Agencies Decide to Look at Actual Reality

James Wells develops systems that support energy efficiency incentive programs. He spends his spare time encouraging people to actively participate in the decision about the Gateway Pacific coal terminal.

In the week that took us from July into August, a series of events changed the entire landscape of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) saga. The headliners were these:

The permitting agencies released information about the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be conducted for the GPT permit application.

SSA Marine, the applicant for GPT, agreed to pay $1.65 million to settle a lawsuit brought by local nonprofit Re-Sources over illegal clearing conducted by SSA Marine.

The Lummi Nation provided a formal letter conveying their “unconditional and unequivocal opposition” of the proposed coal terminal.

All this news arrived against a backdrop of declining economic prospects for coal export plans, due to coal prices in Asia dropping from their bubbly highs, as well as glimmerings of hope for limitations on emissions from coal plants in China.

Each of these topics deserves, and will receive, dedicated and detailed coverage (see “SSA Marine Settles Lawsuit with RE Sources,” on the front page of this issue by Crina Hoyer and Matt Krogh; also see “Our Sacred Obligation,” by Jay Julius in the special supplement to this issue). The balance of this article is a very preliminary first look at the EIS Scoping decision.

The EIS is being conducted by three “co-lead” agencies: the federal Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), and Whatcom County Planning and Development Services (PDS). This situation is kind of like when you were a kid, and you got together with two friends to organize your treehouse club. When you couldn’t decide who would be president, you all got to be co-presidents. You each do whatever you want, and if it happens that there is something that two or three of you want to do, like go TP a neighbor’s house, then you just do it.

These agencies (but mostly their contractor CH2M Hill) sifted through the 15,894 distinct EIS scoping comments, read some percent of them (we’ll never know what percent), and put them into stacks by topic. Then each agency decided which items they cared about, with some overlap and a lot of difference between the agencies.

All of the selected items are in the EIS scope but, for some items, only one or only two agencies will look at the result. So when a member of the Army Corps of Engineers, for instance, is considering their permits, they simply skip reading any of the sections not in their scope, no matter how important that content may be. At joint meetings discussing EIS progress, they make sure to put their fingers in their ears and hum loudly to themselves when any out-of-scope topics are being discussed. Catastrophic global warming? Ocean acidification? Mercury floating back over the ocean to our shores? Not their department.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers stuck narrowly to their mission as reformed swamp-fillers. Their focus will be on impacts to the immediate project site, such as effects on wetlands and cultural sites. Their memo contains some remarkable statements that illustrate the confines of their agency thought-boxes. Check this out:

“The combined Gateway Pacific Terminal and Custer Spur is a ‘stand alone’ project and is not a link in any linear or corridor project.”

Who knew that the coal was teleported from the subsurface of Montana to Custer Spur, and again teleported to China after it leaves the terminal? I guess you learn something new every day.

Whatcom County PDS does a somewhat more credible job of considering all the impacts in its line of sight, although their scope of study ends at the county line. Just like the train tracks and the shipping lanes do. And the atmosphere.

Only the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) gets close to recognizing the entire extent of the proposed project. The scope for DOE includes rail and shipping impacts within and beyond the state of Washington, as well as impacts from the combustion of the coal at its destination.

Although DOE is a state agency, the SEPA law that governs the EIS expressly allows for the study of impacts that occur beyond state lines. As noted in the FAQ that accompanies the scoping decision:

“SEPA does not limit its scope to those aspects within the jurisdiction of the lead agency or agencies, including local or state boundaries.”

While the law allows for an inquiry beyond state lines, the interesting question is why the state chose to do so. One clue may come from this snip from the Herald:

Josh Baldi, Ecology’s regional administrator, said his agency has decided to use the full extent of the state’s authority, in consultation with Gov. Jay Inslee. He described Inslee as “comfortable” with Ecology’s decision.

Governor Inslee, well-known as an environmental champion and climate hawk, has previously issued statements calling for a thorough review of the proposed terminal. This may illustrate the fact that, as much as we might imagine that our legal processes follow applicable laws, ultimately it is people like the Governor who make decisions about how and when to apply those laws.

It appears, therefore, that we will get an EIS that covers many of the impacts concerned commenters have asked for. What remains to be seen, of course, is how thoroughly and credibly each of the listed impacts will be studied. The scoping announcement describes the breadth of the EIS scope, but it is silent on the depth.

For example, the DOE scope includes this:

“An assessment of how the project would affect human health in Washington.”

That sounds great — and it is — despite the limitation to Washington State. But which health impacts will be studied? By what methods? Will the agencies consult with experts who have been volunteering their time to study these issues over the past two years? It’s all unknown.

So, even in light of great news on the scope of the EIS, the need for vigilance is unending. We can prepare for the release of the draft EIS in two ways:

Identify impacts that were identified in public comments, but are not in the scope of the EIS. All of these will be deficiencies in the draft EIS.

Identify, to a fine level of granularity, impacts that were identified in the public comments, and that are in the scope as has been broadly identified. Each of these will need to be checked against the draft EIS. Every item that is not covered thoroughly will also become a deficiency.

The public comment period, which is now expected to occur in 2015, may be as brief as thirty days. By the time the draft EIS is released, it will be too late to catalog all of the impacts that should be included — now is the time to start. So, if you have an eye for detail and are motivated to help to protect our environment and future, we need you. There is no better way to make new friends than to help sift through 15,894 distinct EIS scoping comments. Really!

Meanwhile, the community conversation continues and widens. We have at least another two years: to prepare for the draft EIS, to continue to raise awareness of the terminal plans, and also to move forward with far better plans. Two years to bring out the truth of this matter. Two years to breathe freely and to continue to help make Whatcom County the best possible place for ourselves and our children.

All we have ever needed was some time. Now, we have just a bit more of it.

References

• Gateway Pacific Terminal EIS scoping home page: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov

• Press release describing the EIS scope: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/sites/default/files/content/files/EIS-PressRelease-73113.pdf#overlay-context=resources/press-room

• FAQ accompanying the scoping decision http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/sites/default/files/content/files/GPT-%20FAQ%20-7-30-13%20Final_0.pdf#overlay-context=resources/project-library

• US Army Corps of Engineers scoping memo: http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/regulatory/News/SCOPEMFRGATEWAYBNSF.pdf

• Sightline article on the collapse of coal prices in Asia: http://daily.sightline.org/2013/08/06/the-coal-export-bubble

• China’s first steps to limit GHG emissions: http://www.nature.com/news/china-gets-tough-on-carbon-1.13175

• Washington Governor Jay Inslee and Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber letter to the Council for Environmental Quality on coal exports: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132326953/Inslee-Kitzhaber-Letter-to-CEQ

• The Bellingham Herald article quoting DOE spokesperson Josh Baldi: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/07/31/3122406/gateway-pacific-coal-terminal.html