From: Lucile S.

Miller
To: Carol Wampler, Dept. of Environmental Quality –
carol.wampler.renewable.energy@gmail.com
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Permit by Rule for small wind projects

Given well-known and acknowledged environmental/wildlife impacts of industrial scale wind

projects on eastern ridges, there is a clear path to lessening those impacts. The proposed permit
by rule (PBR) acknowledges the impacts but the monitoring and mitigation called for in the
proposed PBR will do little to advance objective, scientific decision-making regarding the
lessening of environmental impacts. Again and again during the past 6 years, scientists studying
the impacts have called for a scientific basis for decision-making, including credible research and
standardized procedures for surveys, data collection, and analysis.

An example of the inadequate language I am referring to is found in 9VAC15-40-40. A6 “The

applicant shall conduct bat acoustic surveys to determine the presence of and level of bat activity
and use within the disturbance zone.” The PBR gives no directions as to how many nights or the
time of year or weather conditions when the surveys shall be carried out. The survey becomes
one that can be manipulated to produce a desired result rather than one that produces sound
scientific information that can be used to make informed decisions.

Having standardized procedures and protocols gives the developer a clear set of requirements,
prevents public distrust, and most importantly facilitates broad comparisons that can help with an
understanding of cumulative impacts and relative risks associated with varied habitat and
topography.

I request that, before the PBR becomes law, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries (and other agencies with needed experience and knowledge) develop protocols and
standards for surveys, data collection, and analysis and that these protocols and standards be
added to the language in the PBR. If necessary there will be two sets of protocols, one for
ridgeline development and one for onshore coastal development.

Having been involved with the industrial scale wind energy debate for the past 10 years, I have
witnessed a disturbing lack of cooperation, including access to study sites and transparency of
information obtained from surveys, data collection and analysis. The Virginia State Corporation
Commission (SCC), in it’s only permit for a wind energy facility, recognized the necessity of
requiring that wind facilities remain open for ongoing research. In the final order, the
commissioners stated, “We find that the site must be accessible to state and federal agencies
operating within the scope of their authority.” In accord with the SCC findings:

I request that the final PBR include language that states that a wind energy facility permitted
under the PBR must be accessible to state and federal agencies operating within the scope of
their authority and that the owner/operator cannot require notification for site visits by authorized
personnel.

In my experience, the developer does not always present accurate information concerning the
important natural attributes of the site. Often the public has more accurate information and can
correct inaccuracies but in order to provide meaningful comments it must have access to all
pertinent natural resource related surveys/data/analysis presented by the developer.

I request that the PBR include language stating that all surveys, data and analysis pertaining to
natural resources of public interest be made available to the public at least 90 days before the
PBR is issued.
I am concerned about the structure of public participation as presented in the proposed PBR. In
the proposed PBR, the owner/operator is the only audience for the public comments. If an
owner/operator chooses to dismiss public complaints, the public has virtually no meaningful
listening ear from which to get relief.

I request that the PBR include language that expands the audience for the public hearing and
public comments to include representatives from Department of Environmental Quality and that
a forum be made available for complaints deemed to be of valid concern.

Without these changes, I predict that the PBR will face future challenges and that wildlife
mortality will continue to be unacceptably high, giving rise to costly ecological impacts. I urge
you to give these requests your close attention.