Congress may fund avalanche program

By JIM MANN

Grants might pay for Glacier Park blasting

The Daily Inter Lake

A $75 million grant package quietly moving through Congress could be used to subsidize Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's plans to use artillery and other explosives for avalanche control in Glacier National Park.

The legislation, aimed at improving avalanche control capabilities across the West, was introduced last April and passed by the Senate. A similar version of the bill, the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2005, has been introduced in the House.

For well over a year, meanwhile, Glacier Park officials have been developing an environmental review weighing alternative methods of avalanche control in the Middle Fork Flathead River corridor on the park's southern boundary.

At Burlington Northern Santa Fe's request, alternatives include the use of artillery and other explosives on the avalanche chutes inside the park that tower above the railroad's northern line and U.S. 2.

The avalanche control proposal has raised concerns with Glacier officials and outright protest from the National Parks Conservation Association. The grant legislation makes the proposition even more objectionable, said Steve Thompson, the association's Glacier field representative.

"It just adds insult to injury to ask taxpayers to pay them to bomb the park," Thompson said. "That money could be used for things like campgrounds and seasonal rangers and the maintenance backlog in the park."

The earmark was introduced by two Republican lawmakers from Alaska and was written in part by David Hamre, an avalanche control expert for the Alaska Railroad Corporation who also serves as a consultant for Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

Hamre testified in support of the bill in a House subcommittee hearing in July, mentioning the impacts of avalanches on Glacier's southern boundary.

The rail line and U.S. 2 "have been drastically affected by avalanches in the past two years," a transcript of his testimony states. "They have suffered extensive shutdowns and business interruption with attendant losses estimated in the millions of dollars."

Hamre went to say that implementing avalanche "risk reduction strategies" could reduce lengthy closures.

The House bill calls for the restoration of military artillery for avalanche control purposes, the creation of an advisory committee to oversee avalanche control programs, and the authorization of $15 million in annual spending to pay for the program over five years.

Thompson noted that Bush administration officials testified against the legislation, saying that federal lands are already faced with maintenance backlogs and can't afford to take on new funding responsibilities the grant program would present.

Thompson says it's nothing more than "pork" that would benefit the railroads and consultants who do avalanche control work.

Mary Riddle, Glacier's environmental review coordinator, said a draft environmental impact statement on avalanche control will be released late this month. It's been in development since May 2005 and has been through reviews and revisions at the national level "because it's a potential precedent-setting action," Riddle said.

"This is an action that we're being requested to do that's not necessarily for the visitor or for the resource, so we have a lot of concerns about it," she said. "It's in proposed wilderness. And we have known threatened and endangered species in the area."

Thompson and others question the effectiveness of using artillery or other types of explosives to control avalanches in a dozen chutes that are staggered over several miles above the rail line, particularly when avalanches in those areas are often triggered by sudden, heavy snowstorms.

Instead, Thompson argues, the railroad should invest in improving or expanding snowsheds that protect the tracks from avalanches.

The railroad has estimated building and replacing snowsheds would cost about $110 million.

Gus Melonas, a spokesman for the railroad, said the use of explosives as an alternative is necessary because the cost of snowsheds is too high.

"We have about 5,000 feet of snowsheds in the most problematic areas for avalanche patterns," he said. "We are favoring this plan, the blasting plan, as additional snowsheds would have to be designed, approved, constructed and maintained and they are extremely expensive."

Thompson disagrees, saying he is skeptical of the cost estimates.

"But if that's true, it's like a basic expense," Thompson said. "It's a core cost of doing business. They are making [strong] profits and they are running more trains through this corridor than they ever have."

Railroad traffic through the Middle Fork corridor has steadily increased, and past delays caused by avalanches have been costly. But at a meeting last spring, railroad officials stressed that proposals to use explosives are driven largely out of concern for the safety of railroad crews.

They cited incidents that occurred in winter 2004.

On Jan. 28 that year, an empty 119-car freight train was stopped on the west side of Marias Pass in John Stevens Canyon by an avalanche that had crossed the tracks. While it was stopped, the train was hit by another avalanche that derailed 15 cars in two different places. A third avalanche nearly missed cleanup crews and a fourth slide hit a truck traveling on U.S. 2.

Amtrak passenger service also was temporarily stopped and 70 miles of freight trains were backed up on both sides of Marias Pass for 29 hours.

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