ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, June 19, 1996 TAG: 9606190058
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: BLACKSBURG
SOURCE: CATHRYN MCCUE AND GREG EDWARDS STAFF WRITERS
THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE says no to a power line through national forests; American Electric Power says routing the line entirely across private property would be impractical.
Environmental damage from a giant American Electric Power transmission line would be too severe and long-lasting to let it be built through national forest lands in Western Virginia, the U.S. Forest Service announced Tuesday.
In releasing its long-awaited draft environmental impact statement, the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests chose a "no-action" alternative, meaning the agency won't allow the proposed 765,000-volt line to cross the national forest.
"Projects like this, they're on the landscape for many years," forest supervisor Bill Damon said. "So we've got to be extremely careful in considering this, because there's no turning back."
Forest service officials chose a serene spot in eastern Montgomery County, with Brush Mountain in the background, to release the draft report. Damon pointed out that AEP's transmission line would cut through this valley on its 115-mile run from Oceana, W.Va., to Cloverdale.
Damon said all of the dozen routes the forest service studied, including AEP's proposed route, would violate his agency's commitment to act as stewards of the forest and preserve the beauty of the land.
A transmission line could still be built entirely through private property, but AEP project manager Ron Poff on Tuesday all but dismissed that idea as impractical.
"For the Forest Service to simply say build it on private land after spending five years and more than $5.5 million of our money on environmental studies is totally absurd," he said, calling the Forest Service's decision a "bombshell" and "irresponsible."
The agency failed to look at the economic and social consequences of brownouts and blackouts, which the utility says could occur as soon as 1998 if the line is not built to ship power from AEP's Midwestern plants to its customers in Western Virginia and eastern West Virginia, Poff said.
Further, he said, the Forest Service's own analysis shows that a route it drew through private land would do the most damage - taking 83 homes compared with the 12 homes AEP's route would take, for instance. The non-federal land alternative also runs close to many New River Valley communities.
Poff said AEP plans to defend its route, chosen by a team of experts from Virginia Tech and West Virginia University, as the least environmentally harmful.
Damon said the Forest Service is required by law to analyze a route that skirts the national forest, but stressed he has no authority over private lands.
In 1990, the utility proposed building the line to provide reliable electricity over the next several decades. Its preferred route would cross 12 miles of national forest.
To build the line, AEP needs permission from West Virginia, where it has not yet filed an application, and the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Last year, the SCC gave interim approval, but asked for more details on how the line would be used. The Forest Service will not issue its final environmental report until both states have made their decisions.
In contrast to AEP's reaction, power line foes held up the Forest Service's choice as a fulfillment of the public trust.
"I think I couldn't have written it any better myself," said Donna Muhly, who said she choked up when she read Damon's statement. "I expected more of a bureaucratic response, and it wasn't. I'm elated."
Muhly, whose solar-powered home is in the path of one of the routes, and other opponents maintain the power line is not needed and would irreparably damage the environment.
Damon said one of the key factors in his decision was how the line would affect people living in certain remote, rural communities such as Walker Creek Valley in Giles County, where Muhly lives, and the West Virginia side of Peters Mountain, where the "cultural attachment" to land and lifestyle are strong.
"I tell you what, there's gonna be a party on the mountain," said Amy South, who lives on Peters Mountain and helped organize the opposition in West Virginia. "I believe they actually did see it, that bunch that studied us. It's hard to describe - just the way we love our mountain, our life. We don't go anywhere else for enjoyment."
Using a complex scoring system and aided by more than 6,000 comments from the public, the Forest Service also looked at the impact of each alternative route on streams, ground water, old growth and unfragmented forest areas, recreation resources, wildlife, endangered species, soil erosion, air quality, noise, and the views.
It's not usual for the Forest Service to choose the "no-action" alternative in an environmental impact statement involving a large project, said Ray Solomon, a Forest Service deputy director in Washington, D.C. "But at the same time, it's not unprecedented." In those cases, the projects often get bogged down in litigation.
"The courts would never tell us to build these lines. The courts can't tell us what to do," Solomon said. Instead, a federal court would rule on whether the Forest Service followed proper procedure in preparing the environmental impact statement. If not, it's sent back to be done again, which usually works in the opponents' favor, Solomon said.
LENGTH: Long : 101 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: GENE DALTON/Staff. Forest supervisor Bill Damon holds aby CNBnews conference Tuesday on a site the proposed power line would
cross. Graphics by staff: Map: Transmission Line Corridors. color.
Charts. 1. Routes. 2. What happens next.