|
WildLaw
A Non profit Environmental
Law Firm
Southern Appalachian
Office
April 5, 2001 National Forests in North
Carolina
I have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the replacement of WLOS television transmission tower, publish date March 3, 2001. While there has obviously been some serious effort dedicated by you and your staff to including analysis of numerous issues, WildLaw, and its clients, Wild South and the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, have some rather serious concerns that we feel should be addressed before a Decision Notice is issued. First, and perhaps most obvious, our clients are concerned about the construction of the new WLOS television tower in its current location atop Mount Pisgah. The current tower is an eyesore that degrades the scenic values of a significant section of the Blue Ridge Parkway, creating adverse impacts to the recreational and economic resources of the Mount Pisgah area. Backcountry experiences in the Shining Rock Wilderness areas are also diminished by the imposition of the tower on the apex of Mount Pisgah. The Tower is visible from many popular backpacking destinations, including Graveyard Ridge and Cold Mountain. For many visitors to this area, it is not the tower's visibility that is bothersome. Instead, it is the defacing of the focal point of the ridge line: the majestic peak of Mount Pisgah. The EA, however, contains no discussion of possible alternatives for reconstruction on sites other than the current location atop Mount Pisgah. We realize that the tower must be erected somewhere, but there are several other feasible locations that could achieve WLOS's objectives, while increasing the scenic and recreational quality of the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Shining Rock Wilderness Area, and the Pisgah Ranger District. Possible alternatives should include: relocating the tower to a location that is not within the viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway; and moving the tower to another location in the area that does not defile the Mount Pisgah ridgeline. The BA, however, shunts off these concerns by stating that discussion of this subject is outside the scope of the current EA. Because the permit held by WLOS does not expire until 2005, the BA states that discussion of alternative sites is inappropriate. However, this is a disingenuous argument. Clearly, any rational and sound discussion of cumulative impacts would have to consider this. By not analyzing such a scenario now, when the tower comes up for re-licensing in 2005, WLOS will likely make the argument that they just invested a large sum of money to rebuild the tower in 2001, and that should provide a basis for allowing them to continue operations. To assume that the decision to allow a new structure to be built now has no connection with re-licensing in 2005 ~s simply false.. We urge a review of potential alternative sites to the one currently in use atop Mount Pisgah. We also have concerns about the alternatives section of the BA. You present only the proposed action alternative and the no-action alternative. Wildlaw and other citizen groups have consistently advocated the position (backed up by substantial case law) that NEPA requires that a thorough examination of alternatives must be included in an BA and precede a FONSI and Decision Notice. That required examination is not present in the BA in its current form. We urge a genuine examinations of various alternatives so that a true spectrum of possibilities is presented to the public, and to the decision-maker. Such alternatives could be along the lines of an examination of strengthening the current tower. You mention a 1996 structural analysis of the tower, but do not cite specifics, nor data from any current studies concerning the viability of strengthening the current tower. We have absolutely no data or information other than conclusory statements to backup the claims that the tower cannot be strengthened to accommodate the new HDTV equipment. Was there any discussion concerning the feasibility of a shorter tower? Page 55 speaks to the prospect of having lessees remove their equipment to make room for the new' HDTV equipment. However, after this issue is raised, there is no further discussion. We urge that these issues be addressed adequately before and Final Decision is made concerning reconstruction of the tower. In conclusion, it is apparent to anyone who bothers to read the BA in its entirety that a great deal of work went into preparing this document. What is equally evident, however, is that the goal of this document is to pave the way for construction of this new tower for WLOS. There is little, if any, critical examination of alternatives other than the proposed alternative, and the analysis contained in the BA are all skewed towards implementation of the proposed construction. As members of the public, and of groups who represent National Forest users, my clients should have an input into the uses of their public land. Allowing WLOS a free ride on this benefits only WLOS, and causes potential further harm to our National Forests, the people who use and enjoy it, and the wildlife and plants that depend directly upon the Forest for survival. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this project. Please include WildLaw in any future
correspondence regarding this project.
|