Wind Mills Camp Allegheny

Wind Mill issue discussed on radio

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wvmr/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1539067

Where is West Virginia on the impacts to West Virginia? I note Virginia has looked at the impacts on Virginia but we have not batted an eye....yet. Matter is on our agenda for tomorrow. I believe the Commission should immediately resolve to seek a delay of the implementation of this project until our State's due process rights have allowed our State ( the Attorney General, the DNR, the DEP the PSC and the public at large) to fully look at the impacts of this on our citizens and environment. To do less would speak to our failure of due diligence as public servants to investigate this fully.

At the invitation of David Blanchard, Highland County Board of Supervisors, I plan to meet with them very soon to begin a much needed dialog as to the role of West Virginia and Pocahontas County in the decision making process. My early investigations lead me to believe that many agencies and stake holders have been left out of the process or ignored. This is a defining moment for many counties in Virginia and West Virginia along the Allegheny spine. They all need to be in the process.

Martin

Even if the wind conditions were right (which they are not) for wind farms near the Pyramids of Egypt, the Eiffel tower, the Lincoln Memorial, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, or Arlington Cemetery; I hardly think that your jurisdiction includes these areas or that of Highland Co. Va.

Now if boundaries are not correct that is an issue!

As far as the Eiffel tower goes France had the forsight to go nuclear for most of their power needs. Would you support a nuclear power plant on the Greenbrier, if there was enough water.

Questions:

1. If more than 50% of Pocahontas Co. Citizens supported these windfarms, would you not oppose them?
2. What forms of electrical generation do you support?
3. Should we not respect the land owner's right to do what he wants with his land or buy it at his price? Like the Sharp farm in reverse
4. Are you taking this action to promote your personal agenda or the best interests of the county and why do you think that is in the best interest of the county to stop the wind farms?
5. If the observatory had not been built yet, would you oppose it being constructed?

Tourism may be good, but tourism just doesn't provide enough good paying jobs. Only management makes a living wage.

Pocahontas asserts its rights on Va. border
Officals ask for hold on wind tower project
By Anne Adams • Staff Writer

A fawn makes its way quietly through the tall grass on Allegheny Mountain, near where Highland New Wind Development is about to start construction on its towers. Deer and their babies have been spotted all spring and summer this year. (Photo courtesy Pendleton Goodall)
MONTEREY — Pocahontas County officials are more than a little upset by the approval of a wind energy utility near their border, and that Highland officials have not included them discussions about the project.

Pocahontas County commissioners are preparing to hold a special, emergency meeting this week to decide on a course of action. Commissioners issued a letter last Friday to several West Virginia agencies, including the attorney general, and Virginia's State Corporation Commission.

They have asked Highland New Wind Development owner Henry T. "Mac" McBride, by letter Friday, to hold off on construction until they can meet with him. They have also asked for a meeting with Highland's board of supervisors.

Last Thursday, Highland resident Dan Foster was invited to speak to Pocahontas County Commissioners, addressing his concerns for Highland New Wind Development's project impacts on Camp Allegheny — the Civil War battlefield site in Pocahontas, less than a mile from where HNWD's 400-foot turbines are planned. It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is owned by Monongahela National Forest and one private landowner. It is considered by historians to be the most pristine, intact Civil War battlefield in the U.S. because nothing about the site has changed since the early 1800s.

Foster told commissioners about the difficulties Virginia's Department of Historic Resources has had in obtaining final site plans, view shed studies, and archaeological surveys from HNWD, as required by Virginia's State Corporation Commission.

Foster said Pocahontas officials shared his concerns. "They said they were invited to the public hearing (in Virginia) early on but decided not to go because it was a sort of 'theoretical' project at that point; they didn't have a final site plan," Foster said. "And now that there is a site plan, they felt they wanted to comment on that … they agreed they are an entity that has standing in this."

HNWD did not submit a final site plan until Monday, Aug. 3. That plan changed as late as Thursday, Aug. 5, but was approved by Highland County officials within hours of being submitted Aug. 3, leaving little time for any agency or official to review it (see related story).

Last week, Highland supervisor Robin Sullenberger said one turbine tower situated near the West Virginia line was not within the county's required 1,600-foot setback from U.S. 250, but said it was not an issue for Highland officials. "I don't know about how West Virginia does things, but they were contacted early on in this process and they did not choose to get actively engaged … We don't deal with property on the other side of the state line and we have no indication they are concerned," he said then.

But apparently, they are.

One concern is "ice throw." Industrial wind turbines are known to have ice freeze on their blades, which gets tossed when the blades are spinning. Pocahontas County Commission president Martin Saffer said he has contacted the West Virginia Department of Transportation to see whether that might cause safety problems on the Pocahontas side of the highway.

Highland supervisor David Blanchard told his colleagues weeks ago, when HNWD was re-drawing the state line to account for one tower, that someone needed to make sure West Virginia didn't have a problem with that. He wrote a letter to county officials before the site plan was approved, saying it was in Highland's best interests to make sure HNWD moved the tower, its foundation, and its blades entirely out of West Virginia to avoid any conflicts.

Highland attorney Melissa Dowd had said her research showed that Virginia has no standing in issues affecting West Virginia, and advised Highland officials they had no authority concerning West Virginia property.

Pocahontas commissioners are concerned not just about the Civil War battlefield, but also about environmental issues like potential harm to endangered species. One of the proposed towers is so close to West Virginia that its blades will spin across the border, in West Virginia air space, though still on property owned by McBride.

Commissioners felt strongly enough about it that during their meeting lunch break last Thursday, they drafted two letters — one to McBride, and one to the SCC and relevant agencies in both states. "Two of them felt the project should be stopped at least until the West Virginia State Historical Preservation Office got a chance to review and comment on the project," Foster said.

One commissioner, Rita Griffith, was not inclined to go that far and did not vote in favor of the letters, Foster said. "She felt maybe it was enough to just move a couple of those towers," he said.

Attending the meeting was Mr. Riley, part owner of the battlefield, and Richard Laska, and adjoining landowner.

"Mr. Riley said he wasn't opposed to the project at first," Foster explained, "but then he said, 'When Mac McBride stood on my land and said this battlefield is insignificant, well, it upset me.' Mr. Laska said he felt the project would devalue his property."

What impressed Foster, though, was the decisive and immediate action of the Pocahontas commissioners. "The main discussion was about what to write, and it's the first time I've seen any supervisors or commissioners just sit down, all of them putting their heads together and trying to logically come to a decision. There was no lawyer there telling them what to do; it was a very measured response, and there was a range in what their thinking was," Foster said. "But they cooperated, and wanted to do best for their state."

Saffer told The Recorder he and his colleagues do have deep concerns about the project, though Griffith disagrees as to the next step, and level of approach.

"I've lived in Pocahontas County since 1972," he said, "and I became a commissioner a couple of years ago and now I am president. This county is one of the most beautiful places I have ever see, and I've been all around the world."

Saffer noted the county's "rock solid" tourism economy, and beautiful rolling farmland. He said its economy is sustainable as long as its assets are protected, and one of those assets is the Camp Allegheny battlefield, where many early Pocahontas and Highland men fought and died. "That battlefield has, as its backdrop, the Allegheny Mountain ridge, the line between Virginia and West Virginia," he said. "It's my understanding now that the battlefield has become much more historically significant, as looked at by scholars … it's an important area of history."

He also pointed to Pocahontas' rich history, from the home of Pulitzer Prize winner Pearl S. Buck, to the Droop Mountain battlefield and park, and all its pristine rivers and streams. "We are really extremely lucky," he said. "And this project is of no advantage to Pocahontas County."

He said the towers could adversely impact property values, tourism, historic assets, and the quality of the environment. Birds and bats, including endangered species, do not respect state property boundaries, he added. "Wildlife migrates; they don't recognize those lines," he said. "If bats leave a West Virginia cave at night and get killed by turbines in Virginia, that impacts us."

Further, he said, "We feel as county commissioners that we must act on our own due diligence to protect Pocahontas and West Virginia … we were not fully included in our due process rights.

"We have an interstate commerce issue here. All the impact is on us, and all the benefits are on you (Virginia). There is absolutely no positive for us. It's all negative."

Saffer explained the issue had only recently come to his attention. "I know this is 11th hour, but we just now learned about this," he said.

When HNWD had a local surveyor relocate the state line differently from U.S. Geological Survey maps, he said, that, too, became an issue. "Excuse me," Saffer said, "but I think that's a big concern … who says the USGS survey is wrong?"

Craig Neidig is the USGS acting chief for the eastern region office, and serves as the USGS liaison to West Virginia. He explained HNWD may have used topography maps that are outdated, but that doesn't change the fact that moving a state boundary is not as simple as redrawing it on a site plan. "Since it involves another state, you don't just do that," he said Monday. "It cannot be a unilateral decision by one county, certainly not on the basis of one surveyor … We know some of our maps may be outdated and with the terrain up there, there could be discrepancies. But if it were me, I would have at least consulted with my neighboring county and then try to agree on something."

West Virginia has laws about its boundaries, and there is historic precedence set based on a "Boundary Commission" which was used to demarcate that state's eastern boundary, he said. The commission has been inactive since 1959 — the last time it was used to settle boundary issues, "but it's still on the books," Neidig said.

He suggested West Virginia might want to have its own surveyor review HNWD's survey, which was conducted by Jeff Hiner of Highland. Hiner may not have been aware of the West Virginia laws, he said.

Once an agreement is reached, Neidig said a new boundary line must still be approved by the West Virginia legislature.

The West Virginia boundary commission, according to state law, is to consist of three members with surveying experience appointed by the governor. The commission has the authority to establish boundary lines presumed correct unless proven otherwise in a court of law; employ a surveyor; meet with other states to establish boundary lines and submit its findings to the legislature; recommend to the legislature actions to establish boundary lines, provided the other states agree with the recommendation; and recommend action when no agreement can be reached with another state to get an opinion from the U.S. Attorney General's office.

It was the winter of 1860-61 when Virginians began disagreeing about issues raised during the Civil War, and by 1863, a year after the battle at Camp Allegheny and the Battle of McDowell in Highland, Virginians in the west declared their independence and West Virginia was created. It is one of only two states that were reconfigured during that time, according to historians.

Saffer says the boundary issue is just one of Pocahontas' concerns, but notes no one can change a state boundary line by filing a deed. "No one can assert adverse possession against the government," he said.

Sullenberger said he couldn't recall what county attorney Melissa Dowd said about the boundary issue, but said, "I would think that would be an issue between Pocahontas and the developer, because it was an agent of the developer that made that determination. I don't know what impact this will have on us."

"We need to have a talk — Virginia to West Virginia," Saffer said. "We need to understand that one state needs to be a good neighbor to the other … It's almost as though Virginia acted as if West Virginia doesn't exist."

Saffer and the commission reviewed correspondence exchanged between Virginia's Department of Historic Resources, and the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office. Saffer called the exchanges "mild" and "milk toast," saying the agencies have to be that way sometimes. "But when the rubber hits the road, somebody has to say something," he said. "This is a matter of grave concern to us … I intend to make sure we are completely involved in the process."

The Pocahontas commission sent 10 letters out Friday.

The first letter, to McBride, stated, "The Pocahontas County Commission is very concerned that the currently proposed wind turbine project on Allegheny Mountain will have a negative impact on Camp Allegheny and the environment. Of equal concern is the apparent lack of West Virginia and Pocahontas County in the dialogue and planning of this project to the extent that our due process rights as a state and county have been infringed upon and overlooked. Accordingly, we want the opportunity to participate as stake holders and not be mere observers. Due process requires that we have a full and complete discussion with you concerning the impact of the project in our State and to formulate with you a plan to address them. This process necessarily requires that sufficient time be allotted before breaking ground. We also believe that the expected negative economic impact on tourism and land values raises concerns regarding interstate commerce. At the outset, we request a meeting with you at the earliest opportunity."

The letter, from the commission, was signed by Saffer, as president, and copied to several agencies, along with a cover letter, which read: "As you may read in the attached letter (to McBride), the Pocahontas County Commission is very concerned about the wind turbine project on Allegheny Mountain. The commission believes that there has been little involvement of state agencies in the discussion concerning the impacts of this project in West Virginia. Projects of this scale should be reviewed by all our state agencies dealing with the environment and history. We urge your agency to take an active role in the process of protecting West Virginia. Please contact our office at your earliest opportunity as ground breaking is imminent."

"When you stand there (on Camp Allegheny), if you squint a little," Saffer said, "you can see all the way to Heaven from there. I don't want to be seeing some 400-foot wind tower with blades spinning. What if they'd put those next to the Great Pyramids in Egypt? What if they put them up at the Vietnam veterans' memorial? There are just certain areas that must be held sacrosanct ... There is nothing — and you can underline that — nothing positive coming to the State of West Virginia from this."

By Monday, Saffer had spoken with Highland supervisor David Blanchard.

"He was very nice, but my ears are still hurting — he made their disappointment very clear," Blanchard said. "All it would have taken is a phone call (to Pocahontas officials) and I think we owed them the courtesy."

Asked whether a letter of approval from U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, would be considered a "federal approval" required by the project's conditional use permit it, Blanchard said, "I could interpret it that way. I would think you'd want to ask both states if that line is correct," he said.

Blanchard could not explain why Highland officials didn't seek input from West Virginia about the matter. "I can only go back to what I've said before — it seems we've taken a pro-developer stance on this project, and we have not been willing to ask more than needed."

He said Saffer would like to meet with Highland officials before any construction is started. "He felt we should talk before ground-breaking," Blanchard said. "This is why I felt all questions should be answered before ground-breaking, because it becomes much more difficult — and much more costly — if you don't. If HNWD is putting equipment up there because we (Highland) gave them the go-ahead, and now this comes up, these things should have been resolved before so the project doesn't come to a grounding halt."

Saffer said Blanchard was "very sympathetic to many of the issues and felt West Virginia, and Pocahontas County in particular, had much to say about the outcome of this project, and he welcomed our participation and continuing, ongoing dialogue."

Further, Saffer said, if he had known about the scope of the project before, he would have acted earlier. "Honestly, I just became aware of it … If I'd known about this last year, I would have done something then," he said.

"They've requested a meeting and I am certainly going to accommodate that," said Highland supervisor Robin Sullenberger this week. "As chairman, it is my belief that you never deny a neighboring governing body a meeting, as a professional courtesy."

Sullenberger said he thinks Pocahontas officials were invited to attend project meetings over the course of the review and permitting process, which began in 2002. "I don't know the exact facts, but I know they (Pocahontas officials) were there on some occasions."

Plus, he said, "This has been all over the news on a regular basis for years. I feel it would be personally incumbent on me (and other county officials) to monitor any activity on our borders, and remain aware of them. We did that when the (wind project) was going on in Pendleton County because it might affect us. I'm frankly surprised they (Pocahontas) seem oblivious about this … Obviously, I made an incorrect assumption."

By Monday, Saffer had spoken to Dowd about his concerns. "She told me she would not talk to me without the permission, advice, and consent of the board of supervisors," he said, noting that felt like a bad way to start discussions with Highland.

He then spoke with Lambert to ask about the border issue, who told him the same thing.

Saffer said he had received a letter from the West Virginia Attorney General's office that advised it could not take any action yet, but Saffer said the commission's initial letter was broad. "It did not address specific, actionable issues … but I would think as these matters are explained specifically, the attorney general will address them," he said.

McBride had not responded to the commissioners' letter as of press time Wednesday.

HNWD has already moved excavation and road-building equipment to the site this week, and has told Highland officials it intends to start construction as soon as possible.

Here is a very disturbing statement about the line between the states: "Commissioner Reta Griffith expressed her concern that the border dispute had already been remedied by the developer themselves."

She believes a private business developer chasing its own self interests can simply change an official state line set by the United States Geographical Survey to suit themselves and somehow that is "ok"..........

To me it smacks of eminent domain by private business.

Pocahontas, West Va. considers legal action

By Anne Adams • Staff Writer

MARLINTON, W.Va. — Where is the state line? Pocahontas officials would like to know.
The Pocahontas County Commission met Thursday and in an occasionally heated discussion, agreed Highland New Wind Development’s planned wind energy utility in Highland County, Va., might be infringing on West Virginia property.
The commissioners decided to talk about it again Tuesday, when they will vote on whether to take legal action to settle the matter.
Pocahontas Times writer Suzanne Stewart reported that at Thursday’s meeting, commission president Martin Saffer vehemently argued HNWD had re-drawn the state line to suit its needs. “Saffer explained that Pocahontas County needs to take immediate action to finally decide where the state line lies,” the Times reported yesterday, noting Saffer said, “The exact delineation of the border between Virginia and West Virginia at this juncture is in dispute … The Highland wind turbine project has asserted a property line based on the survey by their person which is opposed to and different than the survey of the United States Geological Survey. It is different to the extent that the line proposed increases the size of the state of Virginia and diminishes the size of the state of West Virginia and there by situates two of its turbines, in their estimation, in the state of Virginia. However, if the USGS line is accepted as the true line, and it is I assume, the federal line between the two states, those turbines are within the state of West Virginia.”
Saffer recommended the commission file a declaratory judgment in circuit court.
“We need a declaratory judgment to declare and establish officially and unequivocally the line between Virginia and West Virginia,” he told The Recorder Friday. “To me, it’s an issue in which Pocahontas not only has standing, but has due diligence.”
Saffer contacted Robert Bastress, a constitutional law professor at West Virginia University, who has agreed to represent the county pro bono.
Commissioner Reta Griffith “expressed her concern that the border dispute had already been remedied by the developer,” the Times noted. “I spoke with Mr. (John) Flora Wednesday morning and he said there was an internal dispute between two of their own engineers and that has been resolved,” she explained. “The base of every single turbine that is proposed lies entirely in the state of Virginia. There is one that is very close to West Virginia, but the base of the turbine is entirely in the state of Virginia.”
The first draft of HNWD’s site plan showed one tower entirely in West Virginia. Highland County officials questioned its location, so HNWD had Jeff Hiner, a surveyor licensed in both states, take another look. Hiner determined the state boundary was incorrect on USGS maps, and used his technology and research to show where the line should be. A new site plan was submitted to Highland officials, along with Hiner’s explanation, and they were satisfied the tower would be entirely in Virginia, although its blades would still spin across the “new” border. Highland approved HNWD’s site plan Aug. 3.
Right before the commission meeting Thursday, Highland County Attorney Melissa Dowd sent an email to Saffer explaining the turbines were in Virginia, not West Virginia.
HNWD also sent a drawing of one tower to Pocahontas officials, but they did not receive it in time for their meeting. The drawing indicates the “old” state line goes directly through the foundation of the tower in question, but the “new” state line, as determined by Hiner, is about 11 feet to the west of its foundation.
According to the Times, Dowd told Saffer, “The answer is, all turbines will be in Virginia, as I have said to you repeatedly … A field survey trumps aerial information from USGS, which is what you are relying on.”
But that isn’t enough to re-draw the state boundary, Saffer told The Recorder, because West Virginia law requires changes to state lines be authorized by the West Virginia legislature.
“It’s a very complicated and exacting process,” he said. “The statute in West Virginia says we must have a boundary commission, convened by our governor, in concert with legislation to make an official determination in cooperating with an adjoining state. Right now, there is a question … All we want is to answer the question and we need to go through that process.”
Asked whether the matter could be settled more informally between Pocahontas and Highland counties, Saffer said, “I don’t think so. Once a boundary is in dispute, it has to go through the lawful commission to establish it with certainty.
“I don’t know what Virginia can do,” he added. “I can’t understand why this property line hasn’t given (Virginia officials) more pause. This is a very important matter.”
According to the Times, commissioner David Fleming told his colleagues, “I have mixed feelings about this wind turbine project … We haven’t been given a sincere chance to learn about or be a part of this dialogue and when I think more about this issue, private property rights need to be protected, but the Allegheny ridgeline, it’s unique, one of a kind. It’s a long, graceful spine supporting diverse and deciduous forests and this line, essentially, divides West Virginia and Virginia, so we have property owners on both sides of the line who stand to be affected by anything going on here. So my feeling is, any project that would impact this, what I call a geological and ecological gift, needs to be considered by all bordering counties and the states of West Virginia and Virginia.”

Supervisor reaches out to Pocahontas
Dowd instructed Highland County officials not to speak to anyone in Pocahontas, but supervisor David Blanchard called Saffer Friday and said he would come to the commission’s Tuesday meeting to listen to the concerns about the boundary.
Blanchard told his board before the final site plan was approved that he believed Highland officials owed Pocahontas the courtesy of understanding what had been redrawn. He and supervisor Robin Sullenberger were willing to meeting with the Pocahontas commission when Saffer asked, and three possible dates were proposed for the boards to get together, but Dowd believes now that Pocahontas is considering legal action, such a meeting is not a good idea.
In an email to Saffer, Dowd said because he had threatened litigation against Highland County, “I have directed the board of supervisors and the county administrator not to talk with you or anyone else from Pocahontas County.”
Further, she told him Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act does not cover requests for information from non-residents. “Once you have changed your tune about suing us and truly want an informational meeting without accusations and threats of litigation, let me know and we’ll pull something together. Your approach to this non-issue has done nothing to further cordial relations between adjoining counties.”
Blanchard disagreed with cutting off commumications, and told his fellow board members and county administrator Roberta Lambert he intended to go to the commission’s meeting Tuesday and invited them to join him.
Friday, The Recorder asked Blanchard and Sullenberger to grant Dowd permission to explain the legalities of the boundary question, but Sullenberger said she was swamped and could not answer questions from The Recorder until Monday.
HNWD had hoped to start construction this week, but Friday afternoon, Dowd told Saffer no erosion and sediment control permit had been issued. “The developer is here today trying to get such a permit, but I am not satisfied with the amount of the bond they are proposing, so no permit will be issued today, as far as I know,” she wrote.
Sullenberger also said Friday that absolutely no blasting was taking place at the project site, as reported in Thursday’s Recorder. He said assertions by neighbors about that were mistaken, and that county building official Jim Whitelaw had gone to the site to verify there was no blasting.

Landowners file notice
Because HNWD is close to construction, downstream landowners Lucile Miller and McChesney Goodall have given notice to the county, as E&S plan authority, and to HNWD, that they believe the E&S plan does not meet state regulations.
The county and HNWD now have 15 days to correct the E&S plan; if it is not changed to the landowners’ satisfaction, they can take legal action.
Their letter, sent Aug. 12, said that pursuant to state code, “this is a formal notification to you that the E&S plan approved by Mr. Jim Whitelaw of Highland County does not meet Virginia’s minimal requirements for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and to make you aware that the program authority or Highland New Wind Development, LLC has 15 days to take corrective action before we apply for injunctive relief.
“Highland New Wind Development LLC is poised to begin construction,” they wrote “and because the Erosion and Sediment plan, as approved, does not meet minimal state standards and because of the extent of the planned ground disturbance, our properties, which include frontage on and riparian rights to Laurel Fork are in imminent danger of being damaged by inadequately controlled stormwater runoff and sediment. Rifle Ridge Farm, the Goodall property, adjoins the McBride property; and Laurel Fork LLC, the Miller Property, is downstream from the Goodall property.”
In order to avoid legal action, they said, certain corrections must be made to the plan. “These concerns are shared by Mark Chambers, Virginia Stormwater Compliance Specialist for the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, who by memorandum dated July 16, 2009, noted his concerns to Jim Echols, Staunton Regional Office Manager,” they said.
Miller and Goodall listed the following issues in the plan:
• The E&S plan must provide a level of detail to meet requirements of state E&S regulations, they said. “Specifically, the plan scale of 1 inch = 500 feet and the 40-foot contour interval does not describe the existing site conditions in enough detail to determine the scope of work that will be required to complete the project. The lack of information and detail makes it impossible to provide comprehensive or detailed comments about the plan. It is impossible to determine the amount and nature of the land disturbance it will take to complete the project or the types, sizes and location of erosion and sediment control measures that will be required for this project.”
The landowners list examples and the regulations that apply to them, including the grading involved; road ditches and culverts, receiving channels, outlet protections, the level of erosion and sediment control measures, the steepness of cut and fill slopes, and a grade design. All of those things, they said, cannot be determined without more detail on the plans.
• Further, they said, there were other issues unclear on the plan. Those included how vehicles will cross the streams, if they will; the limits of land disturbance; a detail for brush barrier; and information on three sediment traps proposed.
• They said Chambers agreed there is “no description of the equally (if not predominantly) Macove series soils onsite which encompass the drainage areas and these soils must be used in the stormwater calculations.”

Martin, my problem with you is that you see all negative with the wind farm.
My problem is that I see all positive with the wind farms. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.
My fear is that you will use your position and skills to stop this progress as I see it.

You and I are somewhat polarized in our feelings but, I believe the majority of Pocahontas citizens do not oppose the wind farms. I do believe that your circle of friends do oppose the wind farms. As far as hurting tourism, I doubt very serious if any tourist will avoid Pocahontas Co. because of wind farms and some may come to see them.

I am not sure that WV is the best judge of what is good for Va. Va is ranked first in being favorable for business and Wv is ranked 50th.
Your words:

1. "I believe that the majority of the county looks to tourism, farming, timber and education as a means to a sustained economic vitality into the future."

Have you checked to see what each of these produces in income. Tourism has the greatest potential, farming and timbering are tough to make a living. But if we want to promote tourism we both have to change our opposition to gambling. No one opposes education but too often we educate our youth only to leave. Some how we need to realize everyone is not going to be a doctor or lawyer or an intellectual. So the majority are going to be cooks, welders, laborers, secretaries, etc.
These people need good construction and maintenance jobs.

1. "I hope that soon electricity can be generated by not having to spin a magnate. Like our dependence on fosil fuels, it is not suitable to the demands of the future in a crowded and harshly competitive world."

I don't know, I would guess that 99.9% of the electric is produced by spinning a magnet. Nuclear, hydro, and wind turbines all use magnets. In our harshly competive world we need inexpensive clean energy and I do agree we need to get away from fosil fuels, but we can't get away from fosil fuel if every time someone wants to build a wind farm, people oppose them and we can't get away fosil fuels tomorrow. In the harshly competive world, China is bringing one coal fired power plant on line every week without any concerns for the environment. This isn't right but they are kicking our butt economically. We are losing the race as a nation, we can have the most back to nature county in the world but if we losing place as a nation it is of little consequence.

Will my post even give you pause for thought, probably not!
There are always sacrifices for progress it is just everyone says not in my back yard.
And please no condescending reply on definitions, it serves no purpose. I guess I don't like being taked down to.

Greetings, I am Kevin Carpenter, webmaster for Highland New Wind Development. Mr. Jeffrey Hiner, Licensed Land Surveyor, has published a letter explaining how he found the VA-WV state line. I encourage all to read it, because it sheds a great deal of light on the original definition of the line and the technical methods by which a pro surveyor found it. His letter is available as a HNWD press release:
http://www.highlandnewwind.com/pr/pdf/09Aug15_Jeff_Hiner_About_the_county_lines.pdf

Other HNWD press releases are available at:
http://www.highlandnewwind.com/?wP=pr
Copy-paste the links into your browser, of course.

Below is the body of Mr. Hiner's letter:

"This letter is written in response to the article “Pocahontas assets its rights on Va. border” in the August 13, 2009 issue of The Recorder.

The article states: “HNWD had a local surveyor relocate the state line differently from U.S. Geological Survey maps.” That is an incorrect statement. I did survey the County and State Line - I did not relocate, move, shift or change the County and State Line.

The survey was made as a result of the request by the Technical Review Committee for detailed information as to the location of Turbine Site 1T and its proximity to the State and County Line. It was my understanding that they wanted to know the physical location of the actual State and County Line, not the approximate line shown on the USGS topographic map.

The line that became the western boundary of Highland County, Virginia was in existence before the formation of Highland County. Highland County was formed in 1847 from Bath and Pendleton Counties. The survey of Highland County is recorded in Surveyors Record Book 1 page 1 in the Courthouse at Monterey. A copy of the survey is also found in Morton’s History of Highland County Virginia on pages 399, 400 and 401. The northwestern corner of Highland County is described as “eight hemlocks and three small beeches and a small maple on the top of Alleghany Mountain in the Pocahontas County Line.” The line then runs southward “along the main top of said mountain with said county line to the plum orchard,” where the surveyors “marked one plum tree on the top of said mountain.” That plum tree was the southwest corner of Highland County. The western boundary of Highland County is the Pocahontas County line, located along the top of the Allegheny Mountain.

Pocahontas County was formed in 1821. An excerpt of the 1821 Acts of the General Assembly obtained from the book History of Pocahontas County West Virginia states the Pocahontas County Line ran “a straight line to the top of the Allegheny Mountain opposite the head of the east fork of Greenbrier River; thence with the top of said mountain to the Pendleton line, and thence with the top of said mountain to the beginning.”

The top of the Allegheny Mountain is the line between Pocahontas and Highland counties and that is the line I surveyed. I did not relocate, move, shift, or in any way change the location of that line. It is fixed in position by the top of the mountain. That is where the line of Pocahontas County has been since 1821 and that is where the line of Highland County has been since 1847. To my knowledge, that is where the line is today.

I am very doubtful if the West Virginia “Boundary Commission” ever moved the county line from the top of the mountain. If Mr. Neidig, of the USGS, or anyone reading this letter has information that the county line was moved from the top of the mountain, I would greatly appreciate seeing it.

According to The Recorder, Mr. Neidig is under the impression that I moved the County Line, which is an incorrect assumption. I did not move the line, relocate the line or in any way change the line from the top of the mountain.

As far as I know, there is no dispute that the county line is the top of the mountain. To determine the exact top of the mountain, I ran cross-sections to find the high points. Those points were marked with wooden stakes and were then located with GPS surveying equipment. Virginia State Plane Coordinates were determined for each point. I used this data to prepare my plat presented to the Technical Review Committee.

As far as I am concerned, the Pocahontas County Surveyor can check any of my survey work. After he does the research and runs the cross sections, I am sure he will find the County and State line is the top of the mountain, as called for in the 1821 Acts of the General Assembly and in the survey of Highland County, regardless of any line shown on a USGS Topographic Map."

I am a partner in Highland New Wind Development, LLC (HNWD), the company building the wind farm in Highland County.

From SNL(Financial).com, August 17, 2009 5:09 PM:

HIGHLAND NEW WIND BREAKS GROUND AS LAND SURVEYOR RESPONDS TO WEST VIRGINIA OPPONENTS

Construction has begun on Virginia's first wind farm.
In response to new objections to the wind project by a neighboring West Virginia county, Highland New Wind Development's land surveyor defended his work, writing, "I did not relocate, move, shift or change the County and State Line."

Full Article: http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?CDID=A-9935149-10590&KPLT=2

Regarding recent posts and statements about West Virginia §7-2-6 (full text is found below), the WV-VA state line, and HNWD's project:

This Statute of the State of West Virginia only applies to internal lines BETWEEN West Virginia counties. It does not apply to the lines between a West Virginia county and a county of another state. It does not apply to the State Line. In addition, the statute clearly states that the maps are to be "in conformance with prior acts of the general assembly of Virginia." One of those prior acts is the 1821 act creating and establishing the boundaries of Pocahontas County.

The accuracy of the USGS Topographic Maps are set forth in the National Map Accuracy Standards. See the link below.

http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs17199.html

90 percent of the points tested on a USGS Topographic Map can be 40 feet in error and still be within the accuracy requirements set by the National Map Accuracy Standards. The other 10 percent can be more than 40 feet in error. An error of ± 40 feet was not close enough for the detailed information requested by the Highland County Technical Review Committee for the location of the first wind turbine on Tamarack Ridge.

§7-2-6. Establishment of county boundary lines; filing of maps; changes.

The boundary lines between the several counties of the state shall be established in the following manner: Topographic quadrangle maps prepared by the United States geological survey and the West Virginia geological and economic survey in conformance with prior acts of the general assembly of Virginia, acts of the Legislature of West Virginia and other applicable provisions of law, shall be filed by the state geologist with the secretary of state of West Virginia and shall thereafter constitute the official boundary lines between the said counties: Provided, however, That said boundary lines shall be located, plotted and delineated upon said maps together with any other pertinent information with reference thereto and each of said maps shall be certified as correct by the director and state geologist of the West Virginia geological and economic survey prior to such filing. Certified copies of all such maps shall be filed with the legislative auditor for use in the legislative library and a certified copy of each county map shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the county court of that county and recorded in an appropriate deed book or plat book.

All county boundary lines which are or may be established by metes and bounds (by bearings and distances between monuments) by the Legislature or pursuant to section one of this article shall constitute an official change in such boundary line or lines and the director and state geologist of the West Virginia geological and economic survey shall promptly locate, plat and delineate such change upon the applicable map or maps and certify and file such change as aforesaid.

Impacts to West Virginia apparently include the National Forest:
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF THE “EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS” (REVISED VERSIONS SUBMITTED JULY 10, 23, and 31, 2009, BY BLACKWELL ENGINEERS, PLC)

By Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D. Registered Professional Geologist
P.O. Box 217, Montrose, WV 26283

August 19, 2009

CONCLUSION

The “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Management Calculations” submitted by Blackwell Engineers, PLC cannot provide an adequate assessment of necessary stormwater management measures unless 1) the stormwater calculations are based on properly delineated sub-drainage basin areas and 2) the stormwater calculations consider runoff coefficients of the Macove series soils as well as the Paddyknob soils in the sub-drainage basin areas. The consequences of stormwater drainage onto national forest land and onto land within the adjacent state of West Virginia should be considered prior to any construction. Compliance with federal law should be attained concerning stormwater runoff onto national forest land. Compliance with West Virginia laws, specifically pertaining to the NPDES permitting required by West Virginia, should be attained prior to stormwater runoff onto land within West Virginia.

Marty, I want to thank you and David for taking this matter into the legal arena where it belongs. I am sorry that Reta doesn't seem to care to defend the integrity of our county boundaries. But, I assure you, what you are doing is absolutely the right thing! Keep up the good work!

If you go to this site and open folder dated August 6 at top of list, you will see a link for down load of the latest map 1616 by the developer showing the State Line issue in detail in color.

http://www.box.net/shared/dnhj035e45

It's not our State Motto but it sure fits here: " Don't Tread on Me!"

Wind developer fails to comply, agency says
State to hear testimony in September
By Anne Adams • Staff Writer

Camp Allegheny is a favorite Civil War site for historians nationwide, one of whom says the site's historic landscape is precisely what makes it so important — and so rare. Many other battlefields, even if undeveloped, have urban business or residential development right up to their borders making it much harder to get a sense of what happened around them. This encampment, however, has enjoyed almost 150 years without disturbance, either within its boundaries or within miles the roughly 4,500-foot summit of the mountain, where almost nothing has changed from the way it was seen by Union and Confederate soldiers. The 400-foot wind turbines planned nearby, however, would alter that landscape and, many argue, make the battlefield less desirable for preservation. (Recorder photo by Anne Adams)
RICHMOND — You may never have seen it.

It's tucked deep in national forest, and unless you're in a vehicle with good clearance, getting there is a challenge.

But for those who have walked its quiet meadows, and imagined the early-morning battle that took place there nearly 150 years ago, it's worth protecting. Historians say Camp Allegheny is in danger of losing the very qualities that make it one of the last Civil War battlefields existing pretty much as it did then, when roughly 300 soldiers from Virginia and West Virginia lost their lives.

When Highland New Wind Development LLC erects its proposed 19 turbine towers, each 400 feet tall — higher than the Statue of Liberty — the landscape atop Allegheny Mountain will be altered indefinitely, and that has stirred deep concern about the historic site that lies less than a mile from the project, in West Virginia.

One Virginia agency, in conjunction with preservation groups and its sister agency in West Virginia, has for more than two years demanded an objective view shed analysis to help make recommendations on where those towers could be located to minimize their effects on the battleground.

One private landowner and the Monongahela National Forest in Pocahontas share ownership of the encampment area. It's been listed on the National Historic Register since 1990, and recently hosted Civil War re-enactors who, in a private event, came to "relive" the scenes that unfolded there in 1861.

When HNWD applied for a permit to build its facility, Virginia's State Corporation Commission included a condition for approval that said HNWD must "coordinate with the Department of Historic Resources for guidance on the need for archaeological and architectural surveys to evaluate the project's impacts.

DHR tried repeatedly to get HNWD to conduct those surveys and a standard view shed analysis. After a series of exchanges between the developer and the agency, HNWD finally told DHR it wasn't going to consult its officials further until after construction started.

DHR replied to that last letter with one of its own — this time to the SCC, asking for guidance on getting the studies it asked for.

Kathleen Kilpatrick, DHR director, wrote to SCC chief counsel William Chambliss, saying her agency needed help getting HNWD to comply with its state permit conditions.

"It is our reading of the Dec. 20, 2007 final order that HNWD has been directed to enter into constructive consultation with DHR concerning the necessary studies to identify historic resources and the evaluation of the project's effects," she wrote. "While HNWD has consulted with DHR, it has not undertaken identification studies to the standards recommended as appropriate, and we do not believe that HNWD's efforts have been sufficient to comply with the order. Furthermore, we believe that the order assumes that if adverse effects are identified, reasonable efforts will be undertaken to address them. To our knowledge, HNWD has made no efforts to minimize effects, and has instead terminated consultation with this agency. Accordingly, we believe that the HNWD has failed to comply with either the letter or the spirit of the order."

DHR contacted other groups involved in Civil War site protection, she said, including the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program, Monongahela National Forest, and the West Virginia Division of Culture and History, and sought their comments.

"We are in agreement that this project will likely have a negative impact on the pristine historic setting of Camp Allegheny … HNWD has not demonstrated a willingness to consider and minimize the impacts of the project on this significant battlefield," Kilpatrick said. "Since HNWD has terminated consultation with this office without resolving these outstanding issues and proceeded to construction, we seek the guidance and opinion of the SCC on whether HNWD has met the intent of the final order. Under the circumstances, expedited review and response are requested."

Indeed, a fast response is exactly what the SCC provided this week. About 3 p.m. Wednesday, it issued an order setting a date to hear testimony on the allegations.

The order states, "The commission regards this communication (from DHR) as an allegation from a reviewing agency that HNWD has failed to comply with a condition of our final order and will treat it as such. Accordingly, we deem the letter to constitute a formal complaint and will docket this proceeding and convene a hearing wherein DHR and HNWD may provide evidence and testimony pertinent to the question whether HNWD is in compliance with the requirements (of the condition)."

A hearing examiner has been appointed to conduct the proceedings. HNWD must file any responsive pleading with 15 copies to the SCC by Sept. 14; and a public hearing will be held Sept. 23 at 10 a.m. in Richmond.

What's special about the Camp?

In December 1861, just a few months before the May 1862 Battle of McDowell, which kicked off Stonewall Jackson's famous Valley Campaign, Confederate forces under Col. Edward Johnson occupied the Allegheny summit to defend the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike, now U.S. 250. Union soldiers, under Brig. Gen. Robert Milroy, attacked Johnson Dec. 13. An estimated 300 were killed.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, "The locale today looks much as it did in 1861, consisting primarily of open sheep pasture. The forest service administers and protects that portion of the camp north of the Staunton-Parkersburg pike. This area includes three rows of stone piles and surface depressions representing the remains of at least 35 cabins … South of the turnpike, on private property, lay extensive earth and stone breastworks on the summit of Buffalo Ridge enclosing well-defined battery emplacements, stone piles representing more cabin locations and a prominent oval earthen enclosure on the ridge crest often referred to as a command post."

Well-known archaeologist and historic preservation consultant Hunter Lesser of Elkins has written a book on the camp. A former historian for the Monongahela National Forest, Lesser has been to the battlefield many times.

"It's a spectacular place," he said Wednesday. "What sets it apart, in my opinion, and the opinion of many other historians, is its historic landscape. It's extremely well-preserved."

It's not just the extensive earthworks and well-preserved cabins that line both sides of the 1840s Turnpike that sits at original grade. It's that the place really hasn't changed.

"It's the whole thing," Lesser said. "If you walk around, climb the ridges on either side, the only thing you see is that little stone cabin that sort of fits in … it's exceptional for that reason — the views — and the fact that the site is open, just as it was when it was historically a working farm. That site has hardly changed at all in 150 years."

Chief historian emeritus for the National Park Service Edwin C. Bearss has called Camp Allegheny one of the best preserved Civil War sites in the country. "He said that in my presence," Lesser said, "and he has said it more than once."

Myriad historians have compared it to the Little Big Horn battleground because of its unchanged landscape, Lesser said. "If you're up there, you just feel like a soldier is going to come over the ridge any moment," he added. The wind utility, he said, "will mar that landscape."

Lesser said Camp Allegheny has quite a following among historians and Civil War groups nationwide. "History buffs from all over are concerned about this," he said.

He also pointed to what he calls a "preservation ethic" among most of the private landowners in the area. "They'd like to keep it protected," he said.

The agency that oversees its protection is the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, which related concerns about the utility to the SCC before the state permit was issued. The office sent three letters to agencies in 2006, including the SCC, expressing its concern about protecting the battlefield.

Wednesday this week, the National Park Service added its voice with a letter to the SCC, saying it agreed with DHR's position.

Paul Hawke, chief of the American Battlefield Protection Program for the park service, told the SCC, "We share DHR's concerns about the effects this project will have on historic resources and the applicant's apparent unwillingness to work with DHR and other interest groups."

The NPS expressed the same concerns in 2006, Hawke said, in a letter in which "we predicted that the project would have a dramatic impact on the visual setting of the Camp Allegheny battlefield.

"We understand that the applicant knows of the existence of this nationally recognized battlefield and is aware of vocal local advocacy for maintaining its pristine setting," he told the SCC. "While the battlefield lies in Pocahontas County, W.Va., it is no less significant and will be no less impacted than if it were located in Virginia. We urge the SCC, as the commonwealth's agent in this matter, to ensure that historic resources are given full consideration in planning for this project. We recommend a professional visual impact assessment be completed prior to final site planning, one that meets DHR standards, and one that ensures the opportunity to avoid or mitigate negative effects to the Camp Allegheny battlefield."

Beyond its historic significance, many believe it's a special spot in its own right because of its scenic beauty and isolation, as so few places are these days.

Kate Goodrich-Arling loves to go there just to clear her head. She's a public affairs officer for the Monongahela National Forest, and says Highland County is her favorite Virginia locality, and the same is true for Pocahontas County in West Virginia. But the national forest, she said, is wary of issuing opinions on projects outside its borders.

In a letter to Pocahontas officials, she said the MNF was first aware of the project in 2003, but because the proposal was entirely in Virginia, and not apparently right up against the national forest boundary, the USFS made no comments on the project.

She said forest officials hope to review site plans at this point and see whether the utility will be close enough to potentially affect forest users.

As to how the project might impact the Monongahela, "It's hard to say right now," she said. She explained the USFS has to be careful about sticking to its role, especially because the site is peripheral in nature. "It's an awkward position for us," she said. "We have a lot of people who would like to use our opinions to bolster their own, and I can personally appreciate that. Highland County is my favorite county in Virginia. It's just plain beautiful, and tranquil. But we have no legal rights or authorities on this, and that's not easy. I understand everyone's passion for the area, and I love Camp Allegheny. I like to go there just to collect my thoughts. But the national forest has to be careful in expressing opinions."

Recently, two landowners near the encampment told The Recorder they are worried for the battlefield's future. Richard Laska and his wife, Marcia, own about 200 acres, with an interest in another 500, adjacent to the Civil War site. "The battle in December of 1861 was unique during the Civil War. It was the highest fortification attacked in that conflict," Richard Laska explained. "It is in pristine condition. Dozens of trenches are still clearly visible, as are eightfoot high gun emplacements and passageways. The only human impact you can see today are the graveyards of the men who died in that conflict."

He said the condition is unique among similar sites. "In every direction the view is the same seen by Civil War soldiers: High ridges and mountains, some open fields, some covered with trees. The unobstructed view includes the highest mountains in the Mountain State. Not one human construction intrudes on the horizon. Not one.

"Soon, because of our neighbors in Highland County, several 400-foot high wind generators will loom over the battle ground. They will destroy what 150 years of care for the land, and respect for our history, has preserved," he said. "The public interest is in preserving an important part of our history… Once the turbine towers are up, it will be too late to preserve the battlefield," Laska added. "Nobody is going to be interested in protecting a once remote site which is compromised by industrial development … Until Highland County decided to destroy the view from the battlefield, there was little urgency to preserve it."

Another nearby landowner, Dawn Barrett, agreed. "What shocks me is that the elected officials in Highland County have completely lost sight of this bigger picture and bigger duty," she said recently. "Their decision to approve HNWD's site plan doesn't just impact a few unhappy landowners in Virginia — it impacts the entire nation. By approving a project that will permanently mar a National Historic Place and deface a National Scenic Byway, they have stolen something from the nation that belongs to every citizen."

What happens next?

The SCC will issue a decision on whether HNWD has met this condition after the hearing has taken place Sept. 23.

DHR's letter was copied to the Virginia Attorney General's office, HNWD, the battlefields foundation, the Department of Environmental Quality, the National Park Service, the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, Highland County and the U.S. Forest Service, any of which might be enlisted to provide testimony in the case.

Should the SCC agree with DHR, and find the developer non-compliant with its order, it's unknown how that might affect HNWD's special use permit issued locally by Highland County.

Supervisor David Blanchard said, "Until the SCC determines what the intent of its language is, we can't judge how that affects the conditional use permit. It's a mess. They (SCC) left it open in a sense, open to broad interpretation. I'm interested in protecting the county, and I'm trying to interpret things in a more critical, protective way than everybody else."

Blanchard has maintained the county should have verified whether HNWD was meeting its state conditions before giving the company the go-ahead for construction. "I've always stated we should know whether the other conditions other agencies have recommended are being followed," he said. "I would think that would have to be looked at. They need to comply in order to operate under our conditions."

Blanchard said he had already begun drafting a letter to the SCC to find out where HNWD stands in meeting its state conditions, and hopes to find out how the SCC's next moves might affect the county-issued permit.

Those things will be killing WV bats. Isn't that enough to call a halt to this menace?

U.S. Congressman Nick Rahall wrote this letter to the VA State Corporation Commission (SCC) today (August 27, 2009) expressing his concern over the Highland New Wind Development project. Congressman Rahall is the Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources.

(Congressman Rahall's letter to SCC in PDF format)

from the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, By Charles Owens
(Bluefield Daily Telegraph)
11 September 2009:

Wise County gives green light for green energy

TAZEWELL, Va. — The first of two large-scale wind turbine farms proposed in Southwest Virginia by Dominion and BP Wind Energy North America has received a green light for construction.

The Wise County Board of Supervisors, without discussion, approved a zoning change to allow Dominion Virginia Power and BP Energy to develop a wind-energy project involving 50 to 60 turbines that would produce 150 megawatts of power, the Associated Press reported Friday.
Dominion and BP announced plans last year to develop dual wind turbine farms in Wise and Tazewell counties. The wind turbines in Wise County will be constructed in an area where a 585-megawatt coal-fired plant is also under construction. The two companies also have purchased land on East River Mountain near Bluefield, Va., where they are hoping to build as many as 60, 400-foot tall windmills.

David Anderson, chairman of the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors, said the decision by the Wise County Board of Supervisors will have no impact or influence on Tazewell County’s looming decision....

“That’s fine,” Anderson said Friday. “I’m not going to tell Wise County what to do. That is their locality, and they govern themselves. I’ve not heard from any Wise County Board of Supervisor member.”....

Anderson said the location of the Wise County wind turbine farm is very different from the location of the East River Mountain project.....

Anderson said an ongoing wind energy study is supposed to be finished in time for the board’s October meeting....

A meteorological tower to study wind speed and direction has already been erected on East River Mountain. A number of geo-technical studies, along with wildlife and avian studies, also are continuing at the Tazewell County site, Ryan Frazier, a senior communications specialist with Dominion Energy, said in an earlier report to the Daily Telegraph.

Do you imply by stating " little over one and a half miles of forest are between your standing position and the closet turbine." that somehow a tree which is perhaps 60 to 70 feet tall will hide a turbine 400 feet tall?

Glad to know that the road toward Camp Allegheny from Route 250 has been graded.

How many years has it been since it was last graded?

This thread has gotten so long that it no longer displays properly. Please post your replies at Wind Mills Camp Allegheny 2.