Federal agencies, Conservancy concerned about wind plant impacts to wildlife, camp By Anne Adams • Staff Writer
RICHMOND - Formal respondents in Highland New Wind Development's case pending before the State Corporation Commission are adding to a long list of concerns expressed already by a variety of state agencies. Among those who have weighed in recently are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which expresses serious doubts about environmental reviews conducted thus far.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The service reviewed HNWD's application for a wind energy utility in Highland, and noted it has provided comments on the project plans since 2003. "We have continually recommended that the applicant coordinate their survey and study designs with our office and state resource agencies. Early coordination with these agencies could have eliminated several concerns that remain for this project," stated its March 7 letter to the SCC.
USFWS took a look at all the avian and environmental studies HNWD submitted to the SCC to date, in addition to the opinions on the plan from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Quality. "We support the detailed comments provided by the VDGIF and believe that those comments raise substantive concerns about the conclusions that were provided in some of these reports," the service said.
USFWS and DGIF share management authority for federally listed animals in Virginia and consultation responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the letter explained.
The service explained the details of the Endangered Species Act, and what it means to "take" and federally listed endangered or threatened species without a special exemption. A "take" a to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect such a species, and harming that kind of wildlife also means to significantly modify or degrade their habitats in a way that impairs behavior patterns.
There are both civil and criminal penalties for those convicted of such violations. While a permit can be issued, there is no mechanism for authorizing "incidental take after-the-fact," the service explained.
USFWS listed several federally listed species that have been documented in Highland County, which it says may include the project area. They are: Virginia Northern flying squirrel, Indiana bat, the Virginia big-eared bat and the bald eagle.
HNWD's report on the Northern flying squirrel was reviewed by USFWS officials. "Based on that survey report, it is the opinion of the service that appropriate habitat for this species does not occur at those areas surveyed on Red Oak Knob and Tamarack Ridge. However, we are aware that this species has been documented in close proximity to this project so if additional tree clearing or other project modifications will occur outside these surveyed areas, additional surveys may be recommended."
In the avian risk assessment for the project, USFWS says the author indicated there are no nesting records for the bald eagle in Highland County, or any significant aquatic habitat.
"It is true that no nesting records have been documented in Highland County," USFWS says, "however, records from the Bath-Highland Bird Club indicate that the bald eagle is known to be a year-round resident in Highland County. The bald eagle is also known to nest in the adjacent Bath County. Therefore, we recommend that a pre-project assessment be conducted to determine the use of this site by the bald eagle. Based on the information provided, we believe this project may affect this species."
USFWS said both the bald eagle and golden eagle were known to migrate through the area. The golden eagle is not federal listed as an endangered species, but it is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Based on the information provided by Highland New Wind Development and DGIF, the service also believes the project may affect the Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats, it says.
"The service remains concerned about the potential risk that construction and operation of the Highland New Wind Development facility may pose to bat and bird species residing and migrating through western Virginia, and the resultant cumulative impacts that could occur following operation of this and the additional proposed wind power facilities on ridge tops in the Eastern United States," the letter says.
USFWS made several recommendations to the SCC to include as conditions if the SCC issues the company a permit to construct and operate the facility. Those include:
• An additional year of detailed pre-construction monitoring to determine the potential collision-hazard. "The spatial and temporal uses of the airspace by birds and bats needs to be defined during a multi-year period," USFWS says.
• Post-construction bat and bird mortality monitoring for a minimum of three years.
• Pre-construction monitoring methods and study designs coordinated with USFWS, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation-Division of Natural Heritage, VDGIF, other appropriate state agencies, and researchers prior to initiating studies.
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy in Virginia filed preliminary comments on HNWD's application March 10. "As a general proposition, the conservancy believes that the use of wind power to generate electricity at appropriate locations is a pollution-free, environmentally friendly alternative to the use of fossil fuels," its letter stated. "Nevertheless, the conservancy is concerned that the environmental benefits inherent in the wind generation of electric power at the Highland County location … are likely to be more than offset by the severe risk the project poses to bats, migratory songbirds, raptors, and other wildlife indigenous to the area."
TNC, too, reviewed the environmental reports submitted by HNWD, in addition to those from DEQ, DGIF, USFWS, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Those reports, says TNC, "make it abundantly clear that the threat the project poses to wildlife is both real and substantial. It appears equally clear that the threat to wildlife is compounded by the absence of any obvious methods by which the risk can be mitigated."
The conservancy also takes note of HNWD's need to move quickly in order to take advantage of tax breaks. TNC, the letter states, "has supported, and continues to support, the use of tax credits as an incentive to the development and use of alternative sources of energy," and understands HNWD may be eligible for production tax credits if its project is approved.
"It would, however, be a perversion of the intent of the credits for the commission to permit tax considerations to override the full development and careful analysis of the merits of this application, including in particular the extent of the threat the project admittedly poses to wildlife and the availability of effective methods of mitigating that threat."
The conservancy asks the SCC to "take particular care" in developing protocols in this case, as it is the first in Virginia of what's likely to be many similar applications down the road.
The Nature Conservancy asks SCC staff to take the following into consideration as it reviews the application:
• "Wind turbines of the type the Applicant proposes to install in Highland County are an undisputed hazard to the mortality of birds and bats, and this hazard is particularly severe at the proposed location." TNC cites the September 2005 GAO report which states, "Once thought to have practically no adverse environmental effects, it (the generation of electricity by wind power) is now recognized that wind power facilities can have adverse impacts- particularly on wildlife, and most significantly on birds and bats … Recent studies conducted in the eastern United States in the Appalachian Mountains have found large numbers of bats killed by wind power turbines … A recent report from Bat Conservation International estimated that if all ridge-top turbines are approved and the mortality rates continue at their current rate, these turbines might kill tens of thousands of bats in a single season."
The conservancy also cites the interim guidelines on avoiding and minimizing these impacts, published in 2003: "Wind-generated electrical energy is renewable, produces no emissions, and is considered to be generally environmentally friendly technology … However, wind energy facilities can adversely impact wildlife, especially birds and bats, in their habitats. As more facilities with larger turbines are built, the cumulative effects of this rapidly growing industry may initiate or contribute to the decline of some wildlife populations. The potential harm to these populations from an additional source of mortality makes careful evaluation of proposed facilities essential. Due to local differences in wildlife concentration and movement patterns, habitats, area topography, facility design, and weather, each proposed development site is unique and requires detailed, individual evaluation."
The guidelines recommended avoiding putting wind turbines where there are any protected or endangered species, migratory pathways, or known bat hibernation areas. The service had also recommended avoiding habitat fragmentation and putting turbines away from intact, healthy native habitats.
"Based on the information currently in the record in this case," says the conservancy, "it appears that the pending application violates all five of the Department of Interior's guidelines."
TNC also found the studies on birds and bats "incomplete, inadequate, and in some instances misleading."
Not only that, says TNC, but the cumulative impact of all the other wind turbine projects proposed in the region must be considered. "Considered in isolation, the adverse impact on wildlife by any single installation might not be considered to be significant," it said, "but in combination, the impact of so many turbines in such a concentrated and uniquely vulnerable area is almost certain to be devastating. The conservancy urges the commission to coordinate its consideration of this application with the consideration by its counterparts in sister states of similar applications pending in those states, with the view of making a realistic assessment of the cumulative impact on wildlife of its approval of the pending application.
The conservancy also asks the SCC to look at methods of mitigating threats to wildlife. "The applicant should be required to install or employ those methods which have been determined to be most effective," TNC states. "The GAO report discusses several methods of mitigating the obvious threat to wildlife that is posed by the operation of wind turbines, including the possibility of discontinuing the operation altogether during certain periods of the year. Many of the methods tried have proven to be ineffective."
U.S. Department of the Interior
The National Park Service, under the U.S. Department of the Interior, weighed in March 9 with a letter to the SCC expressing concerns about Camp Allegheny, the Civil War site near the project site.
Camp Allegheny, says NPS, is a battlefield and encampment of national significance, which are today "extremely well preserved" and are interpreted and managed in part by the U.S. Forest Service. The camp site is adjacent to the project site on Allegheny Mountain, in Pocahontas County, W.Va.
"Given the scale and density of wind farms," says NPS, "the proposed project will likely have a substantial impact on the visual setting of the battlefield and encampment even at some distance. We ask that your agency consider all actions within its authority that may help avoid or minimize the visual impacts of the proposed project on the Camp Allegheny battlefield and encampment, especially as concerns site selection and site planning for the wind turbines."
Furthermore, the park service explains, the Dec. 13, 1861 battle of Camp Allegheny was "identified by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission as one of the nation's most significant battlefields. Confederate forces occupied Camp Allegheny in the summer 1861 to control a critical transportation route, the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike. The camp's location and altitude resulted in harsh winter conditions and made logistical support difficult, so the Confederates abandoned it in April 1862. Camp Allegheny's remote location has helped preserve it for 145 years. It was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1990."
| 
