Terminalators’ Gift Horse, A Party and B(enevolent) NSF

Preston L. Schiller has been involved with transportation and environmental issues for more than 25 years, he is an adjunct lecturer at the School of Urban and Regional Planning, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, a resident of Bellingham and a regular Whatcom Watch contributor on coal train developments. (contact: preston.schiller@wwu.edu)

Three issues involving SSA Marine’s Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) Cherry Point shoreline project proposal have demanded attention in recent weeks:

1. The release of a communitywise.org commissioned economists’ report on the potential downside of the coal terminal;

2. The issue of whether, due to the great generosity of Whatcom County officials towards developers, the taxpayers at large would be stuck with picking up the whole tab for the environmental impact studies (EIS) and;

3. The March 20, 2012, government agencies leading the environmental impact studies (EIS) “pre-scoping” meeting. A few other developments and issues reported in previous coal articles are also updated.

The mouth of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) gift horse has been examined by expert analysts and found to be rather sick, if not thoroughly rotten. Communitywise Bellingham has released an economists’ analysis that found, contrary to the coal terminalators’ claims and inadequate studies, that the impacts of the proposed project would result in a significant net loss of jobs, income and public revenues to Bellingham. John Stark’s coverage of this issue sparked a lively debate in the comments following the story on this topic at his March 6 Bellingham Herald article and politics blog, while Floyd McKay at crosscut.com offered a thorough appraisal in his March 7 article, “Study questions coal’s value to Bellingham.” The comments discussion following his article is worth reading. Tim Johnson offered up his thoughtful review of the study and its implications at “Coal’s Toll” article in the March 7 issue of Cascadia Weekly. The study itself can be read in full or in summary at communitywisebellingham.org. More well-researched expert studies on other aspects of the GPT proposal’s impacts are promised for this site.

In the February 28 issue of Cascadia Weekly, editor Tim Johnson raised the question of whether GPT’s permit processing and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fees would fall upon the taxpayers’ shoulders or come out of the applicant’s very, very deep pockets. Since the county had capped permit application fees at $2650, Johnson wondered whether that largesse would be extended to GPT. This matter was on the agenda of a March 13 Whatcom County Finance Committee meeting and was sharply questioned by councilmembers Ken Mann and Carl Weimer (you may remember Carl and his detective hounds sniffing out illegal GPT clearing from our September 2011 Whatcom Watch article?). Planning and Development Services (PDS) director Sam Ryan cheerfully clarified this matter for us: the agreement under negotiation with GPT will have the applicant paying the full costs of the permit review and Environmental Impact Statement going forward and PDS is negotiating a separate agreement with GPT in order to recoup its GPT-related back expenses over the past year. Along with Ken and Carl and his hounds we’ll be keeping a watchful eye on this one.

Gateway Pacific Terminal was able to get its permit application submitted by a March 19 deadline. On March 20 a pre-scoping public meeting was held as previously scheduled. An anti-coal pep rally organized by RE Sources and several other anti-coal groups was held at Bellingham High School preceding the pre-scoping public meeting. Many creative signs and hospital masks (signifying a reaction to coal pollution), cheers and groans.

The formal meeting was staged by stars from a range of governmental agencies implicated in the upcoming scoping environmental impact statement activities. The rally was attended by over 200 persons (by my estimate) and pre-scoping attendees filled every one of the 800 seats in the Bellingham High School auditorium at showtime with some folks turned away. Fortunately for all those environmentalists and environmental agency hands who arrived by car Bellingham High School provides a parking lot larger than its athletic fields for its hundreds of daytime students and faculty who, similarly, can’t find their way to the bus stop or the bike rack. The overwhelming number of attendees seemed to be persons opposed to the coal proposal. A very small number of GPT supporters picked up “Good Jobs Now” signs and stickers in the lobby; most appeared to be at retirement age or beyond rather than job seekers.

Agency stars traveled to Bellingham’s red carpet from Bellevue, Seattle, Olympia and beyond. (And I thought I saw a Department of Ecology office in Fairhaven?!) At the outset of the meeting attendees were reminded by the Governor’s representative to behave themselves and to only ask one very short question in the Question and Answer session at the end. They were also warned that if they became unruly, the meeting would be promptly ended. Unruly in Bellingham, indeed!

Most of the first half of the meeting was dominated by a Department of Ecology (DOE) staff person who undertook the “mission impossible” task of making the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) easily understandable by average citizens. She was rewarded with warm applause (not ruled unruly by the Guv’s rep) for her effort although one sensed that the attendees would not be lining up for a pop quiz afterward. The rest of the first half was dominated by Whatcom County’s own Planning and Development Services (PDS) manager, Tyler Schroeder, who labored mightily to convince the attendees that Whatcom County and the other co-leader agencies (Department of Ecology and the Army Corps of Engineers) would have sufficient resources in house and in consultants to handle the challenges of such a huge Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Schroeder also threw out many tips to attendees about how to make their scoping comments useful from an agency perspective.

Then attendees with questions were asked to line up single file at the two microphones made available to them. Attendees were reminded that this was not a venue for comments or suggestions about what the EIS should address (“wait until the scoping formally begins”) and to keep it to one short question. About 60 attendees lined up to ask questions; fewer than 30 made it to the mike before the meeting was closed and attendees were invited to talk with agency hands at lobby displays.

There was a certain patterning to the questions, which some attendees managed to transform into comments despite the Guv’s rep’s admonishment. Several citizens questioned whether 30-60 days were sufficient for scoping or whether 60-90 days would suffice for draft EIS review comments (the draft EIS could fill several volumes or dozens of megabytes; see Jean Melious’ outstanding March 21 blog at http://getwhatcomplanning.blogspot.com about public participation, GPT’s unfair advantage, and extending review and comments periods). Several citizens were concerned about environmental studies to be done by either consultants or the applicant (GPT) and the possibly tangled relations between consultants and applicant. John Stark of The Bellingham Herald queried whether SSA Marine’s role and comments in the scoping process would be made as public as others would be. Another person inquired how scoping comments would be organized; another asked why there was no representative from an agency with some degree of jurisdiction over railways, and many attendees simply could not understand why they could not communicate their many concerns to their county councilmembers. A couple comments were “there was no need for studies--the citizenry clearly did not want this project,” and “we don’t really trust the agencies, just tell us how to get to the ‘no action’ (no building of the coal terminal) alternative?”

Many attendees had arrived hoping to express concerns; instead they were lectured about how to properly package those concerns and deliver them during the formal scoping process. One knowledgeable citizen questioned whether any permit process should be allowed to go forward since SSA Marine had still not lived up to its commitments to complete key studies as part of an ongoing Cherry Point environmental process for completing management plan for the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve established by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner in 2000 (see stakeholder Marie Hitchman’s article related to this in the August 2011 Whatcom Watch). The comments lineup also revealed that there were many, many persons from all around the region: Van Zandt, Everson, Blaine, Birch Bay, Ferndale, rural areas — even Mount Vernon — who have deep concerns about this project. It ain’t just Bellingham.

KUOW’s Ashley Ahearn reported on the rally and meeting during the morning program of March 21. She and I must have learned math in different ways; she counted only 100 citizens at the rally while I could swear that I got up to 200 before I gave up trying to account for everyone who was there. Perhaps she might have better luck persuading KUOW to improve their transmission signal for Bellingham?

Now it is up to Whatcom County’s Planning and Development Services to review Gateway Pacific Terminal’s 312 page permit application within 14 days and decide whether it is complete and ready to go forward. Then it might be up to the citizenry and their government officials (outside of the Whatcom County Council) to make it clear that the Environmental Impact Statement must address impacts beyond the GPT site, including transportation (rail and marine) and global air pollution and climate change impacts. … and hope that such great damages, impossible to mitigate, are documented so that there will be a “no action” verdict issued by the Whatcom County Council at the end of the process.

Ever witty and astute environmental law expert (and former Whatcom County Planning Commissioner and Council candidate) Jean Melious’ blog of March 10, 2012, (http://getwhatcomplanning.blogspot.com) addressed the issue of just how much Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) pays to mitigate the impacts of its rail traffic. Examining the situation of Galesburg, Illinois, a town historically and currently closely linked to BNSF, Melious found that town-train relations have a long and difficult history with the railway ducking responsibility for the impacts of increasing train traffic and the city having to seek local, state and federal funds for badly needed bridge repairs, crossing safety measures, quiet zones and grade separations (overpasses, etc.). Melious calculated that, due to its tough bargaining, BNSF was able to gain the needed improvements through public sector largesse and only paid two percent of the tab. Well, two percent is a much better bargain for them than the 10 percent (at most) that BNSF can be made to pay for such impacts under existing federal regulations. But wait; has not Mr. Buffett gone on record that he is not paying a sufficient amount in taxes?

In the February 28 issue of Cascadia Weekly, Bellingham’s chronic curmudgeon and perpetual neighborhood saunterer Alan Rhodes reports on his coffee klatch with Rick Dubrow and Stoney Bird of the citizens’ Coal-Free Bellingham initiative effort. Alan found much to praise about their effort and little to kvetch about there. Then on March 10 about 80 enthusiastic and committed signature gatherers showed up on the steps of Bellingham city Hall to kick off Coal-Free Bellingham’s initiative campaign to prohibit the transportation of coal through Bellingham. See coal-free-bellingham.org and its Facebook site.

If you care to scroll through dozens of tweets to the effect of “see you at the rally,” or “good posting guy!” at 350 Bellingham’s Facebook site you will find links to the very interesting articles of James Wells posted at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/13/1073900/-And-So-It-Begins and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/07/1072208/-It-s-great-for-the-coal-cabal-For-us-not-so-much and in the process you will help Mr. Zuckerberg add even more information to his always expanding database tracking your every mouse click.

Useful websites: protectwhatcom.org offers free “Coal Costs Us – Protect Whatcom” signs and much valuable information at its website; communitywisebellingham.org and coaltrainfacts.org continue to post valuable documents and information.

And so the beat goes on. Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) continues to attempt to persuade local citizens of the wonderful nature of its proposed project. It distributes expensive colorful brochures and disinformation in several ways: through community newsletters, your mailbox, letters to the editor by its friends telling us how much better Whatcom County will be with the coal terminal, and even door-to-door canvassing looking for a few good friends in all the wrong neighborhoods.

Unless Whatcom County’s Planning and Development Services’ review finds serious deficiencies in GPT’s March 19 permit application, the clock will start ticking on this project within a few weeks. First the co-lead agencies will get a consultant team on board. Next the scoping procedures and calendar will be announced. If all goes according to GPT’s plans and hopes, the scoping process, the identification of what should be examined in the Environmental Impact Statement, will begin by this summer.

Rev up your computers folks; our most realistic hope at this point is to push an Environmental Impact Statement scoping that will be broad and deep and look at all the issues in play from Cherry Point to Powder River, across the Pacific and back, from the depths of our oceans to the outer reaches of our atmosphere and on to the rest of the planet.

Scoping and Environmental Impact Statement timeline information: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/gatewaypacific

Links to Gateway Pacific Terminal permit application documents at: coaltrainfacts.org under “News and Updates.”