L
FRONT PAGE
American Bird Conservancy Objects to Proposed Weakening of Eagle Protections for Wind Industry
. . . The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers allowing wind energy companies to apply for 30-year eagle "take" permits . . . in closed-to-the-public meetings with wind industry representatives
ABC Media Release
ABC letter to U.S. Dept. of Interior
See also: News Reports
Wind Power: What is it we are trying to save?
. . . we end up blighting the very thing we set out to protect
. . . once again there is an effort in the Virginia General Assembly to exempt commercial wind energy projects from local land use controls
SB 1341 - General Assembly Bill Tracking
SB 1341 - Richmond Sunlight
Senate Local Government Committee
Opposition letter: Allegheny Highlands Alliance
See also: News Reports and Commentary
UPDATE: 01/29/13, SB 1341 has been withdrawn by the sponsor
A Critical Precedent for Environmental Review of Appalachian Wind Energy Projects
. . . the Beech Ridge Energy draft Habitat Conservation Plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement
Invenergy's Beech Ridge Energy Applies for Incidental Take Permit - Comment Period Open Through October 23rd
US Fish and Wildlife Service Notice, includes links to:
- Habitat Conservation Plan for the endangered Indiana and Virginia Big-eared Bats
- Incidental Take Permit Application
- Draft Environmental Impact Statement
- Background information
Indiana Bat Fatality at AES Laurel Mountain Wind Project
An Ill Wind Blows for America's Eagles
Allowing [wind] energy corporations to sidestep the eagle protection act flies in the face of sound science and common sense . . . independent scientist are routinely refused access to wind power facilities, and data given to the government are often kept from the public . . . some companies falsely claim the information is proprietary, as if they owned the public's wildlife.
USFWS proposal to relax eagle protections (comments due 071212)Nintey Environmental Groups Seeking Tough Rules on Wind Projects
For years the Interior Department has been telling the wind industry: "'No matter what you do, you need not worry about being procecuted.' To me that's appalling public policy." - Eric Glitzenstein
Measuring the Performance of Wind Energy Projects
Virginia promotes wind project development through financial incentives and expedited environmental review. Some would go further and mandate renewable energy, forcing utilities to build wind projects on our mountain ridges. Actual analysis of costs and benefits has not been part of the discussion.
. . . purported advantages of wind electric power are not what are often assumed . . . . when electric power is needed most, wind is either not blowing or only weakly available.
Massive Bird Kill at West Virginia Wind "Farm" Highlights National Issue
Even as evidence for environmental risk increases, wind industry lobbyest and promotional groups advocate for reduced assessment and regulatory oversight.
Wind Turbines on Appalachian Ridges: Rising Concern for the Eastern Golden Eagle
Golden Eagles migrate and winter in areas proposed for wind development, including the Highland New Wind Development site in Highland County.
Roanoke Times Editorial Warns Counties Not to Block Industrial Wind Development
Virginia's Bath County Takes Stand Against Wind Turbines
The Dark Side of Wind Power
The next time you hear someone say, "Cats kill more birds than wind turbines," remember, cats don't kill Golden Eagles.
Threatened by Wind Turbines: Civil War Battlefield Nominated for Most Endangered List
At Risk: Developers Who Proceed in Defiance of Federal Law and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Highland New Wind Development: Misinformation by Omission
Senator Frank Wagner's Continuing Misdeeds on Behalf of the Wind Industry
A Final Attempt At Resolution: Highland New Wind Development Confronts the Endangered Species Act
Highland New Wind Active Again?
Allegheny Highlands Alliance: Facing the Specter of Abandoned Turbines on Appalachian Ridges
Comments Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Invenergy Beech Ridge Wind Project
The Virginia DEQ's Proposed Permit by Rule for "Small" Wind Projects
Violations of the Endangered Species Act: Highland New Wind Development
Highland New Wind Faces Continuing Roadblocks
Tazewell County Stops Wind Project With Ridgeline Protection Ordinance
Highland County Supervisors Liable for Non-compliance with Endangered Species Act
Get Rational About Appalachian Wind Energy
Highland New Wind in Wetlands Denial?
Pending Tazewell County Gold Rush?
Defiance: Highland New Wind Responds to State Agency Complaint
Hearing Scheduled on Highland New Wind Compliance with SCC Order
Highland New Wind: Complance With SCC Permit Conditions in Question
Highland New Wind: Construction Starts Amid Escalating Legal Problems
Highland New Wind: Interstate Conflict Ignites
Highland New Wind: Another Shade of Green
Misrepresenting the status of the proposed Highland County wind energy project
The wind industry and it's allies seek to avoid environmental assessment
Forest Service rejects wind developer's proposal
Energy conservation: the rational alternative
Misuse of Economic Stimulus Money to Bail Out a Troubled Wind Energy Project
Highland New Wind: continuing contention over SCC conditions
Highland New Wind Development: failure of process?
Virginia's offshore wind energy option
"The greenest windfarm in the world"
Highland New Wind Project Faces Uncertainty: Site Plan Unavailable
Spinning statistics to promote Virginia wind turbine project
Highland County officials face continuing legal problems with wind energy project
Forest Service proposal would minimize review of wind energy projects in National Forests
SCC Commissoner comments on Highand wind project
Bill would exempt Highland New Wind from SCC oversight
SCC "Approves" Highland Wind Project
At issue: Highland County wind project compliance with the Endangered Species Act
Developer Complains About "Bat Tax"
It's not the cost of monitoring wildlife impacts that presents the problem
Impacts of wind energy on wildlife
Raptors and wind energy development in the central Appalachians
Annual Bat Fatalities of Up to 111,000 Projected for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands
Wildlife Risk + Effective Monitoring = Investment Risk
Industry Spin on the Bat Mortality Problem
Wind Development Will Not Reduce Mountaintop Removal
A critical precedent for environmental review of Appalachian wind energy projects
Beech Ridge Energy (BRE), a subsidiary of North America's largest wind energy company, Invenergy LLC, was required in 2009 to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and seek an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) before further developing its wind project in Greenbrier County, West Virginia.
Under terms of a federal court ruling, the 67 turbines already constructed or under construction were allowed to operate only during the hibernation period of the endangered Indiana bat, and only during daylight hours other times of the year. These terms were later relaxed, allowing BRE to operate its existing turbines year round and at night, but only during high-wind-speed conditions at night during the active season for hibernating bats.
BRE has now developed a draft HCP and applied for an ITP from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which is responsible for implementation of the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws that apply to wind energy projects. The ITP would apply to the existing 67 turbines and 33 additional turbines.
The FWS has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and sought public comment. This is the first central Appalachian wind energy project subject to comprehensive NEPA review, and a precedent will be set. Unfortunately, the draft HCP and the draft EIS are insufficient in terms of environmental impact analysis and compliance with NEPA and ESA requirements.
Comments submitted to the FWS on the draft HCP, the ITP application, and the draft EIS:
American Bird Conservancy
Animal Welfare Institute
Conservation Law Center
Rick Webb, Virginia Wind
Summary listing of comments
Massive Bird Kill at West Virginia Wind Farm Highlights National Issue
American Bird Conservancy Media Release, 102811
With the deaths of nearly 500 birds at the Laurel Mountain wind facility earlier this month, three of the four wind farms operating in West Virginia have now experienced large bird fatality events, according to American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.
“Wind energy has the potential to be a green energy source, but the industry still needs to embrace simple, bird-smart principles that would dramatically reduce incidents across the country, such as those that have occurred in West Virginia,” said Kelly Fuller, ABC’s Wind Campaign Coordinator.
There were three critical circumstances that tragically aligned in each of the three West Virginia events to kill these birds. Each occurred during bird migration season, during low visibility weather conditions, and with the addition of a deadly triggering element – an artificial light source. Steady-burning lights have been shown to attract and disorient birds, particularly night-migrating songbirds that navigate by starlight, and especially during nights where visibility is low such as in fog or inclement weather. Circling birds collide with structures or each other, or drop to the ground from exhaustion.
At the Laurel Mountain facility in the Allegheny Mountains, almost 500 birds were reportedly killed after lights were left on at an electrical substation associated with the wind project. The deaths are said to have occurred not from collisions with the wind turbines themselves, but from a combination of collisions with the substation and apparent exhaustion as birds caught in the light’s glare circled in mass confusion.
On the evening of September 24 this year at the Mount Storm facility in the Allegheny Mountains, 59 birds and two bats were killed. Thirty of the dead birds were found near a single wind turbine that was reported to have had internal lighting left on overnight. This incident stands in stark contrast to industry assertions that just two birds per year are killed on average by each turbine. Data from Altamont Pass, California wind farms – the most studied in the nation – suggest that over 2,000 Golden Eagles alone have been killed there.
On May 23, 2003 at the Mountaineer wind farm in the Allegheny Mountains, at least 33 birds were killed. Some of the deaths were attributed to collisions with wind turbines and some to collisions with a substation.
“The good news is that it shouldn’t be hard to make changes that will keep these sorts of unnecessary deaths from happening again, but it’s disturbing that they happened at all. It has long been known that many birds navigate by the stars at night, that they normally fly lower during bad weather conditions, and that artificial light can draw them off course and lead to fatal collision events. That’s why minimizing outdoor lighting at wind facilities is a well-known operating standard. And yet lights were left on at these sites resulting in these unfortunate deaths. This reinforces the need to have mandatory federal operational standards as opposed to the optional, voluntary guidelines that are currently under discussion,” Fuller said.
A fourth wind farm in West Virginia, the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project in Greenbrier County, has not experienced large mortality events, likely because it is currently prohibited by a court order from operating during nighttime between April 1 and November 15.
“Some West Virginia conservation groups have suggested that other wind farms in the state should shut down their wind turbines at certain times and seasons to protect birds. Given the recurring bird-kill problems, that idea needs to be seriously considered, at least during migration season on nights where low visibility is predicted. A wind farm in Texas is doing just that, so it is possible.” said Fuller.
American Bird Conservancy supports Bird-Smart Wind Power. For more information, visit www.abcbirds.org.
Consulting Company Report on the Bird Kill
AES Laurel Mountain Wind Project and Substation
The Blackpoll Warber: the majority of the birds killed at the AES Laurel Mountain wind project.
See News Reports and Commentary for more on this.
Wind Turbines on Appalachian Ridges: Rising Concern for the Eastern Golden Eagle
Many raptors, and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in particular, are susceptible to collisions with turbine blades. Recent research has shown that the population of golden eagles in eastern North America is small, and that a large proportion of these birds both travel through and overwinter in the Appalachian Mountains. Although the golden eagle is rare in the eastern U.S., recent research has shown that wintering golden eagles often concentrate on forested ridges in the central Appalachian region - the same ridges targeted for industrial wind energy projects.
Golden Eagles At Risk - Recorder Fall Guide 2011
Map: Golden Eagles and the Highland New Wind site
Virgil Caine - a Golden Eagle trapped in Highland
Virgil Caine - current location map
Virgil Caine - confronts turbines in Maine
WVU research: developing a regional risk map
Roanoke Times Editorial Warns Counties Not to Block Industrial Wind Development
State Senator Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach has repeatedly sought to override environmental and political obstacles that stand in the way of industrial-scale wind energy development on western Virginia mountain ridges. His SB 862, as initially proposed in last year's General Assembly session, would have required Virginia counties to enact ordinances favorable to wind project siting. Citizens, county officials, and the Virginia Association of Counties objected to the loss of local authority, and the legislation, as passed, was essentially meaningless.
Now comes a Roanoke Times editorial writer warning that counties that enact ridgeline protection or other measures that prevent proliferation of the mega-turbines will likely end up in court. This may be so; ill-conceived and poorly written law invites legal contest. For the wind industry though, law suits to overrule local authority would be sure-fire negative publicity.
The more-serious message in the editorial is that the wind industry's facilitators in the GA will respond with new attempts to overrule local govenments if they presume to excercise the authority they currently have. No doubt.
The editorial is not all that clear. But it seems to suggest Virginia localities should adopt a new level of timidity when it comes to looking out for their own interests.
The Roanoke Times editorial and responses
Recorder article on the Wagner bill, 022411
Recorder editorial on the Wagner bill, 022411
Comments on the Revised, Draft US Fish and Wildlife Service Guidelines for Land-Based Wind Energy Projects
August 4, 2011:
Wildlife Advocacy Project, Center for Biological Diversity, Animal Welfare Institute, Friends of Blackwater Canyon
". . . it appears that our detailed comments, and particularly our explanation of the legal basis and empirical need for enforceable standards, have been totally disregarded by the Service – which is instead now apparently operating under a politically driven mandate to do whatever it takes to appease the wind power industry . . . ."
". . . the direction in which the Service is heading places it in a legally tenuous position under FACA [Federal Advisory Committee Act] and various federal widllife laws - a direction that will inevitably be disasterous for the many birds, bats and other wildlife that will be killed and injured by poorly sited wind power projects, since the industry will have little, if any, motivation to take such impacts into consideration in making siting decisions . . . ."
Bath County takes stand against wind turbines
Excerpt from Recorder Article:
Ken Landgraf, chief forest planner and acting [George Washington National Forest] forest supervisor, said, “We received a very good letter from the county” about wind development.
He said due to potential impact on bats and birds as well as visual concerns, the forest service considered recommending prohibiting wind development throughout the forest. “We looked at the fact there is a national initiative to develop wind energy and wondered if it would be fair to say no on the whole forest,” Landgraf said.
Any proposal submitted for wind development would be subject to “rigorous” environmental analysis, Landgraf said. There would be several obstacles, including endangered bats and other species, he noted.
Bath supervisor Jon Trees said he spoke on behalf of the board and, he believed, the majority of county citizens. “I am adamantly opposed to wind turbines in Bath County,” he said. “We have invested a lot of time and energy in creating a tourism plan. Tourism is the main industry we have to offer in Bath County. When people come to Bath, Highland and Alleghany, they expect to see what they see now. Wind turbines do not belong in Bath County.”
The dark side of wind power
BY GEORGE FENWICK, President of the American Bird Conservancy
The wind power industry will be celebrating Global Wind Day today, an occasion promoted by the wind lobby group, the American Wind Energy Association, to tout the benefits of wind power. The same group is also pushing to create a "WindMade" certification to identify products made using this energy source.
In principle, there are grounds to celebrate the evolution of wind power into a robust and sustainable element of the world's energy portfolio, but we need to take the blinders off and look at wind from all sides. And when we do, we see a very significant dark cloud that hangs over what could otherwise be an unabashed celebration of a potentially green power source -- the toll that wind turbines exact on bird and bat populations.
In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that about 440,000 birds are likely killed each year by the fast-spinning wind turbines -- and that was at a time when the industry was just beginning an expansion that may bring about a 12-fold growth by 2030. It is impossible to determine how many dead birds that will translate into (it depends how and where wind projects are built), but without a sea change in the industry, it will certainly be in the millions.
And it's not just any birds that are killed. Many iconic American birds have died in encounters with whirling turbine blades: eagles, hawks, kestrels, owls and many songbird species. So the next time you hear someone say, "Cats kill more birds than wind turbines," remember, cats don't kill Golden Eagles. And wind power does something else too: Like other forms of development, it destroys bird habitat. In the West, where significant wind power build-out is planned, habitat for the once common but now increasingly rare prairie-chickens and sage-grouse is particularly threatened.
But it doesn't have to be this way. Wind energy can co-exist with birds, but not on the path we're currently taking. The wind industry will proudly hold up a few wind developments as proof of how it is doing the right thing for birds.
But don't be fooled: For every one project that is done right, many are being done very wrong--poorly sited in places important for birds or along migratory pathways, and with no planning and with little done to make up for the damage caused.
We cannot expect giant utility conglomerates to do the right thing on their own. In an era where the phrase "government regulation" is viewed by many as dirty as they come, we need to acknowledge that this is one case where additional mandatory federal standards are essential for the future of our birds and their habitats. Instead, the federal government has proposed voluntary guidelines that suggest steps the industry could take to avoid harming birds, but the wind industry's national trade association has already stated that the industry cannot support them, even though they are only voluntary.
Another set of voluntary federal guidelines for wind projects has been around since 2003, and its advice, especially for how to site wind farms, has been widely ignored. Since the voluntary approach has been tried and failed, it's time for something mandatory. After all, other energy sectors such as coal, oil, gas, and nuclear don't get to choose which environmental standards they abide by. Why should wind?
The wind industry wants the WindMade moniker to suggest that wind energy is somehow in harmony with the environment, with nature, and it could be.
If the wind industry would take responsibility for the bird mortality issues and provide the requisite simple fixes, that would go a long way toward bringing that green imagery into focus for all of us.
Credit: The Post and Courier, 061511
Camp Allegheny Nominated for the 2011 Most Endangered Historic Sites Listing of the National Trust
May 15, 2011 – Highlanders for Responsible Development
Camp Allegheny, a Civil War battlefield and winter encampment on the WV-VA border, has been nominated by Highlanders for Responsible Development to be listed on the National Trust for Historic Preservation's list of America's 11-Most Endangered Historic Places.
The National Trust is a private non-profit organization, and its highly competitive most-endangered list is intended to raise public awareness of threats to important historic places across the nation. Camp Allegheny previously appeared on the Civil War Trust's 2009 and 2010 listings of Most-Endangered Battlefields. Camp Allegheny has also been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1990.
2011 is the 150-year anniversary of the battle at Camp Allegheny that helped to block the federal advance on Virginia from the west and set the stage for Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign. The day-long battle at Camp Allegheny in December of 1861 involved approximately 3000 soldiers and 280 casualties.
Camp Allegheny, the highest-elevation and most-pristine Civil War battlefield east of the Mississippi, has been preserved due to the remote location of the site and thanks to the stewardship of the current private and National Forest owners. This well-preserved historic site is now threatened, however, by construction of 400-foot wind turbines that would dominate a panoramic mountain view from the battlefield that has been remarkably little altered in the century and a half since the engagement.
The nomination was submitted to the National Trust by Highlanders for Responsible Development (HRD), a citizen's group formed in 2005 in response to Highland New Wind Development’s (HNWD) proposal to build 19 wind turbines in the remote mountain area along the border of VA's Highland County and WV's Pocahontas County.
The wind energy project has been at the center of continuous controversy and repeated legal challenges since it was first announced in 2002.
The location of the proposed wind project on the state border has created a interstate regulatory problem that has thus far defied solution. Camp Allegheny is in WV, the wind turbine project would be located in VA.
After the Virginia Department of Historic Resources complained to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) that HNWD failed to cooperate in an assessment of impacts to the battlefield, in 2010 the SCC took the position that it has no jurisdiction to address impacts across the border. Federal oversight of the wind project would require historic preservation offices in Virginia and West Virginia to cooperate with federal authorities in assessing impact to Camp Allegheny. HNWD has avoided this federal oversight.
In addition to the battlefield issue, the HNWD project faces a number of other problems, including a pending complaint under the Endangered Species Act, potential violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and potential pollution problems associated with extensive earth disturbance in the headwaters of Laurel Fork, a high-quality native brook trout stream.
Although HNWD owner and developer, Tal McBride, has declared that the turbine blades will be spinning this summer, a recent article in Virginia Business magazine indicates that the company has not been able to obtain a power purchase agreement with the electric utilities. An earlier warning by HNWD lawyer, John Flora, of Harrisonburg law firm, Lenhart Obenshain, PC, indicated that the stringent environmental conditions imposed on the project by the SCC would scare away investors.
It's not clear at this point if the range of issues surrounding HNWD has deterred the power purchasers and investors needed for the $80 million project.
Contacts for the nomination:
Rick Webb; rwebb@vawind.org; 540-468-2881 (HRD Board Member)
Dan Foster; dan.s.foster@gmail.com; 540-468-3202 (HRD Board Member)
Contacts for Highland New Wind Development:
Tal McBride; talmcbride@comcast.net; 703-525-8331 (Owner/Developer)
John Flora; jflora@kolawfirm.com; 540-437-3111 (Legal Representation)
Recorder, 051911 news article, editorial
Comments are Needed Now on US Fish and Wildlife Service Guidelines for Wind Energy Development
The Highlands Voice, May 2011
by Rick Webb
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is apparently moving toward more-effective implementation of federal laws that will potentially reduce the negative environmental impacts of wind energy development in the Appalachian highlands. The FWS, however, is facing intense industry pressure to back down, and public support and input are needed now.
Public comments and recommendations will be accepted until May 19, 2011 on two FWS guidance documents that will affect wind energy development: (1) The Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, and (2) The Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance.
The complete text of both documents, background information, directions for submission of comments, and a listing of questions posed for consideration are available at: http://www.fws.gov/windenergy.
Text provided on the website states that these guidelines are designed to provide information needed to make "the best possible decisions in the review and selection of sites for wind energy facilities to avoid and minimize negative impacts to fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats."
One of the key questions posed by the FWS is whether the guidelines should be voluntary or mandatory.
In my view, the guidelines are largely about implementing environmental laws that should already be in force and should be carried out: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The wind industry is campaigning hard to ensure that effective enforcement of these laws does not occur.
I attended an April 27th meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) that was established by the USFWS to provide recommendations on the development of the wind energy guidelines. The meeting was essentially a day-long complaint by wind industry representatives that the FWS had ignored the "consensus-based" and "negotiated" recommendations of the FAC.
A major complaint concerned assurance sought by the wind industry that it will not be subject to Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Projection Act (BGEPA) enforcement action if it adheres to the guidelines. Industry representatives on the FAC stated that this type of assurance is essential when developers talk to bankers and project investors, and that the promise of this type of assurance was necessary to obtain wind industry participation on the FAC in the first place.
The draft guidelines published by the FWS do offer some such assurance. The following is stated on page thirteen of the draft guidelines:
"The Service urges voluntary adherence to the draft Guidelines and communication with Service when planning and operating a facility. Service will regard such voluntary adherence and communication as evidence of due care with respect to avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating adverse impacts to species protected under the MBTA and BGEPA, and will take such adherence and communication fully into account when exercising its discretion with respect to any potential referral for prosecution related to the death of or injury to any such species."
The critical words here are "voluntary adherence and communication." The following definition is provided on page six in the FWS draft guidelines:
"For future projects, voluntary adherence and communication means that the developer has applied these draft Guidelines, including the tiered approach, through site selection, design, construction, operation and post-operation phases of the project, and has communicated with Service and followed its advice to the maximum extent practicable."
The FAC recommendations included another substantially different definition of "voluntary adherence and communication."
"For projects commencing after the Effective Date of the guidelines, "voluntary adherence and communication" shall mean that the developer has applied the guidelines, including the tiered approach, through site selection, design, construction, operation and post-operation phases of the project, and has communicated with Service and considered its advice."
Whereas the FAC recommendation would require only that the advice of the FWS be considered, the FWS draft guidelines would instead require that its advice be followed to the maximum extent practicable.
Industry representatives on the FAC complained that this "shift" in language represents a violation of trust and general consensus.
Words matter, and the choice of words in this case will determine the outcome of MBTA and BGEPA implementation. Enforcement will be extremely difficult or impossible if the FWS publishes guidelines expressing the notion that simple consideration of FWS advice is evidence of due care with respect to these laws. The FWS cannot possibly accept the remarkably lax definition of "voluntary adherence and communication" promoted by the wind industry and still meet its own obligations under the MBTA and the BGEPA.
Yet, based on what I heard at the April 27th FAC meeting, it seems that the FWS may be forced to back down without a strong show of support from the conservation community.
The Highlands Voice, May 2011
US Fish and Wildlife Service Wind Energy Site
At Risk: Developers Who Proceed in Defiance of Federal Law and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The following is an excerpt from an article on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. The article was was published in North American WindPower (042111):
"The only primary tool we have now is siting wind facilities in the most wildlife- and habitat-friendly conditions," he [USFWS's Al Manville] says. "Admittedly, some companies are trying to do that. Others are completely blowing us off and not, and that's the rub."
Some of the largest developers are playing ball. What concerns Manville, he says, are start-up companies that do not perform due diligence prior to buying property and building a wind farm. "By the time problems are unveiled in post-construction monitoring, they've sold the facility," he says.
It is unclear if other federal agencies will eventually put the FWS' guidelines into a regulatory regime, though Manville notes that both the FWS' final communications and utilities guidelines are voluntary in nature. This does not let developers off the hook if bird takes are discovered.
"Even though our guidelines are currently voluntary, and even if the final guidelines become voluntary too, there's still this whole issue that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act aren't wishy-washy - those are laws," Manville says. "If take occurs and you do not have a permit for take, including disturbance, you're in criminal liability and potential criminal culpability."
To state the obvious: the developers who are "blowing off" the USFWS are those whose projects won't stand-up to real assessment.
The proposed Highland New Wind project in Virginia provides a case study, repeatedly seeking to avoid federal assessment, first announcing it would obtain a "take permit" for endangered species and then declaring it would not.
FWS Official To Wind Developers: Our Door Is Always Open: North American WindPower, 042111
KEY DOCUMENTS:
USFWS Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (comments due May 19, 2011)
USFWS Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance
USFWS Notice for Public Comment on Migratory Birds; Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance
(comments due May 19, 2011)
Eagle Take Permits - Published Rules
The Real Story on Highland New Wind
The "Cover Story" in the April 2011 issue of Virginia Business covers the topic of wind energy development in Virginia, land-based and offshore.
This article appropriately conveys that land-based commercial wind energy projects in Virginia confront "a lot of conflicting land uses."
However, it does its readers a disservice by showcasing Highland New Wind - while ignoring the numerous problems faced by this proposed project, including a pending complaint under the Endangered Species Act, potential issues with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the proximity to a National Register Civil War battlefield/encampment, and pollution problems associated with extensive earth disturbance in the headwaters of Laurel Fork, one of Virginia's highest quality and most-pristine native brook trout streams.
The article incorrectly implies that the developers of this ill-conceived project have successfully fought off the opposition.
Harnessing the Sun and Wind: VirginiaBusiness.com
Virginia State Senator Frank Wagner's Latest Maneuver in Pursuit of Wind Industry Interests
Senator Frank Wagner's bill before the 2011 General Assembly, SB 862, would require localities to pass ordinances for wind projects consistent with the Virginia Energy Plan (VEP). The VEP, which Wagner crafted, makes it state policy to promote the development of any and all energy sources.
SB 862 is just one more in Wagner's serial attempts to thwart effective regulation of industrial-scale wind projects.
Wagner is also responsible for the so-called one-stop permitting process for wind projects, or permit-by-rule (PBR), that the Department of Environmental Quality is charged with implementing.
The PBR disallows permit denial, does not provide meaningful environmental protection, and includes no provisions for protection of the public welfare. (see Comments on the PBR)
Wagner's first attempt to override local authority on wind project siting decisions was in the first draft of his VEP bill, which he introduced in 2006. That bill included language stating that wind facilities approved through the one-stop permitting process (aka the PBR) shall be deemed to satisfy local zoning ordinances. That particular provision was dropped from the bill that eventually passed. Now it's back in the guise of SB 862.
Update: As reported in a Bluefield Daily Telegraph 012511 article, amendments or modifications have been or will be proposed to "deal with" Wagner's SB862. It's not clear if these proposals will succeed or if they will actually preserve local authority to protect ridgelines from industrial wind development.
The Virginia Senate Commerce and Labor Committee is scheduled to consider SB862 on Monday, 013111.
Commerce and Labor Committee: contact info
Also see News Reports and Commentary for more information.
A Final Attempt At Resolution: Highland New Wind Development Confronts the Endangered Species Act
Despite warnings from citizens, recommendations from natural resource management agencies, and the fact that a number of similarly situated wind turbine projects have obtained or are obtaining an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the developers of the Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) project in Highland County apparently intend to proceed without obtaining an ITP.
HNWD was put on notice in May of 2010 that citizens intend to bring suit in federal court to seek compliance with the ESA if HNWD chooses to go forward without an ITP in the face of clear risk to endangered Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats.
Construction was briefly initiated at the project site in late 2009. Work at the site then stopped for the winter. A year later, in late 2010, construction work was again briefly initiated. Work has again stopped.
Although HNWD representatives met with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials in early 2010 to discuss the requirements for an ITP, company spokesmen subsequently made it clear that they do not intend to obtain such a permit. A supplemental notice letter, dated January 4, 2011, has now been sent to HNWD in a final attempt at resolution short of litigation.
The citizens seeking HNWD's compliance with the ESA, have retained Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, a law firm specializing in wildlife and environmental protection, with an emphasis on the ESA.
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal secured a precedent-setting federal court ruling in December of 2009 that required the Invenergy wind project in Greenbrier County, WV to obtain an ITP based on concerns about one of the two endangered bat species threatened by the HNWD project.
Supplemental Notice
Exhibit A: Initial Notice of Intent
Exhibits B, C, and D: HNWD site maps with construction activities indicated
Highland New Wind Active Again?
After stopping construction "before winter sets in" in October 2009, Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) is seemingly now, in November 2010, preparing to restart construction work on it's controversial 19-turbine wind energy project in the remote Laurel Fork watershed in Highland County.
Earth moving equipment is back on the site and a building permit has been obtained for construction of an electrical substation. At this point, it seems that no additional bond has been posted and no land disturbance permit has been obtained for excavation beyond the roads and three turbine sites already prepared.
Meanwhile, it appears that the Department of Conservation and Recreation is back-pedaling on it's previously declared intent to require a legally compliant Erosion and Sediment Control Plan before allowing further construction.
It seems possible that HNWD's current activity is related to:
- posturing for potential investors
- preserving options for stimulus grant money
The climate for wind energy investment is still very poor, and HNWD's attorney is on record stating that wildlife monitoring and mitigation conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission (SCC) would scare away investors. This raises the additional possibility that HNWD hopes to obtain a new permit under the pending Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Permit by Rule (PBR) program, which will impose minimal environmental protection requirements.
The problem for HNWD is that the PBR legislation blocks HNWD from obtaining a DEQ permit, given that it already has an SCC permit.
The last clause in the PBR legislation states:
"That the provisions of this act shall not apply to any small renewable energy project that has applied for or been granted approval by the State Corporation Commission prior to the effective date of regulations promulgated by the Department of Environmental Quality, as set forth in this act; provided, however, that a small renewable energy project that has not yet received a final order from the State Corporation Commission shall not be precluded from withdrawing its application at the State Corporation Commission and filing without prejudice with the Department of Environmental Quality for a permit-by-rule pursuant to this act."
Of course, HNWD's lawyers and allies in the General Assembly may seek to circumvent this restriction.
Even so, investors are no doubt well aware of the persistent and continuing problems associated with this $80,000,000 project, and they are not likely to get involved until all of the issues are resolved. In addition to other issues, HNWD faces a citizen suit if it goes forward in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
October 2009 Recorder article: Project shutting down for winter; no info on investors.
April 2010 Recorder article: DCR's intent to require a compliant Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prior to further construction.
November 2010 Recorder article: HNWD active again, DCR back pedals (see page 2)
Allegheny Highlands Alliance (AHA)
- a consortium of citizen/environment organizations with membership in five states along the Allegheny Front.
AHA has produced a video on the inevitability of abandoned turbines that will follow subsidy-dependent, low-performance, industrial-scale wind development on Appalachian ridges.
From the video:
Looking at the government's wind resource map, it's easy to see where wind plants will be the least productive.
Today's wind plants are being built and operated with generous government grants and assistance, which may not last as political climates change.
It's a short trip from unrenewed tax credits, low productivity, curtailments for birds and bats, to aging machinery and abandonment.
Who will clean-up the mess when the wind rush stops?
The video: Listen to Your Mother
The organization: Allegheny Highlands Alliance
Objections to the Process Followed by the DEQ in the Development of Permit by Rule Regulations for Wind Energy Projects
Decisions concerning a number of critical regulatory requirements are described by the DEQ as based on Regulatory Advisory Panel (RAP) consensus. This is evasive or nonresponsive to requests for the basis of important rule-making decisions. The DEQ has failed to identify the objective criteria that served as the basis for RAP decisions.
Contrary to the clear intent of the PBR legislation and the DEQ's stated intent in the notice of proposed regulation, the DEQ indicates that it will rely in a number of instances on guidance "to be developed," rather than setting forth permit requirements "up front." This both defeats the purpose of the legislation to provide certainty in the permitting process and denies the public a formal opportunity to comment on the rules that will ultimately apply.
The DEQ has failed to explain why mitigation plans to provide wildlife protection are only required when state T&E wildlife or bats are found within the defined disturbance zone. The PBR legislation does not limit wildlife protection to only these species, nor does it define "significant adverse impacts to wildlife" to exclude consideration of impacts to other wildlife. The DEQ's proposed regulations are thus not compliant with the PBR legislation.
Complete Comments: Rick Webb, Virginia Wind
DEQ response to FOIA request for information:
Background Info (RAP minutes, etc)
Working draft of DEQ guidance document
DEQ's Responses to Original Public Comments
DEQ's Revised Draft Regulations
PBR Legislation
Comments Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Invenergy Beech Ridge Wind Project
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement analyzing the significant environmental impacts of Invenergy's Beech Ridge wind energy project in Greenbrier County, WV. The company is seeking an Incidental Take Permit as required by the Endangered Species Act.
USFWS Federal Register Notice
USFWS Beech Ridge Energy Brochure
Friends of Blackwater Canyon: Action Alert
Comments:
Meyer, Glitzenstein, & Crystal
Rick Webb, Virginia Wind
Art and Pam Dodds
Mike Morgan, Allegheny Treasures
The Virginia DEQ's Proposed Permit by Rule for "Small" Wind Projects
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has proposed flawed regulations to implement flawed Permit by Rule legislation for wind energy projects. The legislation and proposed regulations transfer State Corporation Commission (SCC) authority over "small wind energy projects" to the DEQ.
In addition to the text of the draft regulations, a variety of background material is provided in the Virginia Register (see link below).
The first problem with both the legislation and the proposed regulations is the definition of "small wind energy project," which is specified as any wind project of less than 100-MW rated capacity. Today's 2-MW turbines can be spaced at about seven turbines per mile of ridgeline. A 100-MW wind project can thus occupy seven miles of ridgeline. Under the new PBR, Virginia's mountain counties may soon be facing a proliferation of 500-foot turbines, permitted in seven-mile increments with limited environmental review and mitigation requirements.
The issues addressed by the proposed regulations and DEQ explanatory material include analysis of potential environmental impacts, mitigation plans, and public opportunity for comment on permit applications. The proposed regulatory treatment of these topics presents a number of problems that collectively will result in a failure to reliably protect the environment and public welfare. Although these deficiencies are due in large part to limitations associated with the legislation, it is none-the-less clear that the proposed regulations do not, as DEQ contends, ". . . include conditions and standards necessary to protect the Commonwealth's natural resources." If indeed the DEQ has its hands tied by the legislation, there is no justification for pretending otherwise.
Comments and Questions on the Proposed Permit by Rule for "Small" Wind Projects
Multiple Comments Posted on Allegheny Treasures
DEQ's Virginia Register Notice with Proposed PBR Regulations
Highland New Wind Notified of Intent to Sue
. . . we hereby provide notice, pursuant to section 11(g) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), that Highland New Wind Development’s (“HNWD”) installation and long-term operation of wind turbines on multiple ridges in Highland County, Virginia will “take” federally endangered Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) in violation of section 9 of the ESA. Id. § 1538(a)(1)(B)." Meyer Glitizenstein & Crystal, 051410
Concerned citizens and conservationists have joined with the Animal Welfare Institute and the public-interest law firm, Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal, to notify Highland New Wind Development, LLC and the Highland County Board of Supervisors of their intent to sue if HNWD proceeds with turbine construction in defiance of the Endangered Species Act. Earlier this year HNWD "promised" the county supervisors that it would obtain the required Incidental Take Permit (ITP). Spokesmen for HNWD, however, have recently indicated that the company will begin construction without an ITP.
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal is a Washington, DC -based law firm specializing in wildlife and environmental protection, with an emphasis on the Endangered Species Act.
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal secured a precedent-setting federal court ruling in December of 2009 that required the Invenergy-Beech Ridge Wind Project in Greenbrier County, WV to obtain an Incidental Take Permit based on concerns about one of the two endangered bat species threatened by the HNWD project.
The notice letter submitted to HNWD and the county supervisors states:
"HNWD’s proposed wind project, as currently planned, will almost certainly result in the incidental taking of endangered Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats – an action which has not been permitted by the FWS through the section 10 ITP process. Given the presence of multiple hibernacula within migratory distance of the project site including the most important Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat hibernaculum in the region (Hellhole Cave), the migratory distances of the listed species, the availability of potential roost trees and edge habitat on and surrounding the project site, the unprecedented numbers of bats killed at nearby wind facilities via turbine collisions and barotrauma, and the unusually high numbers of migratory birds and bats found in the fall 2005 radar study conducted by HNWD’s consultant, it is inevitable that the Highland wind project will result in the incidental taking of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats by killing, injuring, and/or wounding members of those species via turbine collision and barotrauma.
. . . The only way for HNWD to ensure that it will not unlawfully take members of these species, and therefore avoid an enforcement action from the FWS, or a citizen suit brought by the above-named organizations and citizens, is to apply for an incidental take permit from the FWS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA. Similarly, the HCBOS can only avoid ESA liability by withholding its grant of a building permit until and unless HNWD obtains an ITP."
The Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal Notice Letter
Why not rely on the SCC conditions?
Unacceptable Risks to Protected Species
Recorder article, 052010
Recorder editorial, 052010
Highland New Wind Faces Continued Roadblocks
The Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) has dismissed complaints against Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources on the grounds that viewshed issues of concern were previously addressed by the Highland County Board of Supervisors.
Highland New Wind has announced it is now prepared to start construction.
There are, however, a number of serious issues confronting HNWD:
(1) The bird and bat mortality monitoring and curtailment thresholds that were imposed by the SCC are still very much in place. Given the high risk of mortality at this particular site, including mortality of endangered species, it seems unlikely that rational investors will get behind the project.
(2) HNWD has advised the Highland County Board of Supervisors that it will obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. This "promise" seems designed to put the supervisors at ease given that they are under a notice of intent to sue if they allow the project to go forward without an ITP -an especially significant threat given the recent court rulings on the Invenergy project in West Virginia (see articles below). It seems unlikely that HNWD will actually follow through. The ITP application will trigger the National Environmental Policy Act, and so far HNWD has managed to avoid objective environmental assessment.
(3) HNWD is facing trouble over its Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Management Permit. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, which is ultimately responsible for these permits, has been petitioned by both local citizens and the Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited to require the project and the review process to come into compliance with Clean Water Act antidegradation and public participation requirements. Laurel Fork, which drains the project area, is high-quality native brook trout habitat. The section of Laurel Fork in the National Forest area downstream of the project is on Virginia's exceptional waters designation list. The Environmental Law and Conservation Law Clinic at UVA is helping with the case.
Tazewell County Stops Wind Project with Ridgeline Protection Ordinance
Tazewell County has adopted a Tall Structure / Ridgeline Protection Ordinance that effectively stops plans by Dominion and British Petroleum to build a 60-turbine wind energy project along 7.5 miles of East River Mountain. The ordinance also protects other areas in the county, including the ridges surrounding Burkes Garden, a scenic high-elevation area bordered on three sides by National Forest, including designated and proposed wilderness.
The ordinance passed by a 3-2 vote following months of intense public debate and a public relations campaign by the would-be developers. According to the local newspaper, a spokesperson for Dominion responded to the vote, stating that: ". . . the citizens have spoken, and we respect the vote."
As reported earlier (see Pending Gold Rush), a number of other wind developers have been waiting to see if the county would pass the ordinance before proceeding with plans for development in other areas of the county.
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 020310
Mountain Preservation Association
Highland County Supervisors Liable for Non-compliance with Endangered Species Act
Wood Rogers PLC, the Roanoke law firm representing Highland Citizens, has advised the Highland County Board of Supervisors that allowing Highland New Wind Development to proceed without the Incidental Take Permit (ITP) required by the Endangered Species Act will place the county in legal jeopardy. The Highland supervisors have ignored previous warnings on the advice of the county's attorney.
The new warning follows the recent federal court ruling requiring Chicago-based Invenergy Inc., to stop further construction of its Beech Ridge Project in nearby Greenbrier County, WV and to dramatically curtail operation of 40 completed turbines until the required ITP permit is obtained.
As outlined in the Woods Rogers letter, the issues related to Highland New Wind Development, which has started site preparation without an ITP, are even-more compelling.
Whereas the Beech Ridge project threatens one endangered bat species, the Highland project threatens two endangered bat species and both bald and golden eagles. Moreover, unlike the the Beech Ridge case where only the developer was responsible for compliance, in the Highland case, both the developer and the authorizing local officials are responsible for compliance.
Both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) have advised Highland New Wind to obtain an ITP before proceeding. Based on the importance of the site as a migratory pathway for birds and bats, the VDGIF contended in testimony presented to the State Corporation Commission that the project may result in the highest mortality rates for any wind energy project in the eastern U.S.
Letter to the Highland supervisors (123009)
Original Notice of Intent to Sue (070505)
Why are wind turbines so deadly for bats?
See News Reports and Commentary for updates.
Court Prevents Central Appalachian Wind Project From Proceeeding Without Federal Endangered Species Act Permit
Washington, D.C. - Federal district court Judge Roger Titus of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has issued a comprehensive ruling that an industrial wind energy facility in Greenbrier County, West Virginia will kill and injure endangered Indiana bats, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The court concluded that "the development of wind energy can and should be encouraged, but wind turbines must be good neighbors." This is the first federal court ruling in the country finding a wind power project in violation of federal environmental law, and it highlights the critical importance of balancing the creation of renewable energy and protection of endangered wildlife species under the ESA.
The court recognized that "the two vital federal policies at issue in this case are not necessarily in conflict" because defendants Invenergy and Beech Ridge Energy could have sought a permit under the ESA which would "allow their project to proceed in harmony with the goal of avoidance of harm to endangered species." The ESA provides for the issuance of permits that authorize projects in endangered species habitat, but only when the United States Fish and Wildlife Service attaches strict and enforceable conditions designed to minimize the impact on imperiled species.
In finding a violation of the ESA, the court held, based on extensive expert testimony and other evidence, "that, like death and taxes, there is a virtual certainty that Indiana bats will be harmed, wounded, or killed imminently by the Beech Ridge Project in violation of ... the ESA, during the spring, summer, and fall." Accordingly, the court held "that the only avenue available to Defendants to resolve the self-imposed plight in which they now find themselves is to do belatedly that which they should have done long ago: apply for a permit" under the ESA.
In holding that the project is "certain to imminently harm, kill, or wound Indiana bats," the court relied heavily on testimony by leading bat biologists Dr. Thomas Kunz of Boston University, Dr. Michael Gannon of Penn State, and Dr. Lynn Robbins of Missouri State University. Dr. Kunz - whom the court has described as the "leading expert in the field of bat ecology in the United States" - testified that the project will not only kill endangered Indiana bats, but may kill more than a quarter of a million bats overall, including species already being decimated by threats such as the devastating disease known as white-nose syndrome.
Plaintiffs in the case - the Animal Welfare Institute, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, and caving enthusiast Dave Cowan - applauded the court's ruling.
"As this nation embraces renewable energy which all of the plaintiffs support, it is critical that such projects be undertaken consistent with federal law to ensure that our rush to develop a green energy future doesn't jeopardize imperiled species," said D.J. Schubert, a wildlife biologist with the Animal Welfare Institute. "In this decision, the court sends an unequivocal message that the ‘green energy' label does not exempt wind power from compliance with federal laws protecting wildlife and the environment," added William Eubanks, an attorney with Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal which represented plaintiffs in this case. "Indeed, other wind power companies are complying with the ESA permitting process, the Congressionally mandated vehicle for minimizing harm to listed species."
The court enjoined the construction of any additional wind turbines and prohibited the operation of all existing turbines between April 1 and November 15 until an Incidental Take Permit is obtained. Operating the existing turbines between November 16 and March 31 is not likely to impact Indiana bats since they hibernate during the winter months. Per an earlier agreement between the parties and the court, 40 of the 122 planned wind turbines have been erected to date, and those are generally farthest from known winter populations of Indiana bats.
“We do not oppose responsible development of renewable energy projects be they wind farms, solar farms, or tidal energy projects but there must be independent federal regulation of these project to avoid unintentional consequences to protected species,” said John Stroud, spokesperson for Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy. “This court has made clear to Beech Ridge and its parent company, Invenergy, that the ESA has teeth, that the Indiana bat will be harmed by this project, and that these companies don’t get a free pass to violate the ESA,” said Dave Cowan, an avid spelunker who has explored many of West Virginia’s caves.
Contacts: William Eubanks/Eric Glitzenstein, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal 202-588-5206; D.J. Schubert, Animal Welfare Institute 609-601-2875; John Stroud, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy 304-645-7169
US District Court Ruling:
Animal Welfare Institute, et al., v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, et. al.
Note: this important ruling has real implications for other industrial-scale wind projects in the central Applachian region. Highland New Wind Development and the Highland County Board of Supervisors have both been served a Notice of Intent to Sue if the project goes forward with approvals required by the Endangered Species Act.
Wind indudustry spokesperson, Frank Maisano, has his say. See: Bad News
For more information on endangered bats and turbine impacts in the central Appalachian region, see the following reports prepared by the Virginia Highlands Grotto of the National Speleological Society:
The following was published in Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2007; 5(6) 315-324:
Ecological Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Questions, Research Needs, and Hypotheses
See News Reports and Commentary for updates.
Get Rational About Appalachian Wind Energy
It was only a few years ago that habitat loss was front and center among causes for concern about the future well-being of the American ecological landscape. Not much has changed to allay this concern; sprawling development continues, and the alteration and loss of natural habitat is largely unchecked. What has changed is the focus of many mainstream environmental organizations. Concerns about the projected future effects of climate change have taken precedence over the immediate and observable effects of habitat loss. Some who label themselves environmentalists would now allow and even advocate industrial-scale renewable energy development in our remaining wild areas, including national forests and other lands set aside for permanent preservation.
Notable among the evidence for this shift in perspective was the near silence of environmental organizations when environmental review requirements were eliminated from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, an economic stimulus package that will provide grants to large corporations covering as much as 30 percent of the cost of megamillion-dollar industrial-scale wind energy projects. The act explicitly exempts the award program from provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. It's fair to say that national environmental organizations simply turned their back on what has apparently become yesterday's issue.
The assumption seems to be that any trade-off is worth it; that long-held concerns about habitat conservation and the need for careful environmental assessment are now irrelevant in the context of climate change. Perhaps nowhere is the need for objective analysis made more clear than in the forested Appalachian Mountains where the wind industry and its advocates argue that ridgeline wind development can replace coal and other problematic energy sources.
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander addressed this thinking recently in a Wall Street Journal commentary with the title "We're about to destroy the environment in the name of saving it."
To put things in perspective, he pointed out that we could line 300 miles of mountaintops from Chattanooga, Tenn., to Bristol with 50-story wind turbines and still produce only one-quarter of the electricity provided by one TVA nuclear power plant.
Similar comparisons can be made even closer to home. For example, it would require more than 300 miles of wind turbines, stretching the entire length of the Blue Ridge Mountain chain in Virginia, from Mount Rogers to Harpers Ferry, to match the August peak-demand period output of Dominion's controversial new coal-fired power plant in Wise County.
It's not necessary to deny that climate change is a real problem nor is it necessary to support either coal or nuclear power to conclude that wind energy development on Appalachian ridges is not a realistic alternative.
One can even acknowledge that industrial-scale wind energy development might make sense in other places with perhaps less environmental trade-off. And certainly the better alternative in the eastern U.S. is offshore, where the wind resource is dramatically more reliable, where deforestation and road construction are not required, and where turbines can be arrayed in relatively compact and efficient grids rather than in single-file corridors along ridge crests.
The next time you see wind turbines portrayed on television and in other advertising, notice that the turbines are depicted in treeless landscapes, typically plains and deserts, or in the ocean, and then ask yourself why it is that images of turbines strung out along forested ridge crests are almost never part of the wind industry's PR campaign. Once enough people ask this question, we will perhaps start to take a more rational and conservation-minded approach to wind energy development and solving the climate change problem.
Published as an Op-Ed by Rick Webb
The Roanoke Times, 102509
Highland New Wind In Wetlands Denial?
Although Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) has started site preparation for its 19-turbine, 39 MW wind project in Highland County's remote Laurel Fork watershed, additional state and federal permits and review may be required for wetlands disturbance.
Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) has repeatedly revised its acknowledgement and delineation of wetlands. HNWD initially reported that there are no wetlands in the area where it proposes to cross Laurel Fork by directional drilling under the stream channel. Three different maps have since been presented to authorities, all changing the location, extent, and shape of the wetlands. The latest wetlands map is dated Aug. 6, 2009, three days after Highland County approved HNWD's “final” site plan. The plan approved on Aug. 3 depicted a different wetlands area.
Based on new information and conditions imposed on the project, permits for wetlands disturbance may now be required by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Previous determinations that permits are not required should no longer apply.
HNWD's site plans indicated that equipment excavation pits required for directional drilling would be located about 10 feet from the stream - in locations that would not involve disturbance of a wetland area about 15-20 ft. from the stream. Two state agencies have now recommended setbacks that effectively require excavation in the wetlands area. The excavation pits are about 9 ft. wide, 15 ft. long, and deep enough to allow horizontal drilling 4 ft. below the streambed.
The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has recommended setbacks of 30-50 feet to avoid the potential for sedimentation of the stream and impacts to the native brook trout population. The Heritage Division of the Department of Conservation and Recreation has recommended setbacks of 10-20 meters to avoid impacts to state-listed rare plants. The State Corporation Commission previously directed HNWD to consult with and adopt recommendations of these agencies to avoid impacts to aquatic resources during construction.
It remains to be seen whether HNWD will work with the agencies to resolve this issue now or seek to wait until the stream crossing work is underway. By starting construction work on other parts of this large project, HNWD could preclude effective environmental assessment and permit review, which is inconsistent with National Environmental Policy Act requirements, as the viability of the overall project depends on the work that must occur in the streams and wetlands.
Even if the agencies are unable to implement a rational permitting process, the developer should want this resolved before further commitments and investments are made.
Wetlands-Timeline-Maps-Correspondence
Recorder Article on Rare Plants at Laurel Fork Crossing Area - 102209
Pending Tazewell County Gold Rush?
The Dominion-British Petroleum, 60-turbine, 7.5-mile long, wind turbine project proposed for East River Mountain in northeast Tazewell County is on hold as county supervisors consider a ridgeline protection ordinance.
The proposed ordinance has implications for much of the rest of the county.
As reported in the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, a number of other developers with interest in the county are waiting to see what happens with the proposed ordinance.
Among the areas of interest to the developers are the ridges around Burkes Garden, a scenic high-elevation valley bordered on three sides by National Forest, including designated and proposed Wilderness.
Bluefield Daily Telegraph article
Potential Wind Development in Tazewell County
Defiance
Highland New Wind has responded to the state Department of Historic Resources' complaint to the State Corporation Commission, which alledged that the developer "has failed to comply with either the letter or the spirit" of permit conditions in the SCC Final Order authorizing the Highland County wind project.
According to HNWD's response submitted on 091109:
"HNWD has reached the conclusion that the Complainant 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 postion, based on the clear language of the Commission's Final Order, that it is not required to conduct a viewshed analysis to the satisfaction of the Complainant."
DHR's 081909 Complaint to the SCC
HNWD's 091109 Response to the SCC
Project Heading To Hearing, Recorder article
DHR's Appropriate Persistence, Recorder editorial
See News Reports and Commentary for more.
Hearing Scheduled on Highland New Wind Compliance with SCC Order
Highland New Wind Development (HNWD), the self-touted "Greenest Wind Farm in the World," has initiated clearing, road work, and excavation for its 19-turbine project in the remote Allegheny Mountain, Laurel Fork area along the Highland County-Pocahontas County, Virginia-West Virginia border. Actual construction of turbines and completion of the project, however, remain in question amid escalating controversy, expanding legal issues, and apparent investor uncertainty.
Continuing objections to the project focus on the developer's failure to meet permit conditions imposed by the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC), flawed Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, non-compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, unauthorized reinterpretation of the Virginia-West Virginia border, and unaddressed impacts to Camp Allegheny, a uniquely pristine Civil War battlefield on the National Register of Historic Places.
The SCC has scheduled a hearing to be convened on 092309 to receive evidence and testimony from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) and HNWD concerning the wind energy developer's compliance with the SCC's 122007 order requiring HINWD to coordinate with the DHR for guidance regarding the need for surveys and studies to evaluate the project's impacts to historic resources. The SCC has also required that HNWD submit an "answer or other responsive pleadings" by 091409.
The DHR has sought an "expedited review and response" from the SCC based on the DHR's belief that HNWD has "failed to comply with either the letter or the spirit" of the SCC order.
The SCC has also received letters expressing concern about the impact of the project on the Camp Allegheny from the Pocahontas County Commission, WV Congressman Nick Rahall, the National Park Service, and the WV State Historic Preservation Office.
The developer has reportedly dismissed concerns about Camp Allegheny, stating his opinion that the battlefield is insignificant.
SCC Order
DHR letter to SCC
Rahall letter to SCC
Park Service letter to SCC
Recorder article
Charleston Gazette article
See News Reports and Commentary for updates.
Virginia Agencies Petition the SCC
The Virginia Department of Historic Resources has written the SCC stating that Highland New Wind "has failed to comply with either the letter or the spirit" of permit conditions in the SCC Final Order authorizing the Highland County wind project.
The Heritage Division of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has written the SCC concerning permit conditions in the SCC Final Order requiring, among other things, that Highland New Wind adopt recommendations of state environmental agencies to avoid impacts during construction. The letter lists specific types of ecological studies that must be conducted before conservation measures can be recommended.
Highland New Wind has effectively gamed the system, providing minimal project information to reviewing agencies at the last minute prior to construction. Construction has now started, and if allowed to continue, the SCC permit conditions are rendered unattainable.
A citizens' petition has been submitted to the SCC asking that the project be stopped until the SCC confirms that its conditions have been met.
It is now up to the SCC to enforce its own permit conditions.
DHR letter to SCC
DCR letter to SCC
Citizens' petition to SCC
As reported by the Associated Press, Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) has begun construction on its controversial wind energy project along the Virginia-West Virginia border in Highland County. The project is apparently going forward without financing and power purchase agreements and without resolution of multiple legal issues.
Construction on the 19-turbine project in the remote Laurel Fork watershed has started despite multiple legal objections, including non-compliance with conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission (SCC), failure to meet minimum state requirements for Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Control Plans, failure to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan and obtain an Incidental Take Permit under the federal Endangered Species Act, and objections to HNWD's redrawing of the WV-VA state-boundary line.
A number of Highland County residents and landowners, represented by Woods Rogers, a Roanoke law firm, have petitioned the State Corporation Commission, objecting that HNWD is not in compliance with permit conditions. The petition states that:
- State environmental agencies, including the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) were not provided a reasonable opportunity to review a final site plan.
- HNWD has terminated consultation with the state Department of Historic Resources concerning impacts to archaeological and cultural resources, including impacts to Camp Allegheny, the most pristine Civil War battlefield in the U.S.
- HNWD did not consult with and adopt recommendations of the DGIF, DEQ, and DCR to avoid impacts to streams and wetlands during construction.
An additional legal notice filed by downstream landowners asserts that HNWD's E&S Plan does not meet minimum state standards, and will therefore not protect Laurel Fork, a high-quality stream with naturally reproducing native brook trout and unique wetlands. The notice states that:
- The E&S Plan is non-compliant with respect to runoff calculations and delineation of soils and drainage areas.
- The E&S Plan is non-compliant with respect to detail, providing information at a coarse 40-foot contour interval scale rather than the standard 2-foot contour interval.
Despite advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the DGIF, as well a notice of intent to bring suit against both HNWD and Highland County officials by concerned citizens, HNWD has declined to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan and obtain an Incidental Take Permit under the federal Endangered Species Act.
In addition, West Virginia officials are objecting that HNWD has, based solely its own authority, redrawn the Virginia-West Virginia state-boundary line, claiming that the official U.S. Geological Survey map is wrong --thereby avoiding West Virginia involvement in project review and permitting.
It seems that after years of contention, the real legal fray is just beginning.
Petition to the State Corporation Commission
Landowners Submit Legal Notice to Highland Officials and Wind Project Developer
The Recorder, 081409
WV County Considers Legal Action Against VA County
The Recorder, 081409
Do Virginia State Agencies Understand Responsibilities?
Recorder Editorial, August 13, 2009
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Advisory Letters
2003 2005 2006
Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries Advisory Letters
022406 052406
092006
See News Reports and Commentary for updates.
Pocahontas County Commissioners Object
The Commissioners of Pocahontas County, the West Virginia county located immediately adjacent the Highland New Wind Project, have contacted the West Virginia Attorney General, regulatory agencies in both WV and VA, the Highland County Supervisors, and Highland New Wind developer, Henry McBride, objecting to the relocation of the VA-WV state line, and raising concerns about impacts to endangered wildlife, tourism, property values, and the Civil War battlefield, Camp Allegheny.
Commission Chair, Martin Saffer: "We have an interstate commerce issue here . . . There is absolutely no positive for us. It's all negative. . . . It's almost as though Virginia acted as if West Virginia doesn't exist."
Highland New Wind: Interstate Conflict Ignites
The Recorder, 080809
WV Not a Concern for VA County Supervisors
The Recorder, 080609
Highland New Wind Terminates Consultation With Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Camp Allegheny: Our Most Pristine Civil War Battlefield
Charleston Gazette, 080609
See News Reports and Commentary for updates.
Highland New Wind's Loss of Green Credentials
Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) declares itself to be the "Greenest Wind Farm in the World." See: Highland New Wind web site
A month ago HNWD development made national news when its public relations firm announced that Virginia's first utility scale wind project was ready to start construction. As indicated here (see entry below), that was a blatant misrepresentation. HNWD does not have a building permit, does not have an Erosion and Sediment Control permit, does not have approval from the FAA, has not satisfied the permit conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission (SCC), and has not obtained an Endangered Species Act permit.
In fact, June 12, 2009 was the first time that reviewing agencies or anyone else had an opportunity to see an actual site plan for the project. And HNWD's conditional use permit expires in August. And the SCC permit expires in December.
So, how has this eleventh hour submission been received?
"What they have presented is completely unacceptable. . . . They show contempt, a lack of respect for the county." -- Highland Supervisor David Blanchard
"The applicant has their perspective on things they need to do to be compliant, and the county has another perspective. . . . I was a little surprised, given the amount of time they've had to do it, at the lack of thoroughness." - - Highland Supervisor Robin Sullenberger
"I firmly think what they submitted was premature . . . . I see a lot of things wrong with it." - - Highland Supervisor Jerry Rexrode
"Based on our review, we believe that the plans and narratives are incomplete and lack sufficient detail needed to perform a final review. We have identified (at a minimum) the following [17] items which need to be addressed prior to a final review." - - correspondence from Mattern and Craig, an engineering firm hired by Highland County to review HNWD's Erosion and Sediment Control plan
"Just this week, all three supervisors expressed concern and surprise that HNWD can't seem to even put its turbines in the right state on the map." - - Recorder editorial commenting on a HNWD site plan error that located one or two of the 19 proposed turbines in West Virginia
" Inadequacies and inaccuracies of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Management Calculations by Blackwell Engineering (HNWD's consultant) have resulted in misleading results provided in the stormwater management calculations," - - Dr. Pamela Dodd, a consulting hydrogeologist reviewing the plan for Laurel Fork landowners
"Laurel Fork is a pristine stream populated with wild brook trout . . . . Given the misrepresentations that characterize Highland Wind's maps and statements it would seem that a review and assessment of those materials by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and Department of Environmental Quality would protect the county from liability associated with making a decision based on erroneous information." - - John Ross, Chair, Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited
"Five of ten turbine locations proposed for Red Oak Knob . . . are either in or at the edge of areas that were forested in 2006 . . . contradicting the findings and basis of the conditional use permit and claims by the developer." - - Rick Webb, Highland County resident, in correspondence with Highland County officials
"Some of the errors in it are very suspicious . . . . Others simply demonstrate the lack of any real effort to comply with the requirements of the conditional use permit or SCC order." - - Ches Goodall, downstream landowner, in correspondence with Highland County officials
And this list could go on.
So what's up with HNWD? Why did HNWD seek and submit a low-bid Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan at the last minute?
One theory is that HNWD seeks to demonstrate to potential investors that it has the situation and the decision makers, including Highland County officials and the regulatory agencies, under control. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
More information and perspective:
Top Ten Reasons Not to Invest in Highland New Wind -Recorder Editorial
Wind Project Draws Doubt From County Officials
The Recorder, 070909
Citizens Demand Information and Protection
The Recorder, 070909
Landowner Says Plans Deficient
The Recorder, 070909
So Where is the Turbine, VA or WV?
The Recorder, 070909
Critical Time Line
The Recorder, 070909
Preliminary Review of Site Plan
Mattern and Craig Engineers, 070709
Analysis and Review of Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Stormwater Management Calculations
Dr. Pamela C. Dodds, 070609
Turbines in Laurel Fork Watershed - Site Map
Turbines in the Forest - Aerial Photograph
See News Reports and Commentary for updates.
Misrepresenting the Status of the Proposed Highland County Wind Energy Project
State and national newspapers, including the Richmond Times Dispatch and USA Today, have reported that Highland New Wind Development is prepared to begin construction by early summer with possible completion by the end of the year.
The source of the reported information is the developer's public relations spokesman, Frank Maisano, who announced in a press release that the company has filed a site plan, which he characterized as the last step in obtaining a building permit.
The newspapers in question simply repeated the company's public relations material on the controversial project.
The press release was seemingly designed to help the developer obtain or retain the investors needed to finance the 19-turbine, 65-million-dollar project proposed for a remote and exceptionally wild area in the northwest corner of Virginia's highest elevation and least populated county.
Despite Mr. Maisano's statement, the wind project developer:
- does not have a building permit
- does not have an Erosion and Sediment Control permit
- does not have approval from the FAA
- has not met conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission
- has not obtained an Endangered Species Act permit
Highland New Wind has faced a series of legal and environmental challenges since losing its first development partner in 2003. Virginia's wildlife management agency has concluded that the project may result in the highest mortality of birds and bats for wind projects in the eastern United States. Virginia's historic resources agency has raised concerns about impacts to the adjacent Camp Alleghany, listed on the Federal Register of Historic Places and recognized as the most pristine among the remaining undeveloped Civil War battlefields.
Following the death of thousands of bats flying into turbine blades during the first weeks of a West Virginia wind project, and given the location of the proposed Highland project within the range of endangered bat species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly recommended that Highland New Wind obtain a permit under the Endangered Species Act, and both Highland New Wind and the Highland County supervisors have been served a notice-of-intent to sue if the project goes forward without the permit. A federal suit has been brought against a West Virginia developer over the same issue, and earlier this year the U.S. Forest Service blocked plans for a wind turbine project in the George Washington National Forest in part because of the risk to the endangered bats that inhabit Virginia's mountain ridges.
The developer of the proposed Highland New Wind project has complained that investors would be scared away by strict wildlife monitoring requirements imposed on the project by the SCC.
To-date no investors have been publically identified, and Mr. Maisano made no reference to investors in his press release.
Related material:
USA Today article
Richmond-Times article
Endangered Species Act lawsuit
Who is Frank Maisano
For updates see News Reports and Commentary and Perspective
Map of proposed turbine locations
Renewable energy vs environmental assessment
Congress has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestmant Act of 2009, providing $15 billion for renewable energy projects and new electric transmission lines. Although an amendment to bypass National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for funded projects was defeated, an amendment calling for expedited NEPA reveiw was approved.
The effort to eliminate or reduce NEPA review for industrial facilities is not new. As stated in a recent article in Environmental Science and Technology, the business community has sought to reduce requirements for environmental impact assessment ever since NEPA became law in 1970.
What is new is the alliance of industry and some environmental groups seeking to fast track the review process for industrial-scale renewable energy development. But some are warning that the rush to build renewable energy facilities is already creating potentially irreversible mistakes.
Excerpts from the article:
There are national groups that are so fixated on doing everything possible to stem global climate change as rapidly as possible that there may be a tendency to downplay other problems, that when we look back, could be seen as ecological catastrophes in their own right.
-- Eric Glitzenstein, public-interest attorney
We need to have a streamlined process -- and we absolutely must reduce our carbon footprint -- but we can't afford to create new problems in our efforts to address existing ones by adding to species mortality and habitat fragmentation . . . . Renewable energy has a dark side that is not getting enough attention in the push to curb greenhouse gases. The renewable energy industry likes to tout themselves as green, but killing birds and bats, hugely fragmenting habitat, and adding to cumulative impacts to species is not green . . . . There is a particularly evident lack of environmental oversight of renewable energy projects on private land, which predominates in the eastern U.S.
-- Al Manville, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
A tsunami of wind energy projects is being proposed for the East Coast . . . The best sites for wind energy development include Appalachian Mountain crests. Unfortunately, these are also prime locations for migrating bats and birds, including raptors.
-- Taber Allison, Mass Audubon
Citation: Pelley, J., Dueling priorities: renewable energy vs environmental assessment. Environmental Science and Technology, 2009, 43(9), pp 3001-3002.
Full text pdf
Full text with links
National Forest Proposal Denied
FreedomWorks LLC is one among several corporations considering wind project development on or adjacent national forest land (see previous report).
FreedomWorks proposed construction of 131 440-foot wind turbines along an 18-mile stretch of national forest ridgeline in Shenandoah and Rockingham Counties (VA) and Hardy County (WV). The proposed project area is identified as unsuitable for commercial wind development in the Revised George Washington National Forest Management Plan.
On April 2, 2009, Maureen Hyzer, Forest Sueprvisor for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, denied FreedomWorks' proposal to construct meteorological towers to collect preliminary data required for the wind project. The rejection letter to FreedomWorks lists a number of concerns about the project.
Among those concerns (paraphrased here):
- The project would require at least 16 miles of road construction.
- The project would require at least 500 acres of permanent forest clearing in an area with limited human activity that currently provides remote habitat for wildlife.
- The project would visually dominate the landscape of Great North Mountain and the adjacent Shenandoah Valley.
- The project would potentially exacerbate the threat to bat populations that are now being killed in large numbers by White Nose Syndrome.
As indicated in a letter to "Interested Citizens" from James T. Smalls, District Ranger of the Lee Ranger District, the FreedomWorks proposal did not comply with the Forest Plan and it did not provide sufficient rational for use of national forest land.
Forest Supervisor's letter
District Ranger's letter
UPDATE (1): An article in the Northern Virginia Daily (041109) indicates that the developer intends to circumvent the local Forest Service decision by seeking approval at the national level.
UPDATE (2): An article in the Daily News Record (042209) includes two significant errors concerning the FreedomWorks proposal.
First, the article falls for the exageratted PR claims of Appalachian wind developers by comparing the capacity of the proposed FreedomWorks project (215 MW) with Dominion's Wise County coal-fired power plant (580 MW) --suggesting that the the proposed wind project could produce almost 40% as much electricity as Dominion's plant.
Electricity generation, however, is properly quantified in terms of megawatt hours, not megawatts. Because of the low capacity factor of wind turbines on Appalachian ridges, wind projects only produce a small fraction of their theoretical generation.
The FreedomWorks proposal involves 131 2-MW turbines and would require 18 miles of ridgeline. It would require 2,260 2-MW turbines to match the output of the proposed Wise County coal-fired generating plant in August (the peak demand period of the year). That would require about 323 miles of ridgeline, about the length of the Blue Ridge Mountain chain in Virginia.
Second, the article quotes the developer, stating that, except for the Forest Service permit, the project has all the permits it needs, including a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is not correct. The project will need both state and local permits, which it does not have, before it can go forward.
Moreover, because of the threat to endangered bats and raptors, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly recommended that central Appalachian region wind project developers prepare Habitat Conservation Plans and obtain Incidental Take Permits as required by the Endangered Species Act. To date, no developers have complied.
The energy conservation alternative
A recent Appalachian Regional Commission report, "Energy Efficiency in Appalachia," estimates that it would require the construction of 40 new coal-fired power plants to keep up with the region's projected increase in energy consumption through 2030. The report cites investment in energy efficiency and conservation as a practical and beneficial alternative.
For perspective, it would require hundreds of miles of ridgeline wind turbine development to offset the need for even one relatively small coal-fired power plant.
Abstract of the ARC report:
The Appalachian Region’s energy consumption is expected to increase 28 percent between 2006 and 2030, compared with a 19 percent increase forecast for the United States as a whole. Research indicates that strong policy interventions will be needed to promote energy-efficient purchases and practices that could help the Region meet its future energy needs while ensuring its continued economic and environmental health. This study assesses the long-term energy-efficiency gains that could be achieved by implementing an ambitious package of energy-efficiency policies throughout Appalachia. It examines the breadth of energy-efficiency resources in Appalachia; the timeframe for harnessing these resources; and the policies and programs that could most effectively translate these resources into energy savings, as well as the impact those policies and programs could have on jobs and wages in Appalachia. The engineering-economic modeling conducted in the study concludes that such policies could result in significant energy savings and positively impact the Appalachian economy.
ARC Report: Energy Efficiency in Appalachia
031709 AP article on ARC Report
032209 Roanoke Times Editorial on ARC Report
See also: Miles of Mountain Ridges
Bailing out wind energy project is a misuse of stimulus money
The Highland County Board of Supervisors has unwisely proposed that the Commonwealth of Virginia provide $1,500,000 in economic stimulus money to help facilitate the proposed Highland New Wind Development project in order to "enhance the long-term returns to the county, developer and Commonwealth."
The Highland New Wind project received permits over a year ago from both the State Corporation Commission and Highland County after a long, contentious, and expensive review process involving multiple government agencies and conservation groups. Both permits will expire in the fall of 2009 unless construction goes forward, which is doubtful.
The proposed project has real environmental problems, and despite the benefit of significant financial incentives for commercial wind energy, the developer has not been able to find the investors needed to go forward. To date the project has not submitted a site plan to either the county or the state, and a number of the required mitigation studies have not been completed.
The main problem with the Highland New Wind project is the extreme risk of harm to wildlife, especially the death of raptors and bats due to collision with turbine blades. Based on pre-construction studies at the site, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries concluded that this project may result in record-high rates of wildlife mortality.
Both the state wildlife agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that Highland New Wind prepare a habitat conservation plan and obtain a permit in compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, but the developer has thus far refused to do so.
The SCC did not require the federal permit but instead imposed stringent monitoring conditions that ensure that the inevitable violations will be detected. In declining to require compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the SCC advised that Highland New Wind was taking a business risk, but it was the developer's money at risk, and it was the developer's risk to take.
The lead attorney for the developer complained that the SCC monitoring requirements would "scare away investors." He seems to have been correct.
Since obtaining its state and county permits, Highland New Wind has sought to find a way to dodge, eliminate, or avoid its permit conditions. It has supported a state legislator who has worked to exempt projects like Highland New Wind from SCC oversight or approval. It has persistently tried to ignore or shortcut the requests of agencies charged with reviewing the project and implementing permit conditions. The proposed use of economic stimulus money to further study this well-studied project is part of a pattern.
It seems that the latest plan is for a new study that will reach new conclusions. Remarkably, the proposal specifically calls for a joint venture involving the developer and the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative, a wind energy advocacy group whose principals have been long-time and outspoken supporters of the project.
Highland New Wind is a risky project, and a substantial amount of state money and agency resources have already been spent in studying the project and in the development of appropriate permit conditions. It's time to let the project rise or fall on its own merits.
Virginia has a long list of much better ways to use the stimulus money.
Published as a Guest View by Rick Webb, The Recorder, 031209
Published as an Op-Ed by Rick Webb, The Roanoke Times, 031209
Recorder article:
Highland Supervisors Request $1.5 Million in Stimulus Money to Facilitate Highland New Wind
Recorder editorial:
Spending Stimulus Money on Wind Project Study Won't Change the Landscape
Wind power needs regulation
A good precedent for regulation of the wind energy industry in Virginia was established by the State Corporation Commission when it issued a permit for the proposed Highland New Wind project in Highland County. The review process was systematic, and the permit included precautionary conditions based on the carefully considered recommendations of natural resources agencies and conservation organizations.
Concerns have been raised, however, that the process took too long, and that strict requirements for monitoring bird and bat mortality have scared away investors.
Although the Highland New Wind project poses an exceptional risk to wildlife and is the first commercial-scale wind project to obtain a permit in Virginia, the uncertainty and delay associated with the approval process has proved off-putting to other would-be developers of wind energy in the state. So the wind industry is seeking to change the rules.
It is certainly understandable that the wind industry would want a predictable, fair, and efficient regulatory process. But that is not what the package of wind energy bills currently moving through the Virginia General Assembly is all about. We have instead a rather blatant attempt to eliminate meaningful environmental regulation altogether.
A responsible regulatory process would ensure that wind energy development occurs only in appropriate locations and with constraints that serve to minimize harm to our other natural resources.
I would argue that legislation to establish a responsible regulatory process should achieve the following:
- Objective and independent evaluation of potential wildlife, environmental, and cultural impacts prior to permitting.
- Effective implementation of a risk management process in cases where potential wildlife, environmental, or cultural impacts are indicated.
- Transparency in the review and permitting process, including meaningful opportunity for public involvement.
These are appropriate regulatory objectives for any industrial development proposed for relatively undisturbed areas. The wind energy bills now before the Virginia General Assembly, however, were clearly designed by, or at the behest of, wind industry lobbyists to ensure that such objectives will not be achieved.
Despite the huge footprint and serious wildlife, environmental, and cultural resource issues associated with wind industry projects on our forested mountain ridges, it seems that the General Assembly is poised to vote for deregulation and elimination of requirements for effective pre-permitting studies and post-construction wildlife mortality monitoring.
As if to alleviate concern with confusion, the bills in question only apply to "small wind projects," which are absurdly defined in these bills as projects of 100 megawatts in capacity or less. A 100 megawatt project can consist of 50 two-megawatt turbines and can occupy over 7 miles of ridgeline. The current generation of turbines can be up to 550 feet tall, requiring up to 5 acres of clearing per turbine, with 100-foot wide connecting roads and transmission corridors. There is nothing "small" about commercial wind projects.
Moreover, the environmental impact of commercial wind projects is a function of location, location, location rather than megawatts. In the face of very-well-established risk, the General Assembly is about to enact legislation that will allow poorly evaluated wind development to go forward in our remaining wild landscape without real oversight or accountability.
With respect to energy supply versus environmental tradeoff, the cost-benefit ratio for wind development on our mountain ridges is remarkably poor to begin with. Now, unless the General Assembly can be persuaded to slow down and give the issue a bit more thought, it's about to get a lot worse.
Published as an Op-Ed by Rick Webb, Roanoke Times, 020409
Legislation to eliminate environmental review of wind projects
Although conservation groups in Virginia now recognize the need for site-specific assessment of the environmental costs and benefits of commercial-scale wind development on our forested mountain ridges, wind industry lobbyists, with the help of some state politicians, are working to eliminate the review process.
We currently have a good precedent in Virginia that was established by the State Corporation Commission (SCC) when it issued a permit for the Highland New Wind project. The review process was systematic, and the permit included precautionary conditions based on the carefully considered recommendations of natural resource agencies and conservation organizations. See: SCC Final Order
The Highland New Wind precedent and SCC involvement in commercial wind project review are now threatened by bills before the 2009 General Assembly. It now appears, based on reliable sources, that Lt. Governor Bill Bolling and his staff are responsible for these bills.
Two sets of bills, with identical House and Senate versions, are before the General Assembly:
SB 1347 (Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach)
HB 2525 (Jackson Miller, R-Manassas)
SB 1194 (Phillip Puckett, D-Tazewell)
HB 2175 (Clarke Hogan, R-South Boston)
These two sets of bills effectively eliminate meaningful environmental review and regulation of what the bills define as "small" wind projects.
Both sets of bills define "small" wind projects as projects of 100 MW or less. A 100 MW project can consist of 50 2 MW turbines, or 66 1.5 MW turbines, and can occupy over 7 miles of ridgeline. The current generation of turbines can be up to 550 feet tall, requiring up to 5 acres of clearing per turbine, with 100-foot wide connecting roads and transmission corridors. There is nothing "small" about commercial wind projects.
Included in these bills are provisions:
- to make the DEQ the lead permitting agency for wind projects rather than the SCC
- to reduce environmental review to a check list rather than a meaningful assessment
- to unreasonably limit or eliminate post construction monitoring of wildlife mortality
- to provide an investment tax credit equal to 35% of project cost, and
- to limit state and local property tax liability to 20% of value.
Wind industry lobbyists frequently cite the protracted and still incomplete review of the Highland New Wind project as justification for their deregulation efforts. They fail to acknowledge that:
1) Serious environmental risks were identified by state wildlife agencies and conservation groups
2) The developer has failed to provide as site plan and other key information to the reviewing agencies
3) The SCC has, in fact, issued a permit with appropriate monitoring and mitigation conditions
4) The project is delayed because no investors are willing to assume the environmental risks.
There is no reason to change the current permitting process provided by the State Corporation Commission. It works, and it allows wind development to proceed in a responsible manner. There is also no reason to limit environmental review based on project size. Project location, rather than megawatt size, is the real predictor of the environmental harm caused by wind projects.
Final note: The Virginia Conservation Network, which includes more than 100 member organizations, has adopted a position in opposition to these bills.
See: VCN Legislative Positions
Highland New Wind Development continues to resist requests for information from Virginia's Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the agency responsible for evaluating the effects of the project on historic and cultural resources.
As described previously (below) the State Corporation Commission imposed strict monitoring, mitigation, and review requirements as part of its conditioned approval of the HNWD project. The developer, however, has persistently tried to ignore, shortcut, or avoid the requests of agencies charged with reviewing the project and implementing the permit conditions.
A particular concern has been the potential impact of the proposed 400-foot wind turbines on Camp Allegheny, a mountain-top Civil War encampment and battlefield located less than a mile from the project. Camp Allegheny, listed in the National Register of Historic Places, is remarkably well preserved, located in a remote forest and pastured landscape that looks much as it did in 1861.
The DHR has requested information over a several-year period that it has not received, including a site plan, an archaeological survey, and a viewshed analysis (see: DHR/HNWD correspondence).
As reported in The Recorder, things are seemingly at an impasse. HNWD continues to object to the DHR information requests. Meanwhile, the DHR is both reconsidering its requests and considering its legal options.
Recorder article:
Wind project owner resists state's request
Recorder editorial:
Which way is the wind blowing?
Submitted electronically to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (Case No. PUE-2008-00044)
We are writing in reference to the request by Dominion Virginia Power to offer a renewable electricity option to its customers. This is generally a good idea if Dominion’s customers, who will be asked to pay a premium for renewable electricity, are also provided a basis for making an informed choice. It will not serve the interests of Dominion’s customers if electricity is simply marketed as “renewable” without information concerning the source of the generation and without reliable assurance that the source of the generation is environmentally responsible.
Without meaning to imply that Dominion Virginia Power has other objectives, we believe that this can be characterized as a “truth in advertising” issue.
We are particularly concerned about the potential proliferation of wind energy projects in western Virginia and in adjacent Appalachian states. Through its review and approval of the Highland New Wind Project, the SCC has addressed and become informed concerning the environmental issues associated with the ridgeline development that is occurring in this region. We are thus confident that the SCC recognizes that not all wind energy projects, or all renewable energy projects, are equal with respect to environmental benefits and tradeoffs.
We suggest two means whereby the SCC can ensure that Dominion’s customers are afforded a true choice when offered “renewable” electricity obtained from utility-scale wind energy projects:
- Require that the individual wind projects meet the same environmental protection standards as required by the SCC for the Highland New Wind Project. This could be achieved by requiring Dominion to provide documentation to the SCC describing the assessment and review process, as well as the monitoring and mitigation programs, associated with each source of wind generated electricity that it proposes to offer its customers.
The SCC deserves credit for imposing strict monitoring, mitigation, and review requirements on the Highland New Wind project as part of its conditioned approval. An appropriate precedent was established that should apply to other commercial wind energy developers proposing to construct ridgeline wind projects in the mountains of western Virginia and adjacent states.
- Dominion’s customers should have access to the type of information that will allow them to evaluate the costs and benefits of the wind generated electricity that is offered. Given both the national and state-level interest in renewable energy it is clear that wind energy development will be driven by both demand and mandates. The potential for actual benefits will be maximized if principals of transparency and accountability are established at this early stage.
This can be achieved if, for any wind generated electricity offered, Dominion is required to provide for each wind project:
- The name, the location, the size (number, physical size, and installed capacity of the turbines), and the ownership
- The hourly generation output achieved by the project
- Information on wildlife mortality monitoring and mitigation programs, including:
- The monitoring protocol, schedule of surveys, survey design, and reporting schedule
- Provisions for public access to monitoring and mitigation reports
- Identity of the government agencies or other entities providing oversight
- The name, the location, the size (number, physical size, and installed capacity of the turbines), and the ownership
Although these recommendations apply specifically to the Dominion Virginia Power request presently before the SCC, they apply also to other such requests that will certainly come before the SCC.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Rick Webb and Dan Boone
Virginia Wind
www.VaWind.org
Highland New Wind Development: failure of process?
When Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) proposed to construct twenty 400-foot wind turbines in one of the most remote, undisturbed, and ecologically unique areas in Virginia, wildlife experts, conservationists, and preservationists argued that the tradeoffs and risks were unacceptable. The Virginia State Corporation Commission deserves credit for imposing strict monitoring, mitigation, and review requirements on the project as part of its conditioned approval. An appropriate precedent was established for the many other commercial wind energy developers waiting in the wings to construct ridgeline wind projects in the western Virginia mountains.
There is reason to doubt, however, that the reality of implementation will match the promise of the precedent.
Even as HNWD touts its proposed project to potential investors as the “Greenest Wind Farm in the World,” it tries to ignore, shortcut, or avoid the requests of agencies charged with reviewing the project and implementing the permit conditions. As Highland Citizens argued to the SCC in early 2007, this has been the pattern from the outset. “. . . HNWD has tried to provide as little information as possible in an effort to manipulate and limit the review process.”
HNWD was charged by the SCC to work with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) to implement the wildlife mortality monitoring and mitigation program for the project. In the eight months following the SCC permit approval in December of 2007, there has been no correspondence between HNWD and DGIF. Is it HNWD’s strategy to make the monitoring program less effective by failing to consult or coordinate with and generally ignoring the DGIF until the last minute – allowing no time for informed and deliberate decision making?
A similar pattern is playing out with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the agency responsible for evaluating the effects of the project on historic and cultural resources. Concerns have been raised about the effect of the project on the pristine Camp Allegheny battlefield, less than a mile from the project. The DHR has repeatedly requested information over a several-year period that it has not received, including a site plan, an archaeological survey, and a viewshed analysis. Instead of providing the requested information, HNWD has deployed its lawyers and PR people, among them two state senators, to argue for scaled-back requirements.
Meanwhile HNWD and its spokespersons argue that the wind project review process is broken and that it takes too long.
Correspondence between HNWD and the DHR
(2.5 mb compilation)
HNWD's argument with the DHR:
Recorder article
Recorder editorial
Virginia's offshore option
If wind energy development in the eastern U.S. is going to make a real rather than symbolic contribution to solving our energy and air pollution problems, it will certainly be offshore development.
Arguments and analyses that promote wind energy development as providing high percentages of future electricity demand (e.g., 20% by 2030), commonly don’t make it immediately clear that in Virginia and other mid-Atlantic states the development projections are mainly based on offshore wind. Appalachian ridgeline developers deceptively cite these projections when they promote their destructive and low-benefit projects. It’s fraudulent, and Virginians will come to understand this. In the meantime, however, damage will be done in terms of pointless and destructive landscape transformation, as well as in terms of lost opportunity for meaningful investment of resources.
Although the promoters of Appalachian wind projects are doing what they can to manipulate public perception, it is a matter of when, not a matter of if, the public will demand actual unbiased cost-benefit analysis.
Wind industry investors apparently understand this.
Most of the promotional images seen in magazines, on websites, in political ads, and otherwise on television depict wind turbines in the ocean, in the desert, in farmland, or in other flat and unforested landscape. Except for the PR associated with a few particular projects, there are few media images of wind projects on forested mountain ridges.
For now, Highland New Wind, with its conditioned approval from the State Corporation Commission, serves as the clear example for what’s wrong with industrial-scale wind projects in the Virginia mountains – and for the extreme in industry hype (the project is promoted to potential investors as the “Greenest Wind Farm in the World”). The level of controversy and public alarm can only grow as more and more wind developers stake their claims for ridgelines in the national forest and adjacent private lands.
An offshore-onshore comparison
Virginian Pilot article on offshore wind
U.S. Wind Resource Map: onshore and offshore
The first sentence in the Washington Post article, Wind is Given 2nd Look as Energy Needs Grow (080308), gets right to the point: the energy industry has targeted western Virginia’s forested mountains for industrial wind energy development.
“Wind is catching fire” said L. Preston Bryant Jr. Virginia’s secretary of natural resources. “It is literally all the rage.”
Although the Washington Post article highlights the “conflict within the environmental community” concerning this development push, it fails to provide much in the way of details concerning the basis for the objections. It also repeats a number of the industry’s deceptive talking points without offering any analysis.
For example:
The article repeats misleading claims that wind energy in Virginia has the potential to produce as much as 20 percent of the state's electricity needs.
More than 90% of that potential is offshore, where wind energy development is not considered economically viable at present. Yet wind energy proponents cite the offshore-based estimate to support the current push for development on our forested mountain ridges. (see: Wind Resource Estimates)
The article repeats exaggerated claims concerning the number of households that would be served by two proposed ridgeline projects in western Virginia. It states that the proposed Highland New Wind project is expected to produce enough electricity to power 15,000 homes, and that the proposed FreedomWorks project will produce enough electricity to power 86,000 homes.
These estimates are based on the unrealistic assumptions that all electricity produced will be for residential use, that electricity is not needed on days when there is no wind, and that the projects will dramatically exceed the performance of existing Appalachian wind projects. (see: Per Turbine Analysis)
The article repeats the uniformed claim that wind power provides an alternative to new coal-burning power plants, a claim made both by FreedomWorks, Inc., on its company website, and by some environmental groups opposing Dominion’s Wise County power plant.
Although concerns about the mining and burning of coal are well founded, promotion of wind energy as an alternative is not an effective argument. It would require 2,260 2-megawatt turbines to match the output of the proposed Wise County coal-fired generating plant in August (the peak demand period of the year). That would require about 323 miles of ridgeline, about the length of the Blue Ridge Mountain chain in Virginia. (see: FreedomWorks Claim)
Despite these shortcomings, the Washington Post article should be given credit for at least acknowledging that the environmental community is conflicted over the ridgeline development issue.
Also, there is ironic truth in the included statement by Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, who acknowledges that wind power “. . . is no longer an alternative energy source . . . it’s mainstream.”
The push for wind energy development is now driven by multi-national business interests, and along with that goes the usual investment in the manipulation of public perception.
In this context it will be difficult to achieve the informed public debate that is clearly needed if we are to achieve real solutions to our energy and environmental problems.
Greenwashing a not-so-green wind project proposal
Highland New Wind Development (HNWD), developer of the proposed 20-turbine ridgeline wind project in Highland County, Virginia, has taken its search for investors to extremes, posting a website entitled: “The Greenest Windfarm in the World.”
The website (www.highlandnewwind.com) describes the proposed project as the “first electric generation facility of any type, anywhere to be required under its state permit to perform daily surveys for bird and bat mortality for the life of the project.”
This greenest-of-all posturing puts a new spin on the permit conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission (SCC). The same conditions were earlier decried by HNWD’s lawyer, John Flora, who complained to the SCC that such permit conditions would “scare away investors.” Similarly, wind industry spokesperson, Frank Maisano, was quoted in a news article stating that the SCC conditions "could threaten the viability of the project."
Although potential investors will want to know why the SCC imposed precedent-setting wildlife monitoring conditions on the project, this critical information is missing from the HNWD website. Most of the extensive record, however, including expert reports and testimony submitted to the SCC, is provided here on the Virginia Wind website. (See the links to the right.)
Most significantly, nighttime radar studies of birds and bats flying over the turbine sites led the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to conclude that the project could lead to the highest mortality of birds and bats among wind projects in the east. Due to the presence of endangered bat species, as well as golden and bald eagles, both the state wildlife agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that the developer prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan and obtain an Incidental Take Permit as provided by the Endangered Species Act. The developer has not done so, and both the developer and the Highland County supervisors have been served a notice of intent to sue if the project goes forward without the permit.
The HNWD website further fails to reasonably describe the area in which the project would be located, representing it as “not wilderness.” In fact, the project would be built in the Laurel Fork watershed, one of the most remote, undisturbed, and ecologically unique areas in Virginia.
Additional information on the website concerns the developer’s June trip to the Windpower 2008 conference in Texas. HNWD’s attorney had previously advised the Highland supervisors that they hoped to report that investors had been obtained when they returned. Instead it was reported that no investment partners had been found among the over 13,000 conference attendees, and that HNWD was now expanding its search.Wind energy development in the U.S. is dependent on federal benefits, including the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which is due to expire at the end of 2009. Although the wind industry has defeated previous efforts to tie environmental safeguards to renewal of the PTC, concern about mortality of birds and bats due to collision with turbine blades is increasing.
The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has identified commercial wind energy production as one of the most significant issues associated with declining bird populations in North America.
Dr. George Wallace, the ABC's Vice President for International Programs, testified before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the House of Representatives' Committee on Natural Resources on July 10, 2008. His presentation, entitled Going, Going, Gone? An Assessment of the Global Decline in Bird Populations, included the following statement:
“Last year, my colleague at ABC, Dr. Michael Fry presented testimony to the full Committee on the ongoing impact of commercial wind energy production. While the actual number of birds killed by wind turbines is unknown, estimates have been made in the range of 30,000 to 60,000 per year at the current level of wind development. However, the wind industry is prepared to increase the number of turbines 30 fold over the next 20 years in order to fulfill the President’s request that renewable energy projects supply 20% of the nation’s energy needs by 2030. At the current estimated mortality rate, the wind industry will be killing 900,000 to 1.8 million birds per year. While this number is a relatively small percentage of the total number of birds estimated to live in North America, many of the bird species being killed are already declining for other reasons, and losses of more than a million birds per year would exacerbate these declines.
ABC recommends that any renewal of the production tax credit by Congress include provisions that require minimizing bird and bat kills by wind projects, and require developers to follow standard Best Management Practices in avoiding and minimizing bird and wildlife impacts in order to qualify for the full, taxpayer provided subsidy .”
This recommendation has particular significance for commercial wind development on Appalachian ridges.
As reported by The Wildlife Society, "Wind facilities located on forest ridges in the eastern U.S. have the highest documented bat and passerine fatalities." (Source: Arnett, E.C., et al., Technical Review 07-2: Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife & Wildlife Habitat. The Wildlife Society, 2007.)
Full text of ABC congressional testimony.
Overstated Benefits, Understated Costs
Industrial Wind Power in the Mountains of Virginia provides a counterpoint to the Virginia State Wind Symposium at James Madison University. (June 18-19, 2008; see http://vwec.cisat.jmu.edu/)
This symposium is sponsored by the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC), a state and federally funded organization that purports to promote balanced development of wind generated electricity in Virginia. The symposium, however, is remarkably unbalanced.
Although concerns have been widely raised about the overstated benefits and understated costs of industrial-scale wind development on our region’s mountain ridges, it is apparent that these concerns will not be fairly addressed at the VWEC symposium.
Those sessions of the symposium that might provide an opportunity for a balanced treatment of the issues are dominated by ardent wind energy advocates, entrepreneurs, and lobbyists. The agenda includes no one to present a countering viewpoint.
Six of the speakers and session moderators are on record supporting the controversial Highland New Wind Project either before the State Corporation Commission or in the media. These include Jonathan Miles, Deborah Jacobsen, Don Giecek, Mitch King, John Flora, and Frank Maisano.
Remarkably, the only speaker addressing the wildlife impacts of wind energy development is John Flora, the attorney and spokesman for the proposed Highland project. Mr. Flora has been dismissive of wildlife impacts – despite concerns expressed by state agency biologists that the project presents unacceptable risks to wildlife and may result in the highest mortality of birds and bats among wind projects in the eastern United States.
It seems that the purpose of the symposium is to discount legitimate concerns about wind development on Virginia’s mountain ridges, to promote unrealistic expectations for wind energy, and to foster a political climate that will favor additional mandates and incentives for the wind industry – while reducing environmental review requirements.
It is disappointing that state government and a state university have chosen to support and participate in this biased treatment of an increasingly important issue.
Highland New Wind Confronts Review Requirements, Limited Turbine Availability, and Loss of Investor Interest
When the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) issued a permit for the proposed Highland New Wind project in December 2007 it imposed stringent wildlife protection conditions and requirements for further review.
The developer asserted that potential investors would lose interest because of the precedent-setting requirements to monitor and mitigate impacts to birds and bats. Further complicating the issue, both the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have recommended that Highland New Wind obtain permits for incidental take of endangered species through the provisions of Endangered Species Act - something the developer has thus far refused to do.
Now it appears that the project faces additional uncertainty as some of the agencies responsible for further review seem unclear about their respective roles in the continuing process.
Consistent with recommendations by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the SCC order identified a number of agencies with which Highland New Wind was directed to work, consult, and coordinate.
Among the conditions imposed by the SCC is the requirement that Highland New Wind will provide a final site plan to the reviewing agencies. As interpreted by the General Counsel for the SCC, it is the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to determine which reviewing agencies are to receive a final site plan. The DEQ, however, has taken the position that it has no further coordinating role, and that Highland New Wind is obliged to determine which additional approvals and permits are necessary.
Meanwhile Highland New Wind has developed a list of necessary approvals or permits that does not include a number of the state and federal agencies with review responsibilities. Among these are Virginia's Department of Historic Resources, Department of Conservation and Recreation, and Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. In addition, the list does not include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers.
On May 6, 2008, Highland New Wind's attorney, John Flora, advised the Highland County Board of Supervisors that a final site plan has not been completed - given uncertainty in turbine availability and the need to secure investment partners.
SCC Final Order (12/20/07)
- see pages 8 and 9 concerning permits conditions and reviewing agencies
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Recommendations to the SCC
030106
063006
Articles addressing the continuing review process
The Recorder, 050108
The Recorder, 050808
Wind Turbine Projects Planned for George Washington National Forest
Two national forest projects have been proposed, one by FreedomWorks LLC and one by an unnamed developer represented by WEST, Inc.
Information on both projects is provided below.
FreedomWorks LLC project
Developer's Website
Site Map
The map shows the locations of 131 wind turbines proposed for Hardy County, WV and Shenandoah and Rockingham Counties, VA by FreedomWorks, LLC. The locations are based upon the coordinates provided in applications filed with the FAA. It appears that all but one of these huge wind turbines (440 feet tall) are to be sited within the George Washington National Forest (GWNF).
The map's information can be verified by checking with the FAA's 7460-1 database. Each wind turbine has a separate 7460-1 application filed with FAA, and a detailed map showing the exact location of this planned wind turbine by clicking on "View Map" in the FAA application notice provided via the weblink.
In the map, areas of the GWNF for which the pending management plan has identified as being "generally suitable" for wind energy development (gold colored) are based upon the map of "Areas Generally Suitable for Wind Generation Sites" compiled Feb. 9, 2007 by the US Forest Service
An examination of Oct. 2006 aerial photos covering the entire 18-mile ridge length where this project is to occur reveals that - other than a powerline and one small road (public) which crosses between Hardy and Shenandoah Counties - the project area is completely undisturbed forest (with no sign of logging roads or clearcuts). It appears that this project would destroy over 500 acres of forest and additionally will cause extensive forest fragmenation - likely wiping out over 2500 acres of forest-interior habitat (about 4 square miles!).
FreedomWorks Benefits Claim
Related newspaper articles:
News-Virginian, 032508
Northern Virginia Daily, 032608
Daily News Record, 032608-1
Daily News Record, 032608-2
Note: The spokesman for the development company, FreedomWorks LLC, is quoted stating that most potential wind project locations in Va are off limits. An examination of legal and management restrictions indicates that this is not correct.
WEST, Inc. project
The map indicates the approximate location of a potential wind energy project in the GWNF in Pendleton, Hardy, and Rockingham Counties. The proposed project was discussed a 11/16/08 letter from the WV field office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to WEST, Inc, consultants for an unidentified developer. The location of the proposed FreedomWorks LLC project is also indicated. The USFWS recommended against construction of the WEST, Inc. project due to high risk to bird and bat species protected by the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter (11/16/07)
(0.9 mb)
Related newspaper articles:
The Recorder, 013108
Daily News Record, 011508
See also:
Forest Service Proposal to Minimize Review of Wind Energy Projects in National Forest
For additional information about forest impacts of wind energy projects, see: Using GIS to Evaluate Forest Habitat and Public Land Impacts of Wind Energy Development
Lawyer Spins Statistics to Promote
Wind Turbine Project
John Flora is the attorney for Highland New Wind Development. Speaking at a January 22, 2008 Shenandoah Sierra Club forum, Mr. Flora stated that two-thirds of Highland County residents support the proposed project. He further stated that he obtained this information from Highland County’s Administrator and Board of Supervisors.
This remarkable claim has significance, given that:
- The Shenandoah Sierra Club Group is seeking objective information in order to develop a position on the project
- The project developer needs to convince potential investors that the turbine project is supported by Highland County citizens
- Additional wind energy developers are attempting to determine if Highland County ridges are a good target for their ventures
The information provided to Mr. Flora by Highland County officials was apparently not what Mr. Flora claimed. In response to questions posed at a recent meeting, the Chairman of the Highland County Board of Supervisors suggested that Mr. Flora may be basing his assertion on a petition that was circulated in opposition to the project. Signatures on the petition included 27% of registered voters in the county. It seems that Mr. Flora has made the specious assumption that everyone who didn’t sign the petition can be counted as a supporter of the project.
See Recorder article (discussion on page 4)
Highland County supervisors face continuing legal action over wind
energy project
Although Highland New Wind has received a permit from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC), the permit is heavily conditioned upon additional agency review and strict wildlife monitoring and mitigation requirements (see SCC Conditions below).
Additional legal issues now confront the Highland County officials, who must issue a building permit before the project can go forward. Attorneys for a group of Highland citizens have reaffirmed their intention to sue if the project is permitted to go forward in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other environmental laws.
In a February 27th letter to the Board of Supervisors, the Roanoke based Woods Rogers law firm called attention to additional information presented in proceedings before the SCC that shows the project will violate the ESA unless an Incidental Take Permit is procured.
As described in the letter, experts testifying before the SCC indicated that endangered bat species would likely be killed by at the proposed facility. Wildlife biologists with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) stated that the “project clearly poses a risk of significant mortality to all species of bats using the site. This includes the [endangered] Virginia Big-Eared bat and the Indiana Bat.”
Both the DGIF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have recommended that Highland New Wind obtain permits for incidental take of endangered species through the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
Note: although a spokesman for Highland New Wind has reportedly indicated that the firm may at some later time apply for an endangered species takings permit; there is no provision under the ESA for after-the-fact permitting of harm to endangered species.
In addition to warnings concerning violation of the ESA, the Woods Roger’s letter to the Highland Supervisors further warned that legal remedies may be sought if the project is allowed to go forward in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Projection Act. In submissions to the SCC, experts for Highland New Wind testified that eagles were not present at the site. However, additional testimony before the SCC demonstrated the presence of both bald and golden eagles in and around Highland County.
Finally, the Woods Rogers letter raised questions about County enforcement of Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Although the SCC explicitly relied on Highland County to implement sediment and erosion control requirements that apply to the proposed Highland New Wind project, the County has subsequently been found to be inconsistent in its enforcement of erosion and sediment control law by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. The Woods Rogers letter put the County on notice that private citizens and adjacent landowners have standing to enforce sediment and erosion control ordinances through court action.
The Woods Rogers letter requested that the County exercise its responsibility to address all of these issues through proper implementation of the Conditional Use Permit issued to Highland New Wind.
For more information, see:
Woods Rogers 022708 letter
Recorder article
Proposed Forest Service Directive on Wind Energy Development
The Wilderness Society, along with other conservation groups and individuals, contends that the Forest Service has failed to follow proper procedure in proposing a wind energy program for the National Forests.
In comments to the Forest Service, the Wilderness Society argues that Wind energy projects should be treated the same as any other proposed use of federal lands, subject to thorough, programmatic and site-specific analysis, and public participation. "All laws and regulations applicable to other projects on the federal lands must be complied with, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other federal laws. The first steps in that compliance should be completion of a programmatic EIS and, as discussed below, formal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service."
Comments submitted to the Forest Service:
The Wilderness Society
Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County
Outgoing SCC Commissioner Morrison Comments on Highland Wind Project
“ . . . it’s beautiful country up there, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable for you all to want it to stay that way, without windmills on the skyline.”
Concerning wind energy’s potential contribution to the electricity supply
“ . . . I wish people would get realistic about the promise of renewables. . . . People shouldn’t think we can get away from large plants with these.”
“ . . . I looked at windmills in California. I was there 4-5 days and not a single one of them were turning. There were hundreds of them, and someone, somewhere had to be powering electricity elsewhere.”
Concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed wind energy project
“ . . . The controversy in Highland County really boiled down to how much environmental protection we should afford, and who pays for it.”
“ . . . This is definitely a laboratory project, a pilot project to see how many bats we can slay, if you will.”
“ . . . . The chances are good they will take endangered species. . . . if I were the developer, I would want to minimize risk as much as you can before you spend the whole bundle, $60 million, on the project.”
“ . . . we weren’t sure whether the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries was going to be able to participate . . . . And they participated fully. That’s the first time that’s ever happened.”
Concerning Senator Frank Wagner’s efforts to minimize environmental review of wind energy projects
“ . . . I don’t think it’s a good idea.” (referring to Wagner’s S.B. 324; see topic below)
“ . . . Sen. Frank Wagner can talk all he wants, but he doesn’t know anymore about windmills than I do.”
Read Complete Interview: The Recorder
"McBride Bill" Would Allow Highland New Wind To Dodge SCC Conditions
Senator Frank Wagner has introduced a bill in the Virginia General Assembly that will exempt from any State Corporation Commission oversight or approval, all electric generating facilities fueled by renewable resources, with a rated capacity of 50 megawatts or less.
S.B. 324 is known as the “McBride Bill” because it is clearly intended either to overturn or to supplant the SCC decision in the Highland New Wind Case. Lawyers for Henry McBride, the developer of Highland New Wind, have complained that wildlife monitoring and mitigation conditions attached to the SCC approval of the 39 megawatt project have made it unattractive to investors. (See the article below for a description of the SCC conditions.)
McBride must raise more than 60 million dollars to go forward with the project in the face of wildlife mortality issues and risks to endangered species.
Frank Wagner, State Senator from Virginia Beach, has testified against strict conditions on behalf of Highland New Wind before the SCC.
S.B. 324 has broad implications beyond the effect on the proposed Highland County wind project. It could, for example, result in a proliferation 50 megawatt or less wind farms with no real control other than local zoning laws. Given that the bill will also apply to generation fueled by any "renewable resource” there is no way to predict the mischief the bill could generate. Municipal waste, for example, is considered a renewable resource.
There is no comprehensive and reliable state level environmental review of wind energy projects other than that by the SCC, which may be minimal unless concerned citizens have the resources to hire the lawyers and experts needed to participate effectively as formal respondents. The Highland New Wind review by the SCC involved great expense on the part of concerned citizens.
It remains to be seen which, if any, “environmental” groups will support the “McBride Bill.”
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network, for example, a Maryland based program with growing Virginia influence, is aggressively promoting commercial wind development in Virginia. CCAN promoted the Highland New Wind Project and was dismissive of both wildlife concerns and project opponents.
CCAN campaigned successfully in Maryland for legislation that prohibits the state wildlife agency from participating in the Maryland Public Service Commission review of wind projects.
S.B. 324
For updates see News and Commentary
[Top]
SCC Grants Conditional Approval to Highland New Wind
- imposes monitoring and mitigation requirements for the life of project
- includes elements that the developer claims will likely prevent project from becoming a reality
- affirms risk to project associated with Endangered Species Act noncompliance
The State Corporation Commission has granted conditional approval for the 39-MW Highland New Wind Development project that, if actually developed, will involve construction of twenty 400-foot turbines and associated infrastructure in the remote and ecologically unique northwest corner of Virginia’s Highland County.
The conditional approval imposes monitoring and mitigation requirements that Highland New Wind claims will cause “every potential investor in the wind market [to] lose interest in the Project . . . .”
Although the SCC asserted no authority to require the applicant to enter into a Habitat Conservation Plan and obtain an Incidental Take Permit attendant to the Endangered Species Act, the SCC did characterize Highland New Wind’s apparent refusal to do so as “a business risk voluntarily assumed by Highland Wind, which may impact the viability of the project. . . .”
The SCC acknowledged the significant risk to bats and birds that will result from the Highland New Wind project and refused to accept the “downsized” monitoring and mitigation plan proposed by the developer. The SCC instead adopted the plan recommended by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and further provided that limits on the cost of the plan may be adjusted if necessary. Despite objections raised by the developer, the DGIF has been assigned responsibility for implementing both the monitoring and mitigation portions of the required plan. Key elements of the plan include:
-
Daily monitoring for bird and bat mortality at 10 randomly selected turbines from April 1 – October 30
-
Daily monitoring for raptor mortality at 10 randomly selected turbines from November 15- March 31
-
Unrestricted access to the project site by the DGIF or its designees to conduct research on wildlife passage rates, site utilization, and management of wind energy production impacts on wildlife
-
Development of annual project mitigation or curtailment plans addressing seasonal migration and ensuring achievement of specified mortality thresholds for birds and bats
-
Immediate notification to the DGIF and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the event that endangered bat species or protected raptors are killed at the project
-
Additional species-specific fees for each raptor killed at the facility
Upper limits or caps to the cost of monitoring and mitigation are established by the order. In response to concern that the cost caps may not be protective if “bird and bat carnage continues to exceed target levels,” the SCC provided that the DGIF can request adjustment after three years. This provision prompted a dissenting opinion by one of the SCC commissioners, who argued that it creates untenable financial uncertainty, leaves the plan wide open for future modifications, and creates “a situation where potential investors simply will not know the limits to which operation of the project may be curtailed. . . .”
More information see
SCC Final Order
SCC Press Release
Developer Press Release
Roanoke Times
Associated Press
Daily News Record
For updates see News and Commentary
Citizens argue that wind project
requires Endangered Species Act
(ESA) permit
"The [SCC Hearing Examiner's] report acknowledges that the project presents risks to endangered species but then ignores recommendations of state and federal wildlife agencies and other expert testimony by failing to require that HNWD obtain an incidental take permit. . . ."
"The record is replete with evidence that the project, if constructed, will result in a take of an endangered species. . . . "
"Throughout these proceedings HNWD has ignored the application of the ESA and the repeated warnings and recommendations of the wildlife agencies. It can no longer do so. . . ."
- from comments submitted to State Corporation Commission by attorneys for Highland Citizens
For more information see comments to SCC:
Highland Citizens
The Nature Conservancy
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
SCC Staff
Highland New Wind
and
The Recorder
Wildlife monitoring requirement may "scare away investors"
The Hearing Examiner for the State Corporation Commission has issued findings and recommendations concerning wildlife risks associated with the proposed Highland New Wind project. He found that the project represents "a significant risk to bats, and a lesser risk to birds." His recommendations include monitoring for the life of the project and unrestricted access to the project site for state and federal authorities.
The Hearing Examiner also recommended that the project obtain an "incidental take" permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and create a Habitat
Conservation Plan to avoid risk of shut-down and penalties.
The developer's attorney has objected to what he termed a "bat tax" and the possibility that the cost of monitoring and mitigation could "scare away investors." Energy industry spokesman, Frank Maisano, has expressed a similar concern: ". . . I'm saying it could threaten the viability of the project."
As described previously (see the "Front Page" topic below), the real problem for Highland New Wind and other Appalachian region wind projects is not the cost of monitoring wildlife impact. The real problem is that stringent monitoring will document unacceptable levels of wildlife mortality.
For more information, see:
Hearing Examiner's Report
The Recorder
The Roanoke Times
The Richmond Times Dispatch
It's the monitoring data that may put
the project at risk, not the monitoring costs
Due to very high concentrations of birds and bats at the site of the proposed Highland New Wind project in Virginia's Highland County, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) has argued in testimony to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) that the project presents an unacceptable risk to wildlife --unless effective monitoring and mitigation requirements are imposed. The developer has countered with testimony claiming that the monitoring and mitigation recommendations of both the VDGIF and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) would put the project at financial risk. However, the SCC has released financial information for the project that suggests otherwise.
In a brief, which was unintentionally posted by the SCC on its website, TNC argued that "the cost of monitoring and mitigating the
environmental risk this project poses to bats, even if continued at the maximum levels
suggested by the Conservancy for the 20-year life of the project, would amount to
approximately 2.5 percent of the project's annual revenues during the first three years of its
operation and less than 1.5 percent of revenues thereafter."
This is covered in detail in an article and editorial in The Recorder, the weekly newspaper that serves Highland County (see the red text near the end of both).
Additional information on this topic is provided in an article in the Roanoke Times.
Behold the giants: the potential impacts of wind energy on wildlife
Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007
The Wildlife Society
With the wind energy industry expanding
rapidly to meet the world’s rising demand for
energy, researchers are trying to move quickly
to get a better grasp on how to minimize wildlife
mortality and habitat impacts that seem
to inevitably accompany wind facilities.
Complete article with annotations
Raptors and Wind Energy Development in the Central Appalachians:
Where We Stand on the Issue
Authors: Todd Katzner, David Brandes,
Michael Lanzone, Trish Miller, Dan Ombalski
On migration routes of high ecological significance . . . wind energy facilities should be constructed only if replicated studies show conclusively that there will not be harm to natural resources - birds, bats, habitat, etc. In these cases there must be an especially high burden of proof to show that harm will not be caused.
Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2007; 5(6): 315-324.
Authors: Thomas H Kunz, Edward B Arnett, Wallace P Erickson, Alexander R Hoar, Gregory D Johnson, Ronald P Larkin, M Dale Strickland, Robert W Thresher, and Merlin D Tuttle
Abstract: At a time of growing concern over the rising costs and long-term environmental impacts of the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy, wind energy has become an increasingly important sector of the electrical power industry, largely because it has been promoted as being emission-free and is supported by government subsidies and tax credits. However, large numbers of bats are killed at utility-scale wind energy facilities, especially along forested ridgetops in the eastern United States. These fatalities raise important concerns about cumulative impacts of proposed wind energy development on bat populations. This paper summarizes evidence of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in the US, makes projections of cumulative fatalities of bats in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, identifies research needs, and proposes hypotheses to better inform researchers, developers, decision makers, and other stakeholders, and to help minimize adverse effects of wind energy development.
Wind project developer seeks to avoid wildlife protection measures
The Virginia State Corporation Commission is hearing testimony on the proposed Highland New Wind project on Tuesday, July 17, at its Richmond office building. If the Highland County project goes forward, it will be Virginia’s first utility-scale wind project.
Highland New Wind is testifying that it cannot afford wildlife protections recommended by wildlife agencies, conservation groups, and citizen respondents in the case now before the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
Despite the prospects of government incentives, which would cover the majority of development costs, it remains a marginal project, promising negligible benefits and huge environmental costs.
“This project is simply a bad investment for the wind industry and a bad precedent for the Commonwealth,” says Rick Webb, co-manager of Virginia Wind and co-author of a National Academies report on environmental impacts of wind projects. “If it goes forward, it can only damage the concept of green energy.”
The proposed Highland New Wind project would involve twenty 400-foot turbines on two ridges in the Laurel Fork area of Virginia’s least populated county, an area noted for its high mountain scenery and wildlife abundance. Limited studies conducted by the developer indicate that the project site may have the highest numbers of migrating birds and bats among all wind project sites in the eastern United States.
Multiple agencies and organizations have presented testimony about the proposed project to the State Corporation Commission.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service : recommends that wind energy developers avoid wildlife concentration areas, and that development only occur after multi-year and multi-season study of wildlife use. Highland New Wind must obtain a Habitat Conservation Plan required by the Endangered Species Act.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries : indicates that wildlife mortality at the proposed site may exceed that of all other sites in the eastern U.S. and that without effective monitoring and mitigation measures, the project presents “unacceptable risks.” Continuous monitoring for the life of the project should be required, with project curtailment when mortality thresholds are exceeded.
The Nature Conservancy : provides estimates that as many as 64,000 bats will be killed each year given the number of wind turbines projected for construction by 2020 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Unless solutions are found, the proposed Highland New Wind project will contribute to this “intolerable situation.”
Highland Citizens : argues that Highland New Wind “has tried to provide as little information as possible in an effort to manipulate and limit the review process.”
Virginia Wind : estimates that Highland New Wind will provide less than one-tenth of one-percent of the Commonwealth’s annual electricity needs, and even that small amount will not be available during the peak summer demand period when commonly the wind is not blowing.
This project clearly tests the limits of public support for wind development.
Virginia Wind takes the position that meaningful steps must be taken to solve our energy problem and address air pollution and climate change. The Highland New Wind project is a step in the wrong direction.
Summary of Pre-Filed Testimony
Open letter to Mr. Frank Maisano, spokesperson for Appalachian wind developers
Mr. Maisano - I see that you are quoted in several articles concerning the WV PSC denial of a permit for the Liberty Gap wind project.
One of the issues raised by the WV PSC is that the applicant has failed to prepare the Habitat Conservation Plan and obtain the Incidental Take Permit needed for compliance with the Endangered Species Act. I believe that this failure had to do with the fact that there are no proven measures for avoiding bat mortality. The applicants certainly knew that if they pursued the matter the lack of mitigation measures would become all too clear. I note that you neglect this key issue in your newspaper statements.
I understand the role that you play as wind industry PR person. But I suggest that you do a disservice to potential investors in Allegheny Highlands wind projects. Given that the only mitigation measure for the bat mortality problem is likely to be project curtailment, any requirement for effective monitoring of bat mortality is not likely to appeal to investors. And it is not likely that future projects will go forward without strict monitoring requirements.
I raise this selective representation of the issues on your part because it appears that you are also promoting the myth that the industry has solved the bat problem. For example, in an article titled "Wind Wars," published this month in Conserve Magazine, you are reported to have said that the industry has found ways to reduce the danger of wind turbines to bats. I am confident that this is not correct. However, in the interest of informed public debate, we will publish any supporting analysis that you can provide. - Rick Webb
Wind energy promoters assert that construction of wind turbines on Appalachian ridges will reduce or prevent mountaintop removal and the other destructive effects of our reliance on coal as an energy source.
For example, the Summer 2007 issue of UVA Magazine includes an article titled, Wind Chill, in which Mr. Alden Hathaway, a wind energy broker, is reported to estimate that each wind turbine offsets the need for 40 to 50 acres of coalfield.
We offered to publish any analysis that Mr. Hathaway could provide in support of this estimate.
Mr. Hathaway responded, stating that he does not recall making such an estimate, and he instead offered analysis showing that each wind turbine will potentially save 18 acres of coalfield.
We thank Mr. Hathaway for providing this clarification. However, he still presents an unrealistically high estimate of mountaintop removal offset. We have prepared a critique of his analysis.
The Hathaway analysis
The Virginia Wind critique
Letter-Writing Campaign by Project Proponents |
Urgent: Bring Clean Energy to Virginia |
|
Other Comments and Reports
Highland Citizens
Expert Testimony to SCC on
Energy, Air-Quality, and Environmental Issues
090106-1 (3.3 mb)
090106-2 (1.4 mb)
090106-3 (2.5 mb)
061907
011907
110607
The Nature Conservancy
Expert Testimony to SCC on Wildlife Issues
Preliminary Comments (0.3 mb)
083001-1 (2.6 mb)
083001-2 (2.2 mb)
061807
082807
011807
110207
Virginia Highlands Grotto
National Speleological Society:
Potential Impacts on Rare and Endangered Bats
041106 (2.2 mb)
102906 (0.4 mb)
Viewshed Analysis
(8.0 mb)
John R. Sweet
Radar Study Results
Graphical display of collision risk to nocturnal migrant birds and bats posed by planned wind turbines.
Agency Comments and Review Material
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
030106
073006
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
022406
052406
092006
061807
Virginia Department of Conservation
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
022306
022008
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2003 2005 2006
The Developer's Environmental Reports
Reports submitted on 020706 to the SCC include the following, which were divided into five separate 1.7 to 2.8 mb files on the SCC website:
Document 1:
transmittal letter - John Flora
general project description - Jeffrey Paulson
avian issue - Paul Kerlinger
Document 2:
Document 3:
Document 4:
avian issue continued -
Paul Kerlinger
Document 5:
avian issues continued -
Paul Kerlinger
bat issue - Scott Reynolds
northern flying squirrel issue -
Michael Edwin sponds to Agency Comments
Response to Agency Comments
042706 - Part 1
042706 - Part 2
Related news article: 050206
Response to DEQ Report
080406 - Part 1
080406 - Part 2
080406 - Part 3 on
includes emissions "backdown" reports (also provided with Virginia Wind response under "Air Quality Benefits ?") ")
080906 - Part 1
080906 - Part 2
avian issue - Paul Kerlinger
Bat and Avian Impacts
Overview_NEES-011006
Radar_Study_ABR-0106
Post-hearing briefs:
011907
110607
Review Process
The application, reports, comments, and legal briefs are available on the State Corporation Commission website
(access SCC documents).
Much of this material is posted here via the links below.
Va Wind Comments: 032906
Air Quality Benefits Question
Hathaway-Jacobsen: 07050
Va Wind Response: 080906
Developer's Reports
Agency Comments
Other Comments/Reports
Campaign
by
Proponents
Potential Contribution of Highland New Wind Development to Virginia’s Projected Monthly Electricity Demand in 2015 (shown in relation to estimated total onshore wind energy capacity)
Highland New Wind
Twenty 400-foot turbines would be distributed on high-elevation pastures in the Laurel Fork watershed, one of the most remote, undisturbed, and ecologically unique areas in Virginia. Concerns about potential adverse effects of the project have been raised by a broad range of agencies and organizations.
Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries:
“. . . the Highland Project has passage rate indices ranging from 36-80% greater than comparable sites. These data demonstrate the importance of this site as migratory pathway for bats and birds . . . . We believe this may translate into the highest mortality rates in the east.”
Additional concerns about impacts to natural and cultural resources have been raised by: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Virginia Division of Historic Resources, The Nature Conservancy, the Virginia Society of Ornithology, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Valley Conservation Council, Scenic Virginia, and others.
Highland County is known for its scenic beauty and unique habitat that supports a diverse animal population. From the outset of the SCC process, HNWD has tried to provide as little information as possible in an effort to manipulate and limit the review process. DEQ, DGIF and DCR have all stated that the information submitted by HNWD was not sufficient for them to determine the impact upon wildlife but that the information that was provided indicated that there is a likelihood of significant bat and bird mortality. - from Post-Hearing Brief, Highland Citizens, 01/19/07
Basis for estimation that
4317 turbines would be needed
to meet a 12.5% RPS in Virginia
in 2015
Estimated electricity consumption for 2015:
136,129,411 MWhs
This is based on projecting from 2001 consumption given 2.52% annual growth in demand (the average growth rate for 1992 through 2001).
The annual production for a 1.5 MW turbine:
1.5MW x .30 (capacity factor) x 365 days x 24 hours/day = 3942 MWhs per turbine per year
Given that the annual capacity factor for turbines in the mid Appalachian region is 30%.
The number of turbines to supply 12.5% of estimated 2015 electricity consumption:
(136,129,411 MWhs x 0.125) / 3942 MWhs/turbine = 4317 turbines
4317 turbines at 8 turbines per mile of ridgeline
= 540 miles of ridgeline
To put this in perspective:
540 miles is more than 5 times the length of the Shenandoah National Park
U.S. Department of Energy
Energy Information Administration
Renewable
portfolio standard legislation would require industrial wind development in Virginia.
The Cart Before the Horse
The need for objective study.
Regional Projections
Turbines to satisfy RPS requirements in 2030.
Potential Contribution of Onshore Wind Development to
Virginia’s Projected Monthly Electricity Demand in 2015
Estimates indicate that onshore wind capacity is equivalent to 3.6% of Virginia's 2015 demand. Any additional requirement would need to be satisfied by development in the bay or offshore.
Front Page
|
| News & Information Sources |
| National Wind Watch |
| Industrial Wind Action Group |
| National Academies Report |
Assessment/Guidance
|
| Wind Energy Development in Western Virginia (2.5 mb) |
| Policy Development |
| Virginia Forest Watch |
| Wild Virginia |
Environmental Issues
|
Landscape Classification System for Virginia
|
| Development Scale |
| Turbine Size VA Wind Energy Potential Wind Projects: 022710 |
Virginia Wind is maintained by |
objectives of Virginia wind
- To provide access to a Landscape Classification System for environmentally responsible siting of utility-scale wind projects in Virginia.
- To provide a technical and policy oriented synthesis of available information on utility-scale wind energy development and associated environmental impacts in Virginia and the central Appalachian region.
- To promote awareness of the need for effective environmental assessment prior to utility-scale wind development in the region.
We are guided by the Precautionary Principle, wherein "if we have reasonable suspicion of harm, accompanied by scientific uncertainty, then we all have a duty to take action to prevent harm."
We remain hopeful that the wind industry will embrace the principle of precaution and stand as a role-model for other industries by taking strong and proactive steps to prevent environmental harm.
We intend to continue work on the Landscape Classification System and to promote effective assessment of environmental issues related to wind energy development. We envision this website and the Landscape Classification System as works in progress, and we invite feedback and comments.
News Reports
The following news reports concern environmental harm, the need for research, and the development of a regulatory review process for utility-scale wind energy development in Virginia and the surrounding central Appalachian region.
Federal Government Aims to Give Wind Developers 30-Year Permits to Kill Eagles-Without Public Input
East County Magazine, 022113
Federal Agency Slammed Over 'Secretive' Eagle-Wind Energy Policy Proposal
KCET, 021913
SB 1341 Fails in Committee
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 013013
Virginia Association of Counties Joins Opposition to SB1341
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 012513
". . . the bill would totally prohibit localities from being able to have a say in the kind of developments they want in their communities."
Conservation Groups Call for Changes at Nation's Most Deadly Wind Power Development
“I cannot imagine that the state of Maryland is proud of the fact that the first commercial wind power project in the state – a short drive from our nation’s capital – is the most deadly for birds in the entire country.” - George Fenwick, President of American Bird Conservancy.
Comments on Criterion's Draft Habitat Conservation Plan - Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal
Carroll County: Latest Virginia County to Consider Ridgeline Turbine Prohibition
thecarrollnews.com, 091212
American Bird Conservancy News Release
083112
Topics include:
-
New permitting process for eagles and wind energy
-
Multi-state, multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan under review
-
Endangered bat and candidate endangered bird killed at West Virginia wind power facilities
-
Maryland wind project has highest estimated avian fatality rate
Highland Organization Supports Eagle Research Amid Questions About Regulation of the Wind Industry
The Recorder, 062212
Poor Mountain Wind Project Delayed
Roanoke Times, 052712
Invenergy Project in NC May Kill 20 Eagles Per Year
SNL, 052512
Wind Spin
FactCheck.org, 020912
An honest argument is hard to find.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Reconsider Pennsylvania Wind Project Decision
Save Our Allegheny Ridges, 013012
". . . the Service ignored the views of the nation’s leading bat biologists who pressed the Service to consider alternatives to placing a project in this sensitive location, and also applied faulty population models in an effort to greenlight this project that will not only kill highly imperiled Indiana bats, but also golden eagles and migratory birds. . . . "
(Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal, 012612)
Notice of Endangered Species Act Violation
Notice Letter and Expert Statements (Zip File)
Turbines Kill Birds
Greenwire, 012612
American Bird Conservancy Responds to Proposed Eagle Take Permit for Oregon Wind Power Facility
ABC Media Release, 010612
American Bird Conservancy Petions U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Regulate Wind Industry
ABC Media Release, 121411
". . . a viable alternative to inadequate, unenforceable voluntary guidelines."
Floyd County Expected to Protect Ridgeline
Roanoke Times, 121511
Dominion Hasn't Yet Given-Up On Tazewell "Wind Farm"
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 120611
. . . new county supervisor intends "to uphold if not strengthen our community's desire not to have a large wind farm."
Bird Kill at Laurel Mountain Industrial Wind Facility
The Highlands Voice, November, 2011
. . . the wind facility operators are fast earning a reputation as unfit stewards of the little bit of nature left after their developments are complete.
Floyd County Plans Turbine Ordinance
SWVA, 101411
Bent Mountain Group Sues Over Wind Ordinance
Roanoke Times, 101411
Roanoke County Bird Watchers Worry About Windmills
Roanoke Times, 092911
The eagle then headed southwest - in the general direction of where, someday, wind turbines may wait.
Map: Poor Mountain hawk watching site in relation to Invenergy's proposed turbine development.
Roanoke County Sets Wind "Farm" Limits
Roanoke Times, 091411
Supervisor complains rules are not strict enough.
Researchers Share New Information on Golden Eagles
The Recorder, 081811
. . . golden eagles migrate and winter over in the central Appalachian region, right where many wind projects are proposed or already built. . . . these raptors are the species most at risk from industrial wind power development . . . . This is true for the Highland New Wind Development site in Highland County . . . . Eagles have been mapped flying through the site on Allegheny Mountain where Virginia’s first wind project is proposed but has not been constructed. . . .
There Are the Views, 'But the Big Issue is the Water"
SWVA Today, 091211
Floyd County Reacts to the Possibility of Wind Turbines
WSBJ7, 080911
Floyd County Residents Petition Against Wind Turbines
Roanoke Times, 081011
"The people of this area don't want to see this ridgeline destroyed."
Virginia's Bath County Takes Stand Against Wind Turbines
The Recorder, 080411
"Wind turbines do not belong in Bath County."
US Fish and Wildlife Service Investigating Golden Eagle Deaths at CA Wind Project
Los Angeles Times, 080211
Multiple Wind Companies Looking at Southwest Virginia
Roanoke Times, 072211
. . . Even so, Ken Jurman, renewable energy program manager at the state Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, predicted that onshore wind power development "is not going to be a huge deal in Virginia."
Pa. Wind Turbines Deadly to Bats, Costly to Farmers
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 071711
Proposed Soloya Wind Project Would Straddle Five Miles of Shenandoah Mountain on VA-WV Border
The Recorder, 062311
Company plans to seek an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service due to concern for at-risk endangered species.
Opposing wind: Feelings about Poor Mountain wind farm might depend on proximity to turbines
Roanoke Times, 061211
Commentary on article:
PJM grid: "adjusts for the variations (in industrial wind supply) by forecasting that wind farms will produce 13 percent of their generating capacity."
Allegheney Treasures, 061411
If only the wind business were required to pull back the “proprietary” curtain and allow the Taxpayers and consumers to see the performance results . . . .
Camp Allegheny Nominated for National Trust's List of Most Endangered Historic Places
The Recorder, 051911
. . . given the tangible impact to a unique historic resource, Highland New Wind is a very real problem.
Wind Projects on the Edge
Electric Light and Power, 030111
Wind projects proposed on the borders of political jurisdictions face regulatory uncertainty. The proposed Highland New Wind Development project on the VA-WV border is the first example.
Possible Offshore Wind Development for Virginia
Virginia Statehouse News, 042511
Governor Bob McDonnell's goal of Virginia being the "energy capital of the east coast" may be further off than he hopes.
Developers Fail to Consult with Fish and Wildlife Service
North American WindPower, 042111
"By the time problems are unveiled in post-construction monitoring, they've sold the facility." Al Manville, USFWS
Wind Farm Efficiency Examined by John Muir Trust
BBC, 040611
Study finds wind projects produce less than 10% of rated capacity more than one-third of the time, challenging wind industry claims that periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.
Closer to home:
Inverse relationship: graphic comparing monthly wind generation and electricity demand profile in the central Appalachian region.
Wind project operators in the eastern U.S. deny access to the hourly or daily electricity generation data that would allow more-detailed analysis of reliability and verification of widely repeated claims related to displacement of coal-fueled generation.
Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel Remains on Endangered Speicies List
Charleston Gazette, 032811
It lives atop the highest Appalachian peaks of West Virginia and adjacent Highland County, Va. - coincident with proposed ridgeline wind energy development.
Clean May Not Always Be Green: Choosing Sites for Turbines
Wind Power in PJM Grid Region: Offshore Operations Show the Most Potential
Chesapeake Bay Journal, March 2011
FAA Rules 14 of 18 Proposed Poor Mountain Turbines Pose No Hazard to Planes
Roanoke Times, 032411
Invenergy Waits On Approvals, Faces Objections
Roanoke Times, 030611
. . . speaker after speaker raised the specter of cluttered ridgelines despoiled by the whirling blades of turbines . . .
Roanoke County Tables Wind Turbine Rules
Roanoke Times, 030211
- concerns raised about low-frequency noise, negative impact on the mountainous viewshed and other
issues
Wagner Bill Passes - Amended
The Recorder, 022411
Senate Bill on Wind Contains New Language
The Recorder, 020311
Correspondence referenced in article
Committee Commits to Amended Version of Wagner Bill
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 020111
VA Association of Counties Urges Opposition to Wagner's Bill
The Recorder, o12811
Wagner's Bill Delayed Another Week
The Recorder, 012711
Virginia Association of Counties: "We can accept 'guidance,' but we are duty bound to protect local authority."
Amendments Introduced to Block Wagner
Bluefield Daily Progress, 012511
Lawmakers Seek Explanation from Wagner
Bluefield Daily Progress, 012211
Rising Opposition to Frank Wagner's Bill
The Recorder, 012011
. . . stripping localities of their authority to design and implement their own land use regulations
Highland New Wind Opponents Threaten to Act on Lawsuit
North American WindPower, 011811
Note the non-apropos photo: Wind turbines arrayed in a grid pattern in the desert. Appalachian wind turbines are single file (7 per mile) along the ridge crests.
Wagner Bill Would Override Local Authority to Prohibit Industrial Wind Energy Development
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 011811
. . . another in a series of heavy-handed maneuvers by Senator Frank Wagner
Citizens Seek Resolution With Highland New Wind
The Recorder, 011311
Bland County Shares Wind Ordinance With Neighboring Counties
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 011011
. . . limits turbines to 100 feet in height without a Conditional Use Permit
Challange to Ridgeline Protection Ordinance Not Expected
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 010911
American Bird Conservancy - Wind Turbines Endanger Migrating Birds
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 010111
. . . adding wind turbines to the obstacle course migratory birds face already creates one more challenge they do not need
Wind Project Proceeding?
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 121610
. . . Dominion Resources declares intent to develop Tazewell County wind project despite county's ridgeline protection ordinance
Bat Populations Threatened by Disease
Roanoke-Times, 110910
. . . exacerbating the impact of wind turbines on Appalachian ridges
Highland New Wind Active Again?
The Recorder, 110410
Roanoke Sierra Club Rift Over Proposed Poor Mountain Wind Turbines
Roanoke Times, 101510
Executive Committee member, Hollister Hartman, resigns over "domineering tactics" of group's leadership.
See Hartman's analysis of proposed project
Major Offshore Wind Power Line Proposed for East Coast
New York Times, 101210
15 to 20 miles offshore ". . . where the wind is strong but the hulking towers would barely be visible."
National Forest Plans Draw Comments
News Virginian, 100610
National Forest management options include wind energy development.
Noisy Wind Turbines Attract Complaints
New York Times, 100510
". . . . focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people’s homes."
Poor Mountain Wind Project May Breeze Through Relaxed Permit Process for Wind Projects
Roanoke Times, 091010
Op-Ed on Permit By Rule
Spanish Wind Energy Company Targets Boy Scout Reservation in Pulaski County
Roanoke Times, 091910
Comment Period Extended on Proposed Incidental Take Permit and Habitat Conservation Plan for Invenergy-Beech Ridge
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 082810
Maryland Wind Project Stopped for Erosion Control Violations
Baltimore Sun, 082610
Botetourt Supervisors Deny After-the-fact Permit for BP Test Tower
WDBJ, 082520
BP built wind test tower without permit.
Can the Wind Industry Survive Complaints?
Science News, 081310
Local opposition has scuttled some major projects and delayed others for years.
BP Builds 198-Foot Tower to Test Wind Potential in Botetourt County Without Permits
WDBJ, 080910
BP plans turbine projects in Tazewell and Wise Counties. BP spokesman believes Botetourt could also "sustain" a project.
Highland Windmills Remain Unbuilt
Roanoke Times, 072610
". . . high risk to endangered species, plus effective monitoring of wildlife mortality, equals unacceptable risk to investors."
What's Up With Highland New Wind?
The Recorder, 072110
Wind Turbines Threaten Appalachian Trail
News-Virginian, 071810
Virginia Aims for Role in Offshore Wind Power
Virginian Pilot, 071410
"Much of the area closer in [less than 12 miles offshore] is unsuitable because of conflicts with military operations and intrustions on wildlife and aquatic habitats and spawning grounds, according to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission."
Another Central Appalachian Wind Project Confronts Endangered Species Act
Baltimore Sun, 070310
The project is proposed for the same ridgeline where up to 4000 bats were killed in one 6-week period in 2004.
BP Remains a Player in Wise County Wind Project
Times-News, Kinsport, TN, 061910
The Dominion-BP project in Virginia's Wise County reportedly targets strip-mined area.
New Legal Battle Looms for Highland New Wind
Pocahontas Times, 060910
State Corporation Commission Blocks Use of Electricity From Invenergy Beech Ridge Wind Project Based on Excessive Cost to Ratepayers
Roanoke Times, 060410
Pocahontas County Supervisor Asks Highland County to Make Highland New Wind Obtain Incidental Take Permit
The Recorder, 060310
Civil War Preservation Trust Lists Camp Allegheny Battlefield Among Most Endangered
The Recorder, 052710
Cites impact of Highland New Wind's proposed 40-story turbines.
Civil War Preservation Trust: History Under Siege
State Corporation Commission Approves Dominion Participation in Voluntary Renewables Program
SNL Financial, 052510
Customer surcharge yet to be determined.
Truth in Advertising: Virginia Wind Submission to SCC
Ridgetop Wind Turbines Could Pose Threat to Birds During Migration Season
Roanoke Times, 052210
Highland New Wind Development and Highland County Officials Threatened With Lawsuit
The Recorder, 052010
Prominent environmental law firm, Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal, is representing environmental groups and individuals concerned that HNWD’s proposed facility will harm endangered Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats.
The Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal Notice Letter
Camp Allegheny Listed Among Most Endangered Civil War Battlefields 2010
Civil War Presevation Trust, 051310
". . . . stands to be compromised by a field of 19 massive wind turbines along a nearby ridgeline. Each unit would stand 40 stories high – 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty – and have a footprint stretching the length of a football field."
Photo gallery: Camp Allegheny
Complete report: History Under Siege
Compliant Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Required Before Highland New Wind Construction Proceeds
The Recorder, 051310
Green Scene: Blowing in the Wind
Mountain Xpress, Asheville, NC, 051210
Cold wind blowing on hopes of ridgeline wind energy advoacates in North Carolina.
See: reader comments
Endangered Species Act Confounds Wind Projects
Renewable Energy World, 050510
Addresses fallacies in Highland New Wind's argument that no endangered bats are threatened and no Incidental Take Permit (Endangered Species Act) is necessary.
Strong Opinions in Tazewell as Dominion Announces Continued Pursuit of Turbine Project
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 040310
Supervisor sugggests Dominion may seek legislation to circumvent county's ridgeline protection ordinance.
Dominion Will Pursue Tazewell Wind Project
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 040210
Initiates PR campaign to overcome local opposition and new ridgeline protection ordinance.
Virginia Governor Quits Wind Energy Coalition
Letter to Coalition, 032910
Will continue to support offshore wind development efforts.
U.S. Investment Flows to Offshore Wind
Renewable Energy World, 032210
Higher wind velocity, greater capacity factor, more energy production, more bang for the buck than land-based wind projects.
Study: Some Coal Plants Generate More Emissions Due to Added Wind Capacity
SNL Financial, 032310
Some coal plants increase emissions levels because they power up and down to accomodate intermittent wind generation.
Wind Project Remains at Standstill: Endangered Species Permit Still An Issue
The Recorder, 032510
Virginia Creates Offshore Wind Authority, Increases Incentives Relative to Onshore Wind
SNL Financial Newsletter, 031910
Projects 12 to 25 miles off coast proposed.
Highland New Wind Faces Roadblocks
SNL Financial Newsletter, 030410
Tazewell County Moving Forward on Enforcement of Ridgeline Protection Ordinance
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 030810
Invenergy's Giecek Faces Tough Questions on Proposed Roanoke County Project
Roanoke Times, 030410
Invenergy Seeks Ridgeline Wiind Project in Roanoke County
Roanoke Times, 030310
Historic Resource Agency Complaint Against Highland New Wind Dismissed by SCC
Roanoke Times, 030210
Two Virginia Firms Propose Offshore Wind Projects
Associated Press, 022510
Tazewell County Stops Wind Project with Ridgeline Protection Ordinance
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 020310
State Agency Asked to Require Individual Pollution Permit for Industrial Wind Project in Laurel Fork Headwaters
The Recorder, 012810
Hearing Examiner Says Agency's Complaint Should be Dismissed: Permit Expiration Still a Question
The Recorder, 012810
Hearing Examiner Recommends Dismissal of Complaint Against Highland New Wind
Roanoke Times, 012610
Group Seeks Financial and Political Support for Virginia Offshore Wind Energy Development
Virginian-Pilot, 011610
Virginia Wind Energy Proposal's Latest Headaches
Renewable Energy World, 011510
Hundreds Attend Hearing on Proposed Tazewell County Ridgeline Protection Ordinance
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 011210
Tazewell Supervisors to Delay Decision on Ridgeline Ordinance
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 011210
Highland New Wind Tells County Supervisors it Will Obtain Endangered Species Act Permit
The Recorder, 010710
Highland New Wind Letter to Supervisors, 010410
Agency Says Highland New Wind's Permit has Expired
The Recorder, 010710
Virginia State Agency Accuses Highland New Wind of Deliberate Misrepresentation
The Pocahontas Times, 123109
Towering Controversy: Ridgeline Wind Development Top 2009 Story for Tazewell County
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 123009
Highlanders Threaten Lawsuit, Again
The Recorder, 123009
Hearing Examiner Asks Highland New Wind and Historic Resources Agency for Written Briefs
The Recorder, 122409
What Happened at SCC Hearing
brightsideacres.com, 122209
Highland Wind Project Hearing: December 22nd
The Recorder, 121709
Endangered Species Act Issues Confront Highland County Developer and Supervisors
The Recorder, 121709
Federal Judge Halts Work on Greenbrier Wind Farm
Charleston Gazette, 120909
Historic Resources Agency Calls for Mitigation of Highland New Wind Impacts to Battlefield
The Recorder, 120309
Agency letter to Highland New Wind, 111709
A Jeffersonian View of Wind
Renewable Energy World.com, 120309
Windmill Debate in Tazewell County
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 111709
Virginia Wind Developer Calls Critics "NIMBYS"
The Recorder, 111209
Battlefield Issue on Hold
The Roanoke Times, 111209
Virginia Joins Maryland and Delaware in Agreement to Develope Offshore Wind Energy
Associated Press, 111209
Wind Project Hearing Delayed Again
The Recorder, 110609
Wind Project Hearing Set for Tuesday, November 10th
The Recorder, 110509
Smithsonian Connection to Wind Project Questioned
The Recorder, 110509
Can Visual Impacts to Historic Resources be Mitigated With Monetary Contributions?
The Recorder, 110509
Pocahontas Commissioners Turned Away by Wind Project Developer
The Recorder, 110509
WV Boundary Commission Visits Wind Project Site
The Pocahontas Times,110409
Endangered Species Act Confronts WV Wind Project
Washington Post, 102209
Department of Historic Resources Reviewing Highland New Wind Submission
The Recorder, 102209
County Asks Agencies for Info on Permit Requirements
The Recorder, 102209
Rare Plants Found at Highland New Wind Site
The Recorder, 102209
Tazewell County: Wind Developers Wait in Wings
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 101909
Wind Company Says No Way to Lessen Impact on Civil War Battlefield
The Recorder, 101709
SCC Hearing on Highland New Wind
On again: 090809
Off again: 090909
Highland New Wind Project Slows Down
The Recorder, 100809
More Permits Needed?
The Recorder, 100809
Border Issue Still Confronts Highland New Wind
The Recorder, 100809
Support for Civil War Site Ramps Up
The Recorder, 092409
Highland New Wind Motion Denied
The Recorder, 092409
SCC Ruling Allows Evidence on Visual Impact
The Roanoke Times, 092409
SCC Hearing Examiner Denies Motion to Exclude Evidence
brightsideacres.com, 092309
Virginia Attorney General Says Evidence Must be Allowed
brightsideacres.com, 092209
Highland New Wind Seeks to Exclude Viewshed Issue from SCC Hearing
brightsideacres.com, 092209
Highland New Wind Argues Viewshed Evidence Irrelevant
The Recorder, 092209
Bird Deaths Present Problems for Wind Projects
USA TODAY, 092109
Impact of Wind Development and Other Renewables on Oceans Must be Investigated
Science Daily, 092009
Areva Looks at Virginia Offshore Wind Development
Daily Press. 090309
Areva Hopes to Develop Virginia's Offshore Wind
News and Advance, 082509
Wind of Change Make Battlefield Center of Fight
Roanoke Times, 092009
Response to Article
Rick Webb, 092009
HNWD Project Going to SCC Hearing
The Recorder, 091709
WV Governor Convenes Commission to Address Boundary Dispute
The Recorder, 091709
Agencies Engaged: VA Secretary of Natural Resources
The Recorder, 091709
Does Permitting Offer Protection?
The Recorder, 091709
Analysis: How Has Highland New Wind Avoided Federal Oversight?
The Recorder, 091709
Dominion NedPower Wind Project: 081309 Tour
Chris Bolgiano, Citizens for Responsible Wind Power in Rockingham County, 090809
Tazewell County: Developers Conduct Studies While County Considers Ridgeline Protection
Bluefiled Daily Telegraph, 090609
Wind Project Takes Up Most of Commission's Agenda
The Pocahontas Times, 090209
Highland New Wind Facing Challenges
The Recorder, 090309
Congressman Urges SCC to Protect Battlefield
The Recorder, 090309
Inspector Finds Exensive Problems with Highland New Wind Pollution Prevention Plan
The Recorder, 090309
SCC Sets Hearing on Highland New Wind Compliance
The Recorder, 082709
SCC Rejects Citizen Request to Investigate but Sets Hearing Following Agency Request
The Recorder, 082709
Highland New Wind Warns of Legal Action Against Citizens
The Recorder, 082709
Pocahontas County Determined to Settle State Line Question
The Recorder, 082709
Agency Calls for Inventories and Assessment of
Rare Species and Ecological Communities
The Recorder, 082009
Letter to SCC from the Division of Natural Heritage, 081709
Work Begins on Wind Project Despite Legal Challenges
The Recorder, 082009
Citizens Ask SCC to Halt Highland Wind Project
The Recorder, 082009
State Line Issue Casts Doubt on Project
The Recorder, 082009
WV County Engages Attorney on Border Dispute
The Pocahontas Times, 081909
Landowners File Notice on Non-Compliant E&S Plan
The Recorder, 082009
WV County Considers Legal Action Against VA County
The Recorder, 081409
Landowners Submit Legal Notice to Highland Officials and Wind Project Developer
The Recorder, 081409
Work on Wind Utility Starting Despite Regulatory Questions
The Recorder, 081309
WV County Officials Ask for Hold on VA Wind Project
The Recorder, 081309
WV Residents Seek Protection for Camp Allegheny
The Recorder, 081309
Wind Power in Virginia's National Forest?
Charlottesville Daily Progress, 081009
Highland New Wind: Interstate Conflict Ignites
The Recorder, 080809
Related:
WV Not a Concern for VA County Supervisors
The Recorder, 080609
Highland New Wind Terminates Consultation With Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Camp Allegheny: Our Most Pristine Civil War Battlefied
Charleston Gazette, 080609
Highland New Wind: Construction to Start
The Recorder, 080609
Local Citizen Reaction To Project Approval
The Recorder, 080609
Highland New Wind: Developer Ignores State Agencies
The Recorder, 073009
Highland New Wind: County Supervisors Disagree on Review Process
The Recorder, 073009
Highland New Wind: County Approves Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Despite Questions
The Recorder, 073009
Highland New Wind: County Urged to Not to Issue Permit
The Recorder, 073009
Highland New Wind: Undisclosed Wetland Impact
The Recorder, 072309
See also:
Complaint to Army Corps of Engineers
Highland New Wind acknowledged wetlands
Excert from Highland New Wind site map
Aerial photo showing unacknowledged wetlands
Highland Official: County Should Not Require Compliance With SCC Permit Conditions for Wind Project
The Recorder, 072309
Highland Supervisor Not Satisfied
The Recorder, 072309
Wind Project Draws Doubt From County Officials
The Recorder, 070909
Citizens Demand Information and Protection
The Recorder, 070909
Landowner Says Plans Deficient
The Recorder, 070909
So Where is the Turbine, VA or WV?
The Recorder, 070909
Timeline for Highland New Wind
The Recorder, 070909
Highland New Wind Asks for Building Permit
The Recorder, 061809
Map of proposed turbine locations
What's Left for Highland New Wind to Do?
The Recorder, 061809
Timeline for Highland New Wind
The Recorder, 061809
Federal Lawsuit Filed Against West Virginia Wind Energy Developer for Non-Compliance With Endangered Species Act
Beckley Register Herald, 061109
Blown Away
Daily News Record, 042209
This article includes siginificant misinformation (see Front Page).
Developer to Seek Approval at National Level
WHSV.com, 041309
Permit for Virginia National Forest Project Denied
Nothern Virginia Daily, 041109
Energy Efficiency Could Aid Economy and Offset Need for New Coal-Fired Power Plants in Appalachian Region
Associated Press, 031709
Who Will Protect Laurel Fork? Landowners say county responsible under permit terms for wind utility
The Recorder, 031209
Highland Supervisors Request $1.5 Million in Stimulus Money to Facilitate Highland New Wind
The Recorder, 030509
West Virginia Wind Industry Faces Financial and Environmental Problems
Charleston Gazette, 021509
Steering Committee Formed to Address Ridgeline Wind Energy Development in Tazewell County
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 021109
Tazewell County Committee to Examine Proposed Ridgeline Protection Ordinance
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 020409
Map: Potential Turbines Sites in Tazewell County
It's Blowin in the Wind
The Augusta Free Press, 013009
Opposition to bills being considered in the 2009 Virginia General Assemby
Highland Supervisors Oppose Wind Energy Bills
The Recorder, 012909
State Agency and Highland Residents Seek More Information From Wind Developer
The Recorder, 012909
Two Wind Projects Planned for Tazewell and Wise Counties
Richmond-Times Dispatch, 012509
This article has wind industry lobbyist Frank Maisano announcing that the proposed Highland New Wind project has received all the permits it needs and plans to break ground in the first half of this year. That is simply not true. Highland New Wind has yet to provide the site plan that is required before permit reviews can be completed.
Industrial Develoment in the Headwaters of Laurel Fork, an Exceptional Native Trout Stream
The Recorder, 120408
Wind Energy Ordinance Drafted for Bath County
The Recorder, 112008
Wind Company Still Looking for Money: "We are not the best deal in the market."
The Recorder, 110608
Highland New Wind Continues to Resist Agency Information Request
The Recorder, 103008
We Have Never Seen a Site Plan
The Recorder, 092508
Highland New Wind Resists Historic Resource Review
The Recorder, 090408
Virginia Offshore Wind Project Possible
The Virginian Pilot, 083008
Testing the Virginia Renewables Site Scoring System in Bath County
The Recorder, 080708
Potential Bath County Wind Development
- map prepared by Virginia Wind
Wind Energy in Virginia Gets a 2nd Look
Washington Post, 080308
For a review of this article, see Miles of Mountain Ridges (Front Page)
Wind Energy Development In National Forest Addressed at Forest Plan Meeting
The Shenandoah Valley Herald, 071708
The Future of George Washington National Forest
WHSV, Harrisonburg, VA- 071908
George Washington National Forest Plan Revision Draft National Forest Wind Project Suitability Map
Highland New Wind Has Not Found Investors
The Recorder, 070308
Note: John Flora, attorney and spokesman for the proposed Highland County project, indicates that turbine shortage, not environmental concerns, is the main reason for lack of investor interest. This contradicts his earlier argument to the State Corporation Commission that strict requirements for monitoring bird and bat mortality would "scare away investors."
Merits of Commercial Wind Power Undecided Statewide
The Recorder, 062608
Views on Wind Power Clash at Symposium
The Recorder, 062608
Note: as indicated in the above article, Jon Miles (a symposium moderator), complained to the attendees about a Virginia Wind statement on the symposium's lack of balance. Miles selectively read from the statement - leaving out the primary basis for the objection - which was that the symposium agenda included no one to objectively address environmental concerns about ridge line wind projects.
See: Virginia Wind Statement (the content omitted by Jon Miles is highlighted)
Expanding Wind Industry Hits Bats, Turbulence, and Lawsuits
Earth News, 061208
Albemarle Planners Address Wind Turbine Issue
Cville Weekly, 052808
Citizen Groups to Sue West Virginia Wind Project Over Endangered Species Act Violation
The Huntington News, 051108
Highland Conservancy Revises Wind Energy Policy
The Highlands Voice, May 2008
Wind Project Seeking Investors
The Recorder, 050808
Uncertain Review Process Confronts Highland Wind Project: Questions Raised about Coordination
The Recorder, 050108
Maryland Wind Project Reduces Number of Turbines (from 67 to 28) to Avoid Review Process
Baltimore Sun, 042408
Note: this project is adjacent the West Virginia project where an estimated 4,000 bats were killed in one 6-week period in 2003.
Dominion to Build Wind Projects to Meet Virginia Renewables Target
Washington Post, 042208
Dominion and BP to Build Wind Energy Projects in Virginia
WHSV, Harrisonburg, 042108
Governor Cites Value of Maryland's Other Environmental Resources
Washington Post, 041308
Maryland to Ban Commercial Wind Energy Development in State Forests
Baltimore Sun, 041208
Confronting Wind Energy Development in the Valley
Shenandoah Valley Herald, 040908
Potential for Project Shutdown Due to Endangered Species Act
The Recorder, 040308
Is Wind Farm in Valley's Future?
Daily News Record, 032608
Feelings Mixed on Proposed Wind Farms
Daily News Record, 032608
Note: The spokesman for the development company is quoted stating that most potential wind project locations in Va are off limits. An examination of legal and management restrictions indicates that this is not correct.
Valley Targeted for Wind Turbines
Northern Virginia Daily, 032608
Unidentified Company Files Initial Application for Wind Turbine Construction in the George Washington National Forest
News-Virginian, 032508
Uncertainty Over Permits, Approvals, and Required Coordination with Agencies
The Recorder, 031308
Mount Storm 132-Turbine Wind Energy Project: concrete, rebar, and roads
Cumberland-Times, 031008
Virginia Counties Begin to Craft Regulations for Wind Energy Projects
Richmond Times Dispatch, 030908
Wind Project Faces Continuing Legal Issues
The Recorder, 030608
Highland Supervisors Address Wind Project Issues
The Recorder, 030608
Comments on Proposed Forest Service Wind Energy Policy Directive
The Recorder, 013108
SCC Commissioner Comments on Highland Wind Project
The Recorder, 013108
Virginia Senate Bills Would Affect Environmental Review of Wind Projects
The Recorder, 013108
Project on Rockingham County-WV Border a Threat to Species Protected by Federal Environmental Laws
The Recorder, 013108
Bill Would Strike a Blow for Highland Wind Farm
The Hook, 012108
New Rules Sought for Windmills: Bill would exempt smaller projects from SCC oversight
Richmond Times Dispatch, 011908
USFWS Opposes Wind Proect on Rockingham County-WV Border Due to Wildlife Risk
Daily News Record, 011508
Residents and Supervisors Consider Next Moves After State Approves Wind Plant Permit
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 010308
Wind Plant Approval Contains Strict Conditions
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 010308
Will County Address Endangered Species Act?
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 010308
Highland Developer Seeks Investors
Daily News Record, 122707
Strings Attached to State Wind Farm
Roanoke Times, 122107
Virginia's First Wind Project Approved
Associated Press, 122007
Wind Turbines Proposed for State Forests in Maryland
Cumberland Times-News, 121107
Comments on SCC Hearing Examiner's Report
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 111507
SCC Official Recommends Monitoring Wind Energy Project for its Lifespan
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 101807
SCC Officer Said Wildlife Protection Outweighs Financial Concerns
Roanoke Times, 101807
Examiner of Highland County Project Wants to Watch its Effect on Birds and Bats
Richmond Times Dispatch, 101807
Wind and the wilds: The release of a proposed wind energy plant's financial data raises new questions about its environmental options
Roanoke Times, 100507
County Prevails in Case Before Supreme Court
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 092007
Note: The Virginia Supreme Court ruled against Highland County citizens contesting the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to Highland New Wind by the county's Board of Supervisors. The ruling was based primarily on technicalities. It did not address environmental issues. This article also presents unintentionally released finanical information for the proposed project, and puts the cost of proposed wildlife monitoring in perspective. See the text in red toward the end of the article.
Turbulence Over Proposed Wind Farm
The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, 091607
High Court Rejects Challenges to Virginia Wind Farm
The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, 091507
Virginia Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Highland Wind Project: Final Step is Approval by SCC
Richmond Times Dispatch, 091507
Note: project supporters continue to assert, and news articles continue to repeat, that the Highland New Wind Project will supply electricity for 10,000 to 20,000 homes. This is an inflated estimate. Based on a per capita analysis, the annual average number of homes the 39 MW project would support is about 2,700; the average number of homes in August would be about 1000. See: Comparitive Analysis.
Last of Aurguments on Highland Wind Plan Submitted to State Corporation Commssion
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 091307
Expansion of Allegheny Front Wind Projects Planned
Charleston Gazette, 080107
Maryland General Assembly Prevents Environmental Review of Wind Projects
Washington Post, 072307
The law in question was passed to allow more wind turbines on Backbone Mountain, the same ridge in immediately adjacent West Virginia where thousands of bats have been killed at the Mountaineer wind project. Bill supporters included the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, which is promoting mandatory wind development in Virginia.
SCC Hearing on Wildlife Monitoring and Mitigation
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 071907
Windmill Plan in Jeopardy
Richmond Times Dispatch/AP, 081906
According to this article, project supporters assert that the Highland New Wind Project will supply electricity for 10,000 to 15,000 homes. This is an inflated estimate. Based on a per capita analysis, the annual average number of homes the 39 MW project would support is about 2,700; the average number of homes in August would be about 1000. See: Comparitive Analysis.
Wind Project Poses Unacceptable Risks
Letter to Editor, Richmond Times Dispatch, 080407
Wildlife Experts Present Testimony on Proposed Highland New Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 071207
WV Public Service Commission Denies Permit for Proposed Liberty Gap Project
Gazette-Mail, 062307
The reasons for the denial include: (1) failure to adequately address cultural resource issues, and (2) failure to complete a Habitat Conservation Plan for an Incidental Take Permit (for endangered bat species) from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Western NC Town Bans Wind Turbines
Winston-Salem Journal, 061507
Highland New Wind Case Heard by Virginia Supreme Court
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 061407
Legal Setbacks for Wind Industry in West Virginia
Gazette-Mail, 061007
Court Dismisses Challenge to Wind Projects in Western MD
Baltimore Sun, 060907
U.Va. Environmental Scientist Advocates Impact Assessments for Wind Energy Projects
UVA Today, 060507
Free Pass for Wind Industry
IWA Press Release, 061507
Lawmaker Compromises on Wind Rules
AP, 060607
Congressman Pushes for Rules on Wind Industry
AP, 060307
Wind Wars
Conserve Magazine, 060207
Note: Frank Maisano is a public relations spokesman for the wind industry. According to this article, Mr. Maisano claims that the industry has found ways to reduce the danger of wind turbines to bats. We know of no evidence to support this claim, and we are confident that it is not correct. However, we will publish any supporting analysis that Mr. Maisano can provide.
Wind Chill
UVA Magazine, Summer 2007
Note: This article includes a claim that a single wind turbine produces enough electricity to offset " the need for 40-50 acres of coalfields." This claim was attributed to Mr. Alden Hathaway. We inquired about the analysis that supports this claim. We have posted Mr. Hathaway's response and our critique of his analysis.
The Hathaway analysis
The Virginia Wind critique
Industrial Wind Action Welcomes National Academies Report
IWA Press Release. 051807
Where Does the Highland New Wind Project Stand?
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 05100
SCC Should Consider National Academies Findings
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 051007
National Academies Report: Wind Energy Carries Risk to Environment
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 051007
National Wind Watch Criticizes National Academies Report
NWW Press Realease, 050907
West Virginia Supreme Court Considers Wind Cases
Highlands Voice, 050407
Report Provides Material for Legal Arguments
Register-Herald (Beckley, WV), 050407
Study Says Policies on Wind Energy Inadequate
Register-Herald (Beckley, WV), 050407
Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests
The New York Times, 050407
Wind Energy Report Released
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 050307
New Report Examines Wind Energy's Impacts on Emissions, Wildlife, and Humans
National Academies Press Release, 050307
British Petroleum Inquires About Wind Energy in Bath County, Virginia
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 050307
Regulate Wind Power, Mollohan Says
Charleston Gazette, 050207
Mollohan Testifies on Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife
Huntington News, 050207
Congressional Hearing: The Downside of Wind Power, Impacts on Birds and Bats
eNewsUSA, 050107
National Energy Corridors to Open Remote Areas for Wind Development
UPI, 043097
This U.S. Department of Energy directive raises scenario in which local land use control and environmental concerns would be discounted to connect Appalachian wind projects to urban demand centers.
Tracking Bats to Determine Wind Project Impact
Daily American (Somerset, PA), 042907
Virginia SCC Says it Needs More Information on Highland New Wind
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 041207
SCC Schedule for Continuing Review of Highland New Wind
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 041207
Highland New Wind Objects to Delay
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 041207
Legal Arguments Concerning Highland New Wind
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 041207
Bill to Reduce Environmental Review of Wind Projects Passes Maryland General Assembly
Baltimore Sun, 040807
Bill supporters include the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and wind industry representatives. Bill opponents include the the MD Department of Natural Resources, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Maryland Conservation Council, and the Sierra Club.
VA State Corporation Commission Sends Wind Case Back for Testimony and Hearings on Wildlife Issues
AP, 040607
SCC Ruling - 040607
American Electric Power Seeks to Buy Wind Energy in Virginia and West Virginia
AP, 040407
Highland Citizens Ask For Stay in Permitting Decision - Developer Complains Delay Would Jeopardize Economic Feasibility
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 031607
Maryland Bill Would Cut Project Review for Wind Plants
Baltimore Sun, 031007
Highland Turbines Get Initial OK by SCC
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 030807
Birds, Bats, and Blades: Highland County Project
Roanoke Times, 030207
Draft National Forest Plan Designates Areas Generally Suitable for Wind Energy Development
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 030107
SCC Hearing Examiner Recommends Permitting Highland Wind Project With Conditions
AP, 030107
This article indicates that the Highland New Wind Project will supply electricity for 39,000 homes. This is actually twice as much as even the developer claims. Based on a per capita analysis, the annual average number of homes the 39 MW project would support is about 2,700; the average number of homes in August would be about 1000. See: Comparitive Analysis.
SCC Hearing Examiner's Recommendation on Highland Wind Project - - (Access Report)
SCC News Release, 030197
Wind Industry Still Waiting to Expand
Gazette-Mail (Chlarleston, WV), 021707
Patrick County Supervisors Pass Ordinance Effectively Banning Wind Turbines
Enterprise, 021407
Supreme Court to Hear Highland Wind Project Case
Roanoke Times, 021607
Division Over Planned Virginia Wind Farm
New York Times, 021307
Opposition to North Carolina Wind Project
News and Observer (Raliegh), 011007
Highland Citizens Say Highland New Wind Fail to Make Its Case
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 012507
Highland New Wind Ready to "Move Ahead"
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 012507
SCC Staff Says Highland Project Can Be Approved on Most Criteria
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 012507
Wind Project Controversy in Ashe County, NC
The Mountain Times, 011807
Tracking Golden Eagles to Find Sites for Wind Turbines
Pittsburg Gazette, 011407
Patrick County to Ban Tall Structures
Richmond Times Dispatch, 011407
Partnership Studies Impact of Turbines on Birds
Pittsburg Tribune-Domocrat, 011107
Golden Eagles, Wind Turbines on Collision Course?
Pittsburg Tribune-Review, 011107
Patrick County Survey Respondents Favor Tall Structures Ordinance - Prohibiting Wind Turbines
Enterprise, 010307
Wind Power Complications
The New York Times, 122806
Federal Tax Credits Power Turbine Development
Tribune-Democrat, Johnstown, PA, 122506
Region May Get Hundreds of Turbines
Tribune-Democrat, Johnstown, PA, 122406
Albemarle County Considers Mountain Protection Plan
C-Ville Weekly, Charlottesville, VA, 122106
Dominion Buys Into Allegheny Front Wind Project
Charleston Gazette, 122006
Storms of Opposition to Maryland Wind Projects
AP, 121706
Biologist Questions Wind Energy Mythology
The Patriot, Harrisburg, PA. 121006
Wind Turbines Raise Concerns about Birds and Bats The Patriot, Harrisburg, PA. 121006
Alrlington and Charlottesville Officials Declare Support for Highland Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 120806
Pendleton, WV Wind Proposal Found Lacking
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 120806
Bath County Officials Want to Limit Wind Development
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 120106
Wind Hearings End
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 112206
Patrick County Enacts Height Restrictions: Effectively Banning Wind Turbines
Enterprise, 111206
Site Plan Needed to Evaluate Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906
First Meeting of Renewables Site Scoring System
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906
JMU Scoring System Grant
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906
Wind Hearing Underway
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110206
Public Debate Over Wind Farm Still Blows Strong
Roanoke Times, 103106
Debate Centers on Environment: Highland Wind Farm's Supporters and Foes Both Claim High Ground
Richmond Times Dispatch, 103106
Wind Hearing Begins
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706
State Agency Urges Caution on Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706
Federal Agency Urges Liberty Gap to Get Permit
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706
Wind Group Director Responds to Criticism
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706
Wind Energy Group to Spearhead Siting Guidelines
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 101906
Wind Project Presents Unacceptable Risk
Virginia Wind News Release, 100106
Patrick County to Conduct Survey on Proposed Wind Development
Enterprise (Patrick County), 091306
Jack Mountain: WV Public Service Commission to Reconsider Pendleton Project
Daily News Record, 090406
Wind Power Promises and Questions
Richmond Times Dispatch/AP, 081906
A misquote or misprint in this article indicates that the Highland New Wind Project will supply electricity for 39,000 homes. This is actually twice as much as even the developer claims. Based on a per capita analysis, the annual average number of homes the 39 MW project would support is about 2,700; the average number of homes in August would be about 1000. See: Comparitive Analysis.
Highland Wind Developer Responds to DEQ Report
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 081706
Highland Wind Developer Against Viewshed Analysis
Richmond Times Dispatch, 081706
Note: the following 3 articles concern U.S. Wind Forces's proposed Jack Mountain/Liberty Gap project in Pendleton County, WV. Phase 2 of the project would apparently extend into Highland County, VA.
Jack Mountain: Developer Appeals Application Dismissal
Charelston Daily Mail/AP, 080106
Jack Mountain: WV Public Service Commission Dismisses Project Application
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 072106
Jack Mountain: WV Public Service Commission Decision
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 072106
State Corporation Commission Sets Testimony and Hearing Schedule for Highland Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 071306
Blue Ridge Parkway Enters Wind Project Controversy
Enterprise (Patrick County), 071206
Virginia DEQ Issues Report on Highland Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 070706
Highland Wind Trial Testimony-2
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 070706
Highland Wind Trial Testimony-1
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 063006
DEQ Wants Study of How Highland Windmills Would Affect Birds, Bats
Richmond Times Dispatch, 070106
Proposed Energy Plant Creates Windstorm of Debate
Roanoke Times, 070106
County Wins in Court
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 070106
Highlanders File 2nd Motion to Dismiss Wind Project Application
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 061606
Debate Over Wind Power Creates Environmental Rift
New York Times, 060606
Wind Project Proposed for Patrick County
Enterprise, 051006
Wind Project Proposed for Roanoke County
Roanoke Times, 050606
Project Lawyer Responds to Environmental Agency Concerns
Richmond Times Dispatch, 050206
Blowin in the Wind
The Hook, Charlottesville, 031706
Highlanders Pick Apart Wind Plans
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 031706
Virginia Game Officials Say Effects Need Study
Richmond Times Dispatch, 030406
Renewable Energy Study
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 112905
USF&WS Says Wind Project Needs Study
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 100705
Feds Wonder if Wind Farm Will Hurt Va. Wildlife
Richmond Times Dispatch, 100605
Wind Application Faces Thorough Review
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 091505
GAO Calls for More Federal Involvement in Wind Farms
Associated Press, 092905
Environmental Review of Windmills Plan Urged
Richmond Times Dispatch, 091105
FPL Energy Veto Stymies Bat Study
Chaleston Gazette, 060805
Researchers Alarmed by Bat Deaths From Wind Turbines
Washington Post, 010105
Commentary and Perspective
The following editorials and commentaries address the need for assessment of site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts prior to utility-scale development of wind energy in Virginia and the surrounding central Appalachian region. Inclusion here does not necessarily imply endorsement of all the expressed opinions.
County rights -- Saslaw's bill must be rejected
Bluefield Daily Telegraph Editorial, 012513
". . . we don’t think the General Assembly should be telling county governments that it will automatically trump locally approved and citizen supported zoning and land use ordinances."
Wind energy companies seek permission for "incidental" killing of endangered species
Daily Mail Op-Ed, Charleston, WV
The Facts About Wind Turbines
Roanoke Times Op-Ed, 031412
A reasoned response to the "facts" presented in an earlier Op-Ed, First, Gather Facts on Wind Farms.
Wind Power: Is it worth it?
The Highlands Voice, January 2012
“I cannot abide the suggestion that we must sacrifice our environment in order to save it. This is an absurd argument enabling this energy imposter’s invasion of delicate habitat with little return. … Environmentalists must consider the possibility that industrial wind, by its failure to perform to stated goals, does not then qualify for this sacred consideration.”
Twisted Laurel
The Highlands Voice, November, 2011
This whole endeavor of clearcutting and flattening our ridges, building wide roads, hauling up and erecting massive 40-story-tall machines—and giving companies tax grants, credits, and other encouragements to do it—all in the name of saving the planet from the damage we continue doing by producing kilowatts in other ways: well, it’s twisted, at best.
It's Better When the Turbines Are Still
Op-Ed, Cumberland Times-News, 11/02/11
Further inquiry indicates that,
rather than the large raptors
usually associated with bird
deaths at wind farms, the birds
killed at Laurel Mountain were
mainly blackpoll warblers on
their fall migration to South
America. I believe that this may
qualify as the largest
documented kill of its kind
associated with a wind turbine
facility. . . . another first for West Virginia.
Let's Put An End To It
Recorder Editorial, 102711
Highland New Wind Development LLC . . . proposed an industrial wind energy utility on Allegheny Mountain, and though nearly four years have passed since it got the go-ahead from the state to construct 400-foot towers, it remains in limbo. In fact, this year alone, it seems nary a rock has been moved on the high-elevation site in westernmost Highland County.
Accountability is the Issue
Letter to the Editor, Roanoke Times, 092811
The ball is in your court, Mr. Giecek!
Letter From Your County Cousin (16 mb)
Allegheny Treasures, 092411
How did you form your understanding and beliefs regarding wind power?
Wind Energy: Too Cheap To Meter?
Richmond Times Dispatch, 091311
Environmentalists Abandon Core Values
Roanoke Times, 091211
Wind Energy Does Little to Reduce CO2 Emissions
The Energy Collective, 090811
US Fish and Wildlife Scientists Overruled by Energy Industry Pressure, New Wind Guidelines a Step Backwards for Wildlife
American Bird Conservancy, 072011
. . . industry is asking for voluntary guidelines to be weakened . . . what we are talking about is thousands of unpermitted wind farms that break bird protection laws and open up legal liability for wind developers and risk for investors.
Comment period is open thorugh 080411.
Golden Eagles, Wind Power Don't Mix
Bangor Daily News (Maine), 070611
Virgil Caine, the Golden Eagle featured in this op-ed, was captured and fitted with a transmitter in 2008 in Virginia's Highland County by the Center for Conservation Biology.
The capture was made near the site of the proposed Highland New Wind project.
Once Burned, Twice Shy - Proposed Shenandoah Mountain Wind Project Faces Informed Opposition
The Recorder, 062311
They've heard it all before, and they were keenly aware the industry has far more downsides than "green" benefits.
Attend Meeting on Proposed Shenandoah Mountain Wind Farm
Letter to the Editor, The Recorder, 061611
Camp Allegheny Nominated for Endangered List: Good Time to Thank Landowners for Their Preservation Efforts
Recorder Editorial, 051911
. . . Highland New Wind has consistently shooed off the opposition with insulting claims . . . It has done exactly that with regard to Camp Allegheny.
If It Doesn't Cut Coal Use, How Can it Be Green?
Letter to the Editor, Cumberland Times-News, 031811
Turbines and Blue Ridge Parkway Views
The Roanoke Times, 031411
Due Diligence On Roanoke County Wind Turbines
The Roanoke Times, 030711
Take Control Before It's Too Late
The Recorder, 022411
Death By Wind, David Schnare, The Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, 022211
Wagner's Bill Must be Rejected
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 013011
The Time to Move is Now
The Recorder, 012711
Wagner's bill is not about the state's overall plan for energy independence. It is about supporting major corporate interests.
It's Not the First Time. It Won't be the Last.
The Recorder, 012011
Wagner’s bill would force localities to pass local laws based on state policy that Wagner himself crafted on behalf of the wind industry.
Highland New Wind - Here We Are Again
The Recorder, 011311
Wind Farms DO NOT Provide Large Economic and Job Benefits
Master Resource, 010511
. . . outputs from the faulty and unrealistic JEDI model are used by "wind farm" developers to mislead the public, media, and government officials
Sierra Club Rushes Support for Poor Mountain Wind Project
Roanoke Times Op-Ed, 111110
. . . preempting objective environmental assessment
Wind Farms are Just the Latest Flimflam
Letter to the Editor, Roanoke Times, 102010
". . . the emperor's new clothes are green."
Site Analysis: Poor Mountain Proposed Wind Project (5 mb)
Hollister Hartman, September 2010
"The proposed site should be eliminated from further consideration."
Wind Energy's Real Problems
Energy Tribune, 091410
"Wind boosters want to believe that an evil conspiracy that has been created to short-circuit the push for “green” energy. The real conspiracy they are fighting is a conspiracy of basic physics and basic math."
Franklin County Residents Want to Keep Rural Character
Franklin News-Post Editorial, 091010
Land-use survey shows "county must protect scenic areas, including "ridge tops." where a wind farm would need to be located."
Wind Energy Regulations Fall Short in Virginia
Roanoke Times Op-Ed, 082410
"Virginia's mountain counties could soon be facing a proliferation of 500-foot turbines, permitted in seven-mile increments with limited environmental review and mitigation requirements."
Wind Power Won't Cool Down the Planet
The Wall Street Journal, 082310
". . . when it comes to CO2 emissions, the reality is that it's not doing much of anything."
Billions to Subsidize Unreliable Wind Projects
Slate Commentary, 081610
Some perspective for Virginia:
Texas has more installed wind power capacity than any other state, but only about 5% of that installed capacity was available this summer when demand was the highest --providing only about 0.8% of the state's electricity needs.
The wind resource in Texas is at least 20 times more dense than in much smaller Virginia. See comparison.
Bracing for Wind
Recorder Editorial, 072910
". . . make this very easy, like other localities have: Write an ordinance that simply doesn't allow towers higher than 100 feet."
Twisting in the Wind
Roanoke Times Editorial, 072910
Poor Mountain Turbines Would Have Broad Effects
Roanoke Times Op-Ed, 072210
A Threat to Poor Mountain's Wildlife
Roanoke Times Op-Ed, 071510
Memo to Virginia's Governor and Lieutenant Governor
Glenn R. Schleede, 071210
". . . the public, media and government officials have been misled."
Wind Power or Hot Air: Don't sacrifice western North Carolina's ridges to industrial greed
Mountain Xpress, Asheville, NC, 052610
Those who care about the future of the planet would do well to realize that they're unlikely to protect the environment by weakening hard-won environmental protections.
Require Highland New Wind to Get a Federal Permit Before Construction
Recorder Editorial, 052010
Wise Wind Energy Needs a Deep Green Location
Daily Progress Op-Ed, 042510
Sensing Winds of Change: Wind Developers Waking Up to Need for Endangered Species Act Permit
Recorder Editorial, 032510
Tourist vs Turbines ("that won't ever get built")
Recorder Editorial, 031110
Wind Power: High Cost, Little Gain
Daily News Record Op-Ed, 031010
Broken Process for Reviewing Wind Projects
Recorder Editorial, 012810
Highland New Wind's Intent to Obtain Endangered Species Act Permit
Recorder Editorial, 010710
Update on Camp Allegheny Battlefield
brightsideacres.com, 010610
Highland County Faces Legal and Financial Liability
Recorder Editorial, 121709
Tazewell County: Threatening Our Community
Mountain Preservation Association (MPA), 121709
A Bunch of Wind: Be Ready to Fight Anything on the Scale of the Highland Project
Daily Progress Editorial, 121409
A Jeffersonian View of Wind
Renewable Energy World.com, 120309
Concerning Historic Resources Agency Recommendations to Highland New Wind
brightsideacres.com, December 2, 2009
Wind Developer's Claims Should Not be Taken At Face Value
Recorder Editorial, November 5, 2009
Get Rational About Appalachian Wind Energy
Op-Ed, Roanoke Times, 102509
Ensuring that Green Energy is Clean Energy
Defenders of Wildlife, Fall 2009
What We Have Learned from Highland New Wind
Recorder Editorial, October 8, 2009
Maisano's Claims Refuted
Letter to the Editor, Charleston Gazette, 100709
Maisano's Misleading Op-Ed
brightsideacres.com, 092409
Frank Maisano: Bogus Claims Delay Wind Project
Op-ed, Charleston Gazette, 091909
DHR's Appropriate Persistence
Recorder Editorial, September 17, 2009
Open Letter to Wind Developer, Tal McBride
Letter to Editor, Recorder, September 17, 2009
Birds Killed by Turbines: Double Standard in Effect
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, September 7, 2009
SCC Expected to Enforce Highland New Wind Permit Conditons
Recorder Editorial, August 27, 2009
Do Virginia State Agencies Understand Responsibilities?
Recorder Editorial, August 13, 2009
Message for DEQ's Regulatory Advisory Panel
Recorder Editorial, July 23, 2009
Supervisors Have Reason to Stop Wind Project
Recorder Editorial, July 23, 2009
Top Ten Reasons Not to Invest in Highland New Wind Recorder Editorial, July 9, 2009
No Stone Unturned
Recorder Editorial, June 18, 2009
Is Highland New Wind Really Ready?
Highland New Wind Development Expects to Finally Submit a Site Plan
Recorder Editorial, April 16, 2009
This is the wrong place for wind turbines of this scale, and it's the wrong time for anyone who cares about Highland to give up the fight to protect it.
Ignoring the Rules That Provide for Good Government
Letter to the Editor, The Recorder, April 2, 2009
Highland County supervisors violated the Freedom of Information Act when they planned their request for $1.5 million in economic stimulus money to further study the proposed Highland New Wind project.
The Energy Conservation Alternative to New Coal Plants and Wind Turbines on Ridges
Roanoke Times Editorial, March 22, 2009
This editorial points to a recent report by the Appalachian Regional Commission calling for investment in energy efficiency as an alternative response to projected increases in energy consumption.
031709 AP article on ARC Report
ARC Report: Energy Efficiency in Appalachia
Misuse of Economic Stimulus Money to Bail Out a Troubled Wind Energy Project
Recorder Guest View, March 12, 2009
Spending Stimulus Money on Wind Project Study Won't Change the Landscape
Recorder Editorial, March 5, 2009
Wind Power Needs Regulation
Op-Ed in the Roanoke Times, February 4, 2009
Windmills: Many Sacrifices, Few Benefits
Letter to Editor, Bluefield Daily Telegraph, February 4, 2009
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Recorder Editorial, January 29, 2009
"Our county officials may be more concerned about the loss of revenue, but Virginia residents as a whole should be even more alarmed by the lack of environmental studies and oversight the bill would allow."
A Better Shade of Green
Op-Ed in he New York Times, January 24, 2009
This commentary compares two means to achieve reductions in carbon emissions. It concludes that a cap-and-trade program can work while a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) will make energy production excessively expensive and do little to reduce carbon emissions.
This has direct relevance to Virginia, which now has a voluntary RPS - and where some are advocating a mandatory RPS.
Is Wind Energy the Next Subprime Swindle?
Op-Ed in the Charleston Gazette, January 18, 2009
Rural Versus Urban Civil War Over Wind Energy Development?
Op-Ed in the Endeavor (Potter and Cameron Counties, PA), December 20, 2008
This commentary describes a conflict between rural preservationists and urban politicians styling themselves as protectors of the environment. Something similar has arisen in Virginia in the conflict over the proposed Highland New Wind project. Local citizens, as well as mutliple conservation groups and wildlife agencies, have expressed concern or opposition to the project. In contrast, a number of distant urban groups and politicians, including the Arlington County Board of Supervisors, the Charlottesville City Council, and a State Senator from Virginia Beach, have promoted the project.
Who is Calling the Shots
Does Highland New Wind Intimidate Public Officials?
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), December 4, 2008
Getting Ahead of the Game: A Wind Energy Ordinance for Bath County
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), November 20, 2008
Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), October 30, 2008
Highland New Wind Resists Reviewing Agencies
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), September 4, 2008
The Gold Rushing Wind
Op-Ed in the Weekly Press (Philadelphia, PA), September 3, 2008
Turbines Don't Belong in Bath and Highland
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), August 14, 2008
T. Boone Picken's Wind Energy Scheme
Op-Ed in the Roanoke Times, August 14, 2008
The Industry Doth Protest Too Much
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), July 3, 2008
Frank Maisano: Lobbyist for Appalachian Wind Developers
Letter to Northern Virginia Daily, April 11, 2008
See also: Who is Frank Maisano?
Siting Industrial Wind turbines on the Pristine Mountains is Not the Answer to Our Nation's Need for Energy Sources
The Recorder, April 3, 2008
Wind Farm Plan Could Get Stormy
Northern Virginia Daily, March 29, 2008
Tilting at Wind Turbines (concern about development in National Forests)
Smoky Mountain News, March 19, 2008
SCC Plays Vital Role in Wind Project Approvals
Roanoke Times, January 23, 2008
False Promises of Appalachian Wind Development:
It's About Tax Avoidance
Charleston Gazette, January 8, 2008
State Corporation Commission Stands By Virginia
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
January 3, 2007
Wind Farms, Yes, But Not on Ridges
Commentary in the Roanoke Times, December 10, 2007
Gone With the Wind - Wind Turbines in Maryland State Forests?
Editorial in the Baltimore Sun, December 7, 2007
Getting the Math Right - Buyer Beware
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
October 18, 2007
Power Brokers Issue False Claims About Wind Power
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
September 20, 2007
Wind Power: There is a place for it, but not at the expense of the environment
Editorial in The Patriot News (Harrisburg, PA)
Power of Truth
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
July 5, 2007
No End in Site for Highland New Wind
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
May 17, 2007
Allegheny Highlands No Place for Experiments
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
May 17, 2007
West Virginia Should Regulate Wind Projects
Charleston Daily Mail, May 4, 2007
SCC Caution on Highland New Wind Appropriate
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
April 12, 2007
An Ill Wind
Editorial in the Baltimore Sun, March 9, 2007
Justice May Yet Prevail for Highland Citizens
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
March 8, 2007
Voltage Hogs
Bacon's Rebellion, March 5, 2007
Virginia Wind response, March 6, 2007
Forest Service Needs to Clarify Meaning of "Generally Suitable" For Wind Development
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
March 1, 2007
Unethical Legislative End Run for Wind Project Should be Stopped
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
February 15, 2007
Regulations Needed for Wind Projects
Winston-Salem Journal, February 11, 2007
SCC Staff Recommendation: Predetermined Cop Out Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
January, 25, 2007
Pennsylvania Needs Wind Project Siting Rules
Editorial in the Patriot News, January 19, 2007
Virginia Considers Renewable Power
Commentaries in the Richmond Times Dispatch,
January 17, 2007
Support for RPS Legislation is a Stand for Clean Energy
But the Bill Would Achieve Little Benefit at Great Cost
Responses to Charlottesville and Arlington County
Letters to the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
December 14, 2006
Survey County Sentiment
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
December 14, 2006
Spinning Out of Control
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
December 8, 2006
Tale of Two Counties: Highland and Bath
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
December 1, 2006
Windmills and Mountaintop Removal
Commentary in the Highlands
Voice.
November 2006
Protect That Which Defines Us
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
November 22, 2006
Energy Pioneers
Editorial in the Newleader (Staunton, VA), November 22, 2006
Wind Shear: Potential for Wind Development Off the Coast of Virginia
Bacon's Rebellion, November 20, 2006
Evidence is Clear
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
October 27, 2006
Wind Energy Group Poor Choice to Spearhead Siting Guidelines
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
October 19, 2006
Wind Farm Not Welcome in Highland County
News-Virginian (Waynesboro), October 18, 2006
Looming Disaster?
Commentary in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, August 20, 2006
Arrogance Not Effective for Wind Project Developers
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), July 21, 2006
Virginia Can Do it Better
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), July 6, 2006
Wind Generators Pose Threat to Migratory Birds
Commentary in the Morning Call (Allentown, PA), June 22, 2006
Going Around and Around on Windmills
Editorial in the Roanoke Times. June 18, 2006
Converging on Conclusions
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), June 9, 2006
Environmentalist Miss the Mark
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 2006
Highlanders Present Convincing Case
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 2006
Valley Conservation Council calls for study prior to commercial wind development
Article and Resolution in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 2006
More on Wind
Editorial in the Richmond Times Dispatch, 2005
Wind-Energy Commentaries Off-Balance
Commentary in the Roanoke Times, 2005
State Agencies Get Weight on Their Shoulders
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 2005
In the Wind
Editorial in the Daily Press (Newport News, VA), 2005
An Unbalanced Case for Wind Turbines
Editorial in the Roanoke Times, 2005
A Balanced Approach to Commercial Wind Energy Development in Virginia
Commentary in the Roanoke Times, 2004
Incentives and Mandates
Although electricity produced using wind energy is more expensive than electricity from traditional sources, a number of factors are likely to accelerate the pace and increase the extent of wind energy development in Virginia and the surrounding states.
A major incentive for wind energy development is the production tax credit. This is a congressional level support that is a direct credit against a company’s federal income tax based on the generation of renewable resources. In addition, wind projects are eligible for greatly accelerated depreciation rates. The result is that 2/3 or more of the capital cost to install wind energy projects can be recovered by the developer and investors through tax shelter provisions and credits.
Another major driver of wind energy development is the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) legislation enacted by various states specifying that utilities operating in those states supply a fixed percentage of their power from renewable sources such as wind. Nearby states or jurisdictions that share the same electricity transmission grid as Virginia have already enacted RPS laws, including Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington, DC. Virginia has not enacted an RPS, although there are continuing efforts underway to promote RPS legislation.
Current efforts to promote utility-scale wind energy development in Virginia include promotion of RPS legislation, as well as revocation of local authority over wind project siting. There is reason for concern that state-level mandates will be imposed without objective evaluation of environmental and economic costs and benefis.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Assessing Bird and Bat Migration Over Appalachian Ridges
Monopole Turbines Versus Lattice Turbines
Wind Energy and Raptors: An Unsolved Issue
Raptors and Wind Energy Development in the Central Appalachians
Effects on Appalachian Bats
Why Are Wind "Farms" So Deadly for Bats?
Conservation Maven, 121809
Cryan, P., & R. Barclay (2009). Causes of Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines: Hypotheses and Predictions. Journal of Mammalogy, 90 (6), 1330-1340 DOI: 10.1644/09-MAMM-S-076R1.1
Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher, & M.D. Tuttle (2007). Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2007; 5(6): 315-324.
Reports prepared by Virginia Highlands Grotto, National Speleological Society
Highland New Wind:
041106 (2.2 mb), 102906 (0.4 mb)
Liberty Gap:
041106 (2.9 mb)
Bat Conservation International: Wind Energy and Bats
Memo to Wind Energy Producers and Wildlife Conservation Planners
Bat and Wind Energy Collaborative
Wind Energy: A Lethal Crisis
Bat Conservation Times, October 2005
Battered by Harsh Winds
Must bats pay the price for wind energy?
Bats: Fall 2005
(1.8 mb pdf)
Wind Energy and the Threat to Bats
Bats: Summer 2004
Why are there two versions of The Landscape Classification System ?
The effort that led the publication of the Landscape Classification System (LCS) document and associated geographic information material on the Virginia Wind website began in 2002 when a number of Virginia conservationist wrote to Governor Warner expressing concern about the lack of any state-level process to insure that wind energy development is conducted responsibly. They were directed to work with the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC), a loose affiliation of wind energy advocates receiving state and federal funds to promote wind energy development. It was agreed that an Environmental Working Group would develop a landscape classification system to address siting issues. This group engaged in a long process involving many work sessions and meetings with agency and organizational representatives.
Eventually a draft LCS report was submitted to the original VWEC partners who rejected it, objecting to the call for assessment and to inclusion of material on wildlife and ecosystem impacts. After multiple revisions were rejected, the Environmental Working Group decided to produce the LCS as a finished product.
The VWEC response was to edit the completed LCS document, removing all reference to the need for environmental assessment and most of the information on wildlife and ecosystem impacts. VWEC then published its edited version of the document as a VWEC report without the concurrence of the Environmental Working Group.
Both versions of the LCS are posted here:
Original Verision - 70 pages, 3.3 MB
Altered Version - 26 pages, 0.3 MB
The largest turbines currently proposed for construction on Appalachian Ridges are about 550-feet tall --to the top of the rotor.
General Electric is marketing a 2.X MW turbine series for land-based wind projects.
The following videos provide perspective on turbine size; the associated sound may not provide an accurate representation of turbine noise.
Turbine Video -1
Turbine Video - 2
Turbine Video - 3
Turbine Video - 4
Turbine Video - 5
Highland Precedent
Assessment Material
Project Site Map
Highland New Wind seeks to build twenty 400-foot turbines in Highland County. Precedent-setting monitoring and mitigation requirments have been imposed due to high risk to birds and bats, including federal and state protected species.
Landscape Classification System
Addressing Environmental Issues Associated With Utility-Scale Wind Energy Development in Virginia
Objectives
- To provide a readily accessible environmental database to facilitate siting decisions for utility scale wind energy developments so that sites with significant natural resource values are avoided to the greatest extent possible;
- To identify critical information gaps at the local and regional scale likely to impede accurate evaluation of adverse environmental impacts;
- To promote site-specific
assessments prior to making a significant financial commitment to development of a given site; and
- To demonstrate the need for an assessment of cumulative impacts prior to extensive development of wind energy in Virginia and the surrounding region.
Authors
Dan Boone, Judy Dunscomb, Rick Webb, and Christina Wulf
See Appendix 1 of the Landscape Classification System for Biographical Information
Renewables Site Scoring System
Compromised
The Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy (DMME) has seriously compromised the integrity of the Virginia Energy Plan by contracting with JMU's Jon Miles to develop the Virginia Renewables Site Scoring System, which will essentially establish public policy on wind project siting in Virginia.
Jon Miles is JMU Director of the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC), an unreserved advocacy group for wind development in Virginia. Almost all of the principal VWEC "partners," including Jon Miles, Alden Hathaway, Deborah Jacobsen, and Mitch King have submitted testimony in support of the proposed Highland wind project. One VWEC partner, Mitch King, has a financial interest in the project.
In appointing Jon Miles to develop the site scoring process, the DMME is working at cross purposes with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, which has determined that the proposed Highland project presents "unacceptable risks to wildlife."
In response to this concern, we have been assured by DMME that the contract for development of the scoring system was issued to JMU and not to VWEC:
"We have not hired VWEC for this matter, but have contracted with JMU. While Dr. Miles has been involved with VWEC, the contract is not with VWEC. Therefore, other members of VWEC should not be involved in this process to any greater or lesser extent than other parties . . . ."
This statement, however, has been contradicted by a JMU press release, which indicates that the scoring system project has been "assigned to James Madison University and the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy."
For more on this, see:
JMU press release. November 3. 2006
Wind Energy Group to Spearhead Siting Guidelines
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 101906
Wind Energy Group Poor Choice to Spearhead Siting Guidelines
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
101906
Wind Group Director Responds to Criticism
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706
First Meeting of Renewables Site Scoring System
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906
JMU Scoring System Grant
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906