Marys Peak BPA Communications Site Project Draft Environmental Assessment
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.
BPA's communications site at Marys Peak (approximately 15 miles southwest of Corvallis, in Benton County, Oregon) provides voice communications between BPA’s dispatch and control centers and the BPA field crews working in the region. BPA needs to maintain and upgrade this communications site because equipment at the site is outdated or unstable, and the site needs a more reliable back-up power source due to potential power outages.
The existing communications site is located on lands managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS), within the Marys Peak Scenic Botanical Special Interest Area. Some portions of the project area are on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northwest Oregon District. Some work may also be needed at the BPA Albany Substation in Linn County; the BPA Prospect Hill Communications Site in Marion County; and on lands owned by the City of Corvallis.
BPA invites you to comment on this Project's draft environmental assessment (EA) which explains why it is needed; describes the alternatives under consideration; analyzes potential impacts from each alternative; and includes mitigation measures that would help avoid or reduce environmental impacts.
For additional information:
Project information: Benjamin Younce, Project Manager, bbyounce@bpa.gov or 360-619-6276.
Environmental process information:
Kimberly St. Hilaire, Environmental Protection Specialist, krsthilaire@bpa.gov or 503-230-5361
Becky Hill, Environmental Protection Specialist, rlhill@bpa.gov or 503-230-7312
For More Information:
https://www.bpa.gov/efw/Analysis/NEPADocuments/Pages/Marys-Peak-BPA-Communications-Site-Project.aspx
Close of comment: 11/23/2020
- MPDEA200002 -
WorkmanI appreciate the time and energy taken to develop these various alternatives. I have a strong preference for Alternative 4, which would result in removing the current BPA building, antenna post and antenna form the top of Marys Peak and reduce the size of the fenced area at the remaining USFS site. I recognize the importance of the communication facilities, but I prefer to not increase the footprint or height of the towers on Marys Peak. Not only does this improve the experience for those at the peak, but all of Philomath that looks up at the peak.
- MPDEA20 0003 -
RappPlease see the attached.
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0004 -
Day/Gazette TimesGreetings. Jim Day with the Corvallis Gazette-Times here. Hope you are well and staying safe. I was on the Marys Peak WebEx session on Wednesday night and attempted to pose a question, but I guess I did not use the Q&A feature correctly. My 2-part question was: What is the projected cost of the project and what will be the source of the funding?
Thanks!
James Day
Reporter/copy editor
Corvallis Gazette-Times/Albany Democrat-Herald
541-812-6116/Jim.Day@lee.net
jameshday@Twitter.com
- MPDEA20 0005 -
PorchI am writing to support Option 4c for the following reasons:
There will be no need for new construction which will raise the cost. If equipment is consolidated at the West point the cost will be less. Also, maintenance costs will be lower.
This option will improve BPA employee safety.
This option will improve visual quality and recreational resources.
This option will allow restoration of sensitive land at the top peak.
- MPDEA20 0006 -
RoseI advocate Alternative 4: Moving BPA facilities to the West Peak. This will decrease the visual effects of the BOA equipment on the main peak and decrease the impact on the special botanical area on the main peak. This move would make much practical sense as well, by making BPA equipment much more accessible during winter weather conditions.
- MPDEA20 0007 -
Public meeting commentsComments received during Oct. 28, 2020 Virtual Public Meeting
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0008 -
TokudaI wish to support the relocation of the BPA communications equipment to a lower point on the slope of the Peak. I support Option 4 in the proposal.
It is an opportunity to reduce the ecological and physical damage to this natural resource that is so very vital as a natural habitat.
Thank you.
- MPDEA20 0009 -
Gile/Great Old Broads for the WildernessI urge you to choose option4 to reduce impact on and protect the ecology and biology of Marys Peak. This option would also protect your equipment and operators from extreme weather on the peak.
Thank you,
Debi Gile
- MPDEA20 0010 -
PiteraAs a new Corvallis citizen, I have come to love the grandeur of Marys Peak. As you evaluate Marys Peak usage, please consider the wildlife, the forests and plant life, the waters and the wonderful recreational opportunities. I have examined the listed options and am definitely in favor of Option 4 and hope that will be your choice.
Pat Pitera
- MPDEA20 0011 -
RossmanI have known and loved Marys Peak for over fifty years from when I was a graduate student at OSU to returning to Corvallis after retirement. In my field of the study of fungi, I have explored for interesting and unusual species on Marys Peak. I also greatly appreciated the wonderful wildflowers that grow there.
In looking at the various options for the BPA facility, it would appear that option 4, placing the tower on the West Side Spur, provides the best solution. The thought of filling the Peak with human-made equipment is contrary to the essence of this natural wonder, the highest point in the Coast Range of Oregon. The top of Marys Peak is a place of tranquility and renewal unlike these necessary reminders of modern civilization. Considering the unique flora that exists there now, doing anything that threatens this when there is a viable alternative would not be wise.
- MPDEA20 0012 -
barron/Samaritan Health ServicesI am in favor of option 4, to consolidate and blend the communications facility.
This will not only be less expensive but help to preserve the beauty at the summit, minimize intrusion and impact on the environment, including plants and wildlife.
Thank you.
- MPDEA20 0013 -
YangDear BPA,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Marys Peak BPA Communications Site Project. I have spent many years walking on Marys Peak, especially in the Scenic Botanical Special Interest Area. I am a retired network engineer (24 years at Stanford University) and am currently a Courtesy Research Associate in OSUs Department of Botany and Plant Pathology.
I strongly recommend that BPA chooses Alternative 4 (moving BPA equipment to West Point) for the following reasons:
Scenic Improvement:
Alternative 4 is the only alternative that improves the scenic resources on the top of Marys Peak by shrinking the telecommunications footprint instead of adding a 40-60 foot tower. Alternatives 2 and 3 also require HVAC systems which may generate enough noise to ruin the sense of quiet. The major road upgrades required by Alternatives 2 and 3 will be a stark visual contrast to the rolling meadows instead of an old road slowly melding into the landscape.
Vegetation Preservation:
Alternatives 2 and 3 both require major upgrades to the access road which will affect the neighboring vegetation, especially around the unique and sensitive Rock Garden, where the road is quite narrow. Although the Environmental Assessment does not expect significant disturbance of vegetation, previous work on the peak has resulted in weed introduction and degradation of the meadows. Alternative 4 offers an opportunity to restore more of the unusual native meadows at the top.
Long term Maintenance of BPA Operations:
During my career in networking, we preferred telecommunication sites that were more secure, more accessible, more stable environmentally, less public and with room to grow. Based on the BPA Environmental Assessment, the West Point site seems far preferable than the top of Marys Peak in all these ways. As weather volatility is most likely to increase, West Point is a less extreme site than the top of Marys Peak, both for environmental conditions and the safety of staff in reaching and repairing equipment. The access road to West Point is far less steep and exposed than the access road to the top of Marys Peak. The only downside of West point I could find in the EA was radio connection to some Eugene sites but since Alternative 4 was not eliminated, I assume BPA is able to connect to these sites in some other way.
Construction and Implementation:
Alternative 4 poses the least implementation challenges which may be why it is listed as the least expensive. It has the least short and long term impacts to vegetation, geology and recreation access. Scheduling of the phases of Alternative 4 is less constrained by the combination of weather, maximizing recreation access, and nesting seasons than the other alternatives. Because the access road will not need to be significantly improved or blocked, there is less impact on public visitors.
Alternative 4 is by far the best option offered.
- MPDEA20 0014 -
Peterson/n/aAs the highest point in the Coast Range, Marys Peak includes a special Botanical Special Interest Area. Option 4 provides the best solution to preserving the special botanical flora. Each time there is excavation and other work on the communication gear on the summit, invasive weeds are introduced by the contractors. It is ridiculous that the towers etc are in the middle of this fragile botanical area. Additionally, the viewscape is scared by the communication buildings and towers. Option 4, moves the tower on the West Side Spur, provides the best solution, visually, botanically and economically.
- MPDEA20 0015 -
HacklemanNice to observe that action is to be taken. Disappointed that there will be a lack of any facility that would enable public use on visits to the peak top. Arguments stated against such were quite unconvincing. Leaving the system as it will be invites vandalism compared to such an alternative with some security observational systems. Cost evaluation may not have included reduction in vandalism as a cost savings if public structure were constructed. However, evidently there is no interest in making the peak a better destination for visitors by including educational and visual talking points as has been done in many other countries best noted in Europe.
- MPDEA20 0016 -
Roth/Citizen920 NW 29th St
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
November 11, 2020
Re: Comments to BPA regarding construction on Marys Peak
I have lived in the Willamette Valley since 1983 and since the moment I decided to move here with my two sons, Marys Peak has been a favorite destination.
Being the highest point in the Coast Range, Marys Peak offers 360; views of east and west, north and south. It is a stunning place to connect with our corner of the world.
Several years ago a friend and I hiked to the top of Mary’s from a side road off of Highway 20. We arrived at the Peak before sundown and sat on the foundation of the ugly concrete building poised right on the top of the mountain. The building was ugly, but offered shelter from the cold wind coming from the west. We relished our time at the peak of ‘our’ mountain.
I have only been at the top of Marys Peak once in the last five or six years. That trip was horrifying. The ugly concrete building that offered us shelter from the wind seemed tiny compared to the chain link fence enclosure that encompassed all of the apex of our precious mountain.
I cannot return to our peak. It was horrifying to see the flowers beyond our reach or even to enjoy the wind-break offered by the ugly concrete building.
Now, I hear there will be more construction encompassing the apex of our historic and beautiful Marys Peak.
Building your barbed wire fortifications anywhere in our wilderness areas is terrible, but on our Peak, it is unforgivable. You are compromising Marys Peak’s beauty, history, and welcome.
Please reconsider and build your enclosure away from the top of Marys Peak.
Dianne Roth
541-740-9540
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0017 -
Arrington/Marys Peak Group, Sierra ClubMarys Peak Group, Sierra Club
P.O. Box 863
Corvallis, OR 97339
November 11, 2020
Bonneville Power Administration
Public Affairs – DKE-7
P.O. Box 14428
Portland, OR 97291-4428
Re: Marys Peak BPA Communications Site Project
The Executive Committee of the Marys Peak Group – Sierra Club wishes to express its concern over proposed changes to the communications site on on the summit of Marys Peak. We are worried about the impact of construction on the Marys Peak Scenic Botanical Special Interest Area (SBSIA) and on the rare and endangered species that live there.
All three proposed actions would cause damage to the site in question. Although the environmental assessment states that the impacts of construction would be temporary, we believe that there are long term negative impacts from such work.
We support Alternative 4, to move the communications site to West Point Spur with the existing Consumers Power, Inc. site. This would spare the Marys Peak SBSIA and still result in an upgraded communications facility and a more stable building.
There are added benefits of this possible site that could save on costs and reduce the negative impact of the project. The West Point Spur requires less roadwork. There is also no need to build a new steel-lattice structure nor a new communications building.
We urge you to choose Alternative 4 in order to protect the unique species and the beauty of Marys Peak while improving the communications necessary for the Willamette Valley.
Sincerely,
Julie Arrington
Chair, Executive Committee
Marys Peak Group, Sierra Club
- MPDEA20 0018 -
HaysI support alternative 4, moving BPA facilities to the Consumer Power facility in the City of Corvallis communication site on West Point for the following reasons:
1. This is the least expensive of the alternatives.
2. It creates the least disturbance in the Botanical Special Interest Area at the summit.
3. It interferes the least with public use of the summit.
4. It has the least probability of introducing alien species in the sensitive botanical area.
5. It has a positive effect upon visual quality in the Scenic Special Interest Area at the summit by reducing the amount of facilities and clutter there.
6. It moves the fence and reduces the size of the hideously ugly communication site.
7. It minimizes disturbance to the road to the summit.
8. It restores some of the native plant vegetation in the Botanical Special Interest Area at the summit.
9. The West Point site has less wind damage than on the summit and is easier to access during the winter.
****
I oppose Alternative 2A because it increases the clutter at the summit, reduces visual quality in the Scenic Special Interest Area, and does not comply with the goals of the Forest Service Management Direction for the Marys Peak Scenic-Botanical Special Interest Area.
I oppose Alternative 3C because it creates a large disturbance in the sensitive Botanical Special Interest Area, it disrupts public use on the summit, it is the most expensive alternative, it significantly reduces visual quality at the summit of the Scenic Special Interest Area, and it has a large probability of introducing alien species into the Botanical Special Interest Area.
- MPDEA20 0019 -
paceI understand ALL of the concerns re impacts of upgrading Marys Peak on, e.g., plant species of interest, runoff into the meadows downgradient, spread of invasive species during construction, and on and on. All of these concerns are valid.
There is however a compelling concern that, in my opinion, trumps all of the above. Marys Peak is essential for control and reliability. It's particularly important for purposes of rebuilding following system interruptions. If there is any asset in the FCRPS that is essential, this is one. Not quite as important as GCL, but almost.
A little thought experiment is in order. Imagine that energy systems serving the western USA are struggling with cascading failures. How long will people tolerate disruption. I guess it's about three to five days. After that, you do anything and everything you have to do to restore operations. Upgrading Marys Peak now is a pittance compared to willingness to pay to avoid prolonged disruption. Once the power system is failing, the type of environmental issues that attend this project won't survive 30 seconds of serious discussion.
I think it would on balance be very prudent to upgrade these facilities. If there are endangered/threatened species that will be impacted and there are not reasonable and prudent alternatives that avoid harm, I think it would behoove the secretary of defense to exempt this essential facilities for national security ... as ESA allows.
- MPDEA20 0020 -
Eckert/Marys Peak AllianceSee attachment
My comments speak for the Marys Peak Alliance of AFRANA
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0021 -
BermanRegarding the replacement and upgrade of the BPA communications structure and equipment on Mary’s Peak,
I endorse Option 4, relocating the equipment to the West Point Spur.
The summit of Mary’s Peak is a unique,sensitive botanical area, and a major recreation site.The Siuslaw National Forest gave the area to the city of Corvallis specifically for the purpose of recreation so there is precedent for preserving it as such.
The towers are visually disruptive to the experience of visitors, and subject to high winds and other serious weather challenges. This leaves the power supply vulnerable to disruption and potentially endangers workers who must maintain it.
Relocation to the West Point Summit would begin the removal of unsightly equipment from the peak, and put the equipment in a safer place.
Please make the decision which protects valuable plant and animal communities, cultural assets and recreation, as well as good functional sense.
- MPDEA20 0022 -
SmytheI would like to add my support for Alternative 4 in the Environmental Assessment. I believe this alternative is superior to Alternatives 2A or 3C,
for the following reasons:
1) West Point is less vulnerable to extreme weather impacts than the summit site. This has
implications for personnel safety as well as reliability of transmission.
2) The summit sites have the potential for greater damaging impact to geology, soils, and plant communities. The experience of the 2011 construction project does not inspire confidence in this regard.
3) The visual impacts of the summit alternatives would seriously degrade the recreational experience of the large number of
visitors to the summit of Marys Peak.
4) The construction process for the summit sites would raise safety issues and interfere
with the public's enjoyment of the summit.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EA.
- MPDEA20 0023 -
AbelsDear BPA,
These comments address the BPA Environmental Assessment on Marys Peak. As a long time resident of Corvallis, Marys Peak has and will always be a special place for me. I used to ride my bike up the road to the top, now I visit often to hike the trails and enjoy the beauty of each season. In 2016, I attended the session at Philomath High School to learn more about your plans to upgrade your system.
Now, after reviewing the final three options, I can only support and endorse Option 4 as the most viable plan. By building on the West Point Spur, it will reduce the size and impact of the communication site on the top. The top is a fragile ecosystem that was disturbed when the communication sites were moved and fenced in. Fortunately we know that the ecological and physical systems of Marys Peak can return to what they once were but it will take a long time. Additionally, it will create a safer and secure environment for workers who have to service the site. The extreme weather conditions on top of Marys Peak, especially the wind, make it hazardous for people to be working up there.
With over 100,000 visitors to Marys Peak every year, moving to the West Point Spur will also improve the health and safety of the visitors who won’t be challenged by trucks and other service vehicles driving on the road.
Thank you for your serious consideration of this perspective that will be good for the BPA, good for the visitors to Marys Peak and good to the ecosystems.
- MPDEA20 0024 -
Stuart/Great Old BroadsPlease do Option 4, moving the BPA equipment to the West Spur. The top of Marys Peak is a very special area, with normally spectacular 360 degree views which are now obstructed by all the communications equipment and fencing currently there. If BPA moves their equipment, hopefully the other communications entities will do so as well. This will preserve not only the amazing views but restore the sensitive areas on the top of the mountain. It will also obviously be a plus for the health and safety of any workers, as the West Spur does not have as extreme weather as the top of the mountain.-Marjorie Stuart
- MPDEA20 0025 -
Fairchild/Audubon Society of Corvallis
- MPDEA20 0027 -
OuelletteIn light of preserving the fragile and unique ecosystem at the top of Marys Peak, please choose option 4. Thank you for your consideration.
- MPDEA20 0028 -
Vander HeideSee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0029 -
KearlI first would like to acknowledge the rigor of the Environmental Assessment process that has been utilized for the Marys Peak BPA project. The draft EA document is an impressive compilation of a wide range of perspectives on the project, and represents a major undertaking for BPA. It has provided the means for collaboration from a broad spectrum of individuals, and appears to be providing a mechanism for compromise and a solution that meets the needs of most of the interested parties.
My primary perspective on the project is from the vantage point of an emergency services volunteer and disaster response communications unit leader. As most of the people familiar with the project appreciate, the top of Marys Peak offers a truly unique site for the placement of regional communications equipment. It provides vital life-safety communications for several agencies that is unequaled by any other site the region. The maintenance of, and hopefully improvements to, this capability is of great value to me, and to the public in general. The value of the site from esthetic, environmental and cultural perspectives are not lost on me, either.
With all of these considerations in mind, I strongly support the utilization of Alternative 3C - Marys Peak Co-locate with USFS – BPA Albany Substation. This option provides the benefit to BPA of maintaining and upgrading their vital communications capabilities to all areas of the region. With thoughtful design and construction, it will reduce the size of the communications site footprint on the peak. And hopefully, with good collaboration with the USFS, it will provide an opportunity to upgrade the infrastructure of their communications facility. These enhancements could perhaps include improvements to the shared antenna tower space, shared emergency back-up power, and to the general robustness of the existing USFS building. Alternative 3C provides the best balance of benefits and costs of the current options under consideration.
In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to all of the parties that have contributed to this Environmental Assessment process.
Respectfully,
Dan Kearl
Philomath, Oregon
- MPDEA20 0030 -
Heiken/Oregon WildFrom: Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild
TO: BPA, VIA: https://publiccomments.bpa.gov/CommentEntry.aspx?ID=403
DATE: 23 Nov 2020
RE: Marys Peak BPA Comm Site EA comments
Please accept the following comments from Oregon Wild concerning the Marys Peak BPA Communications Site Project Draft Environmental Assessment, https://www.bpa.gov/efw/Analysis/NEPADocuments/Pages/Marys-Peak-BPA-Communications-Site-Project.aspx.
Oregon Wild represents 20,000 members and supporters who share our mission to protect and restore Oregon’s wildlands, wildlife, and water as an enduring legacy. Our goal is to protect areas that remain intact while striving to restore areas that have been degraded. This can be accomplished by moving over-represented ecosystem elements (such as logged and roaded areas) toward characteristics that are currently under-represented (such as roadless areas and complex old forest).
We appreciate that BPA considered a range of alternatives and described the comparative impacts fairly clearly in the EA.
We urge BPA to avoid or minimize and then mitigate unavoidable impacts to the unique and important forest and grassland habitats on Marys Peak. This applies to both the decision process and throughout implementation.
If trees must be cut, we encourage BPA to leave them on-site or use them for habitat enhancement projects.
Thank you for considering our comments.
- MPDEA20 0031 -
FosterSee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0032 -
McEvoy/Corvallis Chapter of the Native Plant Society of OregonSee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0033 -
WulffSee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0034 -
SmithSee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0035 -
SnellingSee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0036 -
CafazzoSee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0037 -
BlanchardSee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0038 -
AolenbackSee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0039 -
Rudolph/Thompson Timber CompanySee attachment
View Attachment
- MPDEA20 0040 -
ThompsonSee attachment
View Attachment
|
|
|
