Coal Port EIS Must Include New Train Idling Track in Bellingham, Says CWB Scoping Comment
COMMUNITYWISE BELLINGHAM Press Release, For Immediate Release—October 24, 2012
Coal Port EIS Must Include New Train Idling Track in Bellingham, Says CWB Scoping Comment
Track Would Permanently Block Boulevard Park to Vehicles, Affect Waterfront Businesses and Increase Train Exhaust
Whatcom County Law Prohibits the Developer from Passing Uncompensated Expenses to Public
Read the full scoping comment here.
Bellingham, WA—Communitywise Bellingham submitted a scoping comment for the Gateway Pacific Terminal environmental review process, requesting that the range of impacts from new rail infrastructure necessary in Whatcom County for GPT to operate is studied. The filing came through the law offices of Buri Funston Mumford.
Communitywise Bellingham requested that, “the environmental impact statement: (1) examine the reasonable range of alternatives for increasing rail capacity through Whatcom County, Washington; (2) analyze the effects of building, maintaining and operating a rail siding through Bellingham; (3) identify the significant adverse impacts from this active rail siding on Bellingham’s waterfront businesses, adjacent neighborhoods, community health, shorelands, marine resources, recreation areas, traffic, and emergency response times; (4) identify any measures that might minimize or mitigate the effects of constructing the siding and doubling rail capacity between Bow and Ferndale; and (5) estimate the costs of mitigation and identify who should bear these expenses.”
CWB’s submission also explained that disclosure of all rail information is necessary to ensure that environmental studies are adequately designed:
“The Terminal’s developers and Burlington Northern must disclose their plans for a South Bellingham siding or alternative rail infrastructure before Whatcom County can adequately examine the environmental and community impacts from the proposed Terminal. All infrastructure required to address the requisite near doubling of the current rail line’s present capacity needs to be addressed in the EIS process. Failure to consider such infrastructure could profoundly skew later studies.”
The submission also cites Whatcom County Code that is critical to understanding GPT’s legal obligations: “Under WCC 20.88.130 (6) the Terminal’s developer must prove that this major project: ‘Will not impose uncompensated requirements for public expenditures for additional utilities, facilities and services, and will not impose uncompensated costs on other property owned.’”
###
