Our Sponsors:

READ MORE »

Our Members

Many thanks to

John Harden

and

Catherine Copeland

some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Bellingham: Back to coal with planned shipping terminal?

The plan for Cherry Point envisions a facility twice the size of the largest coal-shipping terminal on the West Coast, Westshore in Vancouver, B.C.

The site of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Courtesy of Gateway Pacific Terminal

The site of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Long before it became a university town and retirement mecca, Bellingham was a coal town. For about a hundred years they mined coal in a place known today by its parks, art, and music and its repeated appearances on meaningless “best places” lists in frothy magazines.

Critics of a huge shipping port, proposed for the Whatcom County shore a few miles north of Bellingham, worry that the city is headed back to its coal-town days. Not by mining this time, but by trainload after open trainload of coal from Montana and Wyoming, rolling through Bellingham around the clock, destined for China.

SSA Marine, one of the two or three largest seaport builders and operators in the world, filed permit applications on Monday (Feb. 28) to build a huge bulk-commodity shipping port at Cherry Point, on a spectacularly verdant and scenic coast a few miles north of Bellingham. The dimensions of the port, called Gateway Pacific Terminal, are astounding:

  • Capacity for shipping 48 million tons of coal per year, along with another 8 million tons of “closed storage” commodities such as wheat and potash.
  •  A rail system to accommodate 125-car coal trains, expanding to 150-car trains over time.
  • A conveyor system to move coal 1,250 feet, from landside storage areas directly to the holds of the ships.
  • An industrial site of 1,100 acres, of which, the company promises, nearly half will remain permanently natural.

If it succeeds, SSA will have a port nearly twice the size of Westshore Terminals at Vancouver, B.C., currently the largest dry bulk facility on the West Coast of North and South America; coal-dust pollution has created citizen unrest for miles downwind. In addition, a rival port builder from Australia hopes to create an 80 million-ton terminal at Longview.

SSA’s filing followed an announcement by the nation's largest coal producer, Peabody Energy, that it will partner with SSA to export at least 24 million tons of coal annually for the life of the Cherry Point terminal. This is coal originating in the Powder River Basin of the upper plains and hauled to Cherry Point by Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

Not only does SSA have its coal supplier at hand, the company has lined up impressive support in and out of government. Gov. Gregoire “wants to move the project forward," state Commerce Director Rogers Weed told reporters at a Cherry Point gathering last October. He said that the governor “hopes to achieve big increases in exports of Washington grain,” and the Gateway terminal would mean a big boost in port capacity. The Bellingham Herald account also said Gregoire had asked her state agency heads to streamline the regulatory process to help the project along. (The month before Weeds's statement, the governor made a stop in Vietnam, where she helped to celebrate a huge SSA terminal.)

U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, who represents Whatcom County in Congress, has endorsed the project. “Exports are a sure fire way to get our economy moving,” he said. Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike offered a qualified endorsement. He likes it, but only if the impacts — including increased train traffic though the city — are controlled without local taxpayers footing the bill.

The Bellingham Herald took a somewhat belligerent stand in favor of the project, accusing those it calls “the anti-development community” of “grandstanding and a penchant for filing law suits.”

Whatcom County Labor Council head Dave Warren came to Monday’s news conference to tout the new port as the biggest of big deals in a region where living-wage industrial jobs are sighted about as commonly as the 7-foot Diatryma bird whose fossil foot print is displayed at Bellingham’s Western Washington University.

“This is going to be a 100 percent union project that uses local labor: an opportunity for living-wage jobs that is extraordinary in our community,” Warren said.

SSA says the initial construction work could generate the equivalent of 3,500 direct jobs, with another 4,800 trickle-down jobs developed through “service purchases and employee spending.” Long-term, the company cites preliminary estimates of 430 well-paid union jobs, primarily among longshoremen.

Before it can begin building, SSA needs approval of federal and state environmental agencies. They’ll conduct studies and public hearings on the environmental impact of the giant project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead agency for studying impacts regulated by the federal government. Whatcom County will lead the State Environmental Protection Act process. SSA Vice President Bob Watters says the company expects to complete the impact statements, meet environmental requirements, and have its permits by December of next year; the terminal would be ready to ship coal by 2015.

A non-profit environmental education organization known as RE Sources for Sustainable Communities has emerged as the leading questioner of economic and environmental pronouncements relating to the terminal. On the day following the port builder’s announcement, RE Sources Executive Director Bob Ferris and Project Manager Matt Krogh took aim at SSA’s expectations.

The partnership with Peabody is “a little like someone picking out china patterns before the end of the first date,” Ferris said in a Tuesday news release. “SSA will find that this is not speed dating, and that Bellingham and Whatcom County hold their own virtue in high regard.”

“This is like a tale of two Bellinghams,” Krogh said, “one reaching for a sustainable, clean future, the other clawing its way to the past.”

Ferris pointed to problems at Vancouver’s Westshore Terminal, where fine dust from stored coal “has depleted oxygen in nearshore habitats and coated boats more than five miles to the southeast, in Point Roberts.”

SSA’s Bob Watters acknowledges the dust problems at Westshore, but says wind patterns are different at Cherry Point. “Westshore stores its coal right at the water,” he told Crosscut. “We’ll be storing on land, with acres and acres of trees to buffer the wind.”

There’s at least one delicate environmental issue at Cherry Point that the Canadian coal shippers don’t have to deal with: a threatened and carefully stewarded herring population, fish that Washington state agencies have been trying to protect for at least 20 years. The herring is critical food for the endangered spring Chinook salmon, which in turn is prime food for Puget Sound orcas. Concerns over the herring’s dwindling population contributed to blocking a succession of proposed industrial schemes at the same Cherry Point site, in the 1980s and 1990s.

Herring protection, along with concerns for Dungeness crab and migrating salmon, led to years of difficult negotiations between representatives of SSA, state fish and wildlife officials, and environmental organizations. They fought over the size, design, and positioning of the half-mile long wharf SSA plans to build. In a settlement agreed to 11 years ago, SSA agreed to construct the pier in such a way as to minimize damage to eelgrass beds, which provide essential hatching and rearing habitat for the herring. It may be repositioned again before Fish and Wildlife biologists will approve it.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Fri, Mar 4, 8:37 a.m. Inappropriate

I sympathize with those who want to see new jobs created in the region, but building this port would have huge environmental impacts beyond the local ones mentioned in the article. What about the CO2 released when China burns the 48 million tons of coal passing through the port? We need to keep that coal in the ground, not expand exports of it. What we should be exporting is clean energy technology.

Posted Fri, Mar 4, 9:21 a.m. Inappropriate

It is simply amazinging in this age of Corporate Social Responsibility, full-cost accounting, and life cycle analyses that a company would make the argument that they have no responsibilty for or knowledge of impacts relating to shipping a product to their facility. And while it is probably annoying that folks in Bellingham are taking notice of the hundreds of pounds per foot of coal dust per year and the increased traffic, those identical impact will be felt in towns and cities all along the roughly 1100 mile corridor. How can a company responsibly inflict this much impact over so broad an area and think that it is anything but a direct result of their activities?

bobferris

Posted Fri, Mar 4, 11:44 a.m. Inappropriate

ericevanthomas - you would rather China burn its dirtier sulfur laden coal?
And CO2 isn't a pollutant, aerosol particulates are, so this relatively cleaner coal will reduce pollution.

Without sufficient CO2 levels in our air, we all DIE. And if you look at geological history, global CO2 levels have dropped 94% since animals started roaming the Earth. It's been dropping as nature has sequestered it underground.

Posted Fri, Mar 4, 1:05 p.m. Inappropriate

The EPA went through the correct process as required by the US Supreme Court's decision in the Massachussetts case and officially determined that CO2 is a pollutant that is regulated the Clean Air Act. And the yahoos in Congress have not yet been able to gut this court decision and the resulting EPA process.

Both NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) are very clear that indirect and cumulative impacts must be addressed in the environmental review. this is simply a repeat of the Cowlitz county case with its foregone conclusion, namely, that the law actually means something.

And Randy, while I enjoy your satire, there may be some who are misled by it. Since the start of the industrial revolution CO2 levels have been steadily rising, mainly due to burning of fossil fuels. There is no danger of CO2 levels dropping below life sustaining levels.

Steve E.

Posted Fri, Mar 4, 2:41 p.m. Inappropriate

A separate article in Crosscut (which I can't find now) listed the quantity of coal that passes through Seattle, Everett and Bellingham on the way to BC ports. The amount is significant and I would expect the number of "pass through" trains destined for BC to be reduced with the construction of the Cherry Point facility. Maybe not... but it seems like the article should have mentioned this; coal already is shipped up the BNSF coast line and some of the 35 (or so) trains per day that pass through Seattle are carrying coal.

We Americans are prodigious consumers of energy and the products energy helps produce, including products that China, Korea and Taiwan manufacture. It carries the whiff of hypocrisy to search for peripheral failures in the arrangement for exports that, after all, should be balancing (more accurately, reducing the imbalance of) our trade accounts. Coal dust is not a poison and, if trains are currently carrying large quantities of coal through Seattle, where does it show up? I have done some hiking near the BNSF tracks, should I be able to find some? I grew up in a house that was heated by coal and I can testify to its aggravating characteristics but I have no idea what, if any, harm it did our family. As I pointed out in another comment, 747s produce CO2 also; we cheerfully export 747s and would probably react with some chagrin if we were criticized for those marvels.

kieth

Posted Thu, Mar 10, 9:32 p.m. Inappropriate

I live on the train route in Custer and I can say that the noise from the trains going by at all hours of the day and night are already a huge pain. When I moved here 7 years ago there were a lot less train traffic and it wasn't all night. Now with this proposal not only will we have to endure up to 18 more trains honking at all hours but the coal dust is damaging to the lungs. The reason why we don't burn coal for heat anymore is because it is unhealthy. The state is closing the only coal plan in the State but it condones sending coal to other countries for them to burn. SHAME. Let us not forget the environmental impact on the wildlife, or the property devaluation because we live next to a train that blow coal dust. This whole idea is terrible for me personally (I do care about me) but also for all the homes on the tracks, the value of property, the health of our citizens and the safety of our environment.

glassera

Posted Fri, Mar 11, 10:48 a.m. Inappropriate

I work with the state sometimes with their clean tech initiatives and I have to say I was shocked when I read that the governor and other elected officials are actually fast-tracking making it easy to ship Wyoming coal to China in this day of concerns about carbon footprints and global warming, not to mention the risks locally to individuals and communities. I think that we need to make good decisions if we plan on surviving on this planet, and this initiative is an example of the path down and back. It should be a reminder to us and a demand to renewed resolve that we need to move forward and make jobs that move us forward, not that train us for the destructive past.

Posted Sun, May 15, 6:45 p.m. Inappropriate

Surely Governor Gregoire, the Commerce Dept., SSA and the stevedores' union know that our largest seaport, Harbor Island, will subside beneath rising seas considerably sooner than previously predicted. The State of Washington cannot obstruct interstate commerce, but what is the stevedores' excuse? The EPA and our state agencies should control carbon dust, a pollutant that is mentioned rather often, even in the Vatican's Science report. I think that it will take NGO environmental litigation to stop or stall the project. Because the cost curves for renewable energy are competitive now and are continuing to fall, China and India are bound to shift away from coal generated electric power.

pico

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »