Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published November 18, 2013 at 8:08 PM | Page modified November 21, 2013 at 5:43 AM

  • Share:
             
  • Comments (6)
  • Print

Corrected version

Thousands weigh in on plan for coal terminal in Longview

A proposed coal-export terminal for Longview has generated more than 163,000 public comments for regulators to review.


The Associated Press

Most Popular Comments
Hide / Show comments
"44 metric tons a year...." That really isn't so bad. If that is all we are... MORE
Your today's article about Longview Coal Terminal has an error: the annual coal quantit... MORE
The Lummi Nation has filed paperwork with the Feds opposing the coal terminal at Cherry... MORE

advertising

Regulators have received an unprecedented number of public comments on a disputed proposal to export millions of tons of coal to Asia from a facility along the Columbia River in Longview.

The Army Corps of Engineers, the state’s Ecology Department and Cowlitz County are preparing to sift through more than 163,000 comments to decide which environmental effects should be reviewed.

“This obviously is more comments than we’ve had for most projects we’ve been involved in,” said Ecology spokeswoman Linda Kent. “What I’m hearing is that they haven’t seen this level before.”

Millennium Bulk Terminals-Longview, owned by Ambre Energy and Arch Coal, wants to build and operate a $650 million terminal at Longview to export coal from Montana and Wyoming to Asia. The coal would be carried on trains to the dock, which ultimately would be able to handle 44 metric tons of coal a year.

It’s one of three coal-export docks proposed in Washington and Oregon. The others are projects near Bellingham and Boardman, Ore.

Millennium officials have said the Longview facility would create jobs and generate millions during construction and through yearly state and local tax revenue. They say the terminal, once fully operating, would produce 300 direct and indirect permanent jobs.

The scoping comment period ends Nov. 18 and is only the first step in a lengthy, yearslong process to determine the project’s environmental effects. Such a review is required before many local, state and federal permits can be approved. The county and state are conducting one review, while the Corps of Engineers is doing a separate one.

Five public meetings held throughout the state drew thousands of people, and many businesses, groups, legislators and cities throughout the region have weighed in.

Environmental groups and others say they want to make sure that a full range of impacts are studied, from the time the coal was mined in the Rockies to its travels on trains to Washington to its ultimate burning for electricity in Asia.

On Monday, Les Anderson, who lives in Longview, was part of a group that delivered thousands of comment cards to the Seattle headquarters of the Corps of Engineers.

“I live downriver from the proposed terminal, and what it means to me is more diesel pollution, coal dust,” said Anderson, who is an executive board member of a Longview group, Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community, opposed to the project. He said the effects from the project extend far beyond his community.

The National Park Service, the governors of Oregon and Washington and others have asked regulators to look at the cumulative effects of proposed projects in Washington and Oregon and to consider the impacts beyond the two states.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and others have asked for a narrower focus, saying there’s no precedent for such a far-reaching analysis of coal exports from the Northwest to other parts of the world.

Last July, Ecology said it would consider a sweeping look at the Gateway Pacific terminal coal-export dock proposed near Bellingham, including train traffic and the global-warming effects of burning the exported coal in Asia.

Information in this article, originally published Nov. 18, 2013 was corrected Nov. 20, 2013. In a previous version of this story, The Associate Press incorrectly reported Les Anderson’s position with Landowners and Citizens for a Safe Community. He is an executive board member, not executive director.



News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

Free 4-week trial, then $99 a year.

Free 4-week trial, then $99 a year.

Unlimited seattletimes.com access. Try it now.

Advertising

Partner Video

Advertising


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►