Posted: Sunday, September 25, 2005 12:00 am
WEST GLACIER (LEE) - On Aug. 26, several tons of corn spilled along the southern edge of Glacier National Park when a handful of freight cars left the tracks in an early morning railroad accident.
But what wasn't an accident was the railroad's cleanup response, which involved tipping and spilling nearly 20 additional corn cars in order to open the line as soon as possible.
"I understand Burlington Northern has a corporate bottom line, and that is to make money," said Brian Peck, a grizzly bear recovery specialist with the Great Bear Foundation. "But I think they have a responsibility once it's spilled not to make the situation worse. And I think they would be hard-pressed to say they haven't made the situation worse."
Peck is involved because history has shown grain and corn spills south of the park can be bad news for grizzly bears, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Derailments, spills and bears first made headlines back in the late 1980s, when railroad policy was to simply bury the spill on site. But rains caused the corn and grain to ferment, drawing sharp-nosed bears from miles around.
According to Tim Manley, bear management specialist for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, some two dozen grizzlies came to dine on fermented hash. Eight were struck and killed by trains, and no one knows how many had to be killed later, having become habituated to human food sources.
In response, management at Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad joined forces with a whole host of state and federal land management agencies, creating the Great Northern Environmental Stewardship Area. The group's goal was to review the past and plan for the future, reducing the number of grizzlies killed by trains.
Since then, the railroad has cut speed limits south of the park, installed concrete ties, laid high-tech "ribbon rail" and established a special education program for engineers running the U.S. Highway 2 corridor beneath Marias Pass. Grain is now vacuumed up, and inspectors check cars for "dribble" before they run through bear country.
It's working, Manley said, and even with "a big spill on average about every other year," and an average of one grizzly killed on the tracks each year, "things are so much better than they used to be. We've come a long, long way from the late '80s."
But many are now wondering whether the railroad's come far enough, and particularly whether it makes sense to spill upright grain cars to speed interstate commerce.
In the Aug. 26 incident, six cars derailed and toppled, each carrying about 110 tons of corn. But by the time dozers finished tipping over damaged but upright grain cars, the spill totaled 2,300 tons.
"Yes," Manley said, "it's very frustrating. I mean, why can't they seal the cars before they tip them over? Why can't they just weld them shut?"
Welding, in fact, is likely not the answer, as the cars are steel and their lids are aluminum or fiberglass. But a clamp, perhaps, or some other containment lock could work.
"People are finally asking the kinds of questions that might provide some answers," Manley said. "This has become a very, very big topic of discussion lately."
All the bigger because Burlington Northern has entered into negotiations with endangered species managers to create what's known as a Habitat Conservation Plan, or HCP. If approved, the railroad would agree to take additional steps to protect bears and, in return, would not be held accountable for accidentally killing a certain number of grizzlies.
But even as the company seeks what Peck calls "an Endangered Species Act get-out-of-jail-free card," its crews are deliberately spilling hundreds of tons of corn in an area where spills have been known to kill bears.
In its current form, the HCP discusses speedy cleanup, but does not tackle methods or issues such as deliberate spills.
No one, however, is suggesting that the railroad is insensitive to environmental protections. History, Manley said, is evidence of Burlington Northern Santa Fe's commitment to reducing run-ins with bears.
After last month's spill, the railroad paid for electric fencing to encircle the spill area, and picked up the tab for bear management specialists to work the area with dogs, rubber bullets and motion-activated light and noise machines.
So far, no bears are known to have gotten into the corn.
Meanwhile, enormous vacuums continue the work of sucking up corn, even sifting it from the lava-rock ballast that lines the tracks. The job will take months, likely into next spring, and comes with a million-dollar price tag.
Of course, that's not a lot of money compared with the cost of interrupting interstate rail commerce for weeks while damaged cars are emptied while still upright.
According to BNSF spokesman Gus Melonas, about 70 percent of the corn in cars deliberately tipped did not spill on the ground, and the large number of cars shoved over the steep embankment represented "a very unusual circumstance."
While it is in no way unusual to speed reopening by way of a deliberate spill, no one can recall such a large dump into such inaccessible terrain.
"BNSF certainly is aware of the environmental issues," Melonas said. "It's a top priority."
Every situation is unique, he said, and "we learn from each derailment."
The lesson from the Aug. 26 spill may well be a study into how not to make matters worse. With initial negotiations over the Habitat Conservation Plan expected to wrap up this fall, the current scrutiny on post-derailment policy could well factor into the railroad's future ability to kill some grizzlies without penalty.
"We're certainly willing to discuss the topic" of deliberate spills, Melonas said. "The bottom line is, no bears have been hit this year, and that's our goal."
But Manley wonders whether bears that don't access the site might find trouble elsewhere, drawn to nearby homes by the smell of fermenting corn. If that happens, he said, the spill could indirectly cause the death of bears.
And Peck wonders whether fall is the time to tie up already busy bear management resources with a spill larger than it had to be.
"I don't think the railroad has the right to do that," he said, "and I absolutely think these things have to be discussed in relation to the HCP. The public shouldn't subsidize private industry with grizzly bears."
Especially a private industry with the resources of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, he said.
The company posted all-time record earnings in the second quarter of 2005, reporting $3.04 billion in revenues for the three-month period. It was the 13th consecutive quarter showing an increase over the same quarter a year before, and the sixth consecutive quarter showing double-digit freight revenue growth.
Shareholder dividends increased 18 percent during the quarter, and some argue the company can afford to delay cleanup long enough to avoid further spills.
"This is a very profitable company that moves a lot of freight," said Steve Thompson of the National Parks Conservation Association, "and they can afford to do it right."
No one, however, imagines asking the company to delay for days or weeks interstate commerce on the main line between Seattle and Chicago. In fact, freight kept moving after the accident, with trains routed to the south.
"I recognize their business needs," Manley said. "Their goal is to get the tracks open ASAP, and to get the spill cleaned up later. I can accept that. The longer it's shut down, the bigger the impact on a huge number of people."
He credits the company for taking big steps to protect bears in recent years, and says talks have been open and frank on both sides "From what I can tell, everyone involved wants to do what's right."
"But is there something that can be done to minimize the spillage?" he wondered. "Should they spill more corn than the derailment did? It still doesn't make sense to a lot of people."