A giant export terminal proposed north of Bellingham, which would send coal to China, must undergo a sweeping review of environmental, transportation, health and climate impacts, the state Department of Ecology, Whatcom County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced on Wednesday.

The review, insisted on by Ecology, is a potential blow to the Gateway Pacific project and a victory for critics who argue that such factors as mile-long trains, passing through Seattle and other Western Washington cities, should be evaluated along with impacts immediately around the Cherry Point terminal site.

“They are taking a comprehensive look at cumulative impacts, local and regional, which is very important to the people I represent. It is a number-one issue in Mount Vernon, Burlington and Bellingham,” said state Rep. Kris Lytton, D-Anacortes. “We want a prosperous economy, but we want to know what this will do to our local economies and the economy statewide.”

It is also a big issue in Seattle, whose waterfront could see 18 coal trains every day, each a mile- to mile-and-a-half long, traversing the downtown waterfront. Mayor Mike McGinn has ordered studies of how the trains would impact transportation to and from the waterfront, along with potential economic impacts.

McGinn, who has led anti-coal port protests, pronounced himself “very pleased” at the scope of Ecology’s upcoming work and said the city “looks forward to contributing” to the state’s analysis.

The state’s in-depth analysis of the port proposal will include:

– A detailed assessment of rail shipments needed to supply the coal terminal, which proposes to export 48 million tons of coal each year, mostly to China, including impacts on local communities and out-of-state rail impacts.

– An assessment of how the project would impact human health in Washington, with such factors as coal dust from passing trains.

– A general assessment of cargo-ship impacts — the coal port would host huge bulk-carrier vessels — in Washington waters and beyond.

– An evaluation of potential greenhouse gas emissions, since coal from Gateway Pacific would be burned by power plants in China. Burning 48 million tons of coal annually would release approximately 100 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere of a warming planet.

Supporters of the proposed terminal voiced dismay at the scope of the upcoming evaluation.

“We are troubled by the unprecedented nature of Ecology’s decision and the negative signal it sends to anyone, including employers, who are looking to site a major project or expand their presence in Washington state,” said Don Brunell, president of the Association of Washington Business.

Curiously, the impetus for a sweeping evaluation came from the state — not the federal government. The Army Corps of Engineers has opted for a limited environmental review in the immediate environs of Cherry Point.

The Corps’ minimalist approach comes despite President Obama’s statements promising a comprehensive environmental review before approving the Keystone XL pipeline. Governors Jay Inslee of Washington and John Kitzhaber of Oregon, have asked Obama to have the White House Council on Environmental Quality take a look at proposals for Northwest coal exports.

“The sad story is the complete, utter retreat of the federal government from their fiduciary responsibility. Because of this humiliating retreat by the Corps — despite Obama’s calls for inclusion — the state has a larger responsibility to ‘look under the hood,’” said state Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle.

Kerry McHugh, from the Washington Environmental Council, added: “Given the president’s recent speech on looking at climate impacts of projects like Keystone XL, it’s fair to say that the Army Corps should reconsider their ‘blinders-on’ decision on coal exports given the impacts we’d all feel.”

The Gateway Pacific project is one of three coal terminals proposed for the Northwest. Three other sites have been abandoned.

Hearings on a second proposed terminal — at Longview on the Columbia River — will be held across the state during September and October. A third and smaller project, the proposed Morrow Pacific terminal, would be located along the Columbia River in Oregon.

The Corps, Ecology and Whatcom County received more than 125,000 comments and saw thousands of people show up at seven hearings on Gateway Pacific. About 2,500 people showed up for a hearing in Seattle, with more than 90 percent opposing the Cherry Point terminal.

By contrast, a 2012 poll by the respected Davis Hibbitts firm in Portland, and a recent Elway poll in Washington, have shown pubic support for terminal proposals. Aided by some of the Northwest’s best hired public relations guns, coal companies and railroads and construction unions — which support the projects — have sought to frame the issue as jobs and trade.

The pro-terminal, industry-funded “astroturf” grassroots group, the Alliance for Northwest Jobs & Exports, blasted Ecology’s decision on a sweeping review.

“This decision has the potential to alter the Northwest’s long and historic commitment to expanding trade, which today supports four in every 10 jobs in Washington,” said Alliance spokeswoman Lauri Hennessey.

With domestic sales on the decline — natural gas is supplanting coal across America — the coal industry has been desperate to develop overseas markets.

But the Sightline Institute, an environmental group critical of Gateway Pacific, voiced hope that the project can be delayed to death, with time and uncertainty working to scare off investors.

“Now that public agencies will be tallying the manifest pollution, health, climate and congestion impacts of the Gateway Pacific coal terminal, there’s likely to be even more opposition to the proposals as the impacts become more widely understood,” said Research Director Eric de Place.

“Plus, given more analysis and a wider exploration of the proposal’s problems, opponents will likely find abundant opportunities to litigate, which would of course create even more delay and uncertainty.”