process, timelines and issues: review of the regional ... · process, timelines and issues: review...

28
Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington September 26, 2011 Prepared by: Salish Land Policy Solutions, Bellingham, WA [email protected] [email protected] I. Executive Summary This paper addresses the public process and issues involving review of a proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point, near Ferndale, known as the Gateway Pacific Terminal Expansion. According to the applicant, from nine to eighteen trains per day (each a mile and a half long) will be added to existing train traffic along the entire Puget Sound Rail Corridor, as the coal is transported on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe line from the Powder River basin mines in Wyoming/ Montana. Proposal: The largest coal export pier in North America at Cherry Point, south of Birch Bay, 1 serving Asian coal power plants. Expected Volume: Exporting up to 48 Million tonnes of Wyoming/Montana coal per year, loading three cape-size ships per day. 2 Current Rail Traffic: Expected Additional Rail Traffic: 35 trains per day (round trip), including 6 Amtrak. 3 18 additional train trips each day (round trip for 9 additional coal trains). Each train a mile and one half long (120-150 cars each). 4 Resulting Rail Traffic: 53 trains per day (Amtrak and freight trains). 5 Rail Transit Route: Wyoming/Montana to Spokane, Pasco Columbia River Gorge, Vancouver Tacoma, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila Seattle Edmonds, Mukilteo, Everett, Marysville, Stanwood Mt. Vernon, Burlington and Bellingham. Trains may return over Stevens Pass (Snohomish, Monroe, Leavenworth, Wenatchee) Expected Crossing Delays: At 9 additional trains plus current delays, total daily delays can be expected to increase between 45 minutes and almost 2 hours, depending on the crossing. If 18 trains are involved, the new delays could total 1.5 – 3.6 hours per day. 6 Whatcom County planners calculate additional daily delays of two-hours on their county roads. 7 Amtrak and Commuter Rail timelines affected; extent unknown.

Upload: nguyenminh

Post on 14-Jul-2018

223 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues

Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at

Cherry Point Washington

September 26 2011

Prepared by Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA tomsalishlpsolutionscom

barbarasalishlpsolutionscom

I Executive Summary

This paper addresses the public process and issues involving review of a proposed coal export

terminal at Cherry Point near Ferndale known as the Gateway Pacific Terminal Expansion

According to the applicant from nine to eighteen trains per day (each a mile and a half long) will be

added to existing train traffic along the entire Puget Sound Rail Corridor as the coal is transported

on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe line from the Powder River basin mines in Wyoming

Montana

Proposal The largest coal export pier in North America at Cherry Point south of Birch Bay1 serving Asian coal power plants

Expected Volume Exporting up to 48 Million tonnes of WyomingMontana coal per year loading three cape-size ships per day2

Current Rail Traffic

Expected Additional Rail Traffic

35 trains per day (round trip) including 6 Amtrak3

18 additional train trips each day (round trip for 9 additional coal trains) Each train a mile and one half long (120-150 cars each)4

Resulting Rail Traffic 53 trains per day (Amtrak and freight trains)5

Rail Transit Route WyomingMontana to Spokane Pasco

Columbia River Gorge Vancouver

Tacoma Auburn Kent Tukwila

Seattle

Edmonds Mukilteo Everett Marysville Stanwood

Mt Vernon Burlington and Bellingham

Trains may return over Stevens Pass (Snohomish Monroe Leavenworth Wenatchee)

Expected Crossing Delays

At 9 additional trains plus current delays total daily delays can be expected to increase between 45 minutes and almost 2 hours depending on the crossing If 18 trains are involved the new delays could total 15 ndash 36 hours per day6

Whatcom County planners calculate additional daily delays of two-hours on their county roads7

Amtrak and Commuter Rail timelines affected extent unknown

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

2

II Timeline and Process

Through the legislatively authorized ldquoMAPrdquo or ldquoiPRMTrdquo process8 the Governorrsquos Office of Regulatory Assistance has spearheaded eleven months of inter-agency scoping of impacts in ldquoprivaterdquo conversations with the applicant 9 The public is not allowed to participate in or observe those video-conferenced meetings10

This early review is being conducted with limited federal agency involvement and without including affected cities counties ports major businesses or stakeholders11

Based on our review of the materials on the MAP website communications from County Executive Pete Kremen and other sources timelines for near-term decisions affecting environmental review have been and are anticipated to be as follows

Timeline Agency Activity

Nov 2010-July 2011 ORA USACE Whatcom County

Governorrsquos office spearheads agency definition of EIS issues with Corps and Whatcom County

June 10 - 23 2011 Applicant (SSA) Whatcom County

SSA applies to Whatcom County for Major Development Permit Shoreline Permit Revision12 County determines applications to be incomplete

June 24 2011 USACE US Army Corps Engineers announces an EIS will be required for two projects the Gateway terminal and BNSF improvements to Custer Spur rail line

July 15 2011 DOE Ecology issues a letter announcing the state will serve as co-lead agency for purposes of State Environmental Policy Act review (attached) with Ecology as the lead for the state13

August 2011 Applicant (SSA) Applies to County Ecology and USACE for retroactive permits to cover grading violations

September 12 2011 Whatcom County Issues Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance providing SSA SEPA coverage to continue site exploration related to Gateway coal export facility

Oct ndash Dec 2011() Applicant Whatcom County USACE State Agencies

Local governments Tribes and the Public

No Date Specified

Applicant to resubmit permit applications to Whatcom County applicant updates JARPA application submitted to USACE and State Agencies

If found to be complete these new applications trigger Public Hearings and Comment Period

First opportunity to affect the list of issues to be considered in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

3

Summary of Future Permitting Steps

1st Quarter 2012() EIS SCOPING (45 ndash 60 days) PUBLIC COMMENT EIS CONSULTANT CHOSEN

USACE publishes a Federal Register Scoping Notice for joint SEPANEPA EIS

Whatcom County and DOE publish notices to trigger public comment on the scope of the EIS Public hearings held (3 locations)

Other agencies and jurisdictions would then register as co-lead agencies or agencies with expertise or jurisdiction under NEPASEPA

2012 - 2014 EIS Consultant Agencies and Applicant produce environmental studies

Draft EIS published tribes public and agencies comment Final EIS

Sept 2014 ndash Sept 2015 Multiple agencies review project and issue decisions

Whatcom County Hearing Examiner and County Council

US Army Corps of Engineers

Department of Ecology

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA)

WA Department of Fish amp Wildlife

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation

Shoreline substantial development permit

Major Development Permit

Section 10 River and Harbors Act Permit

Section 404 wetland fill permits

Section 106 CulturalHistoric Assessment

NPDES (stormwater) permit

401 Water Quality Certification

Endangered Species Act Consultation (Section 7 Jeopardy Opinion) CZMA14

Hydraulic Project Approval

Aquatic Lands Lease

Consultation or Permits re disturbance of known archeological and historic resources

Three challenging aspects of this permit review are

1 Obtaining a lease from the Department of Natural Resources which owns and manages the tidelands as a Public Trust In 2000 DNR designated the area as the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve15

2 Satisfying native tribes (Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip) that the proposal will not harm usual and accustomed fishing grounds16

3 Ensuring the coal storage facility will not degrade ecological functions values within the sensitive shoreline environment through waste water stormwater or fugitive coal dust

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

4

Some commonly heard QUESTIONS about the proposal and INFORMATION

Question If this proposal is not approved will the additional 9 - 18 coal trains still go

north to Canada Without the Cherry Point facility will we still experience

the same impacts without any of the local jobs or state tax benefits

Information US company Arch Coal has a contract to export 25 million tonnes of coal

per year through Ridley Canada but the contract expires in 2015 Canadian

coal companies are currently expanding lobbying their government to

dedicate all of their countryrsquos future export capacity to Canadian firms17

Question Is the purpose of the Cherry Point facility to keep pace with increasing

demand for export of grain and other bulk farm products

Information There is a very large surplus of export capacity at existing ports on the

Columbia River closer to grain producers in Eastern Washington18

Although the applicant has had a permit to build a grain export facility at

Cherry Point since 1998 it has elected not to build it Skagit and Whatcom

Counties simply did not produce enough of those commodities to warrant

that investment Demand for coal appears to be the sole driving force

III Possible Impacts to Local Governments Throughout the Region

In the quarter lead agencies will call for public comments on the scope of the environmental impact

statements Local governments along the rail corridor will have the opportunity to submit comment

letters calling for a broader and more detailed scope of review particularly as to economic impacts

along the rail line In preparation for those comment letters local elected officials and staff are

beginning to assess how the Cherry Point proposal could affect their local economies businesses

and transportation plans Some of the possible impacts may include the following

Effects of the additional 45 minutes to 36 hours of additional daily delays on local

streets and highways in some cases degrading intersection ratings to substandard levels

of service

Effects on waterfront redevelopment plans other city redevelopment and investment

Loss of revenues and jobs for existing businesses cut off from their customers service routes and key deliveries due to substantial rail-crossing delays

Loss of future economic investment dependent on reasonably accessible rail crossings

Effects of vibration noise coal dust and diesel emissions on public health and the value of waterfront and other adjacent properties19

Loss of tax revenues

Conflicts with major industrial users dependent on reliable rail supplies

Impacts on federalstate investments in passenger or high-speed rail including conflicts

with Amtrak Sound Commuter farm-export and other rail uses

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

5

Safety concerns with regard to substantially increased marine traffic in super-sized ldquocape sizerdquo coal-export vessels and conflicts in Haro and Rosario Straits with existing and planned oil supertankers

Effects of vibration noise shading coal dust and diesel emissions on the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve20 and

Economic losses (tourism new residential development ldquocleanrdquo businesses and industries) as the ldquohigh quality of liferdquo reputation ndash placing coastal communities on so many ldquobest placesrdquo lists -- is traded in for a perception that the coastal region has degraded into an industrial and ldquoresource supplyrdquo corridor

IV Participation in the Public Process

Local Governments can begin now to prepare for EIS scoping that may affect the discussion of rail-

line mitigation In the remaining few months before scoping starts local governments can begin

assembling local data and analysis on rail crossings delays impacts on local businesses and

foreseeable conflicts with the local transportation system and emergency services This preliminary

work can be reviewed and approved locally and then in December or January serve as the basis for

formal comment letters on EIS scoping Samples of preliminary traffic analysis are attached below

prepared for Marysville Stanwood Burlington and Mt Vernon by Gibson Traffic

SEPA scoping comments may be sent at any time to

SEPANEPA Review

Department of Ecology

Mr Ted Sturdevant Director Department of Ecology PO Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504-7600 tstu461ecywagov 360 407-7001

Whatcom County

Mr Tyler Schroeder Current Planning Supervisor Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226 Tschroedcowhatcomwaus Phone (360) 676-6907 ext 50202

US Army Corps of Engineers

Mr Randall Perry NW Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers 1440 10th Street Suite 102 Bellingham WA 98225 Perry Randel J NWS RandelJPerryusacearmymil Phone 360-734-3156 (Office)

When public hearings are eventually held on EIS scoping (expected in 2012) oral comments by public agencies can draw special attention to local impacts and economic development plans

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

6

Gateway Pacific Terminal MAP Team Governorrsquos Office of Regulatory Assistance

Role Name Organization E-mail Phone

STATE

Primary Jane Dewell Office of Regulatory Assistance

janedewellorawagov 425649-7124

Primary Scott Boettcher

SBGH-Partners LLC ScottBsbgh-partnerscom 360480-6600

Support Faith Lumsden Office of Regulatory Assistance

faithlumsdengovwagov 360902-9823

Primary Brian Williams WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

brianwilliamsdfwwagov

360466-4345 x 250

Secondary Bob Everitt WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

bobeverittdfwwagov

425775-1311 x 118

Primary Cyrilla Cook WA Dept of Natural Resources

CyrillaCookdnrwagov 360902-1080

Primary Dennis Clark WA Dept of Natural Resources

dennisclarkdnrwagov 360854-2805

Secondary Kristin Swenddal

WA Dept of Natural Resources

kristinswenddaldnrwagov 360902-1124

Primary Barry Wenger WA Dept of Ecology barrywengerecywagov 360715-5220

Primary Loree Randall WA Dept of Ecology loreerandellecywagov 360407-6068

Primary Alice Kelly WA Dept of Ecology alicekellyecywagov 425649-7128

Secondary Geoff Tallent WA Dept of Ecology geofftallentecywagov 425649-7096

Secondary Richard Grout WA Dept of Ecology richardgroutecywagov 360715-5200

FEDERAL

Primary Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers

RandelJPerrynws02usacearmymil 360734-3156

Secondary Matt Bennett US Army Corps of Engineers

matthewjbennettusacearmymil 206764-3428

Primary Krista Rave-Perkins

US Environmental Protection Agency

Rave-PerkinsKristaepagov 206553-6686

Primary Joel Moribe National Marine Fisheries Service

joelmoribenoaagov 206526-4359

Primary not assigned Nooksack Tribe

Primary Jeremy Freimund

Lummi Nation jeremyflummi-nsngov 360384-2212

WHATCOM COUNTY

Primary Tyler Schroeder

Whatcom County tschroedcowhatcomwaus 360676-6907

Secondary Roland Middleton

Whatcom County RMiddletcowhatcomwaus

360676-6876 x50211

CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

Primary Dan Mahar NW Clean Air Agency dannwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 203

Secondary Mark Buford NW Clean Air Agency marknwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 207

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

7

Burlington Northern Santa Fersquos Map of its NW Freight Rail Routes (Note Empty cars may return over Stevens Pass but fully loaded trains travel the Columbia River)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

8

For maps showing Washington State Rail System Train Counts Capacities and Choke Points go to the

WSDOT 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study

httpwwwwstcwagovRailRailFinalReportpdf

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

9

SITE PLAN GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL CHERRY POINT WA Showing coal storage area (green) at approximately 103 acres in size

Source Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal Operations Overview prepared by Pacific International Terminals (the applicant) at 4

httpwwwcowhatcomwausmwg-internalde5fs23hu73dsprogressid=HzqxlQWfyM

Coal storage acreage calculated at 1500 feet wide x 3000 long = 4500000 square feet = 103 acres

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 2: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

2

II Timeline and Process

Through the legislatively authorized ldquoMAPrdquo or ldquoiPRMTrdquo process8 the Governorrsquos Office of Regulatory Assistance has spearheaded eleven months of inter-agency scoping of impacts in ldquoprivaterdquo conversations with the applicant 9 The public is not allowed to participate in or observe those video-conferenced meetings10

This early review is being conducted with limited federal agency involvement and without including affected cities counties ports major businesses or stakeholders11

Based on our review of the materials on the MAP website communications from County Executive Pete Kremen and other sources timelines for near-term decisions affecting environmental review have been and are anticipated to be as follows

Timeline Agency Activity

Nov 2010-July 2011 ORA USACE Whatcom County

Governorrsquos office spearheads agency definition of EIS issues with Corps and Whatcom County

June 10 - 23 2011 Applicant (SSA) Whatcom County

SSA applies to Whatcom County for Major Development Permit Shoreline Permit Revision12 County determines applications to be incomplete

June 24 2011 USACE US Army Corps Engineers announces an EIS will be required for two projects the Gateway terminal and BNSF improvements to Custer Spur rail line

July 15 2011 DOE Ecology issues a letter announcing the state will serve as co-lead agency for purposes of State Environmental Policy Act review (attached) with Ecology as the lead for the state13

August 2011 Applicant (SSA) Applies to County Ecology and USACE for retroactive permits to cover grading violations

September 12 2011 Whatcom County Issues Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance providing SSA SEPA coverage to continue site exploration related to Gateway coal export facility

Oct ndash Dec 2011() Applicant Whatcom County USACE State Agencies

Local governments Tribes and the Public

No Date Specified

Applicant to resubmit permit applications to Whatcom County applicant updates JARPA application submitted to USACE and State Agencies

If found to be complete these new applications trigger Public Hearings and Comment Period

First opportunity to affect the list of issues to be considered in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

3

Summary of Future Permitting Steps

1st Quarter 2012() EIS SCOPING (45 ndash 60 days) PUBLIC COMMENT EIS CONSULTANT CHOSEN

USACE publishes a Federal Register Scoping Notice for joint SEPANEPA EIS

Whatcom County and DOE publish notices to trigger public comment on the scope of the EIS Public hearings held (3 locations)

Other agencies and jurisdictions would then register as co-lead agencies or agencies with expertise or jurisdiction under NEPASEPA

2012 - 2014 EIS Consultant Agencies and Applicant produce environmental studies

Draft EIS published tribes public and agencies comment Final EIS

Sept 2014 ndash Sept 2015 Multiple agencies review project and issue decisions

Whatcom County Hearing Examiner and County Council

US Army Corps of Engineers

Department of Ecology

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA)

WA Department of Fish amp Wildlife

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation

Shoreline substantial development permit

Major Development Permit

Section 10 River and Harbors Act Permit

Section 404 wetland fill permits

Section 106 CulturalHistoric Assessment

NPDES (stormwater) permit

401 Water Quality Certification

Endangered Species Act Consultation (Section 7 Jeopardy Opinion) CZMA14

Hydraulic Project Approval

Aquatic Lands Lease

Consultation or Permits re disturbance of known archeological and historic resources

Three challenging aspects of this permit review are

1 Obtaining a lease from the Department of Natural Resources which owns and manages the tidelands as a Public Trust In 2000 DNR designated the area as the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve15

2 Satisfying native tribes (Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip) that the proposal will not harm usual and accustomed fishing grounds16

3 Ensuring the coal storage facility will not degrade ecological functions values within the sensitive shoreline environment through waste water stormwater or fugitive coal dust

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

4

Some commonly heard QUESTIONS about the proposal and INFORMATION

Question If this proposal is not approved will the additional 9 - 18 coal trains still go

north to Canada Without the Cherry Point facility will we still experience

the same impacts without any of the local jobs or state tax benefits

Information US company Arch Coal has a contract to export 25 million tonnes of coal

per year through Ridley Canada but the contract expires in 2015 Canadian

coal companies are currently expanding lobbying their government to

dedicate all of their countryrsquos future export capacity to Canadian firms17

Question Is the purpose of the Cherry Point facility to keep pace with increasing

demand for export of grain and other bulk farm products

Information There is a very large surplus of export capacity at existing ports on the

Columbia River closer to grain producers in Eastern Washington18

Although the applicant has had a permit to build a grain export facility at

Cherry Point since 1998 it has elected not to build it Skagit and Whatcom

Counties simply did not produce enough of those commodities to warrant

that investment Demand for coal appears to be the sole driving force

III Possible Impacts to Local Governments Throughout the Region

In the quarter lead agencies will call for public comments on the scope of the environmental impact

statements Local governments along the rail corridor will have the opportunity to submit comment

letters calling for a broader and more detailed scope of review particularly as to economic impacts

along the rail line In preparation for those comment letters local elected officials and staff are

beginning to assess how the Cherry Point proposal could affect their local economies businesses

and transportation plans Some of the possible impacts may include the following

Effects of the additional 45 minutes to 36 hours of additional daily delays on local

streets and highways in some cases degrading intersection ratings to substandard levels

of service

Effects on waterfront redevelopment plans other city redevelopment and investment

Loss of revenues and jobs for existing businesses cut off from their customers service routes and key deliveries due to substantial rail-crossing delays

Loss of future economic investment dependent on reasonably accessible rail crossings

Effects of vibration noise coal dust and diesel emissions on public health and the value of waterfront and other adjacent properties19

Loss of tax revenues

Conflicts with major industrial users dependent on reliable rail supplies

Impacts on federalstate investments in passenger or high-speed rail including conflicts

with Amtrak Sound Commuter farm-export and other rail uses

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

5

Safety concerns with regard to substantially increased marine traffic in super-sized ldquocape sizerdquo coal-export vessels and conflicts in Haro and Rosario Straits with existing and planned oil supertankers

Effects of vibration noise shading coal dust and diesel emissions on the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve20 and

Economic losses (tourism new residential development ldquocleanrdquo businesses and industries) as the ldquohigh quality of liferdquo reputation ndash placing coastal communities on so many ldquobest placesrdquo lists -- is traded in for a perception that the coastal region has degraded into an industrial and ldquoresource supplyrdquo corridor

IV Participation in the Public Process

Local Governments can begin now to prepare for EIS scoping that may affect the discussion of rail-

line mitigation In the remaining few months before scoping starts local governments can begin

assembling local data and analysis on rail crossings delays impacts on local businesses and

foreseeable conflicts with the local transportation system and emergency services This preliminary

work can be reviewed and approved locally and then in December or January serve as the basis for

formal comment letters on EIS scoping Samples of preliminary traffic analysis are attached below

prepared for Marysville Stanwood Burlington and Mt Vernon by Gibson Traffic

SEPA scoping comments may be sent at any time to

SEPANEPA Review

Department of Ecology

Mr Ted Sturdevant Director Department of Ecology PO Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504-7600 tstu461ecywagov 360 407-7001

Whatcom County

Mr Tyler Schroeder Current Planning Supervisor Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226 Tschroedcowhatcomwaus Phone (360) 676-6907 ext 50202

US Army Corps of Engineers

Mr Randall Perry NW Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers 1440 10th Street Suite 102 Bellingham WA 98225 Perry Randel J NWS RandelJPerryusacearmymil Phone 360-734-3156 (Office)

When public hearings are eventually held on EIS scoping (expected in 2012) oral comments by public agencies can draw special attention to local impacts and economic development plans

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

6

Gateway Pacific Terminal MAP Team Governorrsquos Office of Regulatory Assistance

Role Name Organization E-mail Phone

STATE

Primary Jane Dewell Office of Regulatory Assistance

janedewellorawagov 425649-7124

Primary Scott Boettcher

SBGH-Partners LLC ScottBsbgh-partnerscom 360480-6600

Support Faith Lumsden Office of Regulatory Assistance

faithlumsdengovwagov 360902-9823

Primary Brian Williams WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

brianwilliamsdfwwagov

360466-4345 x 250

Secondary Bob Everitt WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

bobeverittdfwwagov

425775-1311 x 118

Primary Cyrilla Cook WA Dept of Natural Resources

CyrillaCookdnrwagov 360902-1080

Primary Dennis Clark WA Dept of Natural Resources

dennisclarkdnrwagov 360854-2805

Secondary Kristin Swenddal

WA Dept of Natural Resources

kristinswenddaldnrwagov 360902-1124

Primary Barry Wenger WA Dept of Ecology barrywengerecywagov 360715-5220

Primary Loree Randall WA Dept of Ecology loreerandellecywagov 360407-6068

Primary Alice Kelly WA Dept of Ecology alicekellyecywagov 425649-7128

Secondary Geoff Tallent WA Dept of Ecology geofftallentecywagov 425649-7096

Secondary Richard Grout WA Dept of Ecology richardgroutecywagov 360715-5200

FEDERAL

Primary Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers

RandelJPerrynws02usacearmymil 360734-3156

Secondary Matt Bennett US Army Corps of Engineers

matthewjbennettusacearmymil 206764-3428

Primary Krista Rave-Perkins

US Environmental Protection Agency

Rave-PerkinsKristaepagov 206553-6686

Primary Joel Moribe National Marine Fisheries Service

joelmoribenoaagov 206526-4359

Primary not assigned Nooksack Tribe

Primary Jeremy Freimund

Lummi Nation jeremyflummi-nsngov 360384-2212

WHATCOM COUNTY

Primary Tyler Schroeder

Whatcom County tschroedcowhatcomwaus 360676-6907

Secondary Roland Middleton

Whatcom County RMiddletcowhatcomwaus

360676-6876 x50211

CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

Primary Dan Mahar NW Clean Air Agency dannwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 203

Secondary Mark Buford NW Clean Air Agency marknwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 207

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

7

Burlington Northern Santa Fersquos Map of its NW Freight Rail Routes (Note Empty cars may return over Stevens Pass but fully loaded trains travel the Columbia River)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

8

For maps showing Washington State Rail System Train Counts Capacities and Choke Points go to the

WSDOT 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study

httpwwwwstcwagovRailRailFinalReportpdf

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

9

SITE PLAN GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL CHERRY POINT WA Showing coal storage area (green) at approximately 103 acres in size

Source Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal Operations Overview prepared by Pacific International Terminals (the applicant) at 4

httpwwwcowhatcomwausmwg-internalde5fs23hu73dsprogressid=HzqxlQWfyM

Coal storage acreage calculated at 1500 feet wide x 3000 long = 4500000 square feet = 103 acres

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 3: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

3

Summary of Future Permitting Steps

1st Quarter 2012() EIS SCOPING (45 ndash 60 days) PUBLIC COMMENT EIS CONSULTANT CHOSEN

USACE publishes a Federal Register Scoping Notice for joint SEPANEPA EIS

Whatcom County and DOE publish notices to trigger public comment on the scope of the EIS Public hearings held (3 locations)

Other agencies and jurisdictions would then register as co-lead agencies or agencies with expertise or jurisdiction under NEPASEPA

2012 - 2014 EIS Consultant Agencies and Applicant produce environmental studies

Draft EIS published tribes public and agencies comment Final EIS

Sept 2014 ndash Sept 2015 Multiple agencies review project and issue decisions

Whatcom County Hearing Examiner and County Council

US Army Corps of Engineers

Department of Ecology

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA)

WA Department of Fish amp Wildlife

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation

Shoreline substantial development permit

Major Development Permit

Section 10 River and Harbors Act Permit

Section 404 wetland fill permits

Section 106 CulturalHistoric Assessment

NPDES (stormwater) permit

401 Water Quality Certification

Endangered Species Act Consultation (Section 7 Jeopardy Opinion) CZMA14

Hydraulic Project Approval

Aquatic Lands Lease

Consultation or Permits re disturbance of known archeological and historic resources

Three challenging aspects of this permit review are

1 Obtaining a lease from the Department of Natural Resources which owns and manages the tidelands as a Public Trust In 2000 DNR designated the area as the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve15

2 Satisfying native tribes (Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip) that the proposal will not harm usual and accustomed fishing grounds16

3 Ensuring the coal storage facility will not degrade ecological functions values within the sensitive shoreline environment through waste water stormwater or fugitive coal dust

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

4

Some commonly heard QUESTIONS about the proposal and INFORMATION

Question If this proposal is not approved will the additional 9 - 18 coal trains still go

north to Canada Without the Cherry Point facility will we still experience

the same impacts without any of the local jobs or state tax benefits

Information US company Arch Coal has a contract to export 25 million tonnes of coal

per year through Ridley Canada but the contract expires in 2015 Canadian

coal companies are currently expanding lobbying their government to

dedicate all of their countryrsquos future export capacity to Canadian firms17

Question Is the purpose of the Cherry Point facility to keep pace with increasing

demand for export of grain and other bulk farm products

Information There is a very large surplus of export capacity at existing ports on the

Columbia River closer to grain producers in Eastern Washington18

Although the applicant has had a permit to build a grain export facility at

Cherry Point since 1998 it has elected not to build it Skagit and Whatcom

Counties simply did not produce enough of those commodities to warrant

that investment Demand for coal appears to be the sole driving force

III Possible Impacts to Local Governments Throughout the Region

In the quarter lead agencies will call for public comments on the scope of the environmental impact

statements Local governments along the rail corridor will have the opportunity to submit comment

letters calling for a broader and more detailed scope of review particularly as to economic impacts

along the rail line In preparation for those comment letters local elected officials and staff are

beginning to assess how the Cherry Point proposal could affect their local economies businesses

and transportation plans Some of the possible impacts may include the following

Effects of the additional 45 minutes to 36 hours of additional daily delays on local

streets and highways in some cases degrading intersection ratings to substandard levels

of service

Effects on waterfront redevelopment plans other city redevelopment and investment

Loss of revenues and jobs for existing businesses cut off from their customers service routes and key deliveries due to substantial rail-crossing delays

Loss of future economic investment dependent on reasonably accessible rail crossings

Effects of vibration noise coal dust and diesel emissions on public health and the value of waterfront and other adjacent properties19

Loss of tax revenues

Conflicts with major industrial users dependent on reliable rail supplies

Impacts on federalstate investments in passenger or high-speed rail including conflicts

with Amtrak Sound Commuter farm-export and other rail uses

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

5

Safety concerns with regard to substantially increased marine traffic in super-sized ldquocape sizerdquo coal-export vessels and conflicts in Haro and Rosario Straits with existing and planned oil supertankers

Effects of vibration noise shading coal dust and diesel emissions on the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve20 and

Economic losses (tourism new residential development ldquocleanrdquo businesses and industries) as the ldquohigh quality of liferdquo reputation ndash placing coastal communities on so many ldquobest placesrdquo lists -- is traded in for a perception that the coastal region has degraded into an industrial and ldquoresource supplyrdquo corridor

IV Participation in the Public Process

Local Governments can begin now to prepare for EIS scoping that may affect the discussion of rail-

line mitigation In the remaining few months before scoping starts local governments can begin

assembling local data and analysis on rail crossings delays impacts on local businesses and

foreseeable conflicts with the local transportation system and emergency services This preliminary

work can be reviewed and approved locally and then in December or January serve as the basis for

formal comment letters on EIS scoping Samples of preliminary traffic analysis are attached below

prepared for Marysville Stanwood Burlington and Mt Vernon by Gibson Traffic

SEPA scoping comments may be sent at any time to

SEPANEPA Review

Department of Ecology

Mr Ted Sturdevant Director Department of Ecology PO Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504-7600 tstu461ecywagov 360 407-7001

Whatcom County

Mr Tyler Schroeder Current Planning Supervisor Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226 Tschroedcowhatcomwaus Phone (360) 676-6907 ext 50202

US Army Corps of Engineers

Mr Randall Perry NW Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers 1440 10th Street Suite 102 Bellingham WA 98225 Perry Randel J NWS RandelJPerryusacearmymil Phone 360-734-3156 (Office)

When public hearings are eventually held on EIS scoping (expected in 2012) oral comments by public agencies can draw special attention to local impacts and economic development plans

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

6

Gateway Pacific Terminal MAP Team Governorrsquos Office of Regulatory Assistance

Role Name Organization E-mail Phone

STATE

Primary Jane Dewell Office of Regulatory Assistance

janedewellorawagov 425649-7124

Primary Scott Boettcher

SBGH-Partners LLC ScottBsbgh-partnerscom 360480-6600

Support Faith Lumsden Office of Regulatory Assistance

faithlumsdengovwagov 360902-9823

Primary Brian Williams WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

brianwilliamsdfwwagov

360466-4345 x 250

Secondary Bob Everitt WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

bobeverittdfwwagov

425775-1311 x 118

Primary Cyrilla Cook WA Dept of Natural Resources

CyrillaCookdnrwagov 360902-1080

Primary Dennis Clark WA Dept of Natural Resources

dennisclarkdnrwagov 360854-2805

Secondary Kristin Swenddal

WA Dept of Natural Resources

kristinswenddaldnrwagov 360902-1124

Primary Barry Wenger WA Dept of Ecology barrywengerecywagov 360715-5220

Primary Loree Randall WA Dept of Ecology loreerandellecywagov 360407-6068

Primary Alice Kelly WA Dept of Ecology alicekellyecywagov 425649-7128

Secondary Geoff Tallent WA Dept of Ecology geofftallentecywagov 425649-7096

Secondary Richard Grout WA Dept of Ecology richardgroutecywagov 360715-5200

FEDERAL

Primary Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers

RandelJPerrynws02usacearmymil 360734-3156

Secondary Matt Bennett US Army Corps of Engineers

matthewjbennettusacearmymil 206764-3428

Primary Krista Rave-Perkins

US Environmental Protection Agency

Rave-PerkinsKristaepagov 206553-6686

Primary Joel Moribe National Marine Fisheries Service

joelmoribenoaagov 206526-4359

Primary not assigned Nooksack Tribe

Primary Jeremy Freimund

Lummi Nation jeremyflummi-nsngov 360384-2212

WHATCOM COUNTY

Primary Tyler Schroeder

Whatcom County tschroedcowhatcomwaus 360676-6907

Secondary Roland Middleton

Whatcom County RMiddletcowhatcomwaus

360676-6876 x50211

CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

Primary Dan Mahar NW Clean Air Agency dannwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 203

Secondary Mark Buford NW Clean Air Agency marknwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 207

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

7

Burlington Northern Santa Fersquos Map of its NW Freight Rail Routes (Note Empty cars may return over Stevens Pass but fully loaded trains travel the Columbia River)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

8

For maps showing Washington State Rail System Train Counts Capacities and Choke Points go to the

WSDOT 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study

httpwwwwstcwagovRailRailFinalReportpdf

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

9

SITE PLAN GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL CHERRY POINT WA Showing coal storage area (green) at approximately 103 acres in size

Source Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal Operations Overview prepared by Pacific International Terminals (the applicant) at 4

httpwwwcowhatcomwausmwg-internalde5fs23hu73dsprogressid=HzqxlQWfyM

Coal storage acreage calculated at 1500 feet wide x 3000 long = 4500000 square feet = 103 acres

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 4: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

4

Some commonly heard QUESTIONS about the proposal and INFORMATION

Question If this proposal is not approved will the additional 9 - 18 coal trains still go

north to Canada Without the Cherry Point facility will we still experience

the same impacts without any of the local jobs or state tax benefits

Information US company Arch Coal has a contract to export 25 million tonnes of coal

per year through Ridley Canada but the contract expires in 2015 Canadian

coal companies are currently expanding lobbying their government to

dedicate all of their countryrsquos future export capacity to Canadian firms17

Question Is the purpose of the Cherry Point facility to keep pace with increasing

demand for export of grain and other bulk farm products

Information There is a very large surplus of export capacity at existing ports on the

Columbia River closer to grain producers in Eastern Washington18

Although the applicant has had a permit to build a grain export facility at

Cherry Point since 1998 it has elected not to build it Skagit and Whatcom

Counties simply did not produce enough of those commodities to warrant

that investment Demand for coal appears to be the sole driving force

III Possible Impacts to Local Governments Throughout the Region

In the quarter lead agencies will call for public comments on the scope of the environmental impact

statements Local governments along the rail corridor will have the opportunity to submit comment

letters calling for a broader and more detailed scope of review particularly as to economic impacts

along the rail line In preparation for those comment letters local elected officials and staff are

beginning to assess how the Cherry Point proposal could affect their local economies businesses

and transportation plans Some of the possible impacts may include the following

Effects of the additional 45 minutes to 36 hours of additional daily delays on local

streets and highways in some cases degrading intersection ratings to substandard levels

of service

Effects on waterfront redevelopment plans other city redevelopment and investment

Loss of revenues and jobs for existing businesses cut off from their customers service routes and key deliveries due to substantial rail-crossing delays

Loss of future economic investment dependent on reasonably accessible rail crossings

Effects of vibration noise coal dust and diesel emissions on public health and the value of waterfront and other adjacent properties19

Loss of tax revenues

Conflicts with major industrial users dependent on reliable rail supplies

Impacts on federalstate investments in passenger or high-speed rail including conflicts

with Amtrak Sound Commuter farm-export and other rail uses

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

5

Safety concerns with regard to substantially increased marine traffic in super-sized ldquocape sizerdquo coal-export vessels and conflicts in Haro and Rosario Straits with existing and planned oil supertankers

Effects of vibration noise shading coal dust and diesel emissions on the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve20 and

Economic losses (tourism new residential development ldquocleanrdquo businesses and industries) as the ldquohigh quality of liferdquo reputation ndash placing coastal communities on so many ldquobest placesrdquo lists -- is traded in for a perception that the coastal region has degraded into an industrial and ldquoresource supplyrdquo corridor

IV Participation in the Public Process

Local Governments can begin now to prepare for EIS scoping that may affect the discussion of rail-

line mitigation In the remaining few months before scoping starts local governments can begin

assembling local data and analysis on rail crossings delays impacts on local businesses and

foreseeable conflicts with the local transportation system and emergency services This preliminary

work can be reviewed and approved locally and then in December or January serve as the basis for

formal comment letters on EIS scoping Samples of preliminary traffic analysis are attached below

prepared for Marysville Stanwood Burlington and Mt Vernon by Gibson Traffic

SEPA scoping comments may be sent at any time to

SEPANEPA Review

Department of Ecology

Mr Ted Sturdevant Director Department of Ecology PO Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504-7600 tstu461ecywagov 360 407-7001

Whatcom County

Mr Tyler Schroeder Current Planning Supervisor Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226 Tschroedcowhatcomwaus Phone (360) 676-6907 ext 50202

US Army Corps of Engineers

Mr Randall Perry NW Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers 1440 10th Street Suite 102 Bellingham WA 98225 Perry Randel J NWS RandelJPerryusacearmymil Phone 360-734-3156 (Office)

When public hearings are eventually held on EIS scoping (expected in 2012) oral comments by public agencies can draw special attention to local impacts and economic development plans

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

6

Gateway Pacific Terminal MAP Team Governorrsquos Office of Regulatory Assistance

Role Name Organization E-mail Phone

STATE

Primary Jane Dewell Office of Regulatory Assistance

janedewellorawagov 425649-7124

Primary Scott Boettcher

SBGH-Partners LLC ScottBsbgh-partnerscom 360480-6600

Support Faith Lumsden Office of Regulatory Assistance

faithlumsdengovwagov 360902-9823

Primary Brian Williams WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

brianwilliamsdfwwagov

360466-4345 x 250

Secondary Bob Everitt WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

bobeverittdfwwagov

425775-1311 x 118

Primary Cyrilla Cook WA Dept of Natural Resources

CyrillaCookdnrwagov 360902-1080

Primary Dennis Clark WA Dept of Natural Resources

dennisclarkdnrwagov 360854-2805

Secondary Kristin Swenddal

WA Dept of Natural Resources

kristinswenddaldnrwagov 360902-1124

Primary Barry Wenger WA Dept of Ecology barrywengerecywagov 360715-5220

Primary Loree Randall WA Dept of Ecology loreerandellecywagov 360407-6068

Primary Alice Kelly WA Dept of Ecology alicekellyecywagov 425649-7128

Secondary Geoff Tallent WA Dept of Ecology geofftallentecywagov 425649-7096

Secondary Richard Grout WA Dept of Ecology richardgroutecywagov 360715-5200

FEDERAL

Primary Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers

RandelJPerrynws02usacearmymil 360734-3156

Secondary Matt Bennett US Army Corps of Engineers

matthewjbennettusacearmymil 206764-3428

Primary Krista Rave-Perkins

US Environmental Protection Agency

Rave-PerkinsKristaepagov 206553-6686

Primary Joel Moribe National Marine Fisheries Service

joelmoribenoaagov 206526-4359

Primary not assigned Nooksack Tribe

Primary Jeremy Freimund

Lummi Nation jeremyflummi-nsngov 360384-2212

WHATCOM COUNTY

Primary Tyler Schroeder

Whatcom County tschroedcowhatcomwaus 360676-6907

Secondary Roland Middleton

Whatcom County RMiddletcowhatcomwaus

360676-6876 x50211

CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

Primary Dan Mahar NW Clean Air Agency dannwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 203

Secondary Mark Buford NW Clean Air Agency marknwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 207

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

7

Burlington Northern Santa Fersquos Map of its NW Freight Rail Routes (Note Empty cars may return over Stevens Pass but fully loaded trains travel the Columbia River)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

8

For maps showing Washington State Rail System Train Counts Capacities and Choke Points go to the

WSDOT 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study

httpwwwwstcwagovRailRailFinalReportpdf

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

9

SITE PLAN GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL CHERRY POINT WA Showing coal storage area (green) at approximately 103 acres in size

Source Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal Operations Overview prepared by Pacific International Terminals (the applicant) at 4

httpwwwcowhatcomwausmwg-internalde5fs23hu73dsprogressid=HzqxlQWfyM

Coal storage acreage calculated at 1500 feet wide x 3000 long = 4500000 square feet = 103 acres

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 5: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

5

Safety concerns with regard to substantially increased marine traffic in super-sized ldquocape sizerdquo coal-export vessels and conflicts in Haro and Rosario Straits with existing and planned oil supertankers

Effects of vibration noise shading coal dust and diesel emissions on the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve20 and

Economic losses (tourism new residential development ldquocleanrdquo businesses and industries) as the ldquohigh quality of liferdquo reputation ndash placing coastal communities on so many ldquobest placesrdquo lists -- is traded in for a perception that the coastal region has degraded into an industrial and ldquoresource supplyrdquo corridor

IV Participation in the Public Process

Local Governments can begin now to prepare for EIS scoping that may affect the discussion of rail-

line mitigation In the remaining few months before scoping starts local governments can begin

assembling local data and analysis on rail crossings delays impacts on local businesses and

foreseeable conflicts with the local transportation system and emergency services This preliminary

work can be reviewed and approved locally and then in December or January serve as the basis for

formal comment letters on EIS scoping Samples of preliminary traffic analysis are attached below

prepared for Marysville Stanwood Burlington and Mt Vernon by Gibson Traffic

SEPA scoping comments may be sent at any time to

SEPANEPA Review

Department of Ecology

Mr Ted Sturdevant Director Department of Ecology PO Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504-7600 tstu461ecywagov 360 407-7001

Whatcom County

Mr Tyler Schroeder Current Planning Supervisor Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226 Tschroedcowhatcomwaus Phone (360) 676-6907 ext 50202

US Army Corps of Engineers

Mr Randall Perry NW Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers 1440 10th Street Suite 102 Bellingham WA 98225 Perry Randel J NWS RandelJPerryusacearmymil Phone 360-734-3156 (Office)

When public hearings are eventually held on EIS scoping (expected in 2012) oral comments by public agencies can draw special attention to local impacts and economic development plans

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

6

Gateway Pacific Terminal MAP Team Governorrsquos Office of Regulatory Assistance

Role Name Organization E-mail Phone

STATE

Primary Jane Dewell Office of Regulatory Assistance

janedewellorawagov 425649-7124

Primary Scott Boettcher

SBGH-Partners LLC ScottBsbgh-partnerscom 360480-6600

Support Faith Lumsden Office of Regulatory Assistance

faithlumsdengovwagov 360902-9823

Primary Brian Williams WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

brianwilliamsdfwwagov

360466-4345 x 250

Secondary Bob Everitt WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

bobeverittdfwwagov

425775-1311 x 118

Primary Cyrilla Cook WA Dept of Natural Resources

CyrillaCookdnrwagov 360902-1080

Primary Dennis Clark WA Dept of Natural Resources

dennisclarkdnrwagov 360854-2805

Secondary Kristin Swenddal

WA Dept of Natural Resources

kristinswenddaldnrwagov 360902-1124

Primary Barry Wenger WA Dept of Ecology barrywengerecywagov 360715-5220

Primary Loree Randall WA Dept of Ecology loreerandellecywagov 360407-6068

Primary Alice Kelly WA Dept of Ecology alicekellyecywagov 425649-7128

Secondary Geoff Tallent WA Dept of Ecology geofftallentecywagov 425649-7096

Secondary Richard Grout WA Dept of Ecology richardgroutecywagov 360715-5200

FEDERAL

Primary Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers

RandelJPerrynws02usacearmymil 360734-3156

Secondary Matt Bennett US Army Corps of Engineers

matthewjbennettusacearmymil 206764-3428

Primary Krista Rave-Perkins

US Environmental Protection Agency

Rave-PerkinsKristaepagov 206553-6686

Primary Joel Moribe National Marine Fisheries Service

joelmoribenoaagov 206526-4359

Primary not assigned Nooksack Tribe

Primary Jeremy Freimund

Lummi Nation jeremyflummi-nsngov 360384-2212

WHATCOM COUNTY

Primary Tyler Schroeder

Whatcom County tschroedcowhatcomwaus 360676-6907

Secondary Roland Middleton

Whatcom County RMiddletcowhatcomwaus

360676-6876 x50211

CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

Primary Dan Mahar NW Clean Air Agency dannwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 203

Secondary Mark Buford NW Clean Air Agency marknwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 207

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

7

Burlington Northern Santa Fersquos Map of its NW Freight Rail Routes (Note Empty cars may return over Stevens Pass but fully loaded trains travel the Columbia River)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

8

For maps showing Washington State Rail System Train Counts Capacities and Choke Points go to the

WSDOT 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study

httpwwwwstcwagovRailRailFinalReportpdf

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

9

SITE PLAN GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL CHERRY POINT WA Showing coal storage area (green) at approximately 103 acres in size

Source Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal Operations Overview prepared by Pacific International Terminals (the applicant) at 4

httpwwwcowhatcomwausmwg-internalde5fs23hu73dsprogressid=HzqxlQWfyM

Coal storage acreage calculated at 1500 feet wide x 3000 long = 4500000 square feet = 103 acres

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 6: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

6

Gateway Pacific Terminal MAP Team Governorrsquos Office of Regulatory Assistance

Role Name Organization E-mail Phone

STATE

Primary Jane Dewell Office of Regulatory Assistance

janedewellorawagov 425649-7124

Primary Scott Boettcher

SBGH-Partners LLC ScottBsbgh-partnerscom 360480-6600

Support Faith Lumsden Office of Regulatory Assistance

faithlumsdengovwagov 360902-9823

Primary Brian Williams WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

brianwilliamsdfwwagov

360466-4345 x 250

Secondary Bob Everitt WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife

bobeverittdfwwagov

425775-1311 x 118

Primary Cyrilla Cook WA Dept of Natural Resources

CyrillaCookdnrwagov 360902-1080

Primary Dennis Clark WA Dept of Natural Resources

dennisclarkdnrwagov 360854-2805

Secondary Kristin Swenddal

WA Dept of Natural Resources

kristinswenddaldnrwagov 360902-1124

Primary Barry Wenger WA Dept of Ecology barrywengerecywagov 360715-5220

Primary Loree Randall WA Dept of Ecology loreerandellecywagov 360407-6068

Primary Alice Kelly WA Dept of Ecology alicekellyecywagov 425649-7128

Secondary Geoff Tallent WA Dept of Ecology geofftallentecywagov 425649-7096

Secondary Richard Grout WA Dept of Ecology richardgroutecywagov 360715-5200

FEDERAL

Primary Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers

RandelJPerrynws02usacearmymil 360734-3156

Secondary Matt Bennett US Army Corps of Engineers

matthewjbennettusacearmymil 206764-3428

Primary Krista Rave-Perkins

US Environmental Protection Agency

Rave-PerkinsKristaepagov 206553-6686

Primary Joel Moribe National Marine Fisheries Service

joelmoribenoaagov 206526-4359

Primary not assigned Nooksack Tribe

Primary Jeremy Freimund

Lummi Nation jeremyflummi-nsngov 360384-2212

WHATCOM COUNTY

Primary Tyler Schroeder

Whatcom County tschroedcowhatcomwaus 360676-6907

Secondary Roland Middleton

Whatcom County RMiddletcowhatcomwaus

360676-6876 x50211

CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

Primary Dan Mahar NW Clean Air Agency dannwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 203

Secondary Mark Buford NW Clean Air Agency marknwcleanairorg

360428-1617 x 207

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

7

Burlington Northern Santa Fersquos Map of its NW Freight Rail Routes (Note Empty cars may return over Stevens Pass but fully loaded trains travel the Columbia River)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

8

For maps showing Washington State Rail System Train Counts Capacities and Choke Points go to the

WSDOT 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study

httpwwwwstcwagovRailRailFinalReportpdf

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

9

SITE PLAN GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL CHERRY POINT WA Showing coal storage area (green) at approximately 103 acres in size

Source Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal Operations Overview prepared by Pacific International Terminals (the applicant) at 4

httpwwwcowhatcomwausmwg-internalde5fs23hu73dsprogressid=HzqxlQWfyM

Coal storage acreage calculated at 1500 feet wide x 3000 long = 4500000 square feet = 103 acres

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 7: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

7

Burlington Northern Santa Fersquos Map of its NW Freight Rail Routes (Note Empty cars may return over Stevens Pass but fully loaded trains travel the Columbia River)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

8

For maps showing Washington State Rail System Train Counts Capacities and Choke Points go to the

WSDOT 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study

httpwwwwstcwagovRailRailFinalReportpdf

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

9

SITE PLAN GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL CHERRY POINT WA Showing coal storage area (green) at approximately 103 acres in size

Source Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal Operations Overview prepared by Pacific International Terminals (the applicant) at 4

httpwwwcowhatcomwausmwg-internalde5fs23hu73dsprogressid=HzqxlQWfyM

Coal storage acreage calculated at 1500 feet wide x 3000 long = 4500000 square feet = 103 acres

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 8: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

8

For maps showing Washington State Rail System Train Counts Capacities and Choke Points go to the

WSDOT 2006 Statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study

httpwwwwstcwagovRailRailFinalReportpdf

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

9

SITE PLAN GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL CHERRY POINT WA Showing coal storage area (green) at approximately 103 acres in size

Source Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal Operations Overview prepared by Pacific International Terminals (the applicant) at 4

httpwwwcowhatcomwausmwg-internalde5fs23hu73dsprogressid=HzqxlQWfyM

Coal storage acreage calculated at 1500 feet wide x 3000 long = 4500000 square feet = 103 acres

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 9: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

9

SITE PLAN GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL CHERRY POINT WA Showing coal storage area (green) at approximately 103 acres in size

Source Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Webpage for the Gateway Pacific Terminal Operations Overview prepared by Pacific International Terminals (the applicant) at 4

httpwwwcowhatcomwausmwg-internalde5fs23hu73dsprogressid=HzqxlQWfyM

Coal storage acreage calculated at 1500 feet wide x 3000 long = 4500000 square feet = 103 acres

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 10: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

10

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CO-LEAD AGENCY STATUS

BY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

AND

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 11: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

11

July 15 2011

Tyler R Schroeder Whatcom County Planning SupervisorDesignated SEPA Official Planning and Development Services Whatcom County 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham WA 98226-9097

RE Gateway Pacific Terminal SEPA Process

Dear Mr Schroeder

Thank you for your letter in which you request that the Department of Ecology (Ecology) serve as a co-lead agency during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal

Ecology and Whatcom County (County) have been in discussions regarding Ecology serving as co-lead in recent months I agree that there are statewide and regional issues that should be disclosed and addressed during the scoping and development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Therefore Ecology is willing to be a co-lead agency for the project As we have discussed with your staff Whatcom County will be the nominal lead and will handle the procedural aspects of SEPA compliance The SEPA analysis itself will be conducted in accordance with state and county SEPA regulations

I look forward to working with the County on this project and feel that the Countyrsquos expertise with SEPA knowledge of local issues and experience with this project will help ensure that the project is thoroughly and adequately reviewed If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Jeannie Summerhays Regional Director at the Northwest Regional Office at 425-649-7010

Sincerely s Ted Sturdevant Director cc Pete Kremen Whatcom County Executive Dan Pike Mayor of Bellingham Randel Perry US Army Corps of Engineers JE ldquoSamrdquo Ryan Whatcom County PDS Director Cliff Strong AMEC Jeannie Summerhays Department of Ecology

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 12: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

12

From Graesser Patricia C NWS [mailtoPatriciaCGraesserusacearmymil] Sent Friday June 24 2011 143 PM Subject NEWS RELEASE - Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal

Army Corps of Engineers to require EIS for Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal and Custer Spur line improvements

Contact Public Affairs Office 206-764-3750

June 24 2010

Seattle ndash The Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated related proposals from both Pacific International Terminals to construct a multi-model marine terminal and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to make improvements to the Custer Spur line in Whatcom County Wash The Corps has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary to document potential effects of both projects as required under the National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed terminal project would be developed on about 350 acres and would include a three-berth deep-water wharf near Ferndale Wash The wharf would be 2980 feet long and 105 feet wide with access by a trestle approximately 1100 feet long and 50 feet wide on 730 steel piles Interrelated but the subject of a separate permit application an existing spur of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad mainline will be upgraded to support increased traffic The combined proposed impacts at the PIT and BNSF project sites include the permanent fill of up to 170 acres of wetlands kelp bed shading and displacement of marine invertebrate habitat PIT has proposed measures to mitigate these impacts

The Corps evaluated the significance of the proposals in context and intensity as required under NEPA and concluded that the proposed projects may have a significant impact on the environment and is therefore moving forward with Environmental Impact Statement preparation

ldquoBased on the projects described and potential impacts presented hellip authorization of the projects would be major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with NEPArdquo said Seattle District Commander Col Anthony Wright

The scoping process for this action will occur after the notice of intent has been published in the Federal Register The scoping process will allow for public input into the breadth of issues to be covered in the EIS

ldquoThe Corps seeks a thorough understanding of all potential environmental effects and will work to make sure we have the most current accurate and relevant information about the projectrsquos potential impacts to the environmentrdquo said Corps Regulatory Branch Chief Muffy Walker ldquoThe Corps is just beginning its permit application review We understand the high interest in this proposal and we will seek public involvement and conduct a thorough agency review prior to reaching any decisionrdquo

For more information about the Corpsrsquo regulatory program please see our webpage at wwwnwsusacearmymil and selecting RegulatoryPermits from the left hand menu

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 13: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

13

LETTERS PRESS RELEASES AND EDITORIALS

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE

GATEWAY PACIFIC TERMINAL

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 14: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

14

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 15: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

15

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 16: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

16

Impacts of proposed Cherry Point Coal Export Terminal | GUEST OPINION

By MARYSVILLE MAYOR JON NEHRING

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion

Aug 10 2011

If you live or work in Marysville you already know the frustration and patience required when

red lights flash and the gate arms at a railroad crossing lower to signal an approaching freight

train and the wait that follows

Under a current proposal to build a coal export terminal at Cherry Point north of Bellingham

near Ferndale that wait for passing trains would become intolerably longer and occur much

more often

SSA Marine of Seattle has begun the two-year process of environmental studies that will be

necessary to obtain a variety of state and federal permits for the project It would be one of the

largest coal export facilities on the continent and the only one on the West Coast Proponents

say as many as nine trains per day could rumble through the city on the way north to the

terminal south of the BP Cherry Point refinery laden with up to 54 million tons of Wyoming

and Montana coal and other bulk cargoes that would be loaded on large ships bound for China

and other Asian markets If those trains return south empty the way they came the 18 trains

per day would equate to about one coal train every 13 hours all day long in addition to

existing train traffic

According to our preliminary analysis impacts from increased train traffic associated with this

project carry severe consequences for our cityrsquos commercial district and downtown-waterfront

plans transportation planning and improvements and public safety with the risk of more car-

train accidents

As Mayor my first priority is to the citizens in Marysville and seeing to it that their safety

quality of life and livelihood are sustained I am certainly all for job growth but the potential

jobs from this terminal would be 65 miles north of here near Ferndale while Marysville and

other communities would be left to deal with the negative impacts

Getting out ahead on this issue the City Council at its July 26 meeting heard a briefing from

Salish Land Policy Solutions a Bellingham public interest consulting firm hired by the

Bellingham businesses and property owners to evaluate the process and facts and Gibson

Traffic Consultants who conducted a preliminary review of the project impacts

Currently 36-37 trains per day (including Amtrak round-trips) travel the tracks that run north-

south directly through the heart of the cityrsquos business district passing 17 crossings including

three major freeway access arterials mdash 4thSR 528 88th and 116th Streets mdash and numerous

street and private crossings The trains generally are 60-75 cars long or 34 of a mile with wait

times of up to 9 minutes

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 17: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

17

Full build out of the coal export facility could add 18 more train trips a day extending 1 12

miles long (120-150 cars each) which at 30 mph would mean about 6-7 minutes between train

approach warning and ultimate gate opening or at 5 mph could take 14-18 minutes to clear a

crossing The 18 trains a day (9 north 9 south) would equate to one additional coal train every

13 hours all day long in addition to existing train traffic with which wersquore already familiar and

is likely to increase when the economy rebounds

Here are some of the more significant impacts to Marysvillersquos commercial district and quality of

life based on our analysis

bull Due to speed restrictions approach warning trains through Marysvillersquos downtown means the

barriers are down for 6-8 minutes for the larger freight trains a mile or longer This is equal to 3-

4 continuous red light cycles in a row for a normal signal on 4th Street which would

significantly reduce the roadrsquos level of service (translated longer delays)

bull With the increase in number of long coal trains the nightmare scenario for the city is having

all its I-5 entrances blocked at the same time ie SR 528 88th and 116th Recent capacity

improvement on 116th Street completed by the city would be negated by the increased coal

train activity

bull Within the past five years 30 accidents have been reported at rail crossings in Marysville

almost half involving the actual rail gates and one with a vehicle struck by a train in 2008

causing serious injury to two people at the 88th Street crossing The rest were mainly rear end

collisions of vehicles stopping for gate closures

Marysville and other jurisdictions are in no position to tell Burlington Northern Santa Fe how to

use their railway but we can press the appropriate state and federal agencies to make sure

that rail traffic impacts on cities along the proposed route receive intense study from an

economic and transportation standpoint and urge a transparent and thorough review process

As your Mayor I will continue to lobby for alternative site analysis as well as mitigation for any

potential negative impacts to Marysvillersquos citizens and businesses

Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at mayormarysvillewagov or 360-363-8091

Marysville Globe Guest Opinion Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring can be reached at

mayormarysvillewagov

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 18: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

18

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 19: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

19

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 20: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

20

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 21: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

21

City of Seattle

Office of the Mayor

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 22: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

22

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 23: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

23

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 24: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

24

ENDNOTES

1 Permit History The proposal was submitted by Pacific International Terminals and is managed by SSA

Marine owned by Carrix Inc In late February 2011 the applicant submitted a Project Information Document to the state Office of Regulatory Assistance httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewspdfGPT20PID20DOCUMENTpdf The applicant filed this ldquoPIDrdquo in support of a preliminary Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which it hoped federal and state agencies would begin to review httpwwwgatewaypacificterminalcomnewsdocumentsGPTProjectJarpa28Feb11pdf However after submitting an application to Whatcom County on June 10 2011 the County declared its applications incomplete The June 2011 attempted application can be viewed at

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssaindexjsp

Under its County submittal and now-outdated JARPA SSA attempted to describe its upland coal export facility (48 million tons per year) as a revision to a prior shoreline permit and development permit obtained in 1998 from the County at this same site However the earlier approval was for a non-coal export facility of only 6 million tons per year Although SSA never used that prior 13-year old permit it made the attempt now to ask the County to merely review the upland portion of its development under a permit ldquorevisionrdquo

Whatcom County rejected that approach

httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110623-gptdeterminationpdf In light of the Countyrsquos rejection of the approach described in the JARPA application the JARPA application is now outdated describing a more truncated SEPA review process than the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology are requiring as shown in the preceding announcements Because of changes in the size and scope of the original approval the new coal-export facility must undergo full environmental review and be reviewed under a new project application httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific The JARPA application has some other troublesome aspects to it as well It attempts to separate away any of the rail-system improvements needed to support the project The application at Page 60 claimed that BNSF improvements would be the subject of a separate application outside the JARPA process To date BNSF has suggested to the US Army Corps of Engineers that the only improvements to rail infrastructure tied to the project are improvements at the ldquoCuster Spurrdquo where a side rail line veers off the mainline and heads to Cherry Point None of the improvements needed on the main line are described Thus BNSFrsquos submittals do not offer to pay for improvements to the main line necessary to mitigate train traffic impacts through existing communities And SSArsquos JARPA application does not include any description of permitting or improvements to rail-line crossings through these communities One might speculate that both BNSF and SSA hope federal rail money would appear and mitigate these impacts However the JARPA application at Page 10 states that no federal money will be used for the project These inconsistencies have yet to be resolved and may become the topic of discussion if an economic analysis is conducted as part of the SEPA review process

2 Expected Ship Volumes All estimates of annual export volume are merely planning numbers selected by the

applicant and must be ground-truthed in light of the large size of the site and the ability to quickly load very large ships No permit conditions are proposed by SSA to limit the number of trains or ships per day The estimate of three capesize ships per day is based on historical volumes and ratios at the existing coal export facility at Roberts Bank httpwikimapiaorg700457Roberts-Bank-container-and-coal-port

3 Historic Train Traffic Pre-recession historic levels of train traffic per Whatcom County Transportation Plan

(2007)

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 25: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

25

Over 150 miles of track owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) stretch between Seattle and Vancouver British Columbia In addition a 46 mile long line from Burlington in Skagit County to the City of Sumas leads into Canada and is also owned by BNSF These two lines provide valuable passenger and freight transportation opportunities for connecting the larger regions outside of Whatcom County as well as providing Whatcom County residents and businesses with an alternative to roads

There are three main sections of the BNSF mainline connecting Seattle to Vancouver The first section is the BNSF transcontinental mainline between Seattle and Everett which is roughly 35 miles of double track An estimated 35 trains per day utilize this line including 6 daily Amtrak passenger trains

The second section is the mainline connecting Everett and Brownsville British Columbia There is a single track in this segment with some sidings for trains passing each other Most traffic along this section is Canadian and locally generated freight traffic In addition Amtrak Cascades operates two passenger trains a day in the region one daily roundtrip train from Seattle to Vancouver and one which currently terminates in Bellingham It is estimated that approximately 14 through trains use this section per day

See httpresourceswcogorgplanningplan_2007wtppdf at Section 142 (emphasis added) Note that as of this writing there are two SeattleVancouver BC round trip trains one in the morning and one in the evening

4 Applicantrsquos Numbers Applicantrsquos Project Information Description testimony of Craig Cole SSA representative

to Ferndale City Council March 2011

5 County Numbers 2007 County Transportation Plan at Section 142

6 Estimated Wait Times Currently up to four coal trains per day pass through Bellingham on their way to ports

in Canada Current crossing delays can be as long as 13 minutes The authorsrsquo office window has a birdrsquos-eye view of the Fairhaven Ferry Dock railroad crossing on the BNSF line adjacent to the Amtrak station On June 13 2011 the authors observed and timed an empty coal train heading south as it went through the Fairhaven crossing The train had four engines and took 13 minutes from crossing guard down to guard-up Thus the estimate here of up to an additional 5-12 minutes for each Cherry Point train is conservative

New train delays related to Cherry Point are estimated conservatively at 5 ndash 12 minutes per at-grade crossing to reflect slower train speeds through dense urban areas Delays are calculated using the applicantrsquos statement that train lengths may be as much as a mile and a half long and based on the following calculations

A train travelling at 5 miles per hour will take 18 minutes to pass a given point That number is reduced by 34 to 12 minutes If trains travel twice that speed at 10 miles per hour the 12 minutes of delay would be reduced by half to 6 minutes We reduce that further to 5 minutes to present a conservative estimate

The 18 minutes is calculated by taking total train length (in feet) and determining how long it takes for that many feet to pass a given point The calculation is as follows

15 mile train x 5280 feet (one mile) = 7290 feet long

5 miles per hour means a point on a train will travel 26400 feet in an hour That translates to 440 feet in one minute (26400 divided by 60 minutes) This is the factor used to calculate delays

To calculate how many minutes are needed for a train to pass a crossing when the train is 7290 feet long traveling at 5 miles per hour the length of the train is divided by the delay factor of 440 feet per minute

7290 feet divided by 440 feet results in a delay time of 18 minutes

The total delay time is calculated using this 5 ndash 12 minutes of additional delay and adding it to an assumed current delay time of 5-8 minutes per day again a conservative general estimate for current delays associated with the current 28 ndash 35 existing trains per day (endnote 3 above)

7 County Estimated Daily Delays Whatcom Countyrsquos comment letter dated April 7 2011

httpdldropboxcomu1733809Cherry20PointCounty20PID20Comments2004072011pdf

8 State Regulations RCW ch 4240

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 26: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

26

9 MAP Team The Governorrsquos multi-agency review process can be reviewed at httpiprmtorawagov

however access requires registration with the Office of Regulatory Assistance as explained at the link

10 Closed Meetings Email communication from Jane Dewell to Tom Ehrlichman Video tapes of MAP team

meetings are not retained by the ORA The meetings are described by ORA as ldquoprivaterdquo and not accessible to non-members of the MAP team

11 MAP Team Members A copy of the MAP membership team is attached from the ORA website Only three

federal agencies have sitting representatives No federal or state railroad or transportation representatives are included

12 Prior Shoreline Permit Whatcom County previously approved a shoreline permit and major development

approval for this site on a different proposal The prior proposal was for a pier in the same location exporting only 8 Million tons of dry goods per year Coal was not one of the goods listed in that permit application or approval The new proposal now includes a revised upland rail network extensive upland coal storage facility and export of 48 million tons of coal per year Wetland impacts have increased from 5 acres to 140 acres or more The prior permit was appealed and a settlement agreement resulted in dismissal Parties to the agreement included DOE WDFW Washington Environmental Council People for Puget Sound North Cascades Audubon League of Women Voters Bellingham and Ocean Advocates Talks between those parties concerning the new coal export facility recently ended in no agreement httpwwwlwvbellinghamwhatcomorgfilesNo_New_Agreement_on_Proposed_Cherry_Point_Terminalpdf

13 Letters from Local Governments Several jurisdictions along the BNSF rail line submitted letters to the

Governor requesting state co-lead agency during SEPA review including Bellingham Marysville Burlington and Seattle The Skagit County Commissioners and Port of Skagit County also submitted separate letters to the Governor requesting funding for improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of increased rail traffic The City of Burlingtonrsquos letter outlines specific concerns related to the inability to provide emergency services during long train delays (copy attached)

14 ldquoCoastal Zone Management Actrdquo consistency determination ensuring the proposal is consistent with federal

coastal protections and state shoreline management programs including compliance with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

15 The DNR Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve State law authorizes DNR to withhold lands from leasing to protect

significant natural values RCW 79105210 In 2000 DNR established the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Recently in November 2010 after working with affected industry tribes and stakeholders for ten years DNR adopted the Cherry Point Environmental Aquatic Reserve Management Plan At Page 179 the plan notes that a new facility at this location approved by Whatcom County in 1997 is specifically excepted from the withdrawal order for the reserve but sets a very high threshold for environmental performance

We note that the exempted pier described in the 1997 shoreline substantial development permit was for a non-coal facility exporting only 8 Million tons a year In contrast to the current proposal which includes disturbance of 140 acres of wetlands the earlier proposal disturbed only 5 acres of wetlands Under the DNR Plan any activity must first prove it will not adversely affect the rdquocore region of spawn deposition for the largest single herring spawning stock in Washington waters a stock that historically provided spawning habitat for more than 50 percent of the entire herring population of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fucardquo Plan at 8 17 22-23

The two Nooksack populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are distinctive from the rest of Puget Sound Chinook which were listed in 1999 as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act They are the only populations in the Strait of Georgia region and are only two of six runs left in Puget Sound that return to their rivers in the spring For that reason they ldquoare considered to be essential to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinookrdquo Evolutionary Significant Unit Plan at 22 DNR will not approve a lease until it reviews numerous studies that the applicant has not yet completed Plan at 35 53-54

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 27: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

27

16 Native American Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds Cherry Point is located within the usual and

accustomed fishing areas of the Lummi Nooksack Swinomish Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes Plan at 12 ldquoAll projects and plans for this area shall require government-to-government consultation with appropriate tribal governments under the State Centennial Accordrdquo Plan at 12

17 Canadian Coal Companies Vying for Export Capacity Coal producers decry Ridley Terminals decision

httpwwwtheglobeandmailcomreport-on-businesscoal-producers-decry-ridley-terminals-decisionarticle1881479

Treck to Increase Investment in BC httpwwwcbccanewscanadabritish-columbiastory20110922teck-bc-expansionhtmlcmp=rss

18 Excess Grain Export Capacity When the terminals done who will supply the grain

httptdncomnewsarticle_674ac426-3128-5863-912f-287af0fbac8ahtml A recent article in Crosscut exhaustively reviewed Washingtonrsquos farm export markets existing capacity for shipping products to Asia and the applicantrsquos claims about whether the Gateway Pacific terminal would likely lead to increased agricultural exports The author concluded that existing capacity exists and no grain export leases have been lined up for Cherry Point

Although the concept of using Gateway Pacific to export farm products would likely be more attractive to terminal critics than coal as long as existing regional ports have adequate capacity shipping agricultural products the extra miles to Cherry Point could prove to be a hard sell We are looking at 10 to 15 years out said Gaibler in terms of additional shipping capacity for grain

Shippers could gain some advantage in price competition if the region adds more capacity but to be competitive Gateway would need to negotiate a lease with a large grain exporter Grain terminals in the Northwest are typically operated by joint ventures of large agri-business firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Bunge North America and United Grain No such agreement appears imminent Watters confirmed SSA Marine wants to present its project as a multiple-commodity port but at this time it is only coal that seems to be a certain customer

httpcrosscutcom20110523agriculture20936Will-agriculture-ease-concerns-about-coal-port-near-Bellingham-one_page

19 Noise and Other Health Impacts From Coal Trains A group of 160 doctors in Whatcom County have

expressed their concerns about the potential public health impacts of the proposal identifying concerns ranging from delays in emergency response times to increases in cardiovascular and respiratory ailments associated with coal train diesel emissions and fugitive coal dust A copy of their signed letter is available at httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf20110618-letter-from-whatcomdocspdf This group of ldquoWhatcom Docsrdquo also published a guest editorial in the Bellingham Herald Physicians Group Concerned About Coal Train Impacts on Whatcom Health at available at httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201106202068113whatcom-view-physicians-grouphtml

Noise impacts are an important concern to local businesses and residential property owners adjacent to the rail line The photograph at the end of this paper shows customers at an Edmonds restaurant covering their ears as a coal train passes by While the occasional train may be bothersome the issue arising from the Gateway project is the degree to which an additional 18 trains per day would undermine the economic viability of waterfront redevelopment including mixed use areas with offices retail and residences

A recent statement by the Whatcom County Health Departmentrsquos Health Officer Greg Stern cites ldquonoise and vibration associated with transport of coalrdquo as one of the questions his department will seek to have answered during the EIS scoping The statement is found in a collection of emails on Whatcom Countyrsquos website for the

project (page 201) httpwwwcowhatcomwauspdsplancurrentgpt-ssapdf2011-07-23-29-gpt-emailspdf The statement is reproduced as the attachment immediately preceding these endnotes 20

SSArsquos Environmental Track Record During public presentations SSArsquos spokesperson Craig Cole has asserted that SSArsquos facility will not damage the fragile eelgrass and herring spawning beds of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve The Reserve is habitat for migrating coho that in turn are food for the Southern Resident

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml

Page 28: Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional ... · Process, Timelines and Issues: Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point, Washington

Process Timelines and Issues Review of the Regional Impacts of a Proposed Coal Export Terminal at Cherry Point WA

September 26 2011 Salish Land Policy Solutions Bellingham WA

28

Population of ORCA killer whales a listed endangered species under the Endangered Species Act In August 2011 SSA was cited by the Department of Ecology Department of Natural Resources and Whatcom County for grading 23000 feet of 17-foot wide roads into the project site through forested wetlands without any permits Ecology DNR and Whatcom County found SSA illegally filled acres of wetlands SSA at first denied the action was illegal later recanting that claim For a copy of the letter from the Department of Ecology declaring this activity to be a violation of the Clean Water Act see httpwwwecywagovgeographicgatewaypacific20110804_PIT_warningletterpdf see also httpwwwbellinghamheraldcom201108042128514ssa-marine-fined-admits-mistakeshtml