Wind project case goes to hearing

By Anne Adams • Staff Writer

This photo-simulation was created by Allegheny Mountain residents near the Camp Allegheny Battlefield, and they describe the area where it was taken. "The road in the center of the photo is the Camp Allegheny Backway, a 12-mile segment of the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike, which is a National Scenic Byway — one of only 126 such roads in the nation. The Camp Allegheny Battlefield lies on both sides of the road and is managed by the United States Forest Service. The portion above the road is owned by the USFS, while the portion below the road, which includes the most well-preserved trenches and gun emplacements, is privately owned." See more information on the site at: www.brightsideacres.com, under "Save Camp Allegheny Battlefield."

MONTREY — "We need to preserve every battlefield we can. These places are consecrated. They are blessed by the shedding of blood."

Professor James I. Robertson Jr. is appalled by the idea of ruining any more Civil War battlefields in this country.

Robertson is an alumni distinguished professor of history at Virginia Tech; the author or editor of more than two dozen books; and was chief historical consultant for the movie, "Gods and Generals."

Contacted at home Tuesday, he spoke about the need for preservation, and the importance of Civil War history in Virginia and West Virginia. He is deeply disappointed that officials approved a 240,000-square-foot Wal Mart on the Wildnerness Battlefield in Orange County last month, and is disturbed by the idea that another battlefield, Camp Allegheny, is endangered by the industrial wind facility under construction in Highland County.

"Once they are disturbed, you can never restore them," Robertson said. "It's terribly sad. I wish folks there the best of luck in preventing this from happening … The fact that even one man died there makes that ground holy."

Robertson says the viewshed at Allegheny Mountain's battlefield in Pocahontas County, W.Va., is rare, and everything possible must be done to protect it.

"To get a feeling about what really happened, you have to go there and sense it. No matter how many books you read or classes you take, you have to stand on the ground and feel it. That will tell it all," he said.

Virginia's Department of Historic Resources has for years asked Highland New Wind Development to conduct an objective viewshed analysis so it can determine whether there are ways to preserve the viewshed from Camp Allegheny.

According to the developer, DHR has "stubbornly" insisted on an analysis of the wind utility and its effects, when such a study is not really required.

HNWD, which started work on its 38-megawatt utility a few weeks ago, submitted a response summary to the State Corporation Commission in advance of a hearing Wednesday on DHR's allegations that by not conducting the study, HNWD is not meeting a condition of its state permit from the SCC.

DHR notified the SCC Aug. 19, asking for assistance. "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 evalua- tion of the project's effects," wrote DHR director Kathleen Kilpatrick. "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."

In its response from attorney John Flora, HNWD says that since 2006, DHR has "consistently and stubbornly demanded a comprehensive viewshed analysis. The focus of the complaint is the wind project's 'negative impact on the pristine historic setting of Camp Allegheny,' located in West Virginia, more than two miles away from the wind farm. However, the commission has already ruled that viewshed was considered by Highland County and therefore, pursuant to Virginia law, no additional conditions pertaining to viewshed can be imposed by the commission."

Flora quoted from the SCC's order on HNWD's permit, which states, "The hearing examiner properly found that the following matters were considered by Highland County in issuing Highland Wind a conditional use permit pursuant to Highland County's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan: … viewshed."

The order notes that HNWD's conditional use permit, issued by Highland County in 2005, satisfies certain requirements and SCC will not impose additional conditions on those issues.

"HNWD has reached the conclusion that (DHR) and some of its sister state agencies believe that the words, 'coordinate with,' and 'work closely with,' mandate that HNWD do whatever the agency demands, or else HNWD is portrayed as non-cooperative or according to the complaint, not entering into 'constructive consultation.' HNWD admits that it has taken the position, based upon the clear language of the commission's final order, that it is not required to conduct a viewshed analysis to the satisfaction of (DHR)," Flora wrote.

Kilpatrick told the SCC that DHR believes 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."

She noted her agency sought comments from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program, Monongahela National Forest, and the West Virginia Division of Culture and History.

"We are in agreement that this project will likely have a negative impact on the pristine historic setting of Camp Allegheny, a National Register-listed Civil War battlefield. HNWD has not demonstrated a willingness to consider and minimize the impacts of the project on this significant battlefield," Kilpatrick said.

She also explained the analysis "should be conducted by a qualified cultural resources professional and take into consideration key locations and lines-of-sight related to the camp and battle. It should be noted that this analysis will only be useful if based on a valid site plan that details the locations of the proposed towers and associated facilities."

HNWD argues that since 2005, "DHR demands for surveys and studies have changed from time to time, but the three basic demands are best summarized in Director Kilpatrick's letter of March 20, 2008," Flora said.

Kilpatrick asked for a viewshed analysis, an archaeological survey, and an architectural survey. "HNWD consulted with DHR on multiple occasions by phone, email and letters, and provided both the requested archaeological survey and the requested architectural survey," Flora said.

For an archaeological survey, he said, HNWD got proposals from two firms. After repeated requests to reduce the scope of the surveys, DHR conducted a site visit October 2008. Jan. 15, 2009, Kilpatrick wrote to HNWD, saying the project site did not have much potential for archaeological finds. "Once a site plan is developed and a grading plan finalized, these areas of minimal archaeological potential could be identified by a qualified archaeologist and excluded from any survey," she told the company.

This, said Flora, "is precisely what HNWD set out to accomplish.

"HNWD tried on many occasions to engage a JMU archaeologist who was suggested by Director Kilpatrick as a well qualified individual who could use students to help keep the cost of the survey at a minimum. Despite repeated attempts, the archaeologist never returned calls. HNWD engaged Dr. Linda Perry, an archaeologist who works for the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, to visit the site, conduct a survey by foot of the areas to be disturbed according to the site plan and then conduct appropriate shovel tests along State Route 250, where the only likely potential for archaeologically significant findings would occur," Flora explained.

July 9, DHR received Perry's report. Perry conducted four shovel tests and did not find anything significant. "HNWD believes that Dr. Perry's report was consistent with the written and verbal guidance provided by DHR Director Kilpatrick. Nevertheless, DHR requested a 'guideline' compliant report asking for two bound copies," Flora argued. "Finally, on July 15, 2009, HNWD encouraged DHR to visit the site in case an unexpected archaeologically significant site is discovered."

July 9, DHR said Perry's study did not meet minimum standards under agency guidelines for a survey. "Any archaeological study must consider all aspects of the project and this has not been demonstrated," said Roger Kirchen, archaeologist in DHR's office of review and compliance.

Flora's July 15 response disagreed, and he told DHR, "This finishes our consultation with your department, other than the possibility of your construction project monitoring."

For an architectural survey, Flora said, DHR conducted an archives search in 2003 and 2005, reimbursed by the developer, to see what historic resources were in the area. "The turbines will not be seen from any of the reported sites, which are Bridge #1019 and the two Jacob Hevener stores in Hightown," Flora said. "As a result of distance and local topography, none of these historical resources would be impaired in any way by the wind farm. The DHR response is that their records are incomplete and there may be unrecorded resources, which to them justifies a demand to conduct an architectural survey. Thankfully, DHR limited the scope of the architectural survey to one and a half miles from the project site, instead of their standard five-mile request. HNWD submitted photographs of all improvements located within the one and a half mile range of the site and as stated earlier, the architectural survey work was accepted by DHR on Jan. 15, 2009. As everyone believed to be the case, including DHR, there were no architectural sites of historic significance."

As for viewshed, Flora concluded, "The final order clearly states and provides that any viewshed analysis is subject to, and controlled by, Highland County and that the commission is not authorized to impose any additional conditions, which precludes a state agency from requesting a viewshed analysis. Highland County, as part of its final site plan review, did review a viewshed analysis, including computer-simulated pictures, taken from Camp Allegheny, which were provided to DHR."

HNWD asked that SCC declare the condition of its permit related to DHR is satisfied.

What's significant about the battlefield?

When DHR requested information about Camp Allegheny, one of its resources was the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. The foundation's assistant director for policy and communications, Elizabeth Paradis Stern, summarized the significance of the area, and said, "Based on available information, it appears that the installation of industrial wind energy turbines along ridgelines in western Highland County, specifically Tamarack Ridge and Red Oak Knob, would substantially impact two historic resources significant to the conduct of the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley," she said.

"The Staunton to Parkersburg Turnpike ties within the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District. The turnpike generally follows the path of modern U.S. Route 250. Camp Allegheny, the site of the Battle of Allegheny Mountain (Dec. 13, 1861), is immediately west of the National Historic District and the state boundary with West Virginia. Both of these resources are fairly unique in that they are not subject to any significant modern intrusions. Wind turbines as proposed by Highland New Wind would be clearly visible to visitors to Camp Allegheny and the Staunton to Parkersburg Turnpike … The Camp Allegheny battlefield is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is included in the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's study of the nation's most significant Civil War battlefields," she explained. "The Staunton to Parkersburg Turnpike is a National Scenic Byway in West Virginia, including the area below the ridgeline proposed as a wind turbine location. As a significant corridor for the movement of people and goods through the region before, during, and after the war and for the movement, deployment, and engagement of troops during the war, the turnpike is itself historically significant. The federal legislation that created the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and the District's management plan both call for the protection and interpretation of historically important roadway linkages within the district."

Professor Robertson recently released the latest in a series of volumes edited by him, and William C. Davis, director of programs at the Virginia Center for Civil War Studies, who was chief consultant for the History Channel's "Civil War Journal," and is also a Virginia Tech history professor.

Robertson says the succession of West Virginia from Virginia is rich American history, and speaks to many of the social and political issues of the time. Mountain people had little in common with the Tidewater area of Virginia then. "There was never a state bond," he said. "There was always friction there. Western Virginians had strong ties with the folks across the Ohio River and the northern counties." As Virginia moved ever closer to secession, western Virginians refused to go. "Virginia is the only state that lost land in the war, and it lost a third of the state," he explained. "We Americans don't have much in common … but the Civil War, that's common heritage. We need these opportunities (like battlefields) to relive our past, and see the long and bloody load we've carried all these years … We can't ignore that war. It's like a great mountain that looms over our American heritage."

HNWD says the wind turbines will be roughly 2.5 miles from Camp Allegheny, but those familiar with the site disagree.

Dawn Brown Barrett, who maintains a web site on the battlefield and how it might be affected by the project, says the nearest part of Camp Allegheny is closer than 1.3 miles. Her line of sight measurements using U.S. Geological Survey topography maps and HNWD site plan for Tamarack Ridge show that turbine No. 1 will be less than 2,000 feet from the boundary of Camp Allegheny, 1.14 miles to the Varner Monument on the battlefield, and 1.5 miles to the gate leading to the monument.

She has urged officials to verify her measurements.

Dan Foster, a Highland resident familiar with the historic site, has also said it's closer than 2.5 miles. He had requested Highland officials reviewing site plans to get photo-simulations from several places at Camp Allegheny, including the site of the battle itself where hundreds of Confederate and Union soldiers died. Highland officials, however, did not ask HNWD to provide simulations from the points he suggested.

SCC hearing examiner Alexander J. Skirpan will hold a hearing on the matter Wednesday, Sept. 23 at 10 a.m. in the SCC courtroom in downtown Richmond. Both DHR and HNWD will provide testimony. SCC staff might also appear to participate on behalf of the general public.

Flora is expected to represent HNWD. DHR will be represented by Steven Owens, senior assistant attorney general.

According to Ken Schrad, SCC director of information resources, the hearing will not be web cast due to another case on the schedule. Also, he explained, the case is "limited in nature to the issues raised by DHR and the response of HNWD. It would be up to the hearing examiner to rule on any request for another responsible agency, or member of the public, to present information to the commission relevant to the issue in question."

The hearing is open to the public.

Highlanders for Responsible Development, the grassroots group initially formed in opposition to the project, issued a call to members and friends to write to the SCC about the hearing. HRD notes that citizens and officials in West Virginia are also concerned about the wind facility. "There is growing opposition and a lot of movement to stop the project as it is," HRD's letter stated, calling attention to Barrett's web site: http://www. brightsideacres.com/Save_Camp_ Allegheny_Battlefield.

The site explains the concerns of West Virginians; HRD urges citizens to write the SCC to explain that, "one doesn't have to be a Civil War buff to appreciate the uncommon beauty of a landscape that provides such a remarkably clear window into our past. The SCC has the opportunity to declare that such a window is worth preserving — if not for us, then for our children, for whom such views are sure to become even more rare."

Pamela and Art Dodds, two Civil War reenactors from Montrose, W.Va., wrote a letter urging the SCC to stop the project not only because of the DHR's allegation of non-compliance, but "because of the tremendous harm it will incur on the natural and historic resources of Virginia and West Virginia."

Further, they said, Camp Allegheny "represents one of the most important strategic campaigns in the Civil War. Camp Allegheny is hallowed ground: so many soldiers fought and died for what they believed. Hundreds of reenactors participate in the battle reenactments to provide living history for visitors to Camp Allegheny. In addition to reenactors from West Virginia, reenactors travel from Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey to participate in the battle reenactments. It is critically important that the reenactors and visitors be able to experience Camp Allegheny personally by viewing Camp Allegheny through the eyes of those involved during the actual Civil War. As much as possible, Camp Allegheny must be preserved in a way that a person can view the site in the same way that a Civil War soldier would have seen the site. A full view of industrial-scale wind turbines will be a travesty to this hallowed ground and will rob all reenactors and visitors of the opportunity to fully experience the history of Camp Allegheny."

The Dodds say they have been reviewing HNWD's activities, and "we are aware that the complaint lodged by the DHR is not an isolated instance," they wrote. "HNWD has also failed to comply with numerous other conditions in the SCC's final order. HNWD's failure to protect water resources at the construction site is of great concern. The letter dated August 19, 2009, from Woods Rogers PLC, on behalf of Highland citizens, to your office outlined concerns specifying HNWD's failure to comply with the conditions in the SCC's final order. HNWD should certainly comply with all the conditions set forth by the SCC."

Tuesday, the Pocahontas County Commission agreed to send a letter to Owens about the hearing. The commission also sent a letter to the newly-appointed West Virginia Boundary Commission, asking it to help settle the question of whether the accepted state line between Pocahontas and Highland is accurate. Based on that line, one of the turbine towers is actually in Virginia, not West Virginia, and that has called HNWD's site plan into question (see related story).