From Stark
The Whatcom County Council’s finance committee has voted 2-1 against a current version of a contract with consultant CH2M Hill to oversee the environmental impact statement process for the Gateway Pacific Terminal coal and bulk cargo shipping pier proposed for Cherry Point.
Committee member Sam Crawford moved for approval of the contract, but Carl Weimer and Ken Mann voted no.
All seven members of the council sat in on the committee discussion, and they made it clear that they have been hearing from many constituents with concerns about the issue. Whatcom County Executive Jack Louws and Planning Manager Tyler Schroeder attempted to address the council’s concerns, but Mann and Weimer, at least, were not convinced.
Council members Barbara Brenner and Pete Kremen also expressed misgivings about provisions of the contract and related documents, and it was not clear whether the contract would be able to get the four votes it needs for passage at tonight’s session of the full council.
That evening discussion appears likely to occur well after The Bellingham Herald’s print deadlines, so I’m forced to follow up on the matter on Wednesday.
The first set of concerns focused on public disclosure. Council members said they wanted assurances that reports prepared by the consultant during the lengthy environmental impact study process are made public as soon as possible. Schroeder and Whatcom County Deputy Prosecutor Royce Buckingham said it was the county’s view that any such reports and materials that CH2M Hill provides to SSA Marine, the Gateway Pacific proponent, would become a public record for everyone to see.
Louws told council he would issue an executive order to county staff, directing them to post such materials on the county’s website as soon as possible.
That seemed to satisfy council members.
But they also raised concerns about the length of time that the public would have to comment on the scope of the study. That time was initially envisioned as 60 days by officials with Whatcom County, the Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers–the three agencies envolved in the process.
But concerned citizens argue that due to the complexity of the issue, 120 days are needed. Schroeder said the agencies are still discussing whether a 120-day comment period might be advisable. Council members Brenner and Kremen said they thought the 120-day period should be added to contract language now. Louws said he and his staff would push for a 120-day comment period, but the other two agencies involved would need to agree.
After Crawford moved to recommend approval of the contract, Weimer said he could not do that because the scope of the environmental study appears to be limited to impacts inside the state of Washington.
“This project is bigger than Washington state,” Weimer said. “Why are we limiting the scope of work to Washington state?”
Weimer also said he thought the project applicants, SSA Marine and BNSF Railway Co., should be obligated to pay a greater portion of the county’s indirect costs of processing their project application. As written, SSA and the railway would pay all direct costs, but their exposure to indirect costs is limited.
Mann expressed misgivings about contract language attempting to limit potential conflicts of interest that CH2M Hill might face, if the giant consulting and engineering firm gets involved with SSA Marine or BNSF Railway Co. on future projects. He said he too was not yet ready to recommend approval.
Thank you Carl Weimer and Ken Mann for your vote.
Council member Weimer is correct, we need to be concerned about the world. Coal burned in China will pollute the air. The ships carrying coal or other goods from Cherry Point will pollute the ocean and life within the waters.
Crawford’s vote is no surprise. Considering that he introduced Larsen’s resolution in support of the GPT please tell me why is he allowed to vote on this?
The Council needs to say No to this contract.
The inevitable scale of indirect costs is one reason why the seven-odd-thousand dollar permit fee is a Joke that doesn’t accurately reflect the work involved.
Beware of inattentive readers on the council and elsewhere when deciphering this contract because their viewpoint can’t be trusted.
Beware also of oral promises to do this or that ‘as soon as possible’ since those are universal Weasel Words that have no legal impact.
Again, what RB says. If the contract provides that SSA will participate in communications or receive information, but is silent as to the public, though I’m not a WA attorney nor am I licensed to practice here, it’s been my experience that courts could conlcude that had the county meant to ensure such participation or disclosures for the public, they would have expressly so provided, just as they did for BNSF. Further, if the intent is to give the public parity with the proponents, why would the public not be guaranteed access to conversations and/or information at the exact same time as the proponents?
John, I don’t think you mentioned this, but it’s my understanding Mr. Louws told the Finance Committee he is under no obligation to obtain the County Council’s approval and he can sign the contract without their approval given that he is not committing public funds. Given that one of the issues raised by the public and the CC is the contract’s inadequate provision of reimbursement for indirect costs — which over the course of the next 2-5 years could reasonably foreseeably amass to the hundreds of thousands of dollars– does anyone have an opinion as to whether Mr. Louws is correct?
“BNSF” was a Freudian slip. I meant “the proponents.”
Having been raised in COAL COUNTRY in SW Virginia and seeing the effects of coal dust, it is my opinion every coal car should have a cover on it to retain the coal dust. My mother drew from a BLACK LUNG fund right up until she passed away. My father was a pipe fitter in the mines. So, I do have some experience with what coal can do and it does need to be contained and the requirements need to put in place from the beginning. I have no doubt that this will be pushed through our system and and we will have more coal trains in the future.
Word is, Gary, that Black Lung is only contractible in the mines.
Just sayin’…
Let me understand this now…
We have failed to stop all shipping because more than fifty percent of our goods come from some other country, including the food we eat collectively. Most people do not have horses in their driveway. It takes a certain amount of resources to produce vehicles, buses, motorcycles, and even bicycles, but they are still allowed to be produced and collectively we all for the most part use them to some degree. I do not see picket signs trying to prevent cars, trucks, etc from being built… Do they not impact the world’s environment? Should anyone prefer to walk, then that is their choice. Look around though, there are few people walking.
Yes, use the excuse that their is public transpotation, that is funded by taxes, because it just does not pencil out on it’s own.
Some vocal people want to force me to participate in their way of thinking or their idea of what should be, we are going to attempt to derail a project that will move forward in some fashion or another. It may be done somewhere else, but (coal will be shipped from the US to other countries) it will move forward. We want to pretend or blame every wrong of the world on a project that isn’t even started yet…
Some people think, “I would like to consume my imported wine (to heck with how it got here) from my deck overlooking the beautiful Bellingham Bay and impede progress and important jobs wanted and needed” (Why did you not complain about the resources it took to get that imported wine to you. Why did you not elect to prevent those ships from Europe and other countries from bringing you your wine?”).
I appreciate people being honest and up front… No more growth, I have mine, no one else should and I will prevent them from getting theirs any possible way that I can…
To those of you whom think you have the right to tell over five thousand families, you shouldn’t have a job, “shame on you… shame on you, and again I say, “shame on you”. You have no right, just as I have no right to tell you, you should not have the right to making a decent good paying living for you and your family at whatever job you have because it might contribute to the world in a negative fashion in someway or another… For you can rest assured that over 87% of the jobs have negative impacts to the environment in some way or another…
I can only suggest one thing… Build it… Build it now… Build more businesses that create jobs in the Pacific Northwest for the good of those wanting good wage earning jobs…
Why is there no mention of a review of this contract by an attorney representing the interests of the people of Whatcom County?
Sam Crawford told me that he didn’t know why people can’t wait until the permit is submitted and the public discussion period opens to make up our minds about the project. I thought about it and called him back and left a message saying that the reason that we couldn’t wait until the scoping period to make up our minds is because so many of the politicians, who are supposed to represent us didn’t wait. We had no choice.
Right now, I’d say that there are three firm votes for the terminal and two no votes and two maybes. Barbara Brenner hates to be pressured by the other council members, so she’s one of the maybes and the other is Kremen, who seemed to be sold on the project early on.
It’s all a matter of guessing, though.
Boudou, that is an excellent question. Further, on the record is my recommendation to the county council to take no action on the contract until they confer with counsel with specialized knowledge: ECOL and their advisors, the State AG’s office. Given that planning couldn’t answer the simplest question from BB about what happens if, when county council is asked to make a determination based on “the record”, they believe the record is inadequate (it depends, but generally, I believe the answer is accept the HO’s opinion, send back to HO for additional findings, or hold their own hearing for findings), wouldn’t yah think they would have realized they didn’t have adequate information to approve a contract of this magnitude?
From the article: “Weimer also said he thought the project applicants, SSA Marine and BNSF Railway Co., should be obligated to pay a greater portion of the county’s indirect costs of processing their project application. As written, SSA and the railway would pay all direct costs, but their exposure to indirect costs is limited.”
Since SSA Marine and BNSF Railway want to slip the indirect costs for the EIS, doesn’t it naturally follow they will try to slip the indirect costs for their project – leaving the citizens of Whatcom County to pay the indirect costs for the coal terminal?
SSA Marine and BNSF made a bad business decision by being cheap in the first stages.
John – did the council address amending the contract so that the public does not subsidize this project? It is important to me that my tax money not underwrite the project costs of private industry.
I have heard that public works and planning have put significant staff time into this. Will the county (i.e. the taxpayers) be reimbursed?
Having worked for over 20 years in heavy industry around coke and coal dust, and knowing quite a bit about the transport of such materials, I can tell you that rail cars transporting coal is NOT going to have adverse health effects on people. Nor is it an environmental concern. The coal is already being transported through our county today and there are no signs of these problems that I’m aware of. There is not any evidence of significant coal dust around the railway. If there is evidence, maybe someone could point it out so that I can witness it for myself.
We approved the contract 7-0. The people who testified had some excellent suggestions. We incorporated those ideas, improved the contract, and approved it. Democracy in action!
Ken, thanks for hearing and addressing the concerns. ANd thanks for all the work you and the rest of the Council put into this.