Negotiations End: Environmental groups walk out of talks over coal export terminal

A coalition of public interest groups end attempts to reach a negotiated settlement with SSA Marine over that company’s plan to build a giant coal and bulk commodity terminal at Cherry Point in Whatcom County. The groups—including the League of Women Voters, Audubon, People for Puget Sound, and Washington Environmental Council—say talks fell apart over details of enforcement, timing of the construction of the port, and uncertainty over the project’s impacts to aquatic wildlife and habitat.

The public interest groups, along with Whatcom County and several state agencies, were parties to a 1999 settlement agreement that permitted a much smaller Cherry Point terminal that would not have handled coal.

SSA Marine’s new terminal would serve predominantly as a coal-export facility, loading the world’s largest ocean-going vessels with Powder River Basin coal bound for markets in Asia. The original permitting process did not address coal dust impacts, increased vessel traffic and terminal capacity, increased rail traffic from the coal trains, or coal’s impact on the global and regional climate.

“The original agreement, signed in 1999, allowed SSA Marine to construct an 8.2 million metric ton bulk commodity export facility at Cherry Point. That agreement imposed rigorous operating conditions to minimize the facility’s negative impacts on Puget Sound,” the groups explained in a press statement.

“SSA Marine’s new proposal is for a terminal with the greatly expanded capacity of 54 million metric tons annually. This new proposal would significantly increase vessel traffic throughout Puget Sound. Unlike the earlier proposal, the new facility would be used almost exclusively to export coal to Asia, a commodity not covered by the company’s existing permit.”

“We’re very disappointed that the environmental groups chose to walk out on the state agencies and SSA Marine in our talks to expand our agreement on extraordinary measures to protect Puget Sound,” said Bob Watters, SSA Marine senior vice president. 

“The result is not that Puget Sound and herring will be unprotected,” he said. “Instead it means that the environmental groups will miss an opportunity to apply current environmental knowledge and practices to their protection—the very state-of-the-art measures that were under final negotiation between the parties in 2011. In fact, the new provisions we had committed to in these negotiations would have been the most protective of any port facility in the state of Washington,” Watters said.

The 1999 agreement required SSA Marine to study the herring population and implement a wide range of measures to minimize the impacts of the facility.

“In the 12 years since our original agreement, SSA Marine has repeatedly failed to follow through on its obligations with respect to herring monitoring and evaluation,” said Dave Peeler, Director of Programs at People For Puget Sound.  “This long history raised serious doubts about SSA Marine’s commitment to protecting Puget Sound under any new agreement.”

Watters noted the company was not ready to build the pier at the time the 1999 permits and approvals were issued.

“Regulatory restrictions and uncertainty kept us from doing most studies in the marine environment during the past 12 years,” Watters explained. “First, in 2000 DNR put in place an aquatic reserve without a management plan, so we did not know whether the project could move forward. DNR did not issue the management plan until November 2010. During that time, DNR denied us permission to conduct some studies, pending completion of the management plan.

“That would have left SSA Marine with the obligation to build the project before knowing it had the right to do so,” Watters said, “something that no business could agree to.”

“Whatcom County is known for its excellent quality of life—its clean air, water, and a community that cares about the health of its neighbors,” said Tanya Baumgart of the League of Women Voters of Bellingham/Whatcom County. “We’re not willing to risk that legacy and the survival of Cherry Point herring on vague promises from SSA Marine that are unsupported by concrete plans or reliable science.”