Request for wind plant details reviewed

MONTEREY — Last week, two Highland landowners asked county supervisors for details about Highland New Wind Development's plans for the state's first wind energy utility.

Lucile Miller and McChesney Goodall both own property downhill from where HNWD plans its 39-megawatt plant, and have expressed concern about the way construction could affect Laurel Fork, a protected trout stream running through all three properties.

Miller and Goodall asked for details mostly related to erosion and sediment control, and indicated they would like enough time to evaluate HNWD's E&S plan with their own consultant before the county issues the company a building permit.

Supervisor David Blanchard asked how the county should respond to the request, noting the landowners knew there were deadlines in place surrounding the E&S plan and building permit for the facility.

County attorney Melissa Dowd said if the board chooses to do nothing related to the request, it should at least explain to Miller and Goodall that they should write directly to HNWD. "We are not going to be a go-between with the developer," she suggested to the board.

Supervisor Robin Sullenberger said, "We have been told by HNWD (that) at any point in time they may come forward with a site plan, which includes E&S, the 45 days (timeline to respond) starts ticking. We should make a decision as soon as possible."

Once HNWD submits an E&S plan, building official Jim Whitelaw has 45 days to respond, either approving the plan, or denying approval and listing the things an applicant must do to get approval.

Miller and Goodall had also asked for access to the site property for evaluation, but supervisor Jerry Rexrode said the board could not grant that.

"The reasonable approach is that anything provided regarding this project becomes public information when it comes to this board," Dowd suggested. "You do not intend to create new data or do new research. You have already stated the (State Corporation Commission) has covered this. You have said the site plan and E&S are our responsibility. The rest as relates to Camp Allegheny, Laurel Fork were well covered at the SCC level."

"The board of supervisors has hired an engineering firm," Rexrode said. "When they (HNWD) submit the E&S plan, site plan, it should have everything on there that is required; it will have — that is what our engineer has been instructed to do."

"The amount of information they asked for in that letter is astronomical," Sullenberger added.

"And my hunch is," Dowd replied, "it is well beyond what is required."

Rexrode felt the processes in place for creating a site plan and an erosion and sediment control plan were sufficient to address the details sought by the landowners, and

The board agreed to have Dowd draft a response to Miller and Goodall, and review it in a closed legal session as soon as possible.

In a related matter, Warm Springs District ranger Pat Sheridan told the board the U.S. Forest Service intends to classify its federal lands as to their suitability for developing wind power. "We are trying to put together our position on how we would respond (if we got a request for a wind farm on national forest land)," Sheridan explained. "There's only one request in the nation … There is a request on Green Mountain in Vermont. We are close to receiving a request on the George Washington/ Thomas Jefferson forest."

Sheridan said certain USFS property like wilderness and special management areas will be designated as unsuitable for wind energy. "In Highland County, Laurel Fork is unsuitable; some of Paddy Knob is unsuitable. The east side of Ramsey's draft is unsuitable for wind development," he said. "This doesn't carry the connotation the rest of the area is suitable."

Should the USFS get a request for development, it would do an Environmental Impact Statement, he added.

Sullenberger asked whether the national push for renewable energy would make it difficult for the forest service to turn down requests for developing wind energy. Sheridan said he couldn't say what USFS would do, because there is no precedent yet. "We have no experience (with this type of development)," he said.

— James Jacenich and Anne Adams