Marys Peak Communications Site Project
The following comments were submitted in response to the open comment period described below.
Comments are numbered consecutively as they are received. Breaks in the number sequence result when comments are deleted because they
were submitted in error or have inappropriate content (such as SPAM). If you do not see your comment two business days after
you submit it, please contact (800) 622-4519.
In 2016, BPA initiated an environmental assessment (EA) process for the Marys Peak Communications Site Project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). During the initial Project scoping period held in the fall of 2016, BPA requested comments on the proposal and hosted a public meeting in Philomath, Ore.. BPA reviewed all comments and based in part on the public’s input, BPA expanded its consideration of potential alternatives for the Project. The following alternatives will now be analyzed in detail in the EA: 1. No Action (the communications sites would not be maintained or upgraded); 2A. Marys Peak at Existing BPA Site – BPA Albany Substation; 2B. Marys Peak at Existing BPA Site – BPA Prospect Hill Site; 3A. Marys Peak Colocate at New USFS Site – BPA Albany Substation; 3B. Marys Peak Colocate at New USFS Site – BPA Prospect Hill Site; 4. West Point Spur Colocate at Existing Consumer’s Power, Inc. Site – BPA Prospect Hill Site; 5. West Point Spur Proposed New BPA Site – BPA Prospect Hill Site.
BPA opened this additional public scoping comment period and together with the USFS and BLM will host a Jan. 25 public scoping meeting to provide an overview of the Project need, and the alternatives considered, including those eliminated from further consideration.
The draft EA will be available for review and comment in early 2019 and the final agency decision will be made after taking all comments into consideration. During the EA process, BPA is coordinating and consulting with tribes, federal, state and local agencies, landowners, and interest groups. Both the USFS and the BLM are participating as cooperating agencies on the EA. More information about the project and the Jan. 25 public meeting can be found at the link provided.
For More Information:
https://www.bpa.gov/efw/Analysis/NEPADocuments/Pages/Marys-Peak-BPA-Communications-Site-Project.aspx
Close of comment: 2/21/2018
- MRYSPEA180001 -
YeagerPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180002 -
MoorefieldPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180003 -
PearyPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180004 -
CollettPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180005 -
OwreyPlease see attachment
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180006 -
FoltzPlease see attachment
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180007 -
FosterDear Kimberly,
For the Marys Peak project where is discussion about the proposed alternatives/no action alternative shown on the 12/8/2017 Marys peak bpa com site project map? Did BPA comment to public input sent in in 2016 for scoping? I did not find this on line.
So there are two parts to this process, the environmental review and the project part? Does BPA contract out the Project part to Flux Resources? Does Flux Resources often contract for BPA projects and what other projects have they completed?
For this EA it is to be supported by specialists reports? If so, what are these reports to consist of? Will BPA answer questions during EA drafting process, under scoping for this ea or is this the scoping process?
Who is all involved with this project- who are all the stake holders and why are they involved?
If an alternative site is selected at West Point, will surrounding landowners here be contacted to see how they plan to upgrade in case this set of equipment used by BPA and others, can be placed on or next to an upgraded existing building at West Point, instead of digging up more high elevation prairie for a new set of equipment and a new road at West Point.
Access to West Point is challenging will this road get paved?
Will BPA explore alternative technologies along with alternative locations? Why does a repeater cost 3.5 million, or is this because the county had to buy the location onto which a repeater is located for their specific use? Thanks, R.Foster
- MRYSPEA180008 -
PaceScoping will involve necessarily address the purpose and need to upgrade these facilities. This cannot be overstated. Mary's Peak is a key communications asset for operation of the grid. In fact, I would go even further. BPA, as much as possible, should upgrade and duplicate the Mary's Peak facility. By duplicate, I mean you should consider developing an additional "backup" communications site. I believe this is the best way to address natural and human-caused threats to the grid. Building redundancy in terms of key facilities is about the only way I can see to protect overall operations.
- MRYSPEA180009 -
Small/selfAll structures on the Marys Peak Communications Project site should be relocated off Marys Peak. This unique location should be protected as a recreation and a non invasive scientific research site only. The communication structures can be relocated to other sites, so that future generations will benefit from the beauty and unique characteristics of Marys Peak without impairment from man made structures on this Peak.
- MRYSPEA180010 -
Stroup/United StatesI have read through the proposal materials that were mailed to me as well as the ones I ready online and in the paper. My main request is that the proposal that is decided does not go near a residential area. There are several options that won't negatively impact residential homes and I urge one of those to be chosen. I feel the requests made by first responders to upgrade the current site is the most important and valuable feedback and should be what is moved forward. Thank you for the request for input in this process.
Brian Stroup
- MRYSPEA180011 -
foster/resident of Chase OrchardsAs a resident of Chase Orchards Development, we are directly across the street from alternatives 2A and 3A which both involve the Bonneville Substation in Albany Oregon.
I would like you to consider any option that does is more remote, and is not in the middle of a residential area.
Many of us in this area are concerned about additional EMF/EMR as we already have the EMF of the Substation and the feeder lines that run through our neighborhood. There is already a communications tower near the Substation site that belongs to Pacific Power. They are putting up another huge cell tower at West Albany High School. This virtually triangulates our neighborhood in mircowave radio frequencies. I/we feel that the ACCUMULATIVE effects of this is not good for human health.
In addition to the possible health effects, we are concerned about our property values being reduced by the fact that the tower is at street fence line, directly in front of the entrance to our development. It would be VERY noticable in a negative way, as people do not know that it is not a cell tower, and no one wants to live near a cell tower of any kind.
WE ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THE HUMAN VALUE OF HEALTH, VISUAL ASPECTS AND PROPERTY VALUES. I BEG YOU TO CHOSE A LESS POPULATED AREA THAN THE ALBANY SUBSTATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE.
Thank you all for your time and consideration!
Sandi Foster
- MRYSPEA180012 -
SwansonI support relocating to West Spur Point. I hope that a joint funding plan from a variety of sources can be arranged for the four repeater stations that would serve for fire protection, first responder, and other important safety needs. I am very pleased that this alternative was included since it would greatly enhance Mary's Peak as a nature preserve and special place for visitors to enjoy its beauty unobstructed by all the fenced in communication technology. Let's not let this one-time additional expense cause us to shy away from doing the right thing that would enhance the health of the Peak and those who visit. Let the all of the Peak blossom with beautiful flowers.
- MRYSPEA180013 -
Gray/publicI am glad to see that the alternatives include co-locating with the Forest Service at either of the two locations. Could you also consider a multi-use structure? There used to be a lookout at the top of Mary's Peak. Could the communications tower be integrated with a lookout and in a somewhat aesthetically-pleasing or disguised manner? Perhaps the radiation exposure would preclude this, but it might be a way for a building to remain at the summit.
- MRYSPEA180014 -
Filson/United StatesI am writing to suggest a compromise solution to the issues concerning the crest of Marys Peak. The site is obviously needed for communications by many agencies-- local fire and police, forest service, and others. The crest is also treasured by hikers (thousands each year) as the highest and best view of the Coast Range, the Willamette Valley, the Cascade Mountains, and even the Pacific Coast. Currently the communications site is rather ugly: an unprepossessing concrete block building surrounded by a chain link fence.
I suggest an architecture/engineering CONTEST to design a communications building/tower that would enhance hikers' experience and, at the same time, fully allow for the many communications needs.
The Willamette Valley has numerous talented engineers and architects, including many at Oregon State U. and U. of Oregon. Since any building on Marys Peak will be there for decades, an architecturally interesting building is surely the preferable choice.
- MRYSPEA180015 -
BriskeyPlease see attached.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180016 -
BlanchardPlease see attached.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180017 -
Webb/United StatesRefer to the attached PDF file. Thanks
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180018 -
WilcoxPlease see attached.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180019 -
HaysPlease see attached.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180020 -
stemmannRegarding the alternatives being proposed for Mary’s Peak, it seems realistic to understand that no one solution will be totally pleasing to everyone. Balancing the need for communication towers and equipment with the public’s desire for a 360 degree view is a tough call.
I’m wondering about the feasibility of placing the equipment, most of which I gather is inside the building at the top, underground. Would it be possible to excavate for an underground building and place all equipment inside it? Access would be a challenge, I realize, but could this be done with placement of said subterranean structure on or near a side of the hill near the top? This would free up the very top of the peak and give that 360 view.
Regarding the towers, I’m wondering if these could be relocated at a short distance from the top and if necessary, built taller. Again, access to the very top of the peak would be available and the openness of the tower structure would not interfere with the view.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the issue.
- MRYSPEA180021 -
Foster/United StatesAs a resident of Chase Orchards development, I live directly across from the BPA Albany Substation. Consequently, my neighborhood is already exposed to higher levels of EMF due to proximity of the BPA Substation. There is abundant research citing negative health effects from over-exposure to EMF. I have grave concerns about additional exposure to RF waves as a result of installing the microwave dish at the proposed BPA Albany site. If at all possible, I would urge the BPA to consider the alternative Propect Hill site which appears to be located in a less populated area. It also appears that the Prospect Hill site does not require the removal of any trees. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely, Bryan Foster
- MRYSPEA180022 -
Crook/United StatesI would like you to reconsider building this communication tower near a residential area.
- MRYSPEA180023 -
Bergevin/United StatesI feel that the Albany Substation is not ideal for the Marys Peak Communications project. I live in the Chase Orchards neighborhood across the street and I am afraid it will negatively effect our home values in the future. I'm also concerned about any health impacts it might cause for the neighborhood, we are already too close to the bureau of mines and whatever goes on there.
thank you for your consideration
- MRYSPEA180024 -
FosterPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180025 -
Eckert/Marys Peak Alliance of AFRANAPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180026 -
ArringtonPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180027 -
HaysThe Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is planning to replace its communications building at the summit or Marys Peak with a new facility. The current facility is part of what the Editor of the Gazette-Times calls a "hideously ugly collection of communications equipment." I think most people would agree with that assessment.
Two of the BPA alternatives (3A and 3B) call for combining the BPA and Forest Service facilities into one building. This creates an opportunity to replace the hideously ugly mess with a new combined communications and observation facility that will be less offensive and more useful. The attached PDF provides greater detail for this proposal.
Marys Peak is a special place. It is important to the region as a recreation area, emergency services communication site, and the home of rare sensitive native plant communities. It is a draw for tourism that boosts the economy of cities and towns in the area. We need to clean up the mess at the summit and provide a facility suitable for Oregon's Eighth Wonder.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180028 -
Feinberg I am writing in support of options 3A / 3B for the BPA Marys Peak Communication Site Project, with modifications as suggested by Phil Hays (see attached).
I am the Fire Chief for the Blodgett-Summit Rural Fire Protection District, but my comments do not reflect an official position by the district. The Blodgett-Summit Fire District is North of Marys Peak and encompasses 32 square mile. We also serve an additional 30 square miles for medical emergencies and mutual aide with Oregon Department of Forestry. Seven miles of Highway 20 from Corvallis to Newport run through our district with approximately 6,000 vehicles a day. A Portland & Western rail line mostly follows the Marys River through the district, and the PBA power lines also run the length of the district. At least half the area of the district is forest land. We depend on the radio repeater on the summit of Marys Peak to communicate with the 911 center in Corvallis and other emergency agencies. Although there are some dead zone in coverage, about 90% of the district has good reception.
I have lived in Blodgett for over 40 years, and have spent hundred of hours on Marys Peak hiking and skiing. The appearance of the summit has radically degraded since the addition of the fence around the BPA, ODOT, and USFS structures. In the public interest there needs to be a more attractive solution that meets the needs of the agencies currently using the summit for communication. Mr Hays’ proposal maintains the radio coverage for the agencies, provides a more robust earthquake resistant structure, improves the appearance for the general public, provides a public viewing platform and weather shelter, and helps to preserve the unique plant communities.
This is a opportunity for everyone to win. The proposal is a huge concession by the conservation community, many of whom would like to see all the structures removed from the summit. If the BPA relocates to the West Point Spur there may be more public pressure for the USFS to move their equipment. While the BPA may be able to adequately cover their power lines from the West Point Spur, that will not work for the other agencies that have to protect much larger areas. Co-locating on the summit with an improved appearance is an obvious solution. While the BPA may have funds to move and improve their equipment the other agencies generally do not. However, if the Hays proposal were adopted there would be general political support to help find other funding sources, perhaps FEMA, to complete the project. The conservation groups can be counted on to help pay for the observation deck and structure.
At my invitation Mr Hays presented his proposal to the Benton County 911 Users Group and the Benton County Fire Defense Board. While these groups did not show over whelming enthusiasm for the proposal there was interest and no real objections, just concerns about the engineering. The engineering of the antennas is the main sticking point, but in the BPA options 3A/ 3B the antennas would be on the same structure and would need to be properly spaced. The agencies do not seem to understand that the desire of the public not to have to see a mess at the top of the peak is valid, and that it is possible to support public safety and national security and be sensitive of the visual impact of equipment.
I feel that Mr, Hays’ proposal would garner a lot of public support. As it was not presented as part of the 3A/ 3B option most current public comment is likely in support of moving the BPA to the West Point Spur. As described above, this would not be in the interest of the agencies remaining on the summit. Mr Hays’ proposal is a serious and well thought out alternative.
David Feinberg
Fire Chief
Blodgett-Summit RFPD
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180029 -
Higgins/Benton County Sheriff's OfficeTo Whom it may concern:
I am the Emergency Manager and the Search & Rescue Manager for Benton County Sheriff’s Office. I am also a Senior Fire Captain at Adair Rural Fire and Rescue.
As you can imagine in all of these rolls: major disaster, active shooter, missing hiker, medical call, wildland fire or structure fire, good communications are an ABSOLUTE must. In fact, it could be a life and death issue if communications are not available.
Now I understand that the antennas that we use are co-located on the Forest Service tower on top of Mary’s Peak and are not currently being threatened to be relocated (which would be a disaster). However, I feel that once the ball starts rolling on moving equipment off the mountain (if that is the direction BPA ends up going) it is only a matter of time that the same folks that pushed to clear the mountain, will start up again. This time the Forest Service will not have the financial and legal backing that they currently have with the BPA being co-located at the same location.
One of the BPA’s proposed options was for a combined (BPA & USFS) site in the current location. This option is what we are in support of. In fact, Phil Hayes (a local citizen) has a fantastic proposal (see attached) that incorporates the BPA and USFS into one location (like your 3A & 3B Proposal). Mr. Hayes proposal not only creates a more aesthetically pleasing area, but also maintains critical communication needs of the first responders and other communications customers. His proposal basically puts both BPA & USFS into one secure building with a publicly accessible observation deck and room on top of communications room and under communications tower. This configuration would eliminate the need for other buildings, towers and the chain link fence up on the peak, while still maintaining the most important element, radio communications.
This option would also allow the communications building to be fortified to withstand natural disasters like the looming Cascadia earthquake. The current structure would likely fail and most communications would be lost during an event like that.
As a representative for several first responder organizations, I would encourage you to carefully review this proposal and the absolute life safety needs of first responders in the county and move forward with this proposal.
Thank you.
Kevin Higgins
Emergency Services Program Manager
Benton County Sheriff’s Office
Kevin Higgins
Fire Captain
Adair Rural Fire & Rescue
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180030 -
Ripley/Oregon Trail RunsOregon Trail Runs supports the Marys Peak BPA Communications Site Project plan drafted by Phillip Hays 18 February 2018 in support of an effective and welcoming building that meets the needs of the community.
My company Oregon Trail Runs hosts an annual trail run called the Marys Peak Trail Run that runs past this facility and appreciates any efforts to upgrade this structure to meet the needs of the proposal referenced above.
Thank you for all of your efforts in this matter
Sincerely,
Mike Ripley
- MRYSPEA180031 -
Ripley/Team Dirt A Chapter Of IMBATo Whom it May Concern
Team Dirt supports the draft proposal labeled Marys Peak Communications Site Proposal and the efforts to build a structure that serves the communication purposes needed and also provide visual value for the natural area.
Team Dirt is a Mountain Bike Trail Building Organization and NPO based out of Corvallis Oregon who values this proposal for the community.
Sincerely,
Mike Ripley
Team Dirt Board member and Founder
- MRYSPEA180032 -
Hackleman/BCARESBCARES is the Benton County Amateur Radio Emergency Service group, a volunteer organization in Benton County. I am a member.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180033 -
Haberkorn/Corvallis 9-1-1Phil Hays has developed an alternative that appears to meet the needs of pretty much most of the folks that have an interest in this project. It takes into account the need to have the tower on the peak and the environmental concerns of having a tower on the peak. By combining the USFS tower and the BPA tower into a single facility that provides the public an observation platform, the public can enjoy the site and the public safety agencies, the USFS and BPA can continue to utilize the site for critical communications.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180034 -
Ruby/United StatesPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180035 -
CafazzoMarys Peak is a unique place in the Coast Range and in the hearts of those who live in the valley. The current communications structures on the peak, although necessary, are an eyesore and contribute to destroying the Special Botanical Interest Area. I believe that combining all the communications structures into a single building with an observation deck for the public would accomplish the best of all worlds to all involved. The attached pdf by Phillip Hays does an excellent job of proposing such a structure. It goes into detail to list all the advantages of such a system, including support from the various communities and organizations that regularly use the peak.
Please build a new structure with as small of a footprint on the ground as possible. We need to protect our peak while providing valuable communications and accommodating the thousands of visitors to the peak.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180036 -
McAvoy/Corvallis Chapter of the NPSOPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180037 -
HeikenPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180038 -
FosterPlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180039 -
Emery/Corvallis Fire and RescuePlease see attachment.
View Attachment
- MRYSPEA180040 -
Glassmire/Corvallis OR City CouncilFebruary 21, 2018
I encourage the BPA Marys Peak Communication Project to consider broad and long-term criteria when choosing how to redo the communication infrastructure around Marys Peak. It seems to me that, considering those criteria, alternatives 3A and 3B are the most effective solutions. But the key point is, think broad and think long-term.
Good luck to us all.
Bill Glassmire
City Councilor
Corvallis Oregon
- MRYSPEA180041 -
CafazzoTo Whom It May Concern:
Marys Peak is a unique place in the Coast Range and in the hearts of those who live in the valley. The current communications structures on the peak, although necessary, are an eyesore and contribute to destroying the Special Botanical Interest Area. I believe that combining all the communications structures into a single building with an observation deck for the public would accomplish the best of all worlds to all involved. The attached pdf by Phillip Hays does an excellent job of proposing such a structure. It goes into detail to list all the advantages of such a system, including support from the various communities and organizations that regularly use the peak.
Please build a new structure with as small of a footprint on the ground as possible. We need to protect our peak while providing valuable communications and accommodating the thousands of visitors to the peak.
Sincerely,
Katherine Cafazzo
Corvallis, OR
View Attachment
|
|
|
