Wind company gives details, but questions linger

The site map provided by Highland New Wind indicates it will be running a stretch of underground transmission line, which residents say may be installed under wetlands. (Graphic courtesy Rick Webb, www.VaWind. org) MONTEREY — As he left the room, Mac McBride affectionately patted the shoulders of the two people who can make or break his plans for the state's first industrial wind utility.

County administrator Roberta Lambert and building official Jim Whitelaw are charged with determining whether McBride's company, Highland New Wind Development LLC, has met conditions attached to its county permit, and then issuing a permit for construction.

Lambert and Whitelaw constitute the Technical Review Committee established by Highland supervisors; they met for the second time Monday to go over the list of conditions HNWD must meet before it can get a building permit.

The TRC asked for further evidence HNWD is meeting the county's requirements. Essentially, the TRC said it needed more computer simulations from locations showing what the 400-foot turbine towers would look like from certain spots. It also asked for the Federal Aviation Administration permit, which HNWD has not received, and clarification on the site map, and erosion and sediment control plan.

This 2006 aerial photo, Highland residents say, indicates a large area of wetlands at the proposed site of the new wind utility. Compared with data provided by Highland New Wind Development, it appears to show the company will install an underground transmission line beneath the wetlands. Rick Webb discussed the issue with the Army Corps of Engineers, and was told HNWD needed approval for the line. (Graphic courtesy Rick Webb) Though McBride, his son, and HNWD attorney John Flora appeared irritated at times by some of the questions and additional requests, the TRC and county attorney Melissa Dowd insisted on written evidence the company was meeting its conditions.

"They seem to be slowly coming together, but it still feels like we're pulling teeth," said supervisor David Blanchard Tuesday. "We seem to be at the beginning of this process and instead it's at the end of the process … it's backward."

Tal McBride of Highland New Wind provided photo-simulations to the county, showing how the turbine towers might look from various locations. This one depicts the view from Ronnie and Sandy Moyers' home on Allegheny Mountain. (Recorder photo by Anne Adams) Blanchard had not yet reviewed new information from state agencies about the project, but said all concerns must be addressed, and he remains frustrated at the number of challenges remaining as the permit deadline approaches. "Since they (HNWD) appear to be finalizing their site plan, now questions can start being asked," he said.

Blanchard has not drawn any conclusions about whether he would support extending the conditional use permit, which may expire as soon as Aug. 17.

Supervisor Jerry Rexrode noted Monday that his contracting firm is working on a fourth site plan draft for one of its projects, and HNWD will have to meet the county's requirements just like any other company. "They think they have it bad," he said. "I can't really feel sorry for them."

Technical Review Committee members Jim Whitelaw, building official, and Roberta Lambert, county administrator, review photo-simulations provided by Tal McBride (standing). The TRC asked for more images based on requests from landowners near the site of the utility project. (Recorder photo by Anne Adams) HNWD's revised map, Blanchard noted, still shows one turbine located in West Virginia and Blanchard believes the company has the information to show the location correctly. "It's just a matter of pulling it out of them," he said. "That's just the type of developer we're dealing with."

A letter from Blue Grass resident Carol Bandy was submitted to the TRC Monday. "I did not need to read all the problems and questions that are surfacing about the conditional use permit to be particularly irritated by HNWD's irresponsible behavior retarding the last minute submission of data to all of you," she wrote. "They (HNWD) have had nearly two years to put their data together. They knew the deadlines. You should not be forced to hurry your reviews just to satisfy them. And they definitely do not have any good reasons — only excuses why they should get any extensions on anything. These are adults acting like children. For heaven's sake, if they can't play by the rules, then they should just suffer the consequences. They do not deserve an extension."

As it stands this week, there are a number of outstanding issues that need to be resolved, and county officials are trying to make sure they are identified and addressed. Wednesday, county resident Rick Webb, of VaWind.org, in a joint letter with other landowners, brought up another concern the TRC might need to investigate. He urged county officials to make certain HNWD had properly delineated the wetlands on the project site, and said a discussion with the Army Corps of Engineers led him to conclude that another permit or approval from that agency might be needed (see related story).

Erosion, sediment not finalized

Blackwell Engineering was hired by HNWD to create the site map plus Erosion and Sediment control plans for the company, depicting where the towers would be placed. Ed Blackwell of the firm attended the TRC's meeting Monday, as did Tom Austin, engineer with Mattern & Craig, the firm the county hired to review the E&S plan.

Last week, Austin submitted a list of 19 requests for clarification; Blackwell submitted a response to all 19 issues (see related story). Blackwell also submitted a revised set of maps and diagrams.

The E&S plan, Dowd explained, can be reviewed independently of the conditional use permit requirements. Whitelaw has the authority to approve or deny the E&S plan by July 27.

Friday, Flora sent Whitelaw a letter saying the county had those plans for about three years, and only a few "tweaks" were needed. He urged Whitelaw to approve the plan next week; supervisors had advised Whitelaw he had the authority to deny it, and tell HNWD what issues needed to be fixed so the plan could be approved. Flora told Whitelaw the county had no reason to deny it (see related story).

Blackwell said he'd like to take Austin for a site visit, so he could explain more about the plan. Austin agreed, but Dowd recommended a board vote to that effect.

Initially, supervisor David Blanchard was concerned about using the county's engineer. "I don't have a decision right now. It seems we're trying to still figure out the process, and I have concerns about the county's investment," he said.

Austin explained a site visit was not out of the ordinary for a large project like this one. "It depends on the complexity of the job, and this job affects 40 acres — that's fairly significant," he said.

"I've said it before: Let the experts handle it," Rexrode said. "You have to let them go back and forth … It may be that Mattern & Craig find additional comments."

Blanchard and Rexrode voted, agreeing Whitelaw should use the county's engineers as needed.

Flora told the TRC that getting the E&S plan approved is important. "That would be a helpful step for us," he said. "If we could push that through, then we'd only have the Federal Aviation Administration (permit) left."

Site plan questions

The TRC noted on Blackwell's new map of the site, one turbine was still shown across the state line in West Virginia. Whitelaw and Lambert agreed a letter from surveyor Jeff Hiner explained the turbine was actually in Virginia, 16 feet from the state line, based on his research and mapping, but wanted that depicted properly.

Dowd asked HNWD to show better evidence, and HNWD agreed to add something indicating the location.

The TRC said it would contact Pocahontas County, W.Va., officials for verification as well.

Rexrode advised the TRC to check building codes with regard to state boundaries, too.

Because the turbine blades are about 100 feet in length, the tower close to the state line would spin blades in West Virginia air space. That point, however, was not discussed by the TRC.

The conditional use permit stipulates the tower locations are to mitigate impacts to residents and the natural environment. At the previous meeting, Dowd told HNWD it must provide evidence this requirement has been met.

Monday, Blackwell said to accomplish this he added a note to the plans explaining the 1,600-foot setback requirement essentially fulfilled that condition because two turbines had to be eliminated from the plans and significant tree harvesting was avoided. "We went through a lot of permutations to avoid impacts … I think we met that intent," he said.

Photo-simulations added

Tal McBride and Blackwell supplied a new page in the plans with several computer-generated simulations to show what the towers would look like from various locations.

Lambert told HNWD the TRC would ask for a few more, based on requests from residents near the site, and perhaps a couple more from Camp Allegheny, the Civil War site close by.

She had received letters from Pen and Leslie Goodall, and Tom Brody of Bear Mountain Farm and Retreat. Both had supplied coordinates from which they'd like to have simulations. Both had also asked for things Lambert said the TRC did not have, but she told HNWD, "If you'd like to respond to those, it's your choice."

Dowd said the county should get written authorization from the landowners to allow Tal McBride to go onto those properties to create the simulations. Whitelaw asked McBride what he needed on the property for them. "I need to take pictures," McBride said. "That's why it's called a photo-simulation."

Rexrode recommended a member of the sheriff's office accompany McBride to the properties as well.

"Is there a fuse on that?" McBride asked.

Lambert said the TRC would put a deadline on the time Brody and the Goodalls have to respond to provide access to their properties, but told McBride they had asked for this, so she didn't see any reason they would not allow him on their land.

Screening, fencing debated

Blackwell said his firm had planned on a six-foot-high, chain link fence with slats woven into it to secure the substation on the property. That information was not on the new plans. "Do you want it on there?" he asked the TRC. The committee said yes.

Blackwell noted there was a row of trees situated between U.S. 250 and the substation site, but he had not included that information on the plans and agreed to provide it.

Dowd read the wording of the conditional use permit resolution, which stipulates the substation must be screened with vegetation and/or solid fencing, "which is not a chain link fence," she said. "It must be adequately screened from off-site view … The TRC can say vegetation is sufficient, but if you put up a fence, it needs to be solid."

Dowd asked HNWD provide something to show the trees would shield the substation from all views.

Officials and the engineer agreed the view coming east, however, would not be blocked by the trees, and screening would be needed on that side of the substation. "Can't your little computer program do a simulation? We need something tangible," Dowd said.

Flora said the only issue he felt McBride might be concerned about was that "cattle don't treat the vegetation that well in that field," adding he believed the screening would be satisfied by the slats in the chain link.

Dowd read the wording of the permit again, explaining once more the substation should be screened from off-site view.

Blackwell said the chain link fence was more secure than a solid fence, and it was required to secure the substation. "I guess we need two different kinds of fencing," he said. Also, he said, the substation yard must be all gravel.

"That explains why it needs to be screened," Dowd said.

Color of towers Last week the TRC asked HNWD to provide evidence of the exact white color of the towers. Blackwell added a note to the plans saying what the color was, but Lambert said the TRC would rather have more evidence.

"You want a letter from the manufacturer?" Tal McBride asked, saying he could forward an email from the company that makes the turbines in "papyrus white."

"Yes, just to protect everybody, please send us that email," Lambert replied.

Access roads

The TRC had asked HNWD to clarify how the access road to the site would be handled. Lambert said she wanted something from the Virginia Department of Transportation about why the agency asked HNWD to use a different entrance.

"You want something in writing?" Flora asked.

Tal McBride explained there was some confusion last week about the access road. "There are two entrances up there; we're not making a new one. We're expanding on that's there," he said.

The main access road is too close to the state line; Blackwell explained that entrance, according to VDOT, does not have enough sight distance. VDOT wants HNWD to move the entrance to another, existing entrance — one that's newer. "That's where VDOT wanted us to put it," he said. "It was my mistake last time … That entrance is being widened for a better turning radius."

Lambert noted HNWD's permit for the work from VDOT expires in a week. "Have you applied for an extension?" she asked.

"Absolutely," said Mac McBride.

State, federal approval

Whitelaw had received a letter from the state Department of Historic Resources about the archaeological survey — DHR had concluded the survey was inadequate (see related story).

"I'll be sending them a response," Flora said, adding he would include the photo-simulations for DHR to review.

Lambert said she spoke with Cody Walter at the State Corporation Commission to clarify the SCC's position on state and federal agency approval. "He said you had filed the list of permits needed … but said the SCC could not say you'd done what you were supposed to do," Lambert told Flora.

Flora said he had met with two or three SCC officials plus Michael Murphy of the Department of Environmental Quality early on, and had them look at the list of permits needed as compiled by HNWD. All reviewed the list, he said, and only one permit, for open burning, was added, and it was one HNWD did not need because it did not plan to do open burning on the site. "I did the best I could with the DEQ and the SCC," he said.

Lambert noted she did not have the list that included the open burning permit.

"They (SCC) consider this closed," Lambert said, explaining the SCC will not go back and review whether HNWD is meeting its state permit conditions unless there is a complaint. "The agencies will let (SCC) know if things aren't done and they could re-open the case," Lambert said.

Lambert also asked whether HNWD had received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration, and Flora said he had not. "That's sort of out of our control," he said.

Laura Brown, an FAA spokesperson, told The Recorder that since there are so many wind plant permits now, it will take 60-90 days for the FAA to complete its review. HNWD's case has been posted to the FAA web site (https://oeaaa. faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp), but the comments and conclusions generated will not be posted until FAA engineers complete the review. HNWD submitted its application June 8, Brown said.

Bond

Flora told the TRC he had just sent a draft document to Dowd explaining how HNWD will secure the project for decommissioning in case the county is stuck with expenses for taking the project down if the company fails.

A bond must be in place before a building permit can be issued. For the first partial year the project is up and running and the following five years, it must be secured for $2,500 per turbine — a total of $47,500. For the sixth year and each following year for the life of the project, it must be secured for $6,000 per turbine.

Flora explained he hopes to set up a fixed-income security investment account with Wells Fargo, with the lien to secure the project, and add money to it when the amount increases in year six. "It stays there until the project is completed; it's a decommissioning bond," he said.

Dowd said she will finish her review of Flora's proposal as soon as possible.

Permit expires?

Last week, Dowd received a letter from another HNWD attorney, who had calculated the conditional use permit expires Aug. 17. Tuesday, she told the TRC she had not yet checked those calculations, but will do that soon.

Flora said the reason HNWD wanted a building permit by July 15 had to do with giving the Department of Conservation and Recreation enough time for a two-week notice with its E&S plan. "And we wanted to have two weeks of construction under our belt before the permit expires. We didn't want to have any argument about substantial construction," he said.

Blackwell explained the E&S plan was part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Once the E&S is complete, the plan goes with a permit application to DCR. "Once I send the application and a check, the application is accepted, certified 'on my word' … the permit takes awhile, but once the application is post-marked, it's deemed approved.

"It's sort of like the SCC," Dowd quipped. "They don't check the door once the horses have gotten out."

Who inspects?

Whitelaw again told HNWD he did not have the expertise to inspect during construction and a third-party inspector would have to be supplied. Blackwell told him HNWD could have a structural engineer sign off on inspections for Whitelaw, and give him reports.

"That's on your nickel, of course," Dowd noted.

Whitelaw has a policy in place for third-party inspectors, and he told The Recorder he did not have a problem with HNWD choosing its own people to do that work Blanchard, however, said having the county choose inspectors hired by HNWD would be "the fair thing to do," in order to avoid questions about conflict of interest.

What happens next?

The TRC meets 4 p.m., Tuesday, July 21. At that point, it hopes to have a final site map, E&S plan, and other details HNWD has been asked to provide. Supervisors had agreed to vote Aug. 4 on whether to extend HNWD's permit, but since Blanchard will be unable to attend, he has requested a special meeting be held the following week, dependent upon confirmation of an Aug. 17 expiration date.