Work on proposed coal port site near Bellingham surprises official

A large corporation says it thought a 1997 permit covered its grading of property where it wants to build a port for sending coal to China. Opponents and an elected official say they are surprised.

The site of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Courtesy of Gateway Pacific Terminal

The site of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

SSA Marine, the corporation proposing to build a huge coal-shipping terminal near Bellingham, was scrambling at the end of the week to explain how a series of roads got built through sensitive woodlands at the site of the proposed terminal.

The company has not officially applied for the state and federal permits, and the required environmental impact studies have not begun.  An attorney for SSA, William Lynn, said Friday (July 29) that the roads are not part of any terminal construction activity, but are required to allow geotechnical equipment on the site.  He said there was confusion and disagreement within the Whatcom County Department of Planning on the validity of a Shoreline Development permit issued to SSA 1997, which would have allowed the geotechnical exploration.

“They (the geotechnical consultants) thought they were operating under the permit that we were given,” Lynn told Crosscut. “These aren’t permanent roads at all, they’re just temporary access routes so we can determine what’s under the ground. You can’t develop a project of this kind without knowing the nature of the soils you’re building on.”

SSA still believes that the exploratory drilling and the road building that comes with it are covered by the 1997 permit, Lynn said. But they have stopped the work until they can meet with county officials in a few days and work out the terms.

Whatcom County Council member Carl Weimer publicized the road building operation on his blog, with pictures of the grading work. Weimer said he came across the grading work while walking his dog on the SSA property at Cherry Point, an environmentally sensitive stretch of shoreline about a dozen miles north of Bellingham.  Weimer photographed the roads and called Whatcom County planning officials. He says the county ordered the roadwork to stop.

The Natural Resources director for Whatcom County, Wayne Fitch, told Crosscut Friday that the roads  — including some grading of wetlands — were built without a current permit. “They thought they were covered under an old one,” Fitch said.

When Whatcom County granted the 1997 permit, SSA’s project was described as a terminal designed for shipping 8 million tons of grain, fertilizer, and other assorted cargoes. Since then, the project has been changed to accommodate 48 million metric tons of coal per year, to be moved by rail from Montana and Wyoming, across Washington to Cherry Point and by ship to Asia.

The validity of the 1997 permit became a serious issue in June, when SSA argued that it should be allowed to develop the terminal by simply revising the terms of the 1997 permit. Whatcom County Planning Director Sam Ryan ruled that the company had to apply for a new permit, which it has yet to do.

Ryan was out of town Friday and couldn't be reached for comment on the earth-moving work that’s been done at the site, which Councilmember Weimer estimates at two to two-and-a-half miles, covering more than four acres. 

The terminal poject has become hotly controversial in the past few months, as a number of citizens groups and elected officials lined up to question it. Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike officially opposes it, and the mayors of Seattle, Edmonds, Marysville, and Spokane have cautioned against the impact of frequent and long coal trains traveling through their cities.

Leading the opposition is a Bellingham group Re Sources for Sustainable Communities. A spokesman for Re Sources, Matt Krogh, rejected SSA's and County Planning explanations for the grading at the site:  “The scope of these miles of clearcut corridors hidden deep within their property, including four to five acres of wetlands, makes it look like these guys are starting construction early and without a permit, and that’s not okay.”

The terminal proposal has strong Whatcom County support outside of Bellingham. The Whatcom County Labor Council, Chamber of Commerce, and mayors of the smaller cities in Whatcom County have endorsed it, citing the company’s promises of 2,000 or more construction jobs and more than 200 permanent longshore jobs once the coal export is under way.


About the Author

Bob Simmons is a freelance writer and former KING-TV journalist living in Bellingham, Wash. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.

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

Comments:

Posted Fri, Jul 29, 11:52 p.m. Inappropriate

Bob The last paragraph seems a bit of a reach. There are organizations that support the coal port that have been aggressively and purposefully groomed by (buy?) the big money interests, but the people of Whatcom County are not impressed. What is in it for us? Noise, congestion, pollution, decreased property values, decreased safety for EMS response times.... seems like a long list of non-starters in terms of a discussion. Even the jobs issue is likely to be more negative than positive with the thousands of long term jobs at the waterfront redevelopment being put at risk by the 18 trains a day through the project that are 1.5 miles long! Some 200 or so jobs at the facility do not balance out those costs either. So who is it, other than those few organizations that have been promised a lot, and the few former good citizens that now are on their payroll (Craig Coal), who is it that supports this?

Posted Sat, Jul 30, 10:33 a.m. Inappropriate

Infrastructure support for coal shipments to China, infrastructure support for equipment destined to destroy the Athabascan tarsands......Washington may achieve the dubious distinction of being an ace enabler to planetary destruction.

Posted Sun, Jul 31, 10:04 a.m. Inappropriate

For pictures of how extensive the unpermitted work is, check out Carl Weimer's (Whatcom County Councilor)blog, CarlVotes on blogspot.

wynne

Posted Sun, Jul 31, 10:12 a.m. Inappropriate

For excellent analyses of what's going on -- including information from many sources, including Coal Age (a trade journal) and the Canadian Pacific railway, read Jean Melious's posts on GetWhatcomPlanning.

wynne

Posted Sun, Jul 31, 1:10 p.m. Inappropriate

Regardless of the permit issue SSA is not using Best Management Practices as required by State and County law. The county must insist they install silt fences and other mitigation. They say they will be a good neighbor and build a clean port but the first thing they do they mess up the wetlands. Is SSA being responsible?

Posted Mon, Aug 1, 2:14 p.m. Inappropriate

This newest development in the coal-port saga – environmental destruction facilitated by “confusion and disagreement” over the terms of a permit issued by Whatcom County 14 years ago – is a classic example of coal-operator tyranny. It is the sort of tactic well known in Appalachia, where coal is not just king but tyrant.

It also proves the proverbial fix is in – that, precisely as I said here on 17 June, the coal port will be built no matter what. The coal companies have absolute power. Whatever they want they get, whether by payoffs, thuggery or some combination of both. Thus the irremediably post-apocalyptic conditions in so much of West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky and East Tennessee: no matter how diligently the people might work to preserve their environments, the coal operators always win.

The Evergreen State coal port and its environmentally ruinous increase in Big Business toxicity (locomotive exhaust, coal dust, the maximum-filth emissions of idling automotive engines in the colossal traffic jams inflicted by the hourly passage of mile-long trains) – all this was irrevocably imposed on us long before it was publicly announced. It was, as always, entirely about profit: the public be damned. We the victims might be allowed a few years of pro forma protests, but there was never any doubt the port would be built.

Posted Mon, Aug 1, 11:42 p.m. Inappropriate

More and more controversal,then people or the organisation will be think more about what is benified for the citizem.
http://www.newest-bag.com

lovebags

Posted Thu, Aug 4, 9:24 a.m. Inappropriate

Really? They thought a 14 year old permit was good? It's easier to ask forgiveness (or not to bother) than permission. Are they stupid or lying? Hmmm. These are the same folks who got busted for under reporting how many trains will be going through, by about 90%. Mistakes were made that time too. This looks like a mistake makin' company.

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »