Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 19, 1995 TAG: 9501190116
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CATHRYN McCUE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Not yet, anyhow.
They must wait until the Jefferson National Forest issues a final environmental impact statement on Appalachian Power Co.'s proposed transmission line before taking the matter to court, U.S. District Judge James Turk said in dismissing their lawsuit.
The landowners claimed they were denied due process because forest officials drew alternative power-line routes before hearing their comments in a formal process called ``scoping.''
But Turk went on to say that the residents have had ample opportunity to tell forest officials what they think, and so have not been harmed.
``I'm very disappointed in the system,'' said Donna Muhly of Giles County, one of 64 people who sued the Forest Service last year. ``By the time they got to us, they were arranging corridors over peoples' heads.''
Apco wants to build a 115-mile transmission line from West Virginia to Cloverdale. The 765,000-volt line would cross 12 miles of the national forest, which is conducting the environmental impact study.
As required under federal law, scoping for a project defines the area and significant environmental issues to be studied based on public comments. The Forest Service initially sought comments three years ago from Craig, Roanoke and Botetourt counties, where Apco's proposed line would run.
Last July, the agency released maps that showed a web of alternative routes, some running through Giles, Bland, Montgomery and Pulaski counties, where the plaintiffs live.
``They should have listened to our concerns before they chose the corridors,'' Muhly said.
The Forest Service has said throughout the controversy that it continues to take comments and consider new issues. Jefferson spokesman Dave Olson said Wednesday that the agency had received more than 300 letters since July - ``and they're still coming in.''
The forest is considering a request from West Virginia to add an alternative route that would dip south of the others, he said. That route would shorten the power line's journey through West Virginia. The forest also may add issues to be studied, as well as information about natural and cultural resources that people have brought to its attention, Olson said.
The agency has delayed release of a draft environmental impact statement three times because of the complexity of the case. Olson said a new target date for publication would be made public by Jan.31. After the draft report, the Jefferson will take comments for another 90 days before the final report is issued.
By then, said William Bilenky, the plaintiffs' lawyer, it may be too late for the New River Valley landowners. If the citizens sue again, and the court turns them down, they will not have enjoyed full participation.
If, on the other hand, the court rules in their favor, the whole process will have to start over. ``The court should inject itself [in the case] to save time and money. That's what's disappointing about the decision,'' said Bilenky, reached by phone in his Richmond office.
``Why don't they [the Forest Service] just publish a notice and hold some hearings? What's the big deal?'' he asked.
A footnote to Turk's 13-page ruling quoted a July5 letter from Forest Supervisor Joy Berg stating, ``Since scoping is an initial step in the process, it cannot be restarted.''
And in a December letter to Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Abingdon, Berg said that new issues or alternatives could result from the ongoing public involvement, just as they did during scoping.
by CNB