Having just watched the joyful ceremonies that confirmed the election of Pope Francis I in Rome, it seems we have also experienced our own 'white smoke' event here in Bellingham.
By all early indications, the election of Pope Francis I is being viewed as a very popular choice that emphasizes humility and the communication of true caring for all humanity.
A very worthy and timely choice, indeed!
-----------------------
Today's Gristle carried this story about the likely Reconveyance vote - before actual results were known.
Last night's County Council meeting was also live-blogged by Riley Sweeney, but, again, terminated before the actual decision was made.
But, this morning The Herald finished the story complete with the final vote.
Who knew that our Whatcom County Council would also tangibly demonstrate its commitment to a higher cause than the politics of division?
Like many others I had faith that the Council would eventually come to the right decision after several years of careful deliberation, but faith is always renewed by good acts that actually come to pass.
And so it was that the long-debated DNR Reconveyance of over 8 thousand acres of forestland around the Lake Whatcom Reservoir came to pass late last night by a recorded final vote of 5 to 2.
Thank goodness for that outcome!
Now, we have added assurance that we are on the right track in preserving a precious natural resource.
And, that future policy is more likely to follow and augment this example of forward-looking leadership, greatly aided and abetted by strong follower-ship by thousands of concerned citizens.
Next, comes a focus on more enlightened land use policies and storm water regulations that support the implicit policy of preservation that underlies last night's Reconveyance decision.
More very difficult decisions will be required to address the severe water degradation challenges identified by DOE's recent TMDL Report.
That means the Lake Whatcom Watershed must be viewed and treated differently than before; no longer to be considered as either an area for affordable housing or luxury mega-home sites for the wealthy, but a place to be respected for its critical importance as our long-term drinking water source.
Fortunately, de-emphasizing development of all sorts fits the idea of allowing this watershed to more closely mimic nature, which is known to be both the most effective and least expensive way to control harmful run-off into the Reservoir. An added benefit could be that additional properties will be made reasonably available for conservation purposes, thereby achieving a further desirable 'tipping point' in public opinion and perception.
I am thankful that the Reconveyance decision has been made, because it helps guide those additional right-minded decisions that must be made in the future.
---------------------------------
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
10 WATER LAWS OF THE WEST
During a recent visit to San Francisco, I had the pleasure of taking an ALL course about California's 'Water Wars', a fascinating subject that also has applicability to our situation here in Whatcom County.
With long awaited County Council vote on the 8400-acre reconveyance of DNR forest lands around the Lake Whatcom Reservoir about to happen, perhaps a little humor tinged with reality is in order. Anyway, below is reprinted a copyrighted article by Hugh Holub that can also be accessed at this website.
10 WATER LAWS OF THE WEST
10 WATER LAWS OF THE WEST
Introduction: It does not take a law degree to understand water law and policy in the western United States. Ten basic legal and historical principles govern the rights to and uses of water in the West. By understanding these ten Water Laws of the West anyone can then understand the current issues of water and its relationship to the future of the West.
I. The Law of Gravity: The First Water Law of the West is the Law of Gravity. Water runs down hill. The initial uses of water in the West involved the use of gravity to tap rivers and divert their flows into canals for delivery to farms and mines. This is also known as Newton's Law.
II. The Law of Los Angeles: The Second Water Law of the West is the original law of Los Angeles. This L.A. Law states that "water runs uphill to money". The development of energy technologies to lift water against the pull of gravity is the basis for modern Western civilization. Los Angeles pioneered the effort to defy gravity with money in the early 1900's with its Owens Valley Aqueduct. Southern California is now served with a network of pipelines and canals such as the Metropolitan Water District's Colorado River Aqueduct. Phoenix, San Francisco and Denver also utilize massive pumping and diversion systems to transport water from great distances in defiance of gravity to serve their growing urban populations.
III. The Law of Supply Creating Demand: The Third Water Law of the West, also invented by Los Angeles, is that "if you don't have the water, you won't need it." This is sometimes stated as "he who brings the water brings the people". Both are attributed to William Mulholland, a pioneer director of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP). Los Angeles and other Western cities operate on the premise that in order to assure growth of their cities, water supplies for the future must be developed well in advance of that growth. This is in contrast to the general approach in Western cities of developing freeways and other public infrastructure long after the growth has actually happened.
IV. The Law of I Got It First: The Fourth Water Law of the West, embodied in the West's surface water laws, is the doctrine of "prior appropriation" translated into "first in time is first in right". First in time for most water uses in the West were farms and mines. Instead of "first in time is first in right", we have seen the evolution of "we've got more votes than you in the state legislature" to decide who gets water.
V. The Law of Beneficial Use: The Fifth Water law of the West is that to have a right to water it must be "beneficially" or "reasonably" used on that appurtenant land. This is only understood in the context that water left flowing in a river maintaining the survival of fish in that river and vegetation growing along side that river was not originally defined as a "beneficial" use in Western water law, whereas drowning gophers or growing rice in deserts were deemed "beneficial" uses. In recent years, environmentalists have succeeded in gaining recognition of "in-stream" beneficial uses of water and a new category of water rights is beginning to emerge to preserve flows in rivers. However this process is emerging only after most rivers and streams in the West have been dammed and dried up by diversions of the flows to the previously established beneficial uses. To fully appreciate why this happened, it must be remembered that the fish in these streams only recently were able to obtain the services of water lawyers via various environmental and conservation organizations.
VI. The Law of Worthless Land: The Sixth Water Law of the West is that without a water right or access to water, land is worthless. There is not enough water available to use all available land for all the potential beneficial uses. Thus lands with water rights or access to water have value for use, whereas land without water rights is known as the desert, with zero value except when being subjected to state and local property taxation. It is also a historic fact that farmers, ranchers and miners figured all this out about a hundred years before the average city council or environmental group, thus most Western water laws are heavily weighted in favor of using water for farming, ranching and mining. This law is also known as the "appurtenancy" rule meaning the rights to the use of water are tied to specific parcels of land, which are usually owned by farmers, ranchers or miners.
VII. The Law of Expropriation: The Seventh Water Law of the West focuses on how water (and other natural resources) are obtained for Western civilization. This Law depends on finding some fairly impoverished and unsophisticated water right holder (usually Indians, farmers, or rural communities) on the other side of the mountain a city can steal water rights from. Los Angeles pioneered this approach by buying up the Owens Valley on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada for water rights nearly 90 years ago. What we are now experiencing is not so much a water shortage, but a shortage of people on the other sides of the mountains who are willing to let their water resources be stolen from them by cities.
VIII. The Law of the Price is Right: The Eighth Water Law of the West is that there is no water shortage if the price is right. It is widely believed in city halls that the farmers will sell their water rights if the price is high enough so the farmers can go raise martinis in La Jolla instead of cotton in the Salt River Valley of Arizona, or the Imperial Valley in California. Thus when someone asks "is there enough water for Los Angeles or Phoenix to grow?" the answer is probably yes--if you don't care about how much the water will cost.
IX. The Law of Water Monopoly: The Ninth Water Law of the West is that water management in an arid environment almost always results in the creation of a water monopoly. Thus (along with the discovery of fire and religion) the first steps towards civilization included the construction of irrigation ditches and the immediate creation of some sort of bureaucracy to run the system. Not surprisingly where irrigation water monopoly civilizations rose, they lasted for thousands of years. The Westlands Irrigation District in the Central Valley of California and the Salt River Project in Arizona are merely the modern counterparts of one of humankind's most ancient of institutions--the water monopoly. Many western urban areas figured out the value of water monopoly and created enormously powerful regional agencies such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District in Arizona, to do essentially the same thing--building vast networks of canals to bring water to their constituents.
X. The Law of Vanishing Civilizations: The Tenth (or Last) Water Law of the West should be called the Hohokam Law of Water and Gravity. Under this law, if there is no rain, there is no water to flow down hill. What went up--the buildings and the civilization--may crumble to dust if Mother Nature decides to hold a long drought. Lying beneath the streets of Phoenix are the ruins of the ancient Hohokam Indian metropolis that vanished prior to 1400 AD. Phoenix is the second city to be built on the same site in reliance on the erratic flows of the Salt River. Californians prayed for rain for the last six years (apparently successfully) because they didn't have enough water to flush their toilets. Many Southern Californians had been heard to ask "what do you mean this used to be a desert?"
Conclusion: The principles that govern Western water law and policy have a long and somewhat distinguished history. It should also be noted that similar arid environment ditch-dependent civilizations ultimately collapsed under extreme environmental stresses, internal political conflict, and invasion by barbarian hordes. This is worth contemplating after a six year drought with various water interests fighting over who will get water in times of future shortages while the streets of Santa Monica or Scottsdale are filled with RVs with New Jersey license plates.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
10 Books Worth Reading
'I cannot live without books' - Thos Jefferson
---------------------------
Among the millions of books, these 10 are what I've enjoyed during the past several weeks:
1. Who Stole the American Dream? - Hedrick Smith (analysis of the origins of current fiscal woes)
2. Einstein - Walter Isaacson (incorporates new information from family papers)
3. The Quest - Daniel Yergin (analysis of current energy use, plus related security & environmental issues)
4. The Racketeer - John Grisham (typical story of crime made right, happy ending for the hero)
5. Drift - Rachel Maddow (documentation of trend toward repeated undeclared wars & CIA actions)
6. Wolf Hall - Hilary Mantel (Henry VIII's creation of Anglican Church to enable divorce from Queen Catherine and marriage to Anne Boleyn, seen through the eyes & wit of Thomas Cromwell, advisor)
7. Bring Up The Dead - Hilary Mantel (sequel to Wolf Hall wherein Anne Boleyn, et al are executed to enable Henry VIII's marriage to Jane Seymour, again through eyes & wit of Thomas Cromwell)
Note: another sequel to follow, completing a trilogy.
8. Thomas Jefferson; The Art of Power - Jon Meacham (an examination of Jefferson's method of asserting power through learning, persuasion, enlistment of allies and personal leadership)
9. The Yellow Birds - Kevin Powers (a novel depicting the trauma of war and its often disturbing effect on combat participants)
10. Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher - Timothy Egan (documentary of the work of Edward Curtis, photographer who captured historic native American culture on film)
Additionally, I'm reading King Lear - William Shakespeare, in preparation for seeing the play in Ashland, OR
------------------------
These 10 books are varied in subject matter, but most of them deal with current or recurring human themes and issues.
All are interesting reads.
---------------------------
Among the millions of books, these 10 are what I've enjoyed during the past several weeks:
1. Who Stole the American Dream? - Hedrick Smith (analysis of the origins of current fiscal woes)
2. Einstein - Walter Isaacson (incorporates new information from family papers)
3. The Quest - Daniel Yergin (analysis of current energy use, plus related security & environmental issues)
4. The Racketeer - John Grisham (typical story of crime made right, happy ending for the hero)
5. Drift - Rachel Maddow (documentation of trend toward repeated undeclared wars & CIA actions)
6. Wolf Hall - Hilary Mantel (Henry VIII's creation of Anglican Church to enable divorce from Queen Catherine and marriage to Anne Boleyn, seen through the eyes & wit of Thomas Cromwell, advisor)
7. Bring Up The Dead - Hilary Mantel (sequel to Wolf Hall wherein Anne Boleyn, et al are executed to enable Henry VIII's marriage to Jane Seymour, again through eyes & wit of Thomas Cromwell)
Note: another sequel to follow, completing a trilogy.
8. Thomas Jefferson; The Art of Power - Jon Meacham (an examination of Jefferson's method of asserting power through learning, persuasion, enlistment of allies and personal leadership)
9. The Yellow Birds - Kevin Powers (a novel depicting the trauma of war and its often disturbing effect on combat participants)
10. Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher - Timothy Egan (documentary of the work of Edward Curtis, photographer who captured historic native American culture on film)
Additionally, I'm reading King Lear - William Shakespeare, in preparation for seeing the play in Ashland, OR
------------------------
These 10 books are varied in subject matter, but most of them deal with current or recurring human themes and issues.
All are interesting reads.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Coal: GPT EIS Comment No. 32
The ancient concept of USUFRUCT in civil law has been defined as "The right of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without degrading or altering the substance of the thing."
This concept can be applied to the property currently owned by SSA-Marine and proposed for use as a large coal export terminal. As owner, SSA is certainly entitled to the beneficial use of this property. But, what about properties nearby and otherwise inextricably connected due to the necessity of transporting the coal to and from the proposed GPT facility?
These include the mining sites in Montana; the railroad routes likely to carry coal to GPT; the public & private rights of way which the trains must traverse; the water bodies which must be crossed to convey the coal to its intended Asian markets; the soil, water and air likely to be harmfully impacted by the mining, transport, handling and eventual burning of the coal, among others.
These connected soils -including coal- already have natural and useful purposes, including agriculture and vegetation, sites for human occupation and use, ancestral sacred history, and the like.
The connected waters also have highly beneficial uses, for irrigation, human consumption, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, transport of valuable cargo and humans, and ecological purposes we are only beginning to fully understand.
The air -essential to human life- will be tangibly degraded and global climate impacts will accelerate, with the greenhouse gases associated with every step in the mining to burning process.
These natural resources -air, water and soil- belong to everyone in common and should not be allowed to degrade solely because of commercial interests. We, the public owners, need to have a forceful voice in deciding whether the GPT coal export scheme really serves our collective interests well enough to allow it to proceed.
Each of these public resources contains significant usufructuary value and should not be arbitrarily degraded without the express consent of the public impacted.
Please see to it that the potentially harmful impacts to the soils, waters and air belonging to us all are carefully documented and evaluated thoroughly before any decision is made to approve any part of the GPT application.
This concept can be applied to the property currently owned by SSA-Marine and proposed for use as a large coal export terminal. As owner, SSA is certainly entitled to the beneficial use of this property. But, what about properties nearby and otherwise inextricably connected due to the necessity of transporting the coal to and from the proposed GPT facility?
These include the mining sites in Montana; the railroad routes likely to carry coal to GPT; the public & private rights of way which the trains must traverse; the water bodies which must be crossed to convey the coal to its intended Asian markets; the soil, water and air likely to be harmfully impacted by the mining, transport, handling and eventual burning of the coal, among others.
These connected soils -including coal- already have natural and useful purposes, including agriculture and vegetation, sites for human occupation and use, ancestral sacred history, and the like.
The connected waters also have highly beneficial uses, for irrigation, human consumption, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, transport of valuable cargo and humans, and ecological purposes we are only beginning to fully understand.
The air -essential to human life- will be tangibly degraded and global climate impacts will accelerate, with the greenhouse gases associated with every step in the mining to burning process.
These natural resources -air, water and soil- belong to everyone in common and should not be allowed to degrade solely because of commercial interests. We, the public owners, need to have a forceful voice in deciding whether the GPT coal export scheme really serves our collective interests well enough to allow it to proceed.
Each of these public resources contains significant usufructuary value and should not be arbitrarily degraded without the express consent of the public impacted.
Please see to it that the potentially harmful impacts to the soils, waters and air belonging to us all are carefully documented and evaluated thoroughly before any decision is made to approve any part of the GPT application.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Coal: Bellingham's GPT Scoping Comments
Here is the text of a letter the City of Bellingham intends to submit as its latest comprehensive GPT EIS Scoping Comments:
c/o CH2M HILL
1100 112th Avenue NE Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004
Therefore, the City is providing the following specific scoping comments for consideration and inclusion in the Final Scoping Document in order to inform the various alternatives to be studied in the EIS.
1. Please analyze the cumulative impacts of all currently proposed coal export facilities and/or dry bulk commodity terminals within Washington and Oregon in a Cumulative Impact Analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act. Specifically, please analyze the cumulative impact to existing freight and passenger train traffic capacity in Washington State as well as the cumulative impacts to natural and cultural resources resulting from the increase in freight train trips within Washington State and vessel traffic within Puget Sound, Georgia Straight and the Columbia River. We acknowledge that the BP Refinery located within the Cherry Point Industrial Area has applied for permits to develop new railroad (loop) infrastructure on their own property. The proposed improvements are intended to accommodate a planned for increase in trains carrying crude oil from the Midwest to their facilities at Cherry Point. BP has forecasted that they expect one additional train every two days to travel on the BNSF line traveling through Bellingham to the Custer Spur and then to the refinery itself. Please include this additional train traffic in the Cumulative Impact Analysis.
2. Please analyze the increase in impacts to the health and welfare of the citizens of Bellingham including impacts from diesel emissions from trains and ships, coal dust, noise and the potential for increased rail/car and rail/pedestrian accidents through a comprehensive independent third party Health Impact Assessment.
3. Please analyze the impacts to existing freight train and passenger train service, including impacts to shared capacity by the addition of up to 18 additional bulk-commodity train trips per day on Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad infrastructure (Bellingham Subdivision Mainline), between Mount Vernon, Washington and the GPT.
4. Please analyze the impacts to the elements of the environment, as specified in WAC 197-11-444, which would result from the construction / development of a new railroad siding partially or wholly within the City in order to facilitate / accommodate the addition of up to 18 additional bulk-commodity train trips per day on the Bellingham Subdivision Mainline (BSM) between Mount Vernon and the GPT.The following comments relate to the City's potentially affected resources and are categorized in relation to the City's Legacies and Strategic Commitments. The City expects these resources to be adversely impacted by the increase of up to 18 additional freight train trips traveling through the City of Bellingham every day at the time of full build out of the GPT. We request that the "increase" in impacts resulting from this action be analyzed through the EIS process for each element list below.
- Please analyze the increase in impacts within an EIS to the following elements, related to the City's "Healthy Environment Legacy," which commits the City to protect the health of Bellingham Bay and its ecological functions, as well as reduce contributions to climate change:
- Marine species, vegetation and the water quality of Bellingham Bay and its pocket estuaries as a result of increased coal dust from open container cars and increased diesel particulates from locomotives;
- Marine species, aquatic vegetation and water quality due to an increase in vessel traffic and vessel anchorage;
- Air quality of park and recreation users related to increased dust and increased particulates from open container cars and locomotives due to idling of those locomotives to the proximity of BSM to heavily used City park and trail amenities;
- Upland wildlife habitat, connectivity and accessibility to park lands and greenway habitat corridors as a result of an increase in the amount, frequency and length of commodity trains;
- Air quality, the marine environment and upland vegetation, resulting from the various methods of handling, moving and storing coal and other similar commodities from the moment it arrives at the terminal via train to its deposition into the cargo vessel;
- Marine near-shore environment from an increase in noise and vibration due to additional, longer and more frequent freight train trips along the BSM;
- Noise from increased train traffic on park users, riverine and estuarine fish and wildlife and related habitat; and
- Potentially unstable slopes located on or adjacent to public and private lands especially those within the Edgemoor, South Hill, Birchwood and Columbia Neighborhoods as a result of additional, longer and more frequent freight train trips along the BSM;
- Please analyze the increase in impacts within an EIS to the following elements related to the City's Legacy of "Vibrant and Sustainable Economy," which commits the City to support and promote a thriving local economy across all sectors, public and private investment as well as preservation of farmland and agricultural economy;
- Existing and planned land use and economic development potential within the City's Central Business District, the Waterfront District, Old Town and Fairhaven, all of which have development potential west of the BSM as a result of additional, longer and more frequent freight train trips;
- Property values and assessments and the impacts to services resulting from a potential decrease in property tax revenue;
- Job retention and creation within the City of Bellingham;
- Bellingham's economy from increased train traffic related to tourism use of public park property within proximity of the rail line;
- Tribal nations, local and regional fishing industries resulting from the increase in vessel traffic and marine infrastructure within the Strait of Georgia and the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve.
- Please analyze the increase in impacts within an EIS to the following elements related to the City's Legacy of "Sense of Place," which commits the City to support and protect neighborhoods, historic and cultural resources, as well as natural settings and access to open space:
- Resulting from additional freight train trips on the BSM on recreation resources and social benefits of the Bellingham parks and open space system;
- Impacts of additional, longer and more frequent freight train trips along the BSM, as well as related infrastructure, including fencing, signals, siding, tracking, to the quality of public parks, open space and trails, and to scenic water views;
- Impacts of potential expansion of tracking or sidings associated with the increased rail traffic on public park lands and access to those lands, including impacts due to acquisition and/or eminent domain of properties that have a potential for future public access;
- Impacts of trains idling to adjacent park land, including public access, emergencies and operational access, noise, dust;
- Please analyze the increase in impacts within an EIS on to the following elements related to the City's Legacy of "Safe and Prepared Community," which commits the City to preventing and responding to emergencies and crime, as well as increasing community readiness and resilience:
- Paramedic response times and services of City of Bellingham's Fire and Police Departments as well as Whatcom Medic One and Fire District 7;
- Emergency response times for Medic One and Fire District 7 paramedics within and beyond the northern portions of the City;
- Safety of the general public resulting from fire in a coal car, including idling locomotives and train derailments or collisions;
- Impacts resulting from accelerated wear and tear on the rails themselves, ties, supporting ballast, bridges, crossings and tunnels.
- Public access issues, including delays in emergency response time and operational access, caused by increased rail traffic, to existing and future park lands along the rail right of way;
- Existing rights of way, both opened and unopened, that provide access to public lands and shorelines;
- Public and private property resulting from any potential spill on land or water during transport, storage or handling, including any spill due to a ship collision.
- Please analyze the increase in impacts within an EIS on the following elements related to the City's Legacy "Mobility and Connectivity Options," which commits the City to providing safe and well connected mobility options for all users as well as increase infrastructure for non-vehicular modes of transportation:
- The safety of park users as a direct result of increased rail traffic. Many existing legal access points to parks and trails involve at-grade rail crossings;
- Mobility and connectivity between on-street and off street non-motorized pedestrian and bicycle systems;
- Existing and proposed trail systems, including the Coast Millennium Trail, Bay to Baker Trail, Nooksack Loop Trail, all of which are identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as proposed trail systems and linkages within and along the shoreline in the Waterfront District;
- Crossing safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit buses, automobiles, and freight delivery vehicles;
- Traffic congestion backing up into other intersections, blocking access to side streets, alleys, and driveways;
- Access to and from Amtrak passenger trains, the Alaska Ferry Terminal, other marine transportation tenants stationed at the Bellingham Cruise Terminal, the Community Boating Center and the Port of Bellingham's Fairhaven boat launch facilities and the effect on Bellingham's tourism income.
- The following at-grade street crossings all within the City limits:
- Harris Avenue (Fairhaven)
- 6th Street north of Harris Avenue (Fairhaven)
- Bayview Drive (Boulevard Park)
- South Bay Trail @ Boulevard Park
- Pine and Wharf Street (Waterfront District)
- Cornwall Avenue (Waterfront District)
- West Laurel Street (Waterfront District)
- Central Avenue (Old Town)
- “C” Street (Old Town)
- "F" Street (Old Town)
- Please analyze the following items related to the City's Legacy "Quality, Responsive City Services," which commits the City to delivering efficient, effective and accountable services, and transparent processes to involve stakeholders in decisions:
It is important to note that the City concurs with the October 22, 2012 letter from Buri, Funston and Mumford Attorneys at Law, which asserts that the GPT proposal is a "major development" as defined in Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.88.010 and therefore is required to satisfy the "major development criteria," as specified in WCC 20.88.130.
- Associated costs of transportation improvements necessary to mitigate safety, congestion, and access issues resulting from an increase in freight train trips as part of the GPT proposal.
As the project qualifies as a major project, the applicant is responsible for demonstrating compliance with the criteria listed in WCC 20.88.130, including a showing that the project will not impose uncompensated requirements for public expenditures for additional utilities, facilities and services, will not impose uncompensated costs on other property owned and will be appropriately responsive to any EIS prepared for the project.
It is vital that any off-site infrastructure that is necessary for the project be considered as part of the project proposal itself, as required by WCC 20.88.130(6). If the Washington State Department of Ecology, the Army Corps of Engineers and Whatcom County (the "Co-Leads) does not require that the off-site infrastructure be considered as part of the project, then that infrastructure should be included as a condition precedent to the establishment of the major development, as required by WCC 20.88.140 or, considered as a reasonable alternative to the proposal and be analyzed pursuant to both SEPA and NEPA.
Mayor City Council President
Resolution 2012-22
[Note: these two attachments are pdf documents which I could not figure out how to display here.
They will be available on the City's website]
=================================================
Recent published articles on Coal Export:
Coal train impacts feared along the Sound | Crosscut.com
Monday, December 10, 2012
Coal: GPT EIS Scoping Comments Summary
Another excellent article by Floyd Mckay appears today in Crosscut.
------------------------
------------------------
Here are the concerns I have submitted as GPT EIS comments to date:
Coal: GPT EIS Comment No. 31 Sunday, December 9, 2012
Concerns Based on Reality
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 30 Saturday, December 1, 2012
Programmatic EIS Needed to Counter Applicant's Local PR Campaign
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 29 Friday, November 30, 2012
Diminution in value of my home & other properties
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 28 Thursday, November 29, 2012
Does GPT mean Gambling Public Trust?
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 27 Wednesday, November 28, 2012
San Juan Islands National Conservation Area
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 26 Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Tugs, Pilots, Spill Response & Rescue Vessels
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 25 Monday, November 26, 2012
Non-reimbursed Government Expenses
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No.24 Thursday, November 1, 2012
Proposed BNSF Bellingham Siding & Idling Track
Coal: EIS Scoping Comments No. 21, 22, 23 Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Liability Responsibility
Train Noise
Misuse of U.S. Coal Resources
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 20 Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Loss of Use of Parks & Trails
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 19 Friday, October 12, 2012
Tribal Concerns
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 18 Thursday, October 11, 2012
GPT: The Liability Labyrinth Linchpin
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 17 Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Impacts on Property Values, Taxes & Levels of Service
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 16 Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Climate Change: Who's Responsible?
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 15 Monday, October 8, 2012
Wasteful Water Use
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 14 Sunday, October 7, 2012
Chuckanut Drive Landslide Hazard
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 13 Saturday, October 6, 2012
Coal Dust Clouds?
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 12 Friday, October 5, 2012
Purpose = Need?
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 11 Thursday, October 4, 2012
Bulk Carrier Vessel Concerns
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 10 Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Waterfront Redevelopment
GPT: EIS Comment No. 9 Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Financial Underpinnings
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 8 Monday, October 1, 2012
Vessel & Rail Capacity & Congestion
GPT: Scoping Comment No. 7 Sunday, September 30, 2012
Safety & Levels of Service at Rail Crossings
GPT: EIS Comment No. 6 Saturday, September 29, 2012
Lake Terrell Wildlife Preserve
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 5 Friday, September 28, 2012
Is GPT Appropriate For Cherry Point?
GPT: EIS Comment No. 4 Thursday, September 27, 2012
Vessels, Jobs & Cold-Ironing
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 3 Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Corporate Structure & Responsability
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 2 Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Scope of Project
Coal: Adding Insult to Injury Monday, September 24, 2012
Incomplete Application
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Coal: GPT EIS Comment No. 31
Concerns Based on Reality
Several recent events and actions lend credence to concerns by citizens, including these:
• The coal conveyor & access damage at the nearby Westshore Coal Terminal in BC resulting from a late night collision by a large Bulk Carrier vessel with a pilot on board.
• The railroad bridge collapse south of Bellingham on the BNSF main line used by heavy coal trains.
• The derailment of a coal train east of Tri-Cities, spilling 34 loaded cars.
• The protracted delays of traffic in Skagit County due to a stalled coal train with brake problems.
• The unseemly acts by the GPT Applicant to recruit allies to pack public meetings designed to gather citizen concerns.
• The repeated dismissals of legitimately expressed citizen concerns as only NIMBYism by GPT spokespersons.
• The ongoing media advertising campaign designed to influence public opinion during the 120-day EIS Scoping period, which advocates multiple coal terminals -not just GPT- which seems like a concerted effort on behalf of an entire industry. Doesn't that justify a programmatic EIS approach is necessary?
There is likely available statistical information on the frequency and severity of both large bulk vessel and coal train accidents. I request that this information be researched and applied to the rail and marine traffic projected by the Applicant for GPT.
Additionally, the costs to the natural environment, existing businesses, residents, governments services and facilities need to be ascertained for inclusion into the EIS evaluation.
A programmatic EIS appears necessary to include all of the possible impacts, whether to the GPT site or anywhere along the proposed transport routes.
It would also include impacts to the atmosphere, the oceans and inland waterways, the land, human health and impacts to each ecosystem likely to be affected over time.
Several recent events and actions lend credence to concerns by citizens, including these:
• The coal conveyor & access damage at the nearby Westshore Coal Terminal in BC resulting from a late night collision by a large Bulk Carrier vessel with a pilot on board.
• The railroad bridge collapse south of Bellingham on the BNSF main line used by heavy coal trains.
• The derailment of a coal train east of Tri-Cities, spilling 34 loaded cars.
• The protracted delays of traffic in Skagit County due to a stalled coal train with brake problems.
• The unseemly acts by the GPT Applicant to recruit allies to pack public meetings designed to gather citizen concerns.
• The repeated dismissals of legitimately expressed citizen concerns as only NIMBYism by GPT spokespersons.
• The ongoing media advertising campaign designed to influence public opinion during the 120-day EIS Scoping period, which advocates multiple coal terminals -not just GPT- which seems like a concerted effort on behalf of an entire industry. Doesn't that justify a programmatic EIS approach is necessary?
There is likely available statistical information on the frequency and severity of both large bulk vessel and coal train accidents. I request that this information be researched and applied to the rail and marine traffic projected by the Applicant for GPT.
Additionally, the costs to the natural environment, existing businesses, residents, governments services and facilities need to be ascertained for inclusion into the EIS evaluation.
A programmatic EIS appears necessary to include all of the possible impacts, whether to the GPT site or anywhere along the proposed transport routes.
It would also include impacts to the atmosphere, the oceans and inland waterways, the land, human health and impacts to each ecosystem likely to be affected over time.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 30
Programmatic EIS Needed to Counter Applicant's Local PR Campaign
I am concerned with the constant, expensive, misleading and one-sided propaganda being promulgated by the GPT Applicant and its supporters, many of whom are paid for their voices. I was most recently reminded of this effort by seeing yet another slick, primetime TV advertising feature sponsored by the so-called 'Alliance for Northwest Jobs & Exports', claiming GPT has far wider support than seems credible. Their catch-phrase is BUILD TERMINALS HERE. BUILD JOBS HERE. This intensive campaign demonstrates an apparent dearth of business integrity, with self-serving monied interests trying to drown out legitimate public concerns by trivializing them and demeaning the credibility of GPT skeptics and opponents alike.
In a process that already seems inherently rigged to find a way to say 'yes' to any and all proposals submitted, this Applicant is engaging in a campaign of misleading statements, testimonials and indirect lobbying of the very Whatcom County, Washington State and US Government officials, who themselves are being involuntarily sequestered and/or compelled to remain impartially uninformed in the EIS Scoping and evaluation exercise.
This kind of shameless, self-serving charade -while likely not strictly illegal- simply adds to what is already widely perceived as an unfair process that will decidedly impact the future of our community, region, nation and globe. SSA-Marine and its backers seem to embody that strained concept that 'corporations are people and money is speech', and its corollary, wealth wins. Reducing this important issue to a 'pants-on-fire' political contest does not serve the overall interests of the public, which expects a fair, impartial and fact-based process likely to result in as unbiased result as possible.
The Applicant has had its opportunity to spell out its plans, with emphasis on claimed benefits, of course. Now, the agencies need most to hear the other side of the debate, the concerns, fears, doubts about potentially harmful impacts, including an assessment of all associated costs, and what's missing that needs to be known. Fortunately, the agencies have heard enough already to conclude that a much wider scope was needed than originally anticipated, as well as more opportunities for public comment. And, both of those determinations were distinctly opposed by the Applicant, who continues to stonewall the questions it doesn't want asked and disingenuously presumes no harms can come from GPT being built and operated. Is that the profile of a corporate entity we can trust to operate a major new terminal that will necessarily attract hundreds of coal trains and ultra-large vessels to our community? Or is it a manifestation of corporate interests without the kind of business integrity that inspires respect?
There have already been repeated requests from serious-minded people for broadening the EIS process even further for GPT, and considering it a part of an entire cluster of similar proposals - a so-called 'programmatic EIS' process. That concept also seems to reflect the plainly plural meanings of the phrase BUILD TERMINALS HERE. BUILD JOBS HERE. doesn't it?
So, I also request this all-inclusive programmatic EIS idea be taken, and very seriously followed by the MAP Team, even though one USACE official has already stated that might be 'unprecedented'.
The point is, GPT, itself, is unprecedented, despite the Applicant's self-serving claims to the contrary. And, sometimes, precedents do need to be carefully set. In our unique system of government, we, the citizens, get to have early and often input into exactly that precedent-setting possibility.
Since this GPT project will impact much more than just some corporate bottom line, it should be subjected to the most thorough scoping and evaluation possible. If that is accomplished -with or without precedent- I am confident the resulting recommendations will likely be the correct ones, since citizen concerns would be heard, considered and and fairly factored into the final decisions made.
I am concerned with the constant, expensive, misleading and one-sided propaganda being promulgated by the GPT Applicant and its supporters, many of whom are paid for their voices. I was most recently reminded of this effort by seeing yet another slick, primetime TV advertising feature sponsored by the so-called 'Alliance for Northwest Jobs & Exports', claiming GPT has far wider support than seems credible. Their catch-phrase is BUILD TERMINALS HERE. BUILD JOBS HERE. This intensive campaign demonstrates an apparent dearth of business integrity, with self-serving monied interests trying to drown out legitimate public concerns by trivializing them and demeaning the credibility of GPT skeptics and opponents alike.
In a process that already seems inherently rigged to find a way to say 'yes' to any and all proposals submitted, this Applicant is engaging in a campaign of misleading statements, testimonials and indirect lobbying of the very Whatcom County, Washington State and US Government officials, who themselves are being involuntarily sequestered and/or compelled to remain impartially uninformed in the EIS Scoping and evaluation exercise.
This kind of shameless, self-serving charade -while likely not strictly illegal- simply adds to what is already widely perceived as an unfair process that will decidedly impact the future of our community, region, nation and globe. SSA-Marine and its backers seem to embody that strained concept that 'corporations are people and money is speech', and its corollary, wealth wins. Reducing this important issue to a 'pants-on-fire' political contest does not serve the overall interests of the public, which expects a fair, impartial and fact-based process likely to result in as unbiased result as possible.
The Applicant has had its opportunity to spell out its plans, with emphasis on claimed benefits, of course. Now, the agencies need most to hear the other side of the debate, the concerns, fears, doubts about potentially harmful impacts, including an assessment of all associated costs, and what's missing that needs to be known. Fortunately, the agencies have heard enough already to conclude that a much wider scope was needed than originally anticipated, as well as more opportunities for public comment. And, both of those determinations were distinctly opposed by the Applicant, who continues to stonewall the questions it doesn't want asked and disingenuously presumes no harms can come from GPT being built and operated. Is that the profile of a corporate entity we can trust to operate a major new terminal that will necessarily attract hundreds of coal trains and ultra-large vessels to our community? Or is it a manifestation of corporate interests without the kind of business integrity that inspires respect?
There have already been repeated requests from serious-minded people for broadening the EIS process even further for GPT, and considering it a part of an entire cluster of similar proposals - a so-called 'programmatic EIS' process. That concept also seems to reflect the plainly plural meanings of the phrase BUILD TERMINALS HERE. BUILD JOBS HERE. doesn't it?
So, I also request this all-inclusive programmatic EIS idea be taken, and very seriously followed by the MAP Team, even though one USACE official has already stated that might be 'unprecedented'.
The point is, GPT, itself, is unprecedented, despite the Applicant's self-serving claims to the contrary. And, sometimes, precedents do need to be carefully set. In our unique system of government, we, the citizens, get to have early and often input into exactly that precedent-setting possibility.
Since this GPT project will impact much more than just some corporate bottom line, it should be subjected to the most thorough scoping and evaluation possible. If that is accomplished -with or without precedent- I am confident the resulting recommendations will likely be the correct ones, since citizen concerns would be heard, considered and and fairly factored into the final decisions made.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 29
Diminution in value of my home & other properties
Diminution in value is a legal term of art used when calculating damages in a legal dispute, and describes a measure of value lost due to a circumstance or set of circumstances that caused the loss.
I am concerned that building GPT and attracting 18 additional coal trains per day will devalue my home, as well as the properties owned by many citizens, especially those near the BNSF railway through Bellingham.
I request that a baseline estimation of home, rental multi-family structures, commercial interests and industrial operations be officially documented by the Whatcom County Assessor, effective now, showing the aggregate Real Property Value of all properties in Bellingham and Whatcom County, with special emphasis on those property parcels falling -all or partially- within 600 to 1000 feet of the BNSF mainline route to and from the proposed Cherry Point Terminal. Since RCW 84.40.045 requires this information to be updated periodically, this calculation ought to be fairly simple and readily available.
The purpose of this baseline is for comparison with similar determinations to be made in the future, should GPT be permitted, built and operated as currently anticipated by the Applicant.
It seems common to believe proximity to a busy rail freight route tends to reduce property values, especially residential and commercial parcels. At least one professional report has been prepared recently that addresses this problem directly. This can be found at this URL: http://climatesolutions.org/nw-states/coal-train-study
This report considered the following factors, which are considered as harmful impacts and/or nuisances:
Access and Vehicular Traffic; Life Safety Issues; Vibration; Horn Noise; Pollution; Stigma and Perception; Property Types, Variables and Comments, and came to some general Conclusions:
Diminution in value is a legal term of art used when calculating damages in a legal dispute, and describes a measure of value lost due to a circumstance or set of circumstances that caused the loss.
I am concerned that building GPT and attracting 18 additional coal trains per day will devalue my home, as well as the properties owned by many citizens, especially those near the BNSF railway through Bellingham.
I request that a baseline estimation of home, rental multi-family structures, commercial interests and industrial operations be officially documented by the Whatcom County Assessor, effective now, showing the aggregate Real Property Value of all properties in Bellingham and Whatcom County, with special emphasis on those property parcels falling -all or partially- within 600 to 1000 feet of the BNSF mainline route to and from the proposed Cherry Point Terminal. Since RCW 84.40.045 requires this information to be updated periodically, this calculation ought to be fairly simple and readily available.
The purpose of this baseline is for comparison with similar determinations to be made in the future, should GPT be permitted, built and operated as currently anticipated by the Applicant.
It seems common to believe proximity to a busy rail freight route tends to reduce property values, especially residential and commercial parcels. At least one professional report has been prepared recently that addresses this problem directly. This can be found at this URL: http://climatesolutions.org/nw-states/coal-train-study
This report considered the following factors, which are considered as harmful impacts and/or nuisances:
Access and Vehicular Traffic; Life Safety Issues; Vibration; Horn Noise; Pollution; Stigma and Perception; Property Types, Variables and Comments, and came to some general Conclusions:
• ".... the closer the distance of the property to the rail line or crossing, the greater the influence. Because of this, in general, the upper end of the range of diminution in value concluded would be expected to strongly correlate with properties located closest to the rail line or crossing. At the opposite end of the spectrum, although property with the least net total intensity of adverse influence might be expected to experience a diminution in value of less than five percent, such minimal impacts are generally considered so slight as to be effectively immeasurable; therefore, five percent has been used at the lower end of the range."
• "Property located north of Everett with 18 new train trips daily: the applicable range of diminution in value for single family residences, the property type expected to suffer the most severe impacts, has been concluded to range from five to twenty percent of market value. Multi-family properties as a whole, are considered to be less intensely impacted for reasons discussed in this report and would be expected to suffer a loss in market value ranging from five to fifteen percent of market value. ....Commercial properties would experience loss in market value in the approximate five to ten percent range.....Industrial properties, considered the least impacted of the property types overall, would be expected to suffer a five to eight percent range of loss in market value.
Although this report is not intended to be used to provide an aggregate loss in value for property that would be affected by the proposed increase in coal train freight rail traffic, it is felt that the total loss in value due to such influence would be substantial in terms of property market value and real estate tax revenues to taxing districts."
• "The proprietary database provided and used in this assignment indicates a total of 21,548 tax parcels for properties identified as located within 600 feet of the BNSF main line railroad tracks in the subject area of interest, with a total aggregated assessed value of $26,556,663,168. If one were to assume these properties would suffer a loss in assessed value of one percent, the loss would be equal to approximately $265 million, which applied at a one percent millage rate is equivalent to an approximate $2,655,000 in annual tax revenue loss. In my opinion, the effects and impacts of the additional freight rail traffic not only affect the properties within 600 feet of the main line, but also potentially affect property beyond this identified zone. At the very least, this information indicates that the aggregate losses to market value and tax revenues could be quite substantial.
I request the MAP Team take these expected impacts into careful consideration in the EIS Scoping process, because they represent very substantial tangible harm, especially to those living, working or owning property near the BNSF main rail line.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 28
Does GPT mean Gambling Public Trust?
When any plan seems too good to be true, often, it likely is!
Since our country has an announced goal of energy independence, why allow the export of non-renewable resources like Powder River Basin Coal?
Why not leave the coal unneeded for current domestic purposes in the ground for future emergencies, similar to we do with the strategic petroleum reserve?
Temporary over-supply of coal, petroleum & oil, natural gas, bio-fuels from subsidized corn, and the like, has historically happened over time, so why not plan for it?
Shouldn't our national energy policy be determined by the Federal Administration & Congress, not the wildly fluctuating global market involving 3rd-world countries?
A good practice would be to pace ourselves, emphasize energy efficiency, conservation, and development of alternate, renewable sources?
And, why would the US wish to weaken its future strength by quickly selling off its natural assets as non-value added commodities to its main competitor?
Such unprecedented shortsightedness needs to be strongly questioned, both from a public policy point of view and as a risky investment that depends on windfall profits over a few years.
Loss of coal resources, instability of promised tax revenues and jobs, impacts to public health & safety and degradation of the environment, all seem to exact a heavy price to pay for a private equity gamble masquerading as beneficial and sustainable, economic growth for the public.
Peabody Coal will get paid by its Asian customers before it ships one lump of coal;
BNSF will be paid for what it hauls on its tracks for Peabody;
ultra-large Bulk Carriers will be paid before they take on any coal cargo for Peabody.
But, GPT is the one critical facility for which substantial investment is essential, because without it being permitted, built and operated, none of the other transactions mentioned would become enabled, nor would SSA earn any revenues from its Cherry Point proposal.
While corporations and investors are free to take substantial monetary risks to earn higher returns, it is not healthy to collateralize those risks by foisting a deception upon local governments, citizens and the impacted natural environment.
Solid, sustainable business is not usually predicated upon quicksand-like foundations, as the GPT proposal appears to be.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 27
San Juan Islands National Conservation Area
There is much current interest in the idea of designating a San Juan Islands National Conservation Area, because the area is so spectacularly beautiful. This sentiment is not new; it has been widely shared by many for a long time, since all who visit this unique place enjoy the experience and want to preserve it for future generations.
I'm concerned that the very large Bulk Carrier Vessels that GPT will attract, will degrade this area and possibly even ruin it for fishing, boating and general enjoyment by the tens of thousands of people who live there or visit each year. It is difficult to conceive of any mitigation capable of undoing the irreparable harm that a spill, collision or sinking could cause, not to mention the enormous threats to small craft, ferries and recreational uses these huge vessels would certainly cause.
I request that the MAP Team strongly consider what preventative measures could possibly be put into place so as to minimize this threat, including all necessary costs and mandated protocols to be implemented by the Applicant.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 26
Tugs, Pilots, Spill Response & Rescue Vessels
If GPT is ever built, nearly 500 ultra large Bulk Carriers may be attracted to Cherry Point each year.
Each of these Capesize [up to 70-foot draft] and Panamax [up to 40-foot draft] vessels will require the likely assistance of 2 to 4 powerful tugboats, plus registered pilots and, hopefully, mandatory spill response and rescue work boats.
While necessary for safety and ecological prudence, these additional vessels represent additional marine traffic and potential harms, making it necessary to fully consider them in any comprehensive EIS.
Here are some specific questions for the MAP Team's consideration:
For Tugs -
• What criteria will be used to determine the size, horsepower power ratings, crew size and number of tugs required for each ultra-large vessel as it arrives and departs?
• At what point/location will these tugs meet these incoming vessels? At what point/location will tug escort be ended for outgoing vessels?
• Where will these tugs be based? Is there a plan for tugs to be based at Cherry Point?
• What proportion of tugs will qualify as ocean-going?
• Will all tugs be equipped with water monitors, in the event that water-borne firefighting is necessary?
• What grade of diesel fuel will the tugs use? What are the anticipated air emissions (per hour)? Where will fueling be done?
• Some larger tugs are rated at 25,000 to 30,000 Horsepower, or 5 times that of larger diesel locomotives. Will these be necessary to maneuver ultra-large vessels? When, and under what weather and marine conditions?
For Pilot Boats -
• At what point/location will these Pilot Boats meet these incoming vessels? At what point/location will the Pilot escort be ended for outgoing vessels?
• Will the Pilot have discretion over vessel movement decisions -including tugs- under all sea-state and weather conditions? Over excessive vessel traffic in close or restricted waters?
Spill Response Work Boats -
• What plans for Spill Response apply to to GPT?
• Specify what type of specialty work boats will be required to be immediately available, should a fuel or other spill be encountered. What equipment is to be carried? What crew size and training?
• Who provides these work boats? Who pays for them? Where will they be based?
Rescue Vessels -
• What specific plans does GPT have to provide rescue services on demand? Who pays for this?
Where will these vessels be based? What role is anticipated for the US Coast Guard?
It is essential for answers to these questions be developed and made available to the public before any approvals are granted to GPT.
Each of these support craft carries its own impacts on vessel traffic, nearshore water disturbance, and potential impacts on the marine ecology, most particularly the tugs with their powerful engines and thrusters capable of moving 250,000 dwt Bulk Carrier Vessels.
If GPT is ever built, nearly 500 ultra large Bulk Carriers may be attracted to Cherry Point each year.
Each of these Capesize [up to 70-foot draft] and Panamax [up to 40-foot draft] vessels will require the likely assistance of 2 to 4 powerful tugboats, plus registered pilots and, hopefully, mandatory spill response and rescue work boats.
While necessary for safety and ecological prudence, these additional vessels represent additional marine traffic and potential harms, making it necessary to fully consider them in any comprehensive EIS.
Here are some specific questions for the MAP Team's consideration:
For Tugs -
• What criteria will be used to determine the size, horsepower power ratings, crew size and number of tugs required for each ultra-large vessel as it arrives and departs?
• At what point/location will these tugs meet these incoming vessels? At what point/location will tug escort be ended for outgoing vessels?
• Where will these tugs be based? Is there a plan for tugs to be based at Cherry Point?
• What proportion of tugs will qualify as ocean-going?
• Will all tugs be equipped with water monitors, in the event that water-borne firefighting is necessary?
• What grade of diesel fuel will the tugs use? What are the anticipated air emissions (per hour)? Where will fueling be done?
• Some larger tugs are rated at 25,000 to 30,000 Horsepower, or 5 times that of larger diesel locomotives. Will these be necessary to maneuver ultra-large vessels? When, and under what weather and marine conditions?
For Pilot Boats -
• At what point/location will these Pilot Boats meet these incoming vessels? At what point/location will the Pilot escort be ended for outgoing vessels?
• Will the Pilot have discretion over vessel movement decisions -including tugs- under all sea-state and weather conditions? Over excessive vessel traffic in close or restricted waters?
Spill Response Work Boats -
• What plans for Spill Response apply to to GPT?
• Specify what type of specialty work boats will be required to be immediately available, should a fuel or other spill be encountered. What equipment is to be carried? What crew size and training?
• Who provides these work boats? Who pays for them? Where will they be based?
Rescue Vessels -
• What specific plans does GPT have to provide rescue services on demand? Who pays for this?
Where will these vessels be based? What role is anticipated for the US Coast Guard?
It is essential for answers to these questions be developed and made available to the public before any approvals are granted to GPT.
Each of these support craft carries its own impacts on vessel traffic, nearshore water disturbance, and potential impacts on the marine ecology, most particularly the tugs with their powerful engines and thrusters capable of moving 250,000 dwt Bulk Carrier Vessels.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 25
Non-reimbursed Government Expenses
Governments at all levels are continuing to incur significant expenses related to permitting and administering the GPT proposed project, that are not paid by the Applicant.
For instance, Whatcom County has spent thousands of dollars to date on activity even before permitting officially began, yet charged the Applicant only the $2500 fee generally applicable to 'normal' permit applications.
For an exceptionally complicated project containing major wider implications and potential harms, the standard fee is woefully inadequate and essentially represents a public gift to a private entity.
This practice is grossly unfair to taxpayers and needs to be mitigated.
Although law does require the Applicant to pay for EIS costs, this does not necessarily include all the considerable staff time from each of the public agencies involved, not to speak of the untold hours of voluntary, uncompensated, citizen time in even expressing legitimate concerns for possible inclusion in the EIS.
I request that Whatcom County immediately undertake to assess the costs of these uncompensated services and make this information available to County officials and the public at large, as a first step in redressing this obvious inequity.
Without such information, neither County officials nor citizens will even know the extent of any financial burden being silently foisted upon the public treasury.
Such abuse must be identified and curtailed, in this case, by County action.
If these types of subsidies are routinely granted to Applicants during the initial permitting process, just imagine what other, much greater financial demands might become expected and imposed upon local governments should the project be approved!
The Applicant's claims of additional jobs and tax revenues could easily be dwarfed by the costs of required new public infrastructure, such as grade-separated crossings all along the BNSF railway that bisects multiple municipalities and greatly increases safety and convenience problems with citizens and businesses alike.
Please consider these uncompensated costs -both current and potential future- as important factors in fairly weighing costs versus benefits.
Governments at all levels are continuing to incur significant expenses related to permitting and administering the GPT proposed project, that are not paid by the Applicant.
For instance, Whatcom County has spent thousands of dollars to date on activity even before permitting officially began, yet charged the Applicant only the $2500 fee generally applicable to 'normal' permit applications.
For an exceptionally complicated project containing major wider implications and potential harms, the standard fee is woefully inadequate and essentially represents a public gift to a private entity.
This practice is grossly unfair to taxpayers and needs to be mitigated.
Although law does require the Applicant to pay for EIS costs, this does not necessarily include all the considerable staff time from each of the public agencies involved, not to speak of the untold hours of voluntary, uncompensated, citizen time in even expressing legitimate concerns for possible inclusion in the EIS.
I request that Whatcom County immediately undertake to assess the costs of these uncompensated services and make this information available to County officials and the public at large, as a first step in redressing this obvious inequity.
Without such information, neither County officials nor citizens will even know the extent of any financial burden being silently foisted upon the public treasury.
Such abuse must be identified and curtailed, in this case, by County action.
If these types of subsidies are routinely granted to Applicants during the initial permitting process, just imagine what other, much greater financial demands might become expected and imposed upon local governments should the project be approved!
The Applicant's claims of additional jobs and tax revenues could easily be dwarfed by the costs of required new public infrastructure, such as grade-separated crossings all along the BNSF railway that bisects multiple municipalities and greatly increases safety and convenience problems with citizens and businesses alike.
Please consider these uncompensated costs -both current and potential future- as important factors in fairly weighing costs versus benefits.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Politics & Political 'Science'
Aristotle considered politics -and ethics for that matter- as a 'practical' science, not an exact one in the manner of mathematics, etc.
Pretty smart, that guy!
With the Rombot and Ryanoid soundly defeated, much to their surprise however much deserved, our ship of State continues its stable, if not always exciting course.
Of course, the political gamesmanship doesn't all go away, because many important decisions must still be made, some of longstanding ripeness and others predictably unpredictable.
No, the waters being traveled are calm only in their relativity, with squalls, shoals, other ships of State, and all sorts of perilous situations that demand wisdom, courage, cooperation, leadership, as well as Divine Providence.
These are not traits for those specializing in gaffe ability, flip-floppiness, fuzzy math, unbalanced pretense, or habitual mendacity - not to mention Romnesia or Ryanopia.
The Party of 'NO' -what now tries to pass as Republican- has at least for the present acknowledged that its has some very serious ailments, which if not addressed immediately, could metastasize into something lasting, if not fatal.
For their sake, and every one's, I hope they find a cure that allows them to be more inclusive, more accepting, less bellicose and more honest.
The R's aren't all bad people; they have just allowed a few ideologues to usurp their party, whether self-serving established elites, mean-spirited tyrants, parsimonious misers, posturing politicos, or just non-thinking followers of spin-mongers.
But, that's the nature of the reality that must be faced.
Good luck with that.
Really!
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No.24
Proposed BNSF Bellingham Siding & Idling Track
There have been reliable reports that BNSF is actively proceeding with plans to build a new siding -perhaps 1.5 miles long- within Bellingham City Limits, ostensibly to help accommodate anticipated additional Coal Train traffic for the proposed GPT export facility.
Yet, nowhere within the Application submitted by GPT & BNSF is this particular plan even mentioned, even though it would create additional severe impacts to City facilities and infrastructure.
I request the MAP Team investigate this report to determine its accuracy. If BNSF is planning such an idea within the anticipated GPT EIS time frame, it most definitely should be included as part of the GPT EIS Scope and fully evaluated for its additional impacts, possible mitigation and all related costs.
Since GPT and BNSF -as inseparable Applicants- have consistently tried to limit the EIS Scope to only those footprints specific for the Terminal & Custer Spur expansion, the omission of this new, long and disruptive Bellingham Siding has the appearance of a deliberate attempt to evade comprehensive public scrutiny by the evaluation team.
There have been reliable reports that BNSF is actively proceeding with plans to build a new siding -perhaps 1.5 miles long- within Bellingham City Limits, ostensibly to help accommodate anticipated additional Coal Train traffic for the proposed GPT export facility.
Yet, nowhere within the Application submitted by GPT & BNSF is this particular plan even mentioned, even though it would create additional severe impacts to City facilities and infrastructure.
I request the MAP Team investigate this report to determine its accuracy. If BNSF is planning such an idea within the anticipated GPT EIS time frame, it most definitely should be included as part of the GPT EIS Scope and fully evaluated for its additional impacts, possible mitigation and all related costs.
Since GPT and BNSF -as inseparable Applicants- have consistently tried to limit the EIS Scope to only those footprints specific for the Terminal & Custer Spur expansion, the omission of this new, long and disruptive Bellingham Siding has the appearance of a deliberate attempt to evade comprehensive public scrutiny by the evaluation team.
If this new siding and idling track is built, it would permanently block Boulevard Park to vehicles & parking, affect Waterfront Businesses -both existing & planned- and increase train diesel exhaust in a populated urban area.
It would also impose a significant, unfair financial burden on the City and its taxpayers and citizens if public health, safety and welfare problems are to be even partially rectified.
All of these impacts are simply unacceptable to me and to our community, even if some form of limited mitigation funding were offered.
I suggest a No Action Alternative may be the only reasonable solution to this situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
