Coal Train Noise: Are You “Significant”?

We are here!  We are here!

David’s blog about the “no action alternative” for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal – North America’s largest coal export terminal  -- made me think about how we measure environmental “impacts,” also known as environmental “effects.”   

An impact is an effect, an effect is an impact, and both words refer to costs that the project applicant will impose on others.

Here’s one thing to know about environmental impact statements:  No impact matters unless the “Lead Agency” (here, the Army Corps of Engineers) decides that the impact is “significant.” 

If an impact is “less than significant” – poof! For all intents and purposes, the impact goes away. No mitigation measures are required.  The agencies don’t have to worry about the impact.  Your elected representatives won’t worry about the impact.  Really, nobody ever has to think about that impact ever again.

Except the folks who have to live with the project's "effects."  They may think that impacts are significant, but if the Corps doesn't think so, it doesn't matter.  

And so, I wonder how the Army Corps of Engineers is going to measure noise impacts from coal trains.  I wonder what standard it is going to apply. I wonder what impacts it will call "significant" and which impacts it will call "suck it up, sucker."

The Corps isn’t ordinarily in the business of dealing with large-scale noise impacts from trains.  I can’t find anything in the Corps’ NEPA regulations, or in any Corps guidance documents, that sets standards for noise impacts or provides guidance about how noise impacts will be measured.   Maybe it's there and I just didn't find it.

As far as I can tell, though, the Corps will establish a standard of "significance" based on its view of what makes sense.  It will listen to agencies.  And maybe it will even listen to the people who will be most affected. 

 

Here are a few things that we know about trains and noise. ·        
  
We know that there are at least two kinds of noise:  wayside noise (engine and wheel noise) and train whistle noise.  

We know that the Federal Railroad Administration requires freight trains to blow their whistles at 96-110 decibels, measured 100 feet in front of the train and 15 feet above the rail, near intersections. That’s a straightforward measurement of sound at a point in time.

Except that it isn’t straightforward, because decibels are logarithmic. An increase in ten decibels is roughly equivalent to a doubling in noise.  So a noise that we hear as 110 dBA isn’t 10% higher than a 100-decibel noise.  It’s about twice as loud.  A 20-decibel gain is about four times as loud.  A 40-decibel gain is about 16 times as loud.

Unless you have a vacuum cleaner or dishwasher going, your living room at the moment is probably around 40 to 60 dBA.  So a train whistle at 100 feet would be at least 16 times as loud.  With distance, the sound level goes down, and walls and windows reduce it too, of course. 

We know that noise varies over time. Time variability is usually addressed by averaging sound over a period of time – often, 24 hours.   You may see the term “Ldn.”  

• Ldn measures the “cumulative noise exposure from all events over a full 24-hour period, with events occurring between 10 pm and 7 am increased by 10 dB to account for greater nighttime sensitivity to noise."  
• (For those who want to read along, and especially if you want to learn more about train noise, here is the Federal Railroad Administration’s web page on “Horn Noise Questions and Answers.” )

When you put all that together, what do you get?

Train horns are really loud.   They’re not the loudest sound in the world – jet aircraft at 500 feet are louder, and some military blasts are louder.  (The Army Corps had consultants test whether night time military exercises affect people’s sleep.  They do.  The offending sounds were 110-120 dBA.)  

But they’re loud.  Rock concert loud.  Rock concerts are sometimes given as an example of a 110 dBA sound.  I also saw “squeaky toy held close to ear.”  Ouch.  Vacuum cleaners, by contrast, are 60-85 dBA.

“Loud” can go away when you "average" noise over time.  What happens when you “average out” the noise level?   

For people who live a thousand feet away from a “suburban crossing with horns,” the Federal Railroad Administration suggests that the average noise (60 Ldn) is no worse than an “urban residential environment.”  

This raises a red flag:

What if the Corps decides to "average" noise when it is determining significance?  What if it decides that, say, 65 or 70 Ldn is its standard for significant impacts? This would not be unheard of.  In fact, based on precedent, it may be more likely than not.

This would mean that everybody who experiences an "average" noise level that’s significantly worse than conditions today -- five, ten, forty times louder -- but not above this "level of significance," would just have to grin and bear it.  Train whistles disrupt your sleep?  Too bad, you're not "significant."

If that’s the standard of significance, an awful lot of people will be sacrificing an awful lot of sleep for the coal trains.

Or, the Corps can set a lower standard.  It can set a standard for high decibel, noncontinuous noises -- train whistles --  especially when they disrupt sleep.

How can that happen?  If you demand it.  If you think that you are significant, tell the Corps to measure noise impacts as if you mattered.   

Your comments don't have to be technical.  Just tell the Corps that "averaging" the noise isn't enough.  If loud whistles already bother you, say so.  If your friends and neighbors join you, and folks all along the rail route have the same concern, maybe somebody will listen.

You can also tell the Corps whether noise mitigation measures will make the impacts “less than significant” for you.  Some possibilities include:

• Creating “quiet zones,” where whistles aren’t required.  Unless We the People want to pay for this to happen, point out that it’s an impact of the project that must be paid for by the project sponsor.  Quiet zones won’t reduce “wayside” noise, but they can reduce train whistle noise.
• Soundproofing your house – for those who don’t mind sleeping with their windows closed and who never sit outside.
• A before/after assessment :  An assessor can determine the value of the property before the use, the value of the property after the use, and the project proponent then makes up for the difference.

Of course, a before/after assessment doesn’t address every impact.  Nothing has been built yet on the waterfront, for example.  What kinds of costs will noise and vibration impose on those future homes and businesses, and how can those impacts be mitigated?  Perhaps the project applicant should put funds into escrow, to help reduce the cost burden on new businesses downtown. 

 
If citizens demand to be treated as if they are “significant,” will the agencies have to agree?  They might not.  But even if the agencies ignore people's concerns, even if the courts won’t step in, your elected representatives ought to care.

Many of our current elected officials, as well as most of those running for office, have stated that they don’t have a position on the Gateway Pacific Terminal.  They’ll just wait and see what the environmental impact statement says.

And that’s fine, as long as the EIS measures what matters.  And doesn’t leave a great big steaming pile of “non-significant” impacts for just plain folks to live with.

Every public figure who is going to “wait and see” about one of the largest projects ever to take place on our continent has an obligation to make sure that his or her constituents matter.

So tell them. 

In your scoping comments, tell the agencies how noise affects you. And while you're at it, why not send those comments to your elected officials – federal, state, and local.  They need to know.

And yes, that includes the County Council.  

There is nothing about a request for an appropriate standard of environmental review that requires Council members to be "for" or "against" the project.  In fact, project proponents have repeatedly stated that this will be a rigorous review.   County Council members will be using this information to make their decision, so they ought to be confident that they will get the information that they need.  That's only "fair."

Agenda 21: A Straw Enemy

In the autumn of 1421, a thirty-year-old clerk named Cyriacus Pizzacolli walked to work in the city of Ancona, south of Venice, Italy.  Beware, because what happened next is ominous:

"As Cyriacus hastened along the quay, something caught his eye and caused him to look up at the Roman arch that rose over the port. . .The gleaming white monument was astonishingly well-preserved, considering it had been erected centuries ago.  Its inlaid bronze letters had been pried out, leaving the inscriptions as ghostly cavities, but the rest of the structure was intact and appeared light and graceful. . ..

Unlike texts on the pages of books, handed from one generation to the next by more or less caring hands and prone to errors of transcription or misunderstanding, physical artifacts were direct links to the past.  They reflected immediately and tangibly the preoocupations of the ancients, bore their fingerprints and traces of their breath. . .

Though elated by this visceral connection with the past, Cyriacus also felt troubled.  Throughout Italy and in the East he had seen ancient remains not merely disregarded by the locals, but regularly despoiled by them for building blocks and burned for lime.  If they were not somehow safeguarded, they would be gone. . .

Standing before Trajan’s arch in Ancona, Cyriacus sensed his life coming into focus.  His curiosity, his hunger for travel, his quest for a meaningful existence, his need for intellectual enrichment would all be amply satisfied if he were to take on this new mission:  to seek out, study, and preserve for future generations the material remains of classical cultures."

From To Wake the Dead:  A Renaissance Merchant and the Birth of Archeology, by Marina Belozerskaya (W.W. Norton & Co., 2009), pp. 3-12.

What the author of this book did not tell us – perhaps because Pizzacolli himself was not aware of it – is that Renaissance merchant Cyriacus Pizzacolli was a tool of the United Nations.  And of George H.W. Bush. 

Yes, Agenda 21 (read it here), sponsored by the United Nations and signed by George H.W. Bush in 1992, reached back 550 years and made Cyriacus Pizzacolli an agent of the United Nations agenda of world domination. 

How?  Agenda 21 forced Cyriacus Pizzacolli to promote historic preservation.

In case you haven’t noticed that Agenda 21 is running YOUR life also, let me make one thing perfectly clear:

It isn’t.

What is Agenda 21?  It’s a long, aspirational statement of ways that people around the world might be able to reduce pollution and improve quality of life.  It is a compilation of concepts that ALREADY EXISTED IN  1992 – it didn’t really invent anything new, as far as I can tell. If it had been full of new, innovative concepts, would 178 nations – including the United States, under President George H.W. Bush -- have signed onto it?  Of course not.

Nonetheless, a strange and counterfactual conspiracy theory has grown some roots, both politically (in the Tea Party and, under that influence, the Republican Party) and geographically (here in Whatcom County).  The Agenda 21 conspiracy theory claims that every word in Agenda 21 is the cause of the concept that it discusses.  According to conspiracy proponents, Agenda 21 did not reflect centuries of experience or the best practices of the nations that contributed to it.  Instead, it gave birth to every concept that it mentioned. 

According to one easy-to-find website, Agenda 21 is responsible for all of these concepts – and more:  “Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.”

Good grief.

I just clicked on a provision of Agenda 21 at random.  As it happens, this provision might have some resonance here in Whatcom County.  It says:

23.2. One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making. Furthermore, in the more specific context of environment and development, the need for new forms of participation has emerged. This includes the need of individuals, groups and organizations to participate in environmental impact assessment procedures and to know about and participate in decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work. Individuals, groups and organizations should have access to information relevant to environment and development held by national authorities, including information on products and activities that have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and information on environmental protection measures.

Are you shocked, are you outraged, by the statement that “individuals, groups, and organizations” should be allowed to “participate in environmental impact assessment procedures and to know about and participate in decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work”? 

I hope not.  

If facts mattered at all to this kind of debate, it might be important to recognize that the National Environmental Policy Act, which is the law that requires the preparation of environmental impact statements in the United States, was passed – by the United States Congress, not by the United Nations – in 1969.  That’s more than 20 years before Agenda 21.  But why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

I think that this analysis correctly explains the Agenda 21 conspiracy phenomenon:  “this type of fearful rhetoric helps create a perceived enemy to rally against.”  And that’s what we’re seeing here in Whatcom County.  It's too bad, because it creates a division that no amount of facts, and no appeal to common interests, can overcome.

Is there a way to get people to rally for critical thinking? 

BNSF Says That the Community Needs More Information, and We Agree

Taken on my cell phone while standing near the Chrysalis Hotel in Bellingham.

The CEO of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad recently said that BNSF owes us (referring to the entire state of Washington, I gather) "more information" about the impacts of proposed coal export terminals. 

That is an astute observation, and Ross Macfarlane of Climate Solutions took him at his word.  In an excellent open letter (the link is here), Ross asked BNSF for the information that we need. 

I particularly enjoyed the reference to Galesburg, Illinois.  Those who want more information on Galesburg can find it right here, on Get Whatcom Planning -- here's the link.

 

For those who don't like to follow links, here's Ross Macfarlane's letter.  I hope it gets a complete response.  If so, we'll certainly report that here --  and I hope that all those lesser media outlets listed in the cc also cover it.

Dear Mr. Rose,
We wanted to thank you for recently visiting the Northwest. We’re sorry that we didn’t have a chance to chat about the subject that brought you to our region: coal export.

In your recent interview with The Columbian, you said, “we owe you as a community more information” about the impacts from proposed coal terminals on Northwest communities. We agree. We hope that you will join us in requesting an independent analysis of the impacts of these projects. Many state and local officials have commented that it is very difficult to get basic information from the railroad about volumes, routings, potential impacts or proposed mitigation of the increased coal train traffic through the region. We hope your comments mean that you will direct BNSF to engage and provide needed information to all affected communities and stakeholders. Every community affected by these proposals, from Billings to Bellingham, is very interested to get clear information on some key issues given that you intend to increase your company’s presence in our region.

Here’s what we need most from you:

Show us your math on the coal trains. We’re a bit perplexed by your assertions regarding the current five proposals in OR and WA. You claimed that the estimates for coal train traffic are overstated, and that 8-16 “coal-bearing” trains per day are likely to go through the Columbia Gorge, moving between 50-100 million tons of coal per year. Presumably, those trains would have to make return trips too, so the number is double what you are suggesting (since we assume “coal-bearing” means they have coal inside the cars). Communities really need to know the likely number and length of those trains to be able to evaluate the impacts.

Level with communities about the scale of these proposals. Even 50 million tons of new coal would create a massive increase in current volumes. The railroads currently ship about 80 million tons of all freight per year to Washington and Oregon, and your estimates show a 60 – 120% increases in rail freight through affected communities. This doesn’t include increases in other traffic, including Bakken shale oil. You must do planning for capacity purposes: can you share this information so that communities can begin to plan for the impacts?

Tell us which proposals you support. BNSF has previously presented itself as a neutral bystander obligated to accept cargo from any shipper. Yet your media tour promoting coal export paints a very different picture. BNSF is a member of the coal industry “Astroturf” (the media’s words, not just ours) group, the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports. That coal-industry funded effort promotes the need for all of these terminals. The CEO of Peabody Coal, a key customer of the Cherry Point project, has talked about a coal “supercycle” which would create the demand for hundreds of millions of tons exported off the West Coast. Are there practical limits on the volumes of coal that the NW rail system could accommodate? If so, wouldn’t you agree that those limitations be considered during project review and permitting? With a 48 million ton proposal on the table at Cherry Point, a 44 million ton project in Longview, almost 40 million tons proposed in two different sites on the Columbia River and another 10 million tons for Coos Bay (not to mention potential increases at Canadian ports which your spokesmen tell us are inevitable – though we disagree), don’t we need to take close look at what would happen if any significant number of these projects move forward?

Put some numbers behind how BNSF would “help” with rail upgrades. You acknowledge that many communities would face very significant issues with traffic, emergency response and other impacts and say that you want to help these communities “work through” these issues. Will the railroad commit to helping fund the projects needed to address these impacts? Previously, a BNSF spokesperson pointed to Galesburg, IL as a model for community/railroad collaboration. In that example, the railroad apparently paid for two percent of mitigation-related improvements. Federal law typically allows the railroad to limit its contribution to five percent. Is that how BNSF plans to help Northwest communities “work through ” these issues?

Tell us how you plan to handle the capacity increases. You have indicated that BNSF would make major improvements to accommodate the increased traffic along already bottlenecked rail segments. That sounds like an easy fix, but what about the local areas, including Bellingham and the Columbia Gorge, that would see significant impacts like double-tracking and lengthy sidings? Will you share your plans for needed improvements? To meet the massive increase in coal train traffic, do you plan to let private landowners and local officials know what property you intend to condemn for any needed expansion? If so, when?

Tell us what happens to passenger rail and other freight trains. If we begin moving massive amounts of coal by rail through the Northwest how would that impact current or anticipated increases in passenger rail service and how can the public be certain that they are not subsidizing private freight when they ride the rails? What would the impacts be on other shippers – many that are your customers -- that are already having a harder time getting fair and timely access to rail service?

Keeping the coal trains on the tracks: As you know, this summer has seen a spate of coal-train derailments around the country. There have now been at least a dozen, including one in Washington state and two accidents with fatalities. These derailments can cause property destruction, pollution, congestion and even deaths. Why are so many coal trains coming off the rails? What role does coal dust and coal train traffic play in these derailments?

BNSF has stated on its website that “…BNSF has determined that coal dust poses a serious threat to the stability of the track structure and thus to the operational integrity of our lines in the Powder River Basin.” In 2005, the Vice President of Transportation at BNSF testified that coal dust was “absolutely a contributing factor” in back-to-back train derailments that year.

What steps would you take to ensure that this does not create unacceptable risks to Northwest communities and sensitive ecosystems?

Give us more clarity about coal dust. BNSF spokespeople are constantly saying that the dust issue is overblown, but the studies showing it may be a significant problem come from your own website. Industry reports say that your guidelines for dust suppression aren’t being enforced or widely followed. Is this true, and what data do you have to show surfactants are working? Also, can you let communities know why coal cars are not covered? Is this because of the risk of fire and explosions, or are shippers simply unwilling to incur the costs? If coal dust is not a concern, why would Portland General Electric, a utility that operates a coal plant, decide to veto a lease deal with Kinder Morgan for the 30 million ton coal terminal adjacent to its natural gas power plant, citing coal dust (and traffic congestion) as an impairment to the operation the Port Westward plant?

Join us in supporting an area-wide and cumulative review of these five proposals. We are glad you recognize that BNSF has a responsibility to be forthcoming with local communities about the impacts of coal export. We take you at your word that BNSF wants to be a part of any solution and would help. The first step to that is ensuring local communities and stakeholders are fully aware of the full scope of the possible impacts.You should join the 300+ health professionals, 88 faith leaders, and 400 local businesses (mostly from smaller rail line communities), the elected officials and agencies (now approximately 90 local elected officials) that have called for a full review of the proposals before moving forward. As you told The Columbian, “This is a real issue. We don’t deny that eight trains a day or 10 trains a day is going to be an issue.” These communities have a right to know specifically how it will impact them and what steps they can take to protect their citizens and employers.

We look forward to hearing from you and would welcome the chance to meet with you and community leaders to discuss these concerns. We would expect that you would want to talk to all parties concerned about the issues with coal export.

Sincerely,
Ross Macfarlane
Climate Solutions Senior Advisor, Business Partnerships
Power Past Coal coalition

Cc:
Governor Gregoire
Governor Kitzhaber
Army Corps of Engineers
WA Dept. of Ecology
State Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark, Dept. of Natural Resources OR Dept. of State Lands
Senators Murray, Cantwell, Merkley, Wyden and Tester
Washington Transportation Commission
WA DOT
The Seattle Times
The Spokesman-Review
The Bellingham Herald
The Columbian
The Oregonian
Oregon Public Broadcasting
KUOW

Rural Element: No Peace In Our Time

The County Council approved a revised Rural Element last night, and Council Chair Kathy Kershner stated that it would have absolutely no effect on stopping sprawl. 

Which goes to show that we can agree about something.

The revised Rural Element and zoning code are an awful mess.  There’s no vision, the details have become so complex and convoluted that an attorney with a quarter century of experience reading zoning codes (that’s me) can’t figure out what the heck it means, and –

the County still proposes to allow enough development outside cities to accommodate all of its projected growth between now and 2029.  

 As we demonstrated in comments to the County, Rural and “Resource” lands (areas designated for farms and forests) still can accommodate 49,276 more people that the County has planned for.

If for no other reason, this matters because of water.  Our watersheds are mostly closed for new surface water withdrawals, either year-round or seasonally.  At least half of the County’s farmers don’t have water rights.  The only folks who aren’t worrying about water rights are those who will build homes, because they can use “exempt wells”:  wells that can be drilled without having to acquire a water right.

Wells tap into groundwater.  Many farmers use groundwater.  You see the problem.

As we stated in comments to the County, 2,384 wells have been drilled in the Rural area in the past 15 years, and 69% of those wells were drilled in basins that are closed for further surface water appropriation.

“Planning” is supposed to be a way to apply human ingenuity to avoid bad results.  We can “plan” to use our water resources wisely, or we can wait until a crisis occurs. 

That crisis might be the result of a court adjudication of water rights. 

It might be the extraordinary cost of providing water to homes and businesses that don’t have clean water. 

It might be the extinction of wild salmon.

Once we reach any or all of these crisis points, will the County regret its failure to plan?  Who knows.  If we’re all lucky, we’ll manage to kick this bucket down the road to our kids and grandkids.

In any event, we’ve reached the point where “planning” is simply not supposed to be talked about in a County Council meeting.  At last night’s public hearing before the Council, we were excoriated for suggesting that planning for the Rural Element should reflect the availability of water.

But then, to be fair, I was excoriated for everything I said last night. 

My suggestion that the County should talk to those of us who are promoting Growth Management Act compliance, in addition to talking to developers and their attorneys, was particularly reviled.  I was told that it reflected badly on my character.  My suggestion that we might talk through the issues rather than continuing to litigate the issues, which echoed a proposal by Futurewise, led to nothing but a disgusted uproar.

Note to self:  the hand that extends the olive branch gets slapped. 

The Council majority has taken a stance:  it would rather fight to the death than talk to people it disagrees with. Because there still are Whatcom County residents who believe in planning and the rule of law, this means . . . here we go again.