Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
* * * * * * * * *
*
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC * 09-0360-E-CS
*
* * * * * * * * *
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
* * * * * * * * *
BEFORE: MICHAEL ALBERT, Chairman
JON MCKINNEY, Commissioner
EDWARD STAATS, Commissioner
HEARING: Tuesday, October 27, 2009
9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: PSC Howard M. Cunningham
Hearing Room
201 Brooks Street
Charleston WV
9 by Commissioner Albert 17 - 20
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 by Attorney Chambers 20 - 23
13 CROSS EXAMINATION
14 by Attorney Stephens 23 - 29
15 EXAMINATION
16 by Commissioner Albert 29 - 32
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 by Attorney Chambers 32
9 by Attorney Alsop 54 - 56
10 CROSS EXAMINATION
11 by Attorney Auville 56 - 58
12 CROSS EXAMINATION
13 by Attorney Stephens 59 - 73
14 EXAMINATION
15 by Commissioner Albert 73 - 77
16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17 by Attorney Alsop 77 - 84
18 RECROSS EXAMINATION
19 by Attorney Trivelli 84 - 86
20 RECROSS EXAMINATION
21 by Attorney Auville 86 - 87
23 DIRECT EXAMINATION
24 by Attorney Callas 88 - 90
25
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION
18 by Attorney Chambers 106 - 108
19 CROSS EXAMINATION
20 by Attorney Stephens 109 - 129
21 CROSS EXAMINATION
22 by Attorney Auville 129
23 EXAMINATION
24 by Commissioner Albert 129 - 134
25
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 by Attorney Auville 143 - 145
11 CROSS EXAMINATION
12 by Attorney Stephens 145 - 151
13 EXAMINATION
14 by Commissioner Albert 151 - 153
15 CROSS EXAMINATION
16 by Attorney Callas 153 - 160
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 by Attorney Auville 160
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 by Attorney Auville 161 - 163
22 CROSS EXAMINATION
23 by Attorney Stephens 163 - 178
24 EXAMINATION
25 by Commissioner Albert 178 - 181
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 Alliance
12 9 Application Milestones 92
13 10 DEP Document 92
14 11 Maryland Inventory of Historic Places 113
15
16 Company
17 2 Memorandum of Agreement Pursuant to
18 82 CSR2 120
19
20 Staff
21 1 Direct Testimony of Dixie L. Kellmeyer 144
22 2 Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker 162
23 TJD-D Direct Testimony of Terrence DeWan 34
24 JDB-D Direct Testimony of James Barnes 55
25 WEL-D Direct Testimony of William Llewellyn 89
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20 ------------------------------------------------------
21 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
9 Jin?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that document consists of, let's see, seven
12 pages of testimony, then Exhibit A which is a short
13 resume of yours and then Exhibit B which is a document
14 entitled the estimated economic impact of Pinnacle Wind
15 Power project in West Virginia?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is that your --- intended to be your testimony,
18 your exhibits in this case?
19 A. Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 A. No, it is not.
10 Q. And why is that?
11 A. You know --- I mean ---. Okay. Property value,
12 when the companies move into a big construction project
13 like this and --- they will pay for the property they're
14 looking to put the windmill on, where wind farms are.
15 So, you know --- I mean, I don’t know. It will probably
16 pump up the property value or depress property value. It
17 can go either way, so I didn't take this into
18 consideration and say it would depress or increase
19 property value into consideration.
20 to ---.
21 Q. Okay. But the bottom line is you did not
22 perform any research in any of those areas, social,
23 environmental, human health ---
24 A. No.
25 Q. --- impacts to perform your study; correct?
9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
10 Commissioners?
11 COMMISSIONER STAATS:
12 No questions.
13 COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
14 No questions.
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 During your study, I was curious, in
17 reading it, whether or not as you do these --- you've
18 done a series of them now in --- on behalf of the Trades
11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
16 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20 All right. Without objection, it'll be
21 admitted.
22 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
23 This witness is available for Cross
24 Examination.
25 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 Mr. Stephens?
10 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20 A. No.
21 Q. I'll split this off separately. I rolled them
22 into one when I was examining Mr. Jin, but I'll ask, did
23 you take any --- into account any adverse impacts to
24 tourism in the vicinity of the project?
25 A. Again, that's one where there's not been
12 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19 No questions.
20 COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
21 No.
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 Mr. Childs, I'd like to sort of explore
24 with you the same questions I asked Mr. Jin and that is,
25 have you been involved in prior wind turbine economic
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
11 Q. Good morning.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. Please state your name and business address for
14 the record.
15 A. My name is Terrance DeWan. I'm the principal of
16 Terrance J. DeWan & Associates, 121 West Main Street,
17 Yarmouth, Maine.
18 Q. Mr. DeWan, would turn to your testimony in the
22 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
10 Staff?
11 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
12 No questions.
13 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
14 Thank you, Your Honor.
15 CROSS EXAMINATION
16 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. DeWan.
18 A. Good morning.
17 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13 All right.
14 A. That's correct.
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 You also indicate at the bottom of page
17 three that DeWan & Associates independently verified, is
18 the term you used, the accuracy of the photo simulations
9 prepared.
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 Like on trucks and tanks and things. You think you just
20 throw the paint on there. There's actually a pattern to
21 it. A little something I can share with you.
22 A. That's a whole different discussion.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 Isn't it, though? The testimony at
25 pages 19 and 20 of your --- of the questions and answers
14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 Questions?
20 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21 Yes, Your Honor.
22 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
23 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24 Q. Mr. DeWan, in response to one of the Chairman's
25 questions, I think you indicated that a significant
20 case. Sometimes you get down the road, you know, half
21 the turbines might disappear. You make sure that when
22 you're out there doing your field evaluation, that you
23 are in a place where it will show the maximum amount.
24 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20 which was the photo simulation and which was the actual
21 photograph.
22 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
23 Thank you.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 Thank you, Mr. DeWan.
9 BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
11 BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 CROSS EXAMINATION
20 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Barnes.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. Do you ever --- I just asked a similar question
24 of Mr. DeWan. Do you ever go back after you've done a
25 study with predicted noise levels and compared the actual
17 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20 Commissioner?
21 ATTORNEY STAATS:
22 No questions.
23 ATTORNEY MCKINNEY:
24 No questions.
25 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 Thank you.
10 CROSS EXAMINATION
11 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
10 Q. And I'll just ask that you confirm that that's the
11 provision that we need to be discussing.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So we were talking about the same provision and
14 siting rules; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Have you ever taken inside --- I should say indoor
17 measurements of C-weighted sound levels? I don’t mean to
18 be vague or --- have you done that kind of monitoring
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know when the specific type of turbine that
11 would be utilized in the Pinnacle project, when that
12 specific model was developed, when it was --- I don’t
13 want to say invented, but when that specific model was
14 cleared for production?
15 A. I don’t know for the specific model, but likely it
16 would have been in the past five years.
17 Q. And that would probably be true for any industrial
18 wind turbine that a developer would be seeking to utilize
19 on a project these days; correct, in the last five years
20 probably?
21 A. I'd say in the last ten years.
22 Q. So none of the studies conducted by the EPA Office
23 of Noise Abatement and Control would have been performed
24 even remotely close in time to when the introduction,
25 utilization of these types of industrial wind turbines
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I know you're not a physician and you don't have
22 any specific experience with what might be harmful to
23 human health, but are you familiar at all with any recent
24 studies that may tend to indicate that sound levels,
25 sounds emitted by industrial wind turbines, specifically
16 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 office at the EPA that dealt with noise had its funding
20 basically cut back in 1982. There was basically one
21 person on staff there that probably provides information
22 as need be, but they weren’t in a position to develop any
23 further studies. But I did come on-board and maybe one
24 reason that I was able to sort of get a foothold in this
25 industry is in the early late 1960s and the early 1970s,
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And Ldn is an expression of an average; is that
21 right?
22 A. It's an energy average, yes.
23 Q. And in this instance, the week long period or couple
24 of days that you conducted the study meets the
25 requirements for the siting rules?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Let's just talk about the range of 49 to 63 dBA for
22 this area, where the Pinnacle project's to be located.
23 Were those results surprising to you with respect to the
24 rural area?
25 A. If there was not wind, that would be quite
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 ATTORNEY ALSOP:
20 Is it too far away?
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 Well, it sounds like you're bouncing between
23 them.
24 ATTORNEY ALSOP:
25 I only have one blue light.
20 is from the west. For the most part those homes will be
21 upwind from those turbines.
22 Q. That one home that's closest on the west, it is
23 under agreement; is that your understanding as well?
24 A. My understanding is that, yeah, the closest one is.
25 Q. Given that those homes are under agreement, does
9 is clear.
10 RECROSS EXAMINATION
11 BY ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
12 Q. On this, what you call the Ldn the long term sound
13 levels you took over an extended period of time for the
14 regs all sounds that came in; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But you didn’t go out and say, well, this is one's a
17 noise and I'm going to do something different with it and
18 this one's not a noise so I'm not going to do something
9 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
12 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
9 ---------------------------------------------------------
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION
11 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
9 It will be so marked.
10 (Exhibit WEL-D marked for
11 identification.)
12 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
11 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
19 No questions.
20 COMMISSION ALBERT:
21 Mr. Stephens, you're up.
22 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
23 Thank you, Your Honor.
24 CROSS EXAMINATION
25 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
22 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11 Nine.
12 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13 Nine. Okay.
14 (Alliance Exhibit Nine marked for
15 identification.)
16 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17 And that will make this next exhibit
18 --- I'll ask to be marked Alliance Exhibit Ten.
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20 Well, to the extent ---.
21 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
22 Q. I'll ask the witness, to the extent you're
23 familiar with the siting rules of the Commission as they
24 pertain to hydrology or impacts to water resources, would
25 you agree with me that this fact sheet describes a review
10 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
11 No questions.
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13 Staff? Commissioners, do you have any
14 questions?
15 COMMISSIONER STAATS:
16 Mr. Llewellyn, could you define for me
17 the word environmental?
18 A. The word environmental? Being of the
19 environment.
20 COMMISSIONER STAATS:
21 Thank you. No further questions.
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 In your testimony, you say CME has been
24 involved since soon after its inception. What inception?
25 When was that, do you know?
14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19 No objection.
20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 All right. They're admitted. Jeffrey
22 Maymon, is that who's next?
23 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24 Yes, Your Honor, we'd call Jeffrey
25 Maymon.
14 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20 Q. Mr. Maymon, would you look in the white binder
21 there? I think it's tab nine. And look behind that and
22 do you recognize the testimony there?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. Is that the Direct testimony that was previously
25 filed in this case, your Direct testimony?
9 identification.)
10 BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18 Avoided or ---?
12 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
19 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Maymon.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 Q. My name is Brad Stephens. I represent Allegheny
23 Front Alliance in this case. Just so I understand the
24 scope of your review of archeological sites, did it
25 extend beyond areas which covered ground that may be
18 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
11 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20 And stills, S-T-I-L-L-S? You say
21 possible historic stills.
22 A. We're not sure what they are. Those were areas
23 where someone had dug out some rocks and pilled them up
24 around these things. We're speculating --- the only
25 thing we could come up with was that they were, you know,
12 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
19 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
19 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
9 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19 A. A-P-E.
20 Q. A-P-E. I didn't want to be uncouth, so I'll say
21 A-P-E. I believe at least in appendix W to the
22 application, I don't think you necessarily need to look
23 at it unless you feel the need to refer to it, but one of
24 the pieces of correspondence to SHPO states that the APE
25 will be refined through computer modeling and field
20 was appropriate.
21 Q. Okay. But you would agree with me that there
22 are portions of the State of Maryland that would be well
23 within a five-mile radius of the northernmost extent of
24 the project?
25 A. I believe there are portions of Maryland, but
9 11.
10 (Alliance Exhibit 11 marked for
11 identification.)
12 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20 project?
21 A. No, we did not. They did not have review
22 authority.
23 Q. How is it that you determined that they did not
24 have review authority?
25 A. Because the project was being licensed in the
19 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
9 That'd be fine.
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 break.
20 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21 Your Honor, to clarify the information,
22 it was signed yesterday morning, but it was available
23 prior to that.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 That's fine.
10 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9 preservation.
10 Q. But that doesn't do anything to remedy the
11 adverse visual impact to those 18 historic properties we
12 discussed; correct?
13 A. This was found to be the mitigative measure
14 that ---.
15 Q. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you,
16 that offsite mitigation does nothing to mitigate the
17 adverse visual impact directly to those 18 historic
18 sites?
19 A. In my opinion, it does and can --- by evidence
9 correct?
10 A. No, I would not.
11 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20 Yes, Your Honor.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 We'll admit Company Exhibit Two as
23 well. Anything further? Staff?
24 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
25 Just a couple.
9 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 written comments.
20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 Are you aware of any other comments
22 they may have had with others about that?
23 A. I have no knowledge.
24 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25 Okay. Thank you, Ms. Kuranda.
20 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9 A. I would not.
10 Q. Are there situations in your experience where a
11 project such as this might require consultation with
12 agencies from two different states?
13 A. There are, and if they're being reviewed
14 pursuant to state legislation, SHPO certainly has the
15 discretion to invite people to submit comments or
16 agencies to submit comments that may be out of state.
17 Q. Are there things with so called federal nexus
18 that can arise with federal funding? Would that trigger
19 a need to consult?
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 Sure.
20 RECROSS EXAMINATION
21 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
22 Q. You said that it's typical in the industry for
23 parties to enter into these Memorandum of Agreement with
24 preservation offices. Is mitigation normally a part of
25 that agreement, some sort of mitigation?
9 the impact.
10 Q. What kind of other mitigations have you seen
11 other than a monetary mitigation?
12 A. They range from documenting historic resources,
13 national register nominations, public outreach efforts,
14 rehabilitation requirements, moving historic structures.
15 It's a full gamut of things, but it's very --- they're
16 designed to be very specific to the project. So it's not
17 a cookie cutter agreement that you pull off the shelf.
18 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
19 Thank you.
20 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21 All right. Thank you.
22 A. Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24 You're excused.
25 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 Right.
17 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18 --- and the other was a letter from the
9 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
9 A. Ten years.
10 Q. What are your duties with the Commission?
11 A. I'm a utilities analyst manager in the utilities
12 division.
13 Q. What does that entail?
14 A. Our main work is rate cases, but we do all types
15 of certificate cases and approve agreements between
16 utilities when they do consent to enter into certain
17 agreements and so forth.
18 Q. Did you prepare prefiled testimony in relation
19 to your assignment to this case?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. Do you have a copy of that in front of you?
22 A. Yes.
23 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
23 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
9 ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
18 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9 you an amount.
10 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 and the distance they need to be from roads and that sort
20 of thing and the --- I guess it's the setback issue and
21 the --- what was the other one, one other issue? Are all
22 of the conditions set forth in appendix A the same as in
23 prior orders except for the two exceptions that were made
24 in the stipulation? Do you know?
25 A. To the best of my knowledge.
9 A. Okay.
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 this way.
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
20 Q. And, in fact, we know since they've filed
21 letters to the Commission indicating that the Commission
22 has voted to support the project, so they have some
23 interest on this; is that correct?
24 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
25 Objection, Your Honor. We don't have
11 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 the application.
10 Q. Mr. Stephens referenced a $150,000 per turbine
11 decommissioning amount. Is it possible that that amount
12 or any other amount that you might specify in advance of
13 the fullness of time taking into account removal costs
14 and salvage values might end up being either far too much
15 or far too little to decommission a single turbine?
16 A. I think that's, you know, very possible.
17 Q. Has this Commission ever established a set
18 amount per turbine for a decommissioning fund in a case
19 in which you've been involved?
20 A. No, sir.
21 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22 Not yet.
23 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
24 I wasn't going to ask that question.
25 I'm done. I'm done.
9 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
19 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20 Thank you, Ms. Kellmeyer.
21 A. May I be excused?
22 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23 Yes, yes.
24 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
25 Staff will call Donald Walker. Donald
9 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
9 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
10 It will be so marked.
11 (Staff Exhibit Two marked for
12 identification.)
13 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
14 Thanks.
15 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
16 Q. Do you have any changes or corrections to that
17 document?
18 A. Yes, I do. I have one change on page four, on
11 ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
12 No questions.
13 ATTORNEY CALLAS:
14 No questions.
15 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16 Mr. Stephens?
17 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18 Thank you, Your Honor.
19 CROSS EXAMINATION
20 BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
21 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Walker.
22 A. Hello.
23 Q. I believe in some responses to discovery
24 requests filed by Allegheny Front Alliance Staff provided
25 names and résumés for those participating in Staff's
20 Commission.
21 Q. So would it be fair to say you had to take for
22 granted what an applicant provides in that regard with
23 respect to an acoustical study?
24 A. No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that we
25 could research. We review the studies and review them to
20 the assertions set forth in the PJM Load --- the 2009 PJM
21 Load Forecast Report such as the ones we see in your
22 testimony are accurate and reliable; right?
23 A. I believe we're looking at a couple different
24 points here. For the PATH case, which this is not what
25 we're here for, is looking at transmission. We're
20 correct?
21 A. Could you list the ---?
22 Q. Sure. Option A --- or scenario A would be all
23 of the claims and assertions in the report are true, B is
24 some, but not all of them are true, and C is none of them
25 are true. It's going to be one of those three things;
9 two.
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERTS:
15 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
13 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
17 ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20 past year or so. And this is why we've decided that it's
21 important to have this included, particularly with this
22 case because of the situation of the closeness of the
23 turbines to the road, Green Road and also the
24 transmission line that we're concerned about.
25 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 horses.
10 BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
9 renewable generation?
10 A. Renewable generation.
11 Q. There's a need for renewable generation?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And why is that, most states require it?
14 A. Yeah, governmental regulations are now coming to
15 that --- going in that direction.
16 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
10 ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
9 Thank you.
10 COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9 my ability.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A: My name is Michael Jin. I am the Research Director for the Center for Labor &
job responsibilities.
A: I have a masters degree in sociology from the New School for Social Research in
New York and have been a Certified Public Accountant since lgg7. Ihave been
l.
As a Research Director, my major responsibilities include
overseeing the
Virginia.
A: Yes. I do.
Q: Please briefly describe a few of the studies that you have produced.
A: I have done this kind of study more than a dozen times. For example,
I did a study
for UFCW regarding the economic impact of changing health insurance
for the
workers in a seven county area in southern California. This study
showed that if a
because of this lost consumption. Another study I did involved a case of the Brach
candy company plant closing, which demonstrated how many additional jobs
)
would be affected if the company closed the plant with an employment of 1,200
workers.
I have also done other studies for the West Virginia Building and
wind Force, LLC, case No. 05-r740-E-cs-cN; and, AES New creek, LLc,
Q: In the course of your work have you ever used the IMpLAN simulation
software?
A: Yes. IMPLAN is the product name of the software produced by MIG, Inc. I have
Q: Have you received specialized training in the use of the IMPLAN software?
A: Yes.
A: Within an economY, ffiy single action by any individual or firm unleashes a series
new house, your builder hires and pays a crew, buys material, and makes a variety
of other expenditures. The crew members use their earnings to buy groceries and
pay other bills. The grocer uses his receipts to pay his employees and to restock
J.
inventories and the process goes on and on. In this way, policy decisions
that
transactions?
anticipate the effects of economic activities or events that have not yet
occurred.
4.
construction expenditures above current levels in order to determine how
such an
Q: Please describe the specific activities that take place within the context of an
economic impact analysis.
steps. The first, and often most difficult, task is to accurately represent
the event
once data inputs have been prepared, they must be properry processed
within the simulation software. In most cases this involves little more
than
5.
estimation results. Results may be aggregated, disaggregated or otherwise
Q: what is the nature of the results from this form of impact modeling?
A: The form and content of the results vary from one software packageto another.
and employments and these are typically reported by industry or industrial sector.
Results a¡e also routinely segregated into direct, indirect, and induced effects.
Q: Please describe the economic impact anarysis conducted by CLCR for the
Building Trades Council in this matter?
A: All economic development has a "multiplier" effect. This is because new business
other industries, which in turn buy goods and services from still other businesses.
Also, the workers and small business owners who receive new income from the
project go out and buy goods and services. so, any major new project will have
a
much greater economic impact on the state than just the direct investment by the
project's developer. To determine the impact of this project on the state of West
6.
Q: Please briefly summarize the economÍc impact estimates that your study has
A: If the completion of the project needs $l3t million and approximately I l3 craft
estimated, this project would generate additional $19.2 million in sales and 166
additional jobs for the state economy. (See Report, attached hereto
as Exhibit B)
A: The construction of the project will result in a substantial positive impact on the
local economy and local employment. The construction will also have a positive
impact on the state economy. These positive impacts will be the result
of
substantial increases in sales, taxes, business activities and jobs. The positive
A: Yes.
7.
Xiaochang (Mike) Jin
Center for Labor & Community Research (CLCR)
3411 W. Diversey Avenue
Chicago, IL 60647
As Research Director for Center for Labor & Community Research, Jin has a Master's
Degree (1991) in Sociology from the New School for Solial Research
in New york City.
He completed all the requirements for the Ph.D. in Sociology at the New
School except
for the dissertation.
Since joining CLCR in 1993, Jin's research has become more focused
on economic
qtpt. In the past years, his study on the impact of the food and candy industry on the
Chicago economy has successfirlly led to thã establishment of the roó¿
¿ Canay
Institute. He has conducted dozens of economic impact studies for government
agencies
and non-profit organizations.
Mike Jin also holds a Certified Public Accountant certificate and has worked
as a
consultant for the Mayor's Ofïice of Workforce Development in Chicago,
focusing on
labor ma¡ket related issues.
EXHIBIT
By Mike Jin
August 28,2009
The Center for Labor & Community Research has examined the economic
impact of the
proposal to build a wind turbine electric generating station in NewPage
area of Mineral County
in West Virginia. Pinnacle Wind Force, iLC, th. ãeveloper of the prõject, estimates
that the
construction will cost $131.0 million and be completed in nine montnõ
by about 150 workers.
To determine the impact of this construction project on the state of West Virginia,
CLCR
input-output model software developed by t'he Û.S. Forest Service and maiñtainóO
5ed_tlp Uy
The Minnesota IMPLAN Group.
All economic development has a "multiplier" effect. This is because new business
activity, such as a major construction project, réquires purchases from numerous
other industries,
.*ht:h in tum buy goods and services from other-businårr.r. Also, the workers and small
businçss owners who receive new income from the project go out and
buy goods and services.
So any major new construction project like this witl have a much greater
eJonomic impact on the
state than just the direct investment by the project's developer. thã fonowing
are our estimates
of the impact for the proposed construction project (All the estimates are on ãn annualized
basis):
'New business sales generated: Construction companies involved in building wind turbines
and transmission lines will have $ 1 3 I .0 million in révenues. They will
spend riost of this $ 13 I .0
million on the large equipment that is usually not manufactured in the state. However, these
construction companies will spend some of project revenue to purchase
small equipment and
services, such as freight transportation, electricil supplies, from the state firms, givìng
these
West Virginia firms $11.0 million in sales. Also, the workers employed
by theionstruction
companies and suppliers to the project will create new expenditures in the
retail, banking, real
estate and other industries, giving these industries an additional
$8.2 million in sales. thi total
business sales generated by this project for the state will be at least
$19.2 million.
Indirect 11.0
Induced 8.2
' New jobs created: Besides the I l3 average yearly construction jobs the project
will create,
there will be 166 additional jobs generated_in West Virginia. They will be in
manufacturing,
trucking, wood products, business and professional services, retail and wholesale
industries. The
employment impact of the project will be 279 additional west virginia jobs.
Job Impact of the Proposed power Station
Direct 113
Indirect & Induced 165
Total 279
Soutce: Projection is bæed on the IMPLAN input'out model
developed by the u.s. Forest service and 2007 west virginia
compiled by IMPLAN. economic data
'New wages: Based on the data released by-West Virginia Division of Labor, the weighted
aveT$9 prevailing wage of construction workers oo thìr project,
including benefits, in2009
would be $40.20 per hour in Mineral County where the project
is located. The total
compensation package for the workers wouid be
$9.4rniUiåo over a nine month period. other
workers will receive $4.8 million. The total wages and benefits
coming from the project will be
Sl4'2 million. If the project hires local construciion workers, the local'economy
would
experience a tremendous stimulus due to the input of this
$r4.2million.
Payroll Impact of the proposed power Station
Direct $ e.4
Indirect & Induced 4.8
Total s 14.2
Source: Projection is based on the IMPLAN input-out model
developed by the u.s. Forest service and 2007 west virginia economic
compiled by IMPLAN. data
'rncome for the self-employed: The project would also yield profits for the West virginia self-
employed subcontractors and small buiinésses hired by trt"
conitruction companies. The
estimated profits for these small businesses will be
$t.O mittion. It is very titäty that these
businesses will spend this amount to expand their operation
and to support theii families.
' Corporate profÏts: The owners of incorporated businesses in West Virginia will have $2.g
million in pre-tax profits.
'New taxes generated: The proposed wind power generating station will create $4.3 million in
tax revenue on an annualized basis. The federal government witt
receive $3.0 million in ta<es,
made up of Social Security, Medicare, and persoìral and
corporate income tax. The state of West
virginia and local govemment will receiur $t.g million in ta,res, made
up of $0.3 million in
personal income taxes, $0.1 million in corporate profits
tax, and $0.9 million in employment tax,
various fees, licenses and property taxes pàid uy ine variouÁ
construction companies and material
suppliers.
Methodolory: The Pinnacle V/ind Force LLC, the developer of the project, states that the
completion of the project may create at least 150 full time jobs over ã périoa of 9 months. To
adjust the job impact created by these new positions, we take the number of 150, divide itby 12
and then, times 9 to reflect the actual impact that these new positions would create on the
annualized basis. The average prevailing wage and benefits, reported by the West Virginia
Department of Labor for the state in 2009, includes all the crafts in the construction industry.
Given the nature of the project, the construction may require a higher number of high skilleã
crafts than that of low skilled ones. Therefore, the projected amount of workers compensation in
this study is adjusted to the possible composition of the labor force for the project. The value of
construction per construction worker and the ratio of purchased goods to total construction are
adjusted based on the IMPLAN economic data for V/est Virginia for 2007. The distribution of
proprietors' income, corporate income and indirect business taxes are derived from the other new
non-residential construction sector of the state in 2007.
I
B; L çtdst
Ë
e
ó
zE
À
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
A. In 1980, I became a member of the IBEW Locar 596 and began working
as an
electrician on construction projects throughout
west virginia including at the
Harrison power plant.
I was elected Business Manager of IBEW Local 596 in 1993. I became
a. Please descrÍbe the nature of the North centrar west virginia state
Building and construction Trades council, AF,L-cIo as it rerates to this
case.
a. can you tell me how many rocar workers wiil be working on the
construction of the facitity?
A. Yes it does.
EXHIBIT
MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT
By:
Name:
Name:
Its:
By:
Name:
Its:
PROJECT I-.ABOR AGREEM ENT
This Agreement
trr'¡¡L rù
is çurçreu ul[ ttris
entered into day of 2002, by and
between
NoRTH CEI{TRAI wEsT r¿ncnu su&DÑä & coNsr*o"i"öJ'*"
TRÀDES cot'Ncrr Ax'L-cIo ( hereinafter
', collectìvely called the Union or Unions),
for the purPose of estatlishing harmonious labor r.lutilo, in the performance
construction work as defined in Attachment of
e orthe nro¡r.t Labor Agreement (pLA),
both of which are attached hereto and made
. p;h;r*f
The parties to this Agreement, in consiår..ti*
by reference.
covenants herein contained, mutually agree -utouipiå*ir., *ro
as follows: "rtné
**:,*,.^:::.:1111,.191_yf *.T.r"r"th;p,'..iffiiö:ää,i,ffiinå:,
negoriatioiîri::T::::T3i""li*¡,r,;1'.¡,;;äffi
äffi äIIöä;
i; *::îi':fl T:9.* ll:i ::' i"u"i Àe""#J;ri #iii'r to succ ess tur
ilå:îff"'g:::totheconstn¡*io"*o*il;nåi"îffúï,"å'#äi;ä:::
Labor Agreement.
4' The union and the council agree that there
disruptive activity f:r *y_putpo* by sha[ be no picketing or other
t¡. urrior," tt. co*"il or any emproyee
represented by the council or unionduring
trreierm o-r*¡i, Agreement.
BY: BY:
Darvin L. Snyder, prcr¡¿"nt
ARTICLE ONE
PANPOSE
It is agreed
- $ut th. hoject Contractor shall require all Contractors of
whatever tier wh have been áwarded contracts for work covered
by this
Agreement, to accept and be bound by the terms
Labor Agreement bytxecuting the Letter ofAssent
;;diri;;f
rtd rhis project
(Attachrnent A) prior to
cornmencing *$'- The Project Contractor shall assure compliance
with this
fgrlment by the contractors. It is fi¡rtlrer that the terms and conditions of
this Project Agreement shall supersede and "grü
oierride terms and conditions of any and
all other national, area, or local collective urrg"ining
agreements. It is understood
that this is a self-conüained, stand-alone,
egr.ãro.rrt and that by virtue ofhaving
become bound to this Project Labor AgreeÃent,
neither project contractor nor the
contractors will be obligated to sign aãy ot¡r.lo.ul
are4 or national
agreement
1'
The right to strike or walk offdue to non-payment
of wages or benefits by
any Contractor at the project.
2' Theright to strike or lockout due to refi¡sal of eitlrer the
Union(s) or the
Confactor(s) to abide by this Article.
secdon 7'
It is understood that the owner, at its sole option,
rnay tenrrinate, delay
and/or suspend any or all portions of the projecrat
any time.
ARTICTE FOUR
The Project conüactors #ffii##,"ffå'$**rever tier retain tun and
exclusive atrthority
PItr manâgem:nt of their operations. Exceptas
otherwise
limited by tenns of this Agreemint, the conûactors shall direct trri.
at their prerogative, including, but not limited
working forces
to hiring, promotior¡ transfer, layoff
or discharge forjust cause. No rules, customs,
*poitires shall úe permitted or
observed whichlimit or restrict productiot, or'lirit
or restrict tlre working efforts of
employees' The contractors shall r¡tilize t¡. roti.fficient
method or techniques of
consûuction' tools or other labor saving devices.
There shall be no limitations upon
the choice of mderials or desigq nor shall tJrere
be any limit on production by
workers or restrictions on the full use of tools
or equiprnent. There shal be no
restrictior¡' other than may be required by safety
regulations, on the nu'ber of
employees assigned to any,r"*-o, to any
rrrui...'
ARTICLE FT\18
Referral of Employees
ARTICLE SE\'EN
Wages and Benefits
Section 4' In
þ w-en! of any work stoppage, strike picketing
or other disruptive
activity in violation of this Article, the Contrictor
may suspend all or and portion of
Project work affected by such activity and the
ðonmctor s discretion and without
penaþ.
10
(bì receipt of said notice, the Arbitrator named
. 9pT
shall set and hold a hearing within
above
twenry-foi'ti+¡hours if it is contended that the
violation still exists.
11
(h) Ifthe Arbinator determines that a work stoppage
has
occurred in accordance with se91io1 6(d)
above, the union(s) and its applicable
Local union shall, within eight (s) hoù'of
rec.þt th. À;*J;direct all of the
employees they represent on the hoject "f return to
to immediately work. I the ü.ade
involved does not return to work.by tt.
U.S"dg ofthe next regularly scheduled
shift following receipt of the Arbitrator r
applicable Local union have noJ comptied
,ffi and the union(s) and/or its
wirh section
union and/or the Local union shail påy rh. r.rr;ften 3 of thiì Á¡ticle, then rhe
thousand dorlars
($10,000.00) as riquidated damages
ro the affecred owner,
additional ten thousand dollars (Cto,ooo.ooli"r ;ñ'"ll pay an
ruft for each shifr thereafter on
which the trade has not returned to work.
rf," eruit rh"ltilãi":*isdicrion ro
deterrrine compriance with this section
and section 3"tor
ofthis Article.
(Ð lfthe
Arbiûator determines that the contractor
is in violatior¡,
the contractor shail, eight (g)
tthin horns orr.ceip ofthe Award, direct the
necessary remedial acrion. If rhe Conhacror fails å tak"
action by the beginning of the next rfgularly ;h;;;;rrry remedial
scheduled shift frlt;*i"g receipt of the
Arbitrator's Award, the contractor shã[
puy tn" ,,r. of ten thousand dollars
($10'000.00) as liquidated da'ages
to the áffected orryner, and sha[ pay
additional ten thousand dollars (úo,ooõ.õtË;htft an
the remedy has been made.
for each shifr thereafter unril
ARTICLE TEN
secrion 1. LaborÆVf
^*r^?;io;Jffi"fltevances
(a) This Agreement is intended to provide
crose cooperation
between managefnent and labor;
therefore, ¡"i", L"borÆvfanagement
shall be forrned as soon as possible " committee
followingm. ¿ut of this Agreement. The
comminee shall exercise oversight
ofthe pt"Ã;hced *¿"imi, Agreemenr.
is empowered to resorve. any aisfute Ir
over themeaning and application
Agreement. The committeã wili schedure of the
,.g,,ì* *d periodic meetings.
12
(b) The Committee shall consist of an eqr¡al number
of Contnactor/owner
Union Representatives, not to exceed thee (3) penons
3!
union memben will represent the interesrs ofthà Áib¡¿tory
oo side. The
"*r, and the
úo*,
Contr¿ctor/owner members shall represent the interests
ofthe signatory
Contactors. owner/Contractor representatives shall
u. uppoinilîby the owner
reprcsentatives signatory to this Agreement,
and the u*o"irpt"*ntatives shall be
appointed by the signatory Building Trades representatives.
Stgp
1- (a) When any employee subjecr to the
provisions ofthis Agreement feels
he or rír"Ëuggri"rr.d by a vioration ofthis
Agreemen! he or she, tlrough his or her local
uñn bt¡siness representative orjob
steward, shall, within five (5) working
days æertrre occ.uïence ofthe violatior¡
give notice to the w-ork;site iepresentativð
ofthe involved contractor stating the
provision(s) alleged to have bèen violated.
rne ¡,¡siness representative ofthe local
union or the job steward and the work-site
rcpr.r*t"tive ofthe involved contractor
and the Project contractor shall meet
and endeavor to adjust the matter within
(3) working days- afrer timely notice three
has been giu,; The representarive of
contractor shalr keep the.mãeting minutes the
*¿1nuù respond to rhe union
representative in d|g (copying the Project contractor)
at the conclusion ofthe
meeting but not later than twenty-fow
the matter withinrtre prescribe¿ p":"gì
lzi¡tro* trr"r.after. If they fail to resolve
(48) hours therelfer, pfsuesd
,úgb"ùú parry may,within forty_eighr
2 of thec-¡.uan . hocedt¡re, provided
grievance, including a short desc'rþtion the
thereof, ttã ¿u,, on *rri.i, the grievance
occurred, and the provision(s) of the
Agreement ru.g.o to have been violated.
ARTICLE ELEVEN
Juris dictional Disputes
14
Section 2'All jurisdictional disputes between or among
Building and
constn¡ction Trades unions and employees,
frtti.. ," trrñr-egr..i,"n' shall be
settled and adjrsted according to trr" prãs.niþun
esta¡lished by the Building and
constr¡ction T¡ades Departne{ o.l other plan or method of procedure that may
be adopted in -1ny
future-by the Buildini and cãnsmction Trades Deparrnenr.
F"
Decisions rendered shall be final, bindñrg
*Jro*rwive on the contractors and
Unioru parties to this Agreement
ARTICLE T\ilEL\1E
Union Securíty
15
ARTICLE TITIRTEEN
Union Representation
o"Tt:"lEorvaRrEEN
Firstshifr: t¡eT (!) trgurs pay for eight (g) hours prts
%hour
unpaid ft¡nch period.
second shift E:*, (g) ho'rs pay eight (g) hours worked prus
Yzhow unpaid lurch {or
period. In addition,
¡-
employees shall receive a ten(10)
percent premium
on the hourly wage.
17
section 5' Recognized holidays shall be as follows:
Nav year,s day, Memorial
Døy, July Fourth, Labor Døy, irrtrry^,
Dry ("pn",ar), Thanksgiving Day, the day
afre' Thanksgtvíng, and chi¡stmas Dry.
uå¿Lr no ciróumsaor.î shall any work
perfornned on Labor Day excepting be
in ó*.r or.r.rgenjy involving life
In the event a holiday falls on a sruraa¡ orproperty.
tn rouã*ing Monday shall be observed as
the holiday' m:t lolidays shall be holorea in keeping with Federal Law. rhere
shall be no paid holidays.- If employe.,
receive the appropriate overtime rate
* tî**¿ ro-work on á t ou¿ay, they shalr
as established in the Local collective
Bargaining Agreements, but in no case
shan such overtime be morie than doubre
staight time. the
t8
ARTICLE FIFTEEN
Subcontractíng
ARTICLE SDffEEN
Safety and Heahh
19
ARTICTE SEVENTEEN
General Sæings Clause
ARTICLE EIGIITEEN
Term of Agreement
20
ATTACHIVTENT A
(C onhactor Lettertread)
(Nasre of Ovmer)
Office of Owner Representative
Attn:
Re: C onstn¡ction Proj ect Agreement
Dear Sin
Pursr¡ant to Article II, section r, paragraph
3, ofthe above-reference
Agreement, the undenigned contractor¡ereby
comply with all terms and conditions of said þ", that it will be bor¡rd by and
ñ*¡-." Labor Agreement, and any
amendments thereto.
This Letter ofAssent will remain in effect
for the duration ofthe Agreement,
and any extensions, after which thisyrdgrstanding
will automatically terminate,
except as provided for in Articre II, section
6, ofãre Agreement
Sincerely,
(Na¡ne of Contractor or
Subcontactor)
By:
Tirle:
21
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF \ryEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
cERT,rrlcArry of S4RVIçE
The undersigned counsel for the West Virginia State Building and Construction
Trades Council, AFL-CIO, certifies that service of the foregoing Prepared Direct
Testimony of Danvin L. Snyder has been made by depositing a truè and exact copy
thereof in the u.s. Mail, postage prepaid, on the 3d day of septemb er,2009 to the
following:
Auville, Esq.
John
WV Public Service Commission
201 Brooks Street
P.O. Box 812
Charleston, WV 25323
http://www.wvdep.org/lVebApp/_dep/search/Applications/activities.cûn?application_id:... l0lnn\\g
I
a .{tt.r".¿¿
å Lo
ô
et
zu
G
'-:;
€:'
cfeË
sf.,\'l'E ot" \\1851' \'lRG I \- t.\
D E I'A R'I i\'I lìN]' O Ir EN V I IION Nl li N1'¡\ I . PRO'|- IìC'l' I O)i
DIYISION OF \\'Å'TETì ,\ND \\',\STII II,\\.\(;ETIE\'T'
601 57lh Strcct SE
Charlesto¡r. W\/ 25304-23.15
This fact sltcct explai¡rs the r:cu, Constructiolr Stor¡rlu'atcr(ìcneral I'cntrit \,V\/011592.1, issuerl
trrl Novcnlbcr -j. 2t107.
3. CIOU|(TY: Any \VV cor:nry lìIÌCI MNG S'f RE.,1,i\,I : An\' \\1V strc¿un
5. SICr CODI|: l7
7. DESCRIPTION OF DISCIIARGES:
Earthmoving and grading projects create conditions where accelerated erosion can cause
large quantities of soil to be deposited into the sfteams and rivers of the state. The lack of
vegetatioq steepening of slopes, insreased runoff, decreased infiltration, and other ill effects of
constn¡ction can cause a 1,000-fold increase in the rate of erosion over præxisting conditions.
The erosion rates on construction sites can run into the hundreds of tons per acrc. By volume,
sedims¡t is the nr¡nrber one pollutant in the state's uraters and degrades more miles of stream that
any other po¡lutant.
8. BACKGROT]ND
Tllre 1972 Amendments to the feder¿l Water Pollution Control Act (referred to as the
Clean'lVater Act or CWA), prohibit the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters from a
point source unless the discharge is authorized by an NPDES permit. Efforts to improve water
quality under the NPDES program traditionally and primarily focused on reducing pollutants in
discharges of industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage.
However, as pollution control measures were initially developed for these discharges, it
became evident that more diffi¡se sources (occurring over a wide area) of waterpollution, such as
agricultural and urban runofi, are also major causes of water quality problems. Somc so-called
diffi¡se sourc€s of wat€r pollution, such as agricultural stormwater discharges and irrigation
return flows, are statutorily exernpted from the NPDES prog¡am.
Since the enactnrent of the 1972 amstdments to the CWA, considering the rise of
economic activíty and population, significant progress in controlling water pollution has been
made, particularly with regard to industial process wastewater and municipal sewage.
The "National Water Quality Inventory," 1988 rçort to Congress provided a general
assessment of water quality that concluded pollution from diftse sources is a serious problern.
Runofffrom agriorltural, urban sreas, constn¡ction sites, land disposal, and resource extraction is
cited by the states as thc leading cause of water quality impairment.
The states conducted a more comprehensive stutiy of diffi¡se pollution sourc,es under the
sponsorship of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIIMPCA) and the EPA, which indicated that urban ru'loff, is a major cause of beneficial use
impairment.
This te¡rd has continued almost unabated. Recent studies (Metropolitan Council of
Governments, EPA, states, and others) have shown that urban runoff from all sor¡rces severely
impacts water quality and limits designated uses of the waters of the United States. Studies by
the Watershed Assessment Section of the Division of Water and Waste Managemørt have
daermined that sediment is the number one source of water quality impainnerrt in rgVest Virginia.
Sediment moderately to heavily impacts approximately 70o/o of the state's waterwa)4s. One of the
largest sources of sediment is constuction activities,
FACT SHEET
!W/ì.¡PDES PERMIT No. WV0l15924
Page 3 of l3
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 contained provisions that specifically addressed
stoflnwater discharges. Section (p) was added to the stormwater discharge provision Section 402.
Section 402û)X4XA) required the EPA to promulgate final regulations goveming stormwater
permit application requirernents for stormwater dischargcs assosiated with industial activity and
diseharges from large municipal separate stormwater s)rstems. In response to lawsuits filed by
the Natr¡ral Resource Defense Council (NRDC), the EPA finally published regulations on
Novernber 16, 1990. West Virginia's first stormwater general permit was based on this rule. In
early 1992, the EPA published additional information that changed some of the standards,
particularly in relation ûo constlruction. The state's previous construction stormwater general
permits closely mirrored the EPA's permit exc€pt the federal permit's higher minimum
disturbance th¡eshold was lowered to three acres.
The NRDC again sued the EPA on several issues, one gelrnane to this permit. NRDC
contended, a¡nong other items, that the five-acre limit for constn¡ction site distt¡rbance was
arbitrary and capricious and should be rethought. The court agreed, telling the EPA to come up
with a new and lower disnxbance threshold. In 1999, the EPA published the new rule for Phase
II of the Stormwater General Permit in the Federal Register, and among other things, lowered the
disturbance threshold to one acre, meetíng the intent of the court ruling on NRDC's lawsuit.
9. GENERAL
The Division of Water and Waste Management, through its permitting system, is
responsible for ensuring that wastewaters are identified, receive adquate treatment and are
disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations. Usually this requires an individual
permit based on a thorough review of the facility processes and the constituents of iæ waste
stream. The issuance of an individual pe'nnit for any facility is a resource intensive and time
consuming procçss for both the permitting agency and the industry.
All parties recognize the immensþ of the problern of issuing individual pcrmits for the
large nurnber of anticipated new sites throughout the state; hence, such permitting is currently
too resource intensive.
For these reasons, the Division of Water and Waste Manageinent has decided to utilize a
general ïW/NPDES permit. The Division of rWater a¡rd lVaste Management assumed primacy
for the NPDES Program ûom the EPA in 1982. Under4TCSRI0-13.6 of the Legislative Rules, a
general perrrit can be used to regulate either separate storm sewen or a category ofpoint sources
other than separate storm sewersi if the sources all:
About 370 constn¡ction sites per ye¿¡r have been permitted over the last 14 years. The
general pernit procÆss has prove,n to be a very efficient mechanism to cover consùr¡ction-related
activiti€s. It is proposcd to continue the use of a general p€rmit for these facilities.
The general permit proposes to provide coverage for any discharges composd entirely of
stormwåter associated with industial (constnrction) activity and agreeing to be regulated under
the terms of the general permit except for:
l. Operations that result in the disturbance of less than one acre of total land area,
which is not part of a larger common plan of development or sale.
6. L¿nd disturbing activities related to oil and gas activitiqs as required by the
Enerry Policy Act of 2005. These activities include constn¡ction of drilling sites,
waste management pits, and access roads, as well as construstion of the
transportation and treabnent infrastructure, such as pipelines, nah¡ral gas
treatrsnt plants, natural gas pipeline comprÊssor stations, and crude oil pumping
stations. Construction activities that result in a discharge of a rçortable quantity
release or that conEibute pollutants (other than non-contaminated sediments) to a
violation of a water quality standard are still subject to permit coverage.
Determination of the disturbed area is made by totaling all disturbed area directly related
to construction of the entire project. Offsite waste (excluding sales of topsoil to individuals) and
borrow sites arc insluded in the total disturbance unless borrow sites are commercial quarries and
regulated by the Division of Mining and Reclamation.
For subdivisions, the total disturbed area is calculated by adding up all disturbances
related to the installation of utilities, construction of sediment control facilities, building of roads
and other infrash¡cture. Phased projects that disturb less than one acre in each phase but will
evenrually disturb more than one acre with all phases will need to register under this permit.
FACTSHEET
WV/NPDES PERMT No. WV0l 15924
Pagc 5 of 13
For minor ænstn¡ction activities (one to less than tbree acres) a simpler program exists.
These minor l¡nd disturùing activities æe required to zubmit a Noticc of lnte¡rt (NOÐ forrr prior
to commencing consûnrction. TheNOI is a simplified application form. A Storrrwater Pollution
Prsve,ntion Plan (SWPPP) still nesds to be dwclope{ kept onsitc, and made available for review
by DEF personnel. A project that distr¡rbs one to less than tluee acres but will have consüuc'tion
astivit¡es one ycar or longer must file a Site Registration Application Form.
Sites approved ûrom Januar¡r l, 2@6 tbrougþ Novcnrber 4 2OO7 , are hereby granted
coverage under Gerreral WV/NPDES Water Pollution Gontrol P€finit rWVOl 15924. Sites approved
prior to January l,zAM, will have until June 30, 2008, to have fin¡l s¡¿þi¡¡za¡¡oo completcd. Final
stabilization mea¡rs distuH areas shall be covered by the appmpriate permanart protcc'tion, Final
stabilization includes pavemcnt, buildings, stable waterwa¡rs (riprap, æncrÊte, grass or pipe), a
healthy, vigomus stand ofperennial grass th¡t r¡niformly oov€rs at least 70 percent ofthe ground,
stable outlet channels with velocity dissþation whictr dirccts siæ r¡¡noffto a natural watcrcourse,
and any otlrer appmved stn¡cturÊ ormaterial. Ifthese sites are not stabilized by Jrne 30, 2@8, an
application to receive p€rmit coverage wilt be requirÞd to be submited to the Division ofWater
and ltr/aste Managernent on or before July l, 2@8.
I l. MONTTORING REQITIREIìIENTS
Monitoring is not requirad rmless requested by the Director. C,onstn¡ction activities are
usually of short duration, le*s than one year, and the pollutant associatd with constn¡ction is
primcily sediment The measures r¡sed to minimize pollution for land disturting activities are
preventative i.a, best manAger¡reirt practiccs (BMPs) and are not zubject to effluent limits.
12.1YHEN TO APPLY
T\e application for consEuction activities requiring cov€úage must be submittd at least
45 days prior to shrting the projecf exc€pt as follows. Pnojects with three acres or greater
dish¡rbance that disc,hargc to or npstneam of Tiec 2.5 or Tisr 3 watcrq or with 100 or greatcr
acræ of disturbance, or with an initial gading construction ehasË of one yetr or great€r, must be
submiued at least 90 days prior to start of conskuction in order to allow time for the public
notice proccdrua MÍnor construction projecæ Qess than tlnee acres) not discharging to or
upsüeam of Tier 2.5 or Tier 3 waters must only zubmit thc NOI form l0 da¡'s prior to initiation
of consfuction A project that distr¡¡ùs one to less than threc acres but will have constnrction
aæivities one year or longer must file a Site Registration Ap'plication Fomr.
FACT SHEET
ItrV/NPDES PERMff No. WVOI 15924
Page 6 of 13
This section of the permit establishes discharge limitations. Since constn¡ction activities are
normally short term, sampling is not required unless requested by the Director.
Compliance with this General Permit and the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(including the sequence of events) is required upon the beginning of the construction project.
This section is boileqplate language essentially extrâcted from Title 47, Series l0 of the West
Virginia Legislative Rules. These rules establish that ev€ry NPDES permit contains certain
standard conditions. A reference to Title 47, Serics I l, Section 9 of the rtrest Virginia Iægislative
Rules was included that requires that outlet rnarkers be posted. Outlet markers wõuld be -
required only during the time of active permit coverage.
This section is boilerplate language essentially exkacted from Title 4?, Series l0 of the ïVest
Virginia lægislative Rules.
Unless directed by the Director of the Division of Water and T¡lVaste Managernent monitoring will
nat be required. Reports will be maintained in accordance with and as reqoirø in Section
G'4'e'2.C.vi. In addition, several new definitio¡rs are included which relate to the stonnwater
permitting program.
This section is boilerplate language essentially extacted from Title 47, Series l0 of the West
Virgínia Legislative Rulec.
SætionG. OtherRequirønents
This section ericompasses the requirernents specific to the stormwåtsr permitting program and
those sites subject to regulation under the gerreral permit.
G.l This paragraph simply deprcts the sifi¡ations for which theDirector mayrequire a facility
covered by the permit to be covered by a different permit or wheir such facilitymay
approach the Director on its own initiative to obtain corr€rage by a different pcrmii
FACT SHEET
\ryV/MDES PERMIT No. rilV0l 15924
Page 7 of 13
G.2. Prohibition of non-stormwater discharges. Also, a section was added notifing the
developer that an Underground Injection tü/ell Permit is required if discharging
stormwater into a sinlú¡ole.
G.3. This paragraph details that stormwater discharges from a project cannot contain
hazardous zubstanses.
G.4. This section details the requirernents of the SWPPPs that must be developed for each
facility covered by the general permit.
This general permit establishes minimum standa¡ds of practices (best management practices) for
specific situations rather than specific effluent lirnitations for stormwater discharges- This means
the quality of the discharges must meet I best managernent practice requirement that represents
the minimum level ofcontrols. This permit allows the meeting of water quality standards with
the proper installation of the minimum standards set forth in the permit and instn¡ctions. The
application and plans detailing the permittee's schedules and intended best managernent practices
must be submitted for approval as detailed in paragraph 12 above. Compliance with the plan
must begin immediately as detailed in the SWPPP.
The development and implernentation of the SWPPP is one of themost important parts of
this permit and is critical to thc successful control of stormwater pollution. The SWPPP rnust be
modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct specific
problems identified. These adaptive managsment requirements are designed to result in permit
compliance and prevent stormwater discharges that could cause a violation of state water quality
standards. The S1VPPP musÉ also be modified wheneverthere is a change in design,
construction, op€ration, or maintenance at the constn¡ction site that has, or could have, a
significant effest on the diseharge of pollutants to waters of the state.
All NPDES pennittees are required to develop a Groundwater Protection Plan (GPP). For
construction sites, the areas of concern will be equipment maintenance yards, including fueling
and refireling areas, and produot storage facilities. GPPs should address groundwater protection,
and maintqnancs. A ge.neric GPP for construction-related activities has bee¡r developed and is
available upon request from the Division of lVater and Waste Managønenl The GPP must be
developed and kept onsite.
G.4.b. This section details the timeframe an application must be submitted. This section also
includes the requirements for the public notice sign.
G.4.d. This section details general managsrnent conditions including preventive maintenance,
good houseke€ping and spill prevention and response. Probably the most common
rea¡¡on for failure of constn¡ction site etosion control devices (BMPs) is inadequate
maintenance. If BMPs are properly construsted, but not properly or frequently
FACT SHEET
WV/MDES PERMIT No. lryvOl 15924
Page I ofl3
rnaintained, verylittle beneñt may be exp€cted. Newly installed devices will perform as
initially expected until their capacity is exceedd. Silt fences, for example, should be
maintained before the material that accumulates behind them becomes excessive. More
ímportantly, the integrity of the fences needs to be checked frequently. Many silt fences
at constn¡ction sites are undermined or b¡passed because of large flows or large sediment
accumulations. Sedimentation basins, silt traps, etc., need to be cleaned frequently. The
cleaning frequency of these devices located in areas undergoing constnrction should be
quite high because of the very large discharges of sediment from constn¡ction sites. Rill
or gully erosion must be correctod immediately when first observed. During each
inspectioq the person conducting the inspoction should document whether the BMP is
performing correctly any damage to the BMP since the last inspection, and what should
be done ûo repair the BMP if damage has occurred. The housekceping and spill
preverrtion and res¡ronse requirement is intended to prevent the discharge of trash,
chernicals and other polluting materials from the site.
G.4.e, This section details what must be included in the site description section, the erosion and
sediment conFol section, the stormwater management control section and other control
section ofthe SIVPPP.
The predevelopment and post-development peak discharge rates for a one year, 24hour
storm in cubic feet per second.
FACT SHEET
WV/NPDES PERMIT No. WV0l15924
Page 9 ofl3
9ontols- The dufflayer, native topsoil and natural vegetation must be retained in an undisturbcd
state to the maximum extent practicable. This requirement is partly based on the fundarnental
principle that vegetation is the most effective form of erosion control. Vegetation reduces runoff
volume, reduces flow velocity, filters srspended sediment, absorbs the erosive energy of falling
raindrops, and retains soil stn¡cture. In areas where soils have been disturbed or exposed during
constn¡ction activity, tirnely pennanent seeding is appropriate in areas whe¡ç p€rmanent, long-lived
vegetative cover is the most practÍcal or most effective method of stabilizing the soil. Vegetation
controls erosion by protecting bare soil surfaces fircm displacement by raindrop impacts and by
reducing the velocity and quantity of ovcrland flow. The advantages of seeding over other means of
establishing plants include lower initial costs and labor inputs. Seeding that produces a successfr¡l
stand of grass has been shown to remove benveen 50 and 100 percent of totat suspended solids from
stonnwaterrunoff, with an average removal of 90 percent (EPA 2O0Z).
Sodding is a permanent erosion control practice that involves laying a continuous cover of grass
sod on exposed soils. In addition to stabl[zing soils, sodding can reduce the velocity of
stormwater runoff. Sodding can provide immdiate vegetative cover for critical areas and
stabilize areas that cannot be vegetated by seed. [t can also stabilize channels or srvales that
convey concentrated flows and reduce flow velocities. Sod has been shown to remove between
98 and 99 percent of total suspended solids in runofi and is considered a highly effective best
managem€nt practice (EPA 20OZ). Mulching is a temporary erosion contol practice in which
mâterials such as hay, wood chips, wood fibers, or straw are placed on exposed or recently
planted soil surfaces. Mulching is hightyrecommended as a stabilization method and is most
effective when anchored in place until vegetation is well established. Mulching can also reduce
the velocity of stormwater runoff. l#hen usd in combination with seeding or planting, mulching
can aid plant growth by holding seeds, fertilizere, and topsoil in place, bypreventing birds from
eating sceds, by retaining soil moisn¡re, and by insulating plant roots against extreme temperatures.
Sedimentcontrol systems create conditions that allow for the settlernent of soil particles that are
suspended in stormwaterrunoff. Sediment containment systerns (sedimørt trapJand sediment
basins) are hydraulic controls that function by modifring the storm-runoffhydrograph and
slowing water velocities. This allows for thç settling and deposition of suspended particlas by
gravity.
Sediment traps are appropriate where the contributing drainage area is five acres or less.
Sediment basins are generally larger and more effective in retaining sediment than temporary
sediment traps and t1çically rernain active throughout the construction period. A sediment basin
must be used where the contributing drainage area is greater than five asres. Sedimcnt basins
must cont¡ol the discharge in order to dewater the wet storâge volume between 48 and 72 hours.
In addition, the safety of embankmsrt stnrctures requires the outlets to safely pass the peak
discharge from 25-year 24-how storm.
FACT SHEET
WVñIPDES PERMTI No. tilV0 I I 5924
Page l0 of 13
The permit requircs sediment traps and sediment basins to be sizd for 3,ó00 cubic feet per acre
of watershed draining to that struch¡r€, half of which is dry storage and half of which is wet
storage. The permit also states that, baning impossible site conditions, all projects will utilizg to
the extent practicable, sediment taps or sediment basins and diversions.
The SWPPP should address the steepness of cut-and-fill slopes and how the sþcs will be prorecrd
ftom runoft, stabilized and maintained. Berms, diversions, and other stormwater practices that
rËquire excavation and filling should also be incorporated into the grading plan.
Rock outlet struch¡res placed at the outfall of channels or culverts reduce the velocþ of flow in the
receiving channel to non-erosive rates. This practice applies where discharge velocitie and energies
at the outlets of culverts are sufficient to erode the next downstream reach and is applicable to outlets
of all t¡çes such as sediment traps, sediment basins and eulverts.
Sediment-laden ìilater is not allowed to leave a site without going through an appropriate device.
Antidegradation review is addressed in the General Peirnit for Conskustion Stormwater. The
legislaturg in codiSing the Antidegradation Polic¡ eliminated general permit registrations from
antidegradation revíew exc€pt in Tier 2.5 and Tier 3 waters. Howwer, general perrnits must go
th¡ouglt antidegradation review during the issuance./reissr¡ance process. Constn¡ction projects by
their natr¡re are normally short term and trar¡sient. Anticipating the scope and location of
constn¡ction projects is difficult. While local, sho* term sediment impacts can be extreme; in
general, sediment impacts are tcmporary.
Ä. To meet antidegradation requiremcnts forthe waters of the statg the following guidelines
will be followed on all proJects.
1. Sediment basins
lediment basinVtaps will be installed with 3,600 cubic feet of storage measured from
the bottom elevation of the stn¡cture to the top of the riser or weir, pãr acre of drainage
and will have draw down times of48 to 72 hours. Half of the pond will be in wet stotage
and half in dry storage. Dewatering deviccs that skim the discharge from the top several
inches is encouraged.
Projects that the initial grading construction phase lasts for more than onc yeâr or
disa¡rbs 100 acres or more shall submit the application 90 days prior to constn¡ction.
Ïhese projects will be subject to the public notice requirements as outlind in 47CSRI0
prior to receiving coverage under this permit.
l. Public notice
All applications for construction projects that will discharge to or upsbeam of a Tier 2.5
or Tier 3 steam shall submit the application 90 days prior to constr¡ction. Public
comments will be used in the decisions leading to issuing the approval or denial for
cov€rage under the general permit.
2. Presumptive Conditions
Constn¡ction activities discharging to Tier 2.5 or Tier 3 waters will go through the Tier
2.5 or Tier 3 antidegradation review process.
No degradation will be allowed on Tier 3 waters except for ûemporary, short term
activities.
Projects located in a¡eas that have local government requirem€nts and/or criteria for post
construction stormrÀ¡ater management must meet those requirerneirts and/or criteria"
Othcr control section- This section requires the solid rflaste be disposed of properly.
Provisions must bc made to control dust. This section also details maintenance,
inspection, fraining and ræord keeping requirenrents.
Çonpliance with othçr state laws a¡rd ststutes- This section advises the permit that nothing
in this general permit shall be constued as excusing the permittee from compliance with
anyapplicablefederal, state, orlocal statutes, ordinances, orregulations. Fortlroseprojects
that may impact hÍstoric preservation sitm, the permittee should coordinate the project with
the State Historic Preservation Officer
FACT SHEET
WV/I:IPDES PERMIT No. WVO| 15924
Page l2 of13
This permit doqs not authorize netv sources or new discharges of constituents of concem to
impaired waters unless consister¡t with the approved total maximurn daily load (TMDL)
and applicable state law. Impaired waters are those that do not meet applicable water
quality standards and are listed on the Clean $/ater Act Section 303(d) list. Pollutants of
concern are those constituents for which the water body is listed as impaired. Discharges
of pollutants of concem to impaired waterbodies for which there is an approved TMDL are
not eligible for coverage under this permit unless they are consistent with the approved
TMDL. Within síx months of the TMDL approval, permittees must incorporate any
limitations, conditions or requirernents applicable to their discharges necessary for
compliance with the TMDL, including any monitoring or re,porting required by the
Division of Waterand trVaste Management rules, into their STWPPP in order to be eligible
for coverage under this general permit.
Sites that discharge into a receiving water which has been listed on the Clean Water Act
303(d) list of impaired wat€rs, and with discharges that contain the pollutant(s) for which
the water body is impaired, must document in the StilPPP how the BMPs will control the
discharge of the pollutant(s) of concern.
In addition, the Division of rûfater and \ffaste Management will include in the application
insm¡ctions a list of sreams in West Virginia with possible presence of endangered or
threatened species, to assist applicants in determining whør that issue nds to be
considered.
I. This section allows for changes in permit conditions in later general permits.
J. This section provides for the Notice of Termination, explains final stabilization and
requires certified as-built drawings be submitted with the Notice of Termination for
permanent ponds.
F¡\C'l'SIIEE'I
W\¡.Ò{PDES PI-.RivllT No. \\¿V0l l5t)2-i
Page 13 of i3
Duri¡g tþc public comment pcriod, any intcrcstetl persou nray submit rvrittcn commcnts on the
tlrati pcnnit unO nråy request a ¡rublic hcaring. A rcqucst ibr a public hearirig shall bc made in rvriting
¿rncl addressecl to;
The requcst shall statc the nature of the issues proposccl to bc raised in the hearing and must be
recejvecl rvithin the comrnent periocl. J-he Director shall holcl a public hearing'uvltc¡tcvcr he or she finds,
on thc basis of rcqucsts. a significant degtce of public intcrcsl on issues relevant to the clralì penriit. Any
pcrson may subrnit oral or rvritten statcmeÍlts arrd <1ata cotrcernitrg thc draft perniit; hott'ct'cr, reasonable
iirnits nraybe set upotì the time allou'cd f'or oral starcments. and thc submission olstatçmcnts in rvritittg
nray be required. A tape recordin-u or u,riticn transcrìpt of thc hcaring shall be nrade available to thc
public upon requcst.
Public hearings for this general perrnil rvill bc hclcl 'l'hursday, August 30,,2007, fiom 6
p.nt. to I p.rn. ar thc DEP Hea<lquartcrs Coopers Rock Training Rootn at 601 57"'Streel.
Clrarleston, WV 25304 arrcl Tucsday, Septcrnbcr 4.2007. fì'om 6 p.nl. to I p.rl. at the Jamcs
Rumsey Tcchnical Institutc al3274 Heclgcsville Itoacl, Martinshurg, \VV 25401
If inforrnation rcceived cluring thc public conltncnt pcriod appears to raisc substantiai ne\\¡ qucstions.
the Dircctor may reopo¡r tlie public cornmeut ¡leriocl'
All applicable infonriation concenring any pemrit application anci the tentative dccisiolls is tln tìle
ancl may be inspectcd by appointmcnt, or cei¡ries obtaincd at a nominal cost, at thc ott-ices of the Divisio¡r
of Water a¡rd Waste Managcmcnt, 601 57th Strcct SE. Charleston, Wcst Virgiuia 2530'1, Vlonday
tluough Friday (except State holiclays) bctrvcerr 8:00 a.ln. to 4:00 ¡r.rn.
I-lcari¡g irnpaired individuals having access to a Telecollrmunicatiou Device for thc Dcaf ('l'DD)
may conrart our agcncy i:y calling (304) 92ó-0489. Calls ¡nust [:c rnade bet$'een I a.m. to 3:30 p.rn.
lr4ondtry through Friday.
Requests lbr aclditional i¡fc¡nnation sþoulcl be directecl to Alicc W¿rlker at (304) 9?.6-0499, Extensio¡r
il 03.
Marytand lnventory of Hrstorrc Propertres Page I oï I
$
g
Search Criteria: Town:'Westernport ô
Displayi ng 22 record(s). I
Ë
ALIVL-Ð:
St. Peter's Convent Church Street (MD 135) Westernport
t3l
AL]1IÐ: St. Peter's Rectory Church Street (MD 135) Westernport
t32
A!-vLD: St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church Church Street (MD 135) Westernport
*F, -' Tibbets stick stvle House 112 Main Street (MD 937) Westernport
aL:YI D:
westernport survey District Westernport
AL-VI-E-
Westem Maryland Right- of-Way McCoole
224
WHEREAS, Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC proposes the development of a wind-powered electric
generation facility in Mineral County, V/est Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC (Pinnacle) has consulted with the West Virginia State
WHEREAS, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC has conducted survey efforts within the area of
potential effect to identify historic resources which are listed or considered eligible to be listed in
the National Register of Historic Places and has consulted with the WVSHPO regarding
eligibility and assessment of effect; and
WHEREAS, the WVSHPO has determined that the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm at New Page,
in Mineral County, V/est Virginia may have an adverse visual effect upon 18 buildings within
the Keyser, Mineral County, West Virginia vicinity, which are listed or considered eligible to be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Attachment 1) (the Subject Properties); and
WHEREAS, the WVSHPO has communicated with Pinnacle regarding the results of its review
of the Pinnacle's suryey efforts (Attachment 2); and
WHEREAS, the Mineral County Historical Society and the Mineral County Historical
Foundation have been consulted regarding the potential finding of adverse visual effect and
suggestions for mitigation measures specificaliy during a meeting held in Keyser on I7 August
2009; and
WHEREAS, the Mineral County Historical Society and the Mineral County Historical
Foundation have been provided an opportunity to comment to the WVSHPO regarding the
NOW, therefore, Pinnacle and the WVSHPO agree that the undertaking will be implemented in
accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the
undertaking on historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
Pinnacle wili insure that the following measures are carried out:
Architecture. Prior to the coÍrmencement of construction within the view sheds of the
Subject Properties, Pinnacle shall have funded an historic preservation grant fund in
amount of $10,000.00. The historic preservation grant will be made to and administered by
an independent, local community foundation to be established by Pinnacle.
C. The historic preservation grant fund will be dedicated to projects for the the
advancement of historic preservation in Mineral County, or for the preservation,
rehabilitation, or restoration of eligible properties for a period of 10 years or until all
the monies in the fund are expended.
D. Monies remaining in the fund ten years from its establishment will be retained by the
local community foundation for distribution as part of general grant awards for any
other community purposes within Mineral County, West Virginia.
E. Alternatively, Pinnacle may elect to fund the historic preservation grant to an existing
pres ervatio n or ganization acc eptable to the si gnatories.
F. Should Pinnacle fail to establish an historic preservation grant fund through the
proposed local community foundation, no construction within the viewsheds of the
Subject Properties may be undertaken rintil the establishment of such a fund in the
amount of $10,000.00 through the WVSHPO, or other organization acceptable to the
signatories.
il. Archeology.
A. Pinnacle has been redesigned to avoid site 46Mi174 identifted in the archaeology
study. Pinnacle agrees that site 46MiI74 is outside of the limits of disturbance and
will not be directly impacted by construction activities associated with installation of
the wind turbines. Likewise, sites 46 Mi76,46Mi79, and 46Mi80 can also be avoided
in the construction of the project.
B. If it is determined that archeological sites 46Mi78, 46Mi81, and 46Mi82 carmot be
avoided during the proposed project, Pinnacle will continue to consult with the
WVSHPO to assess their significance. If Pinnacle and the WVSHPO agree that the
sites do not qualify as historic properties, then no further work will be required. If it
is determined that avoidance of an eligible archeological site is impracticable,
Pinnacle will consult with the WVSHPO to develop a treatment plan consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Støndqrds ønd Guidelines for Archeological
Documentation and WV SHPO Standards.
C. Post-Review Discoveries. In the event of any unantieipated discoveries of
archeological sites, unmarked cemeteries, or human remains and associated funerary
objects during the construction or operation of the Pinnacle wind project, all ground
disturbing activities will be suspended in the area of discovery. Pinnacle will contact
WVSHPO within 48 hours of the discovery. In consultation with \ /VSHPO,
Pinnacle shall ensure lhat, if necessary, a qualified archeologist will visit and assess
the discovery within 72 hours of the initial WVSHPO notification. Through
consultation, Pinnacle and WVSHPO shall agree upon the appropriate treatment of
the discovery prior to resumption of construction and/or operation activities in the
area of discovery. If human remains are determined to be Native American origin,
WVSHPO, in consultation with Pinnacle shall comply with W.Va. Code 29-1-8a.
Pinnacle affirms that all human remains will be avoided by direct construction
impacts where feasible.
IV. Dispute Resolution. During the execution of the stipulations as outlined above, should
Pinnacle and the WVSHPO be unable to reach a mutually satisfactory decision, except as
noted, the WVSHPO will provide written comments to Pinnacle. Pinnacle shall respond to
WVSHPO comments. This exchange of correspondence shall demonstrate that Pinnacle
has afforded the WVSHPO an opportunity to comment and considered the effects to
historic tesources. All stipulations not subject to the dispute shall remain in force.
V. Annual Report. Pinnacle shall provide an annual report to the WVSHPO regarding the
project status including information regarding the establishment of the local community
foundation, use of the dedicated preservation funding and construction activity, the iatter as
it relates to the avoidance of the identified archaeological sites. Upon complete dispersal
of the $10,000 and construction completion, it will be mutually agreed that the reporting
requirement has been fulfilled.
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement evidences that Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and has mitigated
West Virginia Division of Culture and History.
io, .,
West Virginia Deputy State Historic Preservation Offrcer Date
ï
V/est Virginia Division of Culture and History
Date
It ís our understanding ttrat the noise assessment study has not yet been
completed and is not specific to historic resources. Althou-eh the nearest
resource eligible for listing in the National Register of Hisõric Places
is l.B
miles ftorn the turbines please provide u .opy ãf th. shrdy for our review and
comment,
Mr. Cookman
FR#:08-450-Mi-5
March 12,20A9
Page 2
In our opìnion, the proposed construction ofthe Pinnacle V/ind Turbine project
rvill have
a visual Adverse Effect to these eighteen resources eligible for or
listed ín t¡e National
Register of Historic Places as rvell as a visual AdversJEffect to the
rural landscape and
cultual setting within some portions of trre Area of potential Effect (ApE).
It is our understanding that tl¡e Phase I archaeological survey report will be submitted
for
our review in the near
frture. Please keep in minJthat, if alia¡ciraeologÍeal issues have
not been resolved at this point in the proiess, the MoA rvill need to be-amênded
to
for continuing the consultation process witå respect to archaeological
l-t-*i{:
v/e will provide fi¡rther comment upon ieceipt of the reiort and other items listed
resources.
above.
ú/.øe4ûx1Wot¿,<_
,ò,
M. Pierce
ÇfÉan
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SMP/Gtvt//LAL
In general. rhe draft report pres€nts a thorough account ofthe survey. However, we find that
addit¡onal information regarding the identified sites is needed before we can provide comment on
rheÍr Nartonal Register eligibÍlity. Sites 46Mi?6 through 46MiSO consist ofl indivídual sêt stones
rhat appear to have been uied recently as boundary markers. Sites 46Ìvli8l and 46Mi82 may have
been uied as distillery locations, white 46Mi74 cons¡sts of a cluster of caims and walls that are
thought to represent field ctearing piles. It is our understanding that very few or no ártifacts rvere
recovered Êom each site location. As you know, rock caims dating to the prehistonc period are not
uncommon in this region, As a result, it is unclea¡ whether these resources were consfructed during
the historic period or were created much ea¡lier and used fortuitously in the recent past. In
additron. in our experience, the cluster of rock caims and walls do not necessarily resemble field
clearing piles. Rather, they may be more similar to those documented elservhere in the eætem
Un¡ted States rhãt are thought to be prehistoric in origin. As a result, tve as.k tlrat sites 46Mi74 and
46Mi476 - 46Mi82 be avoìiled by the proposed project. If they can be avoided it is our opinion
that this project will have no efect on any archaeoiogical tesource etigible for inciusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. If this is not possible, we ask that they undergo fi,¡rther
examìnation to determ¡ne their eligibility for inclusion in the National RegÍster.
We appreciate the opportunily to be of service. If),ou have any questio,Ts regat'dittg ottr co¡nments_
106 process, please call Lyq.'4. Lamarre, Sentor Archacologrst, at (304) 558-0240.
SMP/LAL
$
å
e
Ë
DIRECT TESTIMONY
PREPARED BY
DIXIE L. KELLMEYER
UTILITIES DIVISION
****:k*
SEPTEMBER 15,2009
10
13 A. Yes.
14
24 A' I witl address whether Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle,,) has
fulfilled the
CASE NO. O9.(}36O-E.CS
I
I A' Pinnacle provided estimates of the amount of debt and equity
capital in a
l0 confidental filing.
11
l8 A' In its application Pinnacle stated that it has no agreements with any public
entities.
19
DIRECTTESTIMONYOF:@ PAGE 3
l0
11 a. SECTION 3.1.I.3 OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT
THE APPLICANT
12 SHALL PROVTDE ESTIMATES OF THE EFFECT OF THE
PROJECT ON
13 THE LOCAL AND STATE ECONOMY AS WELL AS
THE MODEL USED
14 TO DERIVE THE ESTIMATES. WHAT HAS PINNACLE
PROVIDED?
t5
t6 A. Pinnacle provided testimony concerning estimates
of the effect of the project on
17 the iocal and state economy' Pinnacle performed
an economic impact study using
l8 the IMPLAN econmic impact model. The study indicates a positive
economic
l9 impact.
2A
24
CASE NO. ()9-()36O.E-CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY oF: DIXIE L. KELLMEYER PAGE 5
I A. Yes, it does.
I
10
11
12
ô
ñ
E StoÎ*
t
Ê¡
å
IH
September 74,2009
September 14,2009
5 Q. How long have you been employed by the Commission and what are your
6 basic duties?
7 L. I have worked for the Commission for approximately one and one half years,
10 in interpreting the electric rules as applied to their situations. I also review and
11 analyze the technical aspects of complaints and provide Commission Staff with
23 responsible for the installation of the Data Collection and Evaluation System
26 System Measurements Section in 1980. In this position. I was responsible for the
27 factory acceptance testing of the DCES, and retrofitting the AEP Gavin Units 1
28 and 2 and the Amos Unit 3 AEP System 1300 MW generating units with this
29 system which, monitored and recorded critical operating conditions of the plant. I
31 Engineer, Sr. at the AEP John E. Amos Power Plant. I was responsible for all
32 performance testing, related improvement projects and generator / exciler
36 a. What is the purpose of your testimony and how was this task
37 approached?
39 Division's technical review of the siting certificate of the Pinnacle V/ind Force
41 commission's siting rules,t This task was systematically approached b¡z ¡syie\¡/ing
42 the application and requesting additional information from the Applicant through
43 Forrnal Data Requests, Letters of protest as well as those supporting the project
44 were also reviewed, and direct testimony provided by the company was read and
45 analyzed. A site visit and public hearings are scheduled during the week of
51 requested from the Applicant for clarification of the application and of a few direct
53 was provided to the Engineering Division Staff assisted us in determining that the
54 Applicant has met the siting rules requirements, I will discuss portions of the
55 application where additional comments will either clarify the information lissues
57 will also present potential engineering concerns and recommendations for this
58 project.
61 Convenience and Necessity for the Commission to consider. The Mt. Storm
I
West Virginia Code of State Ruies 150-30 Ê24-2-11c
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Page 4 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
62 Windforce, LLC project in Grant County was granted a certificate on August 29,
bi 2002, but has not yet been constructed, The Liberty Gap Project in Pendleton
65 Applicant can be viewed on-iine at the IIS WindForce website.2 This information
66 in conjunction with the Direct Testimony of Mr. David K. Friend indicates that the
7I the need for an electric generating project to state the need and justification for the
72 generating facility being considered3. Typically, this includes any available long-
74 Transmission Operator (RTO), and any other rational for building the facility.o Art
75 annual Load Forecast Reports was submitted by the RTO originally serving the
76 Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland (PJM) areas which now also serves parts
77 of 13 states and the District of Columbia including West Virginia. The Load
2
Additional information concerning the Applicant's company is available on thei¡ website at
www.uswindforce.com.
3
Mount Storm Windforce, LLC, Case No. 0l-1664-E-CN, AES Laurel Mountain, Case No. 08-0109-E-CS,
AES New Creek, Case No. 08-2105-E-CS.
a
Refer to the Discussion section found on pages 3-5 of AES Laurel Mountain. Case No,
08-0109-E-CS (Reopened) Further Final Order entered on March 17.2009.
t January
2009. PJM Load Forecast Report hffp:/iwww.p-im.com/planningy'resource-adequacy-
pian¡rin g/-/media/dosuments/reports/2 009 -pj m-load-report.ashx
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 5 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
82 2010, though summer peak load will not exceed the 2008 level until
89 49% to 2.8o/o.
90 Pinnacle witness David Friend suggests that within the regional whoiesale
92 renewable sources such as wind. He explains the growing demand for renewable
6
Pin¡racle witness David Friend Direct Testimony fited with the Commission on May 25,2009.
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 6 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker
97 A. The technical content of the appiication appears to meet the siting rule
100 Q. Were the maps included with the application adequate to review the scope
102 A. The maps initiall,v submitted with the application were helpful and sufficient to
103 satisfy the requirement of the siting rules. These original maps however. were not
104 similar to maps provided in previously submitred siting hearings. Staff requested
105 the Applicant to review previously submitled maps from other wind projects, and
106 provide maps similar to them. Pinnacle agreed to our request and provided maps
107 that were more familiar to staff. As a result, similar criteria could be applied to
108 this project as has been with recent wind turbine generation projects,
111 overlooks and vieu,s of the project that will be most evident to the public and
112 which are accessible to the public, The Applicant provided renderings from i9
113 vantage points within a 1.8 to 10.9 mile radius of the project. In addition to an
114 "actual" photograph used in producing the renderings, an image taken from an
115 aeríaI view found on Google Earth was also presented indicating a simulation of
i16 how the view would appear as compared to the conventional photo simulation.T
1I7 Many of the photographs for the simulations appeared to be taken on cloudy,haz),
t Refer
to the website af: hffp:llearth.google.com/
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 7 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
118 days. For this reason, Staff requested the Applicant to provide approximately how
119 many days out of the year had similar characteristics portrayed in the renderings,
120 Approximately 70o/o of the days in the area of this project were expected to be
I21 clear, suggesting the photo simulations may not provide an accurate representation
122 of the visibility of the project. It appears the photographs represent hazy
123 conditions on 30Yo of days suggesting the turbines are visible most or the majority
124 of time,
126 wiil visit the project site for a tour of the project area the week of September 2I,
127 2009. This will afford the participants an opportunity to see for themselves the
128 extent of the visual impact the project may have on the surrounding communities.
129 The project tour has been scheduled after the submission of this testimony;
130 signifrcant issues which may present during this tour will be addressed with
131 additional testimony if required
132 Q. Is Pinnacle's ambient noise study in compliance with the siting rules?
133 A. Yes. The direct testimony of James D. Bames indicated that he, as a
134 Supervisory Consultant for Acentech Incorporated, has been involved with the
135 study of sound for over 35 years. He has prepared studies and presented testimony
136 before the Public Service Commission of West Virginia on two other similar
l3l cases. Beach Ridge in 2006 and Liberty Gap Wind Force project in 2007. Mr.
138 Barnes was responsible for the preparation of the Acentech study entitles,
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 8 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker
139 "Acoustical Study of Proposed Pinnaele Wind farm, Mineral County. 'WV"
141 The Acoustical Report summarizes the approach Acentech foliowed while
142 addressing the requirements of the commission siting rules. Their .analysis and
143 results are cleariy presented in the Acoustical Report, in his direct testimony, Mr,
144 Barnes explains that Acentech developed information about existing iand uses,
I45 noise-sensitive receptors, and ambient sound levels in the community; and
146 developed sound ievel estimates for the construction and operation phases of the
147 project.
148 Q. Briefly describe some of the terminology used when discussing o'noise" as
151 also referred to as Ldn (Day-Night sound level). The day-night sound level is the
152 average equivalent sound level (Leq) for a 24 hour period. The data in this
153 calculation is adjusted for nighttime sound levels (between 10 p.m. andT a.m.) to
154 reflect the human population's expectation that nightlime should be a quiet period
155 of time. This is accomplished by adding 10 dBA to the nighttime recorded levels
156 before the calculation is performed. The avetage equivalent sound as defined by
157 Mr. Barnes is a single -value ievel that expresses the time-averaged total energy of
158 the entire ambient sound level. In otherwords, the Leq is an average level of all
159 sounds measured over a period of time that inciudes adjustments for nighttime
t Refer
to Appendix U of Pinnacie Wind Force, LLC Citing Certificate Application, March 13,2009
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 9 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
160 sensitivities, This method of quantifying sound leveis have been identifred by the
161 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as the best descriptors to use for
163 The Siting Rules require that Ldn sound levels be provided for existing
164 ambient conditions and projected Ldn sound levels be projected and submitted for
165 the construction and operational phases, This information shall be presented in the
167 a. Has the Applicant provided adequate sound contour (noise exposure)
170 preconstruction noise exposure map, The Engineering Division agreed to this
171 waiver as the data obtained from this study did not indicate any dominate sound
172 source across the site area for which to base any contour (or area) where different
173 levels of sound could be distinguished. The AES New Creek project recently
174 reviewed for certification by the Commission has similar characteristics and is
I75 located near this project, was granted a waiver requiring the filing of a
177 An analysis of the Construction Phase of the project yielded data which was
I78 plotted on the required sound contour map indicating the effects of noise levels at
I79 perimeters one and five miles away from the project boundary, It appears that
n
AES New Crcek, LLC Case No. 08-2105-E-CS
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 10 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E.'Walker
180 there will be no signif,rcant noise disturbance during the construction phase of the
181 project,
182 The operational sound estimates provided by the Applicant indicate that the
i83 estimated average day-night sound levels are greater than the 12-day ambient Ldn
184 (measured ambient noise) closest to the east side of the proposed project. The
185 noise level at all but one of these receptors is estimated at or below 55dBA. The
186 maximum measured ambient noise level was found to be 56dBA. Pinnacle points
187 out that these levels are considered "worst case" conditions, and at lower wind
189 Low frequency noise disturbances have recently become a concern when
190 evaluating noise impacts on the environment. In his direct testimony, Mr. Barnes
i91 discusses the most significant concern of how low frequency noise affects nearby
193 result in the rattling of china or moving windows and mirrors from this lou'
195 technique for calculating these low level frequency components through
196 mathematical calculations. By measuring the sound at any given iocation, with a
197 standard sound level meter, a value which emphasizes mid-range frequencies is
199 of the same noise utiiizes a specialized filter which is caiibrated to de-emphasize
200 the low and high frequenoy components of the noise being measured, referred to
202 sound level (dBA) with a C-weighted sound level (dBC), the low level frequency
203 component of the measured sound can be determined. It has been determined by
204 the Applicant that the calculated low level frequency component (long-term C-
205 weighted) Ldn (Day-Night sound) levels at both indoor and outdoor locations in
206 the community at distant locations to the west of the turbines will be lower than
207 the current preconstruction (measured) levels. The Applicant states that the
208 calculated C-weighted Ldn levels to the east of the turbine sites, are estimated to
209 be74 dbC and 72 dbc at Noise Receptors 4 and 5 respectively, which are higher
210 than the l}'day ambient Ldn of 57 dbc and 56 dbC which are currently being
211 experienced (measured) at those same Noise Receptors, Pinnacle acknowledges
212 this, and indicates that this acceptable by referencing the American National
213 Standards institute (ANSÐ entitled, ANSI/ASME Standard 8133 .8-1971 (R2001)
214 used in deterrnining an upper level for sound emissions from gas turbine projects
217 Literature published by the Acoustic Ecology Institute suggests low frequency
219 noise levels are problematic and lou'-frequency mitigation is generally required.l0
220 Never-the-less, the low level frequency concern was addressed b), pinnacle which
r0
AEI Special Report: Wind Energy Noise impacts,l16/2009. Website, acousticecology.org
Pubiic Service Commission of West Virginia Page 12 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker
223 its application that the wind turbine / generator units that will be implemented in
224 this project are that of MHi Model MV/T9512.4, manufactured by Mitsubishi
225 Heavy Industries (NGII). This unit is designed to reduce low frequency sound by
226 incorporating an upwind rotor design. Older wind turbine/generator designs used
227 downwind rotors (rotors downwind of the support tower) which produced a
228 significant low frequency noise component. Other possible ways of mitigating
229 this concem is by increasing the distance befween those who reside near the
230 project and the nearest turbine, also know as the use of set backs.
232 A. Yes. The studies presented in the application as well as the Direct Testimonies
233 of Witness Paul Kerlinger and 'Witness Mike Sponsler appears to have fulfilled the
236 A. Yes. Staff has reviewed all of the available direct testimony related to this
237 case,
238 a. Does the Engineering Division have any concerns that have not been
239 adequately addressed either in the application or direct testimonies?
240 A. Yes. For a number of years there have been reports of tower failures placing
241 structures and human life in danger. Additionalhazards inciude ice shedding from
242 turbine blades and blade throu,s. Although, research suggests that many of these
243 events rarely occur; public agencies, across the nation and world address these
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Page 13 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker
244 issues through setbacks from residences and other facilities that couid affect the
245 public (Safety and Health Concerns). Tower failures have been caused by blade
246 strikes, rotor overspeed, cyclonic winds and poor or improper maintenance.
247 Manufacturing defects have also been noted in the literature,ll Ice can accumulate
248 on turbine blades, nacelle and on towers during extreme cold-weather conditions,
249 as the temperature rises above freezing, the formed ice can slide off of the
250 structure falling to the ground causing harm to anyone in it path. Blade throw can
251 occur for several reasons; but, basically, if a blade becomes detached from the
252 turbine-generating unit, it can be projected long distances depending on the speed
254 Staff has reviewed how these concerns have been mitigated throughout the
255 industry, and believes turbine setbacks are a reasonable solution to these possible
256 hazards. Many setbacks from residences which have been enforced range from
257 1.5 to 2 times the total height of the unit from its base to the highest vertical tip of
258 the blade,r3 Other setbacks have been set at fixed distances from 1200 to 1500
259 feet from the base of the unit to the residence. Additional concerns of the
260 Engineering Division include the proximity of roads and power lines to the
261 proposed turbines. The Engineering Staff has reviewed the literature and has in its
l]lnternational
Finance corporation, world Banl< Group, "Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines
for Wind Energy', April 30. 2007.
'' Investing in a Cleaner Power . . . Naturaliy website, Public Health and Safety, pp.4-5;
www.powematuraliy. org
13
Investing in a Cleaner Power . . . Natu¡aliy website, Public Health and Safery, p, 8;
www.powernaturally.org
Public Service Commission of V/est Virginia Page 14 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker
263 issue that has been addressed in previous wind farm cases before the Comrnission
264 is that of posting warning signs around the site including the Operations and
265 Maintenance (O&M) Building, It has also become a concern regarding the
266 attraction of wildlife, such as birds to lighting related to the O&M Building.
268 A. If the Commission, after conducting its statutory mandated analysis, decides
269 that a siting certificate should be issued to Pinnacle Wind Force, then the
27A Engineering Division respectfully recommends that the Commission includes the
273 1) Prior to commencing construction, the Applicant must file a verified statement
274 indicating that all pre-construction conditions and requirements of the cerfifïcate
279 3) The Applicant must dispose of all contaminated soil and construction debris in
281 4) The Applicant must design and install any needed fire protection systems in
282 accordance with the National Fire Protection Association or other accepted
283 standards.
Public Sen ice Commission of West Virginia Page 15 of20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
284 5) The Applicant must coordinate with appropriate fire safety and emergency
285 personnel during the pre-construction stage of the Project to promote efficient and
287 6) The siting certificate shall become invalid if the Applicant has not commenced
288 a continuous course of construction within five years of the date the final
289 certificate is granted or has not completed construction by the tenth year without
290 petitioning the Commission for approval to expand these time frames.
291 7) The Applicant must file evidence that it has obtained any necessary
295 and West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office; any local governmental
296 agency requiring permits for construction / operation of this project) indicating
297 either that the Applicant does not need to take further action or outlining what
298 action the Applicant needs to take to be in compliance with that agency's rule or
299 laws prior to any grading, soil excavation, and/or habitat removal or causing a
301 8) The Applicant must file a copy of the Wetiands Survey and Delineation,
306 9) The Applicant must comply with the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 5
307 FERC 1531 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S,C, 5 701 et seq.), and,
308 if applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C , 5 4321 ef
309 seq.) in both the construction and operation of the Project. If any authorized
310 governmental agency or court with competent jurisdiction finds that the Applicant
31 1 is not complying with any one of the above three acts in either the construction or
312 the operation of the Project, then the Applicant must notify the Commission in
313 writing in this case of any such finding within ten (10) days of any such finding
314 being made. Furthermore, the Commission may seek any legal remedies it has
315 jurisdiction to seek, including injunctive reiief, to address any such findings.
316 10) The Applicant must A) construct and maintain a fence around the O&M
317 building and substation; B) lock all turbine tower doors unless access is needed for
318 maintenance purposed and C) for the life of the project, install and maintain safety
319 hazard signs at appropriate intervals around the project's perimeter, at the O&,M
320 building, substation, turbine towers and any other location(s) where safety hazards
326 b) Require contractors to use piie driving equipment which have the least
330 church, during the weekend church activities and services and during other
332 e) Limit any dynamiting to daylight hours and follow all State and
334 2) The Applicant must coordinate with appropriate fire safety and emergency
335 personnel during all other stages of the Project, including Construction and
336 Operations, to promote efficient and timely emergency preparedness and response,
337 3) The Applicant must file evidence of its EIVG status from FERC prior to
339 4) If the Applicant seeks to transfer its certificate, the Applicant is required
340 pursuant to Siting Rule 7.1 to notifl'the Commission in writing of the identity of
341 the transferee and submit an affrdavit from the transferee attesting to the
342 transferee's willingness to abide by the terms of a siting certificate, as issued. This
344 5) The Appiicant will consult with the representatives of Commission Staff, the
345 U.S. Fish &. Wiidlife Service, and the West Virginia Division of Natural
348 commence within a reasonable time, and in any event no later than one year
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Page 18 of20
Case Number; 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
349 following the commercial operations date of the Project. Pinnacle shall consult
359 c) The Applicant will file copies of each Study with the Commission and
362
363 If the project causes significant leveis of bat or bird mortalify and adaptive
364 management techniques are proven effective and economically feasible, Pinnacle
365 and its successors will make a good faith effort to work with the Commission to
366 apply parameters to implement faciiity-wide adaptive management strategies on
367 an on-going basis. Pinnacle shall update the Commission in writing twice a year
368 on the studies being conducted, The update shall be directed to the attention of the
370 for other deadlines, the updates shall be filed on or before January 30 and Juiy 3 1
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Page l9 oî20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
)/I each year. Pinnacle shall provide a copy of each report to the members of the
Jt) 6) The Applicant will minimíze the visibility of the Project by only using project
374 lighting in the presence of the project's personnel and any other persons
375 authorized to be in the area except that the Applicant may use Project lighting as
376 required by the Federal Aviation Administration and any applicable fire or safety
378 7) In the unlikely event that the blasting associated with construction activities
379 negatively affects the groundwater aquifer on or around Green Mountain; the
380 Appiicant will take immediate steps to resolve such negative effects.
381 8) The Applicant must fiie copies of the remaining interconnection studies and
383 9) Tower setbacks from residences, roads and power lines will be imposed to
384 equal at least i.5 times the total combined height of the tower, turbine and
385 maximum blade height. It is understood fhaf. pafücipants (residents) who have a
386 legal agreement with Pinnacle and reside in the project area are exempt from this
387 condition.
389 A. Yes, most recently some or all of these conditions were imposed on previous
391 Final Orders from the Public Service Commission of V/est Virginia are avaiiable
392 at the Commission's website by searching with the foilowing Case Numbers:
Public service commission of west virginia page 20 of 20
Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
393 NedPower Mount Storm, LLC (Case No, 05-1590-E-CS), AES Laurel Mountain
395 08-2i05-E-CS).r4 All of these conditions have been previously imposed with the
398 A. Yes,
o
' htrp'//www.psc. state, wv. us/
#/q
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
TERRENCE J. DEWA¡I
M.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page I of21
7 A. I am the Principal and Sole Proprietor of Terrence J. DeWan & Associates ("DeWan &
8 Associates"), a land planning and design firm in Yarmouth, Maine. Since founding the
9 firm in 1988, I have been responsible for conducting site visits, preparing visual impact
13 A. DeWan & Associates is a land planning firm with a specialty in scenic inventories,.visual
t4 impact assessment, open space planning, design guidelines, and integration of large-scale
t7 inventories, recreation planning, graphic design, and computer modeling. DeWan &
18 Associates has worked on over fifty visual impact assessments throughout the eastem
19 United States for projects including port facilities, electrical power generation and
J inventorying scenic resources; describing the viewshed and project site characteristics;
7 mitigation measures.
11 BACKGROUND.
I4 New York. I hold Maine Landscape Architect license #6. For the past three decades I
t6 industrial, municipal, and state agency clients throughout the eastem United States and
t7 Canada. My experience includes 17 years of visual impact assessments for wind energy
20 Chapter 315 Scenic Regulations and recently assisted the Maine Governor's Task Force
2l on Wind Power Development. I have testified before the Maine Board of Environmental
22 Protection and the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission on numerous occasions over
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 3 of2l
1 the past two decades. I recently completed a peer review of the Draft Environmental
2 Impact Statement prepared by Mineral Management Service for the Cape Energy Project
J in Nantucket Sound, MA. I am the author of the Scenic Assessment Handbook for the
4 Maine State Planning Off,rce (2008), which developed a methodology to identiff areas of
5 statewide and national significance for purposes of the Maine Wind Power Law.
10 A. DeWan & Associates was retained by Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind
1l Force") to provide a visual impact assessment of the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm at
t2 NewPage (the "Project") on a site on Green Mountain. The Visual Impact Assessment
t4 Application.
15 In connection with the VIA, we drove the major public roads within the study
16 area that may have a view of the Project and visited known public recreation areas,
18 and other sensitive viewing locations within a twenty-mile radius of Green Mountain.
t9 Sites were selected in part by a review of viewshed maps, which identified where views
20 of the Project would be possible. The field work we performed also provided an
2l opportunity to verify the viewshed maps for accuracy. DeWan & Associates also
2 ln addition to the written reports and graphics described above, DeWan &
a
J Associates prepared poster-sized enlargements of the photosimulations to be used in
5 the proper understanding and use of these images (at any size of reproduction) is the
6 viewing distance, i.e., the horizontal distance that the reviewer should hold the
7 photosimulation from the eye to accurately replicate real-world conditions. DeWan &
I Associates calculated the viewing distance for each photosimulation and incorporated it
10
11 VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
t4 would be visible from within the 20-mile study area, and also where the Project would
15 not be visible within the same area. The viewshed analysis mapping for the project was
t6 prepared by Pinnacle Wind Force and reviewed by DeWan & Associates. The results of
t7 this analysis were used in the identification, selection, and evaluation of appropriate
18 observer points for the site photography and photosimulations. The viewshed analysis
I9 was also used in the determination of relative visual impact of the Project on scenic
20 features, roadways, and publicly accessible areas within the study area.
1 A. Pinnacle Wind Force developed three types of viewshed maps using "WindPRO"
2 software: a positive viewshed map, a negative viewshed map, and a negative viewshed
J map with vegetation that helped to illustrate the effect of tree cover on viewshed. These
5 ' The positive viewshed map shows where the turbines might be visible from if there
6 were no trees, buildings, or other obstacles to block the view. Darker green colors
7 on the map indicate where all the turbines would be visible, while lighter shading
8 indicate where the turbines would be only partially visible or where fewer than all
10 project visibility since it does not consider vegetation or other obstacles, which will
t1 block the turbines from view.
I2 ' The negative viewshed map shows where views of the turbines will be blocked by
t4 is also informative, it under-represents the extent of the area from which the
15 turbines cannot be seen because it does not reflect the effects of forest cover and
I7 ' The negative viewshed map with vegetation adds a separate layer, representing
18 forested areas, to the negative viewshed map, to more realistically illustrate the
t9 potential visibility of the Project. This composite map is based on the assumption
20 that an observer would not be able to see turbines where the view is blocked by
1 of where the project will actually be visible from. As noted earlier, the viewshed
J The combined use of all three of the maps provides the most accurate understanding of
4 potential Project visibility within the 2O-mile study area. However, this will still be an
5 exaggerated picture of the extent of possible visibility, since the blades are rarely visible
10 SUCH DISTANCES?
11 A. ln our experience, under optimum conditions (very low atmospherichaze, direct sunlight,
t2 low humidity), the turbine support towers may be visible at 20 miles where there is no
I4 are generally perceived aS very small elements in the landscape and do not result in
15 unacceptable contrasts in form, line, color, texture, or scale. Turbine blades will
T6 generally not be visible beyond 8 miles due to their thinness, the effects of atmospheric
t7 perspective, and the limitations of the human eye to detect objects of that size at these
l8 distances.
I A. In most of the visual impact assessment work performed by this office, the concept of
2 distance zones is used to describe the amount of detail that an observer can differentiate
a
J in the landscape. This concept is based upon USDA Forest Service visual analysis
5 impact assessment. The outer limits of the Foreground, Midground and Background
6 distance zones described below have been adjusted from USDA Forest Service criteria to
7 comply with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the Public Service
8 Commission's rules.l
10 detect surface textures, details, and a fulI spectrum of color. For example, the details of
11 the turbines (blades, nacelles, support towers) are easily recognized within one mile.
T2 Public viewpoints within one mile of the Project are limited to local roads on Green
13 Mountain (e.g., Pinnacle Road and Hoover Hollow RoaÐ. When the project is
I4 completed, those who wish to see the Project may be able to use this road network to get
T7 natural landscape: details become subordinate to the whole, individual trees lose their
18 identities and become forests, buildings are perceived as simple geometric forms; roads
t9 and rivers become lines, colors become somewhat muted. Development patterns are
20 readily apparent, especially where there is noticeable contrast in scale, form, texture, or
2l line. The effect of distance is intensified in hazy weather conditions, which tend to mute
t Rule 3.1.m.3 of the Commission's Rules Governing Siting Certifications for Exempt Wholesale
Generators (150 C.S.R. 30), $ 150-30-3.1.m.3
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 8 of21
1 colors and blur outlines even further. In panoramic views, the midground landscape is
2 the most important element in determining visual impact. While the Project will be
J
a
visible from a number of public viewpoints within five miles, the dense roadside
4 vegetation and the folded hills will limit its visibility. Representative midground
5 viewpoints where the Project will be visible include: Potomac State College in Keyser
6 (2.6+ miles to closest turbine), many of the residential and commercial streets in Keyser
7 (2.5* miles to closest turbine); the US Route 220 Bndge over the Potomac River (2.8*
8 miles to closest turbine); Jennings Randolph Lake (4.1* miles to closest turbine).
10 panoramic views that give the observer the greatest sense of the larger landscape.
11 However, the effects of distance andhaze will tend to obliterate the surface textures and
t2 details of the Project components. Objects seen at this distance will be highly visible
13 only if they present a noticeable contrast in form or line and when weather conditions are
t4 favorable. Due to the thinness of the design, the ends of the turbine blades will be
15 minimally visible in the background, and not visible at aIl at distances greater than 8 to
t6 10 miles. At these distances, the most visible parts of the turbines will be the 8O-meter
t7 towers and the nacelles, if they are visible at all. Under most circumstances, the turbines
20 FIVE MILES?
2t A. The West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office ("WVSHPO") determined that a
22 five-mile area of potential effect ("APE") was adequate for the investigation of potential
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page9 of2l
1 Project impacts on historic resources. Two structures within five miles of the Project are
2 currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places: the Thomas R. Carskadon
J House on Mineral Street in Keyser and the Mineral County Courthouse on Armstrong
4 Street, also in Keyser. The Project is not expected to have a significant impact on either
5 ofthese structures.
7 A. In West Virginia, the following managed lands are located within 10 miles of the Project:
10 AWMA may have views of the Project. However, most views from within the
11 AWMA (with the exception of the fire tower) would most likely be filtered by
T2 dense hardwood vegetation. The most prominent view of the Project within the
13 AWMA will be from an abandoned fire tower on Pinnacle Mountain that is 1.8*
t4 miles southwest of the closest turbine. From this viewpoint, the turbines will be
15 seen in a relatively tight cluster (due to the alignment of the ridge) over a 5.5o arc
f6 (out of a total 360o panorama). The view from Pinnacle Mountain also includes
18 valley to the northeast around Keyser, the Luke Paper Company mill to the north,
19 and the wind turbines on Mount Storm, 9n miles to the southwest. Photosimulations
20 from Viewpoint 8, included in the VIA, provide views from the fire tower in both
1 . Jennings Randolph Lake Pro.iect (in both West Virginia and Maryland). At its
2 closest point the Project will be approximately 3 miles from the edge of the
a
J impotrndment. The viewshed analysis determined that the turbines would be visible
4 from less than 20Yo of the surface of the lake, due to the folded natwe of the
5 landscape, the intervening topography, and the surrounding forest cover. The
6 majority of the views of the turbines from the water will be at the northern end of
7 the lake in Maryland, where the existing landscape includes a 2,130'-long rolled
8 earth and rockfill dam, a 900'-long dike, a spillway with tainter gates, a concrete
9 inlet structure rising out of the lake, a visitors center, a railroad bridge, and other
11 turbines will be seen as a relatively small addition to the landscape. In the other
T2 locations on the lake where the Project may be visible, the viewer will only see the
13 tops of a few of the turbines at any one location. Local topography and intervening
t4 vegetation may block the view of the turbines from many of the remaining
15 viewpoints. The Maryland Overlook at the northern end of the lake provides a
I6 panoramic view of the impoundment and its related facilities, set against a backdrop
t7 of the Allegheny Mountains. Where turbines will be visible from the lake they will
I9 17 (panoramic view) provides a view of the Project from the northern end of the
1 . Bamum Whitewater Area (leased by Mineral County from the Army Corps of
2 Engineers). Based upon the visibility analysis, the Project should not be visible
J within this 4O-acre area due to the surrounding topography and vegetation.
4 Additional managed lands in Maryland are located within 10 miles of the Project.
7 THE PROJECT.
8 A. In West Virginia, three managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles from the project: Fort
9 Mill Ridge WMA, Springfield WMA, and Nathan Mountain \ryMA. Úr Maryland, five
10 managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles from the project: Mount Nebo WMA, Big
11 Run State Park, New Germany State Park, Deep Creek Lake State Park, and Dan's Rock
T2 Overlook Park.
13 Viewshed mapping indicates that some of these locations may have views of the
I4 Project. However, most views would likely be filtered by dense hardwood vegetation
15 and obscured by the effects of distance and atmospheric perspective. The most
T6 prominent viewpoint in this viewing range is at Dan's Rock Overlook Park in Maryland.
T7 Eighteen communications towers have been erected on top of the peak immediately
18 surrounding the overlook, which detract from the visitor experience. At the overlook, the
t9 closest turbines would be approximately 11.7 miles to the southwest. However, views of
20 the project should be blocked by intervening vegetation on Dan's Mountain. The existing
2t communication towers in the foreground would have a far more significant visual impact
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 12 of21
I than wind turbines in the background that would be seen over a 1o arc (out of a total 360o
2 panorama).
4 PHOTOSIMULATIONS
7 anticipated visible changes to the landscape within the viewshed of the Project as seen
8 from characteristic viewpoints within the study area. Photosimulations are used to help
9 determine the relative visual impact of the Project by providing realistic images to
10 evaluate possible contrasts in color, form, line, texture, scale, and spatial dominance. For
11 some viewpoints, e.g., where the turbines would be visible over an extended part of the
t2 landscape, a series of selected photographs were merged into panoramas on the computer
13 to provide a more realistic contextual view of the landscape. In other situations, a single
t4 photograph was used to demonshate the visual changes from the Project. Where
15 photosimulations have been created by merging multiple images, a 'normal' view is also
16 provided, since panoramic images tend to diminish the size of the turbines and under-
T7 represent their potential visual impact. Instructions are included on each photograph to
18 show reviewers how far from the image they should hold it to replicate actual viewing
I A. Several factors went into the selection of the viewpoints used for the photosimulations.
2 Potential locations were first selected after studying the viewshed maps to determine
J where the Project might be visible from public vantage points within the 2O-mile study
4 area. DeWan & Associates and Pinnacle Wind Force selected locations within the study
5 areathat (a) are publicly accessible (i.e., all photographs were taken from public roads,
6 bridges, college campuses, public hiking trails, or other locations where the general
7 public has access), (b) represent a broad cross-section ofthe diverse land use patterns in
8 this part of West Virginia and Maryland, and (c) are characteristic of the views of the
9 Project from a wide variety of vantage points and viewer positions. Locations were also
10 selected to provide views of the Project where the most number of turbines would be
11 visible. From many of the viewpoints, the Project will be partially screened by
13 Pinnacle Wind Force shared the photosimulations of the Project with the public in
t4 Community Advisory Panel meetings, open house discussions, and meetings with local
15 organizations and community leaders. These forums were used to solicit input on the
t6 appropriateness of the selected viewpoints and the qualitative aspects of the Project.
18 THE COMMISSION?
20 assistance of DeWan & Associates, for inclusion in the VIA. The viewpoints, which are
2T all on public property or publicly accessible locations, include the Keyser industrial park,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 14 of2I
1 the Route 220 bndge over the Potomac River, the Potomac State College campus,
2 representative sites in the residential and commercial areas of Keyser, the Duling Church
J near New Creek, the Pinnacle Mountain f,rre tower (abandoned), f*o rural cemeteries,
4 Jennings Randolph Lake, and a variety of major highways and rural roads. Of these
5 viewpoints, 14 are in West Virginia and 5 are in Maryland. The viewing distances vary
6 from less than two miles to the closest turbine (Potomac State College Farm and the
7 Pinnacle Mountain fire tower) to over ten miles to the closest turbine (a viewpoint on CR
I 50-6 (Ridge Road)). The majority of the views are in the midground viewing distance
10
l3 A. Four major viewer groups will be able to see the turbines and other aspects of the Project.
t4 These include local residents, motorists, working population, and recreating population.
15 The anticipated visual impacts of the Project on each of these viewer groups is described
t6 on pages 26-29 of the VIA. The visual sensitivity of each of these groups will vary and is
19 LANDSCAPE.
20 A. Landscape compatibility can be described in terms of the potential that the Project has for
2t being similar or dissimilar relative to color, form, line, texture, scale, and dominance.
22
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page 15 of21
1 Color. The turbine components (base, nacelle, and blades) will be white or off-
2 white, resulting in a considerable amount of color contrast, especially within one mile of
J the Project (foreground). As the distance from the turbines increases, they will appear as
4 light gray, especially when seen on hazy or overcast days. White turbines will allow the
5 project to have only red nighttime lighting. If an altemate color were selected, the FAA
6 would likely recommend white strobes for daytime lighting, which would draw attention
7 to the turbines and make them considerably more noticeable during the day. The color
8 contrast will change with the time of day, viewer orientation, sun angle, and atmospheric
10 Form. With several other wind energy projects in neighboring counties, turbines
11 are starting to become a more familiar form on the West Virginia landscape.
t2 Nonetheless, the three-bladed turbines set on tall towers breaking the horizon will present
t4 preserving as much vegetation as possible, the Project will minimize contrasts in form.
15 Line. From most viewpoints, observers will be looking upward and will not see
16 the lines caused by the Project's access roads or transmission lines. There should be
18 Texture. Texture contrasts will be most noticeable within a five-mile radius of the
t9 Project (i.e., in the foreground and midground viewing distances). The smoothly finished
20 surfaces of the turbines will present a noticeable contrast with the natural hardwood
1 Scale Contrast. The scale of the Project area is def,rned by the space between the
2 mountain ridges (e.g., 3 to 3.5 miles on the east side of Green Mountain in the Keyser -
a
-t New Creek valley), extensive areas of active agricultural lands, and open vistas. The
4 Project will extend over 3.4 miles of the Green Mountain ridgeline and will be perceived
8 wind turbines 2.5 miles away will appear relatively small and in scale with the Green
9 Mountain ridgeline. To someone standing near the turbines (within the foreground
10 viewing distance), the turbines will be the largest element in the visible landscape.
11 Spatial Dominance. The majority of the views of the Project will be in the
12 midground (less than five miles), where the turbines will be highly visible and will be
13 seen in the context of the Green Mountain ridgeline and other local and regional
t4 landforms. By comparison to the size of the underlying mountains, the wind turbines will
15 be seen as co-dominant or subservient to the larger landscape. The turbines will be seen
I6 against the sky, due to their elevated position from virtually all viewpoints. However, as
I7 illustrated by the photosimulations, they will not dominate the entire landscape
18 composition (the mountains, the sky, or nearby waterbodies).
20 PROJECT?
2t A. The Project will be visible to a portion of the population who live, work, drive, and
22 recreate within the study area. The turbines have been sited along the ridgeline of Green
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page l7 of2l
1 Mountain to take advantage of the available wind resource on a property that has been
2 used for commercial forestry. Existing access roads will be used where feasible to
5 significance within the project viewshed that will be unreasonably affected by it. The
6 most signif,rcant recreation area is Jennings Randolph Lake, approximately 3 miles from
7 the Project. The Project will be visible from a few locations within the recreation area,
8 but the presence of the turbines should not affect the manner in which people now enjoy
9 the lake or the other recreation opportunities at the facility. The Project will not
1t Impact on Significant Views. There are very few views within the study area that
t2 may be considered of statewide significance. The most noteworthy are the Piedmont Gap
13 on the North Branch Potomac River at 2.9 miles and the Maryland Overlook at Jennings
l5 15, 16, and 17, the wind turbines will not block or interfere with the views from either of
t6 these locations (both of which are on the West Virginia / Maryland line).
t7 Regional Focal Points. There are no landforms within the immediate vicinity of
18 the Project that are considered regional focal points. Green Mountain is a relatively flat-
r9 topped landform and characteristic of much of the landscape that makes up the Allegheny
20 Front.
2I
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page l8 of2l
I Traveled Ways. As noted above, the Project will be visible from several public
2 highways within the 2O-mile study area. In most of these instances, the Project will be
J visible in the midground or background viewing distance and will not block or intemrpt
4 the views. There are no designated scenic byways or scenic overlooks in West Virginia
7 area, but it is not considered unique to this part of West Virginia. The mountain has been
8 extensively used and developed with roads, home sites, mining and forestry activity,
10 undisturbed landscape.
1l Clutter. The turbines will be spaced across the top of Green Mountain at an
t2 average of 2.4 rotor diameters (approximately 750') apart. The line of turbines parallels
13 the ridgeline and echoes the profile of the mountain. The transmission lines, access
l4 roads, and other project infrastructure have been sited so they will not usually be visible
15 to the general public. The resultant Project should present a simple, uncluttered
16 appearance.
t7 The Project will have some minor visual impacts on a limited number of scenic
18 and recreational resources within the project viewshed. However, the Project location
t9 and layout have been selected to minimize impacts to the extent practicable. In no
20 instances will the Project block the views from or the views of lakes, mountains, rivers,
2I or other scenic resources. Throughout the majority of the 2O-mile study area, views of
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page l9 of21
I the Project will be partially or completely blocked by the rolling topography, tree cover
J The Project has been conceived and desigued to have minimal visual impacts
4 within the study area. Pinnacle Wind Force has made adequate provisions for fitting the
5 wind turbines, collection lines, transmission line, access roads, meteorological tower, and
7 The VIA was conducted by DeWan & Associates in compliance with the
8 applicable provisions of the Public Service Commission's Siting Rules and it is our
9 conclusion that the Project will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic or
10 aesthetic uses and will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic character of the
I2
13 MITIGATION
15 A. Mitigation is defined as any action taken or not taken to avoid, minimize, rectiff, reduce,
t7 Project has been conceived and designed to have minimal visual impacts on the
18 surrounding environment. A description of how the Project has been designed to follow
20 (Aesthetic Considerations) to the VIA. The main mitigation measure was selecting a site
2l that has:
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page20 of2l
2 turbine siting.
a
J o A network of existing roads that will provide access to the site, thus minimizing
5 o An existing transmission line very close to the project site, thus minimizing the
9 development of the Project to enhance the appearance of the wind turbines and minimize
12 perceived clutter.
13 ¡ The electrical collection system between individual turbines and the substation will
T4 be located underground to the extent practicable, primarily along the access roads.
15 o Vegetation clearing along the ridgeline will be minimized, particularly between the
t7 o The turbine support towers provide a clean simplified profile that will have less
I9 o The color of all wind turbine components (tower, nacelle, and rotor blades) will be
2l during cloudy, overcast and inclement conditions. This will avoid the use of high-
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page2I of2l
1 visibility strobe lights dwing daylight hours, which would increase the visual
2 impact.
I o Nighttime lighting of the wind turbines will be the minimal amount required by
g o Security lighting at the substation and O&M building will be minimal. Where
7 lighting is needed, the source of the light will be shielded to prevent off-site light
8 spillage.
10 A. Yes, it does.
PTIBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
DIRECT TESTIMONIY OF
JAMES D. BARNES
N[ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 1 of 16
9 facilities. My firm has been retained by Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind
l0 Force") to perform and prepare an acoustical study of the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm
20
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 2 of 16
4 A. My educational and professional qualifications that relate to providing this testimony are
5 set forth on Exhibit JDB-I. I have over 35 years of experience relating to the study of
6 sound, which has encompassed interior and community noise studies for existing sources,
7 prediction of construction and operation noise levels, and ambient sound studies for
8 proposed industrial sites and transportation corridors. During this time, I have worked
9 with desigu team engineers, architects and planners, attomeys, equipment suppliers,
10 owners, community representatives, private citizens, and state and local government
l3 currently co-teach the Fundamentals Exam Preparation Course for the Institute of Noise
t4 Control Engineering.
t7 A. Yes. I have testified before the Commission in the hearings on the Beech Ridge Energy
18 project in 2006 and the Liberty Gap Wind Force project in 2007. ln addition, I have
19 presented testimony in hearings before the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board,
20 the New Hampshire Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee, and at local town and
22
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 3 of 16
I PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
4 Acentech entitled "Acoustical Study of Proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County,
5 WV" ("Acoustical Report"), a copy of which has been submitted to the Commission as
l0 kr its Siting Rules, the Commission has adopted requirements for the study of sound to
tl aid its review of proposed electric generating facilities, including wind farm projects.
l2 The Acoustical Report responded to the Siting Rules by developing information about the
l3 existing land uses, noise-sensitive receptors, and ambient sound levels in the community;
I4 and developing sound level estimates for the construction and operation phases of the
l5 Project. Acentech reviewed the facility and site drawings, and equipment information;
I6 toured the Project area; conducted sound measurements and observations of the existing
18 and operation sound levels for the facility. The Acoustical Report summarizes our
t9 analysis and presents the pertinent results of the acoustical study. I performed or directly
a
J A. The magnitude, or loudness, of sound waves (pressure oscillations) is described
4 quantitatively by the terms sound pressure level, sound level, or simply noise level. The
6 quantify sound pressure levels just as degrees are used to quanti$ temperature and inches
7 are used to quantify distance. Since the decibel is a logarithmic rather than linear
8 quantity, adding two sound levels of 50 dB each results in a total sound level of 53 dB
9 rather than 100 dB. The faintest sound level that can be heard by a young healtþ ear is
10 about 0 dB, a moderate sound level is about 50 dB, and a loud sound level is about 100
ll dB.
t7 weighting filter emphasizes the mid-frequency components and de-emphasizes the low
18 and high frequency components of sounds to approximate the frequency response of the
t9 human ear. A-weighted sound levels correlate well with our perception of most sounds.
5 PLEASE DESCRIBE WHAT THE LEQ AND LDN SOUND LEVELS REPRESENT.
6 A. The equivalent sound level (Leq) is the level of steady-state sound that has the same
7 (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of interest, taken over a specified time
8 period. Thus, the equivalent sound level is a single-valued level that expresses the time-
9 averaged total energy of the entire ambient sound energy. It includes both the high-level
l0 single event sounds (e.9., bird chirps, dog barks, or local car passbys) and the relatively
il steady background sounds (distant traffic or steady wind in the trees). The day-night
I2 sound level (Ldn or DNL) is simply the average equivalent sound for 24 hours after 10
13 dBA has been added to the nighttime sound levels from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Adding 10
t4 dBA to the nighttime sound levels accounts for people's expectations that the nighttime
l5 should be a quiet period. Both the equivalent sound level (Leq) and the day-night sound
t6 level (Ldn) have been selected by the US Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA")
l7 as the best descriptors to use for the purpose of identiffing and evaluating levels of
l8 environmental noise. The Siting Rules require that Ldn sound levels be provided for
t9 existing ambient conditions and projected Ldn sound levels be submitted for construction
I A. Yes. USEPA has identified a guideline Ldn level of 55 dBA as protective of the health
2 and welfare of humans for outdoor residential areas and farms and other outdoor areas
J where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a
4 basis for use. This recommended level, which includes a margin of safety, was
7 Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA
I 55019-74-004, March 1974, Offtce of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C.)
9 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") has also adopted an Ldn level of
10 55 dBA as its criterion during review of proposed projects (Part 157, Chapter I, Title 18,
t4 A. We reviewed the facility and site drawings, equipment information, and the Siting Rules;
t5 toured the Project area; conducted sound measurements and observations of the existing
T9 the facility construction and operation sound estimates with methods in the ESEERCO
20 Power Plant Construction Noise Guide and with Cadna/A, a commercial software
2t package that is used widely for environmental sound modeling projects. Cadna/A has
22 been used in numerous other wind turbine noise studies, including the Beech Ridge,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 7 of 16
1 Laurel Mountain, and New Creek applications that have been reviewed by the
8 A. The purpose of the monitoring progrcm is to charactenze the existing ambient sound
10 acoustics community that the ambient sound environment is directly related to the land
1l uses and sound sources in an area. We reviewed maps, aerial photographs, and initial
t2 turbine layout plans; toured the project site and nearby community areas; and then
t4 sensitive areas (all residences, in this case) in the vicinity of the Project site. The actual
l5 location for each long-term monitor was then selected to allow for relative security of the
t6 equipment. Long-term ambient sound monitoring was conducted at the following five
17 community locations:
18 o Location 1 - wooded area in the vicinity homes to the south of the existing Beryl
T9 Electrical Substation, east of open fields, and west of the Project site.
22 o Location 3 - residential yard near several homes to the south of the Project site.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 8 of 16
I o Location 4 - wooded area near two homes to the east of the Project site.
2 o Location 5 - residential yard near two homes to the east of the Project site.
a
J a. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE AMBIENT SOI-IND LEVELS PRESENT IN LOCATIONS
5 A. The measured long-term Ldn sound levels ranged from 49 dBA to 63 dBA, with an
6 average value of 54 dBA and a standard deviation of 5.5 dBA across the five monitoring
7 locations. The measured hourly and daily sound levels varied widely at each location,
8 with individual24-hr Ldn sound levels that ranged from 4l to 72 dBA, across Locations I
9 and 3 and from 39 dBA to 56 dBA across Locations 4 and 5. The wind direction was
l0 typically from the west during the ambient sound survey. Therefore, the winds and
l1 associated sound levels due to wind in the trees in the vicinity of Locations 1 and 3 on the
t2 west side of the mountain ridge were greater than those in the vicinity of Locations 4 to 5
13 on the east side of the ridge. The ambient measurements indicate long-term average Ldn
t4 sound levels of 55 dBA around the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the southwest of
l5 the Project and,49 to 50 dBA around the nearest receptors to the northeast ofthe Project.
t7 A. No. The measured Ldn values and the observed mix of sound source types and land uses
l8 indicate that the study area contains no dominant sound sources, for example, a factory or
t9 a well-traveled lnterstate highway. Although the sound levels in the community varied
20 daily depending on weather conditions (e.g., wind speed) and other local conditions, the
2t typical sound sources across the area were similar and the overall acoustic environment
7 late fall. The initial activities (Phase I) will include improvements and new construction
8 of the facility access road; and then clearing, excavation, foundation, and backfill work at
9 the turbines and the substation. Concrete for the Project will be made at temporary on-
10 site batch plants using trucked-in materials or will be directly trucked-in from an offsite
ll plant. Phase II will include erection of the turbine towers and installation of the turbines;
t2 trenching and installation of the elechical collection system; and installation of substation
l3 equipment. Prior to commercial operation, the individual equipment items and the entire
t4 facility will be tested and commissioned in Phase III. The Acoustical Report lists the
15 representative construction equipment for each phase with their associated individual
t6 sound level estimates (Table 4 in the Acoustical Report), and it displays the Ldn sound
t7 level contours (Figure 16 in the Acoustical Report) for the simulated worst case of Phase
t9 the majority of construction activities will be conducted during lO-hour daytime shifts
20 and that any construction in the evening and nighttime periods will be limited to
2t relatively quiet activities. The individual Leq sound levels on Table 4 of the Report were
22 developed according to the methods in the ESEERCO Power Plant Conskuction Noise
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 10 of 16
I Guide. The sound contours on Figure 16 of the Acoustical Report, which were calculated
2 with the Cadna/A.program, represent Ldn sound levels, as required by the Siting Rules.
5 A. The construction activity at the site will be temporary, will occur mostly in the daytime
6 hours, and will produce sounds that are already familiar to the community, including
7 sounds from home construction. Although construction activity will be audible to nearby
8 residents at times over the planned construction schedule, its overall noise impact on the
9 community beyond 1000 ft. of the nearest turbine is not expected to be significant.
l0
1l ANTICIPATED OPERATIONAL NOISE
t4 A. For purposes of the Acoustical Study, we used the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHÐ
l5 Model MWT95/2.4 turbine. We assumed that all23 turbines were operating with a hub-
t6 height wind speed of 10.9 mls (24 mph), the wind condition that produces the greatest
t7 sound by this turbine model. The Cadna/A program model accounts for spreading losses,
l8 atmospheric attenuation, ground effects, terrain and other barrier shielding, and
19 reflections for the sound between each source and each receptor. For this acoustical
20 study, the sound propagation routines and barrier calculations in the Cadna/A model were
J A. The Project will be available to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The
4 estimated Ldn sound levels on Tables 5 andT of the Report and contours on Figures 17 to
5 19 of the Report were calculated with the Cadna/A program and present the facility
6 operation sound estimates for the community residences within one mile of the facility.
7 Under the assumed condition of maximum sound ouþut from all 23 wind turbines, the
I estimated sound levels produced only by the Project range from 41 dBA to 55 dBA at the
9 five sound monitoring locations. At the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project,
10 which include the residences to the southwest of the facility near Location 2, the
1l estimated operation Ldn sound levels vary from 46 dBA to 52 dBA with one residence at
t2 54 dBA; and at the closest few residences to the northeast of the Project near Locations 4
13 and 5, the estimated24-hr Ldn sound levels for operationare 52,52,55,55, and 56 dBA.
l4 Under conditions of wind speeds lower and greater than 10.9 mls (24 mph), the turbine
l5 sound emissions will be less than the maximum level. For example, the predicted Ldn
t6 sounds levels for each turbine, and for the entire Project, will be reduced by I dBA at
t7 12.3 mls (28 mph), 2 dBA at 13.7 m/s (3 1 mph), and 3 dBA at 8.2 mls (18 mph); and will
18 be reduced by more during times with even less wind, including the times below the
22 RECEPTORS?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 12 of l6
I A. The estimated average Ldn sound levels due to routine operation of the Project are equal
2 to or lower than the measured existing ambient Ldn sound levels at noise-sensitive
J locations to the west of turbines. Although the estimated Project average day-night sound
4 levels are greater than the measured l2-day average ambient Ldn values at locations
5 closest to the east side of the Project, they are within the range of the daily Ldn values
9 A. It is anticipated that the turbine sound will be heard at times at the nearest residences.
l0 The scenario in which the Project will most likely be heard is during times when the
1l turbines operate, wind conditions favor sound propagation, and local ambient sound
t2 levels are low. It is important to remember, however, that although the turbines will be
t3 heard at times at the nearest residences, except for one residence where the estimated Ldn
t4 sound level is 561 dBA, the estimated Ldn sound levels in this aÍea are all equal to or less
15 than 55 dBA, the guideline level identified by the USEPA as protective of the health and
t7 In addition to the faú that the expected long-term sound levels for the Project are
18 (in all but one instance) equal to or below the USEPA guideline level for rural areas,
l9 several other factors indicate that the actual sound, when heard, will be below the USEPA
20 guideline. First, the model includes the conservative assumptions that all turbines would
I
As discussed later in this testimony, this residence and several other nearby residences are participants in the
Project.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 13 of 16
I be operating at the maximum sound ouþut wind speed condition of 10.9 mls (24 mph),
J For those times when the receptors are upwind or crosswind of the nearest
4 turbines or when hub-height winds are less or greater than 10.9 mls (24 mph), Project
5 sound levels would be less, including the relatively calm times when the turbines do not
6 operate. Additionally, the Project Ldn sound levels are estimated for outdoor locations;
7 for indoor locations, these levels would be reduced by 12 dBA with the windows open
9 Second, the nearest residences include those to the southwest of the Project near
10 Location 2 and to the northeast of the Project near Locations 5 and 6. I understand that
ll wind data collected by the Project indicate a predominant wind direction from west to
t2 east. This wind condition will significantly mitigate impacts at the upwind residences to
t3 the southwest of the Project. For the nearest residences to the northeast of the Project
t4 (and the most affected residences), I understand that Pinnacle has entered into agreements
t5 for them to participate in the Project. In particular, Pinnacle has entered into an
I6 agreement with the owners of the residence where the estimated Ldn sound level is 56
t7 dBA.
2t DESIGNS?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 14 of l6
I A. Modem industrial turbines are equipped with extensive noise control features, including a
3 vibration isolation mounts, and quieted-design rotor blades. Quite significantly, modern
4 turbines are also of the upwind design, i.e., the turbine rotor blades are positioned to be
5 upwind of the support tower during operation. Some earlier wind turbine designs that
6 used downwind rotors (rotors downwind of the support tower) produced higher levels of
7 low frequency sound. When low frequency sound is substantially greater than the
8 background ambient sound, it may be noticed in the community and can cause
9 annoyance. The most significant concern of low frequency sound is that it can induce
10 vibration in a building structure, which may result in rattling china or moving mirrors and
ll windows. Fortunately, modem wind turbines incorporate the upwind rotor design so that
l3 We also note that the MHI Model MWT95/2.4 unit incorporates noise control
t4 treatments into the design of its various components, including the rotor blades, gearbox,
l5 and generator. Under conditions of reduced wind speeds, the background sound
t6 associated with wind in trees will be less; however, the turbine sound emissions will also
20 THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLDER WIND
I A. Although the Siting Rules do not specifically address low frequency sound, we did
2 provide an analysis of low frequency sound in the Acoustical Report. The C-weighting
J filter slightly de-emphasizes the low and high frequencies relative to the mid frequency
4 components of sound, which results in less de-emphasis of low frequency sound than
5 with the A-weighting filter. By comparing the C-weighted sound level with an A-
6 weighted sound level (i.e., dBC vs. dBA), one can determine the low frequency
7 component of the sound. We measured the C-weighted Ldn sound levels at the
8 community locations during the ambient sound monitoring program and estimated the C-
9 weighted Ldn sound levels for facility operation at the five locations. Table 6 in the
10 Report compares the measured ambient and the estimated facility operation levels. The
l1 results indicate that the long-term C-weighted Ldn sound levels of the facility will be less
t2 than the existing ambient C-weighted Ldn levels at both outdoor and indoor locations in
l3 the community at the distant locations to the west of the turbines. At the closest locations
T4 to the east of the facility, the estimated C-weighted Ldn sound levels are greater than the
l5 measured ambient levels, although they are less than the upper limit of 75 to 80 dBC that
17 power facllity.2
18
t9 CONCLUSION
2 | do note that, on page 8 of the Acoustical Report we state as follows: "At the closest locations to the east
of the facility, the estimated C-weighted Ldn sound levels are greater than measured ambient levels, although they
are less than the upper limit of 75 to 80 dBA that is recommended in ANSI/ASME Standard 8133.8-1977 (R2001)
for another type ofpower facility." (emphasis added). The sentence should have referenced 75 to 80 dBC.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
Page 16 of 16
I A. Yes. The estimated facility average Ldn sound levels are all within the range of the daily
2 ambient Ldn values that were measured in the area. The fltndings of our noise study
a
J indicate that the Project will produce sound levels that are equal to or lower than the
4 USEPA guideline level of 55 dBA at all but one of the noise-sensitive receptors in the
5 Project area. At times when the receptors are upwind or crosswind of the nearest turbines
6 or when the hub-height winds are less than or greater than 10.9 mls (24 mph), the turbine
7 sound levels will be reduced, including the relatively calm times when the turbines do not
8 operate.
9 Sounds from Project construction will be temporary, will occur mostly in the
l0 daytime hours, and will be similar to those of other activities, such as home construction.
1l As a result, the overall noise impact from construction is not expected to be significant in
t2 the community.
t4 A. Yes.
Staff Resume
JAMES D. BARNES
Supervisory Consultant
Aeentpnlt,
EDUCATION
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
Registered Professional Engineer (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, New York)
NASA Fellow, Past Member of Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Mr. Barnes concentrates on noise and vibration control, with an emphasis on resolving community and
worþlace noise problems. Over the past thirty years, he has managed and technically supervised
hundieds of projects covering the energy, transportation, manufacturing, and processing markets. His
projects have encompassed interior and community noise and vibration control studies for existing
io*c"r, prediction of construction and operation noise levels, and ambient sound studies for proposed
industriai sites and transportation corridors. To fulfill the requirements of these projects, Mr. Bames has
worked closely with design team engineers, architects and planners, attorneys, equipment suppliers,
owners, community representatives, and state and local government personnel.
"Noise and Vibration of Chiller and Cogeneration Plants," talk presented at Acentech Seminar for
Architects, Cambridge, MA (November 2008)'
"Fundamentals of Acoustics," course presented to applicants for the INCE Fundamentals Examination
with E. Vy'ood, Noise-Con2007, Reno, NV (October 2007) and Noise-Con2008, Dearborn, MI (July
2008).
"A Variety of Wind Turbine Noise Regulations in the United States - 200'1," paper with R. Gomez,
presented at Second Intemational Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise 2007 in Lyon, France (September
2OO7).
"Prediction of Machinery Noise" (E.W. Wood and J.D. Barnes) Chapter 16 of Noise and Vibration
Control Engineering (I.L. Ver and L.L. Beranek, Eds.) New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,Inc. (Second
Edition.2006).
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
"A Seminar on Noise Control," seminar presented for Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico with
., .1.,
J. Hinckley, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR (January 2006).
"De-Coding New England's Noise Codes," talk presented at Acentech Seminar for Architects with B.
Markham, Cambridge, MA (December 2005).
"Community Noise Issues," talk presented at Acentech Seminar for Architects with J. Cowan,
Cambridge, MA (November 2003).
"Noise Regulations that Serve the Community," talk presented at the l43rd meeting of the Acoustical
Society of America, Pittsburgh, PA (June 2ffi2}
"Planning to Avoid Land Use Conflicts and Potential Noise Problems," paper presented at Noise-Con
2001 with J. Fullerton, Portland, ME (October 2001).
Organized and Chaired Session on Community Noise at Noise-Con 2001, Portland, ME (October 2001)'
Served on Technical Review Committee for Aircraft Noise Program at Grand Canyon National Pa¡k,
committee appointed by HMMH, National Pa¡k Service, and FAA (1999-2000)'
"Exhaust Silencer Upgrade for ID Fan System at 500 M\ry Power Plant," paper presented at INTER-
NOISE'99, Fort Lauderdale, FL (December 1999).
, "Community Noise Primer," talk presented at Acentech Seminar for Architects, Cambridge' MA
(November 1998).
"HRSG Stack-Radiated Noise," co-chaired roundtable discussion at EEVAcentech Noise Workshop for
Electric PowerIndustry, Toronto, Ontario (July 1993).
"Cogeneration Plant Noise Monitoring," talk presented at EEVAcentech Noise Workshop for Electric
Power Industry, Toronto, Ontario (July 1993).
"Basics of Sound, Instrumentation, and Measurements," training course presented at Columbia Gas
Transmission, Charleston, WV (November 1992 and October 1996).
"Evaluation and Control of Induced Draft Fan Noise at a Municipal Waste Treatment Facility," paper
presented at Noise-Con '91, Tarrytown, NY (July l99l).
"Effects of Track Fixation on Groundborne Noise of Train Passage," talk presented at the 12lst meeting
of the Acoustical Society of America, Baltimore, MD (April 1991).
"Induced Draft Fan Noise Evaluation and Control at the New England Power Company Salem Harbor
Generating Station Unit No. 3," paper presented at Environmental Engineering Proceedings of EE
Div/ASCE Meeting, Orlando, FL (July 1987).
"Energy Savings and Noise Reduction with Speed Control," paper presented at EEVBBN Noise
Workshop for Electric Power Industry, Cambridge, MA (July 1986).
i' "Electric Motor Noise Control over the Past Ten Years," paper presented at INTER-NOISE '82' San
,åceea {É{:Ít
James D. Barnes Acentech lncorporated
IL (April 1980).
"A Method for the Detailed Assessment of Aircraft Exhaust Emissions," paper presented at the A.P'C.A'
Northeast Atlantic htemational Section Technical Meeting, Wakefield, MA (April 1978).
"Measurement of the Varying Noise Level from Power Plant Construction Sites," pâper presented at the
93rd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, State College, PA (June 1977).
"Ambient Sound Level Studies in Suburban and Rural Areas," paper presented at INTER-NOISE'74,
Washington, DC (September 197 4).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Dans Mountain Wind Farm - Allegany County, MD," Acentech Report
No. 387 (April2008).
"Acoustical Stgdy of Proposed Reconstruction of Route 128 Interchange #19 - Beverly, MA," Acentech
Report No. 386 (November 2007).
"Acousrical Study of hoposed Mill Maximum Achievable Control Technology Project - Easton, ME,"
Acentech Report No. 383 (Ma¡ch zOW).
"Communiry Noise Evaluation NEA Bellingham Cogeneration Power Plant - Bellingham, MA,"
Acentech Report No. 385 (February 2007).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Moresville Energy Center (Wind Farm) - Stamford, NY," Acentech
Report No. 384 (June 2006).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed High Sheldon Wind Farm - Sheldon, NY," Acentech Report No. 377
(May 2006).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Beech Ridge Wind Farm - Greenbrier County, WV," Acentech Report
No. 359R (May 2006).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Liberty Gap Wind Farm - Pendleton County, WV," Acentech Report No.
376 (April 2006).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed NSTAR Colburn Street Station No. 350 in Boston, MA," Technical
Memorandum No. 0055 (May 20M).
"Sound Performance Measurements on Hines Power Block 2 in Polk County, FL," (November 2003).
"Environmental Sound Measurements at Six Community Locations during August 2002 and June 2003 in
Londonderry, NH," Technical Memorandum No. 0054 (October 2N3).
"Sound Compliance Measurements on Phases I and2 ODEC Peaker Power Plant in Rock Springs, MD,"
(July 2003).
,,äc.ean Íecil,
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
i:!: "Sound Study of Planned Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements at Upper Blackstone Water
,..".-,.i Pollution Abatement District Plant in Millbury, MA," Technical Memorandum No. 0053 (Ma¡ch 2003).
"Sound Level Measurements at Transformer Station No. 247 in Walpole, MA," Technical Memorandum
No.0052 (August 20O2).
"Sound Level Measurements at Transformer Station No. 240 in Framingham, MA," Technical
Memorandum No.005l (JulY 2002).
"Noise Assessment of Proposed Peaker Power Project at Rock Springs, MD," AI Report No. 0311
(February 2W2\.
"Sound Level Measurements at Transformer Station No. 282 in Waltham, MA," Technical Memorandum
No. 0050 (October 2001).
"Noise Assessment of Proposed Combined Cycle Power Project in Keo, AR," AI Report No. 0300
(August 2001).
"Ambient Measurements and Noise Criteria for Proposed Combined Cycle Power Project in Anderson,
SC," AI Report No.285A (August 2001).
"Noise Assessment of Proposed Peaker Power Project at Oraville, TT.," AI Report No. 0297 (July 2001).
"Preliminary Noise Study of Proposed Peaker Power Project in West Frankfort, IL," AI Repon No. 0295
(April200l).
' 'j "Noise Assessment of Proposed Combined Cycle Power Project in Anderson, SC," AI Report No. 285
(December 2000).
"Noise Assessment of Proposed Peaking Power Project in Libertyville, IL," AI Report No. 0235 (August
19e9).
"Adapazari and Gebze Power Projects - Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Noise Impact
Assessment - Adapazari, Turkey," AI Report No. 0234 (June 1999).
"Noise Assessment of Proposed Pleasant Valley Energy Center near Woodstock, IL," AI Report No. 0221
(February 1999).
"Noise Measurement and Control Altematives - Ink Jet Business Unit - Buildings I and2 - Aguadilla,
Puerto Rico," AI Report Nos. 212 and 218 (February 1999).
"Noise Study in Control Room A¡eas at Clinton Power Station," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0049
(July 1998).
"Development Study of Piezoelectric Microphones for Animal Noise Monitor, Sonic Boom Monitor, and
Other Applications," AI Report No. 0200 (March 1998).
"Study of Air-Spring-supported Isolation Slab at Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane,
IN," AI Report No. 0193 (December 1997)'
"La Sierra Simple Cycle Power Project - Sound Level Estimates and Recornmendations - La Sierra,
i Colombia," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0148 (November 1997).
Åcexa të¡iÍt,
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
"In-Plant Sound Levels - Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Facility," (January 1997).
"Sound Level Measurements at Community Location A - Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Facility,"
(August 1996).
"Project Compliance Sound Measurements - Beaver Falls Cogeneration Facility," (August 1996).
"Acoustic Test and Survey Results at the Corinth Cogeneration Facility," (July 1996).
"Measurement and Analysis of Off-Site Noise - Bickers, Flat Top, Gala, Huff Creek, Strasburg, Emporia,
Louisa, Marietta, and Petersburg Compressor Stations," AI Report Nos. 0160 4168 (April 1996).
"Acoustic Test and Survey Results at the Olean Cogeneration Facility," (April 1996).
"Noise Snrdy at Central Plant - Denver International Airport," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0M2
(October 1995).
"Noise Study of Planned Cogeneration Facility at Yale University Central Power Plant," AI Report No.
0133 (May 1995).
"Allegany Cogeneration Facility Noise Study," AI Report No. 0125 (September 1994).
"MIT Cogeneration Faciliry Noise Study," AI Report No. 0122, (August 1994).
"Acoustic Test and Survey Results at Onondaga Cogeneration Plant," (February 1994).
Vibration Tests of Curtain Wall Mockup for Combined Operations Centre at Heathrow Airport," AI
Report No. 0097 (April 1993).
"Syracuse Cogeneration Facility Noise Study," AI Report No. 0092 (April 1993),
"Metro North Noise Barrier Study - Rehabilitation of the Park Avenue Viaduct for Metro-North
Railroad," AI Report No. 0093 (February 1993).
"Environmental Noise Impact Report - Worcester County Transportation, Distribution & Technology
Center," AI Report No. 0091 (December 1992).
"Noise Study at LIRR Hillside Maintenance Complex," AI Report No, 0089 (October 1992).
i "Noise Study of Deck and Track Alternatives - Rehabilitation of the Pa¡k Avenue Viaduct for Metro-
North Railroad," AI Report No. 0077 (August 1992).
,åc*sa tûcÍt,
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
i,.,,,i Operation Sound Study of CAES Project in Mclntosh, AL," AI Report No. 0078 (April 1992).
"Stack Radiated Noise Evaluation and Control: Hydro-Quebec, Tracy Power Station," AI Technical
Memorandum No. 0031 (February 1992).
"Ambient Sound Measurements near Concord Facility," AI Report No. 0071 (September l99l).
"Community Sound Study in Vicinity of Midland Cogeneration Plant," AI Report No. 0066 (July l99l).
"Community Sound Study of Carver Transformer Substation," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0023
(June l99l).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Control Room for l¡cinerator Units 1-4," AI Technical Memorandum No.
0025 (March l99l).
"Investigation and Abatement of Community Noise - Brewery and Power Plant Operations," AI Technical
Memorandum No. 0021 (January 1991).
Communþ Sound Study of Deerfield Transformer Substation," Af Report No. 0050 (October 1990).
"Acoustic Evaluation of Proposed Hopkinton Transformer Station 126," AI Report No. 0047 (September
l9e0).
"Community Noise Study of Midland Cogeneration Plant Units 3-14," AI Report No. 0043 (June 1990).
,. "Installation Compatible Use Zone Noise Study, Fort Hood, Texas - Army Corps of Engineers, Fort
Worth District - Vols. I and II," AI Report No' 0054 (February 1990).
"Noise Control Study for Northport Power Station," AI Report No. 0019 (August 1989).
"Acoustic Study of Preliminary Design for CAES Project in Mclntosh, Alabama," BBN Report No. 7005
(February 1989).
"Potential Noise Mitigation Methods for Surowiec Substation," BBN Report No. 6875 (August 1988).
"Community Sound Survey in Vicinity of Surowiec Substation," BBN Report No. 68754 (August 1988).
"Commuter Train Noise and Vibration in the Needham Junction and the Needham Heights Community,"
BBN Report No. 6880 (September 1988).
"Transformer Sound lævel Evaluation - Proposed Expansion of Duxbury Substation 738,' BBN Report
No.6844 (May 1988).
"Acoustic Noise Reduction Study of 5-280 CPI and ISO-20 IDP Shelters," BBN Report No. 6632
(January 1988).
"Effects of Track Fixation on Transit Train Passage Noise and Vibration at Southwest Corridor Project,"
BBN Report No. 6549 (August 1987).
, "Environmental Sound Survey in Vicinity of Mamaroneck Wastewater Treatment Plant," BBN Technical
i' : Memorandum No.097l (June 1987).
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
"Evaluation of Exterior Paging System at Somerset Station," BBN Report No. 6l l8 "Induced Draft Fan
Noise at Salem Harbor Unit No. 3," BBN Repon No. 5927 (July 1986).
"Community Sound Measurement at Somerset Station," BBN Report No. 6188 (April 1986).
"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1985," BBN Report No.
3024-10 (March 1986).
"Transformer Noise Level Evaluation - Proposed Addition of Two Phase Angle Shifting Transformers at
West Roxbury Station I10," BBN Report No. 5982 (August 1985)'
"Transformer Noise Level Evaluation - Proposed Addition of One Phase Angle Shifting Transformer at
Waltham Station 282," BBN Report No.5984 (August 1985).
"Noise Reduction Study of Model 6100 Mailing Machine," BBN Report No. 5917 (April 1985).
"Sound l-evel Measuremenrs near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1984 - Operation Noise
Progress Report," BBN Report No. 30244-9 (April 1985).
"Acoustic Study for Proposed Electric Generating Facility at Lincoln Mill Site," BBN Report No. 5521
(May 1984).
"Sound Iævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1983 - Operation Noise
Progress Report," BBN Report No.30244-8 (April l98a).
"Acoustical Study of Wet Scrubber Module," BBN Report No. 5223 (July 1983).
"Sound lævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1982 - Operation Noise
Progress Report," BBN Report No. 30244-7 (March 1983).
"Noise Control Study of Type l(V) CNCE," BBN Report No. 5208 (December 1982)'
"Acoustical Evaluation of New Scrap Demoulder Enclosures for Jensen 50 Lines," BBN Report No. 5164
(November 1982).
"Sound Iævel Measurements of Video Display Terminals," BBN Report No. 4841 (February 1982).
"Sound lævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1981," BBN
Report No. 30244-6 (December l98l).
"Community Noise Study of Worthington Gas Turbine Generators at Ravenswood Station," BBN Report
No. 47ll (July l98l).
"Noise Monitoring at Chicago's O'Hare Intemational Airport," BBN Report No. 4675 (May l98l).
"Program Plan for Measurement, Evaluation, and Control of Environmental Noise at the Omega and
McGaw Sites," BBN Report No 4650 (April l98l).
"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Constn¡ction 1980," BBN
Report No. 30244-5 (March l98l).
James D. Barnes Acentech [ncorporated
!:: ,_- "Noise and Air Quality Impact Analysis of the Sampson Connector, Lowell, MA,' BBN Report No' 4608
(February l98l).
"Acoustic Study of Type I(V) CNCE," BBN Report No. 4566 (December 1980).
"Noise Study of CIay Boswell Station Unit 4 Data Report," BBN Report No. 4514 (October 1980).
"Community Noise Study of Clay Boswell Station Unit 4," BBN Report No. 4499 (October 1980).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Tirnber Swamp Road Substation," BBN Report No. 4468 (July 1980).
"Ambient Acoustic Environment of Cat¿wba Site," BBN Report No. 3986 (March 1980)'
"Sound lævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1979," BBN
Report No.302444 (March 1980).
"Acoustical Srudy of Proposed Small Arms Range at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station," BBN Report
No.4169 (July 1979).
"Communiry Sound l.evel Survey near the Madbury Substation," BBN Report No. 4097 (April 1979).
"Sound lævel Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1978," BBN
Report No.30244-3 (March 1979).
"Noise Control Study of Peru Planr Buildings 2,3,4,5, and 35," BBN Report No. 3758 (August 1978).
"Report on Industrial Health and Safety Consultation Visit at Various Foundries," BBN Report No. 3468
(June 1977).
"Power Plant Construction Noise Guide," BBN Report No. 3321 (May 1977)'
"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1976," BBN
Report No. 30244-2 (April 1977).
"survey and Assessment of Worker Exposure to Carbon Monoxide at the Waltham Facility," BBN Report
No. 3474 (Decernber 1976).
"Draft Northeast Corridor Project Initial Assessment," BBN Report No.3472 (November 1976).
"Air Quality Impact Analysis of Proposed Roxbury Community College," BBN Report No. 3355 (August
t976).
"Winter and Summer Acoustic Environment of the Sears Island Site," BBN Report No. 3219 (December
te7s).
"The Acoustic Environment of the Pomfiet and Sheridan Sites," BBN Report No. 2981 (April 1975).
fuenter:h
James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
"Sound Measurement Survey of the W-25lGas Turbine Installation at the Mistersky Power Station
.....,,,1 Detroit, MI," BBN Report No. 3058 (April 1975).
"Response to Article Vtr, NYSPSC Laws Part 75, Bowline Unit No. 3," BBN Report No. 2916 (December
t974).
"Program Plan for Environmental Sound Control at Sheridan and Pomfret Generating Station Sites," BBN
Report No. 2861 (July 1974).
"Winter Acoustic Environment of the Jamesport and Shoreham Sites," BBN Report No. 2656(b)
(February 1974).
-.&ce'gB .,trr-t:tfu
PUBLIC SERYICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
DIRECT TESTIMO¡IY OF
WILLIAM E. LLEWELLYN
NI.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of William E. Llewelþ
Page 1 of6
2 A. V/illiam (Bill) E. Llewellyn, CME Engineering LP, 27 East Main Street, Frostburg,
J Maryland 21532.
7 A. I am a Project Director for CME Engineering LP. My firm has been retained by Pinnacle
8 Wind Force, LLC, ("Pinnacle Wind Force") to perform engineering and design services
14 waste services. CME has a staff of over 80 professional and support personnel in four
15 offices in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio. The CME Group, which is comprised of
t6 CME Engineering LP and its two sister companies, CME Operations LP and CME
t7 Laboratories LP, provide complete project design, construction management, and testing
18 services. CME has provided consulting services on wind energy projects in four states in
t9 the mid-Atlantic region, including the Liberty Gap project in Pendleton County, West
20 Virginia.
2t
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger
Page 2 of 6
1 EXPERIENCE
J A. As a project director for CME, I have broad responsibilities for many of the technical
6 includes engineering and surveying work for a variety of industries, including surface
7 coal, fire clay, sandstone and limestone mines as well as natural gas wells, railroad
8 sidings, tunnels, golf courses, subdivisions and commercial site development. In the past
9 six years, work for the wind industry has accounted for approximately 80%o of the
10 workload for me and my staff. I hold certifications related to surveying and quarry
11 permitting from the West Virginia Board of Professional Surveyors and the West
13 joining CME in 2003,I served as President and CEO of Llewellyn & Associates, Inc., a
t4 company that I purchased in 1995 and expanded, ultimately employing as many as fifteen
15 individuals.
18 A. Yes. I provided testimony before this Commission in connection with the Liberty Gap
20
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger
Page 3 of6
I PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
J A. Over the past five years, CME has worked with Pinnacle Wind Force on the design,
4 mapping, engineering, and environmental assessments for the Project. CME also has
5 assisted Pinnacle with the coordination or preparation of permit applications for the
6 Project. My testimony provides a brief overview of CME's efforts with regard to the
7 mapping, site investigations, and design work for the Project, as well as the status of
8 Pinnacle's efforts to secure the permits and authorizations needed for the Project.
10 PROJECT?
11 CME has been involved with the Project since soon after its inception. We have been
T2 involved in surveying, mapping, field investigations, design work, and permitting for the
13 Project. I am the CME Project Manager assigned to the Project. CME has assisted
t4 Pinnacle with numerous aspects of the Project, including but not limited to production of
15 base mapping, turbine layout, surveying, coordination with other consultants, lease
t9
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger
Page 4 of 6
PERMITTING
4 A. The status of the permit applications for the Project is described on pages 4 and 5 of the
5 Application. Many of the permit applications and approvals currently are under review
6 by the regulatory agencies. The United States Fish and V/ildlife Service and West
7 Virginia Division of Natural Resources are reviewing the studies of projected wildlife
8 impacts as discussed in the Direct Testimonies of Paul Kerlinger, Mike Sponsler, and
9 Karen Tyrell. Likewise, the State Historic Preservation Office of the West Virginia
10 Division of Culture and History is reviewing the potential impact on historic structures
11 and archaeology as discussed in the Direct Testimonies of Kate Kuranda and Jeff
T2 Maymon. The status of the reviews by the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal
13 Energy Regulatory Commission are described in the Direct Testimony of David Friend.
l4 CME has submitted the wetlands delineation to the United States Army Corps of
15 Engineers and an application for registration under the NPDES Construction Stormwater
t6 General Permit. The remaining permits and approvals listed in the table on page 5 of the
J a. V/ILL A SECTION 404 DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT BE REQUIRED FOR THE
4 PROJECT?
5 A. In consultation with the USACE, Pinnacle Wind Force and CME are currentþ working to
6 determine whether any streams or wetlands will be affected by the construction of the
7 Project. If there is no impact on streams and wetlands, no Section 404 Dredge and Fill
8 Permit will be needed for the Project. If, however, the USACE determines that the
9 Project will cause relatively minimal impacts on streams and wetlands, then Pinnacle
10 should qualiff for one of the existing "nationwide permits" (or "NWPs") available under
11 Section 404. Pinnacle Wind Force and CME have located road construction, utility
t2 corridors and turbine sites to minimize disturbance to streams and wetlands and,
13 therefore, we do not anticipate the need to f,rle a Section 404 NWP application. However,
t4 if it is determined that a Section 404 approval is necessary, the Commission Staff will be
15 so advised.
t7 THE PROJECT?
18 A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from WVDEP when an impact to
20 Section 404 permit). If no Section 404 Permit is needed for the Project, then Section 401
2I certification is not required. If a Section 404 NWP is required for the Project, then
J GENERAL PERMIT?
5 required for stormwater runoff occurring during construction. CME filed an application
6 on behalf of Pinnacle Wind Force for registration under the NPDES Construction
8 Pollution Prevention Plan, a Groundwater Protection Plan, a Spill Prevention Control and
9 Countermeasure Plan, and a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. A subsequent
10 revision to the application was made on April 15,2009. V/VDEP is expected to complete
13 A. Yes.
PTIBLIC SERVICE COMN/ilSSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
RANDALL A. CHILDS
NI.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 1 of6
2 A. My name is Dr. Randall A. Childs. My business address is 210 Valley Street, Reedsville,
J wv 26s47.
10
l3 BACKGROUND.
l5 economics; and a Ph.D. in economics from West Virginia University. I have 17 years
18 economic impact studies, including wind power projects and coal-fired power plants. My
t9 work includes research on the effects of state and national energy policy on the West
3 A. Yes, I previously testif,red before the Commission in connection with the Liberfy Gap
6 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
8 A. The purpose of my testimony is to address the economic impacts on the West Virginia
9 and Mineral County economies associated with the construction and operation of the
l0 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind Force") wind power project ("Project").
13 PROJECT?
14 A. Yes, I did. The results of my analysis are contained in a report titled: "Economic Impact
15 of the Pinnacle Project" ("Report") which is discussed on pages 70-71, of the application
18
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 3 of6
6 A. IMPLAN@ is an economic model that allows users to estimate the economic impact of an
8 agencies at all levels (federal, state, and local), as well as universities and private
9 consulting organizations. The IMPLAN@ methodology has been peer reviewed by the
l0 academic community and is widely accepted as the economic model to use for estimating
ll economic impacts. IMPLAN@ is also the model used for computing the economic
t2 impacts in the Jobs and Economic Development Impact or JEDI model that was
13 developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States Department of
t4 Energy. IMPLAN@ has also been used by universities and private consultants to provide
t7 ESTIMATING?
l8 A. IMPLAN@ estimates the indirect and induced impacts of expenditures associated with an
l9 activity or business (direct impact), in this case the construction and operation of the
20 Project.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 4 of 6
J A. The direct impacts of a project or event are represented by the expenditures that are made
4 to purchase goods and services (including labor) for that project or event. The indirect
5 impacts measure the spending and re-spending that occurs in the state or region from the
6 direct purchases of goods and services (excluding labor) and the additional spending that
7 is created as these other businesses purchase goods and services from yet other
8 businesses in the state or region. Thus the indirect impacts measure the "multiplier
9 effecf' of the original spending of the project for goods and services purchased from
10 businesses within the state or region. The induced impacts measure the spending and re-
t1 spending that occurs in the state or region from the wages paid by the project. Thus, the
t2 induced impacts measure the "multiplier effect" of the wages paid by the project that are
l3 used to buy goods and services from businesses within the state or region.
l6 The economic impacts presented hère and in the Report assume that the Project will be
l8 further assumed that the turbines and towers will be manufactured outside of West
t9 Virginia, and thus the expenditures associated with the manufacturing of turbine and
20 tower components will not generate any impact with the state or county economies.
2t
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 5 of6
3 THE ECONOMY?
4 A. Yes, estimated economic impacts on the Mineral County economy resulting from the
5 construction of the Project include: $28 million in increased business volume; 275 new
6 jobs; and $7 million in increased employee compensation. The estimated impacts on the
7 West Virginia economy resulting from the construction of the Project include: $37
8 million in increased business volume; 310 new jobs; and $10 million in increased
9 employee compensation.
12 A. The jobs created by the indirect and induced effects of expenditures associated with the
13 Project will not be in just a few select industries, but rather jobs will be created in
14 numerous industries in the county and state as the businesses and employees purchase a
18 A. The economic activity attributable to the Project during construction will generate
20
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs
Page 6 of6
4 A. Yes, economic impacts on the Mineral County economy resulting from the operation of
5 the Project include: $2 million annually in increased business volume; 15 new jobs; and
7 Virginia economy resulting from the operation of the Project include: $3 million annually
8 in increased business volume; 18 new jobs; and 5832,000 annually in increased employee
9 compensation.
T2 A. Yes, this Project will generate a significant amount of new dollars and jobs for both the
l3 Mineral County and West Virginia economies. In addition, it will further strengthen the
t4 economic diversity of the state and local economies by providing additional renewable
15 energy capacity in the state, which is called for in both the national and state energy
t6 plans.
l8 A. Yes, it does.
l9
Randall A. Childs, Ph.D.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Office: 318 Business and Economics Building Flome: P.O. Box 398
Bureau of Business and Economic Research 210 ValleyStreet
College of Business and Economics Reedsville, UIV 26547
\üüest Virginia Univenity Phone: (304) 86+0543
Morgantown, WV 26506 - 6025 Cellulan (304) 233-0689
Phone: Q04) 293-7832
Fax: (304) 293-7061
E-lvIaiL randy.childs(a mail.wvu.edu
EDUCATION
Doctorof Philosophy in Economics
rü(/est
Virginia Universiry Morgantown, West Vugi"i"
Dissenation Chain Russell Sobel, Ph.D.
Dissert¿tion Title: Essap on the Effects of Taxation and Government Regulation
Fields: Public Economics (Public Finance) and Urban/Regional Economics
July200s
RELEVAI{T EMPLOYI4ENT
2008 - present Research Assist¿nt Professor, Wesr Virginia UnivenþBureau of Business
and Economic Research
1993 - t999 Business Research Analysq west virginia univenþBureau of Business and
Economic Research
Childs, Rândall "Business and Occupation Tæ<es Effect on Business Growh and Locarion"
Municþalities within SØest Virginia have the abilfuyto impose a Business and Occupation (B6aO) tax
on businesses within the cþ limits. The¡t has been sþnificant debate reganding the impact of this tær
on employment andlor establishment growh in the municþalfuies thæ impose the ta:c This research,
utilizing establishment level data of businesses that participæe in the unemploymenr insurance
program, provides the fi¡st detailed analpis of the effects of the B&O tax This ¡rsearch examines
business growth in arcas subjcct to the tÐ( compared to businesses not subject to the BEO tax.
Childs, Randall and Ar¡ri Chester. "Valuing the Public Funding of the West Virginia Fleakh Science
and Technology .Academy'
Childs, Randall. "An Input-ûrtput Analpis of Howthe Price of C¡ude Oil Should Affect the Price
of Gasoline at the Pump"
Childs, Randall "Does Wal-lr{art Hun Small Business? An Establishment-Level Panel Data
Anaþis"
Childs, Rândall "Cigarette Tæ<ation's Effect on Ggarene auaü$ A Test of the Alchian and Allen
Theorem"
E æwric h pø { A t\ Panux ot the ÀA owgilia Cn øny E æwgt, Randall ,{. Chlds, December
2Q06
E æwric Inpo { A t\ Pattax m t}te M uwqnlid Ca,rty E wwry Rândall ,\ Childs, December
2006
E æwric hrpø { A n s Panax or tlæ M owgilia Canty E øwny Randall ,A. Childs, Dece mber
2006
t æ*r,¡, t"Wa { th I,lwEdHa Natioal Forct Pl¿n R""d"ll A Childs, nprit ZOO6
20062007 Væt Virginid Cnrty Data Ptú16, Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A Childs, August
2006
2005-2006 Vat Viryiniø C-a,øry Daa Ml6, Kwasi Yeboah and Randall ,\ Chlds, Augr.st
2005
E æwric Inpa { RØriÌS Rtuer, Randa[ À Childs, July 200 5
LVøt Viryinia's Fore,ß: C'?ouirgVæt Virginù\ Ftøtte, Randall À Childs, June 2005
2004-2005 W'at Virginia Cnaty Daa MIß,Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A Childs, August
2044
E æwric Inpø { t}æ Sronøt Towc C.oter m ilæ Mqwgilia eaxy E æwy, Randâll ,4. Childs,
lvlay2004
2003-2004 W'øtViryinia Cnaty Daa IW4 Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A Childs, August
2003
2002-2003 W'øt Viryinia Cnaty Data Ml4 Chris Condon and Randall À Childs, August
2002
E uwric Inpø { úe Anplin Hill Ho¡se Pa¡þ, Rendall A Childs, October 200 1
Eæwrichpø {Std in\Y'st ViÌgraa2000,P;rrÅ:.ll,{ Childs, Seprember 2001
2001-2002 lVat Virginia CnatyDaa IWk, Chris Condon and Randall A Childs, August
200L
A n A naly is { the lrnezs d E æwric Cçxrihtiox { ru C,mbriø 199 9, Rârrdall A Childs and
Tom S.'Witt, October 2000
Eøwnic Inpø {lï/æt Viryfuia Unirusiry FY 1998,R^ndall A Childs, David Greensrreer, and
Tom S. VÍ:r'r,,lv[ay L999
Euwric lrpo {ru Wbriø 1998,Rêrdall ,\ Childs and Tom S. !üin, lvlay t999
Eæwric hrpø { M anxaùwz Raæ Tra& ard Ganirq Rø,ort F iscil Yør 1 99 I , Randall ,{. Childs ,
February 1999
1999-2000 W'æt Viryinia Cnaty Daø Ml4 Chris C¡ndon, Brian kg", Cathleen Criswell,
and Randall Á" Childs,July 1999
Ilatm Cøûty Lab Mathø Datahse, Brian Lego and Randall ..{. Childs, June 1999
Rqinal Daa Wils RqtmVIII, AndySuper and Randall ,{- Childs, À4arch 1999
Eøwric Inpø {V/VHTC} Merrhr Cnrrynis dnd Ferdb Sqprtd Fatilitiø in North Gtrdl
Væt Virglnia 19961997,David Greenstreet and RandyChilds, December 1998
Puøruc Hiþlaú Rqim Lahr Ma¡ha Dauhse, Randall A. Childs, NIay 1997
1997-1998 Wøt Viryinia Caaty Daa Serge Karalli and Rand¿ll A Childs, December
Ml6,
1997
'Rqioul Daø lffIe Rqìm VIII, S:etge Karalli ¿rnd Randall A drilds; Juþ 1997
Pæoruc Hrþkrú Rqinz Lahr Ma¡þet Strldy, R;rndãJl ,A' Childs, lvlay 1997
19961997 \Yæt Viryinia &axy Daa Ml6, Randall ,4" Childs and Serge Karalli, Itly 1996
1995-1996 lVat Vírginia Caaty Daa W6, Rândall A" Childs, August 1995
1 994- 1 99 5 lVøt V iryinia Cnrty Daa Wilß, Randâll ,A' Chìlds, August I 994
Vahãrg Vatø Qtalþ btptoørert in tlæ MowrytMa Natioal Forct Usag &tugvx Vdh4arim,
Randall A Childs, Jalrnnry 1993
\irg¡lvrginia School Building Authority, "Economic Impact of the \Øest Virginia School
Building Authority FY2003-FII2007,' $5,OOO, 2OOZ
National Instituæ of Justice, "Economic Impact of the Forensic Indusrry," $600,000, 2OO5-
2007
land Resources Comganies, LLq "Economic Impact of Roaring River," $10,000 (co-
project director, principal investigator), 2005
Region VII Vgrldorce Investment Boad "Environ¡nental Scan and Implementarion PIan,"
$98,200 (co-principal investþato r), 2002
6
Ans Monongahela "Economic Impact of the Arts in ìíonongalia C-ounty," $2O,OOO
þrincipal investigator), 2002
Fill E¿ Associates, Inc., "Economic Impact of Kentucþ Electric Power Generation Planß,"
$ 10,500 þrincipal investigator), 2002
Terrell Ellis Er Associates, Economic Impact of the Bartounville Exposition Gnter, $4,500
þrincipal investigator), 2000
lvlarketVision Research Inc., Economic Impact of West V"Bi"i" Travel and Tourisn¡
$22,7 84 (co-principal investigator), 199 8
Mountaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort, lt¿lou¡rtaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort
Impact Stud¡ $8,200 þrincipal investigator), 1998
Potomac State C.ollege, Potomac Ffuhtands Region I¿borlvlarlat Stud¡ $10,000 þrincipal
invesrigator) , L997
Economics, Environmenl and Education in West Vogi"i" (Presenter), Elkins, \üøV (l"ly
2005) "Economic C-ontributions of \Øest Virginia's Foresrs"
CONSUI,TING PROJECTS
Economic Irypact of Liberry Gap W'rnd Power Facility (Provided testimony for the ÏØesr
V"Bi"i" Public Service Commission)
REFERENCES
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
JEFFREY H. MAYMON
M:ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
Page 1 of7
3 SLAssociates, lnc.,24I East Fourth Street, Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland 21701
g office.
i
I1 TO CULTURAL RESOURCES.
l2A.Goodwin&Associatesisatwenty-eight-year-oldcu1tura1reSourcemanagementfirm
13 with a national practice in the fuIl spectrum of the preservation disciplines. Our firm i
preservation
:
17 Kansas. All of our professional staff meet or exceed the professional qualification
3 BACKGROUND.
4 A. I have more than twenty-six years of experience in archeology and cultural resource
6 managed a wide range of cultural resource projects ranging from small Phase I
7 archeological surveys to large data recoveries in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia,
8 Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, Connecticut,
9 and Maine. I hold a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of New Hampshire and an
11
12 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
15 archeology completed by Goodwin & Associates on behalf of Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
17 investigations are detailed in a report included, in redacted form, in Appendix "Y" to the
t9
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
Page 3 of7
I AGENCY CONSULTATION
6 A. Consultation with the West Virginia Division of Culture and History ("WVSHPO") was
7 initiated in February 2008. Representatives of Pinnacle Force, LLC and Goodwin &
8 Associates, Inc. met with WVSHPO personnel to discuss scoping architectural and
10 June 2008, when the parameters for potential ground disturbing activities were defined by
ll project engineers. Records and site files research was completed at the WVSHPO office
t2 on June 18, 2009. Informal discussion with SHPO office staff regarding the types of
I6
t7 A. Pursuant to the initial consultation, a Phase I Archeological Survey was conducted within
t9 associated with construction and operation of the wind farm. Defined by project
20 engineers, this survey corridor varied between 500 and 800 feet wide and extended for
I extending west to existing Allegheny Power transmission lines was also surveyed. The
2 survey corridor was adjusted and expanded in June and September 2008 and included a
a
J revised interconnection location in the northern portion of the project area. A
4 supplemental survey was conducted to ensure that all areas that might be impacted during
5 construction were examined. To maintain design flexibility, this survey area was larger
6 than necessary for construction and maintenance of the proposed wind turbine array.
8 archeologists during the survey, and an additional 2,809 potential shovel test locations
9 were examined but not excavated due to slopes in excess of 20 per cent (11.3 degrees),
t0 exposed rock, or rock immediately beneath the leaf liuer. The testing was conducted at
ll 15 meter (50 ft) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 ft) apart along the survey
t2 corridors, which generally followed the mountain ridge. The shovel tests each measured
t4 l0 centimeters into culfurally sterile subsoil, except where soil conditions prevented fulI
l5 excavation. The spacing, diameter, and depth of the shovel tests were consistent with
t6 guidelines for archeological investigations issued by the WVSHPO. The soils were
I7 removed according to natural stratigraphic horizons and the soil characteristics, including
18 color and texture, were recorded using standard soil nomenclature. All excavated soils
20 Nine archeological sites were identified within the survey area during these
2t investigations. Five of the sites (designated as sites 46Mi76, 46M177, 46M178, 46M179,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
Page 5 of7
I and 46Mi80) are stones set upright to serve as boundary markers. Properly surveyors
2 working for the landowners or Pinnacle Wind Force also identified most of these stones
J as boundary markers. The characters "COR No 21 NC Co" were carved into one of these
4 stones, confirming that it represented a survey marker. Two other sites (46Mi81,
5 46Mí82) represent remains of possible historic stills in a wooded area north of Green
7 removing natural stone from a central area and stacking it to form a low circular wall.
8 One site (46Mi75) consists of a single isolated chert flake and was likely the byproduct of
r0 The final site (46Mi74) is charactenzed by a cluster of 60 rock cairns and walls.
1l No artifacts were associated with these cairns that would help interpret their origins or
t2 use. Situated along the margin of a steep slope on the eastern margin of the ridge, this
13 cluster of rock cairns/walls is located in one of the few locations along the ridge where a
t4 plowzone was observed in soil profiles. The thicker soil deposits and plowzone
15 suggested that these cairns/walls were the result of field clearing during the nineteenth or
t6 early twentieth century. These sites do not appear to possess either substantive research
t9
I The criteria for evaluating properties for the National Register are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36
CFR 60.4 [a-d].
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon
Page 6 of7
7 known archeological sites and historic properties that, while not within the Project APE,
8 are located within 5 miles of the Project corridor. The research was conducted in June
9 2008 and included examination of site files at the Division of Culture and History in
ll examine archeological studies conducted within the 5 miles of the Project area. None of
t2 the 21 archeological sites recorded within the 5-mile area were determined to be eligible
l8 Associates, are contained in a draft Phase I Archeological Survey for the Proposed
4 A. No. To date, Goodwin & Associates has not received any formal response to the
7 A. Yes, it does.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CIIARLESTON
DIRECT TESTIMOI\-Y OF
KATHRYI\ M. KURANDA
NI.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page I of 10
12 with a national practice in the firll spectrum of the preservation disciplines. Our firm
18
2I BACKGROI.IND.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 2 of 10
I A. I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in American Studies from Dickinson College and a
qualifications exceed those established by the Secretary of the Interior in the field of
6 historian with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, where I coordinated the
7 state's program for built resources, and as Architectural Historian with the Bureau of
8 Reclamation at their headquarters office in Denver. Since joining Goodwin & Associates
11 nation. I currently direct the architectural history and history programs of Goodwin &
12 Associates company-wide.
13
t4 PURPOSE OF TESTMO}ry
t9
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 3 of 10
5 A. Yes. Consultation with the West Virginia Division of Cultural and History
I and Goodwin & Associates met with Ms. Susan Pierce, Deputy State Historic
8 Preservation Officer, and Ms. Ginger Williford, Structural Historian, on 13 February
11 correspondence dated 19 March 2008, the WVSHPO concurred with the Scope of Work,
12 defining two phases of investigation for architectural and historical resources. Close
15 ASSOCIATES TO WVSHPO.
16 A. The Scope of Work defined a two-phase investigation. Phase I included five tasks:
17 1. Refine Area of Potential Effects ("APE") through computer modeling and field
r8 verification;
2 APE; and
4 survey.
5 The APE for the proposed Pinnacle wind power project ("Project") was defined to
6 address both direct and indirect effects. The area of direct effects was defined as the
7 fooþrint of each wind turbine tower and leased land encompassing the footprint of the
8 turbine towers and foundations, access roads, collection system, and substations. The
9 areas of indirect effects are those locations within a five-mile radius of the proposed
l0 Project location that are within the viewshed of the Project as defined by computer
l3 THIS EFFORT?
14 A. Archival research was undertaken to identify previously recorded historic properties and
t6 resources within the refined APE. Archival research was completed at the Keyser-
t7 Mineral County Public Library, the Potomac State College, the West Virginia Division of
18 Culture and History, and other repositories. Information was gathered on Keyser,
t9 Mineral County, and communities within the APE. Themes evolving from this research
2t Public outreach was initiated through the Mineral County Historical Society on 25
22 March 2008. Goodwin & Associates participated in the public open house held on the
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 5 of 10
project on 5 May 2008 in Keyser to obtain data on historic properties and areas of
older than 50 years was completed for both the areas of direct and indirect effects. Three
6 1. To veriff and to refine the areas likely to be in the viewshed within five miles of
9 within the APE with a view of the proposed tower locations; and,
13 A. Preliminary Phase I results were reviewed in the field with WVSHPO Structural
t4 Historian Ginger Williford on 22 April 2008. The results of the Phase I investigation
l5 were presented in a detailed technical report, Pinnacle Wind Project Phase I Investigation
t6 for Architectural and Structural Resources, which was submitted the WVSHPO for
t7 review and comment on23 June 2008. The 'WVSHPO concurred with the findings of the
20 effects determinations for 21 properties that may have views of the Project. These
22 Property lnventory Forms with accompanying graphic and photographic materials were
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 6 of 10
I prepared for each of the resources; all survey data was compiled from the public righrof-
2 way. The integrity of each property was assessed, and individual resources and districts
J were analyzed applying the National Register criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]).
4 Criteria A, B, and C were applied in the assessment of each property. Under Criteria A
5 and B, the historic context developed specific to the Project area was utilized in resource
6 evaluation.
8 Modifications to the Project led to the reduction of the APE in consultation with the
l2 Register criteria for significance and integrity. Six properties possess the qualities of
13 significance and integrity necessary for consideration for listing in the National Register
t4 of Historic Places under Criterion A, and one property possesses the qualities of
l5 significance and integrity for consideration for listing in the National Register of Historic
16 Places under Criterion B. The remaining properties possess the significance and integrity
l8 completed for each resource and was included in West Virginia Historic Properfy
t9 Inventory forms ("HPI").
2l none of the cemeteries was significant under National Register Criteria A, B, or C, West
22 Virginia Cemetery Survey forms were completed for each cemetery and were attached to
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 7 of l0
I the Phase II documentation submitted to WVSHPO. All HPI forms and accompanying
2 graphic and photographic documentation were submitted to the WVSHPO as part of the
6 possible effects from the project upon properties listed in or eligible for listing in the
7 National Register of Historic Places. The Criteria of Adverse Effect developed by the
8 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was used in this effort. Under these criteria,
9 an adverse effect is found when a project may directly or indirectly alter the
10 characteristics of a historic property in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the
t2 was determined that the Project will have no direct effect on properties listed in, or
13 meeting National Register criteria. The Project was anticipated to be visible from 18
t4 historic properties based on the viewshed model, photo simulations, and field
t6 viewsheds of eight of these properties, and therefore a visual impact already exists at
20 A. The Phase tr lnvestigation for Architectural and Structural Resources was submitted to
22 Pinnacle Wind Force LLC, Goodwin & Associates, and WVSHPO, represented by Ms.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda
Page 8 of 10
Pierce and Ms. Williford. This submission included a background summary of the
Project and a discussion of purpose and methodology. In addition, HPI forms were
attached for each historic resource that may have a view of the Project. West Virginia
Cemetery Survey forms were submitted for those cemeteries that may have a view of the
Project. Photo simulations of the proposed Project area and views toward the area from
investigations concurred that the Project will have no direct effect on properties listed in
or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The WVSHPO
t0 identified adverse visual effect to 18 historic properties within the APE. The WVSHPO
11 further found that the addition of turbines to the viewshed of 8 historic resources would
l4 historic properties were found due to the introduction of a new industrial element to the
15 rural landscape. These eighteen historic resources comprise 15 dwellings, the Potomac
16 State College Agricultural Farm, a grocery, and the Keyser historic district; all were
t9 their off,rce for review to address possible effects to historic property from noise
2l Pinnacle Wind Farm Mineral County, West Virginia (completed by March 2009 by
22 Acentech, [nc.) was submitted to WVSHPO via email on 31 March 2009. WVSHPO
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kwanda
Page 9 of 10
summarized their review of the report in a2l April 2009 letter, which states that "In our
opinion the acoustical study addresses the potential effect to historic resources and that
there will be no adverse effect to any architectural or cultural resources eligible for or
Pinnacle Wind Force and the WVSHPO. These negotiations had been initiated during
8 the 26 February 2009 meeting. This MOA will define measures to mitigate the adverse
9 visual effects to the 18 historic properties within the APE. This MOA is anticipated to
10 include the creation of a grant fund for local historic preservation projects, pursuant to
l1 which Pinnacle Wind Force will mitigate adverse visual effects to historic properties and
15 A. Review of the National Register filed maintained by the WVSHPO identified ¡wo
t6 properties within the APE that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
t7 These are the Mineral County Courthouse, listed in 2005, and the Thomas R. Carskadon
18 House, which was designated in 2002. These properties were included in the
3 A. Analysis of the modified layout and photo simulations of the tower turbine anay in
4 September 2008 refined the APE for Phase II investigation and eliminated five properties
5 from further study. While these properties will not have views to the Project and are
6 outside the APE, West Virginia Historic Property Inventory Forms were prepared and
j ftled with the WVSHPO to archive data collected prior to the Project modif,rcation.
s The modifications to the Project layout were addressed in the Phase II technical
9 report submitted to the WVSHPO on 26 February 2009. The WVSHPO concurred with
12 A. Yes, it does.