TCHA News Briefs

November 24, 2008 - BRMEMC Proposed Substation Comments

2008-11-24T17:58:00.000-08:00

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

November 20, 2008 - Letter to TVA

2008-11-20T11:02:00.000-08:00

20 November 2008

Ms. Heather L. McGee
NEPA Resources
Tennessee Valley Authority
P. O. Box 1010 SB 1H
Muscle Shoals, AL 35662-1010

Project Number 2008-54

Dear Ms. McGee:

Enclosed are the comments of the Towns County Homeowners Association on the TVA Draft Environmental Assessment of the Blue Ridge Mountain Electric Membership Corporation Proposed Substation. We trust that you will give them a fair and very thorough evaluation.

The TCHA has concluded 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. We trust that, when TVA looks behind the façade at the detail (or lack thereof) they will agree.

We will be glad to discuss any of our detail with any of your staff at your convenience should you desire. Thank you for support,

The Towns County Homeowners Association

(s)
Charles K. Kraus
President

Encls.

November 20, 2008 - TVA DEA Attachment "E"

2008-11-20T01:06:00.000-08:00

TVA DEA ATTACHMENT "E" Categorical Exclusion Checklist

TCHA Comments

The following line items that should be changed from "No' to "Yes" in the CEC

PART & ITEM - TVA "Quoted" followed by the TCHA RESPONSE

Part 1, item #3 - "Involves non-routine mitigation to avoid adverse impacts ?"

This would involve non routine mitigation to avoid adverse impacts

to several other items

item # 6 –“Is one of many actions that will affect the same resources ?"

Would affect the same land resources if the designation of any

portion of Parcel 52 were reclassified to Industrial, as the TC

Recreation Department use of the remainder of has been refused

by Soccer Teams, and others, to locate recreation or park (kite

flying, ball games, etc.) adjacent, as a power sub station would

render recreation uses "impossible".

item #7 - "Involves more than minor amount of land ?"

By the approval of the 1.6 acre Sub Station on 17% of the
9.5 acres f currently designated as "Recreation" on Parcel 52,
the remaining 83% of the land would be rendered as "useless"
for recreation uses, as commented on by coaches of the Towns
County Youth Soccer Teams and other recreation users. -
These teams currently have more than 190 players enrolled.

item # 8 - "Potentially affect ecologically critical areas, federal, state, or local

park lands, national or state forests, wilderness areas, scenic areas

wildlife management areas, recreational areas, greenways or trails ?"

Scenic areas, recreational areas, and greenways (All three!!) would

be adversely affected.

item #13 - "Potentially affect drinking water supply ?"

The only intake for the Towns County Water Authority, and City of
Hiawassee is only 4/10 mile downstream, from Parcel 52. This could
be fouled by the BRMEMC proposed sub station landfill and
construction below the previously TVA enforced "no land fill no
construction below 1933 elevation" which is classified as
"full capacity" of the reservoir.

Part 3, item # 5 - "Discharge dredged or fill materials ?"
Due diligence has Not been exhibited by BRMEMC to date as to
their estimated $100,000 cost for this site, including improvements.
The BRMEMC project description stating only "0.2 acre feet"
(2.4 Inches !!) is an obvious mistake as is their estimate of
"21 cu. yds." of fill. So, the following data is estimated by laying the
proposed 1.6 acre site plan over the TVA topographic contour maps:

This data presents basis for concern about "Discharge. . .filled
materials". Using the BRMEMC layout showing approximately 1 acre
requiring fill to get "above the 1933 elevation" the "full capacity"
of the reservoir (required by TVA) would require an average acre
depth of 4 feet(compacted 20% to 3.2 feet) = 6518 cu. yds.
If hauled by large trucks of 17 cu.yd. capacity, this would total 384
truck loads at average cost of $250 each at present day cost per
truckload for total contracted fill cost of $95,860.
This large amount of fill should be contained by a Poured Concrete
Wall and drained in accord with TVA requirements (page 3),
that require Georgia Storm Water Permit. BRMEMC has costed
as significantly smaller amount of fill than this for Parcel 52.
By their own admission, their numbers are “best guesses” only.
The fill conclusions also raise considerable concern about discharge
from fill. Actual costs for site purchase, including site preparation,
could probably be several hundred thousand dollars more than the
$160,000 total, including property, stated by the BRMEMC in
their presentations and rudimentary cost figures for Parcel 52.
Other sites BRMEMC contend they have considered, do not provide
detail in accord with Due Diligence for public review either.
Given their preference for Parcel 52 and their large understatement
of the filling cost, one has to wonder about the accuracy of the site prep
estimates on the alternative sites and whether they may be artificially
high (see $600k for fill on Parcel 51).
Using the BRMEMC project description, and the above preliminary
Calculations for Parcel 52, a large overrun of the stated BRMEMC site
costs would probably be experienced by BRMEMC and should be
revisited by the utility to gain a complete estimate and review of
related costs.

Part 4, item #2 - "Increase the potential for accidents affecting the public?"
There would be great potential for adults and children chasing balls,
kites and other objects that would go into the substation and cause
the persons to climb the fence to retrieve the objects and be subject
to electrical injury and/or death.

item #3 - "Cause the displacement or relocation of businesses, residences,
cemeteries or farms”. The presence of the proposed sub station
will likely cause the closing of the adjacent Campground and Marina
business on the land owned by Mrs. Palmer (see attached affidavit).
This is based on remarks by the tenants who say they would not
continue to rent the campsites for their trailers, or use the covered
boat slips if the substation were to be built on Parcel 52.

item #8 - "Potentially interfere with recreational or educational uses ?"

It certainly would interfere with the current recreational classification,
As parents and coaches have said the remainder of Parcel 52 could not
and would not be used by the Recreation Department because of the
potential dangers involved.

September 25, 2008 - Response to TVA Management Plan

2008-09-25T10:33:00.000-07:00

Tennessee Valley Authority
Mountain Reservoirs Land
Management Plan

Chatuge Reservoir

Towns County, Georgia

Comments & Recommendations
by
The Towns County Homeowners Association (TCHA)

September 25, 2008

General Comments

The Towns County Homeowners Association (TCHA) represents a wide spectrum of citizens who are homeowners in Towns County, Georgia. Many are property owners adjacent to Lake Chatuge. This lake is the body, heart and soul of Towns County, Georgia and Clay County, North Carolina. All of us know the water quality continues to deteriorate each year. Run-off water around the lake is one issue in this deterioration. TCHA has encouraged local officials to adopt the recent recommendations from the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition Report to improve water quality and the county is doing so.

Shoreline erosion continues to increase, without official efforts to prevent it as we see a significant increase in the number of boats and PWCs and including larger and more powerful boats. The resultant wave action is increasing shoreline erosion at an alarming rate. One member has lost 18 inches of depth 128 feet out from the 1926 foot elevation line due to lack of sedimentation control. This property owner also states that he was losing 6 to 9 inches of bank at the shoreline each year. He obtained a permit and rip rapped his bank eliminating the problem. However, there are hundreds of banks without erosion control. Lake Chatuge is not large enough nor strong enough to accommodate this increase in size and number of watercraft. One can witness a 36 to 42 inch wake behind these boats. It is not unusual to see these boats perform “doughnuts” that produce up to 48 inch wakes. The shore line becomes extremely muddy extending up to 300 feet off the shore.

In addition, some property owners are making beaches near the 1926 elevation line by hauling in tons of sand each year, a clear violation of TVA regulations. Yet nothing is being done to prevent these violations. TCHA has members who have complained to TVA and TVA’s response has been that “it is the county’s responsibility to enforce sedimentation issues.” One member states that “he has seen at least 2 loads of sand, 5 tons each, dumped below the 1933 elevation line in one year.” Most of this loose sand will wash into the lake within a year. The problem is that all this sand along with other sedimentation is rapidly displacing water, not a desirable feature of properly managing a lake. It is highly unlikely that you will find these examples of management in the Private Investor Owned Electric Utility Industry where the utilities have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, customers and State Public Utility Commissions. It is time for TVA to take control and properly manage its assets.

In addition, many renters of pontoon boats and personal watercraft often have never operated either and have no safety training. They have no respect for or knowledge of the 100 ft no-wake law in Georgia nor of other water safety and courtesy rules. Commercial enterprises that lease boats and PWCs should be required to review applicable boating regulations with renters before they take possession of the boat or PWC. Special emphasis should be given to the 100 ft. no-wake zone near docks and anchored boats. In turn, the renters should be required to carry with them a certificate certifying the receipt of this required safety and operating procedures briefing.

Property owners report that the wakes are so bad at times that you simply cannot stand up or walk safely on their docks. The water quickly becomes extremely muddy and unusable. Boat traffic should be restricted to the center portion of all the narrow creeks and coves with reduced speeds and these should be marked as such.

Two of our members report that they spent over $500.00 to purchase US Coast Guard approved “NO WAKE” and “SWIM AREA” buoys and properly secured and installed them. The NO WAKE buoy actually helped keep water traffic away from their boat docks. After two years the Georgia Department of Natural Resources made them remove the NO WAKE buoy because “they didn’t have the resources to enforce the NO WAKE Law except at bridges”. This is a poor excuse to property owners who volunteer to utilize their own resources to assist in the enforcement of laws that improve safety and reduce some sedimentation from shore line erosion! And we have other examples of dock owners placing ‘No Wake” signs on their docks and having them also be effective. But that should really not be our job.

TCHA has members who live near parcel 13, a Towns County Camp Ground, where previous inspections revealed both safety and environmental violations. Boats were moored above the shore line; a few on-the-road pieces of camping equipment did not even have state license plates clearly showing they were being parked year-around. Sewage disposal was disastrous. Carpet was rolled out on the bank to the water line to provide clean water access that created an unsightly and undesirable condition which should not have been over looked by TVA and Towns County. This was a deplorable condition that property owners around the lake should not have been exposed to. Camp ground neighbors have also been exposed to drug trafficking conditions. These issues will be addressed below.

TCHA General Recommendations for Parcel Development

1. Further commercial or any industrial development on TVA land should not be permitted. This includes the proposed BRMEMC substation. Recreational uses should be carefully considered and only allowed where they will not infringe on existing properties.

2. Permission for the installation of additional boat launching ramps should be withdrawn at least until effective traffic control on the lake can be established and proven to be working.

3. A major and immediate effort should be initiated by TVA in conjunction with local law enforcement and the DNR to establish traffic and procedural control over watercraft use on the lake. Police patrols with enough staff to effectively cover the entire lake should be present on all weekends and holidays and periodically during the warm weather weeks of high use.

4. The TVA should institute a program of low speed-no wake zones in the narrow coves and creeks of the lake.

5. The TVA should make enforcement of the 100 foot no wake zone near docks and anchored boats a priority.

6. The TVA should ban the dumping of sand on beach areas and encourage private parties who wish to dredge their beach fronts to do so with proper water management practices,

7. The TVA should conduct a lake wide study of shoreline erosion to identify all those areas where water disturbance is causing significant problems and to mark those areas as No Wake zones.

8. The TVA is encouraged to continue its support of the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition and to recognize how these suggestions support the corrective actions suggested in the HRWC report of 2007.

9. The TVA should require that all renters of watercraft on Lake Chatuge provide their customers with a safety and courtesy briefing and with certification that this briefing has been received.

10. The TVA, in conjunction with the Towns County management, should clean up the Chatuge Woods campground and either place it under new management such as the Georgia Mountain Fair, or close it.

TCHA Specific Recommendations

Re parcel 10

This concerns the industrialization of the shoreline of Lake Chatuge. The Towns County Homeowners Association and many of the citizens of the County are strongly opposed to such use anywhere on this lake. Yet we find that not only is Parcel 52 being proposed for an electrical substation (which we have dealt with in our comment of August 27 and below) but also Parcel 10 has been proposed for reclassification as Industrial based upon a flimsily supported (and ultimately withdrawn) request against which TVA has taken the position that, if this proposed use does not come to pass, TVA will simply reclassify the parcel to Zone 5 and wait until someone does come along to buy it.

The TCHA is firmly opposed to this approach and requests that the proposed change be denied and the classification of Parcel 10 be retained as Zone 4 – Natural Resource Conservation. In the following we will critique your DEIS and present the rationale for our position.

Parcel 10 is the last major undeveloped parcel on Wood Creek west of the TVA power lines. The south side of the creek and the balance of the north side are developed as single family residential. The church at the end of the creek is the ONLY non-residential use. We note that in your Policy Governing the Disposal of Real Property you state that …

“As stewards of this critically important resource, TVA has a responsibility to manage its lands wisely for present and future generations.” Placing an industrial use in the middle of an existing residential use is not wise. In fact it is a classic example of poor land management, something TVA eschews. The proposal should have been rejected summarily.

The genesis of the request should be examined. But that effort has been rendered moot by the withdrawal by BRMEMC of their request and the rescinding of his support by NC Senator John Snow. Thus TVA no longer has a basis for further consideration of such change and should immediately drop its consideration from the Management Plan process. To further consider it would be a gross abuse of TVA’s land management responsibility.

We could stop here but, since the Resource Management Team intends to keep the option open for another potential client, we will continue to present our detailed critique of the rationale for the Parcel 10 change as presented in your Draft EIS 2008-1.

1. There is no requirement for a new industrial park, either in Clay County or Towns County. Both counties have existing parks which are substantially underused. Clay County has only one building in their park and the joint Towns/Clay County Park has a total of 11 buildings only half of which are occupied. In addition, this park is currently using roughly 30% of its available land space. Also in Towns County, the old Mohawk plant south of Hiawassee has been empty for over two years despite the owner’s efforts to find another tenant. In conclusion, the two counties have more than enough space to last for years and display no evidence of needing more land.

2. Parcel 10 is not contiguous to the existing park, In fact it is over one half mile away from it with some 60 residences and half a dozen businesses located between the two. Arguing that the two support each other is fallacious. Trying to connect the two would likely require the use of eminent domain procedures which, as we all know, would involve a protracted legal fight.

3. If there were to arise a use in the existing park requiring water from the lake, there is a much shorter route available by running the lines down Hwy 515 and into the upper end of Wood Creek. This assumes the water quantity desired could be supported by the lake and the return would not harm the already poor water quality.

4. Paragraph 3.2.1.2 states under Alternative C changing Parcel 10 from Zone 4 to Zone 5 would “…(change) the character of the existing residential neighborhoods in the area” and that the loss ‘… would be minor in the context of the large amount of TVA land … on the reservoir…”. We beg to differ! The impact on the Wood Creek neighborhoods will be SEVERE and washing that out by including the rest of the lake area is disingenuous at best. TVA uses this approach throughout the DEIS and it is wrong. TVA must consider the local impact and that is the only impact the counts!

5. The DEIS says that “… the change in Parcel 10 would cause destruction of old growth forest”. This area is very densely forested, contains some 100-year-old trees and would be largely clear-cut by any developer. Again the impact on the Wood Creek area will be severe.

6. The DEIS says, “Change of Parcel 10 would have negative effects on wildlife.”

This area has lots of wildlife. Deer are seen there all the time. Bear have been sighted and bald eagles nest in the area. The area is known to be inhabited by Indiana bats, a protected species which helps keep mosquitoes very low. The protected impact on wild life has not been documented but, clearly, if the area is industrialized, the impact will be severe as it will be denied to them. This impact cannot be minimized by spreading the impact lake wide. It is severe on Wood Creek.

7. The DEIS says, “Development of the Parcel may adversely affect archaeological resources,” This has not been researched as to what the affect would be to Parcel 10.

8. The DEIS says “Potential effects to historical structures may come from development of Chatuge Parcel 10” There is no data here either as to what the effect to Parcel 10 might be.

9. The DEIS says there will be “…minor visual impact to visual resources. Scenic integrity would remain moderate or higher.” To the people who enjoy this lake and the homeowners in Woods Creek area, this could not be farther from the truth. Changing the use from Natural Resource Conservation to Industrial development is a monumental change. From looking out across the water and seeing dense forest and wildlife to watching the manufacturing operations of a plant is not a minimal impact and trying to wash it by referring to the entire reservoir is simply wrong.

10. The DEIS says there will be “ …insignificant cumulative impact to water quality and aquatic ecology”. How do we know the effect when there is no information on the type of plant that would be constructed in Parcel 10? How much of our valuable water will be pulled from the lake? How will they dispose of wastewater? What if the plant were to be a cement plant? We have no idea and we don’t want to inflict this fight on future generations by TVA taking the position that they will deal with such issues at the time. We want them taken care of now, in this discourse, and put to bed.

11. The DEIS says that there is “…greater potential of air impacts from industrial development…”. Wood Creek does not need that. It is a residential area.

12. The DEIS says that there will be “…a greater potential for noise impacts from industrial development…” This is a given and it has no place in a residential neighborhood. Depending upon how great, it could have a significant impact on existing property values and consequent property tax revenues for the county government. We wonder whether TVA wishes to expose itself to further complaints and other remedial actions from the impacted owners and county officials?

13. The DEIS touts the “…potential for new jobs from industrial development” As stated above, there are countless industrial opportunities for job development with manufacturing in the existing industrial parks. Neither Towns nor Clay Counties need any more unused industrial designated property, particularly any which is improperly situated within a totally residential area.

14. The DEIS says that “…allocating Parcel 10 to Industrial would decrease opportunities for recreation use of area 10”. One can only say that this is a brilliant conclusion and representative of the substandard thinking behind this entire proposal.

15. The DEIS informs us that your land planning expert predicts that this area could support 350,000 ft. sq. under roof. This implies another 250,000 ft. sq. for paved roads, parking and outdoor storage. The result is 2/3rds of the available acreage being converted to impervious surface which will create a serious runoff problem for Wood Creek and the lake itself at a time when we, including the TVA are trying to preserve the lake from runoff in order to improve the water quality. It would seem the TVA suffers from some inconsistency within its own operation.

In the public meeting held by TVA in Blairsville, GA, your staff claims that, even though the requested use has been withdrawn, the subject has to be kept open because someone else could come in at this late date with a similar use which TVA would then have to consider. In fact, one of your staff there, in the face of all the above arguments, continued to lobby for the change to the point of absurdity. Why, when public comment is cut off after 29 September, would another private request be given the favor of consideration? If such a proposal shows up, will the public be given an extension for comment on that use? Is TVA determined to make this change in the face of the strong public opposition and your own absence of justification and/or rationale? We understand that the TVA Economic Group is making such an argument. Someone needs to make them listen. In another way of putting it, Are the books cooked? We would certainly hope not.

TVA’s own documents say “that land committed to a specific use would be allocated to that current use unless there is an overriding need to change the use.” There is not an overriding need, indeed no need at all, to change the use of this land to Industrial. It should and must be left in the present Zone 4, Natural Resource Conservation classification.

TVA’s documents also say that, “The land use allocations will be determined with consideration of the social, economic and environmental conditions around the region”. It would appear that the DEIS has indeed given these conditions consideration and then ignored the results.

TVA’s Documents also say that “TVA shall continue to develop reservoir land management plans for its reservoir properties with substantial public input and with approval of the TVA Board of Directors.” We and others have provided “substantial” public input but no thanks to your public notice procedures. We discussed the ‘public notice efforts with your staff at the 27 August meeting pointing out that more than half of the public at that meeting received no notice whatsoever from TVA but rather from word of mouth from the few who did. If TVA is going to have public meetings, your staff needs to get the word out to the PUBLIC. A review and expansion of your notice procedure is sorely needed.

And also that…“TVA shall consider disposing of reservoir lands or land rights for industrial purposes or other businesses if the TVA property is located in an existing industrial park, (this is not the case here) or is designated for such purposes in a current resource land management plan verified suitable for such use by RSO&E and ED staff in a property survey” (such designation in the current review does not pass the litmus test of scrutiny).

In summary, The TCHA and many other citizens of Towns and Clay Counties have all made their strong opposition to this unsupported proposal known. We all suggest that TVA be a good steward of the land as your own procedures suggest and retain Parcel 10 in the Zone 4 classification.

Re Parcel 13

The Chatuge Woods Campground has been a source of concern to the TCHA since 2005. The study which was forwarded to you on 27 August which was conducted for us by 2 members, one of whom is both a practicing engineer and a former Georgia County Commissioner and the other an oil company engineer and geologist was previously forwarded to both the TVA and the Towns County Commissioner’s office in 2005. TVA took no action and the County did little. The concerns still exist and the TVA should take action to bring the condition and performance of the Campground into compliance with your lease. (See comments on Parcel 77).

Re Parcel 52

The Board and members of the Towns County Homeowners Association strongly urge TVA to reject the proposal to sell part of Parcel 52 on Lake Chatuge to the Blue Ridge Mountain EMC for the purpose of building a power substation on TVA lakefront property adjacent to Hwy 76 in Towns County, Georgia.

The TVA’s land use policy, as featured on the TVA website, offers some of the best reasons to vote against this proposal:

“As stewards of this critically important resource, TVA has a responsibility to manage its lands wisely for present and future generations.”

The construction of a power substation on this non-renewable lakefront site would forever change the land and is neither a wise choice for the present nor for the future. The EMC acknowledges several other potential sites for the power station that are off the lake and would not, therefore, have an impact on this beautiful resource.
Parcel 52 sits almost entirely below the 1933 flood line where TVA guidelines prohibit the construction of permanent structures. This power substation is a very unattractive, large permanent structure which, absent filling, when completed would be below the 1933 line.
It is our understanding that filling to raise the land level above the 1933 line is also against TVA policy. This project would thus violate TVA’s own rules and policy and as such, is neither responsible nor wise. TVA routinely enforces this policy with private property owners and, as a matter of equity, a commercial enterprise should be treated no differently.

“TVA shall continue to develop reservoir land management plans for its reservoir properties with substantial public input and with approval of the TVA Board of Directors. The land use allocations will be determined with consideration of the social, economic and environmental conditions around the region.”

This issue has not had public input from this community. In fact, Towns County Commissioner Bill Kendall has requested the TVA hold a public hearing on this issue. This should be conducted as a hearing and not in the open house format. Concerned citizens should be allowed both verbal and written inputs for the record.
The construction of a power substation on this lakefront property will have a negative and lasting impact on the:

Social conditions – Lake Chatuge is the heart of this area and as such, it attracts residents and tourists to its shores; the GA Mountain Fair, 4th of July fireworks and boat parade, in addition to countless family gatherings are paramount to the area’s heritage and charm. A lakefront power substation would have a negative impact on the social conditions of the lake and region.
Economic conditions – Lake Chatuge and its surrounding mountains are the catalyst for tourism, residential growth and resulting business development enhancing the Towns County tax base as well as making the area more attractive as a fulltime relocation destination. A lakefront power substation would have a negative impact on the economic conditions of the lake and region.
Local conditions – Placing the structure on the 2 acres immediately adjacent to the Palmer store and trailer park will adversely impact the store and likely put the trailer park out of business. The further proposal to turn the rest of the property into a park makes no sense because children and games and partying do not mix with a large electrical facility. A lakefront power substation will destroy or severely impact the existing businesses all of whom oppose this proposal.

“TVA shall consider disposing of reservoir lands or land rights for industrial purposes or other businesses if the TVA property is located in an existing industrial park, or is designated for such purposes in a current resource land management plan verified suitable for such use by RSO&E and ED staff in a property survey.”

Parcel 52 is not in an industrial area. In fact, according to the Mountain Reservoirs Land Management Plan Recommended Pre-Allocation – Recreation Parcels, Parcel 52 is designated “open space providing visual benefits in a commercial area.” On the Chatuge Reservoir Land Management Plan Map, Parcel 52 is designated “open space suitable for future developed recreation” and it is colored red - Zone 6 - “Developed Recreation.”
Parcel 52 is adjacent to a site now being used as a campsite and marina for approximately 40 homes and 30 boat slips. This tract of land is directly across the lake from Beech Cove Vista, Lake Chatuge Heights and Sunny Side Shores, residential neighborhoods in existence since the early 1970s. In addition, this tract of lakefront land sits directly below and within the view of many residences built on the mountainside. All of these residents built or purchased their homes at a premium because of the lakefront or lake view; not for a power substation view. Parcel 52 is also directly on Highway 76, a main route used by residents as well as visitors to Towns County, Hiawassee, Helen, Lake Burton, Clayton and other north Georgia destinations. Construction of a power substation on this land will have a dramatic and negative impact on countless property values in the region.

“The TVA Board recognizes that property with water access, for either navigation or water supply, is a limited resource in the Valley and has preference for businesses that require water access.”

Property with water access is limited and valuable. Joe Satterfield, EVP of the Blue Ridge Mountain EMC has stated that the power station does not need water access. We understand and support the need for additional power sources for the BRMEMC to accommodate growth. However, we believe that using lakefront property, designated by TVA as “recreational”, for a power substation is an inappropriate use of such limited and valuable land.

We strongly, repeat strongly, encourage the TVA to eliminate the lakefront site on Highway 76, known as Parcel 52, from consideration for this project and to retain the Recreational Use classification for it. TCHA has pledged to work with the BRMEMC to identify alternative sites. To date several have been located. However, BRMEMC has been reluctant to vigorously pursue these options, preferring to hope that TVA will grant their request and citing the potential increased cost thereof. But the lowest cost for BRMEMC is not always the best value for either Towns County or BRMEMC. For years people in this county and, indeed the County itself, have always chosen the lowest cost approach. Decades ago the Federal Government recognized that lowest cost was not always the right answer and developed the ‘Best Value’ approach to buying product. This lesson should be applied here and county issues taken into consideration.

BRMEMC worries about moving further south on US 76 costing an additional $800k per mile. But while they await the largess of TVA they have not done the trade studies that will show there to be gains as well as costs from such a move. For if it costs $800k per mile for the added high power transmission lines it also costs less for the service lines because the substation would be closer to its customers. The net cost will not be zero, but it will certainly be less than the advertised $800k.

Looking at it a different way, and using BRMEMC’s numbers, $800k divided by 46,000 meters divided by 360 months (30 year amortization) equates to 4.8 cents per month plus interest. The customers will never notice the difference especially while swallowing TVA’s recent 20% rate increase, and the County will be better served by a less prominent location.

Further, we have and continue to encourage the TVA to respond positively to the Towns County Commissioner’s desire that this property be leased to the county for development of a much needed and long sought after soccer field for the county children. This use can be undertaken within the ‘Developed Recreation’ category and can be put in place without altering the shoreline or its attendant vegetation. It is also compatible with the fact that the property is below the 1933 line which the substation is not. Alternative requests for this parcel have been submitted by both the City of Hiawassee and Towns County. The City’s request is for a park and boat ramp. The parcel is outside then present city limits and would have to be annexed . In the event the County’s request is not determined to be a suitable alternative, we suggest retaining and confirming the status quo.

NB. We have recent information that TVA management is looking for a way to avoid the public hearing they promised several of our members, Commissioner Kendall and Senator Isakson they would hold in the event they decide to press ahead with further consideration of the BRMEMC proposal. This represents an unconsciable breach of trust with the citizens of Towns County and the tax and rate payers who support TVA. This mistake must not be allowed to happen.

Re Parcel 77

The Towns County Homeowners Association endorses the request of the County that Parcel 77 be leased to it with the Developed Recreation designation but we do so with significant reservations and some pre conditions. If these are not in substance met, we do not support any change in the present classification.

Towns County has been looking for a place to develop a youth sports facility for years. The County needs one for its growing youth population but has been unable to locate suitable property. Further, with the prices of land in Towns County at an all-time high, purchasing sufficient land to establish such a facility is not within the budgetary reach of the county government. If such land were to be bought on the open market, it would place a large burden on the county taxpayers. The possibility of leasing the TVA Parcel 77 presents an unique opportunity for the County and its citizens.

On the other hand, there are many in the county who argue forcefully that this property should be left in its present category with expanded use discouraged. Some of these are our members which presents our Board with a dilemma.

Towns County has a mixed record in their operation of public facilities. On the one hand, the new county beach has been well put together and is well run. On the other hand, the Chatuge Woods Campground has never been run well and is literally not open to the public because of ‘squatters’ who permanently take up the spaces. The TCHA in 2005 called attention to the many discrepancies in the operation of the Campground both to TVA and to the County. The response to this call on the part of the TVA was minimal and that of the County not much more. This raises questions as to whether the County can or will learn from its mistakes and, first, remedy them, and then apply the lessons learned to a new growth project.

Therefore, the TCHA proposes to both TVA and Towns County a three step process whereby the county will earn the right to its requested lease and the citizens will be assured of their opportunity to review the county proposals with their ability to critique and assist in the creation of a mutually agreeable project with costs that we all can afford.

First, before considering leasing additional property to the county for another park, TVA and the County must get together and remedy the CWCG (Parcel 13) situation. A review prepared in 2005 by TCHA members with engineering and environmental backgrounds together with a remedial action plan was presented to TVA again in our 27 August response to this comment period. These reports can be used as a starting point. TCHA stands ready to assist both parties in planning, developing and executing this effort. Removing the stigma of the CWCG will go a long way towards removing the concerns that Towns County cannot properly manage its public facilities.

Once the Chatuge Woods situation is restored but before any lease to the County is consummated or change to the Parcel 77 designation finalized, the County should be required to draw up a detailed design for the planned use of the property and vet that design with a public hearing in a manner similar to that used by TVA. This plan should include a 100-foot buffer composed of the existing natural vegetation on ALL sides of the property, a layout which identifies all the facilities, ball fields etc. planned for the parcel, parking requirements and traffic patterns, lighting requirements and use rules, operating procedures including open/close times, night use limitations and security plans including a monitored electronic security system and in place county ordinances providing penalties for the violation of the use/prohibited use rules with the management structure and personnel identified. It must also include an Environmental Impact Study and significant involvement of the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition to insure that any development of the parcel will adequately protect the water quality in the lake.

Thirdly, the TVA must require that the county present them and the citizens of the county with a development schedule and funding plan including identified sources of such funding.

Finally, after vetting these plans with the public and considering and incorporating their responses, if TVA and the County can conclude an agreement which generally satisfies the public, the County’s request should be granted. If these or a set of similar conditions cannot be met, the request should be denied and Parcel 77 left in the present classification.

These activities should be required to be completed within not less than 12 or more than 18 months.

The above requirements for the TCHA endorsement are perhaps unusual and certainly strict. However the opinion of our membership on this proposal is clearly mixed although slightly in favor of the County’s request. The Board feels that it is time the citizens of the County put some real thought behind developments in the County in order to balance the preservation of the beauty and culture of the area with public needs. We cannot continue to blandly endorse every requested development without consideration of its impact and its positive and/or negative attributes. Needs can be met but they must be met with forethought, common sense and consideration for the impacted citizens and areas. It is for these same reasons that we are also opposed to the substation sale on Parcel 52.

The TCHA is greatly concerned about the well being of our lake and the continued under managed development of our county. The Board and our members have put much serious consideration and effort into the responses contained above. We hope that TVA will not take them lightly and pay close attention to them.

THE BOARD AND OFFICERS OF THE TOWNS COUNTY HOMEOWNERS ASSO.

Charley Kraus , President
Wesley Lerdon, Vice President
Joan Cruthers, Secretary
Jack Miller, Treasurer
Mike Brock, Director
Bob Crawford, Director
Lindey Fitzpatrick, Director
Bob Keys, Director

And Our Membership

September 17, 2008 - Parcel 77 Rewrite

2008-09-17T10:29:00.000-07:00

Re Parcel 77

The Towns County Homeowners Association endorses the request of the County that Parcel 77 be leased to it with the Developed Recreation designation but we do so with significant reservations and some pre conditions. If these are not in substance met, we do not support any change in the present classification.

Towns County has been looking for a place to develop a youth sports facility for years. The County needs one for its growing youth population but has been unable to locate suitable property. Further, with the prices of land in Towns County at an all-time high, purchasing sufficient land to establish such a facility is not within the budgetary reach of the county government. If such land were to be bought on the open market, it would place a large burden on the county taxpayers. The possibility of leasing the TVA Parcel 77 presents an unique opportunity for the County and its citizens.

On the other hand, there are many in the county who argue forcefully that this property should be left in its present category with expanded use discouraged. Some of these are our members which presents our Board with a dilemma.

Towns County has a mixed record in their operation of public facilities. On the one hand, the new county beach has been well put together and is well run. On the other hand, the Chatuge Woods Campground has never been run well and is literally not open to the public because of ‘squatters’ who permanently take up the spaces. The TCHA in 2005 called attention to the many discrepancies in the operation of the Campground both to TVA and to the County. The response to this call on the part of the TVA was minimal and that of the County not much more. This raises questions as to whether the County can or will learn from its mistakes and, first, remedy them, and then apply the lessons learned to a new growth project.

Therefore, the TCHA proposes to both TVA and Towns County a three step process whereby the county will earn the right to its requested lease and the citizens will be assured of their opportunity to review the county proposals with their ability to critique and assist in the creation of a mutually agreeable project with costs that we all can afford.

First, before considering leasing additional property to the county for another park, TVA and the County must get together and remedy the CWCG (Parcel 13) situation. A review prepared in 2005 by TCHA members with engineering and environmental backgrounds together with a remedial action plan was presented to TVA again in our 27 August response to this comment period. These reports can be used as a starting point. TCHA stands ready to assist both parties in planning, developing and executing this effort. Removing the stigma of the CWCG will go a long way towards removing the concerns that Towns County cannot properly manage its public facilities.

Once the Chatuge Woods situation is restored but before any lease to the County is consummated or change to the Parcel 77 designation finalized, the County should be required to draw up a detailed design for the planned use of the property and vet that design with a public hearing in a manner similar to that used by TVA. This plan should include a 100-foot buffer composed of the existing natural vegetation on ALL sides of the property, a layout which identifies all the facilities, ball fields etc. planned for the parcel, parking requirements and traffic patterns, lighting requirements and use rules, operating procedures including open/close times, night use limitations and security plans including a monitored electronic security system and in place county ordinances providing penalties for the violation of the use/prohibited use rules with the management structure and personnel identified. It must also include an Environmental Impact Study and significant involvement of the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition to insure that any development of the parcel will adequately protect the water quality in the lake.

Thirdly, the TVA must require that the county present them and the citizens of the county with a development schedule and funding plan including identified sources of such funding.

Finally, after vetting these plans with the public and considering and incorporating their responses, if TVA and the County can conclude an agreement which generally satisfies the public, the County’s request should be granted. If these or a set of similar conditions cannot be met, the request should be denied and Parcel 77 left in the present classification.

These activities should be required to be completed within not less than 12 or more than 18 months.

The above requirements for the TCHA endorsement are perhaps unusual and certainly strict. However the opinion of our membership on this proposal is clearly mixed although slightly in favor of the County’s request. The Board feels that it is time the citizens of the County put some real thought behind developments in the County in order to balance the preservation of the beauty and culture of the area with public needs. We cannot continue to blandly endorse every requested development without consideration of its impact and its positive and/or negative attributes. Needs can be met but they must be met with forethought, common sense and consideration for the impacted citizens and areas. It is for these same reasons that we are also opposed to the substation sale on Parcel 52.

May 31, 2008 - Draft Letter to TVA

2008-05-31T10:14:00.000-07:00

31 May 2008

Mr. Dan Fisher
TVA Chickamauga-Hiwassee Watershed Team
1101 Market Street PSC 1E
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

Via email: dcfisher@TVA.gov

Subject: Comments in response to the TVA notification about BRMEMC application for 2 Acre tract.

The Towns County Homeowners Association (TCHA) is a countywide group of homeowners in Towns County dedicated preservation and improvement of our county and its natural resources. Lake Chatuge and its shoreline is one of the most scenic and valuable of those resources and, as such, we are uniquely sensitive to changes in its environment and use. In dealing with the TVA’s on going Land Management study, we have already commented on the lack of watercraft management and policing with a letter submitted to the TVA Murphy office (copy enclosed) and we are preparing a detailed response to be submitted during this summer’s open comment period. This comment, although also pertinent to the general study is forwarded in response to your notice of May 15, 2008, Subject: TVA notification about BRMEMC application for 2 Acre tract.

Background Information

Before setting forth our position, TVA should be aware that the TCHA is currently and has been for some time working closely with the Blue Ridge Mountain EMC (BRMEMC) on the subject of the location of the proposed substation. We have met with Joe Satterfield and his staff, with Town County Commissioner Bill Kendall and with many other private citizens of the county who have express interest and concern with the proposed location on parcel 52. We are continuing to work with all concerned to achieve a result that all can live with.

While TCHA understands that a new substation serving the southeast part of Towns County is absolutely necessary and that decisions need to be made in a timely manner, we are unconvinced that rushing into the solution currently on the table without a thorough investigation of potential alternatives is the best thing for the County, the Cooperative or the TVA. We take note of the fact that, because much of the early work on the proposal has been done off line and quietly, it is only recently that the general citizenry have become aware of the proposed citing and its impact. That suggests that we need to slow down and make sure that all potential resolutions are fully explored and all citizen concerns are fully addressed. We encourage TVA to relax and let these efforts proceed to a conclusion and their results be transmitted to you prior to moving further ahead with the decision process.

The TCHA Positions

The TCHA strongly opposes the location of an electrical substation on Parcel 52 for the following reasons:

The proposed site is below the 1933 line and very close to highway 76. Although we recognize that filling can elevate the location, fill dirt is never as stable as undisturbed soil and substation equipment is very heavy. Further, substations, being of their nature aesthetically degrading and potentially dangerous, should be located away from area of heavy use either by traffic or personnel.
The proposed site is immediately adjacent to the Palmer property including a store and trailer village and across the road from several businesses all of whom have been in their present locations for a long time. These businesses will be adversely impacted by the suggested location and their owners are expressing their concern.
Parcel 52 is an undeveloped but prime lake front property. It has no business being used for a heavy commercial application when it is more suited for recreational purposes or residential development focused on the lake.
BRMEMC in the few public discussions they have had, have never highlighted the fact of the requirement for the high voltage power lines which are required to service the substation. These lines are presently planned to come through downtown Hiawassee on large power poles which will add nothing to the ambience of the town nor will they be easily located on the existing paths. TCHA recognizes that any location may require this approach but moving the substation further south would allow the option of running the distribution lines down SR 288. In no condition, would the TCHA support the running of the power lines across the lake and we think that BRMEMC agrees with this.
To date, BRMEMC has embraced our proposal for the exploration of alternatives and has agreed that, if an alternative site can be found and obtained, to consider such positively even to the extent of incurring additional cost, if not unreasonable. While this effort is underway it will take time. BRMEMC emphasizes the need to move ahead but the issue is important enough to the future of the county to require whatever time it takes to do it right. As of this writing, we have identified several potential parcels further to the south and we are, with the help of Commissioner Kendall, exploring their utility and availability.
We are further opposed to the proposed deal whereby BRMEMC would develop the remainder of parcel 52 into a park for the City of Hiawassee (see below). As a consumer financed public utility, BRMEMC has no business spending utility funds on improvements to public property. In addition, the locating of a park where children and adults will play and relax next to a large electrical power substation invites unnecessary potential safety issues.

The TCHA also opposes the leasing of this parcel or any part thereof to the City of Hiawassee for a public park and boat ramp for the following reasons:

The property is not within the city limits.
The City already has a piece of property on the lake about one half mile north of this parcel which they have attempted to develop with poor results and which is largely unused.
If the City has money for a park, then they should first consider spending it to upgrade the park on the City Square before starting another project and leaving two others unfinished.
The TCHA is strongly opposed to any new boat ramps or extension of existing ones until effective policing and watercraft use management is established on Lake Chatuge. This subject will be fully addressed in our formal response to the Land management Study later this summer and has already been brought to the attention of the Authority in the letter mentioned in the first paragraph above.

As an appropriate use for this property the TCHA endorses and encourages the TVA to lease this parcel to Towns County for use as an unlighted soccer field for the youth of the county.

Today, the county youth soccer teams must share temporary fields with other youth sports, i.e. baseball and softball. There is no dedicated youth soccer field and those that are available are fully used by the high school and the college.
The county has been searching for apiece of property for this use for several years without success.
This property is uniquely suited to the soccer field use and the request has the endorsement of Commissioner Kendall.
The objection to late night play will be handled by leaving the field unlighted.
The property can be made soccer ready with minimum grading and fencing plus the installation of suitable parking for which there is ample room.

In summary, TCHA advances a recommended use for this property which is the most appropriate. We are also working hard to help the BRMEMC find a location which they can live with and which will further the desire of the County to preserve and maintain the mountain charm of our community. We enlist the support of the TVA in achieving this goal.

Sincerely,

Michael Brock
Member, TCHA Board
Chairman, Substation Issue Committee

Encl.

Ccs:

Mr. Joe Satterfield,
BRMEMC
Mr. Bill Kendall
Commissioner, Towns County
Ms. Barbara Mathis
Mayor, City of Hiawassee