(The following story by Richard Hanners appeared on the Whitefish Pilot website on December 22.)
WHITEFISH, Mont. — Glacier National Park’s preference for shed-building over explosives to protect trains from avalanches along the Park’s southern boundary has created a sharp debate between environmentalists, technical consultants and BNSF Railway.
Avalanches have long threatened rail and motor-vehicle traffic through the narrow canyon leading up to Marias Pass, but an incident on Jan. 28, 2004, led to the Park’s drafting of an environmental impact statement.
An empty 119-car freight train, more than a mile long from end-to-end, was stopped by an avalanche in the John F. Stevens Canyon. As it sat, a second avalanche roared down from the Park, de-railing 15 cars in two places. A third avalanche narrowly missed clean-up crews, and a fourth hit a truck traveling on U.S. Highway 2.
East- and west-bound passenger service on Amtrak halted, and 70 miles of freight trains backed up on both sides of Marias Pass for 29 hours while rail crews dealt with the situation.
Shortly afterwards, BNSF contracted with David Hamre, founder of Alaska-based Chugach Adventure Guides, to analyze the avalanche hazard in the canyon. Hamre does consulting work for the Alaska Railway. At the same time, the U.S. Geological Survey’s field station in Glacier Park took a look at the avalanche problem in the canyon.
Much has changed since the Great Northern Railway first started building snowsheds nearly a century ago. Forest fires had wiped out the trees that anchored snow to the steep slopes. Since then, trees have grown back, shifting avalanche paths to new areas.
Hamre found that existing snowsheds only partially protected trains in seven avalanche paths because the paths widened over time. Snowsheds were missing in five other avalanche paths, and two pathways were determined not to be a significant hazard to rail traffic.
BNSF next instituted an avalanche awareness program, including forecasting, rescue training and weather data collection. After determining that the safety measures were not enough, the company requested a permanent special-use permit from the Park for the use of explosives — including military artillery — to reduce the avalanche hazard.
The Alternatives
The Park’s draft EIS on the special-use permit request came up with four alternatives. The preferred alternative called for construction of five new snowsheds, about 3,540 feet long altogether, and lengthening seven existing snowsheds by a total of 1,500 feet.
Based on BNSF construction cost estimates, Alternative B would cost the railroad about $5.4 million a year over 50 years. No explosives would be allowed — even to protect the sheds while they were under construction.
The railroad’s preferred alternative would allow use of explosives during up to three events a year. Artillery, blaster boxes, Avalhex-type systems, helicopter delivery, Avalauncher and hand-charges would all be allowed. Because of the thick fog that typically accompanies big storms, artillery is more effective than helicopters, which are grounded.
Not doing anything could cost BNSF as much as $2 million a year, the draft EIS states, based on an average of 7.1 hours of delay per year averaged over 28 years.
The Park cited impacts to wildlife and wilderness as why they chose snowshed construction over explosives.
“Sporadic disturbance from explosive use would have a wide range of impacts on wildlife and threatened or endangered species,” the draft EIS states. Explosive use would also impact on “the natural quiet of wilderness,” it states, and unexploded ordnance would be present in areas recommended for wilderness designation.
BNSF Railway maintenance engineer Larry Woodley stated the company’s position in a letter to Park superintendent Mick Holm.
The draft EIS lacks sufficient scientific baseline data to measure impacts from the use of explosives on wildlife habitat, Woodley said. It also does not adequately discuss use of explosives in other National Parks, such as Yellowstone and Yosemite, or on Forest Service lands and for other railroads. He cited the Forest Service’s National Avalanche Center use of explosives as an example.
“BNSF believes that the agencies’ prior extensive experience with these proven methods (including the use of explosives) to reduce avalanche risk, and their present-day employment of pro-active avalanche-reduction plans on public lands, are key to understanding and implementing an appropriate avalanche risk-reduction plan at Glacier National Park,” Woodley said.
Cost Estimates Criticized
Steve Thompson, of National Parks Conservation Association, said the risk posed to BNSF crews and Amtrak passengers “has been too long neglected,” and the 100-year-old system of sheds has “not been adequately maintained and expanded over the years to meet protection needs.”
“We are all fortunate that no major disaster has happened in recent years,” he said.
Thompson called the $5.4 million-a-year estimate for snowshed construction “a reasonable cost of doing business for BNSF’s lucrative freight transportation system across the Continental Divide.”
Noting that BNSF officials estimated the cost of constructing sheds at $7,000 per linear foot “just two years ago,” Thompson said he wouldn’t be surprised if actual costs came in significantly less than the $20,000-a-foot figure BNSF provided the Park for its draft EIS.
Likewise, Thompson criticized BNSF’s estimated maintenance costs, saying the reason why they shot up from an earlier estimate of $40,000 per year to “millions of dollars” was “most likely due to a situation of deferred maintenance and neglect by BNSF.”
As for the lack of comprehensive scientific baseline data in the canyon area, Thompson agreed with the railway. However, he said, the EIS “does provide abundant information documenting the importance of the habitat” for various species and individual animals.
“While we’d love to see BNSF provide much-needed funding to initiate, expand or continue wolverine, lynx or grizzly bear studies,” he said, “we strongly oppose the company’s proposal to delay action. Frankly, BNSF has failed to adequately deal with this issue for decades, at considerable risk to life and property, and further delay would be irresponsible. Now is the time to act.”
Critics of BNSF’s position that shed construction is too costly point to the company’s recent financial reports. BNSF announced on Oct. 24 that it posted an all-time record quarter.
Third-quarter freight revenues increased $597 million to $3.82 billion, and operating income increased $142 million to $920 million. Share value increased by 22 percent.
The company operates one of the largest railroad networks in North America, with about 32,000 route miles in 28 states and two Canadian provinces. It moves more grain than any other railroad, and it moves enough coal to generate 10 percent of the electricity in the U.S.
Consultants speak out
Don Bachman, of Bozeman, a past executive director of the American Avalanche Association with a 40-plus-year career studying avalanches, told the Pilot he supports the Park’s position.
“There have been considerable problems in the canyon for a long time, and it needs to be resolved once and for all,” he said. “Explosives are against Park values, and there is uncertainty in their effectiveness.”
Bachman said the snowshed that burned years ago needs to be rebuilt, and he cited increased rail traffic as a reason for building more snowsheds.
“BNSF runs heavier, longer, slower trains on their tracks, and they’re exposed to avalanches for longer times,” he said.
He also said he supports the Park’s position on no use of explosives during snowshed construction, saying the work could be done with pre-fabricated structures in just a few years.
Ted Steiner, of Whitefish, the former director of Glacier Country Avalanche Center and now a consultant for BNSF, warned that construction of snowsheds could cause greater environmental impacts than stated in the Park’s draft EIS.
Snowsheds could become barriers to wildlife, he said, and in some places, new snowsheds could act as ramps that would direct avalanche debris onto Highway 2.
Bill in Congress
A bill intended to fund avalanche control work may have suffered a setback in Congress this year after it was “linked” to the situation at Glacier Park.
Sponsored in the House and the Senate by Alaska congressmen, the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2005 would have authorized $75 million in funding over five years. The bill passed the Senate but never made it out of committee in the House.
According to Bachman, who said both he and Hamre participated in hearings for the bill, the money was intended for forecasting and to establish a central munitions repository for artillery. Bachman said most of the artillery used in avalanche control in the U.S. is Korean or Vietnam war vintage, and shells are no longer being manufactured for them.
Bachman said the bill was first introduced in 2002, long before BNSF acknowledged their interest in avalanche control. He said the bill was intended to help programs in Alaska and the Rockies where artillery has long been used to protect railroads and highways.
Thompson was very critical of the bill, calling it “pork” and saying the money would be better spent on campgrounds. He said taxpayers shouldn’t pay for explosives used by BNSF.
Using Artillery
But the bill wouldn’t subsidize BNSF, said Doug Abromeit, director of the Forest Service’s National Avalanche Center. Abromeit also testified in Washington about the bill.
“The money would be a revolving fund, and all users would have to pay for munitions,” he said. “The money would go back to the U.S. Treasury, like a loan.”
Abromeit said 105 mm howitzers — the artillery piece recommended for use in Glacier Park — are used in about a dozen locations around the U.S. They are used by federal agencies and state departments of transportation, he said, not by private enterprise. The Alaska Railroad, for example, has been owned by the state of Alaska since 1985.
Abromeit said 105 mm howitzers are very accurate, and unexploded ordnance averages about 1 percent of the rounds. He said the large number of unexploded shells at Sylvan Pass in Yellowstone National Park resulted from the use of recoilless rifles with inferior munitions.
Typically, firing crews record when and where duds were fired so personnel can go up to the target area in the spring and locate the unexploded rounds, which are then set off with hand charges.
“You don’t find 100 percent of them,” Abromeit said about the Sylvan Pass area.
Glacier National Park’s draft EIS can be seen online by clicking here.