WASHINGTON-The Superintendent of Rock Creek Park, an urban national park, said it would take five months before an environmental assessment is completed to determine whether Bell Atlantic Mobile can site two antennas inside the park. The National Park Service sent a letter to BAM July 13 stating its initial 60-day review period was not sufficient and an environmental assessment (EA) would be necessary.
Adrienne Coleman, superintendent of Rock Creek Park, told a public forum July 15 the Park Service had contracted with Science Applied International Corp. to conduct the EA. The EA could lead to NPS approval of the sitings or lead to a more intensive study called an Environmental Impact Statement. An EIS could take at least one year to complete. Once NPS gives its permission, BAM also must apply to the National Capital Planning Commission for permission. The NCPC also has stringent rules, Coleman said.
In its July 13 letter, NPS told BAM it would cost $25,000 for the first phase of the EA. The amount outraged Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House telecom subcommittee, whose spokesman, Ken Johnson, called the payment extortion. “The fact of the matter is, Billy was told in March that the [NPS] could make a decision in 60 days. They didn’t tell the truth, and now they are trying to extort $25,000 to help them find someone to block the application,” said Johnson.
Tauzin had been expected to raise the issue at a markup of antenna-siting legislation last Friday but that markup has been postponed until Wednesday. Tauzin is the sponsor of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act. The legislation would create a fund with revenues derived from siting antennas on federal lands, including NPS lands. Today all lease fees go to the general treasury.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association has been citing Rock Creek Park as an example of NPS foot-dragging since December 1996 when CTIA sent a letter to President Clinton asking him to spur the NPS and other federal agencies to site wireless facilities on federal lands.
BAM took the delay in stride. Audrey Schaffer, a BAM spokeswoman, said BAM expected to proceed with its application. BAM representatives appeared at the same public forum as Coleman to answer public criticisms of the antenna sites. The criticisms ranged from health concerns from radio-frequency emissions to concern for the wildlife and bird populations. Both of these concerns are expected to be addressed in the EA.
In addition, the neighbors around one of the proposed sites believe BAM is being insensitive by saying that the tower will be placed in “non-pristine” park land. BAM has proposed siting an antenna on a light pole near tennis courts.
BAM and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. also are battling over tower sitings in suburban Washington. Fairfax County, Va., has sued the companies over the placement of towers on property controlled by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Fairfax County is upset the companies did not receive local zoning authority before building the towers. The carriers believe since their sites are on state lands, they only have to deal with state regulation, not local regulation. The case is expected to go to trial in September.
As the litigation progresses, wireless industry representatives and county officials have reconvened a Telecommunications Task Force to look at issues, including antenna sitings, in a more cooperative manner.
