MONTEREY - Things are getting tense, and intense. As Highland New Wind Development creeps closer in its efforts [to] build the state's first industrial wind energy utility, anxiety and hope build at a parabolic rate, depending on who you talk to.

Perspective

A third meeting of county officials reviewing HNWD's plans was held at a brisk pace this week. The Technical Review Committee of county administrator Roberta Lambert and building official Jim Whitelaw is sorting through a checklist of conditions Highland New Wind Development must meet before it can get a green light for construction.

Opponents of the 38-megawatt electric utility are pushing to hold the county, and HNWD, accountable for meeting their responsibilities, raising questions about erosion control, wetlands protection, proper maps, and other concerns. HNWD is pushing to get an approved E&S plan and building permit before its conditional use permit expires as soon as Aug. 17.

HNWD owner Henry T. "Mac" McBride and his family stand to make millions, make history in Virginia, and make a few megawatts of electricity in the process if they can erect 19 wind-generating towers on Allegheny Mountain at their 4,000-acre tract of land.

In between McBride and his critics are county, state, and federal officials who will determine the outcome. The county is still threatened with lawsuits, and the complexities of the project continue to challenge experts and citizens. And at least one supervisor, if he had to vote today, is not inclined to extend the 2005 conditional use permit and give HNWD more time (see related story).

This week, the TRC listed information it must have before it can issue a permit to start construction.

One turbine still in the wrong state

Lambert asked county attorney Melissa Dowd to provide guidance on several questions Tuesday; one of them was whether the state of West Virginia should be consulted.

The second draft of HNWD's site plan shows one turbine will be only 16 feet from the state line. The base of the tower is 50 feet in diameter, putting part of it in West Virginia, and the blades of the turbine, which are about 130 feet long, would spin across the state line. The McBrides own the property on both sides.

The question is, Dowd told HNWD, "Are you going to need a West Virginia building permit? Or can you slide it over to get it all in Virginia?"

Dowd explained Highland's ordinance discusses property lines, but not state lines. "I can double check," she said, "but he's still on his own property." Nevertheless, it raises the issue of whether HNWD needs something from West Virginia for that turbine, she said. "I don't know the answer to that. It would clean it up for us if it was all in Virginia ... the worst case scenario is that West Virginia says you can't put it there."

HNWD attorney John Flora said the company has already decided to move the base entirely into Virginia, "and we think that's satisfactory," he said.

Dowd agreed to check Virginia laws, and said it might not be an issue, but even if the base is moved, the blades would still be across the boundary. As one observer noted later, "What happens if an endangered bird is killed in West Virginia?"

FAA approval not in

Flora said the Federal Aviation Administration has not completed its review of HNWD's plans.

Lambert wanted to know which permit condition addresses FAA approval. The conditions address both lighting, and state and federal approvals, in separate paragraphs. "Do you consider it to fall under federal and state approval?" she asked Dowd. "Or is this what they're asking to be done (under) lighting?"

Dowd's opinion was that FAA approval fell under state and federal approvals, and under the lighting condition. HNWD said FAA is the regulatory authority for lights, she said, "and yes, they have to have that for final approval" of the conditional use permit.

"I think that's a close question," Flora said.

Tal McBride said it wasn't a permit the company needed from FAA, but a "determination."

FAA regulations require anything over a certain height be reviewed as to whether it would create an obstruction to air traffic or radar, among other things. HNWD applied for that determination in June; the FAA has so many applications pending, it may be several more weeks before HNWD's application gets a completed review.

"We're pushing that as best we can," Flora told the TRC.

The FAA also requires the exact coordinates of each tower to make a determination. Flora did not say whether HNWD would revise its FAA application if it moves one tower closer into Virginia, and the TRC did not ask him about that.

E&S plan sufficient?

Whitelaw has sole authority to approve or reject HNWD's erosion and sediment control plan, and by ordinance, he must make that decision by Monday.

Tuesday morning, he began drafting a letter to the company rejecting its plan, until he was interrupted with other business.

HNWD urged him to ignore "noise" from those opposed to the facility and approve it because it's a major step in the process.

Dowd advised Whitelaw to reject it. "I suggest you go ahead and do that now so we don't miss any deadlines," she said.

Flora suggested Whitelaw write two letters - one of approval and one of rejection - and have them both ready for Monday's deadline.

"Jim has many other duties," Dowd replied. "I know you'd like to speed, but ..."

"We're going to work on speed," Flora said.

Dowd said the county ought to "cover ourselves right now," by rejecting the E&S plan, and that Whitelaw could approve it Monday if he felt ready to.

Wednesday, the county's engineer, Tom Austin of Mattern & Craig, submitted another list of issues to be addressed in the plans. Whitelaw said he would wait for those before he made his decision. In addition, Whitelaw noted there were issues raised by Jim Echols and Mark Chambers of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (see related story).

Attorney Chris Singleton, on behalf of Highland citizens opposed to the project's location, submitted a letter to supervisors Tuesday, and mentioned the need for correcting "all discrepancies" in the E&S plan before the county approves it. "The mere promise of future correction is insufficient. The concerns of the engineers should be specifically and thoroughly aired and addressed prior to approval of HNWD's application," he wrote.

County residents and landowners Lucile Miller, McChesney Goodall, and Rick Webb, had written to the TRC last week about an area of wetlands they said must be properly delineated before E&S approval. Tuesday, officials asked HNWD about that concern, but HNWD provided letters from experts they said indicated no further permit was needed (see related story).

Late Wednesday, Whitelaw told The Recorder he'd received Austin's comments, but right before he left for the day. He has not reviewed them, nor has he made a decision on the plans.

Of fences and trees

TRC last week asked for a better sense of how the utility's substation will be screened from view along U.S. 250, a condition of the permit.

Blackwell explained the power company requires a chain link fence to secure the substation, and that existing trees might already be enough to hide some of the substation from view. He submitted a third revision to the site plan with a note that a six-foot white, vinyl solid fence would be "put in as needed."

Lambert looked at a photo HNWD provided, but said it was too hard to tell whether the trees would be sufficient. "Can we ask for (more screening) later?" she asked Dowd.

Dowd said the TRC could do that, "preserving" the county's right to insist on better screening later, when the power company applied for a building permit. "However, (the conditional use permit) says (screening) shall be a subject in the review process ... You have no power to your punch," in asking for it later, she said.

Sections of the substation might stick up some 20 feet, Lambert noted, "so you may not be able to screen that."

"The question for you guys is," Dowd told her, "is the fencing adequate? If you have 25 feet sticking up, then six feet of vinyl fence doesn't help you in the slightest."

Lambert asked HNWD about adding trees, but Flora said cattle on the property would destroy smaller trees.

No decision was reached, though the TRC asked HNWD to provide a little more information.

Access road permit extended

Lambert noted HNWD's permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation expired Monday. Mac Bride said he applied for an extension, and VDOT told him it had been renewed as of July 10.

"Send us a copy," Lambert said.

Visual simulations

The conditional use permit requires HNWD to provide computer generated or other visual simulations of how each turbine would look from elsewhere in the area.

HNWD has not provided photosimulations of each turbine, but has given the TRC simulatons of some of them.

Two residents nearby, Tom Brody and Pen Goodall, asked for simulations from their properties. Lambert sent each a letter asking for written permission so Tal McBride could go to their properties to get photos for simulations. She gave the landowners until July

28 (Friday) to provide permission.

She said she had other requests for simulations pending. She spoke with local historian Doug Gutshall about Camp Allegheny, the Civil War site near the project, and narrowed a list of visual simulation locations provided by Dan Foster to three, one of which she already had.

The TRC did not indicate whether it would require a simulation for every turbine, as required by the permit conditions.

Site plan not yet finalized

Whitelaw told HNWD the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Quality need to see the final site plan. "When does that happen?" he asked.

Flora said both agencies had gotten the first site plan in June, and "as soon as we get the final site plan, I will send it around one more time."

Who inspects?

Singleton had also expressed concern about HNWD hiring its own inspector to review the building process.

"This procedure is wholly inappropriate in this situation," Singleton said. "The reviewing engineering firm should be retained by Highland County, and upon being invoiced for payment ... those invoices should be submitted by the county to the applicant for payment.

"Obviously, notwithstanding professional standards and obligations, the firm retained by the applicant and paid by the applicant will have loyalties to the applicant, and not to Highland County: The fox will be guarding the chicken house."

Finally, he said, the TRC's findings should be submitted to the board of supervisors for a decision following a full and open public hearing."

Whitelaw explained he had a policy in place for hiring thirdparty inspectors, though he'd never used it.

HNWD agreed to supply Whitelaw with names and resumes of two or three qualified inspectors, and let him decide which one to use.

What happens next?

"How many loose ends do you have?" Dowd asked the TRC. Lambert listed some: Another revised site plan; FAA approval; settling the screening issue; an approved E&S plan; additional visual simulations; a copy of the extended VDOT permit; and Dowd's determination about the turbine encroaching on the state line.

The TRC meets again Monday, Aug. 4, at 4 p.m., to see whether these conditions are resolved.

The board of supervisors continued its meeting to Thursday, July 23 (today). Supervisor David Blanchard requested a called meeting of the board between Aug. 10-14 to decide whether to extend HNWD's conditional use permit, and anticipates confirming a meeting date this week.

Dowd was asked by the board and TRC two weeks ago to verify HNWD's conclusion the conditional use permit expires Aug. 17. She has no reason to doubt that date is correct, she said, but wants to check her records. She apologized to the TRC, explaining she finally found the records she needs, which are stored in her barn, and can now look them over.