MONTEREY - Though Highland New Wind Development has asked the county to issue it a building permit by July 15, there is work left to be done.

HNWD, as required by the State Corporation Commission, compiled a list of what it believes are the environmental and other approvals and permits needed for its project - a total of eight.

Some of these have a subset of conditions or requirements as well. Here's where those stand:

1. Conditional use permit from Highland County:

• Granted July 14, 2005; expires in Sept. 13 unless construction has begun or supervisors grant an extension.

• Contains conditions for the height and number of towers, using existing kilovolt power lines, and more. Of those conditions, HNWD says most have been met, but the county's Technical Review Committee will make that determination; they include:

a) Number of towers: HNWD cannot build more than needed to generate 39 megawatts, and no more than 22. According to its plans submitted Friday, HNWD plans to build 19 Gamesa turbine towers, generating 38 megawatts of electricity.

b) Setbacks: Each tower is to be 1,600 feet away from nearby property lines. HNWD has two towers that will encroach on the setback to property owned by Scott Timberland Co., which has signed a waiver granting an easement to HNWD to be closer. A copy of the easement, recorded in April, is included with the site plan.

c) Lighting: No turbine shall be lighted unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (see FFA permit, below).

d) Color and screening: Turbines and accessory buildings are to be off white, gray or another neutral color approved by the TRC. Screening is also to be approved by the TRC. HNWD indicates it will have its experts sit with county's experts to review these.

e) Erosion and Sediment Control: HNWD has submitted a plan for review, created by Blackwell Engineering of Harrisonburg. The TRC has 45 days to approve it, reject it, or suggest changes HNWD can make to be in compliance.

f) Site plan - HNWD is to submit a detailed site plan addressing everything from turbine structures to substations. That plan was submitted last week. It is also to be designed to mitigate impacts on nearby property owners and the natural environment, and include computer simulations or other visual representations of each wind turbine at its proposed location. This week, supervisors said they are not sure when a simulation will be submitted, or if HNWD's topography maps showing the locations of the towers are to be considered the simulation. HNWD, in a letter to the Department of Historic Resources, says it will share a simulation with those officials, and county officials, in a meeting to be scheduled later.

g) Federal and state approvals: HNWD is required to get all state and federal regulatory approvals needed, and these eight items are what HNWD says it must have. At this point, not everyone agrees this list covers all conditions, and that determination will be made by the TRC.

h) Permit and restrictions stay with the property even if it's sold or inherited, and HNWD must file a copy of the conditional use permit resolution in circuit court. HNWD says it will file that right before it files the setback waiver for Scott Timberland Co.

i) Bond: Before a building permit is issued, HNWD must give the county a performance bond of $2,500 per turbine during the first five years, and $6,000 each thereafter, to cover the cost of taking the turbines down if that responsibility falls to the county. HNWD states it will do this right before a building permit is issued.

2. Joint permit:

• If project construction disturbs wetlands or other waterways, a joint permit issued by state and federal agencies would be needed. In its site plan, HNWD included a 2006 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers, which said no permit was necessary because construction would be away from wetlands on the property, and drilling beneath one wetlands area, if done properly, would not harm the site. The Army Corps told HNWD then, that if the project area changes, it may need to review the plans again. There is nothing in the site plan documents that indicates HNWD has submitted its final site plan to the Army Corps for review.

3. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity:

• This is the state permit granted by the SCC in 2007. It, too, carried a number of conditions, and here's where they stand:

a) Submit final site plan with maps to all the state and federal agencies that have been reviewing the project proposal - HNWD documents do not indicate whether this has been accomplished, though the company did ask the Department of Environmental Quality some months ago to help distribute a final plan to those agencies.

b) Conduct archaeological and architectural surveys if necessary, coordinating with the Department of Historic Resources for guidance - HNWD hired Linda Perry, Ph.D., a research collaborator with the Smithsonian's archaeobiology program, to conduct an assessment. A one page letter from Perry was included in the site plan documents Friday. Perry said she walked the site and did four shovel tests; she concluded the project would have no significant impact on archaeological resources. A copy of Perry's assessment has been sent to the Department of Historic Resources for review.

c) Avoid direct and indirect impacts to wetlands to minimize damage - E&S plans show the wetlands compared to the tower sites, and the directional drilling that will be used to avoid harming those areas.

d) Protect natural resources during construction, including water quality, wildlife and habitat, by adopting recommendations from DEQ, DGIF, and DCR - HNWD does not address these issues in the site plan submitted, but the agencies will review the plans once they receive them.

e) Protect species: Work closely with DGIF and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to ensure threatened and endangered species are adequately protected - These are not addressed in the site plan; HNWD and the agencies are to work on those issues together, as required by the SCC.

f) Coordinate transportation safety issues, working with the Virginia Department of Transportation - This issue is not addressed in the site plan.

g) Comply with requirements in the DEQ report on all these conditions to minimize adverse environmental impacts - According to the SCC, it is HNWD's responsibility to work with reviewing state and federal agencies to be in compliance with DEQ's recommendations.

4. Entrance permits for two access roads:

• VDOT approved entrances for access roads, and extended them to the maximum date possible; they now expire on July 20. In its site plan letter, HNWD says the permits may need to be extended, depending on when the building permit is issued.

5. Erosion and sediment control plan:

• Submitted by HNWD last week; the county has 45 days to review it.

• The county retained engineering firm Mattern & Craig to help determine whether the E&S plan is acceptable. The TRC has final authority on the plan.

6. Stormwater Management plan:

• Submitted with the E&S plan, and under review by Mattern & Craig, and the county's TRC.

7. Federal Aviation Administration permit:

• HNWD submitted a letter from its contractor, Antares Group Inc., saying an application has been submitted, and should be approved in about 30 days. Under FAA regulations, an application must be submitted at least 30 days before HNWD applies for a building permit, in order to receive a "no hazard determination." FAA will act as a coordinator, distributing HNWD's information to any organization, including the military, for comments.

8. Building permit:

• HNWD has not yet applied for a building permit, but has asked for one. Its letter to the TRC says if the county cannot issue one by July 15, it requests an extension of the conditional use permit.

The board of supervisors has the authority to extend the conditional use permit if it chooses to, but it's not required to make that decision by July 15. Also, should the county choose not to extend the permit, there are questions about new legislation that might override the county's decision. The TRC can issue a building permit without further action from supervisors.