Throughout 2024, the Clark County Council faced scrutiny over two significant land-use decisions. These issues highlight ongoing concerns of county residents including environmental impacts, economic benefits and legal compliance with the State of Washington.
Chelatchie Prairie Railroad
Clark County’s 33-mile Chelatchie Prairie Railroad, stretching from Vancouver through Yacolt and Battle Ground, remained at the center of debate as proposals to transport aggregate materials like gravel along its tracks gained traction. Since Portland Vancouver Junction Railroad (PVJR) took over operations in 2012, concerns about the railroad’s environmental and operational impacts — particularly on residential and commercial areas — have grown.
The Department of Ecology announced it was investigating PVJR for obstructing water flow through tributaries to Chelatchie Creek and unauthorized discharges into wetlands. PVJR also faced scrutiny for trespassing and damaging county-owned property.
Since 2018, Clark County has considered creating “freight-rail dependent use” (FRDU) areas — industrial sites designed to connect more easily with the railroad. These plans included rezoning rural areas for industrial purposes but faced significant opposition from local leaders and environmental groups.
Battle Ground Mayor Troy McCoy and Yacolt Mayor Ian Shealy publicly opposed using the rail for industrial shipping, citing concerns about noise, pollution, increased traffic and safety. In March, the Battle Ground City Council unanimously passed a resolution opposing the plan, emphasizing potential traffic delays and interference with emergency vehicles.
Industrial shipping would reactivate the unused rail, which passes through Yacolt and Main Street in Battle Ground. The rail also cuts through Rasmussen Boulevard, west of Battle Ground Village. City officials expressed concerns the rail’s usage could cause traffic delays and delay emergency vehicles.
“To me, it’s just a slap in the face that the county would say ‘Oh, this is great for everybody,’ and ‘Oh, by the way, Battle Ground, it’s coming through. It’s no tax base for you.’ It’s just noise pollution, danger, you name it,” McCoy said.
Environmental groups like the Loo Wit Sierra Club opposed proposed industrial zoning near Brush Prairie schools, raising safety concerns and questioning the economic benefits of FRDU. Activists distributed flyers and demanded greater transparency.
“We’ve never been given a true cost-benefit analysis,” Wendy Cleveland, the organization’s conservation chair, told The Reflector. “Even if they’re saying [the overlay] provides jobs, what jobs does it provide? Can we guarantee that [a] factory is coming in and wanting this heavy-industrial overlay? Can we guarantee they’re going to hire Clark County residents? … We don’t have answers. We only have questions, and we’re the ones living here.”
In July, the County Council voted 3-2 to reject a consultant’s bid to draft regulations for industrial sites along the rail. Councilors Sue Marshall, Glen Yung and Karen Bowerman cited various reasons for the decision, including unresolved legal disputes with PVJR, doubts about the economic impact, and potential delays in meeting state planning deadlines.
During a June meeting, Council Chair Gary Medvigy proposed rejecting a $99,805 contract with BERK Consulting Inc. to allow more consultants to bid, as only two companies had expressed interest. However, under Medvigy’s direction, a new scope of work was added to the contract, which required the consultant to review the county’s employment capacity. County Manager Kathleen Otto warned that this request could further delay the county’s comprehensive plan, potentially pushing it past the state’s 2024 Growth Management Act deadline. The proposal was ultimately rejected in a 3-2 vote.
“I think what they were attempting to do was not feasible, and, in the end, people voted the way they [did] for differing reasons,” Marshall said after the meeting.
Yung, who opposed the industrial rail plans, underscored PVJR’s legal troubles and the lack of a clear economic study.
“Given all that’s taken place [and] given all the uncertainties, given the legal issues involved with it, I just don’t see FRDU as being productive for the county at this time,” Yung said during the meeting.
Chelatchie Bluff mining overlay
A zoning designation on approximately 330 acres of northeast Clark County property, previously ruled by a state authority to be improperly assigned, remains as the applicant and the county prepare to challenge that decision through an ongoing appeals process.
The Chelatchie Bluff mining overlay was initially approved by the Clark County Council in 2022. Granite Construction proposed mining 200 million tons of aggregate over several decades, citing the region’s growing demand for construction materials. However, Friends of Clark County (FCC) challenged the overlay, arguing that the county had failed to conduct the required environmental impact statement (EIS).
In March 2023, the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) ruled against the overlay, stating its approval without an EIS violated the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This decision placed Clark County in noncompliance with state land-use laws.
Both Clark County and Granite Construction appealed the ruling, arguing environmental studies could be completed later in the permitting process.
Throughout 2024, FCC continued to insist these studies should have been conducted before the overlay’s approval during public comment.
Granite Construction attorney Jamie Howsley raised concerns that the decision could hinder future development in Clark County if not appealed.
“No right-mind developer in the world is going to conduct all these studies and all of this analysis … simply to change the zoning on something,” Howsley said during a County Council meeting. “I think that that’s exactly why the county is interested in appealing this decision.”
In August, the council scheduled a public hearing for Oct. 22 to discuss the potential repeal of the overlay after staff warned that noncompliance could cost the county $1.3 million annually in clean water grants, totaling $6.4 million over five years. During the public hearing, county staff noted that a $3.5 million low-interest loan for a wetland restoration project was secured by recharacterizing one of its facilities. If the court sides with GMHB and the overlay remains intact, the county could lose out on $2.9 million in state grants and loans for clean water initiatives, however.
A majority of councilors opted to wait for the court of appeals’ decision, with Marshall and Yung opposing the delay.
Oral hearings for the appeals case are now scheduled for Jan. 9, 2025.
