BNSF

At Salmon Bay Natural Area, a massacre of trees

Guest — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:28:44 +0000

Guest (not verified) Wed, 04/03/2013 - 7:28am

BNSF Railway said clear-cutting trees was for safety, but others aren't so sure

When BNSF Railway decided to go ahead with what they though as necessary clear-cutting, few trees were left unharmed.

Photo by Jerry Gay

When Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway began cutting trees at the Ballard bascule bridge right of way by the Salmon Bay Natural Area on Wednesday, March 20, no one was quite sure what was going on.

It had caught the concern and curiosity of neighbors. But it wasn’t until most of the trees were already cut down over the weekend when Groundswell NW board member Dave Boyd caught whiff of it. He had been involved in the Salmon Bay Natural Area project since 1998, and while BNSF cut trees within their property, the trees were still part of a vulnerable salmon habitat environment and BNSF worked without community or city input. What they left behind was a massacre scene consisting of fallen trees, a tangle of twigs and freshly cut stumps.

“I was really angry and upset. I consider that area part of the natural area, an area we’ve been working to restore for years," he said. "… It was just very upsetting that they would go in and do that kind of work without contacting the city or the community."

Gus Melonas, spokesman for BNSF, said that the clear-cutting was necessary work and that the safety of rail workers were paramount.

"The purpose of this work process is to comply with federal requirements of vegetation control," he said. "We had specialists come in and identify the most threatening trees."

Boyd disagreed.

"They’re certainly going way beyond what would reasonably prevent any hazards from the tracks or bridge," he said.

Melonas said trees were threatening the visibility of crews on the bridge and that leaning trees could have an effect on movement of equipment. Communication and telecommunication operations could also be affected, he said. BNSF also had concerns about transients camping in the area over night, graffiti on the bascule bridge and fires.

The city of Seattle and Seattle Public Utilities purchased the Salmon Bay Natural area in the early 2000s and it extends from The Canal restaurant to the Ballard railroad bridge at the end of 36th NW Ave. It protects 680 linear feet of undeveloped shoreline and it is especially important for juvenile salmon on their way out to saltwater. The low-hanging trees help provide vital protection for young, disoriented salmon from predators. (If you’ve been to the Ballard Locks lately, you can see groups of birds hanging out and snacking on baby fish.)

While the area BNSF clear-cut looked to fall within the Salmon Bay Natural Area, the fence-line was actually well within BNSF property, according to SPU.

"If this had been SPU property we never would have allowed it since we need to preserve native conifers for stormwater management and fish habitat," Susan Stoltzfus said. "Plus we know how much work went in to creating the natural area."

At first, the Department of Planning and Development challenged whether the clear-cutting was legal. BNSF did not attain a city permit which is usually required for the cutting of trees within city limits for certain cases. Those cases include larger trees, exceptional trees that are rare for the area, trees on a sloping site or trees near the water.

The trees BNSF cut are both on a sloping site and near the water.

When asked if BNSF took into consideration any slope or stability damage, Melonas answered, "We have experts that are aware of vegetation control ... we would look at alternative measures if these trees impacted stability. They were cut and pruned in a way where stability and slope is not impacted."

Still, that was not quite enough for DPD.

“It's important for them to have a dialogue with us as well, to make sure the number of trees is the minimum necessary to provide line of sight to operate the rail," DPD’s Bryan Stevens said. "It’s hard to know for sure without having that dialogue."

However, after threatening a fine and consulting with the city attorney, DPD concluded that it would be inadvisable to continue challenging BNSF. In a statement released to the Ballard News-Tribune, Stevens said, "We have been advised that Federal law preempts the City from requiring approval for this tree-clearing activity. We understand that safety is paramount for the operation of the railroad, but we encourage them to establish dialogue with the City prior to future tree removal activity."

Melonas did not seem to think that BNSF did much wrong, however.

"We tried to minimize in the area what was cut,” he said. “However, again, we had to comply with the federal standards for safety which was the No. 1 presence in this project.”

Melonas did say BNSF wants to work with the city.

"We want to be a good neighbor," Melonas said. “BNSF has been and will continue to work with the city through this process.”

However, Boyd is not so sure. He said he and others have attempted to work with BNSF in the past with little progress. He said the city has also had its squabbles with BNSF. “The railroad has a reputation of not being cooperative or helpful to work with,” he said.

Boyd said it seemed a little suspicious that BNSF did most of the clear-cutting over the weekend, when city inspectors would not be checking in.

By now, all of the trees BNSF intended to knock down have been knocked down, and the debris has been cleaned up. The next step will be to plan a re-vegetation program, which Stevens said does not necessarily have to consist of trees, but could be other types of vegetation as well. Melonas said BNSF has agreed to work with the city on the program.

Zachariah Bryan can be reached at zachb@robinsonnews.com

Follow Ballard News-Tribune on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ballardnewstrib

And Twitter at http://twitter.com/ballardnewstrib

Groundswell NW

Salmon Bay Natural Area

Department of Planning and Development

Burlington Northern Sante Fe

Ballard

Ballard News Tribune

21st Century Viking: Digging Deeper Into The Coal Train Controversy

Guest — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:31:27 +0000

Guest (not verified) Tue, 01/22/2013 - 12:31pm

By Brian LeBlanc

Last month while writing an article about the coal train controversy, I talked to Herb Krohn, a railroad union representative at a WSDOT rail transportation public workshop. Krohn made several points that I felt needed further investigation.

Digging deeper into this issue has made me realize how long and complicated a process the decisions to build the coal terminals are going to be, but also how important it is to stay involved to the end.

The points that Krohn made that I felt were worth investigating further were: coal dust was not hazardous except in confined spaces, that people were getting worked up about coal when there are much more hazardous materials being transported on the rails every day, and that environmentalists were attacking the railroads to stop the use of this particular commodity.

While he explained to me the details of how the railroads transport coal, I asked him if putting covers on the train cars could reduce the coal dust. Krohn informed me that coal dust is combustible in small and enclosed spaces and that the loads can be sprayed down with surfactant to reduce the coal dust.

Before I contacted the Sierra Club, I wanted to learn more about how the railroads used the surfactant. I was surprised to learn that Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), one of the railroads that would be shipping the coal, “has determined that coal dust poses a serious threat to the stability of our track structure and thus to the operational integrity of our lines in the Powder River Basin.”

In 2011, BNSF won a decision from the Surface Transportation Board, which regulates the railroads, that confirms they can force the coal companies to “establish reasonable coal loading requirements that will prevent the loss of coal dust from the tops of open-top coal cars.” BNSF wants the coal companies to modify the way the train cars are loaded and also spray surfactant on the loads. These measures will not only reduce the coal dust coming off the cars but also increase the cost of shipping the coal. Read BNSF’s Coal FAQ here: http://www.bnsf.com/customers/what-can-i-ship/coal/coal-dust.html

When I called the Sierra Club, I asked Robin Everett with the Coal Free Northwest campaign about the issues Krohn raised. I mentioned BNSF’s efforts to reduce coal dust and asked her if there are there any compromises or mitigations that the railroad and the coal terminals could make to their proposals that would satisfy the Sierra Club. “There is no mitigation that we would accept,” said Everett.

I asked if it is the goal of the Sierra Club to stop the use of coal period. “Yes,” Everett replied.

I asked Everett about Krohn’s calling into question why people were protesting coal as there are more dangerous things being transported by rail. She called it “a false argument,” saying that coal was dangerous because it is, as she says, “the number one source of global warming.” “Just because you have nuclear waste being transported on the tracks doesn’t make coal OK.” Everett did emphasize, however, that the Sierra Club is not against railroads and transportation, but against coal exports.

Finally, I asked about the jobs that the pro-coal train advocates say would be created as a result of building the terminals. Everett acknowledged that it’s a tough economy and jobs are a concern, but “the project has a potential to hurt jobs in the long run,” especially those of fishermen and farmers along the routes. Instead of jobs based on coal exports, the Sierra Club is advocating for ones based on clean energy. She also mentioned that studies are currently being done, including the one commissioned by Mayor McGinn, that are trying to investigate the possible net benefits of the coal terminals to the region.

The initial period of public commentary on the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point ended Monday, Jan. 21. This public commentary will be used to inform the first round of the environmental review process, which is required by law. The entire environmental review process will take a couple of years and will be used by Federal, state, and Whatcom County officials to help them decide whether to issue the permits to build the Cherry Point coal terminal. The same process will inform the proposed one in Longview and the ones in Oregon.

There’s a lot at stake. These projects could affect Ballard, Washington and the entire Pacific Northwest. These officials are already getting a lot of pressure from two sides that seem unwilling to compromise. In the end, however, these officials are going to make the decision and we can only hope that we pay attention and hope they make the right call.

As concerned citizens, we need to understand the tangle of issues involved, educate ourselves on how the decision-making process works, and be willing to play the long game in order to make a difference.

Follow Ballard News-Tribune on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/ballardnewstrib

And Twitter at http://twitter.com/ballardnewstrib

36D legislators sign onto letter asking for statewide coal impact review

Guest — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:07:34 +0000

Guest (not verified) Tue, 01/22/2013 - 11:07am

A coal train passes underneath the Olympic Sculpture Park. Increased train traffic from the proposed coal export terminal could have a significant impact on the adjacent intersection between the railroad and Broad St.

Photo courtesy of Washington State House of Representatives

On Tuesday, Jan. 22, 36th District's Rep. Reuven Carlyle, Rep. Gael Tarleton and nine other legislators signed onto a letter to Tyler Schroeder of Whatcom Planning and Development Services asking for full statewide review of any economic impacts the coal export terminal would bring.

"We are particularly interested in ensuring that this review process accurately identifies and assesses the full range of potential externalities and impacts, not just in the area immediately surrounding the project site, but statewide in a comprehensive and cumulative fashion," the letter states.

What they ask to be reviewed -- which includes impacts on both built and natural environments -- is no short order. They are as follows:

Traffic congestion at railroad crossings
Impacts to existing freight cargo and passenger rail
Impacts to ferry systems and San Juan Straits marine traffic
Effect on property value
Net employment changes
Public investment to maintain transportation infrastructure
Impact market volatility on commerce and infrastructure
Greenhouse gases a emission targets
Impacts on air and noise pollution
Impacts to marine environment
And cumulative net impacts of all the coal export terminals being built throughout the region.

The letter is a followup action to a demand that legislators made to Gov. Christine Gregoire at the end of last year, which was spearheaded by Carlyle. You can find our report of that here.

You can read the full letter here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3LxvCFXBc7kbGdmLVd3RXlfdWc/edit

Follow Ballard News-Tribune on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/ballardnewstrib

And Twitter at http://twitter.com/ballardnewstrib

Reuven Carlyle

Washington State Legislature