Coal Train, Part 3: Who gets to greenlight Bellingham's giant coal port?
Eight politicians, a few agency heads and an Army general will all weigh in, but the buck stops with one man.
(Page 2 of 2)
But that’s not the end. One more approval is required. Perhaps the biggest hurdle—and the last—is getting Gateway by Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark. If Gateway can clear all the other hurdles, SSA Marine must still secure a lease to build its facility within the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve, which was established in 2000.
Goldmark alone makes this call, and there is no appeal short of the courts. The lease would be a “business lease,” which means it may not require a public process; business leases are typically negotiated. Goldmark updated the Reserve’s management plan in November 2010 shortly before the public learned that coal was the target export commodity at Cherry Point. The 181-page management plan doesn’t mention the word “coal.” But it is filled with strict measures to protect species and habitat in the Reserve.
Goldmark was elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012 with support from both environmentalists and industry. Two companies associated with Gateway Pacific contributed to his 2012 campaign (SSA gave $1,800 via Pacific International Terminals; BNSF gave $500). Goldmark has carefully avoided comment on the terminal, but his staff is following developments and he has a representative on MAP, the multi-agency state team that is working on ways to streamline the permit process.
Goldmark’s approval is by no means guaranteed. But his refusal to issue the lease if all other agencies sign off on the Gateway Pacific Terminal would be a political action rivaled only by Gov. John Spellman’s 1982 veto of a legislative attempt to waive shoreline rules in order to permit a plant to build oil rigs at Cherry Point.
If the Gateway coal terminal gets as far as Goldmark, it will have survived one of the most-intense public examinations of a private development project in the region’s history. Regardless of the outcome, approval or rejection, the Gateway Pacific Terminal will leave its mark on the Pacific Northwest.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jan 24, 10:17 a.m. Inappropriate
And then there are the Courts. Federal and State.
Corps of Engineer decisions would likely be challenged in the Federal District Court, with appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
State decisions would begin at the Superior Court --- proceeding to the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court.
In the end, the Judges decide. In the meantime, lawyers battle, interest groups sell memberships based on their efforts pro and con, and news organizations have "film at 11" and reams of copy to write and sell.
The likelihood that Gateway will ever be built is slim and none.
But all is not lost. The "economic development" to stop the project - in terms of dollars spent and employee hours committed - is not inconsequential.
The coal? It will find its way to a market, if not now then later.
Posted Thu, Jan 24, 10:10 p.m. Inappropriate
The description of the review process is a bit vague. The county's hearing examiner holds a hearing and makes a decision on the shoreline permit applications, not a recommendation. This decision can be appealed on the record to the county council, which can reverse if it finds a legal error. On the other hand, the (inevitable) appeal before the Shorelines Hearings Board is de novo, which means that an entirely new evidential hearing is held. The SHB hearing is likely the most important single event in the process. It is where the state agencies get to weigh in and where the essential evidential record is made. The SHB decision can be appealed on the record to superior court, then to the state court of appeals and finally to the supreme court. All of this can take many years to play out. Inlee's effect will be seen primarily in the posture that the Department of Ecology takes before the SHB and in his appointments to the Board itself.
Posted Fri, Jan 25, 8:21 a.m. Inappropriate
"He is talking with legal advisors to see if a study of climate change impacts can also fall within the purview of the Gateway EIS."
Whether the project's impact on climate change will be considered is crucial to making an informed decision.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.