Coal Train: The people and process behind Bellingham's coal port decision
The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal has sparked the most-complex environmental review since, well, forever. The first public comment period ends today. In this first of a three-part series, take an inside look at the players on both sides of the issue.
(Page 2 of 2)
The health hazards associated with burning coal propelled the group called Whatcom Docs into the fray. With some 180 supporters in the medical community, Whatcom Docs has led opposition, pointing out the dangers of airborne coal dust and of diesel particulates from idling rail engines. In the San Juan Islands, retired scientists, some with degrees in marine sciences, have given the opposition an academic gravitas. See an example here.
And then there is the coalition of Native American tribes supporting the Lummi Nation in its fight to protect historic fishing grounds and a cultural site. Environmental reviews must be sensitive to Native American rights.
A raft of public agencies must be considered players as well; in particular, the Washington cities and counties that worry about the cost of handling the additional coal train traffic. Public-health agencies share many of the health concerns raised by Whatcom Docs. School officials voice concern about the impact of additional noise and traffic on learning, and about compromised safety at the railroad crossings used by school buses. Business organizations that have weighed in on the issue tend to side with proponents, citing job creation at the terminal itself and at associated businesses.
That's the scouting report on the groups facing off over the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. It will be several years before we know which side comes out on top. In Part Two, we'll walk through the tortured and protracted decision-making process. On Thursday, we'll take a look at who finally decides.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Jan 22, 8:02 a.m. Inappropriate
With 10,000 opinions preceding this one, I'll be brief.
Everyone chooses the option that is in their own interest - always!
Peabody, BNSF, labor and GPT all see profits from this.
Towns, tribes, ecologists, and consumers all see un-reimbursed costs to them.
Government sits in the middle with two large guns pointed at their head.
I for one, think shipping the last of our fossil fuel supplies to China for pennies on the dollar going to the Railroads and and others is penny wise, and pound foolish.
We've drained our capital reserves, so let's not do the same to our natural reserves.
Posted Tue, Jan 22, 12:15 p.m. Inappropriate
Well said!
Posted Tue, Jan 22, 2:04 p.m. Inappropriate
On Jan. 4, U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Ron Wyden called for an investigation on coal royalties. Are the owners of the coal, the U.S. citizens getting their fair share?
Will NEPA or SEPA be able to override federal law to have the railroad pay more for crossings or mitigate noise? If not, will changes be made to federal laws?
Chicago is a giant federally legislated quiet zone. What makes them special? The entire coal train route could get quiet zone status.
Cities along the route have a large economic liability in the 95 - 5 cost share. We'll see how this plays out.
Posted Wed, Jan 23, 6:36 p.m. Inappropriate
Floyd,
Actually, it wasn't PPC that was responsible for getting unique comments in the record. While there was a huge drive to get in postcards and online form comments by ngos, it was a grassroots movement that created scoping materials and led the drive to inform the public about the role of scoping. Protect Whatcom and Safeguard the South Fork started the effort that was carried forward by a network of others in Whatcom, Skagit and San Juan Counties.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.