As executive director of the Port of Everett, I would like to express my appreciation for the level of community interest that has been shown in the various port projects currently underway. Specifically, I would like to comment on the exceptional level of interest that has been shown regarding the Port of Everett’s proposed rail barge facility in South Everett nearly adjacent to the Everett/Mukilteo city limits.
I appreciate the efforts of Dr. E. Scott Casselman to develop alternative designs to challenge our thinking, give a critical review of our current design alternatives, and to extend our effort to ensure a holistic view of the development site (guest commentary, “Don’t let Boeing pier harm Mukilteo,” May 2.)
The current alternatives included in the port’s alternatives analysis do not include the so-called reverse pier outlined by Dr. Casselman. The port did engage its engineers to review Dr. Casselman’s concept and gave serious consideration to his proposal. While Dr. Casselman’s alternative is feasible geometrically and operationally, it has significant environmental and economic costs that do not exist in the current alternatives being considered.
The reverse pier would need to be 270 feet longer than other design proposals to keep the barge slip in the same depth of water while maintaining the least amount of eelgrass impact. Further, the orientation of the pier would require an additional 1,000 feet of seawall and the construction of a 45-feet wide by 575-feet long apron to support the necessary rail track. There would need to be an access road to the pier from the east end of the Mukilteo tank farm site, which would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill on the beach beyond what is required for the preferred alternative. Additionally, some 2,000 more square yards of pavement would be needed compared with the preferred alternative.
The rail connection for the reverse pier alternative would extend to about 2,000 feet east of the tank farm site. This track could be supported by extending the pier structure along the shoreline or by an earth fill into the water. The impact of either of these options would extend about 1,000 feet beyond the end of the new access road. There would also have to be a significant excavation or a retaining wall needed for the new track alignment at the entrance to Japanese Gulch. Several residential properties at the top of the hill would be directly impacted.
In addition to these physical impacts, there are other very substantial impacts to the environment that would exceed impacts of the preferred alternative. Nearly twice the amount of eelgrass (1,150 square feet vs. 600) would be impacted by the reverse pier alternative, and another 1.2 acres of marine habitat would have to be filled. Several other environmental impacts associated with the reverse pier design are not found with the preferred alternative.
Costs associated with the development of the reverse pier design would run from nearly $17 million to $20 million more than the preferred alternative ($33 to $36.5 million vs. $15.5 million).
Even with the doubling of these costs, some could argue that if the benefits outlined by Dr. Casselman could be achieved, it would be worthwhile to give further consideration to the reverse pier design. But the purported benefits overlook the fact that there is an embankment in the area where the spur track for the preferred alternative is located (an area just to the northwest of Loveland Avenue, extending up to Japanese Gulch). The embankment ranges in height from 40 feet in the area near Loveland Avenue up to nearly 70 feet in the area near Japanese Gulch. Further, there are two Burlington Northern mainline tracks and two spur tracks that separate the toe of the hill from the adjacent tank farm. The height of the hill and the existence of the mainline rail tracks preclude the expansion of Old Town Mukilteo in the area, thus greatly diminishing, if not negating, the purported benefits.
The port has put considerable effort and resources into identifying the least impactful way of handling the oversized aerospace containers. We have also worked with tribal interests and local biologists to identify mitigation strategies that would result in no net habitat loss, would improve public access to the water at all stages of the tide, and would develop a beach restoration strategy that could potentially be replicated along significant portions of the shores of eastern Puget Sound.
We believe we have come up with the best alternatives, and we have also shown our willingness to consider other alternatives such as the one proposed by Dr. Casselman, to be certain that the best alternative is being developed.
We appreciate all of the input that we have received, and particularly appreciate the hard work and ingenuity that has come forward from Dr. Casselman and others at our public meetings and through our comment periods.
John M. Mohr is executive director of the Port of Everett.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
