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Bow, wa
Comment:
My name is Verena Giebels and I chose to move to the Pacific NW (Skagit) 9 years ago partially because of the beautiful natural environment and wildlife.
I highly agree with Michael Riordan in his comment on Coal Losses during the ship-loading process and the effect it might have.  
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/5517

We are endangering our unique environment (Orcas, Salmon, crab, air quality etc) with the shipping of immense amounts of coal from the Pacific Northwest to China. Once this is destroyed, either by an oil spill or by accumulation of deadly toxins over time, we will not be able to recover it, ever. So please study the impacts described in the above mentioned comments. Thank you.

Verena Giebels (#9940)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Location: Bow, WA
Comment:
Only when the last tree has died
and the last river been poisoned
and the last fish been caught
will we realize we cannot eat money

Cree Indian Proverb

Verena Giebels (#10548)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bow, wa
Comment:
My name is Verena Giebels, and I enjoy living in this wonderful environment. It brightens my day, just to look at the bay.
I have expressed several concerns regarding the use of coal, the trains running through our communities etc.

We have to act responsible here and not repeat mistakes twice, three or more times. I am saying Exxon Valdeez, BP oil Spill Florida.
Today, the impact on the environment in Alaska is still huge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsBYe68PHqg&NR=1

The average life expectancy for oil spill workers was 51-- ALL OF THEM HAVE SINCE DIED. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302010/oil-lifespans.php

The following is from Kasey Potzler stated in her comment, I just added a few things (http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment/7144)

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Verena Giebels (#10596)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Bow, wa
Comment:
My name is Verena Giebels and I have been living and working in the Pacific Northwest since 2004. This is one of the few moments I am glad not to have children, because I would fear so much for their future with all the environmental destruction going on, often purely out of greed. We have the knowledge and technology to produce sustainable energy.
I understand the need for jobs that has been expressed by some people as an argument for building the terminal.
I do not understand the creation of jobs connected to large volume extraction of oil, coal or gas at any cost, leaving destruction behind, killing environment, animals, poisoning human beings. We live in the 21st century, know about the impacts it has or can have in case of (not uncommon) accidents (Exxon Valedez ....), and we have alternatives. We need to make responsible decisions for the environment and in creating jobs.
Please study the amount of (tax) money going into subsidizing coal going to Asia.

We cannot act like a third world country anymore by adding to the pollution of our environment big time, just for the profit of a few, the disadvantage of all others. Developed countries like Germany and Japan are reducing their CO2 by using renewable energy on a larger scale.
Please study the cumulative impact of emission the coal would have (starting with the extraction, running the trains, operating the terminalS, shipping to China, burning in China) and the counter impact on efforts of other countries to reduce CO2.

Please help end the insanity of destroying our environment. Instead subsidizing coal, put these $ in renewable energy and new jobs. Thank you.

Vern Pderson (#3016)

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

Vern Proutig (#5346)

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

Vernon Groves (#11344)

Date Submitted: 01/22/2013
Location: Aloha, OR
Comment:
As a retired United Methodist pastor living in Metropolitan Portland, Or. I am deeply concerned about the impacts from transporting and loading coal on climate change and the quality of life and health of those millions of people in the vicinity of these activities. Peer reviewed climate scientists are virtually unanimous that coal burned anywhere will adversely impact the global climate everywhere. So I urge that we step back from these decisions and carefully study the cumulative impacts of coal export mining, transportation, and loading facilities.


want the cumulative impacts of coal export facilities thoroughly studied.

Vernon Huffman (#13448)

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

The coal companies need to understand that it is not merely a question of finding an acceptable route to the sea for this coal. The ultimate environmental impact of the decision to burn more coal is not acceptable. We must leave the coal in the soil.

Vernon Tabb (#11092)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Blaine, WA
Comment:
I am considerably concerned that the construction and operation of this facility and its related supporting facilities will actually supplant more jobs than those that will be created. As a related concern I believe that the increased alien ocean vessel presence will adversely effect indigenous marine life. That marine life is a resource that provides jobs to a significant number of our existing population a large portion of which would find it difficult to learn a new trade.

Further, coal, which has been named as a large portion of the proposed commodities that would pass through this port is a dying fuel source. It has been determined to be a significant element of our increasing air pollution. If coal does become a thing of the past, who will pay to clean the pollution created by this facility, that is, if the pollution can be cleaned.

Vernon & Elaine Dorr (#1325)

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

Veronica Marshall (#12417)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
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. We live in a beautiful area of this country. Coal dust pollution would negatively effect our waterways, our homes and our air quality. I have lived in this area for 40 years, and feel truly blessed to have enjoyed a wonderful quality of life that I have been able to share with family and friends who have come to visit, admiring this lovely place.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. As Chief Seattle so appropriately stated, paraphrased - "This land does not belong to us, but is only on loan to us from our grandchildren." Please protect our enviornment, so that they can enjoy the benefits of clean water, air, and this unsurpassed beauty.

Veronica Wisniewski (#5807)

Date Submitted: 12/29/12
Location: Lynden , WA
Comment:
December 29, 2012,

GPT/Custer Spur EIS c/o CH2M HILL
1100 112th Av NE Ste 400
Bellevue, WA 98004

To Whom It May Concern:

In regards to the Coal Shipping Terminal proposed for the Cherry Point area, I would request a review of the economic impact of the giveaway of coal, a strategic future energy resource, to our primary economic competitor, China, on future energy production and job creation in the United States.

As other fossil fuels become scarcer and more expensive to extract and process over the next 50 years, coal will become a bridge fuel to an alternative energy future—but only if it is still available here. In the meantime, coal shipped abroad now represents a competitive production advantage to China and resources that will be unavailable to produce energy and jobs in the future here in the US. The amount of energy not available for production in the US and the number of corresponding jobs should be calculated and weighed against the jobs created by shipping the product abroad. Please look at this when considering the economic impact of this proposal.

To secure our energy future , no coal port should be built at Cherry Point.

Respectfully,

Veronica Wisniewski

VG Blank (#9690)

Date Submitted: 01/20/2013
Comment:
If these proposed trains were to provide more efficient passengers/mass transit rather than to transport a pollutant at the expense of our environmental quality, my feelings would be different. How can the current purpose benefit our county and our country? In fact, who/where will likely benefit most? Who will be most negatively affected? Where do you, the decision makers live and how will you benefit?

Vic Anderson (#14042)

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.

Instead,
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (of 1972) is amended to read as follows:



TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS


SEC. 101 [33 U.S.C. 1251] Declaration of Goals and Policy

(a) The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that,
consistent with the provisions of this Act--

(1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be ELIMINATED
by 1985.

STOP, NOW!

Vic Ringkvist (#5013)

Date Submitted: 12/14/12
Comment:
This is a concern about potential loss of freedom rather than one of environmental concern: Once the Gateway Terminal is built, will we be denied access to the beach at the end of Gulf Rd? Since at least 911 we have been requested (or prohibited) to not approach the BP refinery pier closer than 1000 feet. Will more beach use be denied us? Vic Ringkvist, Ferndale

Vicki Blakeman (#8241)

Date Submitted: 01/17/2013
Location: Livingston, MT
Comment:
I am writing to request the scope of this EIS be expanded to include the impacts made on cities & towns and their inhabitants all along the rail corridor leading to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal.

Gateway Pacific Terminal, in Cherry Point, Washington, would export 48 millions of tons of coal each year. Much of this would be traveling from the Powder River Basin through Livingston and other cities and towns, resulting in a substantial increase in train traffic in our communities.

Potential impacts from increased coal train traffic are serious, and need to be considered as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decides the merits (and demerits) of this project. Impacts include:
Potentially serious health effects from diesel fumes;
Increased noise;
Coal dust and diesel pollution;
Traffic congestion;
Emergency vehicle response delays;
Increased risk of accidents and dangerous derailments;
Decline in community economic productivity and decrease in overall quality of life.

Please expand the scope to consider the effects of increased rail traffic to this port along the rail line corridor throughout Montana and Washington. Thank you.

Vicki D'Annunzio (#7734)

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

Vicki Griebling (#12448)

Date Submitted: 01/22/13
Location: Friday Harbor, 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 let us NOT contribute to global warming, dirty coal, and environmental catastrophes. Let China conserve and develop their own energy source instead of using ours. The money is not worth it. Lets keep Washington green!

vicki johnson (#9033)

Date Submitted: 01/17/13
Location: centralia , 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.

Additionally, I sincerely hope this state can afford to loss of revenue that will happen once people begin suing for damages to their health.

I am now on 24 hr Oxygen due to working in an environment that had coal dust nearby. It took only 2 years to damage my lungs to this point and I'm not even a smoker! Can the profits really outweigh the costs enough to continue forward with this insane proposal?

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.


vicki johnson

Vicki McNeil (#6822)

Date Submitted: 01/11/2013
Location: Anacortes, WA
Comment:
Please let me add my name to those opposing this project. It is wrong on so many levels (see above). I thought we were supposed to be moving away from coal as a heating and energy source due to global environmental concerns, and here we are about to not only destroy communities that these trains pass through but to also have the repurcussions when all the bad air created by the use of the coal in Asia comes back to us. We have to think about our children and grandchildren rather than give in to a huge conglomorate that promises a few jobs. Shame on us if this project moves ahead.

Vicki Merrill (#5354)

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

Vicki Rogerson (#12924)

Date Submitted: 01/19/13
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Comment:
My entire family has traveled to the wonderful state of Washington, and specifically been to the Bellingham area several times. We live in Florida on the beautiful East coast, and I can only imagine if we were facing the same situation how we would feel. On the balance sheet for this decision I see only liabilities- no assets; no positives. I don't live there, but we are all neighbors, and I feel with the people of Washington that this is not a "good thing" for Washington.

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.

Vicki Stasch (#2465)

Date Submitted: 11/05/12
Comment:
My name is Vicki Stasch, a resident of Anacortes. I am concerned about the impact that 18 additional trains will have on emergency vehicle response time and the flow of traffic in the Burlington, Mt. Vernon and Bellingham areas near where I live and travel. I am also concerned about the number of grade level crossings in Seattle for the same reason. In addition I am also concerned about environmental impact of the trains and the coal being carried along the entire route on the communities.
Please study the impacts on traffic and transportation on the 18 more coal trains in addition to the existing and future rail traffic through the communities along the rail line.
Thank you for considering my concerns.

Vicki Stasch, M.S.

Vicki Strang (#10781)

Date Submitted: 01/21/2013
Location: Odessa, WA
Comment:
I am very much against the coal export project being discussed for Whatcom County. I have many concerns regarding both the health of humans and animals from the dust - as well as the affect the chemicals that could be sprayed on the coal to keep the dust down. The trains also will be traveling thousands of miles through land which contain wetlands, streams, lakes and rivers. I have concerns for the cattle and crop farms in my area. I fear both the short and long term affect said dust could have on the environment. There is always the risk of pollutants damaging our waterways should the train derail. Besides the environmental hazards that are obvious, there are smaller impacts that affect those of us closest to the tracks. In my situation, the tracks are across the town park from my back yard. I knew this when I moved in - I was expecting the noise and traffic and with that I have no real issue - they were there long before I was! I do have concerns in the amount of trains that would be going by my home at all hours. Beyond the noise is my worry for the neighbors on the north side of the tracks - each time a train passes by, they are shut off from town services, such as fire and ambulance. With each increase in rail traffic, the risk for those people getting help in an emergency increases as well. I take a look at just my small town of less than 1000 people. Our town park and swimming complex are less than a block away from the train tracks - our most precious citizens, our children, will be exposed to those coal trains, to the extra traffic they would cause. There already seems to be a high rate of breathing related issues in Eastern Washington and we certainly don't need the added pollution from many coal trains adding to it. There are just too many reasons not to build that facility for the export of such a dirty product. So please - do not risk the health of our citizens, the safety of our environment for the almighty dollar.

Vicki Watson (#12978)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Missoula, MT
Comment:
I oppose construction of a coal export terminal at Cherry Point, WA and transporting strip-mined coal from Montana (where I live) and Wyoming.

Such a project would harmfully impact me and everyone along the route from the coal mines to the terminal with increased coal train traffic, polluting our air and water, harming local businesses, delaying emergency responders, damaging fisheries at the terminal site, increasing tanker traffic and the potential for accidents.

But most of all, burning that coal would greatly escalate climate change, causing harm to all life on the planet. Please consider these impacts in the scope of the EIS. THe EIS should address local, regional & global impacts and the cumulative impacts of all 5 proposed export projects.

Vickie Steen (#13406)

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

We need to cease any contributing destruction and pollution to our planet! Work toward alternative means of energy generation and please don't contribute to further destruction of our planet. You live here also and what good does all the money in the world do if we destroy the planet?!

Vicky Crampton (#12204)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Location: Bozeman, MT
Comment:
This is wrong for so many reasons:

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

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

Thank you.

Vicky Crampton

vicky giannangelo (#2263)

Date Submitted: 11/03/2012
Comment:
The fact that coal cannot be covered, and is allowed to blow coal dust all up and down the railroad lines and into the lungs and the soil of the people living near the tracks is bad enough, but to load it on huge shipping containers and ship it thru the Salish Sea is so overwhelmingly terrible it is hard to imagine the consequences: coal dust blowing off and floating on the water, birds getting it all over them, reaching the shore and blackening the beaches, contaminating fish and spawning areas. ARE YOU INSANE...such SHORT SIGHTEDNESS with the only factor being PROFIT are socially TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE ....what about the CHILDREN AND THE NEXT GENERATION? Isn't there enough danger of collisions without super tankers in the narrow lanes of HARO STRAIGHT AND THE STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA...? And oil spill possibilities increased to more and more traffic? STOP STOP STOP before it is too late. And why on earth are we selling our resources to CHINA?

vicky giannangelo (#5909)

Date Submitted: 01/03/2013
Location: friday harbor, wa
Comment:
the salish sea is nowhere to be shipping coal .... this is or should be a marine and wildlife sanctuary....we have enough ships already....coal is a dirty dirty resource that needs to stay in the usa and we need to not think of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ here, which is the motivation, of course, but public health, the beauty of the fragile enviornment and air quality. An accident would be impossible to clean up. Just like oil only worse... PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN

Vicky Lockwood (#14071)

Date Submitted: 01/15/13
Comment:
As a Montana resident very disturbed by the coal impacts of transport,burning,health issues,climate change :
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.

Victor Lesher (#1883)

Date Submitted: 10/29/12