Column on coal trains contained inaccurate information
A guest column published in the Hungry Horse News online on Dec. 13, 2013, “Washington coal port EIS jeopardizes Montana jobs,” by Rep. Austin Knudsen, R-Culbertson, contains inaccurate information.
The column, referring to a state-level environmental review of one of two proposed coal export terminals in Washington state, asserted that it was “including Montana mines and transportation networks” within the scope of its review.
Not so. Washington’s review for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal will broadly evaluate out-of-state rail transportation impacts related to the proposal, while conducting a more detailed in-state assessment. There is no plan to evaluate any mining.
Another assertion, that Washington’s review will evaluate “the power generation of that coal in the countries it’s sold to,” goes afield as well. Washington’s review could calculate and evaluate the end-use greenhouse gas emissions of coal exported from the proposed terminal. This would not equate to evaluating environmental impacts in the importing country.
As for Washington’s other proposed coal terminal, Millennium Bulk Terminals-Longview, the comment period on the scope of its environmental review concluded Nov. 18, 2013. Those comments are under review and no scoping decisions have been made.
In addition, the column’s statement, “Usually, reviews of this sort are done jointly by state and federal permitting bodies,” is inaccurate. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), while state and local entities in Washington must follow the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
These are similar, but not identical, to each other. When a proposal requires both federal and state-level reviews, these are coordinated whenever possible. For both coal export proposals in Washington, the state and local agencies involved are coordinating closely with the Corps.
In each case, the state and respective counties are conducting good faith efforts to review the project proposals under SEPA thoroughly, rigorously and without bias. This SEPA review informs but does not predict specific permitting decisions. Those decisions occur under statutes and processes separate from SEPA.
Finally, we do not believe that the state-level environmental review process conflicts with trade laws or international agreements.
These trade agreements do not prohibit or restrict project reviews that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Moreover, SEPA and NEPA review are normal requirements for any project and do not constitute delays. In fact, for the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal, the agencies expect the federal (NEPA) and state/local (SEPA) review processes to take the same amount of time.
We appreciate the high interest in Washington’s state-level environmental review of the coal export projects proposed in our state. For each proposal, a draft environmental impact statement (EIS), once developed, will be released for public review and comment, and we will welcome input from interested parties.
Josh Baldi is the northwest regional director for the Washington Department of Ecology.