process, timelines and issues: review of the regional ... · process, timelines and issues: review...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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
Process Timelines and Issues 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