The Department of Environmental Quality, charged with coordinating environmental reviews for the project, has exercised its right to suspend those reviews until HNWD provides more information.
 
“The reviewers indicated there was just not enough information,” said Ellie Irons, DEQ program manager, office of environmental impact review. “And now we’re waiting on the company to provide that.”
 
Irons said she does not know at this point how long it will take to complete the review. “That’s completely up to how soon the applicant can fulfill this request,” she said.
 
The State Corporation Commission will move forward with public hearings next week, but Irons says the evidentiary hearing that follows cannot be scheduled yet. “Without the (DEQ) report, the evidentiary hearing won’t go forward … This is a very legal process (the SCC follows.)
 
DEQ says once all the agencies are satisfied they have enough information to comment on HNWD’s application, then evidentiary hearings can be scheduled. “We could be involved in the evidentiary hearing if we’re called upon. If the applicant disagrees with our findings, for example, we can be asked to bring our own experts to counter their arguments,” Irons said.
 
While Irons says this application review, the first of its kind in Virginia, has been very time-consuming for her agency, it is not unusual for any of the agencies involved to require more information from an applicant.
 
State agencies who have asked for more information include the DEQ, the Department of Historic Resources, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and the Department of Conservation and Recreation. In addition, the federal Army Corps of Engineers has also requested more information. Each has asked HNWD to provide more study or data. The DEQ summarized those requests in its March 1 report to the SCC as follows:
 
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
The DGIF had by far the most questions for HNWD, especially after it reviewed avian and bat studies submitted by the developer (see related story). In DEQ’s summary, there were nine items DGIF needs to complete its review:
 
1. More information within the project region on risks to birds. The study provided by HNWD “did not review significant and pertinent data collected at other sites in the Allegheny Mountains,” the report states.
 
2. The avian assessment must include data in the 2001 Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas.
 
3. Since HNWD’s project site is used by songbird migrants as a stopover point, additional review on the potential impacts turbines could have on nocturnal migrants is warranted.
 
4. The radar study of nocturnal birds and bat migration provided by HNWD does not include data for July and early August. “Other studies have recommended that radar studies should start no later than the middle of July in order to capture the migration period. This should be addressed,” the report says.
 
5. The avian assessment should review data on hawk migration in the Allegheny Mountain range.
 
6. The overview of bats provided by HNWD “did not address use by bats of ‘watering holes’ located on the ridges. This should be remedied since areas of water, even as small as road ruts, are very important to bats and are used extensively throughout the spring, summer and fall.”
 
7. The Northern flying squirrel survey provided by HNWD did not document them on Red Oak Knob or Tamarack Ridge, but they have been previously documented on the property, DGIF points out.
 
8. The impact analysis, says the department, must consider the cumulative impacts of building the project within the Allegheny Mountain region. “The cumulative impacts analysis should consider that there are already 88 wind turbines operating, 457 permitted, and 480 industrial wind turbines proposed or planned at 34 facilities within the Allegheny Highlands of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania.”
 
9. DGIF recommended additional assessments, monitoring, and mitigation including:
• Field studies during bald eagle breeding season;
• Winter use of the project area by raptors, including bald and golden eagles;
• Use by bats of high ridges for raising young and migrating;
• More frequent carcass search intervals;
• A survey for caves in the project area;
• The impact to the rock vole, a federal species of concern and state endangered species;
• The impact to Laurel Fork, a Class II wild trout stream to be crossed by one of the project’s utility lines; and
• The visual impact to the Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail and regional socioeconomic impacts.
 
Department of Conservation and Recreation
DCR searched its data system for natural heritage resources within the project area. The department defines those resources as “the habitat of rare, threatened or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations.”
 
Two it noted were the Virginia springsnail and the Monongahela crayfish, and recommended an inventory of those populations to minimize impact. “DCR also recommends the implementation of and strict adherence to applicable state and local erosion and sediment control/storm water management laws and regulations,” its letter noted.
 
In addition, DCR supports the recommendations issued by DGIF, and suggested a pre-construction monitoring period of at least two years.
The department, in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, found current activity described will not affect any documented state-listed plants or insects.
 
DEQ summarized the DCR report as follows:
1. DCR recommended an inventory of natural heritage resources in the study area, which it still needs to evaluate potential impacts to those resources and to offer recommendations to protect them.
 
2. The DCR said the application does not address the scenic and recreational impacts of the project. “An analysis of the view shed from Laurel Fork, a potential Virginia Scenic River, is not provided and is necessary for complete review. Also, an analysis of the view shed from U.S. 250, a potential Virginia Scenic Byway, is not provided and is necessary for complete review.”
 
Department of Historic Resources
DHR’s report noted none of the items it requested of HNWD back in September had been submitted, and outlined its requests, summarized by DEQ as follows:
 
1. The DHR said the application was insufficient for it to provide comment on the potential impacts to historic properties. In September, DHR had expressed concern over the possible impacts to archaeological resources and indirect impacts to Camp Allegheny, a Civil War site in the project area. It had asked HNWD for:
• A view shed analysis to determine from where the turbines would be seen;
• The results of an architectural survey within the view shed to determine if individual historic structures or potential rural historic districts are present; and
• A comprehensive site plan, including detailed grading and construction plans, to determine the location and extent of all ground-disturbing activities, the report states.
 
2. DHR also says, “the claim that the turbines would not be visible from the parking lot at Camp Allegheny is unsubstantiated with photo-simulation.” In addition, it said the potential impacts to the extensive earthworks and other well-preserved components of this camp are not addressed by the application.
 
3. DHR asks for these and earlier comments to be addressed before it can complete its evaluation.
 
Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
DEQ summarized DMME’s requests, noting the department said the geology section of the application is a physiographic discussion with no description of the geology of the site. It suggests the applicant contact the Division of Mineral Resources for geologic information, and notes that may also be helpful for evaluating the site for caves and potential impacts to bats.
 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps referred to a January letter to one of HNWD’s representatives that explains a federal permit may be necessary for the utility line to cross Laurel Fork and its tributaries. The permit would be required if there is to be discharging dredged or filled material below the ordinary high water line of the Fork or its tributaries. If the permit is required, the Corps will be obligated to comply with National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act requirements. “The Corps cannot issue a permit until the requirements of these laws have been satisfied,” the report states.
 
In addition, the Corps also notes possible impacts to the Northern flying squirrel, historic resources, Laurel Fork, and the need to clarify the two tributaries’ classification.