By John Stark
Today, the Bellingham City Council will discuss a proposed letter to regulatory agencies outlining the economic and environmental impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project that should be studied as part of the environmental impact statement process.
The full council will discuss the letter at a 2 p.m. Monday, Dec. 10 committee session in council chambers at City Hall, 210 Lottie St.
Read the full text of the five-page letter here.
The council is not scheduled to take final action on the letter. Instead, they will give city staffers direction on the next draft of the letter. The regulatory agencies — Whatcom County, Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — is accepting comments on the environmental impact statement scope until Jan. 21. 2013.
Have you sent yours in yet? Here’s a handy link.
I read it. Please (to paraphrase) do not let anyone water it down before submitted.
Okay – let’s take a metaview. There are 10 major impact areas listed in the letter. However, if the coal terminal is not built, there are 0 impacts. Simple? Of course.
A little late in coming but a well done letter. Hopefully deep pocket pressure to back down will take a back seat to the health and emergency response issues.
The Bellingham City Council has done an excellent and very complete job on this scoping comment. I appreciate the effort because if the terminal doesn’t make sense for Bellingham, it won’t happen and that helps me.
John Galt and all;
The letter is of and by the Mayor!! She did a courtesy thing to ask the Council if they saw any serious items. Today the Council moved and seconded, to address it at 7:00 Open Session.
I see this letter as a soft response, with not much clout. It basically repeats the long list of possible impacts that many groups have noted and compiled.
The City Council also chatted about doing THEIR own letter. They might add some heavy language.
There is also a new card in the deck. Some folks want to have the City spend, NOW, to force the railroad to implement quiet zones so the noise is less. Places like hotels would really benefit. I say – put that as a requirement for the PROJECT (terminal or railroad) to add into THEIR own project as mitigation, at their expense. After the project permit is either denied or approved, THEN there will be time to consider and do the whistle noise abatement work.
Thank you to the City and the Council for asking for a broad EIS. If the facts bear out that the terminal will not harm fishing industries, cause additional traffic issues downtown and shows that SSA will be able to mitigate any other of the numerous concerns that many groups have brought up, it will add to the robust discussion in our community. A broad EIS that deeply looks into the myriad of issues is good for our community, no matter what the results find.