[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal Zons information Center @j 3@: A 77 A IL H E 554 .A6 P68 1 982 c.2 4 -,Y Zq Potential Coal Export Facilities in Washington An Environmental ImpactAnalysis Washington Public Ports Association CZIC collecun L HE 555 4 .A6 ?68 " 982 @ociation with: Reid, Middleton mid Associates, Inc. W11liams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc. POTENTIAL COAL EXPORT FACILITIES IN WASHINGTO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS CZIC coffection. A Study Conducted By:. Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. in association with: Reid, Middleton and Associates, Inc. Williams- Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc. U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 For the: Washington Public Ports Association Washington Department of Ecology This document was financed by a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology with funds of the National Oceanic. and Atmospheric Administration, and appropriated for Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. October 1982 r -1 ry WASHINGTON PUBLIC PORTS ASSOCIATION Post Off ice Box 1518 Olympia, Washington 98507 Telephone (206) 943-0760 OFFICERS FOR 1982 - 1983 John.H. Stevens Grays Harbor .......... President Ralph G. Nolte Longview .,,,.Vice President John J. McLaughlin - Pend Oreille ....... Secretary Douglas P. Edison - Olympia ............. Treasurer L. T. Pepin - Walla Walla .......... Past-President STAFF Lewis R. Holcomb, Executive Director Donald R.White, Assistant Director Robin F. Torner, Information Officer A. R. (Sue) Johnson, Office Manager Patricia A. Shultz, Secretary Kenneth R. Ahlf, Counsel COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Stanley Lattin, Port of Grays Harbor, Chairman Harry Winder, Port of Everett, Vice-Chairman Arthur Yoshioka, Port of Seattle Ken Kirkland, Port of Anacortes Hugh Wilson, Port of Bellingham William Ryan, Port of Skagit County Paul Vick, Port of Port Angeles Herb Effroni, Port of Bremerton George Yount, Port of Port Townsend Gary Kucinski, Port of Tacoma Douglas Edison, Port of Olympia Marshall Briggs, Port of Willapa Harbor Robert Petersen, Port of Ilwaco John Fratt, Port of Kalama Robert McNannay, Port of Longview Larry Hendrickson, Port of Skamania County Benson Murphy, Port.of Vancouver Jack Israel, Port of Camas-Washougal .Bill Hemingway, Port of Klickitat County No. 1 Dean Rainwater, Port of Woodland Richard Harris, Port of Chelan County Dean Hagerty, Port of Moses Lake James Keane, Port of Pasco Sue Watkins, Port of Kennewick Jay Holman, Port of Benton , James Beddow, Port of Walla Walla William Behrens, Port of Clarkston ADDITIONAL STUDY PARTICIPANTS John Anderson, Department of Commerce & Economic Development. Frank Urabeck, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Frank Huxtable, Maritime Administration Nancy Nelson and David Stout, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mary Lou Mills, Department of Fisheries John DeMeyer, Department of Natural Resources Joe Williams, Department of Ecology Dave Gufler, Department of Game OBSERVERS Leona Thomas, Washington Environmental Council Harry Kemery, Lone Star Industries Dale Moss, Tulalip Tribal Council Nancy Pearson, League of Women Voters STUDY TEAM Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. Richard E. Warren, Project Manager Gary W. Harshman, Project Leader Dorr Anderson Roberta A. Johnson Margaret Arevalo Gretchen K. Leslie Patricia J. Asper George Mitacek Vicki L. Berger John C. McGlenn Kristi Farley Karen J. Pike Martha E. Grasso Monica L..Sanchez Shirley M. Hume Reid, Middleton and Associates, Inc. Jerrold K. Hann. John 0. Olsen Williams - K,uebelbeck and Associates,, Inc. Gregory R. Easton Patricia.M. Englin Others Ogden Beeman, Ogden Beeman & Associates Render D. Denson, Applied Environmental Consultants Skip W. Urling, Independent Consultant TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures iv Glossary of Acro%ms vi I. STUDY SUMMARY 1-1 Introduction 1-1 Background 1-1 Study Scope 1-2 Study Results 1-2 STEAM COAL MARKET SHARE 2-1 Introduction 2-1 Summary 2-1 Evaluation of Other Studies 2-3 West Coast Coal Terminals 2-8 Forecasts of Western United States Steam Coal Exports 2-9 III. TRANSPORTATION MODES AND ROUTES 3-1 Railroad Transportation 3-1 Burlington Northern, Inc. 3-1 Union.Pacific Railroad 3-2 Rail Traffic and Routes 3-2 On-line Conmunities . 3-3 Railroad Access to Potential Coal PortSites 3-4 Enviromental Issues Associated with Rail Transport 3-9 Slurry Pipeline 3-10 Barge Transportation 3-11 IV. PORT FACILITY CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS 4-1 V. PRYSICAL SITE REQUIREMENTS 5-1 Facility Component Requirements 5-1 Permit and Approval Requirements 5-6 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL 6-1 Introduction 6-1 Potential Impact Issues 6-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) VII. SITE-SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS 7-1 VIII. 124PACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES 8-1 Introduction 8-1 Siting Measures 3-1 Design and Operation Measures 8-3 Mitigation Measures 8-5 Economic Evaluation Summary of Impact Avoidance 8-5 References Appendices A. Detailed Economic Analysis of Impact Avoidance Measures A-1 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page I Forecasts of Western United States Steam Coal Exports 2-3 2 Western United States Steam Coal Exports 2-4 3 West Coast Coal Export Studies Major Assumptions - Steam Coal Only 2-6 4 pacific Rim Total import Demand for Steam Coal by Country 2-8 5 Planned Coal Tozminals in United States and Canadian West Coast 2-10 6 Potential West Coast Terminal Sites 2-11 7 Forecasts for Western United States Steam Coal Exports 2-14 8 Washington Communities on Principal Rail Routes 3-5 9 Coal por,@.Capacity Requirements Basic Assumptions 5-2 10 Coal Port Design Alternatives 5-6 11 Typical Coal Port Permit Requirements 5-8 12 Centralia Steam Plant NPDES Permit Requirements 5-10 13 Cheackli st Model Potential Impacts 6-2 14 SuTimary of Potential and Actual Particulate Emissions at 15 Million Tons per Year Located at Kalama, Washington 6-4 15 Potential Pollutant Mass Concentration in Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions 6-5 16 Expected Pollutant Concentrations in Coal Pile Leachate 6-7 17 Potential Taxes on Coal Facility 6-14 18 Impact Avoidance Measures 8-2 19 Coal Port Runoff Treatment Elements 8-4 20 Summary of Impact Avoidance Costs 8-7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No Title Follows Page 1 System Sumary Step Matrix 1-2 2 Rail Transport Routes to W Ports 3-2 3A Coal Train Traffic and Routes Northern Puget Sound 3-4 3B, Coal Train Traffic and Routes Southern Puget sound and Grays Harbor 3-4 3C Coal Train Traffic and Routes Kalama/ Vancouver Sites 3-4 4 Schematic of Slurry Pipeline System 3-10 5 Canponent 1: Ship size and Frequency 4-2 6 Component 2: Ship/Apron Transfer Capability 4-2 7 Canponent 5: Inland Transfer Processing 4-2 8 Component 6: Inland Transport Unit Processing Capability 4-2 9 General Flow Schematic 5-2 10 Snall Port Configuration 5-2 11 Large Port Configuration 5-2 12 Critical Path - Pennit Preparation and Processing 5-8 13 Locations of Specific Ports Profiled 7-2 14 Cherry Point Terminal Site 7-3 15 Anacortes Terminal Site 7-6 16 Tulalip Terminal Site 7-9 17 Steilacoan Tbrminal Site 7-12 18 Grays Harbor Terminal Site 7-15 19 Kalarna Terminal Site 7-18 20 Vancouver Terminal Site 7-21 iv LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 21 Potential Impact Issues/Impact Avoidance Measures Matrix 8-2 22 Total Cost of Coal 8-6 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS BACT - best available control technology BNRR - Burlington Northern Railroad CPSEDD - Central Puget Sound Economic Development District DOE - Washington Department of Ecology DSHS - Washington Department of Social and Health Services FWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ICE - Interagency Coal Export Task Force MarAd - U.S. Maritime Administration MLLW - mean lower low water MSL mean sea level NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act NMFS - National marine Fisheries Service NPDES - National Pollution Discharge 'Elimination System SEPA - State Environmental Policy Act SPCC - Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan UPRR - Union Pacific Railroad WESTPO - Western Governors' Policy Office WCF - Washington Department of Fisheries WDG - Washington Department of Ganne WOCOL - World Coal Study WPPA - Washington Public Ports Association I. STUDY SUMKM Introduction This study, sponsored by the Washington Public Ports Association and the State Department of Ecology, was designed to pranote responsible and informed decision-making by state and local agencies, ports and project sponsors, and to enhance understanding for all persons interested in the issue of coal export planning and development in Washington state. Study activities involved a coordinated research effort, primarily using existing information, to characterize: (1) coal export activities as they are likely to occur; (2) major transportational issues associated with these coal port activities; (3) export facility site requirements; (4) environmental impacts and issues raised by this type of development; (5) prospective port sites; and (6) potential impact avoidance measures. This project provided a unique opportunity for regulatory agency and port management representatives to formulate a consensus of important environ- mental issues related to coal port development. As the study progressed, a basis of ccmmon understanding evolved as to those potential impacts which would have to be addressed and reviewed in detail for any proposed coal port project in the state. Background The dwindling prospects for any substantial increase in the supply of oil at acceptable prices is a primary reason for the increased importance of and attention given to coal. Even with the most optimistic forecasts for the expansion of nuclear power and the aggressive development of all other energy sources, as well as vigorous conservation, it is clear that coal has a vitally important part to play in the world's energy future. Recent studies and reports indicate a need to develop the capacity of west coast ports for. the transshipment and export of large quantities of coal over the next 10 to 20 years. Information fran these and other recent studies was used as part of this report. 0 A draft U.S. Department of Energy study discussed in Bulk Systems, May 1980, predicts export levels of 24.5 million tons by 1990. In addition,increases in domestic consumption during the same time period are expected to involve an unknown degree of coastal trans- shipping which will add to port capacity needs. 0 More recently, the U.S. Department of Energy's 1981 Interagency Coal Export Task Force Interim Report states that Asian steam coal imports could amount to 90 million tons by the year 1990. Japan could account for more than half this total demand. o The 1982 Western Coal Export Task Force - Pacific Basin Stem Coal Export Study predicts that coal consumption by the Pacific rim nations of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will total close to 60 million tons by 1985. By 1990, western U.S. coal may comprise as much as one-quarter.of approximately 100 million tons of far east coal demand. much as one-quarter of approximately 100 million tons of far east coal demand. Development of export facilities in Washington state.is.consistent with the national purpose and need for coal export capacity. Further, this kind of development helps to promote a larger national goal for shifting the global energy econany more away fran the petroleum-producing nations and more toward the U.S. and its resources. Study Scope The guiding methodology for this project included the following study ele- ments: o Identification of typical coal facility components 0 Identification of typical coal facility operations 0 A projection of potential impacts resulting from facility construc- tion and operation 0 Identification of practical, impact avoidance measures The step matrix presented in Figure 1 provides an overview of the relation- =ments. Specific facility components are listed ship between these study elr and matched up by dots in Matrix 1 to facility operations necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of a coal export facility. Matrix 2 shows how the different facility operations give rise to specific issues of potential environmental impact. These potential impact issues are matched in Matrix 3 to an array of applicable impact avoidance measures. The pur- pose of this.step matrix is not only to illustrate the cause and effect relationship between project implementation and subsequent ecological and social impacts and impact avoidance measures but to also help identify for the decision-maker those specific resources and environmental factors of most concern with respect to a possible development site. Alternatively, the affect of specific impact avoidance measures on facility operations and components can also be determined. The geographical scope of this study included all port areas in Washington state and major existing and potential transportation routes servicing these port areas. Although specific ports wereanalyzed (e.g., Cherry Point, Anacortes, Tulalip, Seattle, Tacoma, Steilacoan, Grays Harbor, Kalama,, Vancouver, and others), the method of impact analysis formulated during the project, and docunented in the study report, is applicable to any aspiring port area in Washington state. Stygy Results The initial task of this study was to identify the likely share of U.S. coal exports to move through Washington ports. This effort centered around a review of recent national, regional and local studies. This included infor-. mation fran the 1980 Port Systems Study, the 1981 U.S. Department of. Energy's Interagency Z!oal Export Task Force Interim Report, and the 1982 Pacific Basin Stearn Coal Export Study, among other documents. 1-2 Figd'ri 1 SYSTEM SUMM @'RY STEP MATRIX A FACILITY COMPONENTS RAIL TRANSPORT ROUTES RAIL ACCESS -NLOADING SYSTEM mw 7 CONVEYORS/MATERIAL HANDLING uPLAND STORAGE COLLIER BERTHS - - ----- 7 TURNING/MANEUVERING EIASIN OR CHANNEL I SLURRY PIPELINE qr BARGE TRANSPORT z 0 z 0 u < t@ < z 0 < z - 0:2 z z 0 - w 0 o z z 0 z @z cc Z o w z 0 Z Z Z 0 z z z :5 0 o a 69 z 0 z z 0 z z Fr tj ;: 4 < 2 1- 9 z 0 0 Z z Z, 0 0 > z 0 z -Z -c 0 w I I- Z .5 z c > > POTENTIAL IMPACT HI&M z a z 0 4 0 0 oD IT 4 0- a 0 (3 a m 1- ou u > 2 D EARTH CHANGES TO LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY mr Jill SURFACE COMPACTION ALTERATION OF LONGSHORE TRANSPORT I f AIR ELEVATED DUST EMISSIONS EM SSIONS FROM SHI IPS. TRAINS AND 7T 0 HER VEHICLES 7 WATER MODIFICATION OF HYDROLOGIC REGIMES----------------i ELEVATED LEVELS OF RUNOFF DEGRADATION OF ADJACENT SURFACE I WATERS BY WINDBLOWN DUST 0 0 40"A INCREASED TURBIDITY DUE TO DREDGING /DISPOSAL FLORA AND FAIN" DEGRADATION OF ADJACENT WETLAND HABITAT CEGRADAT:ON OF ADJACENT AQUATIC HABITAT DEGRADAT ON OF ADJACENT TERRESTRIAL HABITAT IF DISRUPTION OF CORRIDORS AND FISH MIGRATORY I T J. 7 PATHWAYS RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES IMPACTS OTHER NOISE POLLUTION Ah I T i L H A I N ALTERATION OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - POTENTIAL FOR ONSITE ACCIDENTS r- POTENTIAL FOR SHIP ACCIDENTS TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT GRADE CROSSINGS :NCREASED DEMAND FOR PUBLIC SERVICES qw NCREASED DEMAND FOR UTILITIES AESTHETIC IMPACT 0 D:SRUPT:ON OF PECREATIONAUCOMMERCIAL FISHING h D SRUPT ON OF GENERAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVIT11 S ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS COMPETING USES FOR LAND AND SHORELINE 1z z z u 0 > 0 T z t >- F- a z z 0 m 0 z T z oz 3: z 1- z z 0 4 , 2 0 2 < z If < , z 0 t 0 z o u z < mo 3; z z 0 Z) LL D cc Z@ 0 1 01 0> Z- z .2 - - ! X, mz @u zo Z< o 0 1 0 @z C->) z z z z T FISH IN G 'V'TIES FACTS E Z. z z Z > o a L) 0 4 z <4 < 0 z z 0 0 c e@ 0 0 u 0 > z z 1- z 0 0 < 0 xo -1 0 0 14 @z > Z cy t E@ z z vi U, u Z - 5 1 - , =K 4 -< 0 > , x a i E , > Z z z D > Z-- o > 0 Z- aw 1:3 mo 0 oz oz 0 0 cu zz OD <> The primary market for western U.S. coal is acknowledged to be Pacific rim nations. Asian countries are expected to increase their demand for coal at a rate of 14.3 percent per year through the year 2000.as these countries seek to replace petroleum for electrical generation and other uses. Japant in particular, seeks to secure coal sources in Australia, Canada, China, and the U.S. to avoid excessive concentration of supply with a single source. Thus, the U.S. share is likely to be a specified percentage of total Asian demand. Based upon analyses of assumptions used in past projections combined with considerations of current econanic conservatism and a resulting softening of the present coal market: 0 Pacific Northwest exports are anticipated to be in the range of 30 million tons per year by the year 2000. This represents an anticipated 70 percent share of all west coast exports. An examination of prospective transportation modes and routes for this coal was also included in this study. Although barge transport and slurry pipelines are addressed, the major.focus has been on rail transport. Although some alternate and overflow lines exist, the major routes for coal transport include: � The Stevens Pass line via Wenatchee to Everett which is the primary route for traffic destined for stops north of Tacoma. � The Columbia River line via Tri-Cities to Vancouver which carries rail traffic destined for sites south of Tacoma. An analysis of physical site requirements included a determination of state- wide marine tenninal facility requirements necessary to meet the market demands assessed at the outset of this study. Utilizing the Mand method- ology for capacity determinations, a series of charts was developed which illustrates relationships between coal throughput volumes and sizes of critical facility ccmponents. This evaluation covers the basic physical requirements of a major coal export facility including: number and size of berths; land requirements; water channel and berthing depths; rail and truck access; material handling and storage. Based upon the market share, physical site requirements analyses and sizes of proposed facilities: 0 The capacity requirement for the northwest (all Washington State ports and Oregon ports along the Columbia River) is on the order of two to three coal port facilities. The exact number and location of these ports will ultimately depend upon identification of specific customers and establisftnent of long-term contracts. 1-3 Scenarios were developed to describe and illustrate the typical layout and facility ccrnponents.of both large and small sizes of facilities (see Figures 10 and 11). These scenarios lay the groundwork from which a model of environmental impact was developed. The impact model presented in this study includes all critical elements of the physical, biological and socio-econanic environments. This checklist appears in Figure I as the list of potential impact issues. Specific sites in the state of Washington were evaluated in relation.to the generic impact model. These sites include: Cherry Point, Anacortes, Tulalip, Steilacoan (Lone Star), Grays Harbor, Kalana and Vancouver. Detailed profiles.on each of .these sites.generally described: � The proposed project development � Site location and capacity 0 The setting at and around the site � Area, land use designations � Public facility requirements � Constraints to development � Development opportunities This infotmation was developed from data supplied by the individual ports involved, data available to the KCM team fran previous port studies, and data from other existing published documents and reports. Work also included one on-site-work session at each prospective port to verify and refine site data discussed above. These site-specific evaluations also included an analysis of critical environmental issues associated with each site. Specific impact avoidance measures (those listed in Figure 1) were evaluated in response to specific impacts identified. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of these measures was also presented, and cheaper alternatives for impact avoidance were identified where possible. Most impact avoidance measures have a very small effect on the total cost of coal. However, restriction of facility operations and enclosure of coal piles appear to be major factors which could affect the ultimate financial feasibility of one coal port site over another Appendix A provides a detailed discussion of the econanics of impact av;idance. It is the conclusion of this,study that environmentally acceptable coal export facilities can be developed in the state of TAbshington within the context of the anticipated market share for the Pacific Northwest. Although the nunber and location of these facilities will depend.upon the nature of specific signed contracts, avoidance of unacceptable environmental impact can be accanplished through prudent siting of facilities, effective design and operational measures and direct mitigation activities. 1-4 II. STEAM COAL MhRKET SHARE ANALYSIS Introduction This discussion presents an overview of current market conditions for steam coal exports to Pacific rim countries (Japan,.Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and the Philippines). The purpose of the market analysis is not to develop new forecasts of west coast and Washington state coal exports, but rather to evaluate assumptions in the several studies that have been done and to recommend the most probable export levels in future years. A distinction.is made in the previous studies between steam coal, which is used in the generation of electricity, and metallurgical coal, a higher- grade coal used in the production of steel. Only steam coal exports are considered in this market study, since most coal mined in the Rocky Mountain states and shipped to Pacific rim countries through west coast ports does not possess enough heat energy potentialto be classified as metallurgical coal. The remainder of this chapter details the market share analysis and is organized in three additional sections: � Evaluation of Other Studies 0 West Coast Coal Terminals � Forecasts of Western United States Steam Coal Exports Summary Several studies have looked at west coast steam coal markets in great detail. They include: 1. 1980.Port System SLudy, conducted by the Washington Public Ports Association in 1980. 2. Coal - Bridge to the Future, a report of.the World Coal Study, directed by MIT. Ccmpleted in 1980. 3. Interim Report of the Interagency Coal Export Task Force (ICE Study), prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy, published in January 1981 4. Western Coal Exports Final Report, a six-volunae report completed for the Western Governors' Policy office (WESTPO)* in December 1981. 5. Puget Sound Coal Export Opportunities and Issues, a.Central Puget Sound Economic Development District (CPSEDD) publication, printed in February 1982. TheWESTPO Study brought together coal producers, railroads, ports, port developers, foreign buyers, and the western governors to study and foster long-terim, large-volune.steam coal exports to Pacific rim markets. 27-1 Using these studies as a starting point, reccmmended forecasts for steam coal exports were developed (see Table 3). Key assumptions in.the forecasts were: 0 Electrical energy demand growth rates in Pacific rim countries will be 6 percent per year in Japan and Taiwan, and 10 percent per year in the Republic of Korea and other. Pacific rim countries. 0 Coal-generated electricity will provide between 7 and 25 percent of new energy in Pacific rim countries. 0 The western U.S market share of far east steam coal imports. will be approximately 14 percent in 1985, increasing to 20 percent in the year 2000. 0 Pacific northwest ports are expected to export 40 percent of all U.S. west coast (including Alaska) steam coal in 1985y increasing to approximately 70 percent of all exports in the year 2000. Pacific northwest ports include all Washington state ports and Columbia River ports in Oregon and Washington. 0 Total Pacific rim steam coal demand is assumed to be: Millions-of Short Tons 1985 55.0 1990 105.0 1995 150.0 2000 207.5 Based on these assumptions, study forecasts of steam coal exports are sum- marized in Table 1. As shown, present U.S. steam coal exports of about 5 million short tons per yearare expected to increase to 41.5 million short tons in the year 2000. Pacific northwest coal exports are forecast to total about.30 million short tons per year by the year 2000. The sensitivity of these forecasts is highly dependent on the accuracy of electrical demand growth rates in Pacific rim countries, the role of nuclear I I energy in these countries, @nd the need by far east countries to diversity and stabilize their coal suppliers. In addition, it is likely that there will be a short-term delay of planned west coast coal terminals due to lower oil prices, which have slowed.conver- ,sion of oil-run industrial plants, decreased South African coal prices, and a general slow-down in the far east econcmy, which has reduced overall industrial energy demand. 2-2 TABLE 1 FORECASTS OF WESTERN UNITED STATES STEAM COAL EXPORTS (Millions of Short Tons) U.S. West Coast Pacific Northwest Present 5.0 0 1985 7.5 3.0 1990 18.5 9.0 1995 30.0 18.0 2000 41.5 30.0 These forecasts cannot take into account individual contracts between west coast ports and Pacific rim buyers, which can greatly vary the origin and amount of steam coal exports. As a result, the market analysis only gives a general indication of Pacific rim demand. Evaluation of Other Studies This discussion sunnarizes projections from recent coal studies, as well as the assunptions supporting those projections. Review of each of the studies cited is recara enciM for a more complete examination of potential west coast steam coal exports. Comparison of Projections Current steam coal exports from the U.S. west coast total approximately 5 million tons, primarily from ports in Long Beach and Los Angeles. Another I to 2 million tons of steam coal were shipped to Pacific rim-countries from western Canada last year. The remainder of Canadian coal exports, shipped through British Colunbia, consisted of metallurgical coal. Projections of western U.S. steam coal exports (in short tons) are presented in Table 2. As shown, five major studies made forecasts between 1980 and 1982. most of the later studies expanded upon the previous reports. As a result, the more recent studies, especially the WESTPO report, are more comprehensive and also more likely to be accurate. 1985 projections vary significantly, from 4.8 million tons annually (World Coal Study) to 9.8 million tons (CPSEDD). The result is a wide variance in year 2000 projections, fran 35.1 million tons annually (ICE Study) to 48 million tons (World Coal Study). 2-3 TABLE 2. WESTERN UNITED STATES STEAM COAL EXPORTS (Comparison of Projections) .Millions of Short Tons per Year Projected 1985 1 990 1995 2000 1. Puget Sound Coal Export Opportunities 9-.8 23.9 33.9 46.6 and Issues Central Puget Sound Fconanic Development District (CPSEDD) 1982 2. Western Coal Exports Final E222rt - 8.4 19.9 31.5 43.0 Western Governors' Policy ottice (WESTPO) 1982 3. Interim Report - U.S. Interagency 5.1 11.7 23.4 35.1 Coal Export Task Force (ICE) 1981 4. Coal - Bridge to the Future - World 4.8 17.5 32.8 48.0 Coal Study 1980 5. .1980 Port System Stu Washington 8.1 17.7 25.9 43.8 Public ts Association (WETA) 1980 sources: CPSEDD WESTPO ICE World Coal Study WPPA 2-4 Major Assumptions Several key assumptions are used in these other studies in forecasting Pacific northwest coal exports including (1) future electrical energy con- sumPtion growth in Pacific rim countries, (2) coal as a share of new energy growth, .(3) western U.S. share of the far east steam coal market. Table 3 presents a summary of assumptions.from each of the studies previously men- tioned. Each assumption is described in more detail below. It should be noted that, since the scope of each study differs, all of the assumptions are not dealt with explicitly. 0 Future Electrical Energy Consumption Growth in Pacific Rim Countries An important base assumption included in all of the studies is the potential need for steam coal to fuel electrical generating plants in Pacific rim countries. This need for electricity is determined by the projected growth rate of electrical energy consumption in these countries. As shown previously in Table 3, the growth rate between 1985 and 2000 ranges between 3 and 11 percent per year. However, more recent studies have used 6 percent annual growth in Japan and Taiwan and 10 percent growth in Korea and other Pacific rim nations. Since these latter estimated growth rates were forecast by groups within the particular Pacific rim countries in the last year, these projections are considered to bethe most accurate at this time. 0 Coal as a Share of New Energy New energy demands in the Pacific rim countries will likely be met by a combination of coal, nuclear, liquified natural gas (LNG), oil, hydroelectric, geothermal, and solar energy. Because of fluctua- tions in oil prices and public resistance to nuclear energy, coal is projected to be one of the most important sources of new energy in these countries. Three of the studies projected coal's share of new energy to be between 6 and 27 percent (see Table 3). Since coal's market share is related directly to nuclear energy growth, forecasts of nuclear's share of new energy are also included in Table 3. The World Coal Study projects nuclear power to provide for almost all of Japan's new energy demands; however, WESTPO predicts nuclear's share to be a bit lower, at 20 to 40 percent. At this time, WESTPO's estimates appear to be more accurate, but any projections of nuclear energy growth are uncertain because of growing problems with nuclear plants, including potential safety hazards and the long lead time required to build a nuclear plant. If nuclear energy becomes less acceptable, coal-fired electricity plants are expected to meet most of the additional electricity demand. 2-5 TABLE 3 WEST COAST COAL EXPORT STUDIES Major Assumptions --'Steam Coal Only Future Electrical Energy Consumption Growth in Pacific Coal as a Share Nuclear as- a Share Average BTU's Pacific NW Share Rim Countries of New Energy-- Western U.S. Share of New Energy-- Per Pound of West Coast Name of Study IM-2000 Pacific Rim of Far East Market Pacific Rim of Coal Coal Market Central Puget 6.0% per year 25% 16-19% 35% 10,800 401-1985 60%-1995 Sond EDD 50 -1990 70%-2000 CH2M-Ilill (Feb. 1982) WPPA Study 10.9% per year No forecast 8-19% No forecast No forecast 53%-1985 58%-1995 (Nov. 1980) 53%-1990 70%-2000 interagency 3.9-3% per year No forecast 0-25% No forecast 12,600 No forecast Coal Export Study (Jan. 1981) World Coal 4.0-4.5% per year 6-17% 10-25% 50-75% No forecast No forecast StUdy MIT (Japan only) (1980) WESTPO Study 6% per year-Japan 7-27% 25-30% 20-40% No foecast Unavailable (1982) Ta iwan 10% per year-Rep.of Ko rea 0 Western United States Share of Fa r East Market Another very important assumption in all of the coal studies.has been the western U.S. share of the Pacific rim steam coal market. Chief suppliers of metallurgical coal to Pacific rim countries include Australia, the United Statest Canada, and to a lesser extent, South Africa, the Soviet Union, Poland, and China. As noted in the ICE Report, it appears likely that the major sup- pliers of -metallurgical coal will also'be suppliers of stean coal. Sane countries are expected to play an increased role in the steam coal market, like China and South Africa, while others will most likely decrease their coal exports to Pacific rim countries, includ- ing Poland and the Soviet Union. Since large supplies of stean coal are available in the western interior states of Colorado, Utah, Wyaningi and M@ntana, it can be expected that almost all steam coal exports to the far east will be routed through west coast ports. Thus, the projected U.S. share of Pacific rim countries' stemm coal imports will be almost equal to the west coast share. Most of the coal studies have assumed the west coast share of the far east market will increase to between 19 and 30 percent by the year 2000. However, this projection can also vary according to worldwide coal prices and the extent to which the Pacific rim countries feel a need to diversify their stean coal suppliers. 0 Pacific Northwest Share of West Coast Coal Market only the CPSEDD Study and the WPPA Study forecast a potential market share of steam coal export's for Pacific northwest ports. It is generally assumed in most of the other studies that steam coal exports in the 1980s will be from California ports because of their proximity.to Colorado-Utab coal, which has a relatively high heat content. However, Wycming-Montana steam coal, which is more plenti- ful but with a lower heat content, will likely flow through Pacific northwest ports to the far east in the 1990s. Both studies assumed an increasing share of steam coal exports for Pacific northwest ports as time progresses, up to a 70 percent market share in the year 2000, since Washington state ports are generally closer to Pacific rim markets. The Pacific northwest share includes Columbia River ports in both Washington and Oregon. Market shares to specific ports are not forecast in this study because of the high level of uncertainty involved in making these forecasts. 0 Projections of Pacific Rim Steam. Coal Demand The WESTPOStudy provides detailed estimates of Pacific rim demand for steam coal. Table 4 summarizes these estimates, by country. These estimates include steam coal dEmand from the electric power industry, as well as cement, steel, iron, and other industries. The scope of this,study does not allow for a detailed analysis of these 2-7 numbers,, but extensive discussions of these forecasts are contained in both the WESTPO and the CPSEDD Studies. TABLE, 4 PACIFIC RIM TOTAL IMPORT DEMAND FOR STEAM COAL BY COUNTRY (Millions of Tons) Pacific Rim Country 1981 1985 1990. 1995 2000 Japan 16.2 30.9 62 7 83.3 9-7.8 Taiwan 4.3 12.7 24:3 35.7 62.7 Korea 1.5 11.9 13.4 27.2 34.7 Other 0.5 7.2 16.4 28.6 TOTAL 22.5 62.7 121.8 174.8 237.9 Sources: WESTPO CPSEDD West Coast Coal Terminals As the potential steam coal market in Pacific rim countries becomes more publicized, so do plans for coal terminals at many of the ports on the west coast. Development of specific facilities will affect the demand for facilities at other sites. What is clear at this time, however, is that planned coal terminal capacities are almost double the projected steam coal exports fran the west coast in the year 2000. Planned coal terminals, as well as proposed sites, are discussed in the remainder of this section. only summary information is provided on each site. More extensive information is presented in the WESTPO Study. Current Coal Terminals .Two California ports currently handle steam coal exports: Long Beach and Los Angeles. Capacity of each of these terminals is 3 million tons annually. In addition, Stockton, California has.a coal storage facility capable of handling about a half million tons annually. Coal handling facilities also exist in Vancouver, British Columbia. Three terminals, including one at Roberts Bank, and the, Neptune and Pacific Coast, terminals inside the city of Vancouver, have an annual capacity of 20 . million tons. As mentioned earlier, these terminals export metallurgical coal almost exclusively, but conversion to steam coal use is possible as Pacific rim demands increase. 2-8 Planned Coal Terminals Several west coast ports have definite plans for a coal terminal. Most of these terminals are still in the envirormental review stage, while a few ports have obtained the necessary permits for construction. Table 5 sum- marizes the status of each planned coal terminal. As shown, ports in Portland, Oregon; Kalarna, Washington; and Redwood City, California appear closest to actual construction of new facilities. Other planned construc- tion or additions can be ready in-the next several years, but actual con- struction is likely to occur only when definite caILLitments from Pacific rim importers are received. In addition, planned expansion in British Columbia is included as part of Table 5. Roberts Bank is expected to double its size from 12 million tons in 1981 to 25 million tons in 1985, eventually handling 40 million tons per year of steam and metallurgical coal by 1990. A new terminal is also being planned at Ridley Island, Prince Rupert with an initial capacity of 9 million tons annually. The Ridley Island terminal is expected to come on line in the next 5 to 10 years. The Pacific and Neptune terminals are not expected to expand because of physical constraints in vancouver Harbor. Potential Coal Terminal Sites Table 6 presents details on other potential west coast terminal Sites, including site owner, size of the property, and existing channel depth. These sites differ frcrn the planned sites in that the EIS and permitting process has not yet begun. As shown, half of the potential sites are located in Washington. Development of these sites will almost certainly be preceeded by a definite caunitment from a Pacific rim importer. Actual construction at any of these sites may not occur until the 1990s. Sites most likely to change status from potential to planned in the next several years include: Bellingham, Steilacoom (Lone Star), and Tulalip, Washington; Astoria, Oregon; and Selby, California. Forecasts of Western United States Steam Coal Exports Ebrecast development for this study is presented in this section, along with the assumptions underlying those forecasts. Also included is a discussion of the sensitivity of the forecasts, including an overview of issues relevant to the reliability of the forecasts. Assumptions The following assumptions wereused in reaching the recommended forecasts: 0 Electrical energy demand growth rates in Pacific rim countries will be 6 percent per year in Japan and Taiwan, and 10.percent per year in the Republic of Korea and other Pacific rim countries, as assumed in the WESTPO Study. 2-9 TABLE 5 PLANNED COAL TERMIMLS IN UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN WEST COAST (Sunnary) Mil lions of Short Tons West Coast Current Planned Year Location Capacity Capacity Current Status, Complete UNITED STATES Los Angeles, CA 3 10-30 Expansion on Terminal 1983-84 Island - 10- to 15- million-ton capacity in Phase I Long Beach, CA 3 10-30 EIR in Progress - 10- 1984-85 million@-ton capacity in Phase I Redwood City, CA 0 3-5 EIR nearly canplete 1982-83 Portland, OR 0 10-12 Construction is 1982-83 underway Kalaw, WA 0 15 EIS canplete. Final 1982-83 permits issued. Vancouver, WA .0 3-6 Final EIS canplete 1983-84 Total - U.S. 6 51-98 (West Coast) CANADA Roberts Bank, B.C. 1-2 40 Addition of 12 million 1985 tons in Phase I planned Vancouver, B.C. 8 8 No action planned due to physical constraints. of location Plans for new terminal 1985-90 Ridley Island, B.C. 0 9 in process Total Canada 20 57 (West.Coast) Sources: WESTPO WK&A 2-10 TABLE 6 POTENTIAL WEST COAST TEMINAL SITES (Sum'ary) Existing Location Owner Size Channel Depth acres (feet) Port Hueneme, CA Port 60+ 35 Sacr&nento, CA Port 10-300+ 32 Stockton, CA Port 73 32 Benicia, CA Benicia Industries 150 35 Richnond, CA Port Not available 35 San Francisco, CA Port 70 50 Selby, CA Wickland Oil Canpany 308 50 Coos Bay, OR Port 70 35 Warrenton, OR Dant & Russel 130 40 Astoria, OR Port & State 280 40 Longview, WA Private 325 40 Grays Harbor, WA Port 176 30 Bellinghan, WA Glacier Park 1,100 80+ (Cherry Point) Anacortes, WA Unidentified 200 60+ (March Point) Tulalip, WA Tulalip Tribes 2,200 80+ Everett, WA Port 1,800 80+ Dupont, WA Weyerhaeuser 3,200 80+ Steilacoom, WA Lone Star Industries 400 80+ Steilacoam, WA Kaiser Not available 80+ Tacmia, WA Port 90 80+ 2-11 TABLE 6 (Continued) Existing Location Owner Size Channel Depth acres (feet) Seward, AK Port 100 Not available Cordova, M city Not known Not available Sources: WESTPO Study WK&A 2-12 0 Coal will make up between 7 and 25 percent of new energy, based on estimates supplied by Pacific rim countries. -In addition, the nuclear share of new energy is assumed to be between 15 and 35 percent to the year 2000. 0 The western U.S. (California, Oregon, and Washington) share of the far east stean coal market is estimated to be about 14 percent in 1985 increasing to 20 percent in the year 2000, assuming the Pacific rim countries will seek to further diversify their coal suppliers in the future. 0 Alaska, an emergent coal exporterthas not developed forecasts. 0 Pacific northwest's share of the west coast steam coal trade will be 40 percent in 1985, 50 percent in.1990, 60 percent in 1995, and 70 percent in 2000. These estimates assume that coal fran.the northern Rocky Mountain areas, which is more plentiful, will be shipped through Pacific northwestports. 0 Estimates of Pacific rim import demand for ste&n coal (as discussed previously) range fram 22.5 tons per year in 1981 to 238 tons per year in 2000. These estimates have been revised slightly to reflect a delay in construction of several planned steam coal electrical plants in the last year. These revised estimates are as follows: Millions of Tons per Year 1985 55.0 1990 105.0 1995 150.0 2000 207.5 Actual Forecasts Table 7 contains the forecasts developed in this study of western U.S. stean coal exports fram 1985 to 2000. Also included are estimates of the Pacific northwest's share of the steam coal trade. As shown, substantial stean coal exports are not expected in the Pacific northwest until the 1990s because of the current capacity and status of California facilities. The remainder of this section contains a discussion of the sensitivity of these forecasts. Sensitivity Changes in any of the key assumptions could significantly alter these forecasts. Sensitivity of each of the assumptions is discussed below. 0 Electrical energy demand growth forecasts are the key determinant of steam coal plant construction in Pacific rim countries. Accordirxg to WESTPO participants, the reliability of the energy growth forecasts is very high. Pacific rim countries, particularly Japan, have very sophisticated econometric techniques used in forecasting 2-13 energy demand. These estimates were.used in the WESTPO Study and are part of the current forecasts. TABLE 7 FORECASTS FOR WESTERYUNITED STATES STEAM COAL EXPORTS (Millions of Short Tons) United States Pacific Northwest Share West Coast Pacific Northwest of West Coast.Exports Present 5.0 0 0% 1985 7.5 3.0 40% 1990 18.5 9.0 50% 1995 30.0 18.0 60% 2000 41.5 30.0 70% o Coal's share of new energy growth is perhaps the most uncertain variable in the analysis. Since coal is considered to be a residual of nuclear and other energy supplies, the status of these other energy forms is important. Nuclear power is currently meeting stiff public resistance in Japan, in particular. Since nuclear power is estimated to supply up to.35-percent of..new energy in Pacific rim countries in the next 20 years, the substitution of coal-generated electricity for nuclear power could greatly change the forecasts. According to the CPSEDD Study, substitution of even one-third of the planned nuclear power with coal would result in about a 15 percent increase in western U.S. coal or about 6.million more tons per year by the year 2000. In addition, coal-fired plants can be built in four to five years, while nuclear plants require much longer lead times. Thus, the greater flexibility of coal is an added advantage over nuclear power. 0 The western U.S. share of coal exports to Pacific rim countries is another very sensitive variable in the forecasts. The need by these countries for reliable and varied sources for coal may override the cost advantages of other coal suppliers located closer to the Pacific rim countries. This need could greatly increase the role of U.S. coal in the far east. At this time, Australia supplies almost 50 percent of coal to the Pacific rim countries, but the continued threat of labor disputes may reduce their role slightly in the future. other countries 2-14 supplying' coal to the far east, including South Africa, U.S.S.R., and Poland, are politically unstable. Adverse changes in policies in these countries will likely enhance the role of the United States and Canada in the steam coal market. On the other hand, Chinese coal developuent could offset increases by the United States and Canada. As a result, current estimates of western U.S. market shares are somewhat conservative. An increase fran a 20 percent market share in the year 2000 to a 30 percent share could raise U.S. west coast exports by almost 21 million tons per year. 0 The Pacific northwest share of west coast steam coal exports is another variable assumption. Estimates in this study are based on the closer proximity of Pacific northwest ports to far east ports, resulting in reduced travel tizne and reduced cost per ton of coal. Initial steam coal exports will likely travel through California ports because of their closeness to more desirable southern Rocky mountain coal mines. However, as these supplies becane more dif- ficult to mine in the late 1980s, most coal exports will be routed through Pacific northwest ports fran Montana and Wyoming coal mines, where coal has less heat content, but is more plentiful and easier to mine. The Pacific Northwest (all Washington marine locations and Columbia River ports in Oregon and Washington) market share is projected to be about 30 million tons by the year 2000. However, actual loca- tions and number of terminals depend on ccamitments from Pacific rim importers, physical and political site advantages, and capacities of individual facilities. Alaska's share of the market is not included in this forecast since coal reserves in that state are not expected to be mined until after the year 2000. if reserves near Cordova and Seward are exported to Pacific rim countries before 2000, it is likely these exports will directly reduce the Pacific northwest-market share, assuming the price of Alaska stem coal is ccmpetitive. 2-15 III. TRANSPORTATION MODES AND ROUTES Railroad Transportation Rail transportation of export coal within the state of Washington to trans- shipment terminals at Washington ports will be via the lines of Burlington Northern, Inc. and the Union Pacific Railroad. Coal is a major source of traffic for these railroads, which are continually modernizing.their facilities and equipment through large capital expenditure programs. Union Pacific transported 28 million tons of coal in 1980, while 100 million tons originated on the lines of Burlington Northern in that year making coal the largest single commodity handled by Burlington Northern. Most ofthis . traffic was destined for electric utilities in the midwest and the south- west, although in the first half of 1981 Union Pacific transported sane 2.5 million tons of coal for export through west coast ports. High capacity port transshipment facilities will enable the operation of single caLtodity unit trains, which generally consist of 100 cars and have a train load capacity of about 10,000 tons of coal. Unit trains consist of dedicated locomotives and cars which remain coupled as a train, operating on a schedule between single points of origin and destination. The cars are typically shipper-owned, while locomotives are provided by the railroad. Unit train operations frequently involve more than a single railroad with dedicated motive power from one or more of the railroads remaining with the train throughout its round trip cycles. The major deposits of coal in western states which could be transshipped econamically through Washington ports are located in the states of Montana, Wyaning, Utah and Colorado. Most of the coal resources being mined or planned for development in Montana and Wyaning are in the Powder River Basin. This area of eastern Montana and northeast Wyoming is served prin- cipally by lines of Burlington Northern. Union Pacific serves the coal producing regions of southwest Waming,,as well as receiving coal traffic fran major deposits in Utah and Western Colorado through interchange with the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad and the Utah Railway. As a result of regulatory changes in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 recently passed by congress, railroads gained added flexibility in ratemaking and are now able to negotiate long term contracts for rail transportation of com- modities such as coal. The routing of export coal from various points of origin in Montana, Wyaning, Utah and Colorado to Washington ports is subject to ccErmercial arrangements among the coal supplier and purchaser and the railroads. Burlington Northern, Inc. Export coal traffic to.Washington ports from the Powder River Basin would originate principally on Burlington Northern lines in southeast Montana and northeast Wyaming (see Figure 2). This traffic would be routed to Billings, Montana and westward via BN's mainline route through Missoula, Montana and Sand Point, Idaho to Spokane. Beyond Spokane three alternate mainline routes are available to port sites in western Washington. 3-1 The primary BN route for traffic destined for points south of Tacama proceeds southwest from Spokane to Pasco and Kennewick, then follows the north bank of the Columbia River to Vancouver, Washington. There it con-. nects with BN's north-south mainline which runs from Vancouver, Washington to Vancouver, B.C. via Tacama, Seattle, Everett and Bellingham. The paral- lel mainlines of two predecessor railroads are operated by BN as eastbound and westbound paired track between Cheney and Pasco. The second BN mainline, which is the primary route for traffic destined for points north of Tacoma, proceeds westfrom Spokane to Wenatchee, crosses the Cascade Mountains at an elevation of.2,883 feet via Stevens Pass and the eight-mile Cascade Tunnel, and descends to tidewater at Everett wbere it connects with the north-south mainline. The third mainline route across the Cascades is now used primarily for local traffic and to supplement the more operationally-efficient Stevens Pass line. This route follows the Colunbia River route southwest to Pasco and Kennewick, 'then heads northwest to Yakima and Ellensburg, crosses the Cas- cade Mountains at an elevation of 2,820 feet via Stampede Pass, and connects with the north-south mainline at Auburn. Burlington Northern has purchased the former Milwaukee Road/Shoqualmie Pass line, which crosses the Cascades at an elevation of 2,564 feet. This line which is not currently operational is to be improved to provide a more favorable gradient and another alternate mainline across the Cascades, when the necessary track improvements are warranted by increased traffic. Connections to the parallel Stampede Pass line will be made near Easton on the east side of the Cascades and Ravens- dale on the west side. Union Pacific Railroad Coal traffic from southwest Wjoming, Utah and Colorado destined for Washington ports would be carried on the lines of the Union Pacific. Coal trains from %yoming would be routed via Granger, Wyoming (see Figure 2) to Pocatello, Idaho. Coal traffic from mines in Utah and Colorado would be received by Union Pacific at interchange points with the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad and the Utah Railway, and would be routed northward from Ogden, Utah to Pocatello, Idaho. Beyond Pocatello this traffic would follow the Union Pacific mainline to Boise, Idaho and Pendleton, Oregon, following the south bank of the Colu-nbia River to Portland. Fran north Portland, Oregon to Tacoma, Washington, the Union Pacific operates over the double track line of the Burlington Northern. North from Tacoma, Union.Pacific has its own mainline to Seattle, the northern terminus of the Union Pacific line. The Union Pacific and Burlington Northern main- tain separate branch lines to Grays Harbor fran the Burlington Northern mainline at Centralia. in addition to connections at Portland, the Union Pacific mainline along the south bank of the Columbia River has connections with Burlington Northern mainlines@in the vicinities of Wallula, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. Rail Traf f ic and Routes The principal.rail routes within Washington for transportation of coal to, Washington coal port sites from the Powder River Basin,,via Burlington 3-2 Figure 2 RAIL TRANSPORT ROUTES TO NW PORTS Cherry Pt. - - - - - - - - - - - Bellingham Anacortes WASIIINGTON Sand Point -^-A Tulalip Eveiall Tacoma Seattle Spokane Steilacoo C,@ M 0 N T A Grays Harbor Auburn Missoula Lon9view Kalama Pasco V aricouver Wishfarn Portland Pendleton P 9 LaGrande I D A H 0 OREGON LEGEND Grange( Burlington Northern Union Pacific Northern, and from Utah, Colorado and southwest %yaning, via Union Pacific, are shown in Figures 3A, 3B and 3C. Increased train movements attributable to coal unit train operation to any one of the ports shown are indicated. The figures show average daily numbers of trains operated over segments of these lines in 1980, a pre-recession year, representing relatively normal. traffic volumes.(l) The increased numbers of daily trains with coal traffic added is also shown for each line segment. Theoretical daily train capacity rarxges based on generalized track configurations and signal systems on these line segments are indicated on the diagrams.(2) The coal traffic volumes entering the state via Spokane on the Burlington Northern or via Portland on the Union Pacific illustrate the maximun potential impact on rail traffic volumes on the principal rail access routes for any one of the port sites shown in the figures. The average of four unit train loads per day through either gateway represent an annual total of approximately 14.6 million tons, or one half of the 30 million tons projected to be exported through Washington coal ports in the year 2000. The eight daily coal train move- ments, considering both directions of travel, would be additive when con- sidering the combined impact of two coal ports which would use a common segment of rail line for access. The daily train volunes shown do not include growth in traffic for other commodities handled over these rail routes. Substantial increases in the general level of rail traffic across the Cascades will result in dis- tribution of traffic over the alternate routes according to available line capacity and incremental cost of operations. The railroads foresee no major problems in providing adequate line capacity to accaLitodate projected levels of coal traffic. Lead time between ccanitments for a coal port facility and initiation of substantial coal traffic will be adequate to make any neces- sary track and signal improvements. On-line Carmunities Communities located on the principal rail route(s) serving each of the potential coal port sites are listed in Table 8. Principal routes are shown for Powder River Basin coal traffic on the Burlington Northern via Spokane, and for Utah, Colorado.and southwest Wyoming coal traffic on the Union Pacific via Portland. Use of the Stampede Pass/Snoqualmie Pass route as an alternate BN route to coal export facilities at Steilacoan and Grays Harbor assumes an overall increase in the level of rail traffic which would warrant improvement. of the former Milwaukee Road line over Snoqualmie Pass. 1. Average daily trains are derived fran freight traffic density charts for 1980 as submitted by the I.C.C. and average gross tons per freight train for the western district. Source: Western Coal Exports to the Pacific Basin- Report 4, Overland Transportation Task Group, Western Coal Export Task Force. 2. Estimated line capacity is based on track configuration (single or double track) and signal system (no signals,,autcmatic block signals, or central- ized traffic control). Source: Ibid 3-3 assumes an overall increase in the level of rail traffic which would werrant improvEment of the former Milwaukee Road line over Snoqualmie Pass. Railroad Access to Potential Coal Port Sites The coal port sites under consideration at Vancouver, Kalana, Grays Harbor and Steilacoan are on or near lines of both the Burlington Northern and Union Pacific, and would be served directly by both of these carriers. The Tulalip, Anacortes and Cherry Point sites are on lines of the Burlington Northern. Coal traffic routed to these ports via the Union Pacific would likely be interchanged with Burlingto n,Northern at some point south of Seattle, the northern terminal of the Union Pacific in the Puget Sound area (althoughthe exchange could also take place in Portland). Routing of such UP-BN interchange traffic with Wbshington state and division of the haul between the railroads will depend on catLE cial arrangEments between the carriers and the coal producers and suppliers. Interchange points with the Burlington Northern Railroad exist at several points on the Union Pacific between the Wallula area and Seattle. 3-4 Vancouver, B.C. CHERRY POINT ANACORTES Bellingham 7 16 33 41 Mount Vernon 116124 26-64 r2_2T3fl Sand Point, Idaho 25 TULALIP Everett Seattle Stevens Pass Tacoma tunnel Bluestem Burlington Northern Wenatchee Spok anf) (Powder River Basin Coal) Max. Traffic to Any One Port: 4 Trains/Day (Westbound) (14.6 M. Tons Annually) OKA NL z o -n 0 0 :4 =r CD Legend ca Cc a) Average Daily Trains (1980) 0 1980 Daily Trains, with Coal Traffic (Year 2000) 41 Estimated Line Capacity Range (Trains per day - both directions) Vancouver, B.C. - - --------- 33 41 Sand Point, Idaho 125-54 7 15 21 29 196-125 Seattl -tunnel L 62-95 Spokane Auburn / Op.*%Snoqualmis Burlington Northern STEILACOO a X '40 *% Pass (Powder River Basin Coal) Aber een (LONE ST S ampe a Sunset Junctio Pass Max. Traffic to Any One Port: 01. Alternative R ute 4 Trains/bay (Westbound) GRAY&HARBOR Centralia 1341421 (Not Preferre (14.6 M. Tons Annually) CL 162-95 Yakima 0 D34@144:21 Cn 0 -n Kelso 162-95 BN 0 0 E Kalama Pasco r 0 W -Va couver N. Portland, OR Legend 2 Cn 0 Union Pacific Average Daily Trains (1980) (Utah, Colorado, S.W. Wyoming Coal) CL CL 1980,Daily Trains, with Coal Traffic 0 Max. Traffic to Any One Port (Year 2000) CL 4 Trains/Day (Westbound) 0 Estimated Line Capacity Range k (14.6 M. Tons Annually) (Trains per day - both directions) 0 33 41 126-64 Sand. Point, Idaho Spo ane tunnel 21 29 62-95 Burlington Northern (Powder River Basin Coal). Sunset Junction, Max. Traffic to Any One Port: L 4 Trains/Day (Westbound) (14.6 M. Tons Annually) 15 23 34 42 L15-25 162-95 '7Z 25 E2 54 Pasco 0 KALAMA 0 La. W VANCOUVER Vancouver Wishrarn 0 Portland, OR Legend Union Pacific Average Daily Trains (1980) (Utah, Colorado, S.W. Wyoming Coal) Cn 3 i CL -04 1980 Daily Trains, with Coal Traffic m Max. Traffic to Any One Port 33 41 0 (Year 2000) 4 Trains/Day (Westbound) 25-54 Estimated Line Capacity Range (14.6 M. Tons Annually) (Trains per day - both directions) Table 8 - Washington Communities on Principal Rail Routes .Port. S.ite Cherry Point Anacortes Tulalip ------------ Steilacoom (Lone Stari ---------------- BN BN BN BN UP Principal Stevens Pass Stevens Pass Stevens Pass Stampede Pass/ Columbia River Rail Route Route Route Route Snoqualmie Pass Route(5) South Bank Route On-Line Ferndale Burlington Marysville University Place Hatton(4) Steilacoom Communities BELLINGHAM MOUNTVERNON EVERETT Ruston Lind(4) Tenino Burlington Stanwood Snohomish TACOMA Ritzville(4) Bucoda MOUNTVERNON Marysville Monroe PUYALLUP Sprague(4) CENTRALIA Stanwood EVERETT Su I tan Sumner Cheney Chehalis Marysville Snohomish Gold Bar AUBURN SPOKANE Napavine EVERETT Monroe Index Ravensdale Millwood Winlock Snohomish Su I tan skykomish Palmer(l) (Via Sand Vader Monroe Gold Bar Leavenworth Lester(II) Point, Id) Castle Rock Sultan Index Dryden Cedar Falls(2) KELSO Gold Bar Skykomlsh Cashmere Easton Kalama Index Leavenworth Monitor Cie Elum Wood I and Skykomish Dryden WENATCHEE ELLENSBURG Ridgefield Leavenworth Cashmere Quincy Selah VANCOUVER Dryden Monitor Ephrata YAKIMA (Via N. Portland Cashmere WENATCIIEE Soap Lake Union Gap Oregon) Monitor Quincy Wilson Creek Parker WENATCHEE Ephrata Odessa Wapato Quincy Soap Lake Harrington Toppenish Ephrata Wilson Creek SPOKANE Mabton Soap Lake Odessa Millwood Prosser Wilson Creek Harrington (Via Sand KENNEWICK Odessa SPOKANE Point, Id) PASCO Ha rr i ngton Millwood Kahlotus(3) SPOKANE (Via Sand Washtucna(3) Millwood Point, Id) Lamont(3) (Via Sand Mesa(4) Point,ld) Connell(4) NOTES: 1. Stampede Pass line, in service. 2. Snoqualmle Pass line, not in service. This former Milwaukee Road I I ne to be improved when wa rranted by I nc reased ra I I traf f i c. 3. Eastbound traff ic between Pasco and Cheney. 4. Westbound traffic between Cheney and Pasco. 5. This is an alternate route. Table 8 (Continued) Washington Communities on Principal Rail Routes port Site ----------------- Grays Harbor -------------- -------- - --------------------- Kalam� -------------------------- BN UP BN UP Principal Stampede Pass/ Columbia River Columbia River Columbia River Rail Route Snoqualmie Pass Route(5) South Bank Route North Bank Route South Bank Route On-Line Cosmopolis Wapato Cosmopolis Kalama Cheney Kalama Communities ABERDEEN(5) Toppenish CENTRALIA Woodland SPOKANE Woodland Montesano Mabton Chehalis Ridgefield Millwood Ridgefield Elma Prosser Napavine VANCOUVER (Via Sand VANCOUVER Oakville KENNEWICK Winlock Camas Point, Id) (Via N. Portland 01-YMPIA PASCO Vader Washougal Oregon) LACEY Kahlotus(3) Castle Rock North Bonneville Steilacoom Washtucna(3) KELSO Stevenson University Place Lamont(3) Kalama White Salmon Ruston Mesa(4) 'Woodland Bingen TACOMA Connell(4) Ridgefield Lyle PUYALLUP Hatton(4) VANCOUVER Wishram Sumner RitzvIlle(4) (Via N. Portland KENNEWICK AUBURN Sprague(4) Oregon) PASCO @4 Ravensdale Cheney Kahlotus(3) Palmer(l) SPOKANE Washt"cna(3) ON Lester(l) Millwood Lamont(3) Cedar Falls(2) (Via Sand Mesa(4) Hyak(2) Point, ld) Connell(4) Easton Hatton(4) Cie Elum Lind(4) ELLENSBURG Ritzville(4) Selah Sprague(4) YAKIMA Union Gap Parker NOTES: 1. Stampede Pass line, in service. 2. Snoqualmie Pass line, not in service. This former Milwaukee Road line to be i.mproved when warranted by increased rail traffic. 3. Eastbo"nd traffic between Pasco and Cheney. 4. Westbound traffic between Cheney and Pasco. 5. This is an alternate route. Table 8 (Continued) Washington Communities on Principal Rail Routes Port Site ----------------- ---- Vancouver --------------------------- Principal BN UP Columbia River Columbia River Rail Route North.B nk Route -South Bank Route On-Line VANCOUVER Lamont(3) VANCOUVER Communities Camas Mesa(4) (Via N. Portland, Washougal Connell(4) Oregon) North Bonneville Ilatton(4) Stevenson Lind(4) White Salmon Ritzville(4) Bingen Spraque(4) Lyle Cheney Wishram SPOKANE KENNEWICK Millwood PASCO (Via Sand Kahlotus(3) Point, Id) Washtucna(3) NOTES: @4 -4 Stampede Pass line, In service. 2. Snoqualmle Pass line, not in service. This former Milwaukee Road I Ine to be Improved when warranted by Increased ra I I traff Ic. 3. Eastbound traffic between Pasco and Cheney. 4. Westbound traffic between Cheney and Pasco. Cherry Point Site The Cherry Point site is served by a Burlington Northern branch line off the BN Everett-Vancouver, B.C. mainline at a point six miles north of Ferndale. The coal port site is located approximately seven miles west of the main- line. The branch line presently serves two petroleum refineries, one alLninum processing facility, and several smaller industries. Anacortes The port site is located on Burlington Northern's Anacortes branch line approximately 12.miles west of the BN Everett-Vancouver, B.C. mainline at Burlington. The Anacortes branch presently serves two petroleum refineries and two chemical plants located on March Point near Anacortes. At Swinamish Slough there is a swing bridge on the line which remains open to water. traffic except during train movements. Tulalip The Tulalip site is located within the Tulalip Indian Reservation and is served by an existing branch line off the BN Everett-Vancouver, B.C. main- line north of Marysville. The proposed coal storage facility would be located in an area of relatively high ground accessible frcm the tail line. A conveyor system would transport coal to the dock site. Steilacoan (Lone Star) The Steilacoan coal port site is directly adjacent.to the double-track Portland-Everett mainline of Burlington Northern. Union Pacific, which operatesover this line between Portland and Tacoma, has direct access to the site. Grays Harbor The Burlington Northern and the Union Pacific maintain separate branch lines to.Grays Harbor fran the BN-UP Portland-Tacana mainline at Centralia. Aber- deen is located approximately 57 rail miles west of Centralia, via both the BN and UP lines which are on the north and south sides of the Chehalis River respectively. The proposed coal port site is located on the south side of Grays Harbor, west of South Aberdeen on Burlington Northern's Markham branch line. The recently upgraded Union Pacific branchline provides a direct access route to the site, either via the existing interchange with BN's Markham branch at South Aberdeen or via a proposed relocation of this line south of South Aberdeen. Burlington Northern's access to the Markham branch line is via the Union Pacific bridge between Aberdeen and South Aberdeen. The route, however, requires reversing the direction of trains at bothends of the bridge to gain access to the proposed site from the BN line. Kalama The Kalama coal port site is directly adjacent to the double-track Portland- Everett mainline of the Burlington Northern. UnionPacific, which operates over this line between Portland and Tacana, has direct access to the site. 3-8 Vancouver The Vancouver coal terminal site is located on a Burlington Northern spur line 1.5 miles west of a connection with the BN-UP Portland-Taccma mainline. The existing track connection is from the south at the north end of the Columbia River bridge, enabling direct access to the site for unit trains routed via the UP through North Portland. Direct access for trains routed via the BN's Columbia River route would require installation of a crossing of the Portland-Taccma mainline tracks to reachthe BN spur track. Environmental Issues Associated with Rail Transport The operation of unit trains to transport coal has an associated array of environmental impact concerns along prospective rail routes. Adverse impacts include delays at rail crossings, more rail/vehicle accidents, congestion, air quality problems, noise and environmental disruption. Impacts to the physical and biological environments would primarily result fran coal dust being blown fran open train cars and fran diesel exhaust emissions. This situation can lead directly to elevated levels of pol- lutants.along portions of the route which could be of short-term sig- nificance in nonattairment areas. 1,onger term impacts might be realized where coal dust repeatedly settles in aquatic or terrestrial areas adjacent to rail tracks. Coal dust buildup could degrade local soils or impact nearby coamunities. Generally speaking, a railroad right-of-way tends to fragment pre-existing habitat areas. However, since most coal traffic will probably utilize existing established'tracks, this impact potential will likely be small. Increased rail traffic due to unit train operation, could significantly impact the human environment, particularly where trains pass through populated areas. Congestion and safety problems arise at grade crossings heavily traveled by road vehicles. A mile-long unit train traveling at 20 miles per hour, for example, would occupy a grade crossing for about 3-1/2 minutes. Increased delays at rail crossings can disrupt communities along train routes. These delays range frcm inconvenience (the disruption of ccumuter traffic at rush hours) to potentially serious consequences, such as the delay of police, fire, ambulance and other emergency vehicles. Projected unit train traffic could also increase the likelihood of automobile accidents at rail crossings. Coal unit trains may also add to traffic congestion at rail junctions and cause significant delays to other port-related comnodity traffic. At the Superior Midwest Energy Terminal (SMET) in Wisconsin, for exanple, unit coal trains cause two 9-minute delays of grain truck traffic for each coal delivery. Noise impacts are a chronic problem with rail operations. Although most communities adjacent to rail corridors have adapted to train noise, a sig- nificant increase in rail traffic (and the use of larger engines for coal trains) could raise concern about noise impacts. Rail noise (approaching 100 decibels)(3) could exceed EPA and DOE guidelines for some areas. 3. At a reference distance of 100 feet 3-9 trains) could raise concern about noise impacts. Rail noise (approaching 100 decibels)(3) could exceed EPA and DOE guidelines for sane areas. Slugy Pipeline An alternative to the transportation of coal exclusively by train is the construction and operation of a coal slurry pipeline. This method of tran- sport could be used to move coal from the mine to a port facility directly or to an inland storage area fran which unit coal trains would make the final transport leg to specific ports. Figure 4 illustrates schematically the canponents of a slurry pipeline systEm. Although alternatives (such as oil or synthetic fuels) have been studied as potential slurry mediuns, water is the typical carrier fluid. The only proposed pipeline project for the northwest is the Northwest Integrated Coal Energy SystEm (Gulf Interstate Snake River Pipeline). This project has a design capacity of 25 million tons of coal per year and would extend 1,100 miles fran the Powder River Basin in Wyaning to northern Oregon. The WESTPO study identifies four major issues associated,with slurry pipeline development: rights-of-way and Eminent dcmain; water requirments and conflicts; economic considerations; and envirormental impacts. That study provides the following sumnary ccaments with regard to these issues. if 0 Eminent Domain: Because of railroad opposition, it will probably be necessary to have federal legislation granting the power of Eminent:domain. � Water Use: The major stumbling block to.slurries in the West appears to be water--especially in the Northern Great Plains. Although water is a highly charged issue, on a regional scale suffi- cient mused water does exist to.support significant levels of slurry pipeline develop-nent. � Economic Costs: in cases involving large coal volumes over long distances, coal slurry pipelines may be able to transport coal at a lower cost than railroads. However, an important issue of concern is the econcm ic regulation of railroads (e.g., connon carrier status) which does not apply to slurry pipelines. � Environmental Impacts: Railroads create greater enviromental concerns than slurry pipelines because of noise and traffic safety in crossing many cormunities and highways. However, the envirormen- tal impacts for both modes are "acceptable" and thus do no provide a basis for choosing one mode over the other. " Major impacts resulting from slurry pipelines include construction-related activities as land surfaces are disrupted during excavation and pipeline burial activities. Operational impacts include the withdrawal of ground or 3. At a reference distance of 100 feet 3-10 Figure 4 SCHEMATIC OF SLURRY PIPELINE SYSTEM COAL SUPPLIER PIPELINE SYSTEM SLURRY PREPARATION TANKAGE iw .0 MINE STOCK PILIE COAL CLEARING WATER SUPPLY PIPELINE SYSTEM COAL BUYER POWN PLANT PAL OfWATIRING PLANT BARGES Source: OTA, 1979 surface waters in areas with limited existing supplies and the discharge and dewatering of the coal slurry mix. Other operational impacts to ground and/or surface waters could result fran pipeline plugging or rupture. Barge Trans2ortat MovEment of export coal by barge to northwest ports would likely have to be developed in conjunction with rail transport. Barge operations currently exist along the Columbia River and throughout Puget Sound. A rail link, however, would have to be established between the mine source and a barge transshipment area. The disadvantages of barge transport include slow speed and inflexible routing. In addition, special unloading facilities are required, and loads are based on tow sizes which are limited by chamber size of locks in navigable waterways. The real need for upgrading of the Bonneville Dam Locks is a major con- straint to coal barge operation along the Columbia River (the area where barge traffic would potentially be themost practical). The WESTPO study concludes:, Nbile barging is a potential mode of coal transport on the Columbia River east of Portland, it will probably not be activated until the late 1980's or 1990's, due to lack of cost competitiveness with rail haul." 3-11, IV. PORT FACILITY CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS Utilizing Elements 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the basic methodology contained in the Port Handbook for Estimating marine Terminal Cargo Handling Capability, U.S. Department of Coamerce Maritime Administration (MarAd), 1979, graphs were prepared to reflect tabulated information on coal port facility components. These graphs (Figures 5 through 8) can be utilized to detemine incremental facility requireuents and to give a general indication of the impact certain mitigation measures may have on throughput capacity. The graphs were used to develop facility component parameters forthe generic facility plans presented in the next chapter. They are presented here as a useful.guide for assessing component and facility,capacities for any of a wide range of facility sizes. It is not possible through the use of this procedure to deten-aine the total number of new sites required to meet projected needs. This is due to the inability to predict the amount of total demand any single facility will be able to capture. However, based upon the market share analysis and the sizes of facilities currently proposed, the capacity requirement for the northwest (Washington state ports and Oregon ports along the Columbia River) is on the order of two to three coal port facilities by the year 2000. The dashed lines on the graphs illustrate the method used to determine throughput for a Panamax-sized terminal. The four basic capacity components illustrated by the graphs are described in the MarAd publication as follows: Component 1 - Ship Size and Frequency Component I is the only component with two interrelated graphs. The left-band graph relates annual visits, tons of cargo transferred per ship visit, and annual cargo throughput. The right-hand graph relates berth length and water depth to expected maximum ship size at that berth. The scales of the graphs are so constructed that the ship size can be projected across to a reference line on the left-hand graph to determine anticipated.average ship load for a given maximum ship size. The user should be aware that the ship load is given for the average expected ship size corresponding to a maximum ship size since all the ships that visit a berth would not be expected to be maximum size. The left-hand graph can be entered with any of three pieces of data: water depth, berth length, or ship size in dead weight tons. Any one of these will be sufficient to find the point on the ship size scale that represents themaximum expected ship size. If two or three pieces of information are given, the one that gives the least ship size value should be used and other values ignored. Once the appropriate ship size is found, a line may be projected directly across to the.reference line of the left-hand graph. The right-hand edge of the left-hand graph serves as a reference line where the lines representing average cargo transferred per ship visit intersect at the sane vertical distance as the corresponding maximum ship size on the adjoining graph. Any line from a point on the reference line to the origin of the left-hand graph will represent a value for tons of cargo transferred per ship visit that corresponds to a given maximum ship size. The annual cargo throughput 4-1 is obtained by first finding the point on the tons per ship visit line directly above the number of ship visits per year then projecting horizontally to the left to read the annual cargo throughput for Com- ponent 1. The left-hand graph (annual ship visits and typical ship load) may be used alone if the correct.data is known. Since the object of the inves- tigation normally is to find the annual tonnage, unless the typical value is used, it is necessary to have data for both of the other two elements to get a throughput reading. Whereas the graphs are designed for the use of people seeking an estimate of annual cargo throughput when.other data is given, they could be used to find terminal operating information when annual throughput is either known .(as in making an investigation of an existing terminal) or assumed for purposes of sizing various terminal elements. Any two elements will determine the third in every graph. Ccnponent 2 -.Ship/Apron Transfer Capability Component 2 representing the ship/apron transfer operation, consists of a transfer unit, a rate of transfer and tons per unit time, and a time to work. Transfer units may vary for different modules and may be anything from a longshoreman gang to a,pipeline:. The transfer unit will be specified for each module but the specified unit may always be used in.the real world. To find the transfer unit hours per year, make the following calculation based on given data or the typical value. The value of any unknown element can be found when all the others are known: (average cargo transfers per ship visit times nunber of ships per year) times (number of units per ship times transfer rate in tons per hour) equals the unit hours per year. Note that if the average cargo transferred per ship is multiplied by the nunber of ship visits per year the result is the annual cargo through- put. This holds true regardless of how long a ship waits for service. Component 5 Inland Transfer Processing Component 5 represents the terminal's storage/inland transport cargo transfer capability. The transfer unit usually consists of a mobile unit such as a forklift, truck, crane, or ship loader, but could be a pipeline or conveyor belt. The annual cargo throughput capability is found by multiplying the transfer unit's rate of transfer in tons per hour by the number of units available or needed times the period units are working. This relationship is expressed as follows: (number of transfer units) x (trans fer rate) x (hours worked per year) = annual cargo throughput if the user knows any three of the four factors he can find the fourth. To enter the chart with unit hours worked, tun terms must be combined: hours worked and the number of units. Hours worked per year is a func- tion of shipload in that.a particular shipload must be cleared from 4-2 Figure 5 COMPONENT 1: SHIP SIZE AND FREQUENCY 55 220 60 200 46- CARGO TRANSFER - ISO PER SHIP VISIT 40. (TONSISHIP CALL) ISO WATER DEPTH z Z x c j; )-1 35 140 r r so CIO Z 30 0*9 120 CO G) x 0 0 26 100 - M 0 20 so 0 c z a 15 410 c 60,900 10 40 7. MIL I N 'po 6 20 0 .0 o 60 100 160 200 2iO 0 2'0 0400 600 800 1000 1200 SHIP ARRIVALS (PER YEAR) BERTH LENGTH (FEET) Figure 6 COMPONENT 2: SHIP/APRON TRANSFER CAPABILITY 26.. 24-- TRANSFER RATE 22 0, PER UNIT (TONSIHR) CC 20-- us: CD z 0 01-- Is cc 0 0 x 02 -4 j 12- --c Z z 4c 7.5 MILL1014 000 2 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6@00 TRANSFER UNIT HOURS @PER YEAR) Figure 7 COMPONENT 5: INLAND TRANSFER PROCESSING 36 34-- HINTERLAND TRANSFER RATE 32-. PER UNIT- (TONSIHR) 30-- 28-- 20-- 24- 22-- 0 z 0 0 #- 40 cc @. 20-- x (ve cc 0 0 x z 02 16-- .j -6 -c :e lob :) 79 14-- z 127- 8- 7.5 M. L@_qq_ 4-- 2-- 0, 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000, TRANSFER UNIT (HOURS PER YEAR) Figure & COMPONENT 6: INLAND TRANSPORT UNIT PROCESSING CAPABILITY 36 34 32 30- 2S.- 26 MW 24- co z TOTAL CARS :) 0 (100 TO" CAPACITY) 22-- 0 020-- z 00 .J.7j 4c -j Z z 14-- 12-- lo.- 8----7.3MtLLION 4-- Ito 2, ift 0- 0 2 3 4 6 8 7 LOADED TRAINS TO SITE (PER DAY) (10000 SHORT TONS) 2 4 8 8 10 12 14 TOTAL TRAIN ROUND (TRIPS PER DAY) storage before the next shipload is brought in (neglecting, for the manent, storage). Transfer operations between storage and land-side transport are usually accomplished by working one 8-hour shift per day; that is, the normal shipload can be loaded into inland transport units by working one shift per day for a nunber of days.not exceeding the interval between ship arrivals. Although a typical transfer rate per unit is given with the module, the user can enter the graph with any known rate. Component 6 Transport Unit Processing Capability This component represents the capability of processing and/or moving inland transport units in and out of the teminal. Component 6 consists of a type of processor, a processing ratei and a number of processors.. The processor can be a warehouseman, a gate tender, a rail car yard engine, or a traffic lane at the gate. For this study this graph was modified to use a loaded train (10,000 short tons) as the "inland transport unit," the nunber of loaded trains per day as the "processing rate," and the nunber of rail cars as the "number of processors." The processing rate of inland transport units is one of the basic measures of the capability of a terminal to throughput cargo. The processing rate, multiplied by the cargo per inland transport unit, the nuTber of processors and the time worked, will give the throughput capability of Component 6. This is expressed as follows: (tons per transport unit) x (processing rate) x (nunber of processors) x (time processors work) annual cargo throughput. Component 6 assumes that the unit load is known. Unit load is given for each module, and it represents the most probable mode and load for that type of cargo. If the user has other information regarding unit loads, he can prorate the throughput tonnage capability in direct ratio to the user data dividedby the module data. The user can enter the graph with any two of the three pieces of data to obtain the third, then modify the result by the unit load factor if necessary. 4-3 V. PHYSICAL SITE REQUIREMENTS 'Facility Component Requirements In basic terms, a coal terminal is a facility for moving coal from one method of transportation to another. For terminals now being planned for the Pacific Northwest, this transfer process will be accomplished through the use of six basic elements: an incoming rail line from the source of supply; a train unloading system (rotary dumper or hopper trestle); a weigh- ing and sampling system at the loading and unloading points; a conveying system to move the coal from the unloader to the stockpiles and from the stockpiles to the ship; a storage area; and a berth or dock for ship loading (Figure 9). These various elements can be arranged in a variety of ways depending on such factors as land availability, soil, water depth, capacity requirements, terrain, and environmental considerations. In order to arrive at an understanding of the impacts of a coal.port ter- minal on the environment and how these impacts might be mitigated, it is necessary to determine total facility requirements needed to meet projected demand and to make a number of assumptions relating to the design of a "typical" coal port terminal. Table 9 outlines the basic assumptions used in establishing facility requirements and are arranged to illustrate two basic types of coal port terminals: the Panamax-size terminal, serving ships with a maximum draft of approximately 41 feet, and a terminal serving the larger vessels with drafts up to 65 feet. For the purpose of allowing direct comparisons, it is assumed that each terminal would have a single berth. Basic design assunptions are outlined below and are used as a basis for projecting the environmental impacts discussed in Chapter VI. The various design components and/or assumptions outlined below are illustrated for each type of terminal in Figures 10 and 11. In addition, for the purpose of allowing direct comparisons, it is assumed that each terminal would have a single train unloader and berth. Rail Access Coal will be shipped to the site by rail using 100-car "unit trains" carry- ing approximately 10,000 tons, with-each car holding approximately 100 tons. The total train length would be approximately 6,000 feet. Generally there are two types of rail cars that are utilized to haul coal. The first is the rotary-coupled cars which unload through the use of single or tandem rotary dumpers. These units have the capability of unloading approximately 2,500 tons or more of coal per hour. The second is the bottom durper or "hopper" cars that unload from the bottom passing over a trestle unloading area. These units have the capacity of unloading nearly twice the coal per hour of the rotary-coupled cars. However, the bottorD-dunp cars,are not able to haul as much coal per car weight as the rotary-coupled cars, thereby increasing rail transportation costs. The bottom-dump system is also more difficult to ,site, depending on existing grades. 5-1 TABLE 9 COAL PORT CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS BASIC ASSUMPTIONS Type Panamax Size Larger Vessels Ship Characteristics: Component No. 1* Length, feet 740 960 Beam, feet 106 150 Draft, feet 41 65 Maximum size, DWT 60,000 200,000 Typical size, DWT. 40,000 120,000 Typical shipload, one way, DWT 40,000 120,000 Typical cargo transfer, per visit, DWT 40,000 120,000 Typical time at berth, in hours 14.5 to 20.5 32 to 36 Interarrival tine, in days 1.7 to 2.4 3.8 to 4.3 Vessel calls per year 150 to 210 85 to 95 Maxirnum. percentage of time at berth 35 35 Cargo Transfer at Apron: Component No. 2 Type of transfer unit Conveyor belt Conveyor belt Number of berths/unit I I Typical transfer rate per unit, TPH 4,000 4,000 Time to load ship (hours) 10 30 Terminal Storage Capacity: Gross background area, in acres 125 to 175 150 to 200 Storage area, in acres 50 to 75 75 to 100 Auxiliary area, in acres 75 to 100 75 to 100 Yard storage capacity, in million tons 0.5 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.5 Typical length of time per ton In storage, days 3 6 Throughput density, tons/sf/year 1.4 1.5 Storage type Open Open Inland Transfer Processing: Camponent No. 5 Type of transfer unit Car loader/dump Car loader/du-np Number of units 1 1 Transfer rate per unit, in tons per hour 2,500 to 5,000 2,500 to 5,000 Inland Transport Unit Processing Capability: Component No. 6 Type of transport unit Rail car Rail car Peak units per.day 205 to 288 280 to 312 Time to unload transport unit, in minutes 1.2 to 2.4 1.2 to 2.4 Transport unit load, tons 100 100 Typical daily cargo, tons 25,000 25,000 Throughput Capacity: (The following throughput capacity was derived fran the above assumptions using the attached graphs.) Yearly throughput capacity, inillion short tons, 7.5 to 10.5, 10.2 to 11.4 *Note MarAd components 3 and 4 are not applicable for coal ports. 5-2 Figure 9 GENERAL FLOW SCHEMATIC RECYCLED WATER FOR DUST SUPRESSION AIR QUALITY CONTROLS CONVEYORS& CONVEYORS& MATERIAL HANDLING MATERIAL HANDLING 0 RAK AC WEIGIJ WEIGH CESS Milano go) U TRA & KDAINING Mona) MEASURE OPEN STORAGE MEASURE SHIP LOADING WASTEWATER TREATMENT W EIG" U nMEAS RE r.HP,9 Am m m m m m m m m m f igure 10 SMALL PORT CONFIGURATION PANAMAX LOADER afal" TRANSFER POO VIVOR Oft" STORAGE ......... . WASTEWATER ThEATMENT ftAXT LOADER 11 RICLAIME 4-0 ev THAWTMG &4to np ell a . . .... 10" RAW L&Kw V-0 (lit 0 0 'Will 0 Figure 11 LARGE PORT CONFIGURATION T-11 SHIP -mAD URTH 16W DEPTHI LOADER LOADING CONVEYOR 13 (LONG CONVEYOR FIER VARIES TO ACHIEVE DEPTH) SHORELINE X'. i.......................a ................................ ......... ...... ........... . ............................... w ......... RA ...... ...... WEIGH TRANSFER POINT MEASURE at-CONVEYOR OPEN STORAGE w pp WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT El Agh ah LOADER& RECLAIMER .......... o []Qaoooauaf--If-WEIGH 6 MEASURE THAWING SHEW To RAIL I" .............. ... . ............. ........... HUNN: ..................................................... .............................. ......................... .. - @k *&A @'& @,.ft '*& & A DOUBLE ROTARY DUMPERS There are basically two rail lines serving the study area; the Burlington Northern and the Union Pacific. Each of these two companies have specific design criteria for rail service to a coal port terminal. These criteria are similar for both companies. The terminal components assumed for this study are comprised of the most conservative criteria from each railroad. one of the most critical requirements relates to the length and curvature of the track because of the impact it has on overall acreage requirements. The most efficient and cost-effective way of moving the unit trains through the site is by utilizing a 11looV1 system of track with aminimum degree of curvature of 7 degrees, 32 minutes. This configuration requires approximately 80 to 100 acres of land. It is also desirable to have suffi- cient trackage ahead of the unloader to accoincodate a train without blocking intersections in the event of equipment failure or scheduling delays. Unloading Systems The terminal,model design incorporates a rotary-dumper having a total capacity of 2,500 tons per hour. This would allow the unloading of a- 100-unit train in approximately 4 hours. Rotary-dump systems can be designed to have a greater capacity than 2,500 tons per hour but these would not be required for a single berth terminal. The rotary-dump would be housed in an enclosed structure and would utilize current dust suppression technology. It is assumed that the same type of unloading system would serve both the Pananax and the larger ship terminal. Weighing and Sampling: Weighing and-sampling facilities measure total coal tonnage and such con- ditions as mo isture and sulphur content. This is done at.both the time coal is unloaded from the train and just prior to ship loading. Conveyors/Material Handling- once the coal is unloaded, weighed and sampled, it is transferred to the open stockpiles by a conveyor system. For the larger ship terminal this component of the system model is a fixed, high capacity conveyor system with conveyor lines serving each stockpile. The conveyors are relatively high speed (approximately 600 feet per minute) and are up to 92 inches.wide (the 92-inch-wide belt system was assumed because it allows lower belt speeds and reduces spillage). The maximum height of this system is approximately 100 feet. This system model has the capability to move coal to any of the storage piles singly or together. Coal being loaded on ships is conveyed by a second, separate conveyor sys- tem. This system utilizes a moveable bucket "reclaimer" on tracks. The reclaimer transfers the coal by a conveyor to a "linear loader" that runs parallel to the berth. This loader is capable of discharging at a rate of 4,000 tons per hour. and has the capacity to serve both the Panamax and larger ship sizes. The loader, approximately 120 feet high, is the tallest structure on the site. (Although reclaim tunnels have been incorporated into sane designs, lower maintenance costs have favored surface reclaimers.) 5-3 Storage/Land Requirements Storage on the site is in open piles approximately 65 to 80 feet high. The amount of storage, and/or the specific number of storage piles required, is related to the number of different classifications of coal that must be accommodated and the differential rate of incaning and outgoing product. The requirement for backlog capacity from either the supply side or dis- tribution side of the terminal also has a large effect on storage capacity requirements. Storage capacity at the terminal, although it is a major factor in the design, is not necessarily a function of the throughput capacity of the terminal. The Panamax terminal model has approximately 30 acres of.storage space with up to four piles 200 feet wide, 1,200 feet long, and 65 feet high. The larger ship terminal model has a 50-acre storage area with up to six piles 250 feet wide, 1,200 feet long and 65 feet high. The total land area required for each of the assumed terminals is primarily a function of storage area and the area required for the loop track. The Panamax terminal requires a total land area of approximately 100 acres, and the larger ship terminal requires a total land area of approximately 150 acres. Berth For both of the terminal models, a berth consists of a water area and a pier or mooring structure adjacent to the loading facilities of the terminal. . I The berth for the Panamax terminal would allow ships up to 740 feet long to tie up for loading. The berth is approximately 860 feet long, 100 feet wide and would have a minimum draft depth of 41 feet at lowest tide. The berth for the larger ship terminal would allow ships up to 1,000 feet long to tie up, is approximately 1,100 feet long and 150 feet wide, and would have a minimum depth of 65 feet at the lowest tide. Both of the model coal port terminals also require nuTkerous other service and support facilities such as administrative offices, employee areas, maintenance buildings, dust control systems, surface water treatment sys- tems, parking and outdoor storage areas, access roads, and service facilities for the ships. Oth er design elements that have been included in both model facilities include: shore protection (riprap); fencing; landscaping; moorage facilities; an access channel to the berth and a turning basin that would allow ships of both classes to utilize the terminal 'unrestricted; and neces- sary public utilities and services such as sewer, water, and power. While it was necessary to make specific assumptions as a basis for the impact model, there area large nunber of design alternatives. Each of these alternatives has certain advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost, operational efficiency and environmental impact. Below is a brief description of each of the design alternatives evaluated: 0 Straight Track Eliminates the rail loop in favor of a straight track, or spur, for unloading. This requires trains to reverse direction once the unloading operation is ccinplete. 5-4 0 Bottom Dumping utilizes bottom dumping gondola, or "hopper," cars which discharge on a trestle into a conveyor system. This permits trains to unload while mroving, with almost twice the unloading capacity of the rotary-coupled dumper. 0 Slurry Pipeline. Utilizes a slurry pipeline in place of a rail system to bring coal to the terminal. This system requires additional facilities for dewatering the coal and wastewater treatment. 0 Enclosed Storage Provides for covering the open stockpiles or would store coal in 11silos.11 0 Direct Ship Loading Requires a direct ship loading from the train or pipeline. 0 Bottan Feed Conveyors Utilizes a fixed "hopper" conveyor under each individual storage pile to collect and transfer the coal to the ship loader. There are a number of other design alternatives that could be included, but the above-described reflect the range of impacts such alternatives have on the enviroment and are the most likely to be considered in any design for this region. Table 10 sumarizes the significant advantages and disad- vantages of each of these design alternatives. 5-5 TABLE 10 COAL PORT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE KEY FACTORS Initial Cost Operational Cost Environmental Impact Straight Lower site costs.. Higher freight costs. Less land required. Track Less land required. More rail operational more potential for System problems. train/traffic conflict. Bottom Lower site costs. Unloading difficulty. Train uses more fuel Dumping Rail cars cost Siting problems in some to haul ton of coal. more. locations. Low capacity Noisier than rotary. to weight ratio. Slurry Higher site costs. Lower transportation Greater potential for Pipeline Higher facility costs. Higher costs to water quality impacts. costs. dewater coal. Increased off-site impacts (see Chapter III) Enclosed Higher site costs. Higher maintenance Less air pollution Storage Possibly less land costs. Less Greater explosion risk. required. flexibility. Possibly less land required. Less water quality problems. Direct Ship Lower site costs. Less flexibility. Less land required. Loading Less land required. Higher demurage. Increased train/traffic High rail costs. conflicts. Increased High operating costs. impacts during Reduced capacity. emergencies. Bottom Feed Higher site costs. Less flexibility. Explosion potential. Conveyors More maintenance Less visual impact. difficulty. Lower Less air quality operating cost. impacts. Permit and Approval Requirements Introduction With the environmental movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s came a variety of legislative packages designed to identify and minimize the impacts proposed actions would have on the environment. At the national level, such legislation included the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Water Pollution Control Act which was later amended to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Washington state, like many others, followed suit. It passed its own State Environmental Policy Act. The state environ- mental concern also spilled over into land use management with the Shorelines Management Act. 5-6 This legislation along with other acts at the federal, state, and local levels requires a myriad of permits to be obtained prior to the development of a coal export facility or any other project of a similar magnitude. Table 11 shows a list of coal port permit requirements along with agency responsibilities and typical processing times. What this table does not show is the amunt of preparation time required prior to or during permit submittal and processing. It is during this preparatory period that coor- dination and negotiation between developer and agencies takes place. This preparation process can significantly affect the amount of time required to procure any particular permit or approval. Figure 12 provides a more realistic critical path flow chart illustrating the relative amounts of time required to procure different permits. Those permits with the longer time lines indicate areas where a significant delay could potentially extend project scheduling. This chapter discusses the requirements which must be met in order for these permits to be issued. The major focus is on the permits that are designed to limit the environmental impacts and which the issuing agencies have some degree of discretion in their administration. Sane discussion is also included on.those permits that are performance related and have set stand- ards and criteria that must be satisfied prior to issuance. Federal Permits Two federal agencies have jurisdiction over projects affecting navigable waterways. The U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers issues permits for works and structures under authority of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The Corps also issues permits under Section 404 (of the Clean Water Act) for fill material in wetlands. The Coast Guard administers permits for bridges and causeways affecting navigable waterways under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Corps requests input from the Coast Guard on Section 10 permits to ensure the proposal does not adversely affect vessel safety through impacts to navigation channels or aids to navigation. The Section 10 and 404 permits are highly discretionary and dependent upon input from a variety of federal, state, and local agencies. Such input usually canes in response to a "Notice of Application" issued by the Corps. By circulating notices of application, the Corps coordinates efforts and actions of all agencies with jurisdiction over a proposal to ensure its compliance with all regulations and interjurisdictional conflicts. Input from private individuals and groups is.also solicited through the same mechanism. 5-7 TABLE 11 Typical Coal Port Permit Requirements Typical Processing Permit Agency Time Corps of Engineers (COE) Corps of Engineers 60-90 days Hydraulic Project WashingtonDepart- 30 days Approval (HPA) ment of Fish & Game National Pollution Discharge Washington Departnent 5-9 months Elimination System (NPDES) Of Ecology (DOE) Sewage and waste Treatment DOE 2-6 months Approval Water Quality Certification DOE Short-Term Exception to DOE Water Quality Certification Water Right DOE Surface Mining Permit DNR 25 days Marine Land Lease, DNR Deep-water Disposal Pen-nit DNR Burning Notification DNR 3 days Air Pollution Control Regional Air Pollution 30 days Facilities Approval Control Authority Master Application County Planning Dept. Shoreline Management Act County Planning Dept. 90 days Substantial Development Shoreline Variance/ County Planning Dept./DOE 90 days Conditional Use Floodplain Management and County Planning Dept./DOE 15 working days Supplenent Floodplain Variance County.Planning Dept. 15 working days Surface Mine and Supplement County Planning Dept. DSHS Approval Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) Dredge Waste Disposal DNR 5-8 Figure 12 Critical Path - Permit Preparation and Processing Time (months) roject - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P' Approval COE 404 COE See. 1 HPA SEPANEPA P- Shoreline Management * Substantial Development * Variance Floodplain Management Floodplain Variance Other Permits and Approvals * Federal * State 9 Local Public Hearing Process O@ There are two other external sources of input to the Corps that generally must be.satisfied prior to the issuance of the Section 10 or 404 permits. one is the issuance of other permits by other agencies with jurisdiction. Hydraulics Projects Approval issued jointly by the Washington Department of Fisheries and Game is such a permit paralleling Section 10 requirements. Water Quality Certification by the Washington Department of Ecology paral- lels the Section 404 criteria. These pen-nits will be discussed in detail later. The other criterion is agreEment by the appropriate agencies that the project's impacts to the natural environment are mitigated. The requirr=ments of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act state that filling activities causing unacceptable impacts to wetlands associated with waters of the U.S.. must be mitiqated. Those agencies with responsibility for providing comments to the Corps are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Washington Depart- ments of Fisheries and Game (WDF and WDG). The variables and impacts of any .proposed project are bound to differ frcrn other projects. For this reason, there are few desiqn criteria that can be applied to each and every project requiring resource agency review. Therefore, an applicant should contact each agency for input- Each proposal must be evaluated on its own merits for its adverse impacts to the wildlife and fishery habitat. Mitigatirxg measures -mav then be developed to compensate for the adverse impacts peculiar to the proposal. State Permits There are a varietv of permits issued by state agencies that would probably be required for the development of a coal export facility regardless of the location. Most are performance oriented. That is, there are certain criteria established by law that must be satisfied before the permit will be issued. This section will discuss each of these permits, the responsible agercy, and the general requirc-ments of each permit. 0 Hydraulics Project Approval (HPA) This "permit" is required for any project that involves dredging or the placEment of a structure in state waters. R.C.W. 75.20.100 states that applicants must suhmit "full olans. and specifications of the proposed construction work, complete plans and specifications for the protection of fish life in connection there- with..." and must receive written approval for the proposed project The restrictions placed on the proposal usually limit the types of materials used in construction of the structures,the period of construction.and perhaps the method of construction. Dredqinq periods are confined to those times when juvenile fish of either food or game species are not present. Dredqinq operations and procedures are also specified. This pennit is,issued jointly by the Department of Fisheries and Game. If wildlife habitat impact mitigation under the Corps' Section 404 permit and the Fishand Wildlife Coordination Act is involved in the proposal, an HPA will not be issued until the mitiqation activity issue is resolved. 5-9 0 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) This permit is required under PL92-500,,the Clean Water Act, for any effluent discharge into public or private waters. originally administered by the Envirormental Protection Agency.. the NPDES is now issued by the state Department of Ecology. The permit applies to discharges frcm sanitary wastewater treatment plants as well as to effluent from industrial wastewater treatment plants or, in the case of coal transshipment facilities, fram the treated runoff frcm coal storage piles. Current regulations indicate that the limiting design event would be the 10-year, 24-hour runoff. Specific effluent standards for coal pile runoff have not been adopted at this tine. However, Table 12 shows the NPDE,S requirements for the Centralia Steam Plant which has considerable volumes of above-ground coal storage. TABLE 12 Centralia Steam Plant NPDES Permit Requirements REQUIRED TO REPORT (sample above and below outfall as well as effluent) LIMITS Turbidity 75 NTU maximum and not more than 5 NTIU above receiving water pH 6.0 to 9.0 D.O. 6.5 mg/l or 70% of saturation, whichever is greater Fe Not to exceed 7.0 mg/l Not required to report Free of: 1. Oil or other petroleum products 2. Floatable or settleable solids 3. Toxic or deleterious material Total suspended solids 50 mg/l* *Standards not in effect following the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event. 5-10 0 Sewage and Waste Treatinent Facilities Approval This approval is issu ed by the Department of Ecology after it has reviewed the,design and specifications of all wastewater treatment plants. The purpose of this approval is to ensure that the proposed treatment facility provides for a reliable and effective method.of waste treatment, as well a to avoid the duplication of service where other facilities are available. In this manner, the number of effluent sources is limited. Obviously, this approval must work in harmony with the NPDES permit. Both the NPDES and Sewage and Waste Treatment Facility Approval require detailed enqineering and design efforts and are not required during the initial site permitting phase. However, preliminary engineering evaluations are generally required during this phase by the Depart- ment of Ecology to ensure that the entire project is designed to minimize wastewater generation and.maximize treatment capabilities. o Water Quality Certification and/or Short-Tenn Exception to Water Quality This permit is issued by the Department of Ecology to ensure that there is no degradation of water quality durim dredging activities or construction of structures in state waters. For the various types of dredginq activities, methods of operation are specified for the dredge itself and for the water return. For structures, the types of materials allowed are specified. Short-term excep- tions are granted when sane impacts cannot be avoided, but DOE requires every effort to be made to minimize those impacts to water quality. This permit is required during the initial permitting phase and generally must be issued prior to issuance of the Corps' permits. 0 Marine Land Lease Before development of mooring facilities can take place in state- owned waters, a lease for submerged lands must be issued. The power to lease all Platted first- and second-class tidelands and harbor areas belonginq to the state and situated upon tidal waters is vested in the Commissioner of Public Lands who supervises the Department of Natural Resources. Applications for leases of harbor areas upon tidal waters must be accompanied by drawings and plans of the proposed improvements. This lease application must be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources in acceptable detail prior to issuance of the Corps' Section 10 permit. Similar requirements exist for lease of freshwater harbor areas. Sites not on state owned lands are not required to obtain this kind of lease. 0 Air Pollution Control Facilities Approval Any activated air pollution control authority may classify air contaminant sources which may cause or contribute to air pollution. The authority or Department of Ecology will require notice of construction, installation, or establishment of any new air con- taminant sources. As a condition precedent to construction, either of those agencies may require the submission of plans, 5-11 specifications, and other information in order to determine whether the proposal will meet the requirements of all applicable air pollution rules and requlations, and provide all known available and reasonable mission control. The applicant must show that the best available control technology will be used and that the facility will not result in a violation of state and federal air quality standards.. In non-attainment areas, an emission offset would be required. If estimated emissions levels exceed 250 tons per year, pre-construction and operations monitoring may be required. If the aqency determines the proposal ccmpl.ies, it will approve the proposal with possible conditions to assure maintenance of cam- pliance. This approval must be obtained durim the initial permit- ting phase. 0 Water Ricihts and Approval of Public Water Supplies Nearly any entity desiring to appropriate ground or surface water for a beneficial use shall first apply to the Department of Ecoloqy for a pemit.for the appropriation. Each application specifies the source, the nature and amount of proposed use, the time the water is required, the location, and description of the works to deliver the water and the period of construction. All applications must include maps or drawinqs as the department may.require. Water appropriations permits are necessary for withdrawal,of water from any surface water body. Withdrawal from groundwater sources in volunes greater than 5,000 gallons per day requires an appropriation permit. Either the local health dist rict of the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) must approve the plans and the design of a public works to ensure that the facility will consistently and reliably Provide water which meets potable standards. The agency with jurisdiction varies depending upon local health district capabilities and agreements with DSHS. Local Pemits Most permits issued by local governments deal with the appropriateness of a proposal as.a land use. If the site proposed for a bulk handling facility is not designated for such use,. either amendments to the zoninq ordinance and canprehensive plan are required or a new site may be necessary. Procedures for amendments to these types of requlations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But, the proponent of an amendment can rest assured that a series of public.hearinqs will be involved and that the proposed amendmentshould be thoroughly addressed in the project's environmental docunent for its public need, public benefits and detrimental impacts. 0 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit The Shorelines Management Act was enacted in 1971 as a measure to increase coordination in the management of the development of the fragile and valuable resources of shorelines. State guidelines, as administered through local Shorelines Master Programs, give preference to uses in the following order, which: 0 recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest 0 preserve the natural character of the shoreline 0 result in long-term over short-term benefit 0 protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline 0 increase public access to publicly owned areas of shorelines 0 increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline No development may be undertaken on shorelines of state sig- nificance except those which are consistent with the state policy and local master program. Shoreline Substantial Development Per- mits must be cbtained fram the local agency with jurisdiction to ensure that the development meets the criteria of the Shorelines Act. Permit application and issuance procedures vary among jurisdictions with the local master programs. Regulations that will be consis- tent though, are public notice procedures and review periods, canpliance withl the State Environmental Policy Act, and canpliance with all other local land use regulations. Action by the local government to approve or deny the permits must be reported to the Department of Ecology for its review of the local action's confor- mance with state guidelines. Appeals of local actions by aggrieved parties may be heard by the Shoreline Hearings Board. The appeal must be filed within 30 days of the Department of Ecology's receipt of the local action. The department or the Attorney General must certify the reasons for the review are valid before the matter goes to the Hearings Board. Judicial review of the local action or the Hearings Board's action may be an alternative. Certain aspects of coal transshipment facilities may be designated as conditional uses or require variances under local Shorelines Master Programs. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in the administration of the use regula- tions of the master program in a manner consistent with state policies. Conditional use permits may also be granted under cir cumstahces where denial of the substantial development permit would hinder the application of state policies. The purpose of variances is to grant relief to specific performance standards where there are unique or extraordinary circumstances relating to the property such that strict implementation of the regulation imposes a hardship on the applicant. Developers should consult local master programs to determine the need for conditional use or variance permit applications for potential sites. All variances, condi- tional uses, and Shoreline master Program amendments require review and approval of the Department of Ecology. 0 Flood Plain Permits Most local governments have adopted flood danage prevention ordinances as a means of avoiding damage to private property by flooding and to participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. These ordinances virtually prohibit development within the floodway or 100-year flood boundary,unless the development can be proven to have no effect upon the elevation of the 100-year flood. Under certain circumstances, variances may be available. Additionally, development in the 100-year flood fringe usually is allowed by permit only. Standards for development in these areas require the project to be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation or "flood-proofed." Other Permits There are several other permits that may be required depending on the specific design of the facility and the site. At the state level, Burning Permits from CNR or the Air Pollution Control Authority may be required if there is vegetation to burn after the site is cleared. If there is mining to be performed, a Surface Mine Reclamation Approval from DNR will be neces- sary. The state Utility and Transportation Ccmission must approve all crossings of public roads and railroads. At the local level, all construc- tion requires building permits. Also, scme form of approval is usually necessary for the creation of new intersections between project roads and existing thoroughfaresi Although the state Department of Ecology promulgates specific noise stand- ards (WAC 173-60) for development and commercial activity, no particular permit is required. Noise impacts must be addressd in the EIS for a site., however, where it must be shown that noise levels are either within state standards or are adequately mitigated. Depending on local procedures, other permits or approvals may be necessary. Summary There are nunerous permits and approvals that are necessary for almost all aspects of the development of a bulk coal transshipment facility. Working in concert with the mandatory environmental impact statement, these permits require the proponent to fully investigate and evaluate alternative designs and methods of development that will limit the adverse impacts to all seg- ments of the envirorrnent. Through this process, the public interest is Protected and maintained. 5-14- The permitting system is designed to be canprehensive in. scope and coordi- nated among the various levels of jurisdiction. Those agencies with the closest and.most specific jurisdiction must approve the proposal and issue the appropriate permit before the next level will act. In this manner, local permits must be issued prior to the state agencies issuing their permits. The federal permits are generally issued after all of the state and local permits are approved. This procedure is designed to avoid the possibility of conflict or contradiction among the various authorities. 5-15 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL Introduction Facility canponents and typical modes of operation, including transportational modes, are described in previous chapters. Given this background, a generic checklist of envirormental impacts can be developed which can be used to make a first-order determination of major impact issues to be addressed at any particular site. This chapter presents an environ- mentalchecklist model utilizing supporting docanentation of potential envirorinental isnpact. This model illustrates, in checklist fashion, both major and minor potential impact issues and provides the format for defining critical envirormental issues on a site-specific basis in the next chapter of this document. Potential Impact Issues Potential impact issues are those aspects of the physical, biological and socio-economic envirorments which could potentially be impacted either directly or indirectly by the development of a coal export facility at any particular location. Table 13 provides a synoptic breakdown of these poten- tial issues organized in a checklist format similar to that described in the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The impact issues presented could be of either major or minor concern depending upon the character of a specific site. They are, however, presented here to provide a guide to envirormental concerns which should be addressed in a detailed impact statement or assessment. The following text discusses potential enviromental impact issues in detail. Earth Coal port facilities are characteristically surrounded by a berm structure to contain coal pile runoff and to serve as a rail bed for a loop spur track to accoamodate coal unit trains. In addition, a substantial portion of the site area itself would be covered by a compacted clay or other impermeable layer to keep runoff from seeping into subsurface soils and groundwater. Coal piles, piers, dikes and roads are major facility components which impact earth conditions. This type of excavation and development has the direct impact of changing area topography and compacting local soils at the site. Indirect impacts could result from modifications of established hydrologic regimes and runoff patterns in the area. In addition, pier structures across shorelines can change depositional patterns by interrupting longshore transport of sedi- ments along a beach. Table 13 CHECKLIST MODEL POTENTIAL IMPACTS Earth 0 Changes to local topography 0 Surface campaction 0 Alteration Of longshore transport Air . � Elevated dust emissions � Fmissions fran ships, trains and other vehicles Water @ I � modification of hydrologic regimes � Elevated levels of runoff � Degradation of adjacent surface waters by windblown dust � Increased turbidity due to dredging and dredge disposal Flora and Fauna � Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat � Degradation ofiadjacent aquatic habitat � Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat � Disruption of corridors and fish migratory pathways � Rare or endangered species impacts other .0 Noise pollution 0 Light and glare generation 0 Alteration of land use designations 0 Potential for onsite accidents � Potential for ship accidents � Traffic congestion at grade crossings � Increased demand for public services � Increased demand for utilities � Aesthetic impact 0 Disruption of recreational/commercial fishing � Disruption of general recreational activities � Archaeological/historical resource impacts � Canpeting uses for.land and shoreline 6-2 Air The types of emission sources associated with a coal facility are fugitive in nature, similar to road and agricultural windblown dusts. The coal handling activities that will 'be potential sources of particulate emissions include: railcar unloading, conveyor belts, conveyor transfer points, stackers and reclaimers, shiploading points, and the storage piles. There will be secondary Emissions (as products of combustion) associated with the facility fran the exhausts of ships, trains, and vehicular equipment on site. Fugitive dust is released from open storage piles by wind and other weather- ing forces. (Oxidation of stored coal may also result in scxne minor amounts of gaseous emissions.) Several factors influence the amount of particulate emissions frcm coal storage piles: � Weather conditions 0 Local topography � Coal pile surface area � Coal pile geometry � Moisture content and density of the coal .0 Length of storage time o: Age of the coal � Coal size 0 Coal friability (dustiness) � Dust control design measures The level of potential dust emissions from a coal port operation and the efficiency of dust control design measures was calculated for the proposed Port of Kalama site in Table 14. The dispersion characteristics of potential coal dust from the proposed coal handling facility will be dependent upon weather conditions (wind velocity, precipitation), topographical barriers (embanknents, dikes, vegetation), and the specific,fallout characteristics of the dust particles. (The Port of Kalama (1982) estimated that for approximately 150 tons(l.) per year of fugitive dust emissions, maximum main path fallout could amount to 0.022 pound/square foot/year). Studies conducted by the EPA(2) have shown that at wind speeds greater than 12 mph, only about 40 percent of the particulate matter would remain suspended at a downwind distance of 0.6 miles. The same studies have shown at a distance of six miles downwind less than 17 percent of the particulates were expected to remain in suspension. of special (1) This estimate for total particulate emissions may be low. Estimates for the Superior Midwest Energy Teminal in Wisconsin indicate that almost 1,000 tons of particulates were generated in 1980, for 4 million tons of annual coal throughput. (2) L. Pelham,and L.A. Abrons-Robinson, M. Ramanathan and D. Zimmora, The Environmental Impact of Coal Transfer and Terminal Operations, EPA 600/7-80-169, October 1980. 6-3 TABLE '14 SUMMARY OF POTENTIALAND ACTUAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AT 15 MILLION TONS PER YEAR LOCATED AT KALAMA, WASHINGTON Annual Annual Control Actual Number Emissions Capacity Emissions Efficiency Emissions of Total Factor* (million tons) (tons) (percent) (per unit) Units Emissions Rai Icar Unloading 0.4 15 3,000.00 99 30.00 1 30.00 Transfer Points 0.1 15 750.00 99 7.50 5** 35.00 Loading into Storage 0.014 15 105.00 90 10.50 1 10.50 Piles Wind Erosion from 0.020 1.5 15.00 90 1.50 1 1.50 Storage Piles Loading Out from 0.017 15 127.50 70 38.25 --- 38.25 Storage Piles Loading into Ships 0.4 5 1,000.00--* 99 10.00 3 30,00 TOTAL 145.25 Expressed in pounds/tons calculated from EPA-450/3-77/010 Average Annual emissions per pier Source: Dennis; 1981 concern would be potential adverse impacts to nonattairment areas and other areas of air quality sensitivity located downwind of a prospective coal port operation, Table 15 provides a rough estimate of the potential mass emission of other selected pollutants associated with one pound of fugitive coal dust frcm a site. These estimates were based on data reported by Cross, 1981 and Davis and Boegly, 1981,,,which have been adjusted to reflect coal dust Emissions from western coal storage piles. Visible emissions (other than from the ships, locanotives, and other mobile sources) should be minimal, and no measurable increase in odors should be detectable offsite. There will be sane impact on air quality during the construction of the proposed facility, Reasonable precautions should be expected to minimize the generation of dust and exhaust emissions by construction equipment. Table 15 POTENTIAL POLLUTANT MASS CONCENTRATION IN FUGITIVE COAL DUST EMISSIONS Mass Concentration Pollutant (parts per million by weight) Alaninun 8 Arsenic 7 Bar i un 65 Calci= 8 Cadmium 4 Chloride 160 Cobalt 9 Chranium 45 Cesium 2 Copper, 30 Lead 7 Manganese 45 Potassium 2 Sodium 250 Iron 4 Water Development of a coal port facility would probably modify existing patterns of surface water movement in an area. The major portion of a coal port site would be covered by a relatively impermeable working surface which could be expected to raise the runoff coefficient for the site area. Surface water and runoff would tend to move across the surface of facility working areas, accumulating in a system of ditches leading to a stormwater treatment system consisting of a series-of settling ponds and several stages of treatment processes. After treatment, this water would typically be recycled for dust 6-5 suppression spraying of the coal piles. Excess treated runoff would prob- ably be discharged to local receiving waters. The potential contributor to water quality degradation in the area of a coal port develoEment would be expected to result fran fugitive coal dust emis- sions from exposed coal piles and from ship loading operations. Specific amounts of fugitive coal dust to be expected cannot be estimated until a determination is made regarding the "best available control technology" (BACr) to be incorporated into a specific facility design. This determina- tion would be made during the permitting process administered by the local air pollution control authority. Estimates of direct rainfall runoff from coal piles vary from 25 percent to 73 percent (U.S. Army Corps of Qigineers, 1976; Cox, et al., 1979). Factors affecting the amount of rain as direct runoff include: frequency, intensity and duration of rainfall; pH of rain water; evaporation; and absorptive character of the coal. Factors wbich affect the character of coal pile leachates include: � Coal pile volmie-, surface area and geometry � Coal particle size and absorptive character � Coal pile compaction � Rainfall � General climate � Degree of coal cleaning prior to delivery � Use of dust suppressant chenicals onsite Specific water quality data for western coal leachate are limited. Mst western coal mines have not been fully tested for pollution potential because these coals are considered basically "clean" (the sulfurs and various metals are primarily inert). However, Table 16 shows the expected range of pollutant considerations that could occur in coal leachate. These data were collected in August 1975 frcxn the KeTmerer Coal Mines coal storage -yaning (Port of Kalama, and handling facility located in south%A--stern W 1982). 6-6 Table 16 EXPOCTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN COAL PILE LEACHATE Pollutant Concentration (mg/1) Total Solids 500 to 3,000 Total Dissolved Solids 500 to 2,000 Total Suspended Solids 5 to 100 Total Hardness (CaCO 3) 300 to 1,200 A 100 to 600 4kalinity (CaC03) Bicarbonate 100 to 160 Sodium 20 to 200 Boron 0.7 to 0.8 Potassium 5 to 30 Calcium 120 to 240 Sulfate 100 to 1,000 Chloride 2 to 12 Fluoride 0.5 to 1.0 Silica 1.0 to 20.0 Manganese 30 to 150 Copper 0.1 to 1.0 Zinc 0.060 to 0.020 Aluminum 0.0 to 0.03 Lead 0.0 to 0.1 Total Iron 0.09 to 0.90 Ferrous Iron 0.0 to 0.5 Nitrate 0.3 to 2.3 TKN 0.7 to 3.0 Total Phosphate 0.4 to 1.8 Ammonia 0.4 to 1.8 BOD 1.0 to 3.0 COD 9 to 70 pH 6.0, to 8.3 Specific Conductivity 30 to 500 micro-obns per an Dust Suppressants Unknown Bilge Discharge. Variable The specific design requirements of an onsite treatment system are an issue that is determined during the "National Pollution Discharge Elimination System" (NPDES) permit application process. Specific EPA standards will have to be met for this kind of industry activity. Current regulations indicate that the limiting design event would be the 10-year, 24-hour runoff. Table 12 (in the previous chapter) outlines comparable permit requirements for the Centralia coal-fired steam plant. Bilge water from coal colliers can adversely impact local water quality. Bilgemater discharge must therefore be treated along with facility runoff at the onsite water treatment facility to avoid contamination of public waters. Sane ports may require ships to treat bilge water on-board prior to docking and loading. Dredging activities associated with coal port development temporarily increase turbidity in the adjacent navigable waters. Dredging may also be 6-7 required in areas away from the port site area (e.g., navigation channelsi bars, etc.) in order to accommodate coal ship operations. Under these circumstances turbidity effects could be widespread. General issues associated with a dredging project include: o- Water quality o Aquatic habitats � Population dynamics � Seasonal scheduling o Alteration of water flows 0 Migration routes 0 Dredge material disposal Indirect or secondary impacts may result from constructed dikes and coal piles changing the course, velocities and heights of floodwaters.in an area. Treatment of ballast water from arriving ships might also be an issue of concern. During surmer months, the amount of water needed. for dust suppres- sion could reduce groundwater supplies in an area or affect public water availability. Contamination of groundwater by leachate seepage could also be a potential impact concern. Flora When physical aspects of a particular ecosystem are modified, biological parameters also change. Generally, the most far-reaching change is habitat removal and modification. Relationships between organisms and the physical envirorynent which have evolved over may years change and cause new ecosys- tems to emerge that often are not as complex as the natural systems which were replaced. A loss of camplexity in an ecosystem results in a decrease in the types of plants and animals inhabiting a particular area. of special interest is wetland habitat. However, a mixture of upland and aquatic vegetative habitat types which may exist at a prospective site may be a necessary condition to sustain local fish and wildlife populations and their habitat needs. Floral habitats and issues of particular concern include: 0 Productive wetlands � Areas of diverse vegetative stands � Agricultural lands � Rare or endangered plant species � Unique or critical habitat areas Other potential detrimental effects to vegetation in the vicinity of a coal port include clogging of stanata on plant leaves and impairment of photosyn- thetic activity by coal dust settling on plant structures. In addition, heavy metals associated with coal dust might be taken up by plants and plant detritus and incorporated into their tissues. Potential mechanisms for this affect include: 6-8 once incorporated into plant material, heavy metals can make their way into other branches of local food webs. Fauna All plant camunities, are utilized as habitat by a variety of wildlife species., Usually, the communities with a large divesity of plant structures harbor a large diversity of animals. The greater number of vegetation layers provides more habitat types for different animals to use. A coal facility constructed in a previously undeveloped area will eliminate wildlife roughly in proportion to the amount of habitat disturbed. Because it is likely other adjacent habitats are at maximum carrying capacity, displaced animals rarely survive when removed from their own areas and forced into new ones. The use of pilings and piers for ship moorage should have little effect on bottom slope close to the shoreline. Consequently, shallow water habitat currently utilized.by waterfowl, shorebirds, and some mammals should remain essentially intact. Construction and operation of a coal facility could reduce the carrying capacity of pre-existing habitats bordering the site. Noise fran the load- ing and unloading of coal, vehicle traffic, and many other human activities could disturb resident birds and other animals. Shipwash stranding of juvenile fish is a problem only seen when large ocean-going vessels travel at high speeds in constricted areas. This is known to occur along the Colurbia River from the Grays River to Portland. Shipwash stranding occurs on beaches which have a slope flatter than one foot vertical to each eleven feet horizontal. Ship wakes from large ships have two effects. They erode and flatten sand beaches (such as disposal areas). The displacement waves fran large ships also carry near-shore migrating and feeding salmonids up onto the beach. Return flow on a flat sandy beach is through the substrate, leaving the juveniles up on the sand. This effect occurs downstream of proposed coal port sites (on the Columbia River) where ships are moving rapidly while loaded. Compensation for this effect might include correction of flat stranding areas at the project site if they exi st. Dredging activities, associated with facility developuent and maintenance, can be a source of major impact to fisheries resources, as well as benthic communities, in an area. Aside from direct removal of sediment habitats, localdepression of D.O. and sedimentation, dredging can interfer with fish (particularly salmonid) survival. Dredging is usually coordinated with State Department of Fisheries staff to avoid times of major salmonid migrations. Likewise, the placement of pilings is usually timed to avoid peak juvenile salmonid migrations minimizing disruption to fish from increases in turbidity and pile-driven shock during construction. Pilings, once in place, can potentially affect the schooling behavior of sane fish, however. The potential exists for sane wind-blown coal dust to enter nearby aquatic habitats,. Sane of this dust will remain in suspension, while sane will settle out and be incor rated into bottom sediments. (Tripp, et al., 'po (1981) estimate that as much as 40 micrograms per gram of aromatic hydrocar- 6-9 bons found in some U.S. coastal sediments could be derived from unburned coal). The effect of coal dust on aquatic biota is not clear. Gerhart, et al., (1981) report increased mucous production in minnows which had digested coal dust. This affect quickly subsided, however, after the fish were reintroduced to clean water. it is probably safe to project that animals living in large, dynamic water bodies would probably experience no or only short-term adverse reactions to coal dust. Biota inhabiting constricted, slow-moving aquatic habitats could, on the other hand, suffer longer-tenn and more intense affects. Other potential impact issues include creation of barriers to natural cor- ridors of wildlife movement. The potential presence of rare or endangered animal species in a prospective site area is also an impact concern. Noise Noise levels will be increased at and near the facility by the following noise sources: 0 Increased railroad traffic 0 Railroad car unloading 0 Stacker/Reclaimers 0 Coal transfer operations o Shiploading operations The noise sources, caning from various equiLanent types, will emit typical noise levels as determined from published information. These noise levels are sumarized below: Distance* Noise Level (dBA) Locomotive and Train Noise: 1. Locomotive engines 100 feet 74 2. Train cars-start/stop 100 feet is 3. Train cars--wheel noise 100 feet 14 4. Train movement-in/out 100 feet 93** Facility Operation Noise: 1. Train unloading 50 feet 62 2. Conveyors 50 feet 63 3. Stacker 50 feet 63 4. 2 front-end loaders and 1 dozer 55 feet 71 5. Reclaim hopper loading 50 feet 78 6. Ship loading 50 feet 78 7. Baghouse fans 1 meter 85. Distance in feet frorn noise source that measurenent was taken. Short-term peak noise level. Source: Morrison-Knudsen, 1982. 6-10 Light and Glare A typical coal port facility will be equipped with lights for nighttime operation. In addition, Coast Guard regulations will require the instal- lation of appropriate aids to navigation, including navigational hazard lights. A site located near residential or other nonindustrial areas will need to address the potential problem of disruption of adjacent communities by light and glare emanating from the site during nighttime operation. Isolated sites run the potential risk of adversely affecting wildlife usage of adjacent areas due to nighttime light and glare. Of particular concern is the potential for.light and glare distracting passing motorists on adjacent roads and highways at night. Land use Site selection for a prospective coal facility should generally seek to camply with local comprehensive land use plans, zoning and shoreline manage- ment master programs. Where this is not possible, variances to existing land use designations may be required. Such variance requirements could have a variety of impacts depending upon adjacent land uses, agency concern and public receptiveness. Natural Resources Fuel requirements for ship and train movements will result in the con- sumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels. In addition, the comitment of upland and shoreline land resources to this type of industrial use may be viewed as basically irreversible. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions Sane risk of accidental fuel spills will be present both during the receiv- ing of incoming fuel supplies as well as during refueling activities for ships at-port. Various permitting and regulatory authorities, however, require environmen- tal prote ction plans that will minimize spills or other potential.han-nful discharges into a river or shoreline. The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan, required by EPA for this kind of facility, will place several requirements on facility design and operational procedures, as well as placernent.of certain emergency equipment. Coal@pile fires can occur fram sparks from machinery and tools and spon- taneous combustion caused by the oxidation of metallic sulfides associated with the coal. The likelihood of spontaneous combustion is enhanced by the presence of moisture in a coal pile, a lack of air circulation and a large coal pile mass. Sane risk of coal dust explosion may be present if coal piles are covered or contained in silos. 6-11 Population Based upon Projections for proposed coal facilities in Washington state, the creation of new jobs resultinq in local population increases will not be a major impact. The Port of Kalama projects 135 new jobs at their 15-million ton per year facility (and 195 potential secondary jobs) with a resulting population increase to the area of 365 persons. The Ports of Vancouver and Grays Harbor estimate 30 and up to 121 direct jobs associated with their proposed 6-million ton and 10-million ton per year facilities, respectively. Housing Given the relatively low level of facility employment, housing impacts are not anticipated to be a major issue. Transportation Eknplovee and operational traffic generated at a site is not expected to be a major impact issue. Waterborne caamerce and other traffic (including recreational and caTmercial fishing boats) could present sane potential conqestion and maneuverability problems dependinq upon the configuration of particular harbors and water- ways and the nunber of other large ships operatinq in the area. Coal will likely be delivered to local port facilities in unit trains of 80 to 110 cars, each car containing approximately 100 tons of coal, The length of a typical train is estimated at 6,000 feet. It is assumed that each train will brinq approximately 10,000 tons to the site. For a 15 million ton-per-year site, this translates into approximately four or five round trips per day. This volume of traffic increase will present a variety of different impacts to communities alonq major rail transport routes, as well as to the coal Port CULILunity. A detailed discussion of rail impacts is included in Chapter III. Public Services Potential impacts to public services in a comm;Lnity are not anticipated to result in major adjustments to fire protection or police staffs, or expan- sion of local schools, parks or recreational facilities. Maintenance activities and other governmental services are not expected to be affected to any significant degree. Enerciy No major energy requirements or source/availability problems should be antic ipated. Utilities Enerqy use at a prospective coal site should not be excessive. Based upon electrical usage at the Roberts Bank facility in Vancouver, British Colurn-- bia, electricity used per metric ton of coal handled is about 1.46 kWH. 6-12 Human Heal th No major or unusual human health impacts are anticipated for people living near a coal port facility. The potential does exist, however, for health problems to develop in workers at the site. This is particularly true for personnel who work in confined areas where coal dust is prevalent. Respiratory ailments could result unless proper worker safety procedures are followed. Aesthetics A highly visible coal facility may result in significant aesthetic impacts, whether viewed frcLu the land or the water. Coal piles are large and dirty,, and considered by many to be just plain ugly. The prospective presence of a coal port can be extremely upsetting to adjacent land owners and users of an area who place a high premium on scenic country and shoreline vistas. Recreation Water associated ccmponents of a coal facility may present severe impacts to recreational fishing and other water uses in sane areas, particularly where extensive pier or piling structures are required. Insurance carriers for a facility may require that recreational boaters and fishetmen be kept away from these structures, thus excluding these areas frcm recreational use. Archaeological/Historical As with any major project, any suspected archaeological or historical resources in the development area must be surveyed and accounted for.. An assessment of this kind of impact must be made on a case-by-case basis and coordinated through the state office of Archaeology and Historic Preserva- tion. A state-approved, professional archaeologist may have to be called to a site to conduct survey work prior to development. Caupeting Uses C=peting potential uses for a specific site area may require a separation. of facility ccmponents. For instance, unloading and storage operations which are not water dependent may have to be located well inland from the coal loading and ship berthing operations to allow more roan for other competing facilities to utilize limited shoreline land resources. Econanic The economic impact to a community of a coal port facility is generally to broaden the local tax base and increase local revenues. The diversifying influence of a coal facility on a local economy is often viewed as a means of alleviating existing econanic hard times brought on by market slumps in more traditional industries like forest products. Coal ports also make available secondary industry and job opportunities which would not exist otherwise. 6-13 .of alleviating existing economic hard times brought on by market slunps in more traditional industries like forest products. Coal ports also make available secondary industry and job opportunities which would not exist otherwise. Taxes on a "typical" coal facility, valued at $80 million (excluding land) with a throughput of 10 million-tons-per-year are identified in Table 17. Table 17 .POTENTIAL TAXES ON A COAL FACILITY Construction Sales Tax on $80 Million Facility: � State ($4.5 cents/$1.00) $3,600,000 � Local (1.0 cents/$1.00) 800,000 � Total Sales Taxes During Construction $4,400,000 Annual Taxes Sales Taxes on Goods and Services Purchased: (Assumes $2,500,000 in supplies per year) 0 State ($4.5 cents/$1.00 $ 112,500 0 Local (1.0 cents/$1.00) 25,000 0 Total Annual Sales Taxes 137,500 Property Taxes on Improvements: (Using typical rural Washington tax rates) 0 Local ($3.50/$1,000) $ 280,000 0 County ($1.50/$1,000) 120,000 0 School District ($200/$1,000) 160,000 0 State School ($3.20/$1,000) 256,000 0 Other Districts ($3.20/$1,000) 80,000 0 Total Property Taxes ($11.20/$1,000) $ 896,000 Total Amu al Taxes: $1,033,500 in addition, depending on land ownership at the coal port site, leasehold taxes or property taxes will also be paid to local governments. Property taxes are already.being,paid,on un@developedland, so no added taxes will accrue fran coal port construction (assuming that coal port development will not increase the land's assessed valuation) on private land. Leasehold taxes on lands leased from ports or other governments could add another $10 1. Sales tax rates assume the current state rate will revert to 4.5 cents in 1983 and that local governments will expand their taxing authority to the legal limit of 1.0 cents. 6-14 thousand to @15 thousand per year in revenues to the state (basedon a $1 million land value with a 10% rate of return). Another potential tax is the public utility tax of 1.8% of gross income, which will be assessed if a private developer uses port facilities for warehousing of coal. Since this is an unlikely occurrence, no revenues are estimated from the public utility tax. State business and occupation (B&O) taxes will not be collected, because rail and water transportation are classified as interstate and foreign commerce. Transactions between coal buyers and sellers are thereby exenpted from state taxes. The state inventory tax also will not apply to coal operations in this state, since it will be phased out in 1984. To fund a large coal port facility, the ports themselves have several mechanisms at their disposal for generating capital. Iftiese include: operating revenues; tax levies; general obligation bonds; industrial development districts; and revenue bonds. According to a state Department of Conmerce and Economic Development report (1980), the industrial revenue bond approach (e.g., the recently adopted HJR-7 approach) is probably the most logical public method of financing a coal port facility, since the leasee or user repays the bonds, not the public. 6-15 VII. SITE-SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS Introduction This chapter presents a first-order environmental assessment of specific potential coal port sites in Washington state. included in this assessment are all port areas which have an expressed strong interest in developing a coal port facility. Port areas identified in past studies include the following: Cherry Point Dupont Anacortes Grays Harbor Everett Longview Tulalip Kalama Tacoma - main harbor Vancouver Steilacoom-Lone Star As a result of discussions with port officials and analysis of information available to this investigation only about- half- of these locations can be considered,serious. prospects. lt;17's is due primarily 'to a general softening of interest in response to recent reappraisals of potential current and near,-term demand for U.S. coal. Ports previously interested in coal facility development cite the lack of a ready market for U.S. coal as one reason why they are no longer interested. Scme ports perceive themselves as currently too far "out of the running" to successfully campete with those ports having permitted and approved sites. The profiles included in this discussion deal with those port areas in the state still giving.serious consideration to coal facility development. Each profile includes asynopsis of the proposed site setting, the current status of development plans and a general indication of major constraints as well as major opportunities related to coal port development. The profiles also include a checklist of potential environmental issues at each port area. It is not the intention of this re o rt to rank port areas wi th res_pect to I? - _-Ureff su1tab_._1_1M'_Y_t_Or7c`Ma_L facility devel .. The evaluations are purely 0@ 'L 't de lopecLt y Y ': L e it 1L -=-@i mfi -c T @__ @c app @oa y used within the context s e s of each specific site addressed. The evaluation of impact issues for each site to CtIO, seeks to distinguish those elements of the environment which have been or would probably have to be investigated in detail if a coal port project was seriously pursued. The evaluations are not environmental judgements on each site, but rather provide indications of those environmental issues of poten- tial concern. Figure 13 shows the locations ofthe specific ports profiled in this sec- tion. 7-1 Cherry Point Public Sponsor(s): Port of Bellingham Participants: Bellcoal Group (Glacier Park Co., subsidiary of BN Railroad; Anaconda Minerals, Inc., division of Arco Coal, Inc.; Bellingham Stevedoring Co., Inc.) Consultants: Swan-Wooster, Inc., Ertec, Inc. Principal Regulatory Agency: Whatcom County Project Description: This facility would utilize a system similar to the "typical large ship" coal port.designated earlier in this study. The site would contain approximately 200 acres, although approximately 1,500 acres could be made available for development if required. The upland site would contain open storage, train unloading, and related facilities. Ship loading and docking activities would occur in deep water (65-plus feet); served by a 2,000-plus-foot-long pier. Location: The site is located at Cherry Point in Whatcan County, approxi- mately 12 miles north of Bellingham. The deep water berth would be located approximately 2,000 feet out into the Straits of Georgia. Capaci@y: The project is presently planned for a maximum capacity of approximately 14 million tons. Setting: The proposed upland site is presently an open area with sane mixed deciduous and evergreen trees. The surrounding area is rural in character with some small farms and residences abutting the property. Within the immediate vicinity there are two oil refineries (Arco and Mobil) and an aluminum smelting plant (Intalco). There are no designated wetlands that would be significantly altered by the upland portion of the development. No filling or dredging will be required to achieve deep water access. Land Use Desi nations: The site and general area is planned and zoned for 1 7790y impact industry." The Matcan County Shoreline Master plan desig- nates the shoreline "conservancy," but allows the placement of piers and docks on pilings. Public Facilities: The site is served by a public water supply that provides only processing water. Potable water would have to be processed or secured through the use of onsite wells. There is no public wastewater treatment facilities serving the site and all the industries in the area use onsite treatment facilities. Power will be provided by the Riatcom County PUD No. 1. The site would be served by the Burlington Northern Railroad over existing rail lines. Constraints: 0 Train traffic will be routed through congested urban areas (Bellingham and Ferndale) with potential for grade crossing conflicts. 7-2 Figure 13 LOCATIONS OF SPECIFIC PORTS PROFILED - - --------- BRITISH-COLUMBIA CHERRY POINT M-@@ . . ......... WASHINGTON ANACORTES TULALIP Seattle 0 Tacoma STEI LACOOM (Lone Star) GRAYS 6AABOR OKA NL, KALAMA VANCOUVER'T , JIJOST I Cherry Point (continued) � There is a major recreational and residential area several miles "downwind" from the proposed site. � There are existing residences at least a mile fram the proposed site. Opportunities: � The site is located in an area planned for "heavy impact industry." � There are existing heavy industrial uses in the immediate vicinity. 0 The site has access to deep water... � Available adjacent area exists for other compatible land uses. 7-3 lndumW PROPOSED SITE 0 ForrWals InWcoi hmfto w Scale 1: 100,000 Figure 14 t 95 CHERRY POINT TERMINAL SITE CHERRY POINT EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES Impact Potential Minor or Categories Impact Issues Non-issues Earth Changes to local topography Surface compaction Alteration of longshore transport Air Elevated dust emissions Emissions from ships, trains and other vehicles Water Modification of hydrologic regimes Elevated levels of runoff Degradation of adjacent surface waters by windblown dust Increased turbidity due to dredging /disposal Flora and Fauna Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat Disruption of corridors and fish migratory pathways Rare or endangered species impacts Other Noise pollution Light and glare generation Alteration of land use, designations Potential for onsite accidents Potential for ship accidents Traffic congestion at grade crossings increased demand for public services increased demand for utilities Aesthetic. impact Disruption of recreat i ona I /commercial fishing Disruption of general recreational activities Archaeological /historical resource impacts Competing uses for land and shoreline Ask 7-4 Anacortes Public Sponsor(s): Port of Anacortes Participants: None Defined Consultants: None Defined Principal Regulatory Agency: Skagit County Project Description: No project has been defined to date. Location: The Port of Anacortes has tentatively designated the northeast end of March Point for coal port development. A specific upland site will not be defined unless a private developer is located. Ship loading would occur in deep water (60-plus feet) approximately 3,000 feet north of March Point in Guemes; Channel. No filling or dredging would be required to achieve deep water access. Capacity: Total capacity could be approximately 15 million to 30 million tons per year. Setting: The east side of March Point is presently rural in character and is being used,for residential purposes. There are no wetlands or designated unique or endangered species within this upland area. The west side of the point is occupied by two major oil refineries (Shell and Texaco). Padilla Bay, in general, is considered to be a significant natural resource by both the state and f&ieral government. The east side of the bay has been desig- nated a conservation area and nature preserve by the state of Washington. Land Use Designations: March Point is zoned for industrial uses and the Skagit County Sho Eeine-Master Plan has designated the area as "urban." Public Facilities: March Point is served by public water of sufficie nt capacity to @rve this use. There are, no public sanitary waste facilities serving the point. The refineries presently utilize onsite disposal sys- tems. Power is supplied by the Puget Power Company. The area is presently served by the Burlington Northern Railroad over existing lines. No prelimi- nary planning or engineering feasibility work has been conducted to date. Constraints: 0 The project would require either the acquisition of a large number of individual properties and the dislocation of existing residents, or the filling of wetlands. 0 Train traffic will be routed through an existing congested urban area (Mt..Vernon). 7-5 Anacortes (continued) opportunities: 0 The site has access to deep water. 0 The area is zoned for heavy industry. 0 Most public services are presently available to the area. 0 The area is located in an air quality "attaiment" area. 7-6 MES C ANNEL, GUEMES > DO, Na > Aoftortes 4%. S,-rE tOCA'rlofV l4d, A > 00 AIVACOF? Figure 1. scale 1: 100 'rES S17-E '000 ANACORTES EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES Impact Potential Minor or Categories Impact Issues Non-issues Earth Changes to local topography 0 Surface compaction Alteration of longshore transport Air Elevated dust emissions Emissions from ships, trains and other vehicles Water Modification.of hydrologic regimes Elevated levels of runoff Degradation of adjacent surface waters by windblown dust Increased turbidity due to dredging /disposal Flora and Fauna Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat Disruption of corridors and fish migratory pathways Rare or endangered species impacts Other Noise pollution Light and glare generation Alteration of land use designations Potential for onsite accidents Potential for ship accidents Traf f ic congestion at grade crossings Increased demand for public services increased demand for utilities Aesthetic impact Di sruption of recreational /commercial fishing Disruption of general recreational activities Archaeological /historical resource impacts Competing uses for land and shoreline 7-7 Tulali Public Sponsor(s): Tulalip Tribes, Inc. Port of Everett (Tentative) Participants: Undisclosed . Consultants: DRAW, Inc., Bechtel, Inc. Principal Regulatory Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs Project Description: The proposed coal port facility would be divided into two major elements. Rail car unloading, weighing, sampling and storage would be located on an upland site with ship loading and.berthing located in deep water. The two elements would be connected with either a conveyor system or a slurry pipeline. The conveyor system alternative would require approximately 8,000 feet of conveyor line and a "surge" storage area on the landside, immediately south of Tulalip Bay. The slurry pipeline alternative would have approximately five miles of buried line and a dewatering facility at the dock to recycle the transport water. At this time the slurry Pipeline is preferred by the tribe over the conveyor system because it allows ship berthing to occur further away from areas of fish migration and has.less visual impact on the Tulalip community. Neither alternative requires dredging. The site will contain approximately 900 acres, although up to 1,500 acres is available if required'. Location: The site is located on the Tulalip Indian Reservation irrmediately to the west of Marysville, Washington. The upland portion of the facility would be located approximately 3-1/2 miles to the northeast of Tulalip Bay. The location of the waterside portion depends on whether the conveyor or the slurry pipeline system is utilized. If the conveyor system is used, the dock and ship loading facilities would be located approximately 800 feet to the south of Mission Beach. If a slurry pipeline is used, these facilities would be approximately 10,000 feet to the south of Mission Beach. Capaci : Total potential upland capacity is 45 million short tons.per year. At present, a 15-million-short-ton-per-year throughput capacity is planned. Setting: The upland area is generally covered with second growth Douglas fir forest. Nowetlands have been identified on the upland site which would be significantly altered. Also, no unique.or endangered species habitats have been identified in the area. Land Use Designations: The upland site is planned and zoned for industrial uses. Because the project is within tribal boundaries, state shoreline requirements and regulations would not apply to those portions of the project lying shoreward of extreme low water. Those portions of the project, including the dock and ship loading facilities beyond extreme low water would be subject to state regulation and this area is designated on the Snohomish County Shoreline Master Plan as "conservancy." 7-8 Tulalip (continued) Public Facilities: Most necessary public services would be provided by the Tulalip Tribe. The Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 would provide power. Water would be supplied by onsite wells and treatment for domestic waste would be provided by the existing treatment plant owned by the tribe. Road access would be from Interstate 5 to 116th Street NE. A new road would have to be constructed from 116th Street NE to the site. Coal would be transported to the site by the Burlington Northern Railroad, and would require the addition of approximately three miles of new spur track. Constraints: 0 The location of the upland storage site requires either a conveyor or slurry pipeline system that is substantially longer than competitive systems. 0 Train traffic must pass through a congested urban area (Marysville). 0 Sane major services, including water supply, are not currently available on the site. 0 Fish migration patterns could be impacted by the location of berthing and loading facilities near shore. 0 Development may interfere with ccmmerce andnavigation. Opportunities: � Extensive acreage is available for site development. � No filling or dredging of wetland will be required. � The site is located in an air quality "attainment" area. � Theproject is in conformance with the adopted Tribal Master Plan. � The site has access to deep water (60-plus feet). 7-9 p p MARYSVILLE 10 0, :N -4, 0 CONVEY R ALTERNATIVE N C4 PIPELINE ALTERNATIVE EVERETT Scale 1 A 00,000 Figure 16 Lo TULALIP TERMINAL SITE TULALIP EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES Impact Potential Minor or Categories Impact Issues Non-issues Earth Changes to local topography Surface compaction Alteration of longshore transport Air. Elevated dust emissions, Emissions from -ships, trains and other vehicles Water Modification of hydrologic regimes Elevated levels of runoff Degradation of adjacent surface waters by windblown dust Increased turbidity due to dredging /disposal, Flora andFauna Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat Disruption of corridors and fish migratory pathways Ask Rare or endangered species impacts Other Noise pollution Light and glare generation Alteration of land use designations Potential for onsite accidents Potential for ship accidents Traffic congestion at grade crossings AM Increased demand for public services Increased demand for utilities Aesthetic impact Disruption of recreational/commercial fishing Disruption of general recreational activities Ak Archaeological /historical res ource impacts Competing uses for land and shoreline 7-10 Steilacoom (Lone Star) Public Sponsor(s): Unidentified Participants: Lone Star Industries, Inc. Consultants: Unidentified Principal Regulatory Agency: Pierce County Project Description: The project involves 100-plus acres of a 400-plus acre sand and gravel mining operation. Navigable water depths of 100 feet occur within 400 feet of the site shoreline. No preliminary plans for the prospective coal operation are currently available. Location: The site is at the location of the existing Loonestar sand and gravel operation near Steilacoan, west of Tacoma. Capacity: The proposed facility would have a throughput.capacity of up to 15 million tons per year. Setting: The site itself is 100 to 200 feet in elevation below the sur- roundi ng countryside, due to past sand and gravel excavations. Residential develognent exists on adjacent properties to the north and east. Another gravel operation lies to the south of the site property. Land Use Designations: The Pierce County Shorelines Master Plan designates the site shoreline as "conservancy," precluding development of a ship berth and coal loading operation. The site and surrounding areas are zoned for 11general use." A special use permit was required for the existing sand and gravel operation. Public Facilities: The project area is a developed industrialized site with water, sewer and electrical service in place. A doublemainline track of the Burlington Northern and Union Pacific railroads service the site. Constraints: � Current shorelines designation excludes develoEment of a coal-loading terminal. � Some fairly dense residential areas exist nearby. � A grade crossing exists at a nearby ferry terminal. 7-11 Steilacoan (Lone Star) .(continued) opportunities: 0 The site is aiready developed industrially. 0 The site is at a lower elevation than surroundings and has a tree buffer. 0 Deep drafts are available without dredging. 7-12 FOX ISLAND Residential 4z Resklential Residential PROPOSED SITE Gravel Pit General Use Zone, hambe" Gravel Pit cc Scale 1: 24,000 Resklential STEILACOOM Figure 17 FOX ISLA ND Resident/W STEILACOOM TERMINAL SITE STEILACOOM (LONE STAR) EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES Impact Potential Minor or Categories Impact Issues Non-issues Earth Changes to local topography Surface compaction Alteration of longshore transport Air Elevated dust emissions Emissions from ships, trains and other vehicles Water Modification of hydrologic regimes Elevated levels of runoff Degradation of adjacent surface waters by windblown dust increased turbidity due to dredging /disposal Flora and Fauna Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat Disruption of corridors and fish migratory pathways Rare or endangered species impacts Other Noise pollution Light and glare generation Alteration of land use designations Potential for onsite accidents Potential for ship accidents Traffic congestion at grade crossings Aft Increased demand for public services Increased demand for utilities Aesthetic impact Disruption of recreational /commercial fishing Disruption of general recreational activities Archaeological /historical resource impacts Competing uses for land and shoreline 7-13 Grays Harbor Public Sponsor(s): Port of Grays Harbor Participants: Undisclosed Consultants: Orba Corp., ABAM Engineers, George Noble & Assoc., and GeoEngineers Principal Regulatory Agency: Grays Harbor County Project Description The proposed project involves a 116-acre site which has historically been used as a dredged material.disposal site. The project is defined as a joint coal/grain export facility. The receiving track provides for tw-unit coal trains and an inside loop is designed for grain trains. Reclaiming of coal will be accamplished at the bottan of the coal pile through a tunnel. The pier will be pile supported, approximately 64 feet wide and 1,000 feet long, and will be connected to the onshore facility by a long trestle supporting a coal conveyor belt. (The@port has tenta- tively identified a second 72-acre site at Terminal 2 as an alternative location for spot shignents of coal. The following discussions deal only with the larger site.) Location: The site is located on the south shore of Grays Harbor, and is situAt between the Newskah River and Charlie Creek between State Highway 105 and the Burlington Northern rail line to Markham. Capacity: Theproject is designed to handle up to 10 million tons annual throughput. Setting: The site was used (from 1973 to 1981) as a disposal area for dredged material. The surrounding areas could be characterized as partially disturbed wood and.meadow lands. Land Use Designations: The Shoreline ManagEment designation of the site and adjoining land areas is "Urban." Howeverf the adjoining water areas are designated as "Conservancy" except;the designation Navigation channel which is also "Urban." The proposed pier would be located in the conservancy environnent. Docks, piers and other water-land connectors are a permitted use in the conservancy envirorment. Public Facilities: The source of.water supply for the site has not been determIn . Electrical power will be provided by the Grays Harbor PUD No. 1. There are no public wastewater treatment facilities serving the site, and onsite treatment would probably be required. The Union Pacific mainline arriving fran Chehalis/Centralia on the south shore would probably serve the site. Constraints.: 0 Exist ing channel depths (-30 feet MLLW) are restrictive. Major dredging would be required. 0 A harbor line change is required. 7-14 Grays Harbor (continued) 0 rtunities: 0 Grays Harbor has a self-maintaining bar and entrance channel. No main- tenance dredging is projected for that area. o Grays Harbor is served by tulo mainline railroads. 0 All land use designations for the site and surrounding area indicate an industrial use. 0 The site is located in an air quality "attainment" area. 7-15 f-0 OQUIA BN. ABERDEEN @4 P, PROPOSED SITE A rA Nk, Z) Scale 1: 12,000 0 LL 10 Figure 18 GRAYS HARBOR TERMINAL SITE GRAYSHARBOR EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES Impact Potential Minor or Categories Impact Issues Non-issues Earth Changes to local topography Surface compaction Alteration of longshore transport Air Elevated dust emissions Emissions from ships, trains and other vehicles Water Modification of hydrologic regimes Elevated levels of runoff Degradation of adjacent surface waters by windblown dust Increased turbidity due to dredging /disposal Flora and Fauna Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat Disruption of corridors and fish migratory pathways Rare or endangered species impacts Zak Other Noise pollution Light and glare generation Alteration of land use designations Potential for onsite accidents Aft Potential for ship accidents Traf f ic congestion at grade crossings increased demand for public.services increased demand for utilities Aesthetic impact Disruption of recreational Icom mercial fishing Disruption of general recreational activities Archaeological /historical resource impacts Competing uses for land and shoreline 7-16 Kalama Public Sponsor(s): Port of Kalama Participants: Pacific Resources, Inc. 'Consultants: Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc.; CH2M Hill, Inc. Principal Regulating Agency: Cowlitz County Project Description:. This facility will cover 175 acres, fron ting on a 40-foot deep navigation-channel, with sizeable throughput capacity. Current design plans include three bert hs, a 30-foot-high berm surrounding the facility, a loop spur.rail line, six long coal pile storage areas, and a typical array of coal-handlinq and ancillary equipment. Berthing areas will be located near the edge of the main Columbia River navigation channel to minimize dredging requirements. An EIS has been completed for the site and all discretionary permits have been obtained. A preliminary engineering report has also been completed. Location: The,site is located north of the town of Kalama,-.near the north bank of 'Kalama River, at the confluence of the Kalama and Colunbia Rivers. Ship berths will extend-several hundred feet into the Columbia River. Capacity: Total planned potential capacity for this facility is 15 million tons per year of coal throughput. Setting: The site is-located in an area that has previously been used by the U.S. Anry Corps of Engineers for dredged material disposal as part of the Mount St. Helens emergency dredging activities. About one-third of the site contains dredged material. The remainder of the site, which was cleared in anticipation of dredge disposal,activities, has since grown back a mixture of wetland and lowland plant species. Surrounding areas include, open and forested wetlands, the Burlington Northern right-of-way and 1-5 corridor, and scme recreational residential areas. Land Use Designations: Cowlitz County has not zoned this area. However, the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the site area as "Industrial." Adjoining land north of the site is designated "Forestry/Open Space" and the shoreline of the Kalama River south of the site is designated 'IConservancyll-in the shoreline element of the Comprehensive Plan. The County. Shorelines Man agement. Master Program is part of the Comprehensive Plan anddesignates,the project site as "Urban," which allows industrial development. The area north of the site is designated "Conservancy." Public Facilities: There are no existing water lines to the site. Potable water will be provided by either a connecting line to a nearby main or by development of a well onsite. The facility is designed to have its own sewage treatment plant. Electrical power to the site will be provided through the local Cowlitz County PUD. The Burlington Northern Railroad will serve the site over existing main line tracks. 7-17 Kalama (continued) Constraints: 0 The site is located in an area of wetlands and other high quality fish and wildlife habitat. opportunities: 0 The site is located in an area designated for industrial development. 0 The NEPA/SEPA process has beencanpleted for the project and all neces- sary permits have been procured to allow development to begin. 0 The adjacent rail route passes through relatively few highly populated areas. 7-18 LIN C TTONWOOD ISLAND Conserva PROPOSE SITE Kalama I twustrial Area 7 Kalama Z- 14A f SCALE 1:24,000 Figure 19 INAL SITE KALAMA TERM KALAMA EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES Impact Potential Minor or Categories Impact Issues Non-issues Earth Changes to local topography Surface compaction Alteration of longshore transport Air Elevated dust emissions qP A91k Emissions from ships, trains and other vehicles Water Modification of hydrologic regimes Elevated levels of runoff Degradation of adjacent surface waters by windblown dust Increased turbidity due to dredging /disposal Flora and Fauna Degradation of adjacent wetland habitat Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat Disruption of corridors and fish m igratorV pathways Rare or endangered species impacts Other Noise pollution Light and glare generation Alteration of land use designations Potential for onsite accidents Potential for ship accidents Traffic congestion at grade crossings Increased demand for public services Increased demand for utilities Aesthetic impact Disruption of recreational/commercial fishing Disruption of general recreational activities Archaeological /historical resource impacts Competing uses for land and shoreline, 7-19 Vancouver Public Sponsor(s): Port of Vancouver Participants: Westmoreland Resources, Inc. Consultants: Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. Principal Regulatory Agency: Clark County Project Description: The proposed facility is a 42-acre site in an area which has predaninantly been used for disposal of dredged material. Landside facilities will include a rail loop to accataodate unit trains, an underground coal car dump, pads for coal stockpiles, and conveying systems. The facility will be served by a 1,000-foot wharf extension to the port's existing Berth No. 8. The depth at berth is 40 feet. Location: The project site is located near the city of Vancouver at river mile 104of the Columbia River. Capacity: The designed capacity of this site is 6 million tons per year. SettLra; Two-thirds of the site area is covered with dredged.material. The remaining one-third consists of cropland, grasslands and woodlands. A 4-acre portion of the grasslands area has beenidentified as wetlands. The project site is bounded on the west by vacant land adjoining the ALCOA aluminum plant; on the east by a 600-foot-wide transmission line right-of-way, used for open storage of cargo by the Port of Vancouver; on the northby the Burlington Northern Railroad lead.to the ALCOA plant, with vacant land north ofthat; andon the south by the Columbia River. About 25 acres of the site are covered with dredged material. The remainder of the property includes about 6 acres of cropland, 3 acres of black cottonwood trees, 1 acre of brush,,and 7 acres of grassland. Land Use Designation: The entire project site is designated by the Corps of Engineers, 1978 Columbia River Maintenance Disposal Plan as an active dis- posal site for dredged material (U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, 1976). The City and County Shorelines Master Program designates the area and the site as an "Urban Environment." 1Ihe general policies of the program for this designation state, "Priority should be given to water-dependent uses." Ports and water-related industrial development are preferred uses here,, though they require a Substantial Development Pemit. The Clark County Comprehensive Plan designates the project site as "Urban Area - Heavy Manufacturing." Current zoning, both city and county, on the property's surrounding areas is "Heavy Industrial." Public Facilities: The site would be served by either a,hookup to the existing,public ;Water supply or by an onsite well. Electrical power will be supplied by the Bonneville Power Administration via the Clark County PUD. The site can be serviced by either Union Pacific or Burlington Northern railroads over existing lines. 7-20 Vancouver (continued) Constraints: 0 The site is located approximately one kilaneter west of an area desig- nated by EPA as nonattairment for total suspended particulates. � Vehicular access improvements may be required. � C=ulative rail traffic impacts are anticipated fran expansion of other industries in the area opportunities: 0 The site is located in an area planned for industrial activities. � There are existing industrial uses in the inmediate area. � The site has been used an an area for dredged material disposal. 7-21 Lower C04 PROPOS SITE VANCOUVER Va Of 14 HAYDEN ISLAND 0 1 Ver 0 Smie 1:24,0()o zz@, Figure 20 VANCOUVER TERMINAL SITE VANCOUVER EVALUATION OF IMPACT ISSUES Impact Potential Minor or Categories Impact Issues Non-issues Earth Changes to local topography Surface compaction Alteration of longshore transport Air Elevated dust emissions Aft Emissions from ships, trains and other vehicles Water Modification of hydrologic regimes Elevated levels of runoff Degradation of aidjacent surface waters by windblown dust Increased turbidity due to dredging /disposal Flora andFauna Degradation of adjacent welland habitat Degradation of adjacent aquatic habitat Degradation of adjacent terrestrial habitat Disruption of corridors and fish migratory pathways Rare or endangered species impacts Other Noise pollution Light and glare generation Alteration of land use designations Potential for onsite accidents Potential for ship accidents Traffic congestion at grade,crossings Increased demand for public services Increased demand for utilities Aesthetic impact Disruption of recreational/commercial fishing Disruption of general recreational activities Alk 401 Archaeological/historical resource impacts Competing uses for land and shoreline 7-22 VIII. IMPACT AVOI DANCE MEASURES Introduction Impact avoidance includes all activities and measures, which can be incor- porated into project design and concept, intended to eliminate, reduce or provide ccmpensation for potential environmental impacts. Impact avoidance measures can be subdivided into three basic areas of consideration: 0 Siting measures 0 Design and operation measures o. mitigation measures These impact avoidance measures are suanarized in Table 18. How they apply to specific potential impacts is illustrated in the matrix shown in Figure 21. This.matrix provides a guide to those impact avoidance measures poten- tially applicable to the impacts identified for each port area profiled in the previous chapter. A discussion of these measures follows. An econcmic analysis of impact avoidance measures is summarized in this chapter to better define how the '!cost of mitigation" can affect the con- struction and operation of a coal port facility. (A detailed cost analysis is presented in Appendix A.) Alternatives to expensive or non-cost-effective impact avoidance techniques are identified, where they exist. Siting Measures Properly siting a coal transshipment facility can alleviate many environmen- tal and regulatoryconcerns which can negateor stall a project. one of the more frequent problems is siting on or near wetlands. There has been much concern, both goverrrnental and private, over the past 10 years about the rate at which wetlands are disappearing within the continental U.S. The importance of wetlands to the ecology of a region is well-documented. Wetlands provide buffers frcm storms.and flooding by absorbing excess water into the organic matrix which serves as substrate. Wetlands serve as hydrological reserves where they slowly release stored water to ground and surfacewater reservoirs, which,is important during times of drought. wet- lands can also filter out pollutants,.such as.suspended solid material, as waterflows through the vegetation and organic matrix. Wetlands supply nutrients to marine and other aquatic habitats, enhancing productivity and serving as habitat, nursery grounds, and food sources for a large variety of plants and animals. The Corps of Engineers have been given the mandate to protect wetlands and'' regulate certain construction activities within wetlands by virtue of Sec- tion 404 of the Clean Water Act. This agency may require an analysis of alternative sites before permitting work in a wetland. Table 13 IMPACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES .Siting Measures � site in industrialized area 0 Avoid areas which would impact wetlands or other critical habitats � Restrict shoreline siting to water-dependent facility ccmponents � Site in areas previously disturbed or with low habitat quality � Avoid noise-sensitive populations � Avoid.-floodways Design,and 9R2ration,Measures 0 Pier on piling design 0 Cover coal piles 0 Dust suppression sprays 0 Containment of coal-handling canponents 0 Pave roads and vegetate open areas 0 Appropriately sized retentionbasins 0 Avoid extensive dredging 0 minimize component placement along shorelines and in shallow water 0 Configuration avoidance of important habitat areas 0 Perimeter berm/vegetative buffers 0 Daytime.scheduling of noisy operations 0 Directed lighting to minimize glare 0 Use of glass refractorless luminaires 0 Allowance of public access to site property shoreline, 0 Onsite safety measures 0 Installation of aids to navigation 0 Schedule trains for off-peak traffic hours o Construct overpasses 0 Break up unit trains to minimize crossing delays in.congested areas � Road or track rerouting � Onsite firefighting equipment � Onsite potable water supply � Onsite.sewage treatment � Allow fishing near piers where possible � Allow recreational rights-of-way where possible � Site survey by.state-approved professional archaeologist/historian Mitigation,Measures 0 onsite habitat enhancement 0 Offsite land purchase (habitat, recreation, etc.) 0 Funding of wildlife management Enviromental damage can be greatly minimized by locating coal storage facilities in areas previously disturbed and of low habitat quality such as in areas that are already industrialized. 8-2 Figure 21 POTENTIAL IMPACT ISSUESAMPACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES MATRIX POTTNTIA& IMPACT tmm EA TH CH:NGES TO LOCAL TOPOGRAPH SURF CIECOMPACTION A ALTERATION OF LONGSHORE TRANSKIFIT .L AJR ELEVATED DUST EMISSIONS EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS, TRAINS AND T I I I I OTHER VEHICLES WATER MOOIFICATIONOFHYDIIOLO ICRErIMFS G ELEVATED LEVELS OF RUNOFF 0EGRADATION Of ADJACENT SURFACE WATERS By WINDBLOWN OUST I D NCREASE TURBIDITY DUE TO DREDG114G tj)ISPOSAL FLORA AND PALMA OEGAA T;ONOF AOJACENTWETLANO HABIT CA AT M X M DEGRAOATO OFADJAC NTAQUATIC MA81TAT DEGRADATION OF ADJACENT TERRESTRIAL HA81 AT DISAU ON OF CORRIDORS AND FISH MiGIATOR w 'w PAT PTI Hl"Yq RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES IMPACTS NOISE POLLUTION I T 1 T T LIGHT AND GLARE GENERATION x I i I r T ALTERA IONOFLANOUSECIESIGNATIONS POTENTIAL FOR ONSITE ACCIDENTS POTENTIAL FOR SHIP ACCIDENTS TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT GRADE CROSSINGS -4- ;N REASEDDEMA OF RPUSLICSERVICES C NCREASED DEMAND FOR UTILITIES 4EST'HETIC IM N 0 ]ON 0 REATIONAUCOMMeRCIAL FISHING s@AIUPTTION OF GENERAL FIECAEArJONALACTIVITIES ARCHAFOLMCALJHISTORICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS COPAPET114G USES FOR LAND AND SHORELINE lz 0 'z < z :: = > ml .1c a L7 Z z 0 z i -, 2 0 z z 2? 2 z Z Z > 0 z z 0. o lc z 't --Z oz z A ox 1. lz z< 8a1 25- m z 0 a. S2 3: 3: z 't o z > '7 lz a c' G G z 0= @' 2 @@ < 3 a @2 = . @; 5 , 5 > ti 0 5 <0 Z Z Z z The nature of the coal port operations dictates siting along rivers and coastlines. Rivers and coastlines are in great dEmand not only for industrial sites but also as residential, recreational and camercial loca- tions. In addition, siting in a floodplain area involves the additional concern of raising flood waters above predevelopnent levels. Placing only water-.dependent canponents of a facility on a shoreline and locating other components landward of the shoreline preferably on upland locations would be preferable to siting an entire installation linearly along a coastline or. floodplain. Although the technology for noise and dust suppression is relatively advanced, operational noise and fugitive dust are critical impacts over which there is still much public concern. As much as possible,,populated areas (other than already industrialized locations) should be avoided in choosing a facility site. Design and.operation measures Although many impacts can be avoided by proper siting, there are a variety of design and operational measures which can reduce the extent of env'ir6n- mental disturbance. Control technology has quickly evolved in the last decade in response to a proliferation of envirorrnental regulations. .Coal handling and storage activities have a nuriber of impact considerations Which must be accounted for when designing and operating a facility. Because of the friability of coal, particles disassociate As coal dust, which are easily transported by wind and water. Dustprevention, dust control and runoff control and treatment are prime considerations in the design and operation of a coal handling facility. Windbreaks, water spray and, for long-term containment, coagulating chemi- cals can suppress dust. A variety of enclosures and hoods situated along conveyor belts and at dunping and loading sites can contain dust for proper disposal. Efficient drainage design, proper treatment of coal pile runoff both from rainfall and from dust suppression and washdowns,'and sufficientl y sized retention basins can do much to reduce the environmental. disruption of air-bourne and water-bourne coal particles. Tthle 19 provides a listing of. appropriate runoff treatment e lements. 3-3 TABLE 19 COAL PORT RUNOFF TREATMENT ELEMENTS Minimu-n Full Treatment Treatment Collection X X Settling X X Coagulation X Precipitation X Final Settling X .pH Adjustment X X Filtration X Sterilization Special Ion Exchange Special Reuse X X Discharge X X Dredging can alter the extent and continuity of.shallow water necessary for outmigration and feeding of young salmonids. Depending on the dredging site, toxic chemicals can be resuspended in the water column. Dredging also can rEmove eelgrass beds and other types of prime aquatic and marine habitat. General shoreline construction and solid piers and jetties can interfere with longshore sediment transport causing sediment to accrete upcurrent and to erode downcurrent of the structure. Designing coal storage facilities where extensive dredging, shoreline construction, and solid piers and jetties are not required reduces the chances of disrupting natural shoreline processes and fish and wildlife habitat. Coal facility operations can generate significant amounts of noise. Buffer zones containing dense vegetation around a facility, equipment designed to operate quietly, and the scheduling of the more noisy operations during daylight hours can significantly reduce the effects of noise on surrounding communities. other design and operation impact avoidance measures are listed in Table 18 to mitigate the following identified impacts: � Light and glare generation � Alteration of land use designations o. Potential for onsite accidents 0 Potential for ship accidents 0 Traffic congestion at grade crossings 0 Increaseddemand for public services 0 Increased demand for utilities 0 Aesthetic impact 0 Disruption of recreational/commercial fishing 0 Disruption of general recreational activities 0 Archaeological/historical resource impacts 0 Competing uses for land and shoreline 8-4 The relationship between these impacts and specific avoidance measures is illustrated in the matrix presented in Figure 20. Mitigation Measures Mitigation is a principle for reducing or compensating for the unavoidable disruption to wildlife habitat. It is the result of a process of nego- tiation between federal, state and local govern-nent entities and the developer. It can take a variety of forms, but generally includes one or more of the following aspects: 0 On-site habitat enhancement such as revegetation, restoration of filled and diked areas, and wetland formation. Another effective measure is redeposition of suitable sediments on riprap to allow rapid recolonization of food organisms utilized by juvenile sal- monids. 0 Off-site land purchase and dedication as wildlife habitat for a certain period of time or in perpetuity. 0 Recreational land purchases. 0 Establishing a fund for wildlife habitat management either in ccm- bination with off-site land purchase or on lands already utilized for wildlife habitat. This frequently takes the form of raising game birds, stocking fish, revegetating and restoring an area, or onstructing fences. EconaniccEvaluation SuImmary of Impact Avoidance An economic evaluation of impact avoidance measures is suamarized in this sect@ion. A detailed analysis.is found in Appendix A. Since many impact avoidance measures are already incorporated in a standard coal facility, the econanic evaluation focuses on those impact avoidance measures that can add significantly to the delivered cost.of coal to the Pacific rim.,.,,,This analysis identifies impact avoidance measures which can s&7erely affect the cost effectiveness, and ultimately the feasibility of a coal port facility. Costs for a "typical" coal operation are estimated first, and all sig- nificant impact avoidance measures are evaluated in relation to this "typi- cal" operation. Also, alternative impact avoidance measures are suggested, when available, which can mitigate the same impacts at a lower cost. Surrmary The. total cost per ton of coal delivered to an Asian port through a typical 10-million-ton-per-year facility is estimated for this analysis to be $ 49.58 per ton. Figure 22 illustrates the breakdown in costs per ton of coal. As shown, transportation costs (rail and shipping) make up almost 75 percent of the total cost of coal. In contrast,.actual facility costs are a very wall portion ofthe total cost, at 6 percent. This suggests that impact avoidance measures affecting transportation will likely have more impact on the total cost of coal than those affecting the actual facility. Table 20 sunnarizes impact avoidance costs, including standard envirormental protection devices already included in the capital costs of the facility. 8-5 Table 20 surrmarizes impact avoidance costs, including standard envirormental protection devices already included in the capital costs of the facility. Asshown, most impact avoidance measures have a very small effect on the total cost of coal. However, restriction of facility operations and enclosure of coal piles could affect the ultimate financial feasibility of one site over another. The costs of impact avoidance measures can be minimized inalmost all cases by appropriate site location and use of state-of-the-art environnental protection devices. Houever, the developer will likely have to fund source mitigation measures at a relatively wall cost. Suggested financing approaches include direct financing of impact mitigation measures and/or the use of a surcharge on each ton of coal. 8-6 Figure 22 Total Cost of Coal FACILITY AMORTIZATION 3% OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 3% OVERHEAD & PROFIT 2% SHIPPING 32% COAL (AT THE MINE) 20% RAIL TRANSPORTATION 40% Total Cost Per Ton $49.58 TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AVOIDAICE COSTS (1982 dollars) I of Total Cost per Cost Alternative Description Annual Cost Ton of Coal* of Coal** Measures (Costs of less than $4.5 million are indicated as 1%) Standard Environmental Protection Devices 1,000,000 $.10 1% None Habitat Management 340,000 .03 1% Site location Enclosure of Site location Coal Piles 9,000,000 .90 2% State-of- the-art environmental protection devices Restriction of Site location Operating Hours 15,550,000 1.56 3% Noise mitigation Replacement of Recreational Site Areas 40,000 .01 1% location Commercial Fishing Site Management 250,000 .03 1% location Railroad Site location Grade Alternative Separation 800,000 .08 1% routing Signalization Signalization 200,000 .02 1% Site location Assumed terminal capacity is 10 million tons per year. Total cost of coal is $49.58 per ton. Source: WK&A. 8-7 REFERENCES Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities. Modular Port Facility R22@irements Forecasts. 1982. Anonymous. United States - Confronting Constraints to Steam Coal Exports, In Bulk Systems. May, 1980. Bogden, Roger. Washington Dept. of Game Personal Camunication. 1982. Central Puget Sound Econanic Development District Puget Sound Coal Export OMrtunities and Issues. 1982. Cross, F.L. "Coal Pile Envirorrnental Impact Problems," Pollution Engineer ing 13:35-37. 1981. Davis, E. "Coal Pile Leachate Quality," journal of Environmental Engineering Division ASCE, Vol@ EE2, pp.399-417. 1981. Davis, E. "A Review of Water Quality Issues Associated with.Coal Storage," Journal of Environmental Quality 10:127-133. 1981. Fenton, Gary. Washington Dept. of Game Personal Communication. 1982. George, Leo. Burlington Nothern Personal Communication. 1982. Gerhart, E.H. et al "Histological Effects and BioaccLnulation Potential of Coal Particulate-Bound Phenanthrene in the Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas," Environmental Pollution Series A, 25:165-180. 1981. Green, P. "Laying Fugitive Dust to Rest." Coal Age, August: 72-78. 1982. Howerton, Jack. Washington Dept. of Game Personal Communication. 1982. Karagianes, M.T. el al. "Effects of Inhaled Diesal Emissions and Coal Dust in Rats." American Industrial Hy2iene Association Journal, 42:382-391. 1981. Meade, George. Pacific Resources Personal Ccmunication. 1982. Michigan. Coastal Energy Impact Program. Coastal Effects of Coal Transshi ment in Michigan: An Evaluation Strategy. 1980. Michigan Coastal Energy impact Program. Michigan Coastal Coal Storage4 n.d. Miller, Steve. Burlington Northern Personal Carmunication. 1982 MIT. Coal-Bridge to the Future. 1980. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. Port of Vancouver Noise Technical Support Document. 1982. -1- Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. Vancouver Coal Terminal, Air Quality Techni- cal Support Document, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 1982. Odell, Glen. Seton, Johnson & Odell Personal Ccamunication.. 1982. Odum, W.E. "Sorption of Pollutants by Plant Detritus." Environmental Health Perspectives, 27:133-137. 1978. Oregon Department of Energy. Feasibility Study and Executive Summary for Coal Export Study at Tongue Point. 1981. Pelham, L. The Environmental Impact of Coal Transfer and Terminal Operations, EPA 600/7-80-169. 1980. Port of Grays Harbor. Coal/Grain: A Technical Feasibility Study for an Export Terminal at the Port of Grays Harbor, Aberdeen, Washington. r981. Port of Kalama. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Port of Kalama Marina Industrial Park and.Bulk-Handling Facility. 1982. Port of Vancouver. Final EIS, Vancouver Coal Terminal. 1982. Portland Marine Task Group. WESTPO, Report 5. 1982. Scullion, J. "The Effect of Pollutants from the Coal Industry on the Fish Fauna of a Small River in the South Wales Coalfield." Environmental Pol- lution Series A. 21:141-153. 1980. Soros, P. "An Environmentally Acceptable Coal Port," In Ports 80. 11-30. 1981. Tripp, B.W. et al. "Unburned Coal as a Source of Hydrocarbons in Surface Sediments," Marine Pollution Bulletin. 12:122-126. 1981. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Environmental Statement - Rail-to-Barge Coal Transfer Facility, S .@Louis, Missouri. 1976. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). The Direct Use of Coal. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979. U.S. Department of Commerce Maritime Administration. Port.Handbook for Estimating Marine Terminal Cargo Handling Capabilities. 1979. United States Dept. of Energy. Interagency Coal Export Task Force interim Report. 1981. United,States Envirorrnental Protection Agency. Characterization of Coal Pile Drainage. EPA 600-7-79-051. 1979. The Envirorinental Impact of Coal Transfer and Terminal Operations. EPA 600/7-8-0-169. 1980. Report Synthesis of: Fugitive Dust from Western Surface coal Mines. EPA 600/7-80-158. 1980. -2- Source Assessment: Water Pollutants fram Coal Storage Areas. EPA 60072--78-004. 1977. Sources and Transports of Coal in the Deluth-Superior Harbor, EPA 60073-86-0-07. 1980. Static Coal Store2e - Biological Effects on the Aquatic Environment. NERC-R-86393-7--M-u. 1980. Static Coal Storage - Chemical Effects on the Aquatic Environment. EPA 6bO/3-80-G83A. 1980. Virginia Port Authority. Coal Terminal Feasibility, Stud y. 1981. Washington Public Ports Association, Port Systems Study, Volume II, Techni- cal Supplement/Part 5 - Marine/Port Technology Forecasts and Demand Analysis. 1975. Ports System,Study for the Public Ports of Washington State. 1980. Washington State Dept. of Commerce and Econanic Development. (Coamunication of) Report Regarding Potential Ports to Handle Bulk Commodities. September 30, 1980. Weibe, John. Environment Canada Personal Communication. 1982. Western Governors Policy Office. Western Coal Exports to the Pacific Basin. 1982. Wisconsin Division of State Energy. Coal Transportation to Wisconsin: An overview. 1982. -3- APPENDIX A DETAILED ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF IMPACT AVOIDANCE MEASURES Costs of a Typical Coal Operation costs for a coal operation are-estimated for five major categories. These costs are added to the original cost of coal at the mineand evaluated on a per ton basis. The cost categories (excluding land costs) are: � Capital costs � Operations and maintenance costs 0 Rail transport costs � Shipping costs � overhead and Profit Normal enviromental protection measures such as dust suppression equipment, provision of buffer zones around the site, and efficient drainage design are assumed to be included. Each cost category is described separately. 'Capital Costs The scope of this study does not permit detailed costing of coal terminals, so other studies have been used for general cost estimates. The WESTPO study estimates capital costs to vary from $7 to.$12 per ton of annual throughput capacity. This canpares with Swan-Wooster's estimates of $8 per ton at the proposed Tongue Point Coal Facility. An estimate of $8 per ton (in 1982 dollars) is used here for -the typical facility, with the assump- tions that the terminal has one berth'and is located at a site where exist- ing ship berth and navigation channel depths are at least 65 feet; where no significant foundation problems-exist; where the site is flat and above the flood plain so that extensive excavation and filling is not required; and where no lengthy rail spurs or highway access fran main transportation routes need be developed. For this analysis, an annual throughput capacity for a coal terminal of 10 million short tons per year is assumed, for a total cost of $80 million in capital costs. According to WESTPO, a percentage breakdown of the major cost ccmponents of a coal terminal is as follows: 0 General Facilities - Site preparation, buildings, utilities, roads, drainage, coal yard air and water envirormental controls, and electrical transmission lines . . . . . . . . . . 15% 0 Coal Unloading and Stacking - Rail car positioners and dumpers, stackers"' conveyors, inbound coal weighing and sampling . . . . 25% 0 Coal Reclaiming and Shieloading - Coal reclaimers, conveyorsf metering or surge bins, shiploaders and outbound weighing, and sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40% 0 Marine Facilities Trestle, pier, fendering, dolphins, and moorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% A-1 0 Control Systems - Instrumentation control panels, computers, inventory and management reporting systems . . . . . . . . . . 1 3% 0 Railroad Facilities - Onsite tracks, ballast, turnouts, switches, signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% Table 1 details the capital costs for the typical coal terminal, broken out according to the WESTPO estimates, with the exception that standard pol- lution controls are itemized at 6 percent of total cost. The total costs also are assumed to include a 10 percent contingency factor, as well as initial engineering and procuring costs. Annual facility amortization costs are assumed to be $12.8 million per year, based on a 20-year expected life and a 15 percent long-term interest rate. TABLE I CAPITAL COSTS FOR "TYPICAL" COAL FACILITY (Excluding Land Costs) (1982 dollars) Ccrnponent Cost General facilities $ 7,200,000 Coal unloading and stacking 20,000,000 Coal reclaiming and shiploading 32,000,000 Marine facilities 8,00.0,000 Control systems 2,400,000 Railroad facilities 5,600,000 Environmental co ntrols 4,800,000 $80,000,000 Sources: WESTPO, 1982. WK&A, 1982. Operations and Maintenance Costs ongoing operating and maintenance costs for the typical coalfacility range from $.80 to $1.50 per throughput ton, according to the WESTPO study. Swan- Wooster estimates $1.25 per ton for the Tongue Point facility. WESTPO also describes a typical distribution of annual operating.costs. 0 Labor and Fringes - Cost of administrative and direct labor, Employ- ment cost, and fringe.benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50% A-2 0 Supply Cost - Utility service, maintenance and operating supplies . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20% 0 Insurance and Taxes - Property and liability insurance, state and local takes (does not include federal income taxes) . . . . 20% 0 Miscellaneous Items Legal, accounting, telephone, travel, sales, equipment rental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% Table 2 details operating and maintenance costs for a typical facility by WESTPO category. An average cost per ton is assumed to be $1.25 for the 10- million-ton-per-year facility. Amortized capital costs are also added to show total annual costs for the coal terminal. In addition, cost per ton is calculated and compared later in this section to the total delivered cost of coal to Pacific rim countries. TABLE 2 ANNUAL COSTS FOR "TYPICAL" COAL FACILITY (1982 dollars) Catego Cost Amortized capital $12,800,000 Labor and fringes 6,250,000 Supply cost 2,500,000 Insurance and taxes 2,500,000 Miscellaneous items 1,250,000 Total annual cost $25,3001000 Cost per ton $2.53 Sources: WESTPO, 1982. WK&A, 1982. Rail Tr ansport Costs An average coal train is estimated to be 100 cars long, with each car ca rry- ing 100 tons, for a total volume of 10,000 short tons per train. Swan- Wooster estimates current rail tariffs to be about 1.7 cents per ton mile. According to Burlington Northern, the average distance from Powder River mines inMontana to Washington ports is about 1,180 miles. Using these assumptions, the annual basic rail cost for the typical 10-million-ton-per- year coal facility is about $200 million, or $20 per ton. A-3 Shipping Costs Freight rates for coal-carrying ships are estimated to be between $12 and $20 per ton to Pacific Rim countries, depending on ship size. An average ship size of 70,000 dwt is assumed, based on the average ship sizeservicing Roberts Bank, British Columbia. It is also assumed that typical coal ships will be-traveling to Japanese destinations. As a result, an average rate of $16 per ton of coal is used, for a total annual base shipping cost of $160. million. overhead and Profit Coal terminals are currently very risky investments requiring a fairly sizeable expected return on investment. An analysis assumption is made of an initial cash contribution of $16 million, or 25 percent of the $80 mil- lion coal facility. The annual rate of return on the initial cash con- tribution will be at least 25 percent before taxes, or $4 million per year. These nunbers could vary significantly depending on the type of financing and tax@advantages for coal terminal development. However, the assumed amounts should give a general estimate of profit required by investors on a coal facility. overhead can vary widely as well, but an acceptable figure would probably be 25 percent of annual operating costs for the terminal. Earlier in this section, those operating costs were estimated to be.$25.3 million. Thusj estimated overhead costs will be approximately $6.5 million annually. Total overhead and profit is estimated to be $10.5 million per year, or $1.05 per ton for the 10-million-ton-per-year-capacity coal facility. Total Cost of Coal The total delivered cost of coal.fran a typical Washington coal port to Japan is summarized in Table 3, by cost category. Asshown, it is assumed that Powder River coal will cost $10 per ton at the mine, only 20 percent of ,the delivered cost of coal. Transportation by rail and ship accounts for almost three-fourths of the delivered cost, while the actual facility costs, including amortization and O&M costs, make up only 5 percent of the.final cost per ton. For purposes of this study, standard environmental protection costs are estimated as a portion of the total cost of coal. As shown, the costs are very wall wben ccmpared to the final.delivered cost of coal. The remainder ..of this chapter will look at the costs of nonstandard environmental protec- tion measures and their potential impact on the@financial feasibility of a typical coal terminal. A-4 TABLE 3 COST OF COAL, BY CATEGORY % of Catego Cost per Ton Delivered Cost Facility amortization $ 1.28 3% Operation and maintenance 1.25 3% Rail transportation. 20.00 40% Shipping 16.00 32% Overhead and profit 1.05 2% 'Coal at the mine 10.00 20% Total delivered cost $49.58 100% Envirormental Protection $ .10 .002 (amortized capital, O&M) Effect of Impact Avoidance Measures on the Financial Feasibility of a Coal Terminal Several impact avoidance measures have been identified that would add sig- nificantly to the delivered cost of coal. Since the total cost of coal is the most important indicator of feasibility, each impact avoidance measure is evaluated by its impact on delivered cost. Impact avoidance measures can be grouped into three categories, described below: 0 Habitat Management - Involves the actual mitigation of habitat disruption caused by construction of the coal tenninal facility, including eelgrass replacement, artificial reef construction, and new wetlands,creation. 0 Operational,- Impact avoidance measures generally deal with standard enviroiFe-ntal pro Itection devices.already built into the-coal facility. These devices control air and water quality, and noise impacts at the site. 0 Community-Related - Impact avoidance measures directly affect communities surrounding the coal facility site. Examples of com- munity impact avoidance measures are replacement of lost recreational uses, restriction of tail travel in towns, railroad grade separations, and cooperation with commercial fishermen using waters near the site. In evaluating the financial impact of these impact avoidance measures, all capital outlays will be amortized over the 20-year life of the project and A-5 operations.and maintenance costs will be given as constant annual amounts. Each impact avoidance measure will first be described; its costs will then be estimated and canpared to the total cost of coal. The final section will suggest alternative impact avoidance measures, both for specificimpacts and for groups of impacts. Habitat Management Coal terminal sites often are located on lands and in water that have exist- ing wildlife, fish, and plant habitats. Destruction or disturbance of these habitats may require impact mitigation in the form of eelgrass bed replace- ment, artificial reef construction, and/or wetlands creation. The cost of habitatreplacement can be minimal depending.on the site. At Roberts Bank, British Colurbia, total estimated costs of habitatmanagement are $1 million in initial costs and $100,000 in annual monitoring costs. Wetlands creation can be as high as $100,000 for 10 acres, plus $5,000 per year for operations of water pumps. A high estimated cost for habitat management is $1.5 million, or $240,000 per year in amortized costs, plus $100,000 in annual monitoring and main- tenance costs. Total impact on the price of coal is: Habitat management costs: $340,000.divided by 10,000,000 tons per year $.03 per ton per Operational Measures Most operational impact avoidance measures have already been included in the basic cost of the typical coal facility. Examples of standard envirormental protection devices are-dust control mechanisms, coal sprays, muffling of engines used onsite, turning off locanotive engines while unloading, and proper treatmentof water runoff. However., the presence of nearby recreational or residentia 1 areas could require covering coal piles to further control coal dust contamination of air in surrounding areas. Covering coal piles can be very expensive, with estimates ranging from $20 to $50 million for initial capital costs, depend- ing on whether silos are built or a less sturdy apparatus is used to control coal dust. Operating.costs can also be prohibitive if the coal conveying system is substantally changed. An estimated high cost is $50 million, or $8 million in annual capital costs, for a storage silo and an added $1 million for annual operating costs, based on discussions with a coal developer. Total impact on the price of coal is: Coal covering costs: $9,000,000 divided by 10,000,000 tons per year $.90 per ton per year A second potential operational impact avoidance measure is the restriction of facility operations to daylight hours to alleviate noise impacts. In discussions with developers, restriction of operations to daylight hours would cause a considerable problem because of the uncertainty of train A-6 arrival times. A 10-million- ton-per-year facility would -have about.three trains arrive per day. Operational restrictions of 8 to 12 hours per day would cause considerable delays and queuiryg problems for trains.which would be either unacceptable to railroad companies or very expensive to the ter- minal owners. Based on a conservative demurrage rate of $200 to $300 per day per train, an added cost of about $300,000 per year (one day per train at $300 per day) is estimated. However, rail ccmpanies also are likely to build continuous demurrage into their base rate. An increase of even one-tenth of a cent per ton per mile can increase total coal price by almost $1.15 per ton.annually. It is more likely that railroads would raise their rates even more to dis- courage constant demurrage of trains. in addition, ships could be delayed by restricted operations. Ship demur- rage is between $10,000 and $25,000 per day, although provisions are made for "free days" of about one to two days at each end of the route. About 150 ships a year are needed at a 10-million-tons-per-year facility, one every two to three days, Ships are generally allowed one day to load plus the free time allowance. If every ship averages only one.day of demurrage (at $25,000 per day), annual costs would be $3.75 million. Total estimated impact of restricted operations on cost of coal is: Train demurrage: $ 300,000 Rate increase: $11,500,000 Ship demurrage: $ 3,750,000 $15,550,000 divided by 10,000 tons/year $1.56 per ton per year NOTE: It is likely that rail rate increases will be higher than one-tenth of a cent. Further, the restriction of facility operations to daylight hours could preclude further consideration of the site as a potential coal terminal altogether. Cammunity-Related Measures Impact avoidance measures that directly impact surrounding communities are discussed in this section. Three subcategories examined include: replace- ment of recreatio nal opportunities, management of commercial fishing near the site, and railroad impacts on surrounding coamunities. Replacement of Recreational Opportunities: In some cases, coal terminals may reduce or totally eliminate recreational uses near the site. Mitigation of these impacts can vary greatly depending on the location of the coal site. Based on discussions with developers and agency personnel, the cost of an average 25-acre alternate site is about $250,000 in one-time costs, or $40,000 in annual capital co 'sts. The site would likely be turned over to local park departments for development and management. Total impact on the cost of coal is: A-7 Cost of alternative recreational .site: $40,000 divided by 10,000,000 tons per year less than $.01 per ton per year Ma@@a @@ment of Comercial Fishing: Conflicts between commercial fishermen and shipping activities at the coal terminal can occur at certain sites. In areas where commercial fishing is significantly impacted, a management program may be necessary to allow cooperative use of.waters near the site by both.fishermen and coal ships. Estimated.costs of a management program is $200,000 based on experience at Roberts Bank, British Columbia. Total impact on the cost of coal is: Commercial fishing management program: $250,000 divided by 10,000,000 tons per year $.03 per ton per year Rail ITpacts: Rail impacts tonearby commziities.include delays of traffic and noise to residents adjacent to the raillines. Impact avoidance measures relating to rail traffic include grade separations, signalization at busy crossings, and speed limits on trains moving through towns. Grade separations, or railroad bridges, are estimated by Burlington Northern to cost between $1 and $5 million in initial capital costs.. The annual capital costs are $160,000 to $800,000.per year. Grade separations are necessary in areas where extreme traffic congestion can.occur if heavy train travel blocks rail crossings. The impact of one $5 million grade separationt or $800,000 in annual capital costs, on the total cost of coal is: Grade separation: $800,000 divided by 10,000,000 tons per year $.08 per ton per year Signalization at other busy railroad crossings is another cawnunity-related impact avoidance measure. The cost of signals at one crossing averages between $85,000 and $200,000. It is likely that several signalized cros- sings will be necessary for a typical coal.facility. The impact of one signalized crossing on the price of coal is: Signali- zation: $200,000 divided by 10,000,000 tons-per year $.02 per ton per year (for each crossing) Train spIeed limits in ccmmunities near a coal terminal is a third impact avoidance measure, designed to lessen safety problems caused by fast-moving trains. It is assLmed that most towns already have train speed limits in effect and that railroads have already taken these slowdowns into account in their current rates. Thus, no quantifiable posts are attributed to this measure. A-8 Alternative Impact Avoidance Measures Although only two impact avoidance measures have a significant impact on the price of coal (i.e., enclosure of coal piles and restriction of facility operations), a combination of other, more minor, impacts could substantially affect the total cost of coal. Alternative impact avoidance measures are described, which can mitigate similar impacts at a lower cost. Finally, a short discussion of potential funding for impacts concludes this section. Habitat Management Costs of habitat management mitigation are related to the amount of wet- lands, eelgrass and other habitats affected by the coal terminal site. Since habitat replacement is necessary, reduced costs in this area can be achieved by initial site location in low impact areas. In addition, cooperation between developers and state agencies in a reasonable habitat management program worked out prior-to construction of a terminal will avoid delay and added costs. Operational Measures .Both operational impact avoidance measures identified in the previous sec- tion are estimated to have a significant impact on the price of coal. Enclosure of coal piles, which has an impact of @.90 per ton or 2 percent of the total price of coal, can again be avoided by proper site location in an area where air quality considerations are less critical. Also, according to engineers for the Port of Portland, air quality standards can be met by proper dust prevention devices, including water sprays and crusting agents. They have estimated that coal dust emissions in the highly populated Portland area can be held to under 20 tons per year for their facility. This suggests that a combination of site location and state-of-the-art dust control devices should preclude enclosure of coal piles in almost every potential coal terminal. Another operational impact avoidance measure which could significantly impact the total cost of coal is restriction of operations to daylight hours. The estimated cost of this measure is $1.56 per ton, or 3 percent of the total cost of coal. As was previously pointed out, this is most likely a low estimate since this restriction of operations would almost certainly make the potential coal terminal financially infeasible. The best alternative to restricting operations is to locatethe terminal away from residential areas where noise from the terminal operation would be less disturbing. In addition, maximLTn effort to mitigate noise, including buffer zones surrounding the site, can help to alleviate the problem. Ccommity-Related Measures All costs of community-related impacts, including location of alternative recreational sites, a caurercial fishing management program, and railroad grade separations and signalization, are fairly mall wben compared to the total cost of coal. Again, appropriate site location can prevent most impacts in nearby communities, but alow level of community-related impacts can probably be absorbed by the developer without affecting the total price A-9 of coal. Also, signalization and alternative routing of trains is preferable to construction of grade separations in nearby comunities. Funding Alternatives Funding of operational impact avoidance measures, as well as habitat mitigation is required to be paid by the developer as part of the Washington state permit process. As discussed, if appropriate siting and state-of-the- art enviromental protection devices are.used, the costs,of mitigation are relatively low. However, funding of ccamunity-related impact avoidance measures is not always required in the pennit process. Several alternatives are available for funding of these measures. State and federal funding are accepted for railroad grade separations and signalization. However, these funds have dwindled recently which suggests that developers of coal tenninals will have to accept more responsibility for funding comunity-related mitigation measures. It has been suggested by Canadian and Californian goverment officials that funds could cane directly from terminal owners as part of the pen-nit process, or fran a surcharge on each ton of coal shipped through the ter- minal to be used for impact mitigation in nearby areas. Five cents per ton has been suggested as areasonable surcharge, or about $500,000 per year at a 10-million-tons-per-year facility. Total impact of the five cent surcharge is only one-tenth of one percent of the total delivered cost of coal, $49.58 per ton, estimated previously. A variation on these types of funding is to have developers fund capital costs up front, and to use sur- charge monies to finance ongoing impact mitigation progrms. A-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3 6668 14107 4643 1 1 1