I submitted these comments at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=25147
The related document with alternatives to consider is: Preliminary Alternatives Newsletter - July 2010
Below are my comments:
I prefer alternative 7 as it moves the line farthest from public lands, buffering the parks from harm done by a profit-motivated business interest. My next choice is alternative 4. I am strongly opposed to the applicant's preferred route proposed in Alternative 2 for the following reasons:
1. The new lines are double the height of the current structures and will infringe on the increasingly rare wilderness experience our National Parks offer.
2. Structures are a major cause of mortality among wildlife like birds and bats. Why build bigger structures on land that's supposed to help, not hinder, wildlife conservation?
3. The power company says their preferred route is critical. I submit it is critical to their profit margin. It's apparent their motive is to connect the low-cost coal resources of the Appalachians to the power-hungry, rather than invest in a distributed grid powered by locally produced renewable energy like wind, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal. Their unwillingness to invest in these more sustainable technologies should not come at the cost of public lands.
4. The power company says delay on this project puts Americans at risk of blackouts and brownouts. But from a security perspective, what's the sense of creating a centralized grid that's vulnerable to sabotage?
Thank you for considering my comments. I look forward to enjoying Northeastern U.S. National Park Service units free of the blemishes of large, unnecessary technological structures.
Sincerely,
Tanner Jessel
