As Pacific Northwesterners learn more about the proposed expansion of coal exports through this region, there are two fundamental facts we already know:Affected communities deserve a seat at the table and a voice in the discussion.
The more information, the better.
On that second point, it was encouraging to see BNSF Railway Chairman and CEO Matthew Rose visit Vancouver and other Northwest communities last week to offer his perspective on the controversial subject. Among Rose’s comments, eight to 12 daily coal-hauling trains, perhaps 12 to 16, could be added in Clark County, not the 20 to 60 that many critics predict. (Currently, about three or four coal trains pass through here daily.) Also, Rose believes two or three coal-export facilities could be built in the Northwest, not the original six that were proposed. (One proposal has been shelved.) And he said current coal shipments would be increased by about 50 million to 100 million tons annually, not the 150 million tons or more that others have projected.
That, of course, is just one side of the story, and it’s good to know. But there are other sides as well, and several local governments have vigorously and appropriately expressed their desire to participate in the debate. Significant environmental and traffic-congestion consequences hang in the balance.
On June 21, Clark County commissioners sent a letter to the state Department of Ecology and to Cowlitz County describing their concerns about a proposed coal expert terminal in Longview, which would increase coal train traffic through here. On July 16, the Vancouver City Council followed suit, expressing three requests of state officials. The city wants to be a party of record to any environmental studies about coal shipments. It wants a cumulative, area-wide analysis of the impacts of any new terminals. And the city asks for at least one public hearing in Clark County on each environmental impact statement.