Conservationists oppose explosive avalanche control

By JIM MANN

They tell Glacier Park officials that the railroad should build snowsheds instead

The Daily Inter Lake

Not only should Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway build more snowsheds in the Middle Fork Flathead corridor, but it should design some of them to also serve as wildlife crossings.

That's the position of several conservationists who testified Tuesday in Kalispell against the use of explosives to control avalanches on Glacier National Park's southern boundary. About a dozen people attended the hearing hosted by park officials at the Red Lion Hotel Kalispell.

A railroad spokesman reiterated Burlington Northern Santa Fe's position that a recently released draft environmental review on avalanche hazard reduction is inadequate. The railroad wants the environmental review to be delayed to allow for more analysis of several issues.

As it stands, a public comment period on the draft expires at the end of the month, and Glacier officials have a "preferred alternative" of requiring the railroad to expand its system of snowsheds that protect railroad tracks from avalanches, rather than allowing the use of explosives, including artillery, to control avalanches.

Steve Thompson, the Glacier field representative for the National Parks Conservation Association, said the snowshed alternative is the best option for visitor safety and public access, it is the environmentally preferred alternative for lands that are recommended for wilderness designation, and it is the most effective way to protect rail traffic from avalanches.

"This is the case even if the use of explosives is for avalanche control was a 100 percent effective technology," Thompson wrote in his formal comments to the park.

Explosives or artillery, however, are not always reliable, Thompson said.

Roughly one mile of additional snowsheds would be needed to protect the tracks that run under a dozen avalanche chutes. The railroad has maintained that would be too expensive.

The railroad provided an estimate of about $20,000 per linear foot of snowshed construction. But Thompson cites an appendix in the draft Environmental Impact Statement in which the railroad had previously pegged the cost estimate at $7,000.

In any case, Thompson notes that at least 42 grizzly bears have been killed by trains in the Middle Fork corridor in the last 30 years, and that the draft EIS "appropriately includes the recommendation that BNSF incorporate wildlife crossing structures and wildlife escape openings in their shed construction design."

Brian Peck of the Great Bear Foundation and Keith Hammer of the Swan View Coalition had similar comments.

Hammer referred to the Great Northern Environmental Stewardship Area - an organization that was established by the railroad, the park, the Forest Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and other partners to address the problem of grizzly bears being killed near grain spills along the tracks in the Middle Fork Corridor.

In light of that partnership, Hammer said, the railroad should be investing in snowsheds and wildlife crossings rather than asking the government to subsidize the use of explosives as a means of controlling avalanches.

The railroad's official comments maintain the draft Environmental Impact Statement lacks "baseline data" to measure environmental impairment from "the implementation of an explosives program for avalanche hazard reduction of this magnitude."

The draft also does not include wildlife or habitat studies that would provide information about what species may frequent the areas where the use of explosives is proposed, says the letter, signed by Larry Woodley, maintenance engineer for the railroad's Montana Division.

In reading the letter for the record Tuesday, Woodley also noted that the draft does not adequately examine the use of explosives in other national parks or national forests.

"Additional time and studies would enable the inclusion … of a full exploration of appropriate baseline data and potential environmental impacts from avalanche mitigation techniques already used across the country," he said. "To that end, BNSF supports a renewed effort by the agencies to carefully examine how an avalanche risk reduction plan could be implemented in Glacier National Park."

Whitefish resident Dave Skinner spoke in favor of the avalanche control program. He said wildlife species do not inhabit deep snow in avalanche chutes over the winter, and that there is an immediate need for curbing avalanche hazards that could someday kill train crews or passengers.

He said the use of explosives "is the least expensive and the most rational alternatlve."

The National Parks Conservation Association opposes any delay in the review process.

"While we'd love to see BNSF provide much-needed funding to initiate, expand or continue wolverine, lynx or grizzly bear studies, for example, we strongly oppose the company's proposal to delay action," Thompson wrote. "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."

Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com