Alternatives Analysis BHP Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility Hoquiam, Washington 40600-HS-RPT-55047 Revision 2 17 June 2019 Submitted by WSP USA 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300 Federal Way, Washington 98003-2600 WA17.0202.00 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS BHP PROPOSED GRAYS HARBOR POTASH EXPORT FACILITY TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Proposed Facility Overview ............................................................................. 2 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PROCESS ............................................................ 4 2.1 Section 404(b)(1) Background ......................................................................... 4 2.2 Analysis Process .............................................................................................. 4 3.0 PHASE 1 – NEED, PURPOSE, AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA............................... 6 3.1 Step 1: Project Need ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 Step 2: Basic Project Purpose and Water Dependency ................................. 7 3.2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.2 Water Dependency ............................................................................................... 7 3.3 Step 3: Overall Project Purpose and Geographic Area Selection ................. 8 4.0 PHASE 2 - ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION - STEP 4: POTENTIALLY PRACTICABLE CRITERIA IDENTIFICATION .................................................... 9 4.1.1 Availability ............................................................................................................ 9 4.1.2 Cost ..................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.3 Existing Technology .......................................................................................... 11 4.1.4 Logistics ............................................................................................................. 11 4.2 Criteria Summary .............................................................................................12 4.3 Potentially Practicable Alternatives Identification .........................................13 5.0 PHASE 3 - PRACTICABILITY EVALUATION ................................................... 14 5.1 Alternative A: Port of Grays Harbor Terminal 3 .............................................14 5.1.1 Site Availability................................................................................................... 15 5.1.2 Cost ..................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.3 Existing Technology .......................................................................................... 16 5.1.4 Logistics ............................................................................................................. 16 5.1.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 16 5.2 Alternative A1: Grays Harbor Terminal 3 Alternative Layout ........................16 5.2.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 17 5.3 Alternative B: Port of Tacoma SSA/MVV Site.................................................17 5.3.1 Site Availability................................................................................................... 17 5.3.2 Cost ..................................................................................................................... 18 5.3.3 Existing Technology .......................................................................................... 18 5.3.4 Logistics ............................................................................................................. 18 5.3.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 18 5.4 Alternative C: Port of Longview Barlow Point Site ........................................19 5.4.1 Site Availability................................................................................................... 19 5.4.2 Cost ..................................................................................................................... 19 5.4.3 Existing Technology .......................................................................................... 20 5.4.4 Logistics ............................................................................................................. 20 5.4.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 20 Alternatives Analysis WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 BHP, Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility 14 June 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page i of iii 5.5 Alternative D: Port of Longview Berth 2 Site .................................................20 5.5.1 Site Availability................................................................................................... 20 5.5.2 Cost ..................................................................................................................... 21 5.5.3 Existing Technology .......................................................................................... 21 5.5.4 Logistics ............................................................................................................. 21 5.5.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 21 5.6 Alternative E: Port of Vancouver, Washington Terminal 5............................21 5.6.1 Site Availability................................................................................................... 22 5.6.2 Cost ..................................................................................................................... 22 5.6.3 Existing Technology .......................................................................................... 22 5.6.4 Logistics ............................................................................................................. 22 5.6.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 23 5.7 Alternative F: Fraser Surrey Docks, Vancouver, B.C. ...................................23 5.7.1 Site Availability................................................................................................... 23 5.7.2 Cost ..................................................................................................................... 23 5.7.3 Existing Technology .......................................................................................... 24 5.7.4 Logistics ............................................................................................................. 24 5.7.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 24 5.8 Alternative G: Kinder Morgan Terminals, Vancouver Wharves. ...................24 5.8.1 Site Availability................................................................................................... 24 5.8.2 Cost ..................................................................................................................... 24 5.8.3 Existing Technology .......................................................................................... 25 5.8.4 Logistics ............................................................................................................. 25 5.8.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 25 5.9 Alternative H: No Federal Action Alternative .................................................25 5.10 Practicability Analysis Results Summary ......................................................25 6.0 PHASE 4: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................ 27 6.1 Alternatives A and A1 Impacts Summary and Comparison ..........................27 6.2 Alternative A1 Environmental Analysis ..........................................................28 6.2.1 Existing Wetland and Aquatic Habitat Conditions ......................................... 29 6.2.2 Mitigation Sequencing ....................................................................................... 33 6.2.3 Wetland and Buffer Impacts ............................................................................. 39 6.2.4 Aquatic Impacts ................................................................................................. 41 6.2.5 Compensatory Mitigation Summary ................................................................ 46 7.0 PHASE 5: LEDPA IDENTIFICATION ................................................................ 49 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 50 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Alternatives Analysis Framework for Compliance with 40 CFR 230.10 ................. 5 Table 2. Arable Land per Capita Forecast .............................................................................. 6 Table 3. Approximate Rail Distances ...................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Example