Joan Casey: Some Wonderful Reflections

The Whatcom Land Trust has been a favorite activity for Joan Casey for years. Recently, they have helped me find the Jade Stone (Olivine) Bench, obtain permission to place it at the Pt. Whitehorn Marine Reserve, and installed it.

Here's two photos I took today from Point Whitehorn Park, at the end just before the walk down to the beach.

Pt. Whitehorn Marine Reserve

Joan's Bench at Point Whitehorn
Inscription etched into left side:

So beautiful...
Joan Casey
1941-2016

View from Joan's Bench - The Salish Sea

-------The following was written a few days ago early in the morning with a mystical scene capturing my attention----

The predawn stillness is reverential in nature, with the almost full moon setting slowly in the west. 

A mist layer permeates the sky above bay and isles, both near and far.

Soon it will be gone...

Beautiful in every aspect except one; impermanence.

Ah, impermanence, an elegant cruelty; but don’t worry there will be another moment, then another; every one impermanent in their very uniqueness!

This reverie reminds of my first glimpse at one, Miss Joan Casey, arriving breathlessly at a carpool across a crowded parking lot.

That’s not as romantic as across a crowded room, but it will have to do.

Her main expression, observable at a distance, was one of pure exhilaration at being at that place and time, anticipating a wonderful walk in nature with friends.

What a very apparent joy she must have felt to elicit that aura of lightness of spirit!

Anyway, it certainly caught my eye and became the beginning of the long journey we happily took together.

Now, Joan isn’t physically around any more, but her presence remains, not so much as a protest to the whole idea of impermanence, but the expectation of ever-appearing new experiences.

As our love grew over the miles we hiked, there was always room for another adventure, then another, and another.

And, you know what; it’s still happening!!

That was how Joan was, constantly on the lookout for another wonderful experience! 

And you know, that kind of wonderful expectation was bound to succeed, as it did, over and over again.

Now on the eve of what might have been Joan’s 76th birthday, I am again experiencing great joy in having known her and recalling that moment.

The memories we shared do have a way of sticking with you…

---------

One such memory comes to mind of the time we walked the 95-mile West Highland Way in Scotland;

I made up a silly marching song as we walked along in misty cold, seeking to raise spirits, which it did.

It went like this, to the tune of “Oh Britannia”:

Oh, the Deebit, 

The Deebit walks with me

Oh, the little Deebit walks with me.

Oh, the Lambit,

The Lambit is so fine,

Oh, the little Lambit’s love is mine.

Oh, the Joanie,

The Joanie is my wife.

Oh, the little Joanie lights my life.

Note: since Joan had 2 dimples when she smiled, I called them Deebit and Lambit

Now that’s written, as the sun is rising….

The duty crow has already begun its futile dive-bombing attempts at making the gulls leave his roof.
========================================

GPT: It's Never Over, 'Til It's Over

It was probably someone like Yogi Berra who stated the obvious quote above, but he was right, not only above baseball, but other things as well.

The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal [GPT] and the well-financed folks behind it are an example of something many people oppose for good reasons that seems to have a momentum all its own.
Our community and others have expressed serious concerns about this project and the impacts it will have should it ever come to fruition. Yet, like a ravenous stalking predator, it keeps coming back.

It's quite possible that the only solution to the dangers GPT represents can only be the purchase of the property and physically removing it from consideration as a major coal export site.
Depending upon the cost, that solution could well be much cheaper than the cumulative myriad costs of social and environment harms that would certainly be externalized to the public should GPT ever be permitted to operate.

But GPT is only one such self-serving venture, albeit the one closest to our community. There are many others, known and in planning that could impose similar harms.

Several months have elapsed since I last blogged on the subject of GPT and related topics, but fortunately several others have been following it closely and reporting what they've found.

Today's Crosscut carries Floyd McKay's latest report, entitled 'Coal exports from Bellingham could ramp up rapidly'.

I strongly suggest reading it.
-----------

GPT: Footsteps to Oblivion?

August has already provided welcome news to all who have experienced serious reservations about the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal to export coal.
Of course, consideration of that proposal must still go through due process, but now the playing field has been leveled considerably and a much more balanced weighing of pros and cons is likely.

Whether the current proposal fails won't determine what future proposals may come forward.
Even if the GPT site itself is eventually purchased and turned into a park or other restricted use, increased rail traffic to bring petroleum feedstocks to local refineries may become a reality.

Here are links to several articles that announce and explain recent developments:

• Bellingham Herald: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/07/31/3121522/ecology-will-study-impact-of-coal.html

• Aftermath of DOE announcement: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/08/01/3123889/roundup-of-items-in-the-aftermath.html

• Sightline Article: http://daily.sightline.org/2013/08/01/another-shoe-drops-for-gateway-pacific/

• Lummi Nation Letter to USACE: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/08/02/3126384/lummi-nation-sees-no-compromise.html

• Crosscut Article by Floyd Mckay: http://crosscut.com/2013/08/01/coal-ports/115793/coal-port-faces-new-level-environmental-scrutiny/

--------------------------------
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

GPT & Growth Management

Here we are at the end of July and I haven't posted for 6 weeks.
I'd like to say I've been waiting for some good news, but mostly I've just been otherwise occupied and somewhat lazy, having read two heavy tomes by Jared Diamond; Guns, Germs & Steel and Collapse.
The former attempts to explain why some societies tend to have "more cargo" -meaning advanced civilizations- while the latter examines the causes of failure of various cultures.

These are not easy topics, but the author uses his extensive knowledge and communications skills to condense and simplify things enough for lay persons like me to comprehend, even though it does take a fair amount of time and dedication to the task to get through it!

That begs a comparison with some of our current candidates for Whatcom County council, both incumbents and challengers, who seem to have problems understanding what their role should be regarding Growth Management as well as why citizens and organizations - such as RE-Sources and FutureWise- have important roles to play in the planning for our common future.

It seems all four 'Republican' candidates for these 'non-partisan' seats have attitudes that they allow to prejudice them against even  a public forums that focus on growth planning and the ecology!
What is that about? Silly me, thinking such forums are important for the public to see and hear BEFORE voting!

Two incumbents - Bill Knudzen and Kathy Kershner - have supported the poor growth planning policies that invited lawsuits and Growth Management Hearings Board actions on behalf of the public, yet they are unwilling to learn any constructive lessons from that! Instead, they choose to continue spending scarce public dollars on silly appeals.

The two R challengers - Michele Luke and Ben Elenbaas- are also part of the problem since they serve on the inept County Planning Commission that is responsible for some very stupid recommendations to the County Council!
Because of this childish behavior, in fairness, the growth planning and the ecology forum has now been cancelled.
Take that voters!

But, as sorry as our County Electeds have been regarding Growth Management planning, there is at least one County that is worse, at least according author Jared Diamond.
That would be Ravalli County, in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana, which has NO planning or consistent zoning despite the crying need that exists in a place with great natural beauty, poor conditions for agricultural enterprises, a declining local economy and wide differences between 'Haves' and 'Have Nots'.

Rather than try to paraphrase Mr Diamond's descriptive words, I suggest reading Chapter One in Collapse for those interested.

Regarding GPT, another 'issue' our erstwhile County Council must eventually face - without benefit of much knowledge and understanding - today's news carried an article that indicates the MAP Team has decided to incorporate many of the hundreds of legitimate concerns expressed by citizens by considering impacts from rail traffic and other factors!

This latest MAP Team decision is truly good news.
Now, maybe our County Electeds won't be winging their 'fact-free' decision as much as they might been so inclined?
Let's hope so!

Water Supply: Searching For Certainty In Uncertain Times

This two-day Symposium [May 30&31] was timely and pretty well attended - at least by those folks who believe the topic is important enough to pay attention.
Here is the link to the announcement, agenda and speakers.
And, here is John Stark's article that appeared afterward in the Bellingham Herald

The discussions covered primary uses, including Agricultural; Industrial; Rural; Urban; and the big unknown, the In-Stream Flows, necessary to ensure fish can live and propagate.
It was on this last 'unknown' that the most interesting development was again revealed, in no uncertain terms; both the Lummi and Nooksack tribes have appealed -two years ago- to the Federal Government to clarify and quantify their most senior water rights. Who can blame them?

As today's Gristle pointed out, only the Feds have jurisdiction over such tribal matters, not the State of Washington; but it is critically important that WRIA-1 water rights be apportioned fairly, not only to ensure adequate In-Stream Flows, but to quantify those rights under jurisdiction of the WA State Dept of Ecology. Largely left out is the groundwater existing in aquifers, which are technically connected by hydraulic continuity, but difficult to completely quantify with the data currently available.

In mathematical terms; X - Y = Z, where X is the total amount of water available, Y is the total necessary In-Stream Flow, and Z is the amount of water available for all other uses. No one seems to know these quantities with any accuracy, or at least are not willing to share that information. But, a large amount of data have already been collected over the 7 years that the $4.5 million WRIA-1 program was fully underway, that could approximate at least the overall range of total water available -by season- in this large drainage.

Much of the uncertainty in the Symposium's title relates directly to this question of quantity, and the various sub-divisions of this quantity necessary to describe the various uses listed above. It is in the divvying up process that major conflicts will come to light, some to the detriment of those who have become accustomed to claiming water rights that either don't belong to them, or don't exist at all.
But, regardless of winners and losers, it is important to resolve this water rights problem sooner rather than later, because it will just get worse as time passes, thus creating more conflict and uncertainty.

One point deserves emphasis, while water law seems complicated, the concept of usufruct applies;  that means folks have the right to use the water, not own it. There is a finite amount of water that exists on this planet, and way less than 1% is potable. Our government consists of duly elected officials, whose duty is to face difficult problems like water rights - and resolve them in a fair, transparent public process!
So, be careful of who you support for elected office. It does matter that they be held accountable!

An earlier blog is worth revisiting, at this URL.

GPT: A Response to April 13 Bellingham Herald Article

As promised yesterday, here is my response to the following article, published in the April 13, 2013 Bellingham Herald: Terminal's family-wage jobs, taxes would aid Whatcom County(Authors: Brent Goodrich - Ferndale City Council and Bonnie Onyon - Blaine City Council)
-----------------

Article 1 of our Constitution ensures every citizen's right to free speech, including all manner of political or commercial speech that does not unduly malign either the public or other individuals.

Since both Mr Goodrich and Ms Onyon are not only citizens, but elected governmental representatives, what they have written doesn't appear to break any laws, except maybe those of good judgement and balanced accuracy. No, they are likely just expressing their opinions [wishes] while using their public status to influence others to support GPT, despite any drawbacks that plan may be found to have. 

I do find it interesting that the authors have admittedly reached their decision of unqualified support in advance - a priori - of completing the EIS evaluation; but maybe they think they know more than the rest of us, scientists and all? Maybe they do, but that seems highly unlikely.

As a retired Chemical Engineer and former elected member of the Bellingham City Council, I also have reviewed the GPT proposal in detail, and found enough insufficiently addressed or unanswered questions to cause major concerns for me as well as many others in Whatcom County and elsewhere.  A summary of 32 of these identified concerns can be found on the GPT EIS website listed under my name, for those interested.

The authors' un-equivocated acceptance of the most optimistic projections of job and revenue generation, happening immediately, also deserve much closer scrutiny! Perhaps, this factor alone explains their enthusiastic support for GPT, since no heavy lifting on their part is required for their respective municipalities to inherit large windfalls of heretofore unanticipated revenues.

Of course, these most optimistic projections are all predicated upon GPT being permitted, built and actually operated for decades; each of these steps are problematic at best. Even more important are the time delays implicit in the GPT timeline; the best projections will require 20 or more years before they might even be approached! Until that time, significantly less revenues would accrue to the Ferndale and Blaine entities expected (by the authors) to benefit the most from GPT. 

But, the other troubling aspect - entirely dismissed by the authors - is the lack of benefits accruing to other municipalities and entities that would be impacted by GPT and its related formidable array of supply trains and delivery vessels. That part, alone, is shocking, but don't forget yet another major omission, externalizing (ignoring) the costs of impacts on all municipalities and citizens as well as the local -and global- environment! 

In any business evaluation, a thorough cost/benefit analysis is a prudent, even essential, early step.

It's difficult to understand why the authors -and the proponents- would want to truncate this analysis and accept the additional risks to the public and environment that introduces, unless they consider their anticipated gains dwarf all other considerations. 

It appears the cost/benefit analysis these people propose applies only to the more limited local -and only positive- economics side of the equation, conveniently ignoring the equally important social and ecological considerations. For a truly sustainable venture to succeed, full-cost accounting (triple bottom line) is a necessity. That approach would provide a net benefit to everyone in the long-term, not just a few seeking quick, windfall profits and revenues at the expense of others.

Although the authors claim they've 'done their homework', they have miserably failed both the exam and the course! Did they not know that former WA Governor John Spellman, vetoed an earlier Cherry Point Terminal proposal over 30 years ago, stating that gaining a few jobs while badly degrading the environment was a bad trade-off that simply wasn't acceptable? In a Channel 9 interview on April 16, Spellman said he'd made the right decision then, and even though it did not benefit him politically, he'd make the same decision again - 'because it was the right thing to do'.

As the late Senator Patrick Moynihan once said, 'everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts'. Let's be more careful of mixing up opinions with facts, because that practice can lead to very poor decision-making that will adversely impact us for many years to come. We citizens deserve consistently good decisions from our elected officials, based upon as thorough an understanding of facts  as possible, before personal opinions are expressed, and certainly before any permits are granted and potentially harmful applications are approved. 

If Mr Goodrich and Ms Onyon aren't up to this standard, why are they in office? Thank goodness they will not be the final decision-makers!

Passages

An unusually eventful day, this April 16;

• Scott Walker announced he will step away from being a Port of Bellingham Commissioner at the end of this year, his 22nd. This presents an opportunity to support candidates able and willing to step up to this task, something that has become a perennial wish for the last several years.
Know anyone?

• Ken Oplinger announced his resignation as Executive Director of the Bellingham/Whatcom County Chamber of Commerce and member of the Blaine City Council. He has accepted another CofC position in Santa Barbara, CA. Another opportunity to advocate for qualified people who are willing and able. Wonder if Santa Barbara will support a large Coal Export Terminal?

• The day after yet another tragic, terrorist-like event, this one at the Boston Marathon yesterday which killed at least 3 and injured over 170. The details are now emerging, but let's hope the perpetrators are found and punished to the full extent of the law.

• An interesting KCTS TV program with Enrique Cerna, who interviewed 4 former WA Governors; Dan Evans, John Spellman, Mike Lowry and Christine Gregoire. Spellman recalled his decisions to veto both the Northern Tier Pipeline and an earlier version of the CBI Cherry Point Terminal, saying he would do that all over again, because trading a few jobs for major environmental degradation was -and is- a bad idea. How's that for guts? BTW, Spellman is a Republican.

• I've been asked to write a Letter-To-Editor in response to a recent Bellingham Herald editorial authored by Brent Goodrich who serves on the Ferndale City Council and Bonnie Onyon who serves on the Blaine City Council. This will be submitted shortly, so stay tuned.

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

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.

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.

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.

Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 28

Does GPT mean Gambling Public Trust?

I am concerned that the GPT proposal represents nothing more than a deliberate depletion of publicly owned coal for speculative private gain, at needless sacrifice of the human and natural environment.
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.

While the Applicant's [SSA] other corporate collaborators are not risking significant capital themselves, SSA -backed by Goldman Sachs- really is taking a big risk. 
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.  

I therefore request the MAP Team press this Applicant -SSA-Marine- for its pro forma expectations for payback to confirm or deny that GPT is truly a project meant to sustain itself for the long life expectancy it claims. 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Coal: EIS Scoping Comments No. 21, 22, 23

“...all types of benefits and costs, both market and non-market, should be considered. To the extent that environmental and other non-market benefits and costs can be quantified, they shall be given the same weight as quantifiable market benefits and costs.” - from USACE guidelines

=============================

EIS Comments No. 21 & 22 were submitted via the weblink provided by the MAP Team.

The text of No. 21 on Liability Responsibility also appears at the end of the 10/29 blog.

The text of No. 22 on Train Noise will be viewable within the next week on the MAP weblink.

In the meantime, here are excerpts from a previous blog on this subject:

At a speed of 10 MPH, it takes about 8 minutes for a 1.35 mile-long train to pass any set point.
At 20 MPH, about 4 minutes
At 30 MPH, about 3 minutes
At 40 MPH, about 2 minutes

Most trains passing through Bellingham don't exceed about 30 MPH, and sometimes less.
BNSF tracks closely follow Bellingham's shoreline, which extends about 10 miles from City Limits, North & South.

So, the leading locomotive engine [with Horn] might require about 20 minutes to traverse the entire City, leaving about 8 minutes for the rest of the train to pass, with its track noise.
Of course, the Horn gets blown before reaching the City and can be heard after it leaves the City.

But, if we say each additional train will be heard by City residents for 20 minutes, then nine additional trains will be heard for 180 additional minutes [3 hours] per day. [18 trains = 6 hours]
Remember, this is in addition to the number of trains -about 9- that are already traversing the City. Adding existing and additional trains may total [well] over 4 hours per day of Horn noise, allowing that some existing trains -think AMTRAK- are much shorter than 1.35 miles.

The point is, what may be tolerable at current levels may become much less tolerable at elevated levels, particularly at night.
If I can hear the train Horns from 2+ miles away, I'm pretty sure those living closer to the BNSF tracks will hear them too, and at higher decibels. 
And NOISE is only one part of the potential impacts of additional trains carrying heavy loads.-----------------------------------

More notable published information appears at these URLs:

• Whatcom Watch Oct/Nov 2012 Issue contains this useful 20-page insert on the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve.

• Today's Cascade Weekly carries an article by Bob Simmons on the Oct 27 Scoping Meeting.

• Sightline carried this article on air pollution from vessels in Puget Sound.

==============================

Here is Comment No. 23:

Misuse of U.S. Coal Resources 

I request the Scoping Team to perform a study on the underlying economics of the GPT proposal that weighs its claimed benefits against factors that the proponent(s) wishes to ignore or simply externalize. Some of these considerations involve larger matters of national policy and security that ought not be lumped together and treated as a simple market transaction.

Depletion of any domestic fossil fuel resources by export to foreign countries is wasteful, costly and short-sighted. The Powder River Basin [PRB] sub-bituminous coal targeted for export through the proposed GPT facility actually belongs to the American people, who if given the chance, would not willingly agree to selling it, especially to America's largest competitor, China. 

This particular source of coal is often called 'steam coal' because that is its primary use; to fuel power plants producing electricity. The quantity of coal that GPT wishes to export would be sufficient to fuel eight (8) 1000 Megawatt power plants. Ironically, the use of PRB coal was greatly stimulated by concerns that the extensive use of harder grades of coal was excessively polluting our atmosphere with sulfur and nitrogen oxides, thus requiring expensive retrofitting of power plants to reduce this pollution. 

Many power companies have simply sought to avoid these retrofit costs by switching to PRB coal, which burns cooler and cleaner, costs less and is readily mined in quantity by highly automated surface methods, that so far have been less controversial than traditional techniques. Those decisions were motivated primarily by domestic economic factors existent at the time. The result has been a dramatic increase in PRB coal usage at the expense of traditional sources. Now, with the advent of plentiful natural gas, many of the same power companies have opted to use that fuel instead of coal, in turn creating another market dislocation that mining companies are desperately seeking to rectify by indiscriminately promoting new markets in Asia and elsewhere. That alone, is the motivation for proposals like the GPT Terminal.

But, the truer long term interests of America do not support exporting strategic resources like coal because if we are to become energy independent, we need to conserve our natural resources that are not readily renewable. Even though the US needs to reduce its use of coal because of its polluting nature, it is still an important resource that will be needed centuries from now, when new technologies are available to utilize it more safely. On some future day we could easily regret exporting this energy resource for short term gains for a few opportunists.

The GPT proposal would essentially subsidize US-owned resources for foreign interests, because leasing charges for mining companies amount to less than $1 per ton, a fraction of the actual value. While this kind of subsidy might be justified for domestic purposes, allowing it for coal exports is a really bad idea! It would be better to simply sequester the coal in-place as a strategic reserve for future emergency or use as a readily available petrochemical feedstock.

Coal: The Public Weighs In

Last Saturday was one of those days that I felt particularly proud to be a member of this community.
My wife and I went to Squalicum High School about 10AM to attend the GPT EIS Scoping session, held in response to public demand by the Multi-Agency Project Team- US Army Corps of Engineers, WA Dept of Ecology & Whatcom County Planning.

To our surprise and delight, we found hundreds of fellow citizens already there, standing in the light rain, in cheerful spirits and primed to voice their concerns as well as listen to others.
Some had been there since 6AM, to make sure many speaking opportunities were available to those who were not paid advocates for GPT.

At about 1PM, we left, after hearing dozens of inspired and heartfelt concerns expressed -and recorded by the MAP Team stenographer- by a crowd that was almost unanimously against one of the most controversial ideas -GPT- that this area has seen in recent years.
By that time, only one speaker had voiced support for GPT, and even that seemed pretty thin and weak.
From talking with others, the larger room -the gym- experienced the same overwhelming sentiment of concerns for the GPT proposal proceeding.
That impression could not have been lost on the visible GPT proponents, who despite spending big money on a multi-media advertising campaign, were badly outnumbered -and outspoken- at this event.

It will be interesting to see what impact this first EIS Scoping session will have on the EIS evaluation itself, since many of the concerns expressed may not have had full representation in the bureaucratic format used by the evaluating agencies.
Time will tell, but I think the cause of those with concerns was helped by this meeting.
Now, it is necessary to continue submitting our concerns and to convince others to attend the remaining 6 EIS Scoping sessions planned for other venues.
----------------------

As before, there were some good articles published -both prior to and after the meeting:

This Floyd Mckay Crosscut article is particularly relevant, since it reaches farther into the zone of GPT influence than most others to date.

Three articles on Get Whatcom Planning:
Jean Melious posted these pieces about GPT recently, one before and one after the EIS Scoping meeting.

This morning, Dave Stalheim followed with this writing questioning the financial benefits claimed by GPT.

The Bellingham Herald published this account of the EIS Scoping session by John Stark.

Whatcom Watch printed 2 articles by Terry Wechsler on how to submit a scoping comment for the GPT EIS, and the history and implications of Cherry Point.
---------------------------

This is the concern I expressed in the Auditorium as speaker No 33 -[although not entirely within the 2 minutes allocated]:

(EIS Scoping Comment No. 21)
GPT is a 'Field of Dreams'.
If you build it, 'they' will come....
But, who are 'they'?
• Almost 3000 1.5-mile long unit trains of coal will come, plus return trips - each year
• Almost 500 huge bulk carriers, burning fuel much dirtier than coal, will come, plus return trips - each year
Without GPT, there would be no reason for this level of harmful traffic coming into Whatcom County.
This 'Field of Dreams' could easily become a 'Port of Nightmares'!

Who will be responsible for the enormous potential liability involving this traffic?
The owners of the coal and those deriving profits from carrying and handling it need to be the responsible parties!
Not the public!

To protect the public interests, the State of Washington needs to require a very substantial guaranty bond to be timely used to clean up and mitigate any spills, accidents, sinkings, collisions and other harms resulting from the care, custody and control, especially of coal for export.
The amount may need to be $100 million US dollars, to be automatically replenished to that level during the expected life of GPT and its successors and assigns, and increased as necessary in the event of a catastrophic event similar to the Exxon Valdez grounding in Alaska.

This fund -from insurance, bonds, or otherwise- needs to be established prior to any approval being granted to GPT for construction of any part of the terminal.
Additionally, legal mechanisms need to be fully in place to effectively appropriate and expend these funds by a public agency in the event they are needed for mitigation, cleanup or rescue activities.
--------------------------

GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 19

Tribal Concerns

Today's New York Times ran an article on this issue which captures the concerns expressed by the Lummi Nation and other Northwest tribes, who are voicing strong oppositions to the GPT proposal to begin shipping up to 54 million metric tons of coal from Wyoming to Asian markets through a huge, new bulk terminal at Cherry Point, part of the ancestral lands of the Lummi's.

Several factors motivate this opportunistic -and potentially very harmful- venture, not the least of which includes the falling US coal market, as described in this article.
---------------------------------

GPT's Application devotes several paragraphs to acknowledging aspects on the subject of tribal concerns, albeit somewhat clinically. 
Chapter 5, Affected Environment / Environmental Consequences is where these comments are located, and paraphrased within the following subsections:

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND PROJECT EFFECTS - describes the existing natural and human environment in and around the proposed project area and describes some potential effects of the proposed Terminal on these resources. 


5.3 Marine Resources - includes information on forage fish, an important prey fish for a variety of larger marine fish and marine mammals. Forage fish are known to spawn on intertidal beaches at Cherry Point; however, only herring are known to spawn near the project area.

The Applicant acknowledges that Cherry Point herring are known to spawn in the project vicinity and have shown a large decline in abundance since 1973. Studies have been conducted to identify the cause(s) of their decline, with 'general agreement' that the decline was probably initiated by a periodic, recurring shift in climate that occurred in 1977, plus other contributing factors like physical stressors, such as temperature and salinity; biological stressors, such as lack of suitable food supply, competition, larval abnormalities, reduction in size at maturity, parasites, disease, and predation; and anthropogenic stressors, including fisheries harvest, habitat modification, vessel traffic, noise, contaminants, and ship ballast. Predation by species of birds, fish, marine mammals, and benthic invertebrates is another potential explanation for the decline. 

Then this; A more detailed analysis of the effects of the proposed project on Cherry Point herring will be included as an appendix to the Biological Evaluation.

Does that afterthought sound like 'paralysis by analysis' that is relegated to an after-the-fact footnote? 
Is that a substitute for facing the likelihood that building and operating GPT will lead to further declines and possibly extinction of the herring?

These following subsections don't give much comfort that GPT will do anything to help sustain the herring and other species in that food chain: [read them if you care

5.3.2 Effects of Construction on Marine Resources

5.3.3 Effects of Operation on Marine Resources

5.3.4 Proposed Design Features Intended to Reduce Impacts

5.5 Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources - background research confirmed that the project area lies within lands and waters once occupied by several Puget Sound Tribes, whose descendants are represented by federally recognized Indian Tribes including the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe, meaning a high level of archaeological sensitivity is assigned. [whatever that means]

Then, this legalistic gibberish; Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of an undertaking on historic properties, defined as cultural resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP. Site 45WH1 is an archaeological site that has significance both as an archaeological resource, and as a potential Traditional Cultural Property.

Then, under Section 5.10 - ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

5.10.1.4 Whatcom County Tribal Populations 

Tribal populations specifically located within Whatcom County warrant further consideration given their proximity to the project area and specific cultural and economic relevance of the Cherry Point area to both tribes. Comment letters presented within the 1997 Gateway Pacific Terminal Final EIS (Whatcom County 1997) state that the project area is located within the historic site of the Lummi Nation called Xwe’ Chiexen (Cherry Point), and several registered and unregistered areas of cultural significance exist within the project area. In addition, the Treaty of Point Elliott of 1855 provides the Lummi with primary fishing rights for the waters surrounding Xwe’ Chiexen. The Nooksack are also signatories under this treaty and have stated that they use the project area for economic (salmon) and spiritual/cultural uses (including crabbing, and clam digging).

Tribal Use of Coastal Resources
The Lummi, located directly south of the project area, have always been strongly associated with the ocean and have traditionally relied on seafood as a major component of their diet. The Lummi Nation is reportedly the largest fishing tribe in Puget Sound. However, declines in the regional salmon fishery have dramatically altered the tribal dependence on salmon fishing as an income generating activity since the mid 1980s. According to the Lummi Natural Resources Council, the declining fishery was specifically identified as a factor for this difference.
Yet, additional information would be required to establish the Lummi Nation as an Environmental Justice population based on income. 

Potential environmental justice effects include potential economic, environmental, and social impacts to the Lummi and Nooksack tribal members in particular, stemming directly or indirectly from construction and operation of the project.

Both the Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Tribe have requested more complete studies be commissioned in advance of any project approvals to understand more fully the associated risks and potential impacts to the marine environment and tribal fishing communities.

Mitigation measures in the 1997 Gateway Pacific Terminal Final EIS remain relevant in the absence of new data on the current state of the fishing industry and the Tribes dependence on it. 
Continued tribal consultation with the Lummi and Nooksack, as well as other Tribes with treaty rights near the project area (potentially the Suquamish, Swinomish, and Tulalip Tribes) should be important components of any impact-reduction strategy.

Finally, this; 5.10.3 Proposed Design Features Intended to Reduce Impacts

The current Environmental Justice status of Tribal populations based on income remains to be determined. Additional information on these populations, when available, will require review of potentially significant impacts and impact-reduction strategies with respect to qualifying populations.

Much of the bloviation cited above is meaningless boilerplate claptrap, intended to obfuscate the reality of what will plainly happen if GPT is built.
 It should largely discounted as obligatory lip service to principles that deserve to be treated honestly, completely and timely. Instead, they are temporizing, disingenuous and actually insulting to those with a care for sustainability.
This part of the Application needs to be given at least as much weight as any other part in a fair evaluation, and GPT required to complete all the unfinished studies alluded to in passing.
The MAP Team needs to level this playing field and not allow this latest attack on what remains of Lummi sovereignty to be destroyed!
--------------------------
Is there any question that the Lummi Nation and their tribal allies have a legitimate beef with GPT?
Why would they want any part of the snake oil that SSA-Marine is trying to sell them?
Building GPT would effectively end the Lummi's fishing rights, which already have been seriously diminished -by degrees- for several generations.
Now, with this latest attempt to effectively destroy any vestige of sustaining the 1855 Point Elliot Treaty, what choice do the Lummis have but to challenge GPT with every means at their command.
After all, no mitigation is possible for inflicting irreplaceable harm on their fishing rights, cultural heritage, and traditional sacred lands whichremins their home and economic base.

Among the many reasons for performing the most comprehensive EIS evaluation possible, is to take a firm stand against crass, powerful financial interests like GPT and its backers and preserve what we can of the Lummi way of life.
The Lummi serve us as guardians of nature, which they clearly understand from history.
We need to thank them for that, and support them as we can to restore the herring by avoiding even more harmful effects from the traffic, pollution and other impacts that GPT will certainly bring.

Here is a link to the Lummi strategy and goals, which need to be incorporated as strong concerns:

'First, to defeat the proposed SSA project. Second, to acquire Cherry Point, have it placed in Trust status."