20 November 2008
SUBJECT: Comments to the Draft Environmental Assessment of the Blue Ridge
Mountain Electric Membership Corporation Proposed Substation
The Towns County Homeowners Association (TCHA) has evaluated the TVA Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) issued in October 2008 and has prepared the following response. We take note that the EA supports the BRMEMC proposal for locating an electrical substation on the south end of Parcel 52.
In summary we find the supporting analysis to be superficial and substantially subjective. Further we take note that, while much of the citizen input has been included and some of it commented upon by way of rebuttal, other was simply included without comment or not included at all. The TCHA can only conclude that this document was derived with the sole purpose of creating supporting paper for your power customer’s proposal with the least amount of examination and effort. We urge that it be rejected and BRMEMC be directed to sit with the county management who have volunteered to assist in the development of an alternative more suited to the best interests of Towns County and its citizens.
In the following discussion we will critique the contents of the EA. But, before going into that detail, there are some general comments that are worth pursuing.
The EA fails to account for the strong opposition to the proposal from the citizens of Towns County. While you do catalogue some of the comments in Attachments B (39 con. 2 pro) and C (294 con and 2 pro) and have attempted to counter some of the arguments (Attachment B), you have failed to account for the over 600 petition signatures against the proposal submitted by TCHA and the additional petition signatures submitted by the county. You ignore the obvious conclusion that the citizens of Towns County and the County management are strongly opposed to the proposal.
Instead you chose to use multiple quotes from Lamar Paris in support of the proposal. While Mr. Paris may own property in Towns County, he does not live or work here. In fact he is the Commissioner of Union County. As such, he should stick to Union County affairs and avoid taking issue with this county. The comments of Mr. Paris should be weighed as a property owner not as an elected official from another county.
Further you have not mentioned the opposition to the proposal from the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition, a group which you support and fund. Their comments count.
TVA has allowed BRMEMC to posit a “no practicable alternative” cost rationale in favor of Parcel 52 on the basis of presenting no substantial data or alternative cost comparisons in the DEA. It was only in the 13 November Open House that TCHA was able to see some cost comparison data. These showed 4 possible alternative sites including Parcel 52 which was cheapest by roughly $1.0m while the others are grouped at plus $1.0m over Parcel 52. Discussions with BRMEMC reveal that, while the land costs are fairly true (we have comments on the projected Parcel 52 costs below), the site prep costs are “back of the envelop” at best. In fact, TCHA analysis of the Parcel 52 site prep costs have uncovered a large discrepancy in the projected costs of filling the property to the 1933 line, possibly in the $2-300k range. This analysis was done using the data provided in the DEA but TVA never found it. It is clear that these cost comparisons have not been thoroughly vetted. No detailed trade offs or cost-benefit analyses are presented. TVA has allowed BRMEMC to simply state that moving further south and out of town would be more costly because of increased land and transmission line cost. But, once again, BRMEMC fails to account for the shorter line distance to their customers that moving closer to them would allow. They also fail to account for the fact that the increased cost, when spread over time and their customer base, would be minimal. TVA should require that the real cost trade offs be done and presented to them and the public. This project involves major funding and should not be initiated of such sloppy pre-decision analysis.
Parcel 52 is prime lakefront property which, if residential, would sell for anywhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000 per HALF acre. We recognize that this is TVA land, not residential, and that it has limited potential uses under the TVA guidelines. But the difference between $1,500,000 – 3,000,000 and $100,000 is unsupportable. It would seem that a $500,000 asking price would be much closer to what could be considered to be a fair price. As an example, the number two site considered by BRMEMC is one-half mile south, not on the lake with an asking price is $600,000. TVA would do well to involve Towns County Realtors in the price evaluation. These people understand land values here much better than TVA ‘experts’ from afar. The TVA assigned cost of $100,000 for the approximately 1.6 acres at the south end of Parcel 52 is irrational and without any correlation with Towns County land valuations.
The discussion of power lines is largely avoided by BRMEMC causing concern that our citizens may not really understand what is being proposed. The EMC studied three routes and picked as the best the one which runs from the Woods Grove substation through the middle of the City of Hiawassee. But these are not clearly referred to in their briefing material as transmission lines which would replace the existing much lower capacity distribution lines. This is a significant change/upgrade which has not been widely publicized and which will require pole upgrades as well. The EMC is advertising this route as an upgrade which it is from a transmissions standpoint but these poles will add nothing to the ambiance of the town. While we cannot argue with the selected route, we do question whether any serious effort was spent on looking at burying the lines at least through downtown Hiawassee.
BRMEMC states widely that the Parcel 52 package is the best business deal for them. Translating that, “best business deal” means lowest cost. But, best business deal for BRMEMC does not mean best business deal for Towns County. Years ago, the Federal government learned that buying the lowest cost proposal did not always mean they got what was best for the government. So they went to a procedure called ‘Best Value’ in which cost was a significant factor but not THE controlling factor. Putting the substation, which we all agree is needed, on Parcel 52 does not represent the best value for Towns County and its citizens. TVA needs to respect that and recommend that BRMEMC look elsewhere.
BRMEMC and ( and TVA ) have not worked actively with the county on the search for alternative locations. The county has many tools for use in finding an alternative location and has offered to lead an effort to find a suitable alternative. TVA needs to encourage the two to get together to solve the location problem and can force them to do so if necessary by denying the BRMEMC application.
BRMEMC will argue that time is of the essence. The issue of a substation to serve the south and east parts of Towns County has been a recognized requirement for many years. Only within the last two years has it become ‘urgent’ and that urgency is now tempered by the present economic situation. Construction in the county is at a new low and financing is well known to be difficult. This is also true for BRMEMC. There is time now to do it right and TVA should encourage this approach.
TCHA recognizes that there is a special relationship between TVA and BRMEMC in that they are a customer to whom TVA supplies its power product. But TVA should remember that the citizens of Towns County are the customer base of BRMEMC and, by definition, the real customers of TVA. We buy the TVA power through BRMEMC and thus pay your bills. And we are unhappy when we see TVA favor an agent while ignoring those who pay the bill. This goes not only to the comments above but also to the favoritism allowed BRMEMC by waiving the 1933 limitation.
It has been the experience of a number of our members who own lakeshore properties that the 1933 ‘full capacity’ line is to be held inviolate. This limitation was demonstrated in the 60’s as two feet over the height of the floodgates on the Chatuge dam. It is neither the 100 year or 500 year flood height but a potential flood level that could occur anytime. Activities below that elevation are intensely scrutinized by TVA and structures proposed to be placed below that line categorically denied. Yet, in this case, the 1933 limitation is waived in favor of an industrial structure of great weight which, if flooded, could become a serious hazard. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. BRMEMC is entitled to no more nor less consideration than the private citizen. The 1933 rule is enough on its own to deny the application.
TVA states in its operational material that, if a TVA owned lakeshore parcel is to have its use designation changed to industrial or commercial uses that TVA intends that these uses be water related. BRMEMC has stated openly that they have no need for lake water. This requested use does not fit the stated TVA guidelines for water related uses and should therefore be denied.
Specific comments: (page references are to the main body of the DEA)
Page 4 - “The construction of a substation ….would not conflict with the existing or potential use on the remainder of the parcel.” TVA claims here and elsewhere in the DEA that suggested alternative recreational land uses being considered for the remainder of the parcel would not be impacted. TCHA begs to differ. Placing a recreational facility where children of all ages will be present next to a high power substation is asking for trouble. Even though fenced, it cannot control the ball over the fence and the youthful desire to retrieve it. The EMR numbers presented attempt to make your case but parents will not buy it. The TCHA will not support any public use of that property if the substation is approved. The county Department of Recreation has also stated that they will not support recreational uses for the property if the substation is approved. Further, TVA has not recognized the immediate impact to the campground which is immediately south of the proposed location. (See attached statement from Mrs. Palmer, the campground owner) Campers have already indicated that they will not remain under the shadow of the station equipment. The impact to the future of that business could very well be severe. The construction of a substation on Parcel 52 definitely conflicts with adjacent existing uses and its proposed future use.
Pages 6-9 – Site Evaluation. This section and its conclusion is devoid of any substantial detail or comparative analysis. BRMEMC simply stated the alternatives are too hard to use or too expensive. But it seems clear that they have spent all their planning time on the 52 site and are simply waiving their arms at the others. No serious analysis of alternatives is presented and no cost benefit analysis which would take into consideration the needs and requirements of the county and its development is offered. No detail is provided in the DEA and we suspect that is because no detail was used by TVA thus making these cost comparisons highly suspect. For example, what makes the cost of Site 7 financially unfeasible, $1.0m? This number itself is suspect. We have noted above that the Parcel 52 cost numbers are suspect possibly by as much as $200+k. This, combined with a more realistic valuation of the proposed sale price of Parcel 52 brings the difference very close together. It also brings the two other potential sites into play. Even so, by our calculations, if these costs were to be factual, when spread over the customer base for the accounting period likely involved, the increase would be inconsequential to our monthly bills, a few cents vs. the 20% increase just imposed by TVA upon us your real customers. It is clear to us that no real effort was made to analyze and develop alternative sites. For this reason alone, the DEA is worthless and the proposal should be placed in the No Action category.
A further comment on the BRMEMC use of cost numbers is warranted. BRMEMC has told TCHA in discussions with us that moving further south would cost $1.0m per mile for every mile past Parcel 52. Later they have used the number of $800k per mile. But their March 18, 2008 presentation presents a transmission line cost of $570k per mile. What is the true cost? TVA has not questioned this issue and should do so. These gross discrepancies call into question the validity of the TVA proposed Action Alternative and whether TVA has done the required homework here.
Page 10 – “A substation would be generally compatible with existing land uses …. (and) would have no significant impact on existing land use”. Of its nature a substation is aesthetically challenged. It is a 50-foot high monster which, here, will be sitting right on the highway and on top of the existing campground. The claim of no significant impact is subjective on the part of TVA and absurd. It could destroy the campground business and will severely restrict the ability to further use the balance of the parcel. No evidence is offered for this conclusion nor for the claim that it will not impact the future use of the balance of the parcel for recreation. No parent in their right mind is going to allow their child to play next to that facility with its warning signs about its hazard and potential ‘death’. The Towns County Recreation Department has also endorsed this view. This is one more self-serving conclusion.
Page 11 – Visual Resources “”There would be insignificant cumulative impacts to the visual resources associated with the Action Alternative.” There is nothing insignificant about a 50-foot high 2-acre set of equipment sitting on top of the highway. An eight-foot fence and some ten-foot trees which do not have to last more than a year hide nothing. While the location is commercially oriented, it is not industrially oriented and there is a large difference. Further the residences to the east and west are largely located above the site and so look down on the site which now becomes completely foreign to the existing landscape and uses. The surrounding landowners have told TVA what they think of this statement and you have ignored it. They are a much better judge of this value than someone located in Murphy or Chattanooga. By your own admission the substation “would contribute to a decline in scenic attractiveness and scenic integrity in the immediate area”. TVA cannot have it both ways!
Page 12 – Construction in the Flood Plain – This violates TVA rules. If a private property owner cannot build below the 1933 line, even a TVA favorite cannot either. This alone dictates a No Action decision.
Page 19 – ”No significant impact to property values would be likely (once) the public becomes accustomed to the presence of the substation and transmission line.” Where is the data that supports this claim? With a 50-foot high set of hazardous equipment overlooking the adjacent campground, the property value is not going to go down? In fact, the business will likely be severely impacted if not destroyed. The homes across the lake and on the hill to the east will be looking straight at the structure. These are homes which rely in part for their value on the mountain atmosphere of Towns County. ( “(The substation) ..would contribute to the cumulative impacts of human alterations in the environment.” Page 21). Potential subsequent owners will agree and will look at these views and automatically devalue the property. As we have noted above, these facilities are at best, ugly and need to be located carefully away from the road and as much as possible out of sight to lower their ‘scenic’ impact. An example of where BRMEMC has achieved this is the Young Harris substation. The opposite example is the new Hayesville station although it is located in a purely commercial area with little exposure to residential areas.
Page 20 – Cumulative Impacts – “…TVA has determined that there would be insignificant cumulative impacts associated with ….the approval of a Section 26a permit.” It would appear from the supporting data provided that TVA has determined the result in advance and then tried to fill in the rationale to support the predetermined result. TVA has ignored the will of the Towns County residents and government, offered so little detail in support of the decision as to appear either defensive or fraudulent. Instead TVA has concluded (on page 5) that there are “…no new issues raised… by the public input process and that the DEA adequately addresses the Action Alternative”. That may be true if TVA simply closes its eyes and asserts the defense enough times. But the fact of the matter is that the ‘old’ issues are there and that they are being ignored, misrepresented or dismissed by TVA in the interest of the EMC. BRMEMC claims that this is the ‘best business deal’. That is not true. The ‘best business deal’ is the one that serves both BRMEMC and the County. The County is telling you that this is not the case here. Joe Satterfield has told several of our members that, if TVA does not approve Parcel 52, BRMEMC will have to look elsewhere. TVA needs to adopt the No Action alternative and Joe needs to look elsewhere a little harder. With the current business climate being what it is, he has time. And, with the help of the County, a suitable result is possible. The ‘best business deal’ is one that serves the interests of both BRMEMC and the County.
In summary, the TCHA concludes that this DEA is so superficial and poorly supported that it cannot be used to endorse the proposed Action Alternative. We also conclude that, if it were to be done properly, the No Action Alternative would be dictated.
TVA has failed to do due diligence on the BRMEMC cost numbers.
TVA has failed to properly value the property they propose to sell to BRMEMC.
TVA has violated their own rules regarding building and/or filling below the 1933 line.
TVA has violated their own rule that TVA provided land be used for water related activities.
TVA, by approving this request, will violate its own principle of sound lakeshore management,
TVA has ignored or dismissed summarily the views of over 600 county residents and the County Management; instead TVA relies on the opinions of employees and consultants who are unfamiliar with Towns County, do not live here and have no vested interest in its well being.
TVA is ignoring the fact that there are suitable alternatives for BRMEMC, more expensive perhaps, but not out of reach.
In short, this report is an embarrassment to the Tennessee Valley Authority and should be rejected by its management.
THE BOARD AND OFFICERS OF THE TOWNS COUNTY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Charley Kraus, President
Wes Lerdon, Vice President
Joan Cruthers, Secretary
Jack Miller, Treasurer
Mike Brock, Director
Bob Crawford, Director
Lindey Fitzgerald, Director
Bob Keys, Director
And the TCHA Membership and Associates
Attachments:
CEC Comments
Statement of Virginia Palmer
0 comments:
Post a Comment