Citizens demand information, protection, from wind utility

MONTEREY — Since Highland New Wind Development submitted plan documents June 11, several residents, landowners, and others have provided written letters to the county about what they see as deficiencies in information about the proposed industrial wind power plant.

Those living near the project site ask for proof the company took their homes into consideration when deciding where to put the 19 towers that will stand 400-feet above their properties.

Nearly all asked for visual simulations of the towers to determine how they might affect homes, business, and a historic Civil War battlefield.

Further, many said HNWD’s erosion and sediment control plans must be more specific in protecting Laurel Fork, a pristine mountain stream crossing the project site.

Landowner says county must be forceful

Thursday, July 2, McChesney Goodall, whose family owns property adjoining the project site, wrote a letter expressing dismay at the way he believes HNWD owners H.T. “Mac” McBride and his family are treating county officials and citizens. Goodall also had concerns about what he called HNWD’s “lack of effort” to comply with county and state requirements.

“After reviewing the site and (Erosion and Sediment Control) plans for the HNWD project, it appears to have been hastily and carelessly prepared,” he wrote. “Some of the errors in it are very suspicious, for they clearly enhance the siting requirements of all 19 turbines. Others simply demonstrate the lack of any real effort to comply with the requirements of the conditional use permit or SCC order.”

Goodall outlined his concerns (see related story), and concluded, “It is time for the board of supervisors and our local officials to stand up for the people of Highland County and hold McBride’s feet to the fire. He should be treated no differently than any other citizen seeking county approval for an industrial project and major zoning variance. If he cannot satisfactorily meet each and every one of the conditions specifically enumerated in the conditional use permit and those imposed by the (State Corporation Commission), this project should be squarely rejected. McBride needs to be told clearly and forcefully that anything short of these requirements is not acceptable. Perhaps then, he will take you more seriously instead of arrogantly and disdainfully acting like he and his minions control the outcome of this project.”

Residents worry about living under towers

The county received a July 5 letter from Pen and Leslie Goodall, whose home is just below one of the ridges proposed for turbines. The Goodalls are concerned about how the utility will affect their property value. They are having a real estate assessment conducted now, and intend to have another made from a visual simulation in order to calculate the loss in value.

They asked for data used by HNWD to determine how the turbine locations would impact their property “in order to be assured that the location is the least damaging to my property.”

Also, the letter states, “I am requesting an objective visual assessment of the turbines — how the sun and shadows of the turbines will affect my home.” They provide geographic coordinates and request simulations from that point.

They also ask for objective information that proves HNWD used the quietest turbines closest to their home, and want the Virginia Department of Forestry to review the E&S plans in relation to recent logging on Tamarack and Red Oak, “to assess that these plans are the most effective plans possible so that they have the least impact on Laurel Fork and Collins Run.”

Resident Tom Brody, who owns a home and an eco-tourism business adjoining the McBride property, wrote a letter July 6 saying he had not received any information about the visual impacts of the turbines, and how they might affect his property. He, too, provided coordinates for the buildings on his land and asked for visual simulations.

He said since the conditional use permit requires the site plan be designed to mitigate impacts to nearby landowners, “I would like to see the data that the developer collected to base its design decisions …” and would like to conduct a real estate assessment.

“The lighting on the turbines, especially white strobe lights, and the shadow flicker produced by the rotating blades are also of concern,” he said. “How has the lighting been designed to mitigation the impacts on my property? I would also like to the see the information the developer used to choose the type of turbines and whether the developer has considered using turbines that will produce the least amount of noise during operation.”

Civil War site in jeopardy?

Highland resident Dan Foster, a longtime proponent of protecting the Camp Allegheny battlefield, also wrote to the county.

Foster submitted a list of places he felt the county should request for visual simulations of the towers.

Last week, Tal McBride demonstrated computer simulations showing how the towers would appear from certain places. County officials agreed to give him a list of vantage points from which he could create simulations and submit photographs to accompany HNWD site plans, which is a condition of the company’s local permit.

Foster said there are important areas on Camp Allegheny, a Civil War battlefield listed on the National Register of Historic Places, that should be included in the county’s request.

He provided photographs of places on the battlefield with their geographical coordinates marked, in relation to the western end of Tamarack Ridge, where one set of turbines is proposed. Foster asked county officials to request HNWD generate simulations from those locations.

“I also ask that a building permit not be issued until Highland New Wind Development demonstrates objectively — with information such as meteorological data, financial analysis, visual demonstration and archaeological surveys in coordination with Roger Kirchen of Virginia’s Department of Historic Resources — why the site plan and turbine locations presented have the least visual impact on Camp Allegheny and battlefield.”

Foster provided a narrative explaining the significance of these areas on the battlefield where in December of 1861, Col. Edward Johnson posted soldiers on the mountain summit east of the encampment, sent out scouts, and set up battle lines to fight Union forces arriving at daybreak. A full battled began about 7:15 a.m., which included at least one company enlisted in Highland County. “The battle here lasted five hours before the Confederates, finally at 1:45 p.m., drove the Union forces out of the timber and pursued them a mile back off the mountain,” Foster explained. More than 200 men were killed that day.

Can Laurel Fork be protected?

Lucile Miller, who owns land downstream from the project site, enlisted the help of a professional expert to review HNWD’s erosion and sediment control plan, and stormwater management plan. Like the Goodall family, she has spent years protecting the Laurel Fork stream and its watershed on her property. Because the stream will be crossed by construction and transmission lines for the utility on McBride property, she says, preventing too much water and sediment from entering the water is paramount.

“The thing is that native trout don’t like sediment,” she told The Recorder this week. “They can’t reproduce. And the reason Laurel Fork is such a wonderful stream is that it’s so undeveloped.”

Sections of Laurel Fork on national forest property have been given the highest rating for pristine streams by the state of Virginia, and are protected from activities that would muddy the waters or allow further discharge into the fork.

“When you fool with the hydrology, which is the way water gets into a stream, you can really mess it up,” Miller said. “In a watershed, all water drains to one point, and if you cover it with cement, water pours in too fast. The streambed has to get bigger and it changes it. In a healthy watershed you have trees, forests, permeable surfaces, and the water is held underground so it goes slowly into the stream, and the shape of the stream stays constant.

“That’s why we’ve lost so many trout streams, (to) development that’s uncontrolled leaving too much water going in when it rains hard,” she explained. “The shape of a stream is really important. If big water flows come down, it can change the shape, and it changes the stream forever.”

Dr. Pamela Dodds, who has a Ph.D. in marine geology and worked in the area of hydrology and geology most of her career, including for a time at the Department of Environmental Quality, reviewed HNWD’s E&S plan at Miller’s request, and found it lacking. “She’s dealing with it at a level beyond my understanding,” Miller said, “but she’s pointed out all the things HNWD should have looked at in a good E&S plan, and she’s pointing out errors or missing information.”

Dodds compiled a 15-page report, submitted July 7 to the county.

“The inadequacies and inaccuracies of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Management Calculations by Blackwell Engineering (HNWD’s consultant) have resulted in misleading results provided in the stormwater management calculations,” she concluded.

The plans left out a lot of important information, Dodds said, including things like site geology of the bedrock, a major soil type on the site, sub-watersheds, a description of groundwater and any discussion of springs and seeps.

For instance, Dodds said, “There is no groundwater data provided for areas where transmission lines are designated beneath streams and wetlands. There is no discussion of the potential for the interception of groundwater caused by this construction activity.”

Furthermore, Dodds points out, Blackwell did not provide details about construction entrances and access roads, or provide their slopes.

Dodds explained that hydrology studies are important because bedrock under any area has certain characteristics for carrying water. “The orientation of the bedrock influences the direction of groundwater flow … It is important to understand that surface water, groundwater, precipitation, and evapo-transpiration are all part of the hydrologic cycle … When there are drought conditions, groundwater typically supplies water to streams. Groundwater and surface water are, therefore, a unified, integral system.”

She quoted from the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation: “The presence of bedrock close to the surface can have a significant impact on a development project. The cost of excavation increases considerably, especially if blasting is required … Blasting can open seams in the bedrock which may allow stormwater to drain out of (or under) the proposed facility.”

Dodds also noted Blackwell had proposed permanent “check dams” be installed — a measure she called “totally inadequate … Check dams are specifically not appropriate for placement in a stream.”

“I think she’s pretty clear,” Miller said. “I was so impressed with what she did, but I’m not confident the board of supervisors is going to read it … I agree with what she said. The site plan is so vague in places.”

Another letter addressed Laurel Fork — from John Ross, chair of the Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited, which represents some 4,000 state residents “who are committed to protecting the state’s coldwater resources, among them mountain headwaters such as Laurel Fork,” he said. “Laurel Fork is a pristine stream populated with wild brook trout, the state’s fish.”

Ross said after reviewing HWND’s plans, the group is concerned the access road is inadequate for moving turbine blades, and would introduce a heavy volume of sediment into the stream and its tributaries. Sedimentation could also be generated, he said, by the underground transmission line construction, and destroying natural vegetation, which would increase run-off in storms and create flooding that would destroy habitat for the aquatic insects the fish eat.

“Given the misrepresentations that characterize Highland Wind’s maps and statements, it would seem that a review and assessment of those materials by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

CAN and Department of Environmental Quality would protect the county from liability associated with making a decision based on erroneous information,” Ross wrote. “We urge the board and the county’s technical review committee to take this critically important step.”

Further, he said, “The attention of Virginians and those throughout the Appalachians who value our stunning mountain environment and heritage is focused on the processes and outcomes with which you address the requirements set forth by the State Corporation Commission. Highland County has the opportunity to become a national model for best practices in achieving the delicate balance between providing sources of alternative energy and protecting the natural environment.”

Engineers point to deficiencies

This week, Mattern & Craig, the firm hired by the county to review HNWD’s E&S plan, also submitted a list of concerns, and concluded it could not conduct any final review because there was not enough information provided by the developer.

Some of those questions and recommendations included:

• The amount of land to be disturbed is not adequately shown or described, and HNWD should provide a breakdown of how it determined only 40 acres would be disturbed.

• One of the access roads doesn’t follow the existing road — why?

• Plans should include detailed information about the location and operation of portable concrete plants. “It should also be noted that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be required for these operations,” the firm said.

• In general, engineers said, “brush barrier is not an acceptable substitution for silt fence. This is especially true at the wind turbine sites where land disturbance may exceed one acre and slopes are greater than 10 percent.”

• HNWD’s plans say diversion ditches and sediment traps are to be placed “where shown on plan,” but “reviewer could not find location of these devices.”

• Check dams are shown as far away from grading and land disturbing. “In some cases, check dams are over 1,500 feet away from limit of land disturbance. This is an uncoventional use of this measure and is unacceptable,” Mattern & Craig said.

• More information is needed about the underground transmission lines, and where they cross streams and wetlands, “clearly state on the plans that the installation is to be performed by directional drilling. Also refer to, or include on plans, the surveys of each wetland area denoting the crossing location relative to the stream and wetland area.”

• Mattern & Craig said the plan showing the substation site “is schematic at best,” and additional dimensions are needed. “The provided plan does not contain sufficient detail for reviewer to evaluate the potential for erosion and downstream/off-site sedimentation.” The same is true, the firm said, for the turbine sites.

• HNWD should explain the construction procedures for the access roads, and a limit should be placed on the (length) of road that may be disturbed at one time. “How is drainage along and across the road handled? Will there be shoulder ditches or will water sheet flow across the road?”

• The state Department of Conservation and Recreation requires a permit for any project disturbing more than one acre. “This permit must be applied for two weeks prior to any land disturbance on the property,” Mattern & Craig said. “A copy of the application, the check, and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted to the county.”

• Mattern & Craig asked for a detailed cost estimate for all erosion and sediment control measures “so a value can be set for the Security of Performance.”

Will concerns be addressed?

An approved E&S plan is a condition of HNWD’s state and local permits, as is providing computer simulations of the turbines.

According to the conditional use permit issued by the county, HNWD is also required to mitigate the impact of the towers on nearby landowners and the natural environment.

This week, supervisor Robin Sullenberger said the county will rely on legal counsel for guidance. “We don’t want to be leaving ourselves open to exposure, like if we do something incorrectly or can be held legally liable for some things. We’re not going to take those kinds of risks,” he said.

Sullenberger and supervisor David Blanchard both said the county will rely on state agencies for assistance to review some aspects of HNWD’s plans, and that they would read and digest information provided by citizens who have concerns or questions.

County attorney Melissa Dowd told supervisors she believes approval of the plans must be left to the Technical Review Committee, though supervisors can submit their own concerns to the committee for review.

TRC members Roberta Lambert and Jim Whitelaw have compiled a list of visual simulation sites they will ask HNWD to create.

The TRC is accepting written comments from anyone about the project plans. It meets again Monday, July 13, at 4 p.m., to continue its review.

By Anne Adams
Staff Writer

The Recorder

9 July 2009

Tags: Wind power, Wind energy

The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.

---

« Later Post • News Watch Home • Earlier Post »