Wind developer fails to comply, agency says

Camp Allegheny is a favorite Civil War site for historians nationwide, one of whom says the site's historic landscape is precisely what makes it so important — and so rare. Many other battlefields, even if undeveloped, have urban business or residential development right up to their borders making it much harder to get a sense of what happened around them. This encampment, however, has enjoyed almost 150 years without disturbance, either within its boundaries or within miles the roughly 4,500-foot summit of the mountain, where almost nothing has changed from the way it was seen by Union and Confederate soldiers. The 400-foot wind turbines planned nearby, however, would alter that landscape and, many argue, make the battlefield less desirable for preservation. (Recorder photo by Anne Adams) RICHMOND — You may never have seen it.

It's tucked deep in national forest, and unless you're in a vehicle with good clearance, getting there is a challenge.

But for those who have walked its quiet meadows, and imagined the early-morning battle that took place there nearly 150 years ago, it's worth protecting. Historians say Camp Allegheny is in danger of losing the very qualities that make it one of the last Civil War battlefields existing pretty much as it did then, when roughly 300 soldiers from Virginia and West Virginia lost their lives.

When Highland New Wind Development LLC erects its proposed 19 turbine towers, each 400 feet tall — higher than the Statue of Liberty — the landscape atop Allegheny Mountain will be altered indefinitely, and that has stirred deep concern about the historic site that lies less than a mile from the project, in West Virginia.

One Virginia agency, in conjunction with preservation groups and its sister agency in West Virginia, has for more than two years demanded an objective view shed analysis to help make recommendations on where those towers could be located to minimize their effects on the battleground.

One private landowner and the Monongahela National Forest in Pocahontas share ownership of the encampment area. It's been listed on the National Historic Register since 1990, and recently hosted Civil War re-enactors who, in a private event, came to "relive" the scenes that unfolded there in 1861.

When HNWD applied for a permit to build its facility, Virginia's State Corporation Commission included a condition for approval that said HNWD must "coordinate with the Department of Historic Resources for guidance on the need for archaeological and architectural surveys to evaluate the project's impacts.

DHR tried repeatedly to get HNWD to conduct those surveys and a standard view shed analysis. After a series of exchanges between the developer and the agency, HNWD finally told DHR it wasn't going to consult its officials further until after construction started.

DHR replied to that last letter with one of its own — this time to the SCC, asking for guidance on getting the studies it asked for.

Kathleen Kilpatrick, DHR director, wrote to SCC chief counsel William Chambliss, saying her agency needed help getting HNWD to comply with its state permit conditions.

"It is our reading of the Dec. 20, 2007 final order that HNWD has been directed to enter into constructive consultation with DHR concerning the necessary studies to identify historic resources and the evaluation of the project's effects," she wrote. "While HNWD has consulted with DHR, it has not undertaken identification studies to the standards recommended as appropriate, and we do not believe that HNWD's efforts have been sufficient to comply with the order. Furthermore, we believe that the order assumes that if adverse effects are identified, reasonable efforts will be undertaken to address them. To our knowledge, HNWD has made no efforts to minimize effects, and has instead terminated consultation with this agency. Accordingly, we believe that the HNWD has failed to comply with either the letter or the spirit of the order."

DHR contacted other groups involved in Civil War site protection, she said, including the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program, Monongahela National Forest, and the West Virginia Division of Culture and History, and sought their comments.

"We are in agreement that this project will likely have a negative impact on the pristine historic setting of Camp Allegheny … HNWD has not demonstrated a willingness to consider and minimize the impacts of the project on this significant battlefield," Kilpatrick said. "Since HNWD has terminated consultation with this office without resolving these outstanding issues and proceeded to construction, we seek the guidance and opinion of the SCC on whether HNWD has met the intent of the final order. Under the circumstances, expedited review and response are requested."

Indeed, a fast response is exactly what the SCC provided this week. About 3 p.m. Wednesday, it issued an order setting a date to hear testimony on the allegations.

The order states, "The commission regards this communication (from DHR) as an allegation from a reviewing agency that HNWD has failed to comply with a condition of our final order and will treat it as such. Accordingly, we deem the letter to constitute a formal complaint and will docket this proceeding and convene a hearing wherein DHR and HNWD may provide evidence and testimony pertinent to the question whether HNWD is in compliance with the requirements (of the condition)."

A hearing examiner has been appointed to conduct the proceedings. HNWD must file any responsive pleading with 15 copies to the SCC by Sept. 14; and a public hearing will be held Sept. 23 at 10 a.m. in Richmond.

What's special about the Camp?

In December 1861, just a few months before the May 1862 Battle of McDowell, which kicked off Stonewall Jackson's famous Valley Campaign, Confederate forces under Col. Edward Johnson occupied the Allegheny summit to defend the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike, now U.S. 250. Union soldiers, under Brig. Gen. Robert Milroy, attacked Johnson Dec. 13. An estimated 300 were killed.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, "The locale today looks much as it did in 1861, consisting primarily of open sheep pasture. The forest service administers and protects that portion of the camp north of the Staunton-Parkersburg pike. This area includes three rows of stone piles and surface depressions representing the remains of at least 35 cabins … South of the turnpike, on private property, lay extensive earth and stone breastworks on the summit of Buffalo Ridge enclosing well-defined battery emplacements, stone piles representing more cabin locations and a prominent oval earthen enclosure on the ridge crest often referred to as a command post."

Well-known archaeologist and historic preservation consultant Hunter Lesser of Elkins has written a book on the camp. A former historian for the Monongahela National Forest, Lesser has been to the battlefield many times.

"It's a spectacular place," he said Wednesday. "What sets it apart, in my opinion, and the opinion of many other historians, is its historic landscape. It's extremely well-preserved."

It's not just the extensive earthworks and well-preserved cabins that line both sides of the 1840s Turnpike that sits at original grade. It's that the place really hasn't changed.

"It's the whole thing," Lesser said. "If you walk around, climb the ridges on either side, the only thing you see is that little stone cabin that sort of fits in … it's exceptional for that reason — the views — and the fact that the site is open, just as it was when it was historically a working farm. That site has hardly changed at all in 150 years."

Chief historian emeritus for the National Park Service Edwin C. Bearss has called Camp Allegheny one of the best preserved Civil War sites in the country. "He said that in my presence," Lesser said, "and he has said it more than once."

Myriad historians have compared it to the Little Big Horn battleground because of its unchanged landscape, Lesser said. "If you're up there, you just feel like a soldier is going to come over the ridge any moment," he added. The wind utility, he said, "will mar that landscape."

Lesser said Camp Allegheny has quite a following among historians and Civil War groups nationwide. "History buffs from all over are concerned about this," he said.

He also pointed to what he calls a "preservation ethic" among most of the private landowners in the area. "They'd like to keep it protected," he said.

The agency that oversees its protection is the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, which related concerns about the utility to the SCC before the state permit was issued. The office sent three letters to agencies in 2006, including the SCC, expressing its concern about protecting the battlefield.

Wednesday this week, the National Park Service added its voice with a letter to the SCC, saying it agreed with DHR's position.

Paul Hawke, chief of the American Battlefield Protection Program for the park service, told the SCC, "We share DHR's concerns about the effects this project will have on historic resources and the applicant's apparent unwillingness to work with DHR and other interest groups."

The NPS expressed the same concerns in 2006, Hawke said, in a letter in which "we predicted that the project would have a dramatic impact on the visual setting of the Camp Allegheny battlefield.

"We understand that the applicant knows of the existence of this nationally recognized battlefield and is aware of vocal local advocacy for maintaining its pristine setting," he told the SCC. "While the battlefield lies in Pocahontas County, W.Va., it is no less significant and will be no less impacted than if it were located in Virginia. We urge the SCC, as the commonwealth's agent in this matter, to ensure that historic resources are given full consideration in planning for this project. We recommend a professional visual impact assessment be completed prior to final site planning, one that meets DHR standards, and one that ensures the opportunity to avoid or mitigate negative effects to the Camp Allegheny battlefield."

Beyond its historic significance, many believe it's a special spot in its own right because of its scenic beauty and isolation, as so few places are these days.

Kate Goodrich-Arling loves to go there just to clear her head. She's a public affairs officer for the Monongahela National Forest, and says Highland County is her favorite Virginia locality, and the same is true for Pocahontas County in West Virginia. But the national forest, she said, is wary of issuing opinions on projects outside its borders.

In a letter to Pocahontas officials, she said the MNF was first aware of the project in 2003, but because the proposal was entirely in Virginia, and not apparently right up against the national forest boundary, the USFS made no comments on the project.

She said forest officials hope to review site plans at this point and see whether the utility will be close enough to potentially affect forest users.

As to how the project might impact the Monongahela, "It's hard to say right now," she said. She explained the USFS has to be careful about sticking to its role, especially because the site is peripheral in nature. "It's an awkward position for us," she said. "We have a lot of people who would like to use our opinions to bolster their own, and I can personally appreciate that. Highland County is my favorite county in Virginia. It's just plain beautiful, and tranquil. But we have no legal rights or authorities on this, and that's not easy. I understand everyone's passion for the area, and I love Camp Allegheny. I like to go there just to collect my thoughts. But the national forest has to be careful in expressing opinions."

Recently, two landowners near the encampment told The Recorder they are worried for the battlefield's future. Richard Laska and his wife, Marcia, own about 200 acres, with an interest in another 500, adjacent to the Civil War site. "The battle in December of 1861 was unique during the Civil War. It was the highest fortification attacked in that conflict," Richard Laska explained. "It is in pristine condition. Dozens of trenches are still clearly visible, as are eightfoot high gun emplacements and passageways. The only human impact you can see today are the graveyards of the men who died in that conflict."

He said the condition is unique among similar sites. "In every direction the view is the same seen by Civil War soldiers: High ridges and mountains, some open fields, some covered with trees. The unobstructed view includes the highest mountains in the Mountain State. Not one human construction intrudes on the horizon. Not one.

"Soon, because of our neighbors in Highland County, several 400-foot high wind generators will loom over the battle ground. They will destroy what 150 years of care for the land, and respect for our history, has preserved," he said. "The public interest is in preserving an important part of our history… Once the turbine towers are up, it will be too late to preserve the battlefield," Laska added. "Nobody is going to be interested in protecting a once remote site which is compromised by industrial development … Until Highland County decided to destroy the view from the battlefield, there was little urgency to preserve it."

Another nearby landowner, Dawn Barrett, agreed. "What shocks me is that the elected officials in Highland County have completely lost sight of this bigger picture and bigger duty," she said recently. "Their decision to approve HNWD's site plan doesn't just impact a few unhappy landowners in Virginia — it impacts the entire nation. By approving a project that will permanently mar a National Historic Place and deface a National Scenic Byway, they have stolen something from the nation that belongs to every citizen."

What happens next?

The SCC will issue a decision on whether HNWD has met this condition after the hearing has taken place Sept. 23.

DHR's letter was copied to the Virginia Attorney General's office, HNWD, the battlefields foundation, the Department of Environmental Quality, the National Park Service, the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, Highland County and the U.S. Forest Service, any of which might be enlisted to provide testimony in the case.

Should the SCC agree with DHR, and find the developer non-compliant with its order, it's unknown how that might affect HNWD's special use permit issued locally by Highland County.

Supervisor David Blanchard said, "Until the SCC determines what the intent of its language is, we can't judge how that affects the conditional use permit. It's a mess. They (SCC) left it open in a sense, open to broad interpretation. I'm interested in protecting the county, and I'm trying to interpret things in a more critical, protective way than everybody else."

Blanchard has maintained the county should have verified whether HNWD was meeting its state conditions before giving the company the go-ahead for construction. "I've always stated we should know whether the other conditions other agencies have recommended are being followed," he said. "I would think that would have to be looked at. They need to comply in order to operate under our conditions."

Blanchard said he had already begun drafting a letter to the SCC to find out where HNWD stands in meeting its state conditions, and hopes to find out how the SCC's next moves might affect the county-issued permit.