From Stark
The length of the public comment periods for the Gateway Pacific Terminal environmental study process could be a significant issue.
At last night’s “pre-scoping meeting,” several people in the audience asked if the 30-60 day period to identify key issues could be extended. (That period won’t actually begin until this summer.) Others asked if the 60-90 day period for review of the draft environmental impact statement could be extended too.
In both cases, the answers were a bit convoluted but sounded like “probably not.”
But on her “Get Whatcom Planning” blog, land use and environmental lawyer Jean Melious contends that the real answer should be “definitely yes.”
“The agencies can (and often do, at least under NEPA) provide more public review time,” Melious writes. “For a project of this magnitude, a 60-day scoping period is pretty minimal, and allowing only 60 days to review a draft Environmental Impact Statement that is projected to take two years to prepare would be crazy.”
Looks like the enviro’s will have to be burning the midnight oil over the weekends!
Hopefully that oil is made from algae!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
“Looks like the enviro’s will have to be burning the midnight oil over the weekends!
Hopefully that oil is made from algae!”
Some cultures burn bovine manure as fuel. Maybe we should switch to that too as the coal dump proponents like AFY seem to have an unlimited supply of BS.
I thought enviro’s were already at their maxium limit of manure burning(BS) or I’s would have suggested that, don’t ya know!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
The applicant has had the luxury of two years to pare and prepare their project application with the ear of our public agencies.
So equal time is called for the public’s review – two years.
But
What kind of sad immature American would disparage the public process simply because they might disagree with some of the participants.
Rubie – They told us last night that SSA would like to limit the scope of this project to the area immediately around the terminal. We were also told that they would put as much weight on organized opposition.
What does that tell you? SSA doesn’t want you to have the time to adequately respond and organize opposition. Big Surprise.
This will be a large and extensive Draft EIS and citizens will need time to read and analyze it. People may also want to bring in experts to review some parts of it. 60 – 90 days is simply not enough time for that. The agencies overseeing this – especially Whatcom County – need to require a longer review.
How many Whatcom County Building Department review hours can you buy for $7,145.00?
Because after that is exhausted,
or has it been a dozen times over already? ,
the taxpayers are on the tab.
Heck, I could do the review in a week and for free, if anyone is interested in saving time and money!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
You mean there’s a YouTube video that explains coal dump impacts?
Or maybe a Cato Institute ‘study’ that would suffice for a cut and paste job?
Have Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity opined lately on the world slump in coal use and the glut of production?
Why take a week?
A really good reviewer would sign the documents as they’re being presented.
Sam Ryan told the County Council she expects to recover the county’s costs from SSA. SSA will also pay the consultant who prepares the EIS.
John, I had not heard that she said that the County would recover costs for the past two years of staff time. Permits and EIS? That would be good news.
Jean: She was uncertain about recovering past costs, altho she indicated she wanted to try.
I’ve known Sam since 1978 and I would never contradict her in any meaningful way,
but really,
that fee money is gone the day the documents hit their intake counter.