Who has the most clout
in Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana? Thousands of
citizens who took part in an environmental impact study, or a
railroad that wants to control avalanches as cheaply as possible?
If you guessed the railroad, it seems you’re right.
Four years ago, avalanches halted train service for 30 hours, twice
derailed an empty freight train and nearly slammed into a cleanup
crew. Afterward, Burlington Northern asked the Park Service for a
permit to use explosives to control avalanches originating in the
park. The company also contracted for an avalanche study, which
identified 12 slide paths likely to affect the railway. The
avalanche study suggested expanding the snowsheds, among other
recommendations.
But the company had a different idea. It
claimed that setting off controlled avalanches on park hillsides
each winter was the best and least expensive to address its safety
and financial concerns.
But there are other things to
worry about in a national park. The Park Service’s draft
environmental impact statement in 2006 found that explosives would
disrupt the park’s natural avalanche regime, altering vegetation,
hydrology and wildlife habitat. Grizzly bears, wolves, lynx, elk
and many other wild animals use the area. Blasting means they could
suffer direct death, displacement, or deafness and other injuries.
Fixed gunning structures and shrapnel would also litter an area
that’s been recommended for wilderness, while unexploded
ordnance would lead to year-round closures.
Much like an
earlier study, the draft EIS recommended that the railroad expand
its snowsheds. It pointed out that eliminating train delays and
preventing spills would offset the considerable cost, estimated at
over $100 million. In contrast, a blasting program in the park
would cost up to 2.2 million dollars annually, but would not
eliminate the threat of derailments and spills.
About
13,000 people commented on the draft EIS, with all but a handful
supporting snowsheds. But the railroad continued pressing for the
cheaper alternative of explosives, even as it reported
multibillion-dollar profits. After analyzing the comments, the Park
Service completed a final EIS recommending snowsheds over
explosives.
And that’s when things went off track.
Ordinarily, local officials forward a final EIS to Park Service
bosses in Washington, D.C., who usually take a month to publish
their final result in the Federal Register. The decision becomes
final soon afterward. Under the Bush administration, however, local
decisions must now pass the additional scrutiny of Interior
Department officials. Until they approve, no decision is official,
and the public cannot view the EIS.
Local officials sent
their EIS on its daunting trip to Washington more than seven months
ago. With no technical work remaining, publication should have
occurred long ago. Instead, at the height of Montana’s
avalanche season, the policy remains in limbo.
Park
Service employees have inquired about the delay, of course, but
they apparently receive only vague responses from the Interior
Department. Meanwhile, in an unusual move, the railroad attempted
to withdraw its permit request. Perhaps it hopes to try the whole
process again at a later date. Or maybe it hopes to avoid pressure
for new sheds. Whatever the case, it appears that friends in the
Interior Department are listening.
Delaying — or worse,
burying — the environmental impact statement is wrong on many
levels. First, it’s a disservice to railroad employees, who
deserve safe working conditions in the canyon. Next, it poorly
serves residents of northwestern Montana. Burlington Northern
trains carry oil and other hazardous materials. By not adequately
protecting the cargo from avalanches, the railroad jeopardizes the
Middle Fork of the Flathead River, a source of clean water,
recreation, revenue and more.
As one of the 13,000 people
who participated in the public comment period, I believe inaction
in Washington is a callous response to our civic involvement.
If the Bush administration shelved the EIS, it would not
be its first interference with local public lands decisions.
Residents of Idaho and Montana remember the 2001 plan for grizzly
bear recovery in the Selway-Bitterroot. That plan was years in the
making and historic for the cooperation it created among ranchers,
timber companies and conservationists. It was abruptly halted
without explanation when President Bush took office. The Forest
Service’s Roadless Rule met a similar fate, even after over a
million people participated in the comment period.
In
another example, the Interior Department recently announced it will
review decisions by former Interior Department official Julie
MacDonald. A Bush administration appointee, she is an engineer with
no science background who overruled decisions about endangered
species decisions to benefit developers.
Each of these
examples reveals an antipathy for locally produced public lands
decisions. They also starkly deviate from the Republican commitment
to local autonomy. And every time officials railroad a policy
developed with citizen involvement, they alienate all of us who who
love our public lands.
Tim Lydon is a
contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High
Country News (hcn.org). He works as a wilderness ranger in
southeast Alaska and spends winters in northwestern
Montana.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
