Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Sharon Griggins Davis and Walter Pietrowski some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Epic Northwest battle: Defining how big a deal coal ports are

    The state has never seen an environmental review take comments from so much of the state. And unexpectedly large numbers of people are showing up to oppose shipping coal for burning in China.
    Supporters hoist anti-coal signs for a speaker at Friday Harbor.

    Supporters hoist anti-coal signs for a speaker at Friday Harbor. Floyd McKay

    In Bellingham, retired railway conductor Don Frenzel addresses an environmental scoping panel, from left: Randel Perry, Tyler Schroeder, Alice Kelly.

    In Bellingham, retired railway conductor Don Frenzel addresses an environmental scoping panel, from left: Randel Perry, Tyler Schroeder, Alice Kelly. Floyd McKay

    San Juan County residents fill out written-comment forms as neighbors examine exhibits at Friday Harbor.

    San Juan County residents fill out written-comment forms as neighbors examine exhibits at Friday Harbor. Floyd McKay

    It is being called “unprecedented” but it seems to be rolling out as its authors had intended, perhaps the biggest experiment in environmental democracy the Northwest has ever seen.

    That would be the “scoping” process to determine what effects the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal north of Bellingham would have on the region’s environment and economy.

    When the process finishes on Jan. 21, it will have included public meetings in seven Washington cities, heard from citizens in at least five states and compiled thousands of opinions that three agencies must review to determine what will be studied in an environmental review that will last more than a year.

    It is very serious business, not only for SSA Marine of Seattle, which proposes the terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham, but for opponents who cite environmental dangers from the terminal’s major export, coal from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. The coal would be transported to Cherry Point by some 18 BNSF trains (both full and empty returns) each nearly a mile-and-a-half long, and then to Asia in huge bulk-container ships, adding a thousand voyages a year to shipping lanes through the San Juan Islands.

    The “scoping” meetings pick up on the opposition side of the debate; testimony at the first three sessions — Bellingham, Friday Harbor and Mount Vernon — brought out large and one-sided audiences. Attendance at the three meetings reached 3,500 and 980 people spoke or wrote comments, officials said.

    Speakers overwhelmingly don’t want the terminal, fearing environmental consequences and taxpayer burdens to alleviate the problems brought by added rail and ship traffic. The opposition speakers ranged from Native American leaders to retired scientists, organic farmers, commercial fishermen and birders.

    SSA and its industry supporters were largely absent from the hearings. The reason is quite simple: supporters of the terminal have one simple demand at this point in the process: keep the environmental studies limited if possible to the terminal site itself and the six-mile rail spur that will serve the terminal. They will file that position to the permitting agencies and it is probably counter-productive to keep repeating it at the opposition-dominated public meetings, although a handful of supporters spoke at each session.

    Supporters of the Gateway Pacific Terminal, which would also ship some other commodities in addition to coal, are particularly worried that officials will decide to combine all or some of the proposed export-terminal applications into a single overview that would cover most of the region. “It is our belief that the impacts, both positive and negative, of this project should be looked at solely as they pertain to the (Gateway Pacific Terminal) proposal and should not include impacts of other proposed dry bulk facilities in other parts of the region,” said Ken Oplinger, president of Bellingham/Whatcom Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to agency officials.

    Whether the environment review will be combined with other coal port plans — primarily the proposed Millennium terminal at Longview, which is also beginning its review process — is not likely to be decided while the Gateway Pacific scoping is under way. But it is possible, says Randel Perry, lead scoping official for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    Perry told Crosscut that an “area-wide environmental impact study” might be considered, involving similar actions or proposals within a geographic area. The idea of multiple coal-export terminals might meet that standard for such a study, he suggested, without making any prediction as to its likelihood.

    If an area-wide study were to be proposed by the lead agencies after the scoping process is completed, Perry said the call would be “decided at the top level of the Corps,” rather than locally.

    Talks have also been held at top levels of the Obama Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency has asked the Corps to conduct an area-wide study. Such action would be opposed by all the terminal proponents but is highly sought-after by terminal critics. The Corps told Bloomberg BNA reporter Paul Shukovsky that 30,000 letters have been received on one coal-port proposal, including several from top agency or elected officials. Among those was one from Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, who wrote about the value of a wider environmental review. At top levels of the Obama Administration, Shukovsky reported in his article, which appeared before the election, “The White House Council on Environmental Quality convened a meeting of senior agency staff in August to discuss the proposals, which come in the midst of a presidential campaign in which Republicans and business groups have tried to focus attention on what they assert is the Obama administration's 'war on coal.' "

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


    Posted Mon, Nov 12, 8:58 a.m. Inappropriate

    Please follow this with details on land-environmental and human impacts of the planned mining and transport -- e.g. impacts such as land use, resource depletion, and climate change. These are all dimension of this story that may not be covered adequately in the main stream media. Crosscut can become the preferred and authoritative source for this ongoing reportage and analysis.


    Posted Mon, Nov 12, 11:03 a.m. Inappropriate

    This coal export project is a sham. The only logical port for the terminal facility is Longview. The most logical means of transporting the coal is by barge, an option which makes St Helens a possible site for a smaller terminal to complement Longview. There is no need to fear a coal export facility in Bellingham or Coos Bay. The Big Boys are flipping America off inside a row of hummers driving toward the fiscal cliff lined with the rest of us at the edge giving each other our last good bye.


    Posted Mon, Nov 12, 10:33 p.m. Inappropriate

    Coal or dole, we all know which way most west siders will go.


    Posted Thu, Nov 15, 3:08 a.m. Inappropriate

    The China coal ports are a stupid idea environmentally, socially, and economically. The export of this coal to power further outsourcing in China is cutting our own throat.

    As for "dole"; isn't it the east side counties who are on the dole from the west side counties? Yeah, the east side counties get welfare from the west side counties. This means that east siders are on the "dole". This means that east siders are freeloaders off of the west siders.

    So, we have a bunch of east siders preaching the gospel of "independence" and "self reliance"; while at the same time these same east siders are dependent (moochers) on west siders for free money and free resources.

    East siders already made their choice, and it was the "dole".
    West siders have a lot of choices, one of those choices is providing welfare for the less capable east siders.


    Posted Fri, Nov 16, 7:44 p.m. Inappropriate

    I don't know, but it seems like stone age technology to have to ship 1000 train cars of coal half way around the world, every day to produce energy. Why isn't it more efficient to just send the electricity half way around the world through a wire, which would be a value added product.

    There has got to be more advanced technology now that we live in "Tomorrowland".

    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »