Wind plans slow down

MONTEREY — Citizens were treated to an open dialogue Tuesday about the wind energy project under construction here on Allegheny Mountain.

Supervisors, and Highland New Wind Development owners Mac and Tal McBride, fielded questions from residents about where things stand with the $80 million utility, and only one of them went unanswered — whether or not the company has a financial investor.

Mac McBride said site work is coming to a close for the winter, and HNWD has not yet applied for the building permits required before its 19 towers and substations can be constructed. "It's a good possibility we'll wrap this up," — site work authorized under the current bond and land disturbing permit — before winter sets in, McBride said. "That's pretty well done. And we've got some things bought, not the final equipment, but some transformers. We asked them not to deliver those to Virginia yet."

The conference room was packed to overflowing as county officials worked through a full agenda, but after taking care of other matters, a comment period lasted more than an hour, until 11 p.m., as residents told supervisors they were concerned that conflicting information continues to surface about whether HNWD is meeting the conditions attached to its county and state permits.

Both supervisors and the McBrides indicated they were open to questions and comments.

Mac McBride said he'd answer any questions people had, so resident Rick Webb asked him whether HNWD had found any investors for the project.

"That, I don't think, is any of your affair," McBride replied.

"That's not relevant," said supervisor Jerry Rexrode.

Webb told the board he believed it had a right to ask. "You could ask if you wanted to," he told them.

"Do you have any investors yet?" Blanchard asked.

"I'm not going to answer that," replied Tal McBride.

Other than the question about financial backing, other questions were answered by the family or supervisors about the project.

For the most part, supervisors said they believe the county has done all it can do to ensure its conditions are being met, though they said there might be a few things they are unaware of at the state level.

"This has been an incredible learning process," said board chair Robin Sullenberger, adding it's been difficult for all involved.

Residents urged county officials to ask more questions of HNWD, and state agencies reviewing the project, to make sure all is in order.

Laurie Berman, who lives on Allegheny Mountain near the project site, said HNWD should be asked to stop work until all the uncertainties are settled. "I appreciate this open discussion," she told the board, "but it's obvious there are still a lot of questions, and more permits may be needed. It's hard to understand why you'd keep allowing construction if the site plan may need to be changed … I feel like you should put a hold on this until all these issues are worked out. The site plan may be changed drastically."

Deborah Ellington of Blue Grass agreed. "I thought you'd get the site plan and then the agencies would get to say something about it, but I guess the state doesn't have to say anything and they get to proceed? ... I just hope you guys can stay on top of everything. I'm worried there will be something come up you should have known," she told the board.

County attorney Melissa Dowd agreed it's been difficult. For example, she said, when Department of Conservation and Recreation officials met with building official Jim Whitelaw and engineers, Whitelaw told DCR officials they could tell Highland what to do with regard to the Erosion and Sediment control plan, but DCR officials said they would not do that because they didn't have the authority, and it was up to the county. "That happens repeatedly with state agencies," Dowd said.

"So we're still getting state and federal approvals?" Ellington asked.

"No, we have it all. If there's anything else out there, we're not aware of it."

Sullenberger said he was confident the county had done everything required related to the project, and did not believe the county was at risk for further lawsuits, as asserted by residents. "We followed the zoning ordinance and our decisions withstood all appeals," he said. "If there are additional lawsuits, I am confident we have solid standing. This was a local land use decision, and as we have seen, those are difficult to overcome."

Rexrode added, "We don't ask for lawsuits, but we defend our decisions. Maybe there are 2-3 permits HNWD might have to have, but if they're out there, we don't know about them. It may be there but we don't know it," he said. "don't know what's so uncertain about it. They're building a road, they're protecting the road, they'll put up a stem, put the turbine on top, and hook the transmission lines to them. It's simple."

Sullenberger said county officials were not being complacent. "I have had numerous conversations off and on with the DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) for 25 years," he said. "am very confident that if they feel there are any significant issues, they would be addressing those aggressively."

Blanchard said his concern was that if HNWD is not meeting its conditions, the project is at risk. If the county is counting on a revenue stream, and jobs, then "ultimately, we have to boil this down to securing that revenue," he said. Actions and inactions by HNWD and the county "put this county in jeopardy and threaten that revenue stream."

He said everyone, no matter how they feel about the project, should be concerned about losing that potential tax revenue, estimated at roughly $200,000 a year. He told Rexrode he respected the county's push for an alternative stream of revenue, "but there is no guarantee we're going to get that" from HNWD's project, he said.

Blanchard listed unsettled issues such as the Department of Historic Resources' complaint that HNWD isn't meeting its state conditions, ongoing issues with DCR and the E&S plan, and the boundary dispute with West Virginia. "If the turbines have to be removed, it threatens the project, and the county's revenue stream, and we've already put more than our fair share of public investment into this project. We can debate whether the state will find new permits, but it's not just about the NIMBYs. It's also people who are fine with the project."

Blanchard mentioned a comment he had seen from HNWD's spokesman, Frank Maisano, about the company having its final permit, and wondered why HNWD was distributing misinformation about its building permit status.

"I think you are mistaken," Tal McBride responded.

"I can find it for you," Blanchard told him.

"I think you are mistaken," Tal McBride said again.

Maisano's statement Blanchard referred to was issued in a widespread e-mail Sept. 21 with the subject line, "Another Climate Crazy Week." In that e-mail, Maisano said, "I will be on the NIMBY wind turbine trail this week in Virginia and West Virginia as two projects I am working on are holding public meetings. Interestingly, both are excellent projects that have incurred the wrath of a small group of activists - in the case of the Virginia project - AFTER they received their final building permit after seven years of debate and discussion about the project."

Mac McBride clarified HNWD has not even applied for its final building permits. "The applications are all in a folder … we have not asked for them," he said.

Rexrode told citizens the county had a process to go through, and it did that. "Certainly the first drawings we got were not what we wanted to see," he said, but "competent engineers" got together and worked things out. "The process is over. The process is totally over … I respect people's concerns, but what exactly do you want our board to do?" he said. HNWD has to "comply with every regulation that everyone else has to comply with," he added. "The SCC has their job. We have our job. I assure you the review committee asked HNWD one thing after another … there's got to be a good reason to stop the project. Everything we've asked HNWD to do, they've done. I don't know what else you want us to do here."

Rexrode said the state process does work, and all the questions being raised have already been discussed in a public meeting.

Webb disagreed. He said the process didn't work when the county approved a flawed E&S plan. He noted Dr. Pamela Dodds, a consultant for nearby landowners, had pointed out the plan's deficiencies, and her findings were later supported by DCR inspector Mark Chambers. "The Highland County Board of Supervisors does have an obligation to require state and federal approvals be obtained," Webb said. He suggested HNWD could need another one or two permits to place drilling equipment in one of the wetlands areas near a stream crossing (see related story).

Tal McBride said, "Rick Webb makes accusations continually (to state agencies)." He said all the studies by agency officials just don't satisfy Webb.

Ske Ellington asked the board to clarify whether HNWD had all the state and federal approvals it needed.

"We have all the required approvals," McBride said.

However, DEQ officials told The Recorder Wednesday they were "pretty certain" there was another permit HNWD needed to apply for (see related story).

Allegheny Mountain resident Pen Goodall asked about trees being cleared at the project site, and Rexrode said, "That's not happening. They're putting in roads for putting in the pads."

Goodall said he was concerned the area being cleared was for the turbines.

"If it is, he hasn't applied for a permit for that," Rexrode said.

Goodall also asked about what he believed were Civil War breastworks on Tamarack Ridge near one of the turbine sites. He said his father had explained the breastworks to him years ago.

Mac McBride said the feature was not breastworks, but a channel created to funnel water into a pond that no longer exists — something done long before he was leasing the land.

As the discussion wrapped up, Mustoe resident John Sweet thanked the board for the open dialogue "that had been so lacking earlier in this process."

Dowd explained the reason supervisors were unable to discuss these issues openly before now was because the county was in multi-year litigation, "and anything they said could have been used against them."

Blue Grass resident Nancy Witschey replied. "It hurt this county," she told Dowd. "I don't know if it was worth putting a muzzle on these people, but it hurt, what you did to this county."

Following the meeting, Blanchard asked for a closed session about potential litigation. After the board returned to open session, it voted unanimously to direct County Administrator Roberta Lambert to write to the state agencies involved in the SCC process, and ask if there are any authorizations or permits required of HNWD, or any further actions or review necessary by the state agencies that the county is not aware of.

The county will request that it be copied on any correspondence with HNWD, particularly if a state agency is requiring a permit, Lambert said.