Wind plan big step closer to approval

By Anne Adams • Staff Writer
MONTEREY — It came down to the wire. Highland's building official Jim Whitelaw sat in his office at 3 p.m. Monday. He had roughly an hour to decide whether to approve the erosion and sediment control plan for what could be Virginia's first industrial wind utility. Whitelaw was waiting on final comments about the E&S plan from Tom Austin of Mattern & Craig, the engineering firmhired by the county to review the plans. By 4 p.m., he'd had yet another call from Highland New Wind Development representatives, anxious to know what his decision would be. By 4:15 p.m., he'd approved the plan, just before the deadline for reviewing it expired. Mattern & Craig had told Whitelaw all its concerns had been addressed and the plan was in com­pliance with state regulations. Whitelaw's phone had been ringing throughout the day. Those opposed to the project, and those to build it, were eager for his answer.

After his approval, The Re­corder asked him how he felt about his decision.

"I don't feel good about any­thing, about any of this. And I won't for a really long time," he said.

The E&S plan approval was a major hurdle for HNWD, which had urged Whitelaw to give it the nod so this condition of its local permit would be met.

Last week, county attorney Melissa Dowd urged Whitelaw to reject it and go from there, in order to avoid the deadline pressure. Supervisor David Blanchard urged him to make sure it was thor­oughly reviewed, and wrote him a letter Friday asking him to run it by two other state agencies. "It is my opinion that in order to approve the E&S plan submit­ted by HNWD, that satisfying the requirements set forth in the State Corporation Commission final judgment must be met," Blanchard told him. Blanchard pointed to the SCC's order on HNWD's state permit, which stipulates the company must comply with conditions rec­ommended by the Department of Environmental Quality. One of those, he noted, was to "protect water quality, habitat, and aquatic resources from construction im­pacts by adopting recommenda­tions from the DEQ, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and Department of Conservation and Recreation."

"To my knowledge, the DEQ and DGIF have not been notified,consulted or asked for input on the content of the proposed E&S plan," Blanchard told Whitelaw. "This lack of notification deprives you and the Technical Review Committee from critical expert advice to develop an E&S plan that protects the interests of Highland County and HNWD.

"I believe failure to contact these agencies does not satisfy a requirement necessary to approve the current E&S plan submitted by HNWD," he said. Whitelaw told The Recorder he wasn't going to do that, because he didn't see a need to, and the E&S plan would be attached to the site plan for those agencies later anyway. This week, Blanchard said he was "disappointed the county didn't feel the need to investigate that any further." He still had questions about the E&S plan, though he had to have confidencein the county. "I'm not that happy about it," he added. "I think more questions could be answered and I hoped the county would take advantage of all the expertise that was out there." Supervisor Robin Sullenberger, however, did not share those con­cerns. Asked whether he felt the E&S approval was premature, he said, "No, I do not. Mr. Whitelaw did his job as required, and we hired and had extensive input (from Mattern and Craig). They were satisfied it was adequate." He also noted a review of the plan by the Department of Conservation and Recreation as a key factor. Officials he contacted, Sullenberger said, agreed DCR was the agency to consult. "That process was addressed; DCR is the agency of choice," he said.

Citizens who felt the E&S plan was inadequate to protect the Laurel Fork watershed had raised questions with DCR officials.

A letter from Highlanders Lu­cile Miller, McChesney Goodall, and Rick Webb, was sent to Jim Echols, DCR regional manager, last week, underscoring their concerns. "I am sure you under­stand that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that relies on and incorporates a flawed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan cannot re­sult in effective implementation of the General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water From Construction Activities," the letter stated. "Our request to the DCR is that you not approve the registration statement that will be submitted by Highland New Wind until you determine that the material included in the SWPPP is complete and reliable. You cannot ensure protection of Laurel Fork and related hydrologic resources if you wait until after construction has started before you review the SWPPP. Our under­standing is that you will have time, if you choose to use it, to review any SWPPP prepared by HNWD before approving the registration statement and before construction starts. We respectfully request that you do so. "We are pleased that the DCR has become involved in reviewing HNWD's E&S plan," the letter continued. "In that regard we are attaching a review prepared by Dr. Pamela Dodds. This was submitted to Highland County officials, and clearly should have also been pro­vided to the DCR when Highland County officials requested your assistance. In addition to signifi­cant issues and deficiencies raised elsewhere, there are a number of important issues addressed in Dr. Dodds' review … Among these is the problem that HNWD has in­adequately characterized the soils underlying the project area, and as a consequence has dramatically failed to comply with guidance provided in the Virginia Storm­water Management Handbook. The errors related to this problem include improper delineation of sub-watershed areas and unre­alistic stormwater management calculations. "As a result, the E&S Plan prepared by HNWD cannot be relied upon to protect hillslopes, groundwater recharge, wetlands, and stream courses in the Laurel Fork watershed from hydrologic and habitat alteration, changes in runoff, erosion, and sediment transport related to the proposed project. Please let us know as soon as possible how you plan to address these problems related to stormwater management as you provide assistance to Highland County in reviewing the HNWD E&S plan. And also, please let us know how you plan to proactively ensure effective implementation of the General Permit in the HNWD case.”
Echols replied Monday, saying he had not seen Dodds’ report before DCR staff commented on the plan for the county, but “looked briefly” at it later. “Some of her comments appear to be in line with suggestions DCR has given to Highland County about the plan,” he told the citizens. “However, many of her comments appear to deal with matters well beyond what is considered when reviewing an erosion and sediment control plan.”
Echols said made it clear DCR will continue to provide technical assistance to the county if asked. However, Echols said, “Highland County is the approving authority for local projects. Since this is a local project I will continue to recognize
their authority … we will not interfere with their process.”
DCR will perform on-site inspections
throughout construction, he added, “to ensure compliance with the permit and protection of Laurel Fork.”
Miller thinks HNWD should not have been allowed to rush the plan through the county process. “As downstream landowners, Ches and I requested that we be allowed to comment on the plan,” she said this week. “We had an expert (Dodds) examine the original plan and submitted those comments to the county. The original plan was clearly flawed and we understand that some changes were made, but we were not given an opportunity to review the changes before it was approved by the county.
“At this point we have no idea whether or not it protects our interests. I think it is bad policy to allow a developer who has had years to submit a plan to come in at the last minute with a flawed plan and piecemeal in changes that may or may not protect the resource. I would have appreciated having an opportunity to review the plan and comment on it before it was approved.”
Echols told The Recorder his staff did not do a full review of the E&S plan because there was too much information missing at the time. And while most of Dodds’ report
was intelligent, he said, DCR did not see it before its comments were submitted to the county.
Dodds’ point about two different soils, he agreed, could be important. Dodds said the E&S plan did not account for one of the major soils at the project site, and therefore, the calculations for stormwater run-off wouldn’t be correct in places.
Echols explained all the more than 500 types of soils in Virginia are categorized into four, for the purposes of reviewing E&S plans, and accounting for those is one of the things an E&S review does. However, he stressed, his staff did not see that report, nor the final E&S plan that was approved, and could not say whether it correctly described the areas on site that would be disturbed. “This is a sensitive, highly visible, divisive project,” he said. “It is in my interest to see to it things are done right,” he said.
Webb said Wednesday, “I’ve not seen the latest version of the ever-changing ‘final’ site plan. However, it is clear that we have a problem. County officials have chosen to approve an E&S plan without addressing the evidence before them that indicates the plan has major discrepancies in the included information and calculations.
Because of these errors the E&S plan will fail to protect Laurel Fork and its associated wetlands.”
Whitelaw’s letter of approval stated, “Thomas Austin of Mattern and Craig, our designated plans reviewer, has reviewed the current
submission of the referenced revised plan and has informed me that, in this July 23 revision, all items previously deficient have been addressed and this submission
is in general compliance with the Highland County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.I therefore consider this application to be conditionally approved, with the item listed below as a condition of the approval: The timely installation
of any additional sediment control measures to prevent erosion
and sedimentation as deemed necessary by the Plan Approving Authority to meet the objectives of the Highland County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Regulations. This approval
is for the Soil Erosion and Sediment Plan only and does not constitute permission to actually begin construction. A permit can be issued when the applicant gives bond in the amount and with surety approved by Highland County as a condition of the permit.”