Allegheny Front Alliance

94 Orchard Street
Keyser, WV 26726
Alleghenyfrontalliance@frontier.com

“To protect the Allegheny Front’s cultural and natural environment"

Carol C. Wampler
Department of Environmental Quality,
629 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1105,
Richmond, VA 23218
carol.wampler.renewable.energy@gmail.com
carol.wampler@deq.virginia.gov

Reference: Proposed Permit by Rule for “Small” Wind Projects that are greater than 5 MW.
Allegheny Front Alliance (AFA) represents interested community members
concerned over the construction and proposed development of industrial wind
turbine projects. Allegheny Front Alliance, created in January 2009, opposed the
development of two West Virginia Projects, AES New Creek Project and the
Pinnacle Project, approved by the West Virginia Public Service Commission. AFA
offers comments and recommendations.
AFA believes there are serious environmental issues the industrial wind
corporations do not address. Regulatory action is essential to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of citizens. Effective regulation is critical to protect and
conserve unique biological, ecological, geological, geographical, cultural and
historical resources.
My reference remarks are limited to the document: The Virginia Register of Regulations, Vol.
26, Issue 21, June 21, 2010. Also provided are suggested reference resource links.
The proposed rulemaking permit by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
contains serious flaws encouraging a process for uncontrolled ‘fast tracking’ industrial wind energy
development. It is evident the wind industry and interested parties created and support the proposed
rules.
As proposed, the entire spirit the Virginia Legislation that mandates that DEQ develop one or
more permits by rule for small renewable energy project is misleading and defrauds the public. It does
not represent the best interests of DEQ and Virginia citizens. At best is a minimal plan. The plan fails
to address long range, direct and indirect impacts on environmental quality cultural resources.
The first major issue is rule making for projects over 5 MW rated capacity. One can compare a
5 MW project compared to a project capacity rated at 25MW, 50 MW or 100 MW. These are large

1
projects. Modern turbines now exceed 2.0 MW and exceed a height of 400 feet. The rotor blade
diameter is greater than a jumbo 747-jet wingspan. An average of four acres is required to plan,
construct, and manage a wind turbine. A100 MW project requires a minimum of 400 acres of land
disturbance.
Road construction requirements to erect a turbine require a minimum road width of 32 feet.
Road construction can affect geologic resources and soils including sand and gravel activation,
increased soil erosion and activation of geological hazards. The types of activities during the
construction phase that would influence geologic resources and soils include clearing, excavation,
blasting, trenching, grading, and heavy vehicle traffic. These activities can destroy springs, water
drainage, wells and wetlands.
Developing a 25 MW, 50MW or a 100MW does not represent ‘small wind energy project’. The
power generated by any project will require entering the electrical grid through a transmission line
crossing near the property. Additional acreage will be required for transmitting power.
In December 2005, the Bureau of Land Management Report (20050 “Implementation of a
Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments” wrote,
“Potential adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources could occur during each phase of
wind energy development (i.e., site monitoring and testing, construction, operation, and
decommissioning) if effective mitigation measures are not implemented. The nature and
magnitude of these impacts would vary by phase and would be determined by the project location
and size. Potential direct impacts would include use of geologic and water resources; creation or
increase of geologic hazards or soil erosion; water quality degradation; localized generation of
airborne dust; generation of noise; alteration or degradation of wildlife habitat or sensitive or
unique habitat; interference with resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, including protected
species; alteration or degradation of plant communities, including the occurrence of invasive
vegetation; land use changes; alteration of visual resources; release of hazardous materials or
wastes; increased traffic; increased human health and safety hazards; and destruction or loss of
paleontological or cultural resources. More limited, potential indirect impacts also could occur to
cultural and ecological resources.
The term ‘small renewable energy project’ is inappropriate, misleading and inadequately
describes reality. The term ‘industrial wind turbine generation project’ represents a more truthful
statement. The common public perception of a ‘small renewable project’ represents a ‘home grown’
project that serves an individual homeowner, a farm or small business. The erection of these projects is
usually in rural areas or atop a structure. Their height is usually less than 100 feet.
9VAC15-40-110
The costs to apply for a wind permit are inadequate. As a general industry rule, the cost of one
MW is more than one million dollars. As an example, US Wind Force proposes to construct a 55 MW
(Pinnacle Knob) project along the Allegheny Front in West Virginia. US Wind Force estimates their
project costs will exceed130 million dollars. The West Virginia Public Service Commission requires a
minimum $50,000 filing fee.
Virginia filing fee is inadequate. The proposed rule making should not be about ‘reduced risk,
time costs, and administrative costs for small wind energy firms.” An inadequate filing fee do
constrains the DEQ to conduct an effective study review. As an example, the fee schedule of $16,000
(page 2571) for a project that exceeds over 100 million dollars creates a financial burden on the
consumers, counties, and state agencies. As an example, one worker, paid $7.25 per hour x 40 hours =
$290 per week x 52 weeks = $15,080. The service of a professional department manager is greater than
the fee assessed.
2
 The purposes of DEQ regulatory action protect the natural resources affected by the
construction and operation of industrial wind turbine project. The proposed rule making should require
an effective (not efficient) management process.
The cost associated with any research is dependent on the study specifics. The development
and formal review of project study proposals should include estimated expenses. Costs will influence
study design because it limits the study protocol. Study objectives determine equipment needed
methods, costs, and data analysis. Pre-Project study protocol should be required. This assures that an
appropriate study will be designed and conducted.
The analysis of beneficial and adverse impacts (9VAC15-40040, p. 2567) requires the desktop
survey and maps on wildlife known to occur within the area are inadequate. An important component
of wildlife management is habitat analysis because habitat provides food, cover, and other factors
required for population survival. Many species are elusive, so desktop map analysis and even
observation of habitat use is limited. Using only visual location will produce bias use patterns. This is
particular troublesome for i) wildlife species known to occur within two miles of the boundary site, ii)
bat hibernacula know to occur on the site or within five miles, iii) maternity and bachelor bat colonies
know to occur on the site or within 12 miles of the boarder of the site. Bat acoustic surveys, mist-
netting or harp-trapping surveys should be conducted under the guidelines established by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service. Suggested Reference Resource: Guidelines for Conducting bird and bat Studies
at Commercial Wind Energy Projects
Study analysis should extend beyond descriptive measures. Statistical methods should represent
data type collected, how observations are weighed, data reliability, and assumptions required to test the
hypothesis. Habitat analysis and reports should consider habitat use patterns, determination of use and
availability, utilize random sampling recommendations, demonstrate populations density estimates,
survival rates include employing interval and continuous data. All studies should contain spatial and
time components.
The estimated costs of developing pre-constructin studies are inadequate, as an example the
pre-construction costs for a 50 MW are expected to be $405,000. According to the proposed rule, there
are ten pre-construction requirements. These are 1)wildlife study, 2) cultural study, 3) natural resource
study, 4) scenic impact study, 5) reporting, 6) P.E certification, 7) Ambient Air Quality analysis, 8)
public meeting report, 9) application fee and 10) administrative costs. To budget these requirements,
the approximate individual activity average cost is $40,000. Realistic this provides only a bare
minimum.
Wildlife analysis requires 1) desktop surveys and maps, 2) breeding bird surveys,3) field
survey of non-avian resources, 4) raptor migration surveys, 5) bat acoustic survey, 6) mist netting and
harp trapping surveys, and7) wildlife report. The industry or the DEQ rule making under estimates the
actual costs to develop reports. “The applicant shall conduct one year of raptor migration survey in
both spring and fall seasons to determine the relative abundance of migrant raptors moving through the
general vicinity of the disturbed zone.” (p. 2567-2568)
Issues: (p. 2653)
Remove the sentence “developing and expanding new, environmental friendly industry in
Virginia is also a boost from our economy and significant step in creating energy independence from
foreign oil interests”.
According to the US Energy Information System, total national electrical energy production
using petroleum represents less than 3%. Wind energy will not replace conventional electrical power
using fossil fuels.

3
Historical Resources: (p.2565)
The proposed rulemaking omits critical components. The statement “that is included or meets
the criteria necessary for inclusion in the Landmarks Register” is limiting. As an example, a particular
site, building, structure, object, or cultural landscape may be eligible; however limited agency
resource, are potentially harmed because a site or area is currently not under the agency study or
review. Limited state agency resources may prevent interagency consultation.
No consideration is attached to county or local historical properties, including birthplaces,
cemeteries or open spaces or cultural landscapes. The proposed rulemaking ignores county authority to
enact zoning ordinances or issue building permits.
The proposed requirement should require formal consultation with the US Department of
Interior, National Register of Historical Places to determine if the proposed project area, meets federal
evaluation criteria.
Scenic Resources: (p. 2568)
“A viewshed analysis of the impact of the proposed project on existing federal designated or
state designated…” Based on this viewshed analysis, areas such as Natural Bridge would not be
protected.
This viewshed analysis does not consider county, public property resources, such as The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) lands and historical cultural landscapes. There is no description as to method of
analysis required. Viewshed analysis evaluation should not be subjective but should be developed
using a set criteria scored standard, developed at the community level. Viewshed analysis should
reflect the project site during the season of winter, spring, summer and fall.
Wildlife: (p. 2568)
There are serious omissions. A desktop survey analysis is limiting. Habitat of rare and
threatened (R&T) species are not obvious. Field survey observations may be required. The den of
eastern mountain rattlesnake is not easily identified using desktop survey analysis.
Desktop surveys and maps are required of coastal avian migration corridors. Missing is avian
migration corridors that occur in the Ridge and Valley Zones that show essential wildlife habitats,
flyways and important bird areas for songbird and raptors.
The National Aviary should be consulted. The National Aviary has embarked on a program to
study the migration patterns of golden eagles in the Appalachian region of eastern North America, and
the risk that these migrating birds may encounter from development of wind power sites in the
Appalachian region.
The rule making does not require consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS,
FWS). All desktop surveys, maps, reports, and studies should be provided to the US FWS for review
and comment. Ninety days is inadequate time length to allow for federal response and consultation. To
ignore using the US FWS places the developer at risk and has the potential to destroy R & T species
and habitat.
There should be interagency cooperation between local, state and federal agencies. Typically,
federal agencies consult with local governments, interested citizen organizations, and the public. No
project should proceed without authorization and recommendations of FWS.
The proposed rule does not require the developer to secure and Incidental Take Permit. This is
problematic.

4
 In April 2010 the USFWS, made final recommendations to the Secretary of Interior on how to
minimize the impacts of land-based wind farms on wildlife and its habitat. These recommendations
represented the consensus of the 22 diverse members of the Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal
Advisory Committee and took more than a two-year process.
The document contains policy recommendations and voluntary guidelines for siting and
operating wind energy projects in order to avoid or minimize potential impacts to wildlife and habitat.
Highlighted recommendations include: 1) A decision-making framework that guides all stages of wind
energy development; 2) Reliance on the best available science when assessing renewable energy
projects and their potential environmental impact; and 3) Use of landscape-scaled planning that
recognizes the need to think long-term about protecting our nations economic and natural resources.
The document is available for download at:
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/windpower/wind_turbine_advisory_committee.html
Post-Construction monitoring (p. 2569)
“Estimate the level of avian and bat fatalities…” “Investigate the correlation of bat fatalities
with project operational protocols.”
The US FWS (West Virginia Field Office, Sept 30, 2009, letter to US Wind Force – Pinnacle
Wind Power Project) wrote, “That post construction assessments should move beyond counts of dead
bats and birds in order to identify effective operational parameters that avoid and minimize bird and
bat mortality. Studies should investigate if birds and bats are attracted to turbines and bird and bat
activity and mortality vary with wind speed, direction, persistent weather events and other facts.”
“Monitoring plans should include a robust adoptive adaptive management component that
describes the studies to be conducted, anticipated outcomes (hypothesis to be tested) and subsequent
series of resources addressing those outcomes. Monitoring should be conducted to determine if the
selected responses actually result in a reduction of fatalities.”
“Mortality searches should use dogs to improve detection rates in medium and low visibility
habitats. (Arnett 2006)
Health and Safety: (p. 2562)
Purpose: This regulatory action is necessary in order for DEQ to carry out the requirements of
Chapters 808 and 854 of the 2009 Acts of Assembly. This regulatory action is essential to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of Virginia citizens. It will establish necessary requirements, other than
those established in applicable environmental permits, to protect Virginia's natural resources affected
by the construction and operation of small renewable energy projects.
Health and safety standards are missing from this proposed rulemaking. This is a serous
omission.
Noise:
Missing elements not addressed include health and safety. Noise can affect individuals living
near the site, but also can affect breeding, and nesting habits of wildlife. For humans, industrial wind
turbine projects have been associated with health condition known as low frequency noise and
infrasound. Noise decibel level has not been established. Suggested Reference Resource: Wind
Turbine Syndrome, Nina Piepont (2009)
Safety
The proposed rule does not include the actual siting requirements, as it pertains to occupied
housing, historical buildings, schools, and roadways. Proper siting is essential to avoid injuries and

5
fatalities. Health and safety of project are jeopardized by blade failure, fire, and structural failure.
Blade failure is the primary cause of turbine failure. Blade failure is a result of either whole blade
being thrown from the turbines. Pieces of blades have been documents to traveling up to 1300 meters.
It is recommend a minimum distance of a least 2km between turbines and occupied housing. Fire is the
second cause of turbine failure. Because of the great heights, firefighting is limited. In dry conditions,
there is an obvious greater risk to nearby forests and nearby housing. Structural failure due to poor
quality control, lack of maintenance and component failure are associated hazard and risk conditions.
Reference Resource: Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 30 June 2010
The proposed ruling fails to address existing or future emergency communication networks,
towers, or electrical equipment. Wind turbines can cause electrical interference with cell towers,
weather - radar instruments and communication with emergency responders. This issue is not
addressed.
Project Deconstruction and Removal
The proposed rule disregards decommission. Decommission represents deconstruction and the
removal of each turbines and restoring the land. The conditions required for decommission require
identifying the process and expected outcome, including a bonding requirement.
At what point in time does a project cease to exist? Is it at the end of an expected 20 – 25
project life? How will DEQ handle projects that remain inoperable for one month, six months, or a
year? When will a project deconstruction and removal occur? Who will enforce this policy? What
processes are established? Industrial Wind Projects are established as limited liability corporation
(LLC). No precautions are made if a project is abandoned. Project removal should not be a public
expense. Projects should be bonded that represents actual deconstruction removal and not based on
project savage scrap value.
Summary Recommendation:
AFA does not recommend the proposed ‘small renewable energy Projects (Wind) Permit by
Rule. This recommendation “is essential to protect the health, safety and the welfare of Virginia
citizens” because the proposed rule fails to create necessary protections to Virginia natural resources
affected by the construction of industrial wind turbine projects. The proposed rules offer a misleading
description of small wind project. The rules inadequately address issues related to historical, scenic,
cultural and wildlife resources. The rule does not require consultation with federal agencies, including
the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. The rule ignores local governments
and community organizations. The rule contains no protective provisions for human health and safety.
The rule omits the process of deconstruction and removal should the project become non-operational.

Respectfully,

Frank J. O’Hara
AFA Co-Chairperson