Editorial: Scoping

Helen Brandt’s excellent survey of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve “Our Living Jewel” in last month’s Whatcom Watch, quotes a 1999 Watch article which told of a 1997 coalition of citizen’s groups and other environmental agencies to address an effort by Gateway Pacific Terminal to develop a bulk cargo and shipping facility at Cherry Point in Whatcom County. Shoreline development permits had already been issued by the county to construct and operate the facility. The point of the coalition was to establish conditions “aimed at natural resource protection” that would be implemented should the development of the facility go forward. The basis of the appeals, “was the failure to adequately address and mitigate for likely environmental impacts from the project.” After prolonged negotiation, areas of concern were agreed to within the scope of shoreline development, among which were impacts to habitat in the footprint of the pier, incidence of non-native organisms to the water, vessel traffic, public access, some restriction of pier development, and habitat and wetland mitigation procedures. The implications of a thirteen year old article on development at Cherry Point is that we understand that the problems then are to be revisited now for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT), and will be more complex by virtue of the fact that there has been more county development and, specifically, the addition of a new factor to Cherry Point shipping — rail traffic with a cargo of coal from the Midwest. The proposal and its outcome will affect us all.

Last month’s issue also presented “History, Scoping and a Discussion of Implications,” a comprehensive account of Cherry Point as a shipping facility by retired public interest attorney Terry Wechsler who shows that there will be many impacts of the proposed terminal. So, in addition to the many government and environmental agencies involved, the public has been invited to comment on the “reasonable range of alternatives and mitigations” that will affect how the permits for GPT will be considered and its impact on the community. Wechsler points to an implied directive of community involvement from common law, The Public Trust Doctrine, which asserts that “each generation is, in effect, a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.” Thus, we become stakeholders in the outcomes affected by GPT.

This community involvement in the proposal process is scoping. Public comment is being solicited (through email, letters, in person) and meetings have taken place throughout Washington. What will be the impact of the terminal on land, homes, businesses, families? How will we deal with increased rail traffic (18 long trains daily), delayed auto traffic, harmful coal dust, land usage limitations, undeveloped industrial areas, and noise? Will GPT generate new jobs? Will our economy and our way of life change in ways that we would welcome, or will we become something else? Will GPT become responsive to the community and contribute financially to maintain it? How much control will we have over the railroad that will inevitably become a greater part of Bellingham? Effecting favorable outcomes for the greater public and for the environment is what is hoped for. Wechsler concludes that asking the various agencies and the public to scope the impact associated with considerations that “would not occur but for the construction of GPT” is a perfectly fine comment” in itself. The more who participate, she suggests, the better we are for the effort. And in the great scheme of things, if we question the need for a coal terminal and conclude that we don’t need it here perhaps we can wean China off of coal, too. And that would really be a favorable outcome for the entire planet.

In this issue, Wechsler continues her discussion of the public scoping meetings that have taken place this past month.

Let’s stay involved.