Developer ends talks with state agency

Developer ends talks with state agency

By Anne Adams • Staff Writer

RICHMOND — Despite repeated
requests for more information,
Highland New Wind Development
has told one state agency it will not provide anything further until after it begins construction on its 38-megawatt wind energy utility.
A letter last week from HNWD attorney John Flora to Roger Kirchen of the Department of Historic Resources says the company
will no longer consult DHR until after construction starts in August.
July 9, DHR sent a letter to HNWD, saying the company’s archaeological survey by consultant
Dr. Linda Perry did not meet the agency’s minimum standards. DHR had concerns it asked the developer to address, including providing a detailed site plan, something DHR has not received.
“Any archaeological study must consider all aspects of the project, and this has not been demonstrated,”
wrote Kirchen.
Flora replied July 15, saying HNWD did not believe DHR’s kind of study was required, following
discussions with agency director, Kathleen Kilpatrick.
“In Kathleen Kilpatrick’s (Jan. 15) letter to HNWD, she acknowledged
that HNWD is not required to obtain any type of permit from DHR,” Flora wrote. “Her site visit in October … facilitated
a better understanding of the terrain, the location, and a diminished request for detailed studies. Based on my understanding
of Ms. Kilpatrick’s letter and my telephone conversations with her, HNWD concluded that it was not necessary or required that we undertake a ‘guideline compliant’ archaeological survey. Based on her review of the site plan, her inspection of the project site and her four shovel tests, Dr. Perry determined
that, consistent with the 2003 assessment by your department,
the HNWD project will not impact any area of archaeological significance.”
Flora also told DHR the county’s
Technical Review Committee (Roberta Lambert and Jim Whitelaw)
“decided not to conduct an ‘in person’ visit with our consultants to view a variety of different pictures,
but instead simply requested the attached pictures.”
Lambert told The Recorder, however, “I don’t remember a discussion about an ‘in person’ visit with consultants, but I can’t say for certain it wasn’t mentioned. Sometimes too many people are talking at the same time (at TRC meetings). When we were shown the photo simulations on the laptop computer, we asked for hard copies
to be printed and sent to us for review.”
Flora said DHR staff has been agencyasked to identify those who would like to visit “as construction commences
in August,” Flora said. “If you or someone from the department
wants to continue to monitor
the excavation work in case an unexpected, archaeologically significant site is discovered, then you … must be on the approved list of visitors. I encouraged you to submit those names … This finishes our consultation with your department, other than the possibility
of your construction project monitoring,” he concluded.
“It’s a punctuation mark, I think,” Kirchen told The Recorder this week.
DHR has not decided how it might reply — whether to respond to HNWD, or consult the State Corporation Commission about how to proceed.
“It was a point by point rebuttal,”
Kirchen said. “HNWD has concluded (a viewshed analysis) is not necessary to do, and they don’t intend to do anymore.”
HNWD did send visual simulation
photographs to DHR as requested, but Kirchen said only one of them showed the view from Camp Allegheny, the Civil War battlefield nearby. No map was included, which made it hard for DHR to know what it was looking at, he said. “It seemed to be well done, but I don’t know how comprehensive
it is.”
Kirchen stressed the DHR “has no agenda other than visual impacts
be fully assessed.” He said there were options on the table for HNWD to move the towers to minimize those impacts, and they were still viable options. “We were told by Mr. McBride (HNWD owner) they could do with less towers,” he said.
DHR has repeatedly insisted on an archaeology review of the site, and a view shed analysis to compare with a detailed site plan, before its review could be completed
under a condition of the company’s state permit.
The archaeology assessment submitted by HNWD consists of a one-page letter from Perry, who walked the property and did four “shovel tests.” She concluded no further assessment was needed.
Last fall, DHR officials toured the site, and refined its recommendations.
DHR’s requests for a good visual analysis, however, had not changed. Kirchen said then that DHR hoped to review a viewshed analysis and compare it to information
it gathered from Civil War protection groups, including the West Virginia State Historic Preservation
Office, which is interested in how the 400-foot turbines will affect views from Camp Allegheny,
a site on the National Register of Historic Places.
DHR asked for information as far back as 2006 in order to complete its review. HNWD has argued what the agency requests, except for an archaeological study, would be too expensive for the developer
to provide. The company estimated it could cost $50,000 to $75,000 or more to comply with DHR’s requests.
DHR says that, given enough information, it can help HNWD figure out what, if anything can be done to soften the impact of the project on historical sites, particularly
Camp Allegheny.
During the 2008 site visit, Kirchen asked county supervisor
David Blanchard what the county wanted. “I said we want everything,” Blanchard said at the time. “We want to avoid any problems; we want to look out for the county, and we need to be sure we’re asking the right questions at the right time.”
Kirchen expects DHR to come to a decision this week about how to respond, and said he didn’t know why HNWD was not working with the agency. “They could have had a project up and going years ago if they had been communicating, and been flexible in working with state agencies,” he said.
Another agency missing something, too
DHR isn’t the only state agency looking for something more from HNWD.
According to the SCC permit, which adopted the recommendations
of the Department of Environmental
Quality as part of HNWD’s conditions, turbines should be sited in places where the “least potential impact to the scenery of Highland county results.” It asks HNWD to do a visual/scenic impact analysis using an assessment tool from the U.S. Forest Service and present the results to the Division of Planning and Recreational Resources of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. In 2006, DCR’s Bob Munson and Lynn Crump provided comments on the preliminary site plan and photographs provided by HNWD, but had concluded there was not enough information to complete a review DCR requested HNWD provide a view shed analysis, showing the scenic impact of the towers on places like U.S. 250, U.S. 220, Laurel Fork, Sounding Knob, and the Highland Wildlife Management
Area. The division reviews all projects from a recreational and scenic perspective, and noted HNWD’s application to the State Corporation Commission did not address those.
More than a year ago, Munson said DCR still expected to get this analysis and final site plan. “That would be our hope,” he said then, noting there are scenic considerations
“very important to protect,” and a site plan and analysis “would be the only way to tell where the towers are and from what spots they’d be seen.” Munson had said, adding, “We will withhold any approval until we get a view shed analysis, and we’re still expecting to hear from the developer. We certainly
won’t sign off on the project until we get the analysis.”
If DCR can identify the potential
impacts, he added, the agency will make recommendations for reducing them, with a degree of reasonableness.
Crump had said expected her agency would notify the SCC if it did not receive the information. “This is a big concern, because this is the first one of many (wind energy utilities) that are likely to come along, and it really needs to be carefully thought through,” Crump had said. “Implementation needs to be done right.”
Contacted this week, however, Munson said he had not contacted the SCC that he couldn’t recall all the details.
Crump did remember, and said her agency had not yet received the analysis it requested but had not contacted the SCC about the missing information. “The last I heard, they (HNWD) weren’t going to do it, and that led me to believe there was not going to be one,” she said Tuesday. “We’re not taking a proactive stance on this … there are so many projects we review we can’t follow every individual one. We rely on localities
to contact us.
“I hate to say we’re not being responsible, though.”
Asked why the division didn’t follow through, Munson said, “That’s a fair question. I hadn’t followed this closely enough, and clearly we had not put it to bed. It’s my error.”
He said his agency often relies on the public to call attention to issues
or concerns, and no one from Highland did that. “I guess that has let us get complacent, but that’s a sorry excuse,” he said.
Asked whether he needed to hear from a county official to follow
up, he said, “No, it shouldn’t have to be someone like that … We’re not intentionally trying to avoid a real concern. I remember when the applicant’s attorney (John Flora) made a big deal about the expense when I testified about this before. I talked about the importance of it, and he kept asking what does it cost. He got very defensive.”
In the long run, Munson said, it’s SCC’s responsibility for checking
to make sure its permitting conditions are followed but, he said, “I will call the SCC this afternoon. I will see if I can shake something loose.
“This is a case where we’ve been less than attentive.”
Other conditions met?
There are at least two other recommendations included in the SCC’s final order no one has pursued,
either.
One was that the DCR’s Division
of Natural Heritage be consulted about its “biotics data system” to make sure natural resources like habitats of rare or threatened species are protected. In 2006, the DNH found no resources listed for the project site area, although
it said the absence of data might indicate the area hasn’t been surveyed yet. HNWD was asked to contact the division for an update on the information “if a significant amount of time passes” before the area is used.
Rene Hypes of the DNH told The Recorder this week her division
had not been contacted yet by the developer. “We consider a ‘significant amount of time’ about a year,” she said, adding sometimes the data is updated as often as quarterly. “We can usually review the information in about 30 days,” she said.
She said it was HNWD’s responsibility
to follow through.
Another in the list of the permit report was to address potential impacts to eco-tourism. The state report said, “Neither the applicant nor county board of supervisors has consulted with the chamber of commerce regarding the impacts
this project may have upon ecotourism,” and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries recommended those impacts be considered in consultation with the chamber, the Virginia Tourism Corp., and Bear Mountain Farm and Retreat.
Asked this week whether HNWD had contacted the chamber
about this yet, chamber director Carolyn Pohowsky said, “Never.”