| OCR Text |
Show .v.sv.v,y,y.w.v.v,y.y mrxs After assurances that views of the Bald Mesa area would be blighted forever, Kaiser and Cassamassa turned their attention to Aba jo Peak on the Monticello Ranger District where they decided to declare war on the scenic values of the Blue Mountains. Abajo Peak has been used as a communications site for decades; however, until a few yean ago, all of the towers were guyed towers and therefore not obvious from Monticello and Highway 191 (unless you were using binoculars). Then the Forest Service allowed two 100' tall self supporting towers to be constructed in violation of the Forest Plan and without the preparation of an Environmental Assessment The Inventory Visual Quality Objective for Abajo Pfeak is Retention. This VQO was downgraded to Partial Retention in the Forest Plan; however, as is the case at Bald Mesa, the view now has a VQO of Modification at best. These improperly permitted eyesores were not enough for Janette and Glen, so they are now proposing to add three towers up to 150' tall and four towers up to 60' tall at Abajo Peak. In order to approve this proposal and destroy Abajo Peak's remaining visual quality, they want to amend the Forest Plan to make the VQO of the two acre communications site on Abajo Peak "Maximum Modification." This change would violate every principle of visual landscape protection. However, according to the National Forest Landscape w rv w ' ns &J i-;- (,, c . y. - -- s.y . ff v .. V. v- - Qmi3GoOOOTaOS ac0D 03BOGOQ I v You know, I wouldn't know r;r t 1 v t $ i I. V jTP 5 f, Glen Canyon Dam from Good Neighbor Sam, but Stiles says it's a "dam site' too many. So, I would like to suggest that while you people are waiting for the lake to drain, you come east and have some of my cheese grits... I think you're going to have time. :u; $ hi ''.!&& ! h, jlAVa av4n 050 (MMXfU S!QO - 4 ii'iiv'i ,vy V V (MPtr uA.A 5 - f Management Manual, what they are proposing is worse than the Maximum Modification VQO. It falls in the category of Unacceptable Modification since the towers won't "appear as a natural occurrence when viewed from a distance of more than five miles" as required for the Maximum Modification VQO. This attempt to make Abajo Peak a visual sacrifice area is unacceptable. By proposing a two acre eyesore in the middle of views of the Blue Mountains, the Forest Service will be degrading every view that includes Abajo Peak. This is spot zoning at its worst. And clearly Janette and Glen don't care. While spot zoning was unacceptable at the Bald Mesa Communications Site, it is now acceptable at Abajo Peak Do these people have a consistency problem? The Environmental Assessment for fids proposal didn't even include an alternative that would meet the Partial Retention VQO - even though this could be done: The self supporting towers could be replaced by guyed towers, arid a limited number of new towers (guyed towers, not self supporting towers) less than 6ff could be allowed without violating the Partial Retention VQO when looking at Abajo Peak from Monticello or Highway 191. Instead of requiring the communications industry to limit their facilities to the minimum necessary, the Forest Service wants to give them everything they ask for. While locations on the Forest can be used for communications sites, that use should not be the dominant use in visually sensitive areas. There are other communications sites available in less visually sensitive areas, but of course everyone wants their antenna to be on the highest place around whether it needs to be or not. The Abajo Peak Decision Notice has not been signed as of the time I'm writing this, but when it is signed, I plan to appeal Janette's decision. Hopefully the Regional Forester has a better concept of visual resource protection National Forest than the esthetics lly challenged people on the Manti-LaSJanette Kaiser and Glen Cassamassa are responsible for this sorry situation. Like most Forest Service personnel, they are carpet baggers. They come into an area, screw tilings up, and then leave. And those of us who live here have to put up with the mess that they made. The concept of leaving an area better than they found it is so foreign to these people that they act surprised when confronted with the reality of their decisions. al SUBSCRIBE TO THE ZEPHYR 15 DOLLARS A YEAR (details oa page 3) is the last or tide in this series at least for rum. When the Forest Service makes mare egregms decisions (end they wSl he made), I'D return with Part 5. TMs -- (801)259-438- (800) 4 PRINTS 635-528- 0 WHO ARE WE? Part 1 Many of you have asked, "Who are those guys at Footprints and what do they do? Well, we're here to answer question 1 as clearly and concisely as we know how. Quite simply, we are International purveyors and developers multiof custom designed, user, multiple process, client server, relational data management GUI software solutions for LANs. WANs. Intranets and the Internet. AND with offices in Salt Lake. Seattle & Moab. We write custom software for the big people and the little... cross-platfor- making technology work for you. ANY QUESTIONS??? NEXT ISSUE: 121 East 100 South, Suite 108 v. , r.riMnririMfri ii'.yTi i hmitMUmmti s iatfai Moab, UT 84532 nnM iiariwiiuy Jmkmm What do we do? tivim'BMZ TtoirmnalBB . jr : r. ? .s' '".i'l |
