Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D.

Registered Professional Geologist

P.O. Box 217
Montrose, WV 26283

August 17, 2010

Carol C. Wampler
629 East Main Street
P.O. Box 1105
Richmond, VA 23218

Subject: Comments on Small Renewable Wind Energy Projects Permit by

Rule [9 VAC 15 - 40]

Dear Ms. Wampler,

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ’s) proposed “Small

Renewable Wind Energy Projects Permit by Rule [9 VAC 15 - 40]” (“Permit by Rule”)
contains misinformation, numerous deficiencies, and inconsistencies with existing
Virginia environmental laws. The proposed “Permit by Rule” should be totally discarded.
In order to develop a “Permit by Rule” to satisfy the 2009 statute directing DEQ to do so,
the DEQ must become educated concerning all aspects of wind energy development
and must maintain consistency with existing Virginia environmental laws. Incorporated
in this document below is a list that pertains to the existing “Permit by Rule” offered by
the DEQ, detailing the misinformation, deficiencies, and inconsistencies with Virginia
environmental laws.

Thank you for consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,

Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D.

Registered Professional Geologist

1) The basis of megawatt nameplate capacity for categorizing wind projects is

flawed and demonstrates a lack of understanding concerning wind power.
Residential wind turbines are designed to produce 100 kilowatts, or less, of electricity.
These wind turbines are usually less than 30 feet tall, and the excess electricity
produced can be stored in batteries for later use. Prudent use of residential wind
turbines allows homeowners to greatly reduce or even eliminate the use of electricity
from an electric company. Such residential wind turbines are totally different from the
industrial scale wind turbines used for communities or used in an array on, for example,
a mountain ridge. Examples of residential wind turbines can be studied on the following
websites: http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/electricity/index.cfm/mytopic=10880,
http://www.swiftwindturbine.com/pictures.php, http://www.mariahpower.com/, and
http://www.urbangreenenergy.com/turbine.php?id=18.

Page 1 of 7
 Comments on Small Renewable Wind Energy Projects Permit by Rule
Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D.
Page 2 of 7

Industrial scale wind turbines generally have a nameplate capacity of 1.5 megawatts
(such as GE wind turbines) to 2.5 megawatts (such as Clipper wind turbines) and are
greater than 427 feet tall. These wind turbines require “parasitic loads”, that is, they use
electricity from the grid in order to operate properly. The following description was
presented by Mr. David Friend, who is a wind developer with U.S. Wind Force, LLC, in
his rebuttal testimony for Case No. 05-1740-E-CS before the West Virginia Public
Service Commission: “These parasitic turbine loads include electric pitch system, yaw
motors, oil heaters, oil pumps for bearings and gearbox, cooling fan for generator and
turbine controller. These components typically use 7-9kW (average) during periods
when the turbines are not operating…”. This information confirms that industrial scale
wind turbines cannot cause coal-fired generating plants to be shut down because the
electricity produced by reliable power, such as coal-fired or nuclear, is required in order
for the industrial scale wind turbines to operate at all. Additionally, a back-up, spinning
reserve is required to be available at all times. This spinning reserve is produced by
coal-fired or nuclear plants because they produce reliable electricity, whereas the
electricity produced by industrial scale wind turbines is ever-changing and volatile and
thus incapable of providing a spinning reserve. Additionally, any electricity produced by
industrial scale wind turbines must be used immediately; electricity from industrial scale
wind turbines cannot be stored in batteries.

Therefore, the categories should be based on a more realistic division of the nameplate
capacity of individual wind turbines used for different purposes: those at the residential
level as distinguished from industrial scale wind turbines.

2) The protection of Virginia’s natural resources relies on educated evaluation of

the natural resources and enforcement of Virginia’s environmental laws and
regulations. It is irresponsible to rely on environmental audits conducted for
financial institutions or investors to provide a complete study of environmental
conditions. In the “Agency’s Comments” document concerning the “Permit by Rule”, it
is stated that environmental audits conducted for financial institutions and investors
provide sufficient environmental scrutiny to assure that “major environmental liabilities do
not exist at the proposed project site.” This statement indicates a misconception that
environmental audits are conducted in order to assess and protect natural resources. In
my previous position working for an environmental consultant firm, I conducted
environmental audits for financial institutions and investors and I can confirm that the
intent of the environmental audit is to determine if there are any hazardous materials at
the site which could create environmental concerns if they were disturbed by
construction activities. It is not the intent of an environmental audit to protect natural
resources. It is the responsibility of the DEQ to provide guidance and scrutiny of wind
project construction plans and activities in order to properly assess violations and threats
against Virginia’s natural resources.

As recommended by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF),

DEQ should require a survey conducted by the wind company to determine potential
impacts not only on threatened and endangered species, but also on Tier 1 and Tier 2
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (vertebrates only). The reason provided by
DEQ that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need were not
included in the survey requirements is that they probably would not occur in the areas
where wind projects would be proposed for construction. The likely areas proposed for
wind project construction are those areas designated as having Category 3 winds. The
Appalachian mountains are included as areas having Category 3 winds. It is critical to
 Comments on Small Renewable Wind Energy Projects Permit by Rule
Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D.
Page 3 of 7

recognize that headwater areas are located in the Appalachian mountains. These
headwater areas provide the base of the food chain necessary for downstream
organisms to survive far beyond the “disturbance zone”. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has provided data showing that negative impacts to headwater streams in
the Appalachians cause negative impacts to species in Chesapeake Bay. EPA
recommends a watershed-based approach and is mandated to show progress in this
regard to Congress. Given that DEQ limited the concern “trigger” to threatened and
endangered species, stating it would be too costly to industry to establish safety for other
vertebrates, the DEQ should have a study conducted or draw upon EPA data to have a
realistic interpretation of the impact at the sub-watershed and larger watershed levels.
This, especially, given that the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
(DCR) has manuals explaining the impacts at sub-watershed and larger watershed
levels. The destruction of headwater areas results in the death of aquatic organisms
which constitute the base of the food chain for the downstream vertebrates (fish, birds,
etc.).

3) DEQ should adopt the alternative of NO BUILD in areas where bats are known
to roost in trees or hibernate in caves within a 50 mile radius of the proposed wind
project and in areas within any 300 mile migratory pattern. It has already been
established in studies by bat experts that bat mortality is so great that wind projects are
referenced with regard to the number of bats killed per turbine. As many as 3,000 bats
are killed annually at the Mountaineer Wind facility at Backbone Mountain, Tucker
County, WV. Thomas H. Kunz, et al (Assessing Impacts of Wind-Energy Development
on Nocturnally Active Birds and Bats: A Guidance Document, Journal of Wildlife
Management 71(8):2449–2486; 2007) reports the following: “Large numbers of bats
have been killed at wind-energy facilities constructed along forested ridge tops in the
eastern United States (GAO 2005, Kunz et al. 2007, NRC 2007, Arnett et al. 2008). The
highest fatality rates at these facilities have ranged from 15.3 bats/MW/year at the
Meyersdale Wind Energy Center, Somerset County, Pennsylvania to 41.1 bats/MW/year
at the Buffalo Mountain Wind Energy Center (Fiedler 2004, Kunz et al. 2007, NRC 2007,
Arnett et al. 2008). A recent follow-up study conducted at the Buffalo Mountain site
reported fatality rates of 53.3 bats/MW/year at 3 small (0.66-MW) Vestas V47 wind
turbines (Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Ringkøbing, Denmark) and 38.7 bats/MW/year at
15 larger (1.8-MW) Vestas V80 turbines (Fiedler et al. 2007). Another recent study,
conducted at the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project, Lewis County, New York, USA
estimated bat fatalities ranging from 12.3 bats to 17.8 bats/MW/year (depending on
carcass search frequency) at 1.65-MW Vestas wind turbines (Jain et al. 2007).”

Additionally, the slaughter of bats by industrial scale wind turbines cannot be mitigated
because it is the mating behavior of male bats to seek the highest tree, which they
perceive to be the wind turbine itself. On their flight to the top of the industrial scale wind
turbine, the male bats are slaughtered (“Causes of Bat Fatalities at Wind Turbines:
Hypotheses and Predictions”, Paul M. Cryan and Robert M. R. Barclay, Journal of
Mammalogy, 90(6):1330–1340, 2009).

By eliminating the concept of metrics concerning bat mortality, the DEQ is simply
ignoring current available information and allowing the wind companies a license to
slaughter bats. This is in violation of the Code of Virginia, §29.1-521, which states that it
is illegal to “take,… kill,… by any means whatever… any wild bird or wild animal…
except as specifically permitted by law and only by the manner or means and within the
number stated.
 Comments on Small Renewable Wind Energy Projects Permit by Rule
Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D.
Page 4 of 7

The “trigger” proposed by DEQ for mitigation concerning bat mortality is a violation of
Virginia’s laws protecting wildlife. It is an obvious conclusion that lawsuits will result from
such a provision in the “Permit by Rule”. Therefore, the DEQ should adopt the
alternative of NO BUILD in areas where bats are known to roost in trees or hibernate in
caves within a 50 mile radius of the proposed wind project and in areas within any 300
mile migratory pattern.

By the 2009 statute, DEQ is placed in the position to evaluate cumulative damage to the
environment, not simply viewing each project as a separate entity. The U.S. Department
of Energy published “20% Wind Energy by 2030” in July, 2008
(http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf). This would require at
least 200,000 industrial scale wind turbines, destroying between 1 million to 2 million
acres for construction. The Applachian forested ridges comprise one of the targeted
areas for expanded construction. Construction of numerous wind projects on mountain
ridges within the Appalachian region of Virginia will have cumulative negative impacts on
several bat species, including threatened and endangered bat species. This is in
addition to the current problem of bat mortality due to “white-nose syndrome”, which is
killing thousands of bats annually. Neither a definitive cause nor a cure for this has been
established yet.

4) The DEQ, not the wind company owner or operator, must be responsible for
obtaining public comments on all proposed industrial scale wind projects and
provide an avenue for submittal and review of expert testimony. The only industrial
scale wind turbine project (Highland New Wind Development, Highland County) that has
been presented to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) has been debated
for approximately 7 years and the project is still flawed: 1) within the past year, it was
determined that the boundary between Virginia and West Virginia had not been
accurately established to determine the exact location of the wind project; 2) the site
plan and the sediment and erosion control plan are still deficient, according to DCR
inspection reports; 3) it was determined that an appropriate evaluation of the impact to
Camp Allegheny, an important historic resource, was not conducted; and 4) there are
currently lawsuits against the company because natural resources are not being
protected. It is clear that a meaningful evaluation of a wind company permit application
cannot possibly be completed within in the 90 day limit proposed in the “Permit by Rule”.

5) An ecologic unit or watershed-based approach is necessary to adequately

determine the impact on natural heritage species and natural resources as a result
of destruction caused by construction of industrial scale wind turbine projects.
As stated on the DCR’s website concerning “The Natural Communities of Virginia
Classification of Ecological Community Groups”
(http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncintro.shtml#what), the DCR is using
ecological communities as a tool to manage natural resources because the DCR is
responsible by statutory authority for documenting, protecting, and managing "the
habitats of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, rare or state-
significant communities, and other natural features" (section 10.1: 209-217, Code of
Virginia).” By using this ecological community approach, it is obvious that “field surveys”
limited to the zone of disturbance are inadequate to evaluate the impact of the wind
project on the local ecology. The impact area extends far beyond the disturbance zone.

Furthermore, the DCR outlines the watershed-based approach to protect fish and wildlife
habitat: “Local Watershed Management Planning in Virginia”
(http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/documents/wshedguideb2b.pdf). The DCR
 Comments on Small Renewable Wind Energy Projects Permit by Rule
Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D.
Page 5 of 7

provides the definition of a watershed as “… all the land that drains into a given body of
water. This body of water can be a creek, pond, river or ocean. Generally speaking, the
larger the body of water, the larger its watershed. The Chesapeake Bay watershed, for
example, covers 64,000 square miles and drains from six states including 60 percent of
Virginia.” (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/index.shtml). Furthermore, the
DCR’s “Engineer’s Toolkit - Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit
Regulations Effective January 29, 2005” specifies that in “4VAC50-60-50. General.
Determination of flooding and channel erosion impacts to receiving streams due to land-
disturbing activities shall be measured at each point of discharge from the land
disturbance and such determination shall include any runoff from the balance of the
watershed which also contributes to that point of discharge.”
(http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/documents/swmtlkt4tek.pdf).

However, the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit granted by

DCR to Highland New Wind Development did not include any evaluation of the sub-
watersheds into which stormwater from the project construction site will be discharged
through culverts. The DCR inspector’s reports consistently reference the lack of any
drainage delineations. In a meeting with the DCR inspector, he confirmed that only the
drainage areas to the culverts are being considered and that there is no consideration of
the sub-watershed of the receiving stream.

6) The “Permit by Rule” must specify the DEP’s responsibility to assure and
enforce the requirements of the Code of Virginia that pertain to Virginia Erosion
and Sediment Control (ESC) Regulations. The DCR has allowed ongoing
construction Highland New Wind Development wind project, even though the DCR
inspector has reported non-compliance with requirements of the ESC Regulations. DCR
has not upheld the following Virginia laws:

“4VAC50-60-60. Water quality.

B. Performance-based criteria. For land-disturbing activities, the calculated post-
development nonpoint source pollutant runoff load shall be compared to the
calculated pre-development load based upon the average land cover condition or
the existing site condition. A BMP shall be located, designed, and maintained to
achieve the target pollutant removal efficiencies specified in Table 1 to effectively
reduce the pollutant load to the required level based upon the following four
applicable land development situations for which the performance criteria
apply…”

“4VAC50-60-70. Stream channel erosion.

1 A. Properties and receiving waterways downstream of any land-disturbing activity
shall be protected from erosion and damage due to changes in runoff rate of flow
and hydrologic characteristics, including but not limited to, changes in volume,
velocity, frequency, duration, and peak flow rate of stormwater runoff in
accordance with the minimum design standards set out in this section.
2 B. The permit-issuing authority shall require compliance with subdivision 19 of
4VAC50-30-40 of the Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, promulgated
pursuant to Article 4 (10.1-560 et seq.) of Chapter 5 of Title 10.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
3 C. The permit-issuing authority may determine that some watersheds or
receiving stream systems require enhanced criteria in order to address the
increased frequency of bankfull flow conditions (top of bank) brought on by land-
disturbing activities. Therefore, in lieu of the reduction of the two-year post-
 Comments on Small Renewable Wind Energy Projects Permit by Rule
Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D.
Page 6 of 7
4 developed peak rate of runoff as required in subsection B of this section, the land
development project being considered shall provide 24-hour extended detention
of the runoff generated by the one-year, 24-hour duration storm.
5 D. In addition to subsections B and C of this section permit-issuing authorities, by
local ordinance may, or the board by state regulation may, adopt more stringent
channel analysis criteria or design standards to ensure that the natural level of
channel erosion, to the maximum extent practicable, will not increase due to the
land-disturbing activities. These criteria may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
0 1. Criteria and procedures for channel analysis and classification.
1 2. Procedures for channel data collection.
2 3. Criteria and procedures for the determination of the magnitude and
frequency of natural sediment transport loads.
3 4. Criteria for the selection of the proposed natural or man-made linings.”

The DCR (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/documents/tecbltn1.PDF) further

explains that “The changes to the land surface associated with development activities
will bring about significant changes to a channel’s natural equilibrium. As channels are
consistently impacted with increased volume, velocity, and peak rates of flow, they will
change by increasing their cross-sectional flow area to accommodate the higher flows.
This is done either through widening of the channel banks, downcutting of the channel
bed, or frequently both. Research conducted in many geographic areas has concluded
that channel degradation occurs at relatively low levels of imperviousness (10-20%).
(Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. 1,No.3).” Section 4VAC50-30-40.19.a of
Minimum Standard 19 (MS-19) of the Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations
(4VAC50-30-40.19.a) states: “Concentrated stormwater runoff leaving a development
site shall be discharged directly into an adequate natural or man-made receiving
channel, pipe or storm sewer system. For those sites where runoff is discharged into a
pipe or pipe system, downstream stability analyses at the outfall of the pipe or pipe
system shall be performed.”

DEQ will no doubt receive numerous lawsuits if the “Permit by Rule” does not cause it to
enforce existing environmental laws established by the Code of Virginia.

7) The “Permit by Rule” has no requirement to use Best Management Practices,

which should pertain to numerous ecological units.

8) The DEQ must be allowed the NO BUILD alternative.

9) Noise from industrial scale wind turbines is known to cause human health
problems. For human health, there must be set-back limits from existing homes. There
should be sound wall requirements. There is no mention of noise in the “Permit by
Rule”.

10) Wind data should be public information. Wind companies typically require that
the wind data from their wind project sites should be proprietary. Data currently
available to the public indicates that the wind velocities are too variable and volatile to
provide meaningful amounts of dispatchable electricity. If this is not correct, the wind
companies should be proud to provide their wind data to prove that it can be meaningful.
However, wind data has only been available “under seal” so that studies could only
provide generalities about the data. So far, the generalities indicate that wind in the
Appalachian mountains is not steady enough or strong enough to provide meaningful
electricity.
 Comments on Small Renewable Wind Energy Projects Permit by Rule
Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D.
Page 7 of 7

11) Financial data should be public information. There is ample evidence that
federal tax incentives and credits drive the wind companies to construct industrial scale
wind turbine projects. The evidence indicates that there is no meaningful electricity
being produced by the wind turbines and that the burden of cost is on the taxpayer and
electric ratepayer. The “Permit by Rule” should specify that the financial information
must be public information.

12) The Economic Analysis document supporting the “Permit by Rule” is

deficient. The Economic Analysis document indicates that real estate value will
increase for wind projects, but does not address the fact that most real estate is leased
for this and there is no evaluation of reduction of value because people don’t want
property near wind projects.