State agencies cooperating on wind project, Secretary says

By Anne Adams • Staff Writer

RICHMOND — Scrutiny of the state's first wind power plant has intensified, now that state agencies have had a chance to review its plans.

Sept. 1, Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources Preston Bryant called a meeting with officials from agencies reviewing Highland New Wind Development's plans for a 38-megawatt wind turbine utility. "It was simply so that I could get a comprehensive overview of their work on the HNWD project," Bryant said. "As you know, this is the first such wind project we've had. I am confident that our agencies are working in a coordinated manner."

Following that meeting, at least two agencies told HNWD they needed more information to help guide construction to avoid damage to wildlife and the environment. HNWD began site work last month, but state officials did not get to review final plans before earth moving began. Now, most have looked at the plans, and are formulating recommendations, including the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Department of Environmental Quality.

Bryant said he could not comment on HNWD, but explained what the normal processes are. "Our agencies must have site plans with sufficient detail to determine whether the project can be permitted per existing regulations," Bryant explained. "Engineers who deal regularly with DCR, DEQ, and other agencies usually know stormwater regulations and erosion and sediment control regulations quite well and are well-versed in what must be shown on a site plan. Our agencies try to be helpful to applicants and are almost always willing to sit down with developers early on in order to discuss a project. We want to help project owners get off on as good a foot as possible. Also, if a project is an especially unusual or large or complex one, it's in our plan-reviewers' interests to get a good understanding of it in its early stages, as that certainly helps them in their eventual review of a submitted permit application."

However, Bryant added, "It is not up to the plan reviewers to hand-hold a developer all the way through a project. We certainly want to be helpful, but there's a limit to what agency personnel can do on any specific project given the dozens of projects likely to be on their desk at any given time."

Agency officials are paying attention to HNWD's project. Re- cently, a DCR inspector reviewed the utility's stormwater pollution prevention plan, made recommendations, and gave HNWD until Oct. 12 to make changes. If made, the changes would affect and improve the Erosion and Sediment control plan.

The E&S plan was approved by Highland County building official Jim Whitelaw, who is the authority over its approval, but DCR officials can assist Whitelaw with inspections. Bryant explained that although E&S control is a local government responsibility, "DCR has always been willing to work with localities on erosion and sediment control, especially on complex projects. Generally, though, we rely on a locality to invite DCR to participate," he said. "We don't force our wants into what is a local government responsibility. When DCR gets legitimate erosion and sediment control complaints, DCR obviously has a responsibility to engage the local government. I also will say this: DCR has dedicated an extraordinary amount of effort over the past five or so years to non-point source issues generally, such as stormwater management and erosion and sediment control."

In 2005, DCR became the principal stormwater management agency, Bryant added, "and since then, DCR has done yeomen's work to hone the regulatory pro- gram ... I believe localities have come a long way over the past few years on their erosion and sediment control programs, but there is still work to be done. I generally believe many localities need to beef up their erosion and sediment control inspection and compliance programs."

Bryant has been to HNWD's project site. "I actually traveled to the county a couple of years ago when the HNWD project was making news after the board had approved it. Frankly, I wanted to see the project site with my own eyes so that I could keep it all in context," he said. "While I wanted to see the HNWD project site, this also was the time that we were engaged in crafting the Virginia Energy Plan, the state's first-ever such plan. I therefore wanted to see the types of ridges where turbines might be constructed. I visited other potential wind sites in western and southwestern Virginia too."

One of the agencies to first make additional recommendations to HNWD was the Natural Heritage Division of DCR. State endangered species and special habitats exist in the area. DCR recommended a survey of those. Division director Thomas L. Smith wrote to HNWD Sept. 4. "In accordance with the SCC's order, please verify that inventories have been conducted for the multiple natural heritage resources that are known to be in the general project area, including drooping bluegrass, ground juniper, purple oatgrass, and High Elevation Seepage Swamp," Smith wrote. Smith said DCR could conduct the inventories if they have not been done, at no expense. Friday, DCR public relations manager Gary Waugh said HNWD would take the agency up on its offer; the date of the survey has not yet been scheduled.

The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries also asked for information, and expressed concerns about whether the project was in compliance with the SCC order.

Raymond Fernald, manager of the nongame and environmental programs, reminded HNWD most of DGIF's concerns related to potential impacts on bats and birds.

DGIF said three years ago that as long as construction took place within existing cleared ridges and access roads, it should not impact northern flying squirrels, an endangered species, Fernald explained, adding last week that "clearing of forested habitat along the margins of the proposed impact area, however, could impact this species," he said. "Similarly, while suitable habitat for water shrews and rock voles does exist on site, as long as the proposed utility line and stream crossings are directionally bored within the existing cleared powerline easement, with appropriate setbacks and erosion controls, we do not anticipate a significant adverse impact upon those species."

DGIF was concerned about the original plans to excavate equipment pits for stream crossings about six feet from the banks. "Our concern is that this construction activity could result in substantial sedimentation of the streams and adverse impacts upon trout; thus we recommended increasing the setback of these equipment pits to at least 50 feet, and implementation of strict erosion and sediment control measures at the these utility crossings," Fernald told HNWD. DGIF is concerned the final site plan, and E&S plan, don't adequately describe how HNWD will comply with the requirements of SCC's final order, "particularly with regard to the scale of drawings; final siting and details of turbines and transmission lines; final locations and details of temporary or permanent access, construction, or maintenance roads; details of stream crossings and other appurtenant facilities; and details of sediment and erosion control facilities."

DGIF reviewed the inspection report of the stormwater permit, and Fernald said his agency believes if HNWD complies with suggested corrections, and all recommendations provided, that "would effectively ensure protection of the commonwealth's wildlife resources."

HNWD replied, saying it intended to comply with DGIF's requests, and work cooperatively on monitoring and mitigation. HNWD attorney John Flora explained HNWD will require 30-50 foot setbacks from either stream bank for the directional drilling process.

Fernald explained why DGIF did not get a chance until after work began to review the plans. Whether DGIF gets complete site plans for any project, he told The Recorder, "depends on several factors ... we have no authority to request or require such site plans; we review what we get from appropriate regulatory agencies or project applicants or consultants, and according to our project load.

"In the HNWD case, site plan approval is within the local government's purview, with sediment and erosion control and stormwater management jurisdiction within the purview of local government and DCR. During the SCC case proceedings, we requested final site plans on several occasions, but we did not receive the final plans … until about the same time they were locally approved," Fernald explained. "As we understand it, the plans have changed again at least once since that approval was granted."

DGIF made some of the most specific recommendations to the SCC before the project got a state certificate, and Fernald said, "Presuming HNWD provides funding as required in the order, DGIF will cooperate with SCC in ensuring that the monitoring and mitigation protocols protective of bats, birds, and endangered or threatened wildlife are implemented as described in the order.

"We anticipate a positive response to our proposal, followed by regular site visits and inspections by DGIF and DCR staff, that would address many of the site plan and natural resources protection issues that you, and we, have raised pertaining to this project," Fernald said. "If such cooperation does not evolve in response to our recent letter, we will consider other options, including but not necessarily limited to, filing formal

comments with the SCC."

During the seven years since this project has been debated, much has changed in Virginia. The state successfully passed the Virginia Energy Plan a few years ago, to encourage renewable energy of all types, on a small and large scale. In the most recent session of the General Assembly, legislation was enacted to put the review of wind plants with a capacity of 100 megawatts or less under DEQ's authority for permitting, instead of the SCC. "The administration supported that legislation after working with the renewable energy and environmental stakeholders to strike what we thought was a good approach," Bryant said.

DEQ director David Paylor added, "We are embarking on a new role with regard to wind energy." The agency is developing processes for permitting smaller wind facilities through a committee, and Paylor says DEQ will have that outlined by the end of next year. "Our role in wind until now has been through the SCC, as chief coordinator for the EIS process. We collect comments from (other state agencies) and pass them on unedited to the SCC."

Paylor said unless HNWD needs a DEQ permit for its project, it will not add much to the reviews. "But the questions raised by the county have been good ones: What can you do to make sure the SCC permit conditions are met adequately? The answer is to consult the SCC. If any agencies make suggestions and are dissatisfied with the response, they must communicate that with the SCC," he said.

As for the state's strengths and weaknesses on renewable energy, Bryant said it's hard to say yet. "Time will tell," he said. "I think it's a bit unfair to judge the state's efforts too harshly at the moment — after all, we're really just getting into terrestrial wind projects. The Highland County project is the first such significant, utility-scale project. I believe the SCC did a good job in considering the project, and I think DEQ did an excellent job in coordinating our environmental agencies' initial review and consideration of the project, as evidenced by the fact that the SCC incorporated all of the agencies' respective suggestions."

Virginia, he noted, only has a handful or more of good locations for wind projects on land, those with class 4-6 winds that make generating the power economically feasible. "I generally support wind projects," Bryant said. "I feel quite strongly about renewable energy. However, the state does not take early positions on specific proposed wind projects — in every case, these decisions are left to local governments to decide. If a local government approves a proposed project, the state will then consider the project after the SCC does its initial assessment.

"As for wind generation generally, I frankly believe that Virginia's greatest wind potential lies offshore. We have massive wind generation potential lying off our coast — so much so that we as a state must do everything we reasonably can to promote it."