Public Comment Form - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Page 5 of 9 Daniel & Carole Mark P.O. Box 396 Newcastle, WY 82701 approved to recover

Public Comment Form TECKLA-OSAGE-RAPID CITY TRANSMISSION LINE

Final EIS Comments

Page 2 of 9 Daniel & Carole Mark P.O. Box 396 Newcastle, WY 82701

1.1.1.1. Unsubstantiated Representations of BHP Reliability Claims:Unsubstantiated Representations of BHP Reliability Claims:Unsubstantiated Representations of BHP Reliability Claims:Unsubstantiated Representations of BHP Reliability Claims:

Executive summary (p. ES-1) and Chapter 1.4: Purpose and Need for Action (p. 1-11 & 1-12: “The USFS and BLM have identified a need to authorize BHP for construction, installation and operation of a 230kV transmission line to:

• Strengthen the regional transmission network

• Improve the reliability of the transmission system..”

These qualitative representations, on behalf of BHP declared claims, occur repeatedly by the USFS in the Subject EIS and are unsubstantiated in both the DEIS and FEIS. We provided explicit comments and recommendations on these elements in the DEIS and asked for substantiating quantitativquantitativquantitativquantitativeeee summary information to be provided; none of this was addressed in the FEIS and it has not been included by the USFS.

The Appendix A, Table A-2, S-7 response states “Transmission studies have consistently demonstrated that the Teckla-Osage-Lange 230kV line is the best long-term option to meeting reliability criteria”. If there are studies so readily available, then the USFS was remiss in not citing them specifically by date, author and document number, as requested, and was remiss in not including the requested summary of these studies findings specifically addressing the quoted “reliability criteria”. We are familiar with the N-1,-1 (loss of any two transmission elements) criteria and perform reliability assessments of complex space power systems (launch vehicles, satellites, manned space vehicles, aircraft, etc) professionally and are stunned that no summary of the current system or the proposed project is provided, especially since the USFS cites these qualitative statements as the fundamental basis for the project and EIS expenditure of public funds. The USFS is supposed to respond to public requests for information and not just stonewall our inquiries with qualitative statements.

Further, the Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC) questioned the BHP representatives at the recent public hearing (12/15/2014) about what the compelling need basis and urgency for the T-O-RC subject project were. The supporting WY PSC technical staff is fully familiar with the NERC TPL reliability criteria and they advise the WY PSC Commissioners prior to these hearings, yet the WY PSC unconditionally and unanimously denied the CPCN certification.

RecommendationRecommendationRecommendationRecommendation 1 1 1 1----1111:::: Since there is no substantiation of the principal reliability objectives claims that the USFS quotes as a fundamental needs basis for this project and which serves as the basis for funding this extensive EIS study, all mention of improved transmission system reliability should be struck from the EIS or BHP needs to provide substantiating reliability data for the interconnect nodes and overall network segments of the proposed project to include in the EIS for public consideration to determine if a public need truly exists.


Final EIS Comments


2.2.2.2. WY Public Service Commission (PSC) Denial of BHP Corp. TWY Public Service Commission (PSC) Denial of BHP Corp. TWY Public Service Commission (PSC) Denial of BHP Corp. TWY Public Service Commission (PSC) Denial of BHP Corp. T----OOOO----RC CPCNRC CPCNRC CPCNRC CPCN::::

The following constitutes “new information arising after designated comment opportunities”:

The WY PSC public hearing (Docket #20002-95-EA-14; Record#13933) was held on 12/15/2014 in Cheyenne, WY (minutes located at: http://psc.state.wy.us/pscdocs/minutes.html). The BHP Corp. applied for a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience (CPCN) for the Subject project across Wyoming lands (full docket accessible at: https://dms.wyo.gov/external/publicusers.aspx ; click Submit, then enter Record# 13933).

The EIS Executive Summary (p. ES-1) and Chapter 1.4: Purpose and Need for Action (p. 1-11 & 1-12) state: “The USFS and BLM have identified a need to authorize BHP for construction, installation and operation of a 230kV transmission line to:

• Strengthen the regional transmission network

• Improve the reliability of the transmission system..”

The residents of the States in the proposed project corridor are the actual users of the power from this proposed project and the necessity/approval to satisfy their needs is determined by their State Public Service/Utility Commissions. Since the Federal government entities making this decision have not requested for direct power usage feeds from the Proposed T-O-RC project, there is no direct benefit to the operations of the USFS or BLM within the project corridor and the determination of project need rests solely with the States of Wyoming and South Dakota.

The USFS statement of need has been, in fact and deed, neutralized by the WY PSC, who expressed serious concern about the lack of landowner dialogue and progress/closure to engage in land use agreements and further questioned BHP representatives about the necessity for the project and what the project urgency was. The answers were not satisfactory, were vague and there was ample basis within that very hearing, without usual post-facto caucus or deliberation, for the WY PSC Commissioners to immediately and unanimously deny BHP Corp. their application for a CPCN.

This WY State decision challenges and negates the USFS omnibus statement of need claims made in the USFS FEIS.

RecommendationRecommendationRecommendationRecommendation 2 2 2 2----1111:::: For the reasons cited in Sections 1 and 2 above, the USFS and BLM Responsible Officials should place the Subject Project into


Final EIS Comments


AlternAlternAlternAlternative 1: No Action Statusative 1: No Action Statusative 1: No Action Statusative 1: No Action Status since the Purpose of and Need for Action Purpose of and Need for Action Purpose of and Need for Action Purpose of and Need for Action has NOTNOTNOTNOT been established.

The expenditure of further Federal taxpayer funds is unfounded until a firm public necessity is established by the jurisdictional State entities across the entire proposed project area. The DEIS up to this point was performed provisionally under an assumption that omnibus Public Need existed and would be approved as a pro forma action by the States along the proposed project corridor. This has not occurred and explicitly was disapproved in Wyoming.

Since, the USFS and BLM do not have regulatory authority to establish or regulate internal State residents’ needs or usage (as aggregated via their State Public Utilities), an approval of the EIS at this time is an over-reach into State-regulated and determined necessity or lack thereof. As part of the public record, the State of Wyoming has explicitly NOT recognized a Public Necessity for the Subject Project and explicitly has DENIED (12/15/2014) BHP a CPCN without condition.

Placing the Subject Project into the Alternative 1: No Action StatusAlternative 1: No Action StatusAlternative 1: No Action StatusAlternative 1: No Action Status does not negate the work performed to date and does not deny BHP the opportunity to follow the affected States’ laws to determine and prove public necessity nor does it preclude a future NEPA EIS evaluation/update based on legally established and proven public necessity criterion emanating from the States affected.

3.3.3.3. USUSUSUSFS Representation of FS Representation of FS Representation of FS Representation of BHP BHP BHP BHP EnergyEnergyEnergyEnergy Rate Impact is Unsubstantiated Rate Impact is Unsubstantiated Rate Impact is Unsubstantiated Rate Impact is Unsubstantiated::::

Section 3.15.2.2.1.5 (p. 3-424) states “The Proposed Action’s lifecycle costs would have negligible direct effects on BHP customers” and Table 2-3 (p. 2-19) Key Issues “Private Property including Property Values and Electricity Rates” states that Alternative 2 (and 3) Proposed Actions “Electric rates would not be affected”. Section 3.15.2.2 (p. 3-422) last sentence “..construction activities would be expected to cost approximately $62 million”.

It is specious and naïve to conclude, within the Black Hills zone BHP customer base of 70,000 people (conservatively, 35,000 separate billings), that BHP construction costs of $62 million (construction is a subset of lifecycle costs) would have “negligible direct effects” and “rates would not be affected”. Even the most basic calculation of base cost, amortized over a 10 year period (even ignoring financing & sustainment costs) would increase a minimum of ~$178 per household per year for each of 10 years.

Further, no affidavits from the South Dakota PUC or Wyoming PSC are provided, or cited, in the EIS showing that BHP has formally agreed NOT to increase rates within the service area due to construction or operation costs (all part of lifecycle costs) of the Subject project. Additionally, the recent 2013 BHP Annual report (http://www.blackhillscorp.com/sites/default/files/2013-bkh-annual-report.pdf, page 3) contains and delights in multiple statements that rate increases from a plethora (WY, SD, CO, etc) of its operating areas’ public utility commissions were


Final EIS Comments


approved to recover project construction and construction-financing costs. This exhibits that energy rate increases for project cost recovery are a regular annualized practice of BHP, contrary to the cited claims by the USFS in the EIS.

The USFS should remain independent and not represent/echo BHP financial projections and forward-looking comments. These statements present a conflict of interest for BHP especially designed to foster USFS, BLM and State Utility Commissions’ endorsement during the approval phases of the Subject project. This conflict is particularly disturbing since BHP and the BHNF jointly solicited and jointly down-selected and approved ENValue and POWER Engineering as third-party contractors to perform the study analyses and to prepare the EIS with the costs of these subcontractors explicitly reimbursed back to the BHNF by BHP. This situation conflicts the independence of the analyses from BHP corporate concerns and encourages the subcontractors and the BHNF to favor BHP’s position/preference on issues and is more than a simple no-exchange of funds “collaboration” on a study.

It is irresponsible for the USFS to conclude that there will be no or minimal impact to rates due to lifecycle costs and the diligence by the EIS research team is lacking. All of the data to demonstrate the BHP practice and likelihood of energy rate increases is easily available via public internet sources (as evidenced by our 30 minute search and analysis presented), to cross-check the information and claims provided from BHP to the USFS EIS team.

It is careless to misrepresent to the public such unsupported statements with inaccurate, yet far-reaching, significant, energy rate conclusions under the dress of the Federal Government’s EIS and NEPA process.

RecommendationRecommendationRecommendationRecommendation 3333----1111:::: Remove cited incorrect and misleading rate and cost impact statements and re-analyze the Socio-economic impacts and costs. Use truly independent data (not strictly BHP provided data), independent contractors and current relevant and historical sources (for other BHP projects such as the new Cheyenne Prairie Generating Station) to provide an accurate and proper treatment of potential energy rate and the cost recovery impacts to rates for the Subject Project. Coordinate with SD PUC and WY PSC staff to solicit a written estimate or statement of likelihood of future energy rate impacts due solely to the Subject Project.

4.4.4.4. BHP unresponsive to Submit AlternBHP unresponsive to Submit AlternBHP unresponsive to Submit AlternBHP unresponsive to Submit Alternate Route Adjustment to USFS for ate Route Adjustment to USFS for ate Route Adjustment to USFS for ate Route Adjustment to USFS for Consideration in EISConsideration in EISConsideration in EISConsideration in EIS::::

We recommended, to BHP during the DEIS period, a re-alignment path that actually has less surface and vegetative disruption than the BHP proposed action path (which has 10-20 years of re-growth canopy in our area of impact).

After the 2012 Oil Creek 62,000+ acre powerline-induced fire (reference Oil Creek Fire root cause report: “Phil Geenen, Wildlands Fire Investigation, origin and cause, July 3, 2012, State Fire # WY-CPS-012137” ), we set up a recorded


Final EIS Comments


Forestry Plan and worked with the WY State foresters and the Weston County Fire District to collaborate on their WY-SD state line fire-break initiative and regional fire mitigation actions. As an FFT-2 firefighter, we are personally motivated towards, undertook and implemented (with our own resources) a 300’ wide x ¾ mile cleared regional use fire-break. This fire-break corridor, parallel to the proposed action is our recommended re-alignment zone for the T-O-RC powerline, also termed “LRO3”.

LRO3 is more concealed, visually, to ours and all adjacent homesites, passes no closer than the proposed BHP alignment to any structure, uses an existing cleared fire-safe corridor, disrupts minimal existing surface and vegetative canopy, crosses more level terrain (easier construction and tower pitch), crosses roads/streams/features the same number of times, aligns with existing maintenance trails all the way across our lands and up the mountain on WY State Trust land and has unfettered direct county road access for maintenance (especially a winter consideration).

Additionally, the cultural resources of the Cheyenne-Deadwood stage coach route and the Beaver Creek Loop Tour cross the proposed action area on our property directly at the proposed power line crossing. LRO3 significantly conceals visual disturbance of these cultural resources to public visitors traversing Beaver Creek Road. These cultural resources were explicitly identified in our DEIS comments and received no acknowledgement or treatment in the EIS.

Our proposed minor route adjustment (LRO3) has not been given the requested engineering feasibility assessment, even at a schematic high-level. BHP has not provided its merit/demerit factors, tower count, tower/construct notional location/placement, all requested by us (6/25/14, 7/16/14, 9/30/14, 10/1/14, 11/18/14).

Apparently, no submittal of our proposed modification was made by BHP to the USFS to consider during the DEIS period and BHP refused to put forward our suggested Line Route Option (LRO3) to the USFS. During the same period, however, the USFS did consider and put forth, along with BHP, many other analogous re-alignments, of similar configuration based on similar criteria, during the DEIS phase (i.e. those resulting in Alternative 3).

RecommendationRecommendationRecommendationRecommendation 4444----1111:::: The USFS evaluate and conduct direct dialogue with us, affected landowners, and BHP regarding the included diagrams regarding our suggested re-alignment with the same vigor and treatment that those resulting in Alternative 3 received, since BHP did not, on their own volition, include them in the Alternative 3 dialogue with the USFS during the DEIS period.

RecommendationRecommendationRecommendationRecommendation 4444----2222:::: Explicitly cite and evaluate/discuss the impacts to known established cultural resources, the Cheyenne-Deadwood stage coach route and the Beaver Creek Loop Tour that cross the proposed action area. Recommend to BHP that minimizing public viewing disturbance of these resources is an objective satisfied by our proposed LRO3 alternative corridor adjustment.


Final EIS Comments


5.5.5.5. Remove Remove Remove Remove misleading misleading misleading misleading sssstatements rtatements rtatements rtatements regarding egarding egarding egarding “E“E“E“Existingxistingxistingxisting UUUUnused nused nused nused TTTTransmission ransmission ransmission ransmission LineLineLineLine ROW ROW ROW ROW””””::::

The Subject DEIS and EIS refers to “..existing cleared and currently unused transmission line ROW”. These were actually abandoned and vacated for their specified power use by BHP with explicit reversion of actual purpose 10 years ago and, further, are specific to a 50-60 foot width incompatible with the proposed 230kV use and are not “expandable” to the 125 foot easement required for the proposed 230 kV use.

Further, these zones are not “cleared” and have at least 10-20 years of vegetative canopy overgrowth. These zones are vegetatively similar and virtually indistinguishable from their adjacent growth. The implication that they are “cleared” implies that they are “ready to go”. They will require the same amount of clearing and environmental disturbance as will any 125’ wide zone to be compliant with the proposed project desired private land easement width.

The proposed easements on private lands for the proposed T-O-RC project are not secured and would be created anew, from a neutral land-condition, for a specific new use having a new width corridor, higher voltage hazard set-backs, modern limitations of liability clauses, proper environmental remediation & maintenance concepts and required per annum actions. There is no legal basis, for these specific prior-use easements, to be simply “expanded” or “widened”. BHP and the USFS is remiss in representing them to Federal, State and public entities as such. A strawman theoretical corridor exists, only compatible with an un-proposed use, where the prior powerline was de-constructed over 10 years ago.

The quoted “existing” easements include 1948 language that violate Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-801(c) where Subsection (c) ensures that a public entity may not take private property for the purpose of transferring the property to another private individual or entity, thus nullifying rights granted in 1948 within these instruments.

Further, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-801(d) is in force since BHP “fail[ed] to make substantial use of the property for a period of ten (10) years”. BHP has never provided any communication in the intervening 10 years “showing good cause for the delay in using the property”.

In addition, BHP did not perform remediation compliant with the “unused transmission ROW” on the adjacent “Stotts Cyn” State of WY (6th Prime Meridian T46, R60W leased by us for grazing) Section 16 when they removed the marketable metallic scrap wire 10 years ago. Man-made transmission-line wooden and metallic debris were cut and remain in the field on public and private lands. This is a clear impact to the environment and the health of the Wyoming State Lands adjoining the Black Hills Forest.

The USFS EIS states “The majority (74%) of new disturbance for the Proposed Action on BHNF lands would occur in locations with fire hazard rating of high to very high” and “Since 2006, approximately 55 wildland fire starts have been specifically attributed to powerlines on the Black Hills” clearly recognizing the


Final EIS Comments


volatile nature of the vast tracts of conifers and the interaction of powerlines with the forested areas, across both South Dakota and Wyoming. Additionally, the USFS EIS states “The Proposed Action would create new surface disturbance and tree clearing and could create a potential increase in surface fuels in the area and an increase fire ignition potential” and “It is expected that this additional powerline could result in an increased likelihood of powerline-caused fires and would have the potential to contribute to wildfires on a local scale”

The subject project corridor [Osage-to-State Line] has extremely rugged difficult-to-access terrain vulnerable to a massive wildfire (evidenced by the 62,000+ acre Oil Creek Fire) should ignition occur either during construction or operations. Since land property and timber are uninsurable due to wildfire by the private landowners, the BHP Proposed project would be increasing the cumulative risk burden onto those landowners, onto the public safety at-large and potential cost and firefighter life-risk burdens onto local Fire Protection Districts and State of Wyoming public taxpayers.

Additionally, the USFS states “Construction of a new power line will add to the existing values-at-risk, thus increasing the complexity and hazards fire managers need to take into account during future fire suppression activities.” This clearly induces financial and administrative burden upon local Fire Protection Districts and County/State governments and incorrectly presumes that risk can be mitigated during an actual fire suppression event, which presumes immediate containment during a wildfire.

In addition, the proposed T-O-RC project directly crosses the Oil Creek Fire zone in Weston Co, Wyoming and the very same affected private landowners are expected to accept yet another BHP high voltage risk being run across their lands prior to any maintenance risk mitigation measures being codified and prior to their having a court-decision whether or not they should be made whole from the 2012 incident.

Recommendation 5Recommendation 5Recommendation 5Recommendation 5----1:1:1:1: The The The The UUUUSFSSFSSFSSFS remove language from the remove language from the remove language from the remove language from the EEEEISISISIS implying that implying that implying that implying that prior usprior usprior usprior use easements e easements e easements e easements or ROWs or ROWs or ROWs or ROWs are directly applicable or modifiable for the are directly applicable or modifiable for the are directly applicable or modifiable for the are directly applicable or modifiable for the proposed corridor use.proposed corridor use.proposed corridor use.proposed corridor use. E E E Explicitly add language thatxplicitly add language thatxplicitly add language thatxplicitly add language that ““““A A A A strawman strawman strawman strawman theoretical theoretical theoretical theoretical corridor exists, corridor exists, corridor exists, corridor exists, not not not not compatible with compatible with compatible with compatible with the the the the proposed useproposed useproposed useproposed use, where the prior powerline , where the prior powerline , where the prior powerline , where the prior powerline was dewas dewas dewas de----constructed over 10 years agoconstructed over 10 years agoconstructed over 10 years agoconstructed over 10 years ago....””””

Recommendation 5Recommendation 5Recommendation 5Recommendation 5----2222:::: The The The The UUUUSFSSFSSFSSFS pppplace the project Status into Alternative 1: No lace the project Status into Alternative 1: No lace the project Status into Alternative 1: No lace the project Status into Alternative 1: No Action until BHP voluntarily complies with and performs remediation on Action until BHP voluntarily complies with and performs remediation on Action until BHP voluntarily complies with and performs remediation on Action until BHP voluntarily complies with and performs remediation on all all all all public public public public lanlanlanlands ds ds ds uuuusingsingsingsing ““““BMPsBMPsBMPsBMPs”””” to clean up debris left in the field over 10 years ago on the to clean up debris left in the field over 10 years ago on the to clean up debris left in the field over 10 years ago on the to clean up debris left in the field over 10 years ago on the sosososo----called called called called ““““existingexistingexistingexisting cleared and currently cleared and currently cleared and currently cleared and currently unused unused unused unused ttttransmissionransmissionransmissionransmission linelinelineline ROWROWROWROW””””. . . . If the If the If the If the USFS claims (Section 3.1.1.1) thatUSFS claims (Section 3.1.1.1) thatUSFS claims (Section 3.1.1.1) thatUSFS claims (Section 3.1.1.1) that ““““..BHP maintains the existing special use ..BHP maintains the existing special use ..BHP maintains the existing special use ..BHP maintains the existing special use permit areapermit areapermit areapermit area”””” on these prior ROWs, then the presence of debris on these corridors on these prior ROWs, then the presence of debris on these corridors on these prior ROWs, then the presence of debris on these corridors on these prior ROWs, then the presence of debris on these corridors is not compliant is not compliant is not compliant is not compliant with either the terms of these easements andwith either the terms of these easements andwith either the terms of these easements andwith either the terms of these easements and so so so so----called called called called ““““BMPsBMPsBMPsBMPs”””” and the USFS is negligent in approving any conditional or other use and the USFS is negligent in approving any conditional or other use and the USFS is negligent in approving any conditional or other use and the USFS is negligent in approving any conditional or other use fffforororor the the the the SSSSuuuubject bject bject bject Project to BHP until this ENVIRONMENTAL remediation is comProject to BHP until this ENVIRONMENTAL remediation is comProject to BHP until this ENVIRONMENTAL remediation is comProject to BHP until this ENVIRONMENTAL remediation is completed pleted pleted pleted and independently verified.and independently verified.and independently verified.and independently verified.

Pub

lic C

omm

ent

For

m

TE

CK

LA

-OSA

GE

-RA

PID

CIT

Y T

RA

NSM

ISSI

ON

LIN

E

Fin

al E

IS C

omm

ents

Page

9 o

f 9

D

anie

l & C

arol

e M

ark

P.O

. Box

396

New

cast

le, W

Y 8

2701

WY

WY

WY

WY

S SSSD DDD

Documents

Public Comment Form - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Page 5 of 9 Daniel & Carole Mark P.O. Box 396 Newcastle, WY 82701 approved to recover