Opinion

Exit 34 solution poses problems

I wanted to comment on Cadman's letter of Nov. 9, (their response to

the editorial, "Come on Cadman, the writing is on the wall"). After studying

all the issues surrounding this proposed mine, I am convinced that

Cadman's singular goal is to extract gravel at the most economically feasible

location (Exit 34) regardless of environmental impacts or residents concerns.

All signs point to Cadman's manipulation of information to achieve their goal

of acceptance of their original proposal (which includes a two-mile-long

conveyer belt up Grouse Ridge).

I do not see any indication that Cadman is willing to seriously

evaluate how to use Exit 38. Don't be fooled. Cadman is not worried

about stream crossings and impact to forestlands. Their biggest concern is

how much more costly it would be to extract and deliver gravel from Exit

38. If they really want to co-exist with local residents and to "be a good

neighbor," like their slick PR efforts claim, they would demonstrate an effort

and then implement a solution at Exit 38. They could devise a plan that

would not use the Fire Training Academy Road, however, it just isn't as

profitable.

There are reports, studies and experts that can show just as much

(if not more) environmental damage and adverse traffic impacts at Exit 34

as there are for Exit 38. The statistics Cadman uses to justify their

position can be used to justify the position of residents who have lived here

for years. In either case, huge gravel mining operations using either exit

will negatively impact the Snoqualmie Valley for generations to come.

Cadman's letter indicates that Exit 34 is already "one of the busiest

truck stops in the state." If you know nothing else about this proposed

project, think of what 900 additional truck trips per day would do to the exit at

the state's busiest truck stop. Nowhere does Cadman acknowledge the

increased probability of fatal accidents with that much truck traffic in

one small location. I am convinced that no amount of (yet undisclosed) "road

improvements" by Cadman would make this area "a better and safer traffic

flow than now currently exists."

Their letter goes on to state "Cadman does not want the

community to simply look at this project in terms of Exit 34 vs. Exit 38."

Well sorry Cadman. Exit 34 vs. 38 IS the main issue to the community.

The problem is that you and Weyerhaeuser don't care. I think we all

understand that you both have stockholders to satisfy.

Both companies need to revise their economic forecasts and

scale back the original proposal and be satisfied with the profits earned

while using Exit 38.

Come on Cadman and Weyerhaeuser! Do the right

thing. Work with the existing gravel operation at Exit 38. Find a way to make

it work. You should listen to the locals.

Sean Donnelly

North Bend

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Jul 23 edition online now. Browse the archives.