Wv Psc October 27 2009
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Wv Psc October 27 2009 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 85,089
- Pages: 370
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 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
Reporter: Brett Steele
Any reproduction of this transcript is prohibited without authorization by the certifying agency.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
2 1
A P P E A R A N C E S
2 3
JOHN R. AUVILLE, ESQUIRE
4
Public Service Commission of West Virginia
5
201 Brooks Street
6
Charleston, WV
7
25301
Counsel for the Public Service Commission
8 9
CHRISTOPHER L. CALLAS, ESQUIRE
10
JAMES R. ALSOP, ESQUIRE
11
STEPHEN N. CHAMBERS, ESQUIRE
12
Jackson Kelly, PLLC
13
1600 Laidley Tower
14
P.O. Box 553
15
Charleston, WV
16
25322
Counsel for Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
17 18
BRADLEY W. STEPHENS, ESQUIRE
19
Stephens Law Office, PLLC
20
235 High Street
21
#518 Monongahela Building
22
Morgantown, WV
23
26505
Counsel for Allegheny Front Alliance
24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
3 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES
2 3
WITNESS: Michael Jin
4
DIRECT EXAMINATION
5 6 7 8 9
by Attorney Trivelli CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert WITNESS: Randall Childs
11
DIRECT EXAMINATION
13 14 15 16 17
by Attorney Chambers
by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert
WITNESS: Terrance DeWan
20
DIRECT EXAMINATION
24 25
23 - 29
29 - 32
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19
23
20 - 23
EXAMINATION
by Attorney Chambers
22
17 - 20
CROSS EXAMINATION
18
21
13 - 17
EXAMINATION
10
12
10 - 12
by Attorney Chambers
32
33 - 35
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
35 - 36
EXAMINATION by Commissioner Albert
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
36 - 49
4 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2 3 4 5 6
REDIRECT EXAMINATION by Attorney Chambers RECROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
7
WITNESS: James D. Barnes
8
DIRECT EXAMINATION
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
by Attorney Alsop
by Attorney Auville
by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert
by Attorney Alsop
21
59 - 73
73 - 77
77 - 84
RECROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Trivelli
84 - 86
RECROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
22
WITNESS: William Llewellyn
23
DIRECT EXAMINATION
24
56 - 58
EXAMINATION
17
20
54 - 56
CROSS EXAMINATION
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19
53
CROSS EXAMINATION
16
18
49 - 52
by Attorney Callas
25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
86 - 87
88 - 90
5 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2 3 4 5 6
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert WITNESS: Jeffrey Maymon
8
DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 11 12 13 14 15
by Attorney Chambers
by Attorney Auville
by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert
DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 22 23 24
98 - 100
101 - 102
102 - 103
EXAMINATION
17
20
97
CROSS EXAMINATION
WITNESS: Kathryn Kuranda
19
95 -
CROSS EXAMINATION
16
18
95
EXAMINATION
7
9
90 -
by Attorney Chambers
103 - 106
106 - 108
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
109 - 129
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
129
EXAMINATION by Commissioner Albert
129 - 134
25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
6 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2 3 4 5 6
REDIRECT EXAMINATION by Attorney Chambers RECROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
7
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES
8
WITNESS: Dixie Kellmeyer
9
DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
by Attorney Auville
by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert
by Attorney Callas
20
DIRECT EXAMINATION
25
145 - 151
151 - 153
153 - 160
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
WITNESS: Donald Walker
24
143 - 145
CROSS EXAMINATION
19
23
140 - 142
EXAMINATION
by Attorney Auville
22
139 - 140
CROSS EXAMINATION
18
21
135 - 139
by Attorney Auville
160
161 - 163
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
163 - 178
EXAMINATION by Commissioner Albert
178 - 181
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
7 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2 3 4
REDIRECT EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
5
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES
6
CERTIFICATE
182 - 184 184 - 186
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
187
8 1
E X H I B I T S
2 3
Page
4
Number
5
Building Trades
6
1
7 8
Description
Offered
Prepared Direct Testimony of Michael Jin
2
9
10
Prepared Direct Testimony of Darwin L. Snyder
142
10 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
18
Memorandum of Agreement Pursuant to 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
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
9 1
E X H I B I T S (cont.)
2 3
Page
4
Number
Description
Offered
5
RAC-D
Direct Testimony of Randall Childs
21
6
JHM-D
Direct Testimony of Jeffery Maymon
99
7
KMK-D
Direct Testimony of Kathryn Kuranda
107
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
10 1
P R O C E E D I N G S
2
---------------------------------------------------------
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Good morning.
5
record.
6
as the first matter.
7
call your witness?
We are back on the
I think we're going to take Mr. Jin this morning So Mr. Trivelli, do you want to
8
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
9
Yes.
Thank you.
And I appreciate the
10
parties and the Commission agreeing to the slight change
11
in schedule.
12
like --- I just handed out a document, which I'd like to
13
be marked for identification purposes Building Trades
14
Number One.
I'd like to call Mr. Jin to the stand.
I'd
Mr. Jin needs to be sworn in.
15
(Building Trades Exhibit One marked for
16
identification.)
17
------------------------------------------------------
18
MICHAEL JIN, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS
19
FOLLOWS:
20
------------------------------------------------------
21
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
22
I'm going to try to sit to make this
23
work.
24
DIRECT EXAMINATION
25
BY ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
11 1
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Jin.
2
your name for the record, please?
3
A.
4
X-I-A-O C-H-E-N or call me Michael.
5
Q.
6
document that I've just handed you, which is marked for
7
identification purposes as Building Trades Number One?
8
It starts out as prepared Direct testimony by Michael
9
Jin?
My last name is J-I-N.
Okay.
Would you say and spell
My first name is
Mr. Jin, do you have in front of you a
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.
20
Q.
Did you prepare this?
21
or under your direction?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
If I ask you the questions that are in the
24
testimony today in person, would your answers be about
25
the same?
Was this prepared by you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
12 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Do you know of any corrections that you need to
3
make in this testimony?
4
A.
No, not that I'm aware of.
5
Q.
So therefore you adopt this testimony as your
6
Direct testimony in this case?
7
A.
Yes.
8
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
9
Okay.
Mr. Chairman, then I'd like to
10
move the admission of Building Trades One into evidence,
11
and with that Mr. Jin is available for Cross Examination.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
All right.
Without objection, Building
14
Trades One is admitted in evidence.
15
want to ---?
Mr. Callas, do you
16
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
17
No questions.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
All right.
20
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
21
No questions.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Mr. Stephens?
24
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Fine.
Mr. Auville?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
13 1
CROSS EXAMINATION
2
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
3
Q.
4
I represent Allegheny Front Alliance, the Intervenor in
5
this case.
6
one of the following questions, until I tell you
7
otherwise, I'm asking whether you've prepared any
8
opinions expressed in your Direct testimony and your
9
Exhibit B, the report you prepared, whether you took
Good morning, Mr. Jin.
My name's Brad Stephens.
I'd like to ask you a few questions.
Each
10
these things into account.
Do you understand?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
First, I want to ask if you, in doing those
13
things, did you consider or evaluate potential impacts to
14
property values in the vicinity of the property?
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
to do in an economic analysis?
18
A.
You know, the answer is yes and a no.
Our
19
model, we didn’t take that into consideration.
The
20
reason is very simple.
21
kind of an impact it would have on the property tax, so,
22
you know, it would take a certain time to make estimate
23
and to look at all kinds of models and see if the project
24
I guess would have a negative or positive impact on the
25
property.
Would that be possible to do or feasible
Because we really don’t know what
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
14 1
Q.
Okay.
Just to clarify, Mr. Jin, I'm not going
2
so far as to ask about property taxes.
3
about property values.
4
A.
Property value.
5
Q.
Yeah.
6
property values perhaps, but let's just stick with
7
property values.
8
into consideration any impacts to property values?
9
A.
No, it is not.
10
Q.
And why is that?
11
A.
You know --- I mean ---.
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.
16
pump up the property value or depress property value.
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
Q.
21
whether it would increase or decrease property values;
22
right?
23
A.
24
very simple.
25
into that project, what kind of impact you will have on
I'm just asking
Well, I understand that's an extension of
Would it be feasible for you to take
Okay.
Property value,
It will probably It
And you did not perform any research into
No, not at this moment.
You know, my focus was
When you have the amount of dollars going
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
15 1
the local economy, that's it.
2
property value.
3
Q.
4
potential direct or indirect social, environmental or
5
human health impacts of the project into account?
6
A.
7
wouldn’t do that.
8
Q.
9
taken into account either social, environmental or human
I understand.
No.
I'm not talking about
Second, did you take any
It's much more complex, so usually people
Okay.
Would it be feasible for you to have
10
health impacts of the project?
11
A.
At this moment, my answer is no.
12
Q.
And why is that?
13
A.
It's too complex.
14
all those kind of issues.
15
you know, what kind of --- in the way we deal with wind
16
power, I know we will have all kinds of concerns; for
17
example, sound.
18
concerns into an economic number and say what kind of
19
benefits or damages it would have.
20
to ---.
21
Q.
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?
Okay.
It's --- you know, you have For example, health issues,
It's hard to translate those kind of
So it's difficult
But the bottom line is you did not
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
16 1
A.
No.
2
Q.
All right.
3
potential direct or indirect impact to historic resources
4
in the vicinity of the project or the tourism potentially
5
spurred by the integrity of those resources?
6
A.
No.
7
Q.
Okay.
8
elements into an economic analysis?
9
A.
Third, did you take into effect any
Would it be possible to integrate such
As I said, you know, my study is a much more
10
focused study.
I mean, I don’t take into consideration
11
those kind of deviations.
12
Q.
13
impacts on historic resources or tourism?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
Did you take into account the federal production
16
tax credit which would be available to Pinnacle and
17
possibly successors in interest in the project?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Would it have been feasible to take that into
20
account in your analysis?
21
A.
22
study, only focused on the construction phase of the
23
project, so I didn’t take into consideration some of
24
those things.
25
Q.
So you didn’t perform any research and do any
As I said, you know, my study is a very focused
I understand.
Did you take into account any
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
17 1
other state or federal tax credit or incentive, which
2
would be available to Pinnacle or any successor in
3
interest in the project?
4
A.
No, I did not do that either.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
I believe that is all I have for you,
7
Mr. Jin.
8
A.
Thank you. Okay. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 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
19
Council for at least four or five that I'm aware of.
20
you go back and look to see or assess the accuracy of
21
your study, this one vis-à-vis earlier ones?
22
do you adjust your approach in any way?
23
A.
And if so,
Yes, I do.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
How do you do that?
Do
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
18 1
A.
You know, I mean, first of all, those study ---
2
okay.
3
use a model.
4
impact.
I have --- how to put it.
This is --- I usually
A model is --- you know, generates by
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
Right.
7
A.
And when I use an impact model, you know, I have
8
to make certain assumptions and when I make certain
9
assumptions, I try to stay consistent on making those
10
assumptions.
11
project, construction project that's $300 million and the
12
labor cost, which is a very important variable, to put
13
into an impact I would say probably less than 27 percent
14
of labor costs.
15
assumptions.
16
numbers with written documents such as, let's say,
17
prevailing wages charts produced by West Virginia.
18
try to, you know, stay consistent on those issues.
19
When say, for example, if you have a big
And then I try to stay consistent on the
And by doing this I also verify those
So I
And after I do the study, I always compare those
20
numbers and look at all the studies I did.
For example,
21
with one of those numbers, we call them multiples,
22
multiplies.
23
use of job can produce by one direct job.
24
certain extent is a fixed ratio, 3:1 or 2.31.
25
will look at this as a verification to see if those
When direct job, how many indirect and the And that to a And then I
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
19 1
numbers are consistent.
So basically when I do those
2
four, five studies I always look back and use previous
3
study as a standard and to verify the numbers to see if
4
they are, you know, good or not.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
Then I assume that based on your look
7
back or review of the prior projects, that you're
8
satisfied that the approach you've been using accurately
9
predicts the economic impact of these projects?
10
A.
Oh, yes.
Yes, I always do that.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Is there any --- are there any
13
empirical ---?
14
forward, do you do any empirical studies on each project
15
to determine whether your projection of that project
16
matches actuality or can that even be done?
17
I ---.
18
A.
19
you know, in reality we really don’t know, you know.
20
economic impact would be realized in a certain way, you
21
know, I mean, unless you talk to the state, talk to the
22
county people, you know, to see if they do see those ---
23
for example, the tax revenues and those type of things we
24
have to, you know, do --- have to talk to the people in
25
the field.
Yeah.
Other than correcting your data as you go
I'm not ---
It's hard to be done like this because,
Then you can know if it's severe or not.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
The
20 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
All right.
3
A.
But this is an estimate.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Well, I understand.
6
Mr. Trivelli, any Redirect?
7
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
8
No, sir.
9
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
10 11
Thank you, sir.
All right. you, Mr. Jin.
Any other questions?
Thank
We appreciate your participation.
12
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
13
May Mr. Jin be excused?
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
Yes, sir, you may.
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
Your Honor, we'd call Randall Childs.
18
------------------------------------------------------
19
RANDALL CHILDS, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
20
AS FOLLOWS:
21
------------------------------------------------------
22
DIRECT EXAMINATION
23
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Childs.
25
A.
Good morning.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
21 1
Q.
Would you please state your name and business
2
address for the record, please?
3
A.
4
398, Reedsville, West Virginia 26547.
5
Q.
What is your occupation?
6
A.
I'm a principal with Community and Economic
7
Development Consultants and also a research assistant
8
professor at WVU.
9
Q.
Randall Childs.
Business address is P.O. Box
There's a notebook that should be in front of
10
you of testimony, Pinnacle testimony.
I believe tab
11
eight?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Is the document behind tab eight --- do you
14
recognize that?
15
A.
Yes, it's my Direct testimony.
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
Your Honor, I request that the
18
testimony nine, tab eight be identified for --- marked
19
for identification as Exhibit RAC-D.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
It's so marked.
22
(Exhibit RAC-D marked for
23
identification.)
24
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
25
Q.
Mr. Childs, was your testimony prepared by you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
22 1
under your direction?
2
A.
Yes, it was.
3
Q.
Do you wish to make any changes or corrections
4
to your testimony?
5
A.
No.
6
Q.
Is your testimony true and accurate to the best
7
of your knowledge and belief?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
If I were to ask you here today the questions
10
that appear in that written testimony, would your answers
11
be substantially the same?
12
A.
Yes, they would.
13
Q.
Do you wish to adopt this testimony as your
14
Direct testimony in this case?
15
A.
Yes, I do.
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
Subject to Cross Examination, we would
18
move for the admission of Exhibit RAC-D.
19
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20
All right.
21
Without objection, it'll be
admitted.
22
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
23
This witness is available for Cross
24 25
Examination. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
23 1
All right, sir.
Mr. Trivelli?
2
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
3
I have no questions.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Staff?
6
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
7
No questions.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Mr. Stephens?
10
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
11
Thank you, Your Honor.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
Yes, sir.
14
CROSS EXAMINATION
15
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
16
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Childs.
17
A.
Good morning.
18
Q.
Brad Stephens.
19
Alliance in this case, and I'm sure you heard my
20
questions for Mr. Jin.
21
parallel those precisely pretty much.
22
you a series of elements --- ask about the series of
23
elements and ask ---.
24
you took into account, considered or evaluated in
25
preparing either your testimony or your economic
I represent Allegheny Front
My questions to you are going to I'm going to ask
I'm asking for each one whether
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
24 1
analysis, each one of these elements.
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
First, I want to ask if you took into account
4
potential impacts to property values in the vicinity of
5
the project?
6
A.
7
consideration.
8
no credible studies that indicate that there would be
9
negative or substantially positive impact on the property
It's kind of yes and no.
Do you understand?
Yes, I took into
I didn’t make any adjustments.
There are
10
values.
11
Q.
12
referring to?
13
A.
14
Policy Project, I believe.
15
around the country.
16
Virginia.
17
they discussed those studies and difficulties and tried
18
to come up with credible estimates.
19
Q.
20
by something called a Renewable Energy Policy Project and
21
the Industrial Wind Working Group would tend to find that
22
property values were adversely affected or not affected
23
or positively affected by construction projects?
24
A.
25
Group.
Okay.
Could you tell me what studies you're
There was some by Renewable Energy Project --There have been other studies
There's studies underway in West
Just recently the West Virginia working group,
Would you tend to think that studies sponsored
The one, it wasn’t Industrial Wind Working It's actually another university, so I don’t have
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
25 1
any reason to think that their results are going to be
2
slighted one way or the other.
3
Q.
4
potential direct or indirect social, environmental or
5
human health impacts of the project?
6
A.
7
any of those types of impacts.
8
Q.
9
considerations into an economic analysis such as the one
Okay.
Second, did you take into account any
I did not make any adjustments in the models for
But would it be feasible to incorporate such
10
you performed?
11
A.
12
economically, then it could be incorporated into the
13
model.
14
Q.
15
that; correct?
16
A.
No, I did not.
17
Q.
Third, did you take into account any potential
18
direct or indirect impact to historic resources in the
19
vicinity of the project?
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
I'll split this off separately.
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.
If there --- if you can quantify it
So you did not make any attempts to quantify
I rolled them
Again, that's one where there's not been
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
26 1
credible studies to indicate that there is a negative ---
2
some of the studies that I've seen have actually
3
indicates there's positive impacts that there are now
4
wind tours at the facilities.
5
positive or negative adjustments for tourism.
6
Q.
7
or not with any degree of confidence that the
8
construction of industrial wind projects either --- or
9
impacts to any degree tourism?
But I didn’t make any
But you wouldn’t be in a position to say whether
And when I say tourism,
10
people coming to see things other than the wind turbine
11
facility itself.
12
A.
13
make adjustment for how many come to see the wind
14
turbine, so I don’t know ---.
15
seen, there's no indication of any net change in tourism
16
positive or negative.
17
Q.
18
the --- I guess you're referring to studies that suggest
19
that people come to visit wind turbines?
20
A.
21
--- you know, search on the internet and find that there
22
are now tours where they go and visit.
23
have bus tours that go visit different wind turbines.
24
what I included in my impacts are the things that I can
25
easily quantify and have credible results for.
Well, I make --- in the adjustment for that I
From the studies that I've
Could you tell me anything about the studies are
Well, it was wind tours.
You know, you can do
You know, they
I don't
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
So
27 1
know of any credible studies that indicate any negative
2
or substantially positive impacts on the wind turbine.
3
Q.
4
Tax Credit available to Pinnacle or any successors of
5
interest in the project?
6
A.
7
--- without it it may --- probably it couldn’t go
8
forward.
9
than that, it's not included.
Did you take into account the Federal Production
Only in a sense that, you know, the tax credit
Then in that sense it would be included.
Other
10
Q.
And just to clarify, would it be feasible to
11
incorporate into your analysis that the impact of the
12
Federal Production Tax Credit itself as it applied ---
13
would apply to Pinnacle or a successor in interest in the
14
project?
15
A.
16
if it meant the project happened or didn’t happen.
17
economic impact just traces the expenditures that happen
18
and how that multiplies through the economy through the
19
different rounds of spending.
20
Credit --- it doesn’t exist and the project still moved
21
forward, then the impacts are zero.
22
happen.
23
indicated.
24
Q.
25
you could indulge me, can you define for me what exactly
It would really only have an impact whether --The
If the Production Tax
The project doesn’t
If it happens then the impacts are what I
Okay.
Well, let me back up then and ask you, if
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
28 1
is a tax credit in the sense of an income tax credit,
2
federal income tax credit.
3
for me?
4
A.
5
what you're really looking for here, but the Production
6
Tax Credit, it's a tax credit that they receive for
7
producing electricity and generating electricity both.
8
Q.
9
affect of Pinnacle or a successor in interest in the
Could you just define that
The tax credit that you apply --- I don’t know
Okay.
And what is --- what would be the actual
10
project having available to it that Federal Production
11
Tax Credit?
12
successor in interest end up paying less federal income
13
tax under that provision, that tax credit than it
14
otherwise would without it?
15
A.
16
fruition without it.
17
Q.
18
revenue than it would without the Production Tax Credit
19
in place; correct?
20
A.
21
survive without that, the project doesn’t exist and they
22
would receive zero.
23
Q.
24
extent that it may impact decision making as to whether
25
to go forward with the project, but you would not
In other words, would Pinnacle or a
Yes, only if the project was able to come to
So the federal government would receive less
If the project went forward.
The project can't
I understand it can end up being circular to the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
29 1
disagree with me that under the Federal Production Tax
2
Credit in place that Pinnacle and any successor in
3
interest in the project would pay less in federal income
4
taxes each year than we would without it?
5
A.
6
without it, it means that the project doesn’t happen,
7
then no.
8
Q.
9
state tax credit that might be available to Pinnacle or a
I'll just restate, if the project happens
Did you take into account any other federal or
10
successor in interest of the project?
11
A.
No.
12
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
I believe that's all I have for you,
14
Mr. Childs.
15
A.
Okay.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
All right.
18
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
19
No questions.
20
COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
21
No.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Mr. Childs, I'd like to sort of explore
Commissioners?
24
with you the same questions I asked Mr. Jin and that is,
25
have you been involved in prior wind turbine economic
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
30 1
analysis studies?
2
A.
3
different energy, coal, cogen, wind.
Yes, I've done a lot of economic impacts of
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Okay.
With respect to the wind
6
projects, you indicated in your testimony that you
7
project $2 million annually in increased business volume,
8
15 new jobs and 705,000 increased employee compensation.
9
That's the impact in Mineral County.
Then you have a
10
second series of similar for the statewide.
Do you go
11
back sort as an after-the-fact assessment to look at ---
12
or can you, in fact, go back after the fact and look at
13
your analysis and your estimates and compare them with
14
the real world results from the construction of a
15
project?
16
A.
17
everything else changing at the same time, so you can't
18
pull that out after the fact.
19
have is anecdotal evidence of when you see, for example,
20
a plant closing or something happening to have a ripple
21
effect.
22
back through and say after the fact, was it $2 million
23
created or was it, you know, $1.3 quarter million or was
24
it $2.5 million, we can't really say because it traces
25
all that extending from not just what the business spends
It's not really possible because you have
The only thing that we
We can easily see that it has an effect.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
To go
31 1
but what its employees spend and then the expenditures
2
that it takes.
3
businesses, then that business in turn spends with other
4
local businesses.
5
those rounds of spending, it's just impossible to trace
6
it fully, particularly with confidentiality of data from
7
private business.
If they buy something from the local
It pays its employees, so through all
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Given the fact of the ripple effect
10
then of some of the projects, the wind turbine projects,
11
have you been able to verify at least to your own
12
satisfaction that there has been a positive impact from
13
these projects?
14
A.
Oh, yes.
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
How so?
I mean, ---.
17
A.
Well, the same way we look at when, you know, a
18
business closes, when we look at any new activity
19
happening in an area, whether it's the construction or
20
the operation, we see increased economic activity in the
21
area.
22
economic activity.
23
positive impacts just the same way we know when a
24
business closes, we see a negative impact from that.
25
we have that information, we just can't verify what the
When you see construction, you see an increase in So we know that those are having
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
So
32 1
exact dollar is because of, you know, the confidentiality
2
of data from individual firms.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Thank you, sir.
5
That's all I have.
Questions?
6
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
7
Your Honor, just brief follow up.
8
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
10
Q.
Mr. Childs, you can confirm the direct impact in
11
terms of verifying things like employees hired and
12
payroll and things of that nature?
13
A.
14
it goes down to successive businesses.
15
that, but the directs of it, absolutely.
Yeah, just not the all the ripple effects once
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
That's all I have.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
All right.
20
We can't get
Anyone else?
Thank you,
Mr. Childs.
21
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
22
I ask that this witness be allowed to
23
be excused.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
He certainly may.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
33 1
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
2
We call Terrance DeWan.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Okay.
5
------------------------------------------------------
6
TERRANCE DEWAN, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
7
AS FOLLOWS:
8
------------------------------------------------------
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.
16
Terrance J. DeWan & Associates, 121 West Main Street,
17
Yarmouth, Maine.
18
Q.
19
notebook there?
20
testimony that was previously filed, your prepared Direct
21
testimony?
22
A.
My name is Terrance DeWan.
I'm the principal of
Mr. DeWan, would turn to your testimony in the I believe it's tab five.
Is that the
Yes, it is.
23
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24
Your Honor, I ask that Mr. DeWan's
25
testimony be marked for identification as TJD-D.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
34 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
It'll be so marked.
3
(Exhibit TJD-D marked for
4
identification.)
5
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
6
Q.
7
under your supervision?
8
A.
Yes, it was.
9
Q.
Do you wish to make any changes or corrections
Mr. DeWan, was that testimony prepared by you or
10
to it?
11
A.
No, I don't.
12
Q.
To the best of your knowledge, is it true and
13
accurate?
14
A.
Yes, it is.
15
Q.
If I were to ask you various questions contained
16
in that testimony here today, would your answers be
17
substantially the same?
18
A.
Yes, they would.
19
Q.
And do you wish to adopt that testimony as your
20
official testimony in this case?
21
A.
Yes, I do.
22
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
23
Your Honor, subject to Cross
24 25
Examination, we move the admission of TJD-D. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
35 1
Without objection it'll be admitted.
2
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
We tender Mr. DeWan for Cross
4
Examination.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
All right.
7
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
8
No questions.
9
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Mr. Trivelli?
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.
19
Q.
Brad Stephens.
20
Alliance in this case.
21
questions for you.
22
account the viewshed impact of the Pinnacle project, what
23
it would be in the State of Maryland; is that correct?
24
A.
25
about 20 miles, including into Maryland.
I represent Allegheny Front I only have maybe two or three
First is, I believe you took into
As part of the work we did, we extended out
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
36 1
Q.
And why did you do that?
Why did you take into
2
account the viewshed impact for the State of Maryland?
3
A.
4
power projects, we go out I a prescribed radius, and it
5
happened to be across the state lines.
6
Q.
7
your preparation of your testimony or the report that
8
appears at appendix J with any of the other witnesses
9
being presented by Pinnacle in this hearing?
When we typically do viewshed analyses for wind
Did you have any communications in the course of
10
A.
I don’t believe I did.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
with Ms. Kuranda or Mr. Maymon?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
supervision; correct?
16
A.
So that would include no communications
Nor anyone working under their
That's correct.
17
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18
Okay.
19
Thanks.
I believe that's all
for you, Mr. DeWan.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
All right.
22
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
23
No questions.
24
COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
25
No questions.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
37 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Mr. DeWan, are you --- if I have
3
questions about the photo simulations, are you the person
4
I should ask?
5
A.
You can try.
I am ---.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
I can try.
Well, let me try then.
8
A.
9
you heard yesterday, prepared the majority of the photo
10
The reason I say that is that Mr. Friend, who
simulations.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Okay.
We're going to try to get him
13
back up then, but let me ask you some questions.
14
--- you did site visits on all these things?
15
A.
Did you
On two different occasions, yes.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
And to the extent that the photo
18
simulations represent simulated views from various and
19
sundry locations around the project site, you visited
20
each of those in preparing this?
21
A.
22
as part of the --- our testimony we did not visit.
Some of the photo simulations that were included
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
Okay.
25
A.
We did visit the majority of them.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
38 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
I looked at all of the photo
3
simulations.
I just have a reaction to them and I wanted
4
to ask if I'm --- where I'm wrong or if I'm wrong and it
5
seemed to me that when I was visiting these sites that
6
when we looked up at the tops and saw the MET towers and
7
those things, they looked fairly large from two to three
8
and five miles around.
9
was sort of --- I expected them to appear larger in the
But yet when I see the towers, I
10
photo simulations.
Now, I realize you can't get in my
11
mind and assess what I expected, but what is the
12
explanation for that?
13
A.
14
visiting the sites, did you have the photo simulations
15
with you?
Let me ask you a question.
When you were up
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
No.
All I was doing was looking up at
18
the MET tower and thinking, well, that's 200 feet, then
19
the tower ought to be some ---
20
A.
Yeah.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
--- magnitude larger than that and ---.
23
A.
I think if you would have the photo simulations
24
and you held it up like this (indicating) you would find
25
it would have been a very accurate representation.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
When
39 1
we did the photo simulations --- as you know, David
2
Friend did the photo simulations, our office did a
3
computer generated model of the area and inserted it
4
above the MET tower as well as the turbines.
5
know that they were accurate.
6
you know, the ability to perceive more detail than you
7
actually can get in photographs.
And so we
I think the human eye has,
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Not necessarily my human eye, but I
10
appreciate that.
11
A.
In general.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
All right.
Did you attend any of the
14
meetings that were held with, I don’t know, the county
15
commission or the city or any of those?
16
A.
No, I did not.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
All right.
And do you know whether or
19
not in time the photo simulations were available at the
20
time of those meetings?
21
A.
It's my understanding they were available.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Did you understand --- is it your
24
understanding that they were shown at those meetings?
25
A.
My understanding is that they were shown at
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
40 1
those meetings.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
All right.
In your testimony at page
4
three, you talked about you visited non-profit recreation
5
areas.
6
recreation areas, historic properties, scenic overlooks,
7
et cetera, within a 25-mile radius.
8
where to go?
9
A.
You drove major public roads, visited known
How did you decide
The first order of business was to review the
10
viewshed analysis map that was prepared by Mr. Friend and
11
that showed us where there was potential visibility.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
The viewshed analysis map is not the
14
photo simulations at that stage?
15
A.
That is correct.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
All right.
18
A.
And as you know, there is a negative and a
19
positive photo simulation --- or a viewshed map.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
Right.
22
A.
And we use that to scope out where we should
23
travel.
It was two days for the field trip, and we
24
stopped periodically along the way to check the accuracy
25
of the viewshed map and then to record photographs and
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
41 1
observations at various viewpoints.
We wanted to make
2
sure that we had a sense of what we called a
3
characteristic landscape.
4
driving and working in the area, this is typically what
5
they would expect to see.
6
from observation points that were representative of the
7
area and the view that people would expect.
From people that are living or
So we tried to get photographs
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
So the decision in that regard was
10
yours?
11
A.
We guided the process with Mr. Friend.
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
19
prepared by Pinnacle Wind.
20
that's --- I was interested in that statement when you
21
say you independently verified the accuracy of those
22
prepared by Pinnacle, what did you do to independently
23
verify the accuracy of them?
24
through?
25
A.
And given my reaction to them
What process did you go
Independent --- Mr. Friend used a program called
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
42 1
WindPRO.
We did not own the software at the time.
We
2
have it now.
3
of software, and in our software we were able to
4
construct a three dimensional model of the landscape and
5
then insert the turbines in the exact locations that they
6
were proposed to be located.
7
computer model on top of the existing photographs and
8
then compared that to the simulations that Mr. Friend
9
prepared.
We used another process using another piece
We then superimposed our
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
And your decision or your judgment was
12
that they were accurate?
13
A.
They were very accurate.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
On page four you say your --- DeWan &
16
Associates calculated the viewing distance of each photo
17
simulation and incorporated it into the title block of
18
each image.
19
that you did?
20
A.
21
them out in the field because when you're out there it
22
says, you know, hold this ---.
Is that the process you were talking about
Yes, it is.
That's why I asked if you had had
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
I read all that.
25
After the fact, it
would have been great to have them there.
Next time we
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
43 1
do one, we will have them there.
2
unfortunately.
3
A.
4
correct.
But we didn’t
But that's what you were doing then?
That's one of the steps we went through.
That's
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
How many viewshed photo simulation
7
analyses has DeWan & Association undertaken to date?
8
Well, either in your own --- I mean, to the extent you
9
were in some other enterprise, but let's talk about you
10
specifically.
11
A.
12
far.
Yes.
We've been involved in about 15 of them so
13
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
14
Okay.
As a matter of curiosity, have
15
you been involved in any where there was a city or a town
16
within three to five miles of the wind turbine projects?
17
Three to six, I guess, is probably more accurate.
18
A.
19
rural parts of Maine.
20
permitted called Record Hill in which there was a
21
community within three miles, I believe.
22
know, we have been involved in some where there are
23
communities in similar instances.
Most of the work we were doing is in Maine, There are --- we just got one
And so, you
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Roughly the same size towers?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
44 1
A.
Yes, probably 400 feet tall.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
So most of the views from the City of
4
Keyser would fall on what you would define just as the
5
mid ground?
6
A.
That's correct.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
And the same with the views from the
9
Potomac State College?
10
A.
That's correct.
That was a little bit --- it's
11
about a little over two miles.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
There was a --- there were questions
14
asked about --- of the economic witnesses about the
15
impact on environment --- not environmental but historic
16
areas.
17
fact, look at historic and scenic areas and the impact of
18
the project on those?
19
A.
20
historic structures analysis.
21
example, to prepare an illustration about what the
22
presence of the turbine would do to the site of Duling
23
Church.
I take it that your work in this area did, in
To a certain extent.
We did not do an impact on SHPO had asked us, for
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Do you make a --- I realize most of
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
45 1
what you do is an objective, mathematical and I'll use
2
the term scientific as sort of a broad capture of the
3
thought with respect to the photo simulations.
4
also make a subjective assessment of the impact in any
5
way or do you feel that's part of your project?
6
A.
7
make certain quantitative and qualitative assessments.
Do you
I hesitate to use the word subjective, but we do
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
What are the qualitative assessments
10
that you make?
11
A.
12
there contrast in the color, form, line, texture, scale,
13
and dominance.
14
for example, color.
15
will be painted white, and generally that produces a
16
contrast in color because most of the landscape is green
17
or a dark brown.
Well, you look for --- the terms we use are is
And then we do an analysis to find out, You know, the turbines as we know
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
Why don’t they paint it camouflage?
20
Because you have to put night lights on them then, I
21
guess?
22
A.
That is correct.
Strobe lights.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
And it makes them even more visible?
25
A.
I've seen in some places in New York where the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
46 1
bottom of the base are painted green.
That, to me, looks
2
like there's moss or mold growing out of them.
3
hard to camouflage a structure like this.
4
intent is to make them as clean as possible.
It's very
I think the
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
You talked about two structures within
7
five miles and indicated that the project is not expected
8
to have a significant impact on either of these
9
structures.
What's your basis for that statement?
10
A.
Those would be historic structures you were
11
talking about.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
The --- well, whatever.
14
C-A-R-S-K-A-D-O-N House and Mineral County Courthouse.
15
A.
16
is a structure that's imbedded deep within the pattern of
17
the city and has only occasional views up to the
18
ridgeline there.
19
floors to be able to see it.
20
particular courthouse is not going to be radically
21
altered by the presence of the wind turbines.
22
Carskadon House, I think we have a photo simulation.
23
of the panoramas we gave you that shows the house with a
24
tennis court in the foreground a running track, a
25
McDonald's off to one side, the turbine's on a hillside
Mineral County Courthouse, as I understand it,
I think you have to go up on the upper So the setting of that
The
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
One
47 1
and surrounded by grove of deciduous trees.
And from our
2
analysis of that property when you are within --- or near
3
the house, you know, you're going to be aware of the
4
turbines probably through the trees, but, again, the
5
house is orientated towards the street, on Mineral
6
Street, I believe.
7
village like or urban like.
8
hillside are in the mid ground and will appear to be very
9
much in the background from that vantage point.
And it's in a context that is very The turbines up in the
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
You also talk about the Jennings
12
Randolph Lake project which we went to see.
You say in
13
comparison to the existing manmade structures, the
14
turbines will seem --- will be seen as a relatively small
15
addition to the landscape.
16
what is the basis for that statement?
17
A.
18
the lake itself, especially at the northern end there,
19
which is the only place where you're going to be seeing
20
the turbines.
21
that there was a long dam there, there's a snow wave
22
(phonetic), there's a very large water intake structure,
23
there are buildings there, there's a railroad bridge,
24
there's parking lots.
25
environment and so the additional manmade elements is not
And again, I --- my query is,
Well, you're at the overlook and then go down to
The human eye is also aware of the fact
It's clearly not a natural
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
48 1
going to be seen as such a contrast as it would be if you
2
were in the middle of a totally natural environment and
3
all of a sudden had these turbines appear on the horizon.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
You described visits to three managed
6
land projects, and we were shown and ferried around.
7
not sure that we --- maybe we visited some of them, but
8
in any event what exactly was the reaction to those and
9
your assessment of those, the impact on those?
10
A.
I'm
Which three ---?
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Well, there's --- your testimony at
13
page 11 talks about the Fort Mill Ridge WMA, which is, I
14
guess, a wildlife management or --- Springfield WMA and
15
Mason Mountain WMA.
16
it was 10 to 20 miles from the project, those being Mount
17
Nebo, Big Run, New Germany, Deep Creek and Dan's Rock.
18
And I was trying to assess whether you had made any
19
evaluation with respect to the impact on those sites.
20
A.
21
in our visual impact assessment.
22
upon map analysis, looking at the distance that the
23
turbines were from each of these resources and the
24
distance of 10 to 20 miles they're going to be fairly
25
visible most of the time.
We did.
You said that in Maryland five where
It's part of our testimony we provided For those we relied
The fact is you don’t even see
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
49 1
the blade because of the thinness of the blades and so
2
given the fact that these are, for the most part, largely
3
wooded environments with very little visual contact out
4
behind those resources, we didn’t feel that the turbines
5
at a distance of 10 to 20 miles had any effect
6
whatsoever.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
I think I asked you.
9
any of the community advisory panel meetings, open house
Did you attend
10
discussions or meetings with the local organizations?
11
A.
No, I did not.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
You shot down my camouflage idea.
14
though I was on to something.
15
A.
What pattern would you make it?
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Essentially nothing.
18
patterns are, in fact, a pattern.
19
Like on trucks and tanks and things.
20
throw the paint on there.
21
it.
22
A.
Most camouflage
They're not different. You think you just
There's actually a pattern to
A little something I can share with you. That's a whole different discussion.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
Isn't it, though?
25
I
The testimony at
pages 19 and 20 of your --- of the questions and answers
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
50 1
on pages 19 and 20 of your testimony talks about
2
mitigation measures.
3
the prime measure is the selection of the site.
4
there other matters that can be actively pursued beyond
5
site selection to mitigate the visual impact of the
6
turbines?
7
wondered if there's --- if any of these are --- were
8
discussed with Pinnacle or need to be breaching
9
confidences, but ---.
And you indicated that, obviously, Are
You mentioned something here and I just
10
A.
Everything that we're showing on this page are
11
things that were actively considered and are being
12
adopted.
13
thought about that would be on this list.
I don’t think there's anything else that we
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
16
you.
17
A.
Okay.
Mr. DeWan, thank
Thank you.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
Questions?
20
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21
Yes, Your Honor.
22
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
23
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24
Q.
25
questions, I think you indicated that a significant
Mr. DeWan, in response to one of the Chairman's
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
51 1
amount of your experience is in your own state of Maine?
2
A.
Yes, it is.
3
Q.
In the projects you've done, how does --- just
4
generally speaking, how does the terrain or landscape
5
that you work with, assessed in other --- in Maine or
6
other places compare with the Pinnacle project?
7
A.
8
a lot of different landscapes and every one's different.
9
When you approach it with that attitude, Maine is very
One of the fascinations about our job is to see
10
similar to West Virginia in the fact that it is
11
consisting of a lot of rolling hills with a lot of plains
12
in between those hills.
13
in north, south directions, there's little villages
14
throughout, so it's somewhat comparable.
15
Q.
16
you used to conduct your assessment and how do you decide
17
what --- how you go about doing such an assessment?
18
there any guidelines or regulations?
19
A.
20
really established by the forest service, the United
21
States Department of Agriculture back in the late 1970s
22
and has gone through many iterations over the last
23
several years to look at the impact of the these sorts of
24
things, from road construction performing practices,
25
utility siting on landscapes.
They also generally are oriented
Let's speak a minute about the methodology that
Is
The practice of visual impact assessment was
And the work that we do is
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
52 1
based upon a lot of studies that grew out of that initial
2
effort.
3
Smardon about visual impacts that we use as a basis for
4
our work.
5
the evaluation of a wind turbine.
6
Q.
7
and reflected in the application were appropriate both in
8
terms of where they were and how many there were in order
9
to give the Commission an adequate understanding of the
There's a book by Dr. James Palmer and Richard
It's a very common methodology that's used in
Do you believe that the sites that were selected
10
visual impact of the project?
11
A.
We do.
12
Q.
In terms of the photo simulations, was there any
13
--- are they ---?
14
reflecting what some might say is a worst case scenario?
15
In other words, do they --- is there any possible visual
16
aspect that's been intentionally deleted or minimized?
17
A.
18
trying to evaluate where you take the photographs from,
19
make sure that you are looking for that, quote, worst
20
case.
21
the turbines might disappear.
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:
25
That's all we had, Your Honor.
Could they be characterized as
That's one of the things we always look at in
Sometimes you get down the road, you know, half You make sure that when
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
53 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Staff, do you have any questions?
3
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
4
I just have one kind of curiosity
5
question now.
6
RECROSS EXAMINATION
7
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
8
Q.
9
that you've done?
Do you ever go back and verify the simulation In other words, go back to the same
10
spot where the photograph was taken from once the project
11
is up and running and compare it to the simulation that
12
was done?
13
A.
14
project called Stetson Mountain in Maine and we did a
15
series of photo simulations, and we went back and they
16
were --- I wouldn't say they were dead on because you
17
always have micro siting changes during construction.
18
turbine may move a few feet one way or the other, but,
19
you know, they were --- sometimes it'd be hard to tell
20
which was the photo simulation and which was the actual
21
photograph.
We just had the opportunity to do that in a
22
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
23
Thank you.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Thank you, Mr. DeWan.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
A
54 1
A.
Appreciate it.
May I be excused?
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
Sure.
Mr. Barnes, I guess, is next.
4
------------------------------------------------------
5
JAMES D. BARNES, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
6
AS FOLLOWS:
7
------------------------------------------------------
8
DIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
10
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Barnes.
11
name and business address for the record, please?
12
A.
13
Incorporated, business address is 33 Moulton Street,
14
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
15
Q.
By whom are you employed?
16
A.
My firm's name is Acentech, Incorporated.
17
Q.
And did you cause to be prepared or was prepared
18
under your supervision an acoustical study of the
19
proposed Pinnacle wind farm?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And also in this case did you prepare a copy of
22
your Direct testimony?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
If you look at, I believe it's tab six in the
25
notebook, if you have it at the witness stand.
My name is James D. Barnes.
Would you state your
I'm with Acentech,
Is that a
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
55 1
copy of your Direct testimony?
2
A.
Yes, it is.
3
ATTORNEY ALSOP:
4
Your Honor, I would like to have marked
5
for identification purposes the Direct testimony of James
6
D. Barnes as Exhibit JDB-D.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
It'll be so marked.
9
(Exhibit JDB-D marked for
10
identification.)
11
BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
12
Q.
13
direction?
14
A.
Yes, it was.
15
Q.
Do you have any corrections or changes you'd
16
like to make at this time?
17
A.
18
my testimony I was listed as a past member of the
19
Institute of Noise Control and Engineering.
20
current active member of that organization.
21
Q.
22
Direct testimony?
23
A.
That's correct.
24
Q.
With that change, is this testimony true and
25
accurate?
Was this testimony prepared by you or under your
Yes, just one.
On my résumé I've listed --- in
I'm a
And that's on Exhibit JDB-1 as attached to your
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
56 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
If I would ask you these same questions today,
3
would your answers in substance be the same?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
Do you intend for this Direct testimony to be
6
your sole testimony in this proceeding?
7
A.
Yes.
8
ATTORNEY ALSOP:
9
At this time subject to Cross
10
Examination, I'd move the admission of Exhibit JDB-D and
11
offer Mr. Barnes for Cross Examination.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
Without objection, it'll be admitted.
14
Mr. Trivelli?
15
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
16
No questions.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Staff?
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.
25
study with predicted noise levels and compared the actual
Do you ever go back after you've done a
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
57 1
levels that occur with the predicted levels that you made
2
in your reports?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
What do you normally find?
5
A.
Measurements --- some levels are inconsistent
6
with the data that I used for the source levels as well
7
as predicted levels.
8
Q.
9
approach because of your findings that were made once you
Do you ever --- have you ever varied your
10
went back and measured the noise?
11
A.
12
looking to the next project.
13
Q.
14
residences that are to the east of the project and that
15
the predicted levels are louder than the --- or greater
16
than the ambient levels in the area.
17
exactly what that means for those residences?
18
means the project will be heard, but can you tell us what
19
it will mean for those residences in those areas?
20
A.
21
operating those residences are downwind, and that's a
22
relatively quiet background in those areas, or even a
23
moderate background for those particular locations.
24
turbine sounds wouldn’t be heard much.
25
Q.
My approach, I think it helps inform my judgment
On page 12 of your testimony, you speak to some
Can you tell us I know it
For those time periods when the turbines are
The
But would you think inside and outside sounds?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
58 1
A.
Certainly outside.
Inside it really depends on
2
the construction of the home.
3
so, I would say.
4
not.
5
Q.
6
what --- how often or what percentage of the time do you
7
think those conditions would exist that you spoke of
8
where the noise would be heard at these residences?
9
A.
It's unlikely.
Much less
Perhaps with windows open, otherwise
And maybe you can or you can't tell me this, but
It's difficult for me to say on a statistic
10
basis, but since they --- the prevailing wind is from the
11
west to east, more often than not the sound would be one
12
direction.
13
Q.
14
those residences are?
15
A.
16
feet.
Do you remember how --- what distance most of
Certainly more than 1,000 feet, 1,000, 1,500
17
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
18
That's all I have.
19
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20
Commissioner?
21
ATTORNEY STAATS:
22
No questions.
23
ATTORNEY MCKINNEY:
24
No questions.
25
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Thank you.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
59 1 2
Sorry.
All wrapped up in my Cross
here, didn’t give you the opportunity.
3
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
4
Your Honor, you can go first if you'd
5
like, but I need to ask some questions.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
Well, you go ahead, Mr. Stephens.
8
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9
Thank you.
10
CROSS EXAMINATION
11
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
12
Q.
13
I represent Allegheny Front Alliance in this case.
14
professional experience --- I believe your résumé states
15
that started in 1972 with Johnson Controls; is that
16
correct?
17
A.
That's correct.
18
Q.
I believe on pages --- it's pages seven and eight of
19
your Direct testimony.
20
term ambient sound monitoring locations that you or those
21
under your supervision utilized in the course of the
22
acoustical study?
23
page 7.
24
A.
It describes the locations, yes.
25
Q.
Is that the only locations where you performed sound
Good morning, Mr. Barnes.
My name is Brad Stephens. Your
Can you tell us about the long
Pages 7 and 8, starting at line 18 on
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
60 1
monitoring or those under your supervision performed
2
sound monitoring?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
Did you perform any monitoring at those locations
5
inside of a home or other structure?
6
A.
I did not.
7
Q.
Looking on page eight, I am down on line 17, your
8
response to the last question on page 8.
9
measured and all the N values in the observed METS of
You state, the
10
sound source types the land use has indicated that the
11
study area contains no dominant sound sources, for
12
example, a factory or well-traveled interstate highway.
13
Do you see that?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
No dominant sound sources; right?
16
A.
Correct.
17
Q.
Would you describe the vicinity of the project site
18
as rural?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Do you happen to have --- I believe it's volume
21
three of the application, the third binder contains
22
appendix U, which is the acoustical study?
23
turn to that with me, please.
24
specifically at appendix U acoustical study, however, I
25
wanted you to confirm that --- I think on page eight here
If you could
Before we look
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
61 1
you tell us that the measured long term Ldn ambient sound
2
levels in the vicinity ranged from 48 dBA to 63 dBA; is
3
that correct?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
That's the --- when you say ambient sound levels,
6
that's what you're monitoring determined to be --- what
7
you, I guess, would claim the monitoring flushes out is
8
the normal sound level in those locations; correct?
9
A.
The monitoring measures all encompassing sound.
10
Basically that's the definition of ambient.
11
Q.
12
looking at appendix A of that acoustical study.
13
first page is labeled A-1.
14
you set forth a table of various common outdoor sound
15
levels.
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And if you look down the last entry it says 25 dBA,
18
quiet rural nighttime.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
that 25 dBA is representative of a quiet rural nighttime
22
with your claim that the ambient sound levels range from
23
49 to 63 in what you characterize as a rural area?
24
A.
25
different measures.
Turning to appendix U, the acoustical study --- I am The
You'll see there it's a ---
Do you see that in the middle of the page?
Do you see that?
How can you reconcile with your claim here
Not all rural areas are equal.
There are two
The State of West Virginia rules
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
62 1
require data to be provided as a 24 Ldn actually, for one
2
week logged Ldn.
3
value includes --- it's an energy average of all the
4
different sound levels through a 24-hour period and
5
includes in addition of the nighttime levels.
6
levels that are presented in appendix A here, however,
7
are very short term levels based on instantaneous levels.
8
And all we're looking at in this case is 25 dBA.
9
sound level is very low, short term sound level in the
As many people here understand, the Ldn
The sound
The
10
absence of all the other sounds that are required to be
11
measured within West Virginia for the rules.
12
Q.
13
acoustical study that the quite rural nighttime level is
14
25 dBA if it does not comport with your standards you
15
used in doing your ambient monitoring?
16
A.
17
the lay reader an understanding of sound, and it
18
incorporates definitions of what sound is, talks about
19
overall rating.
20
through so that people can understand.
21
speaking, the average speech sound level is 60 dBA, it's
22
three feet away.
23
about.
24
paragraphs in appendix A, it does bring the concept of
25
the energy average sound level.
First, why did you tell us in appendix A of your
I was confused.
Well, the intent of providing appendix A is to give
It gives sort of a range of sounds Say when we're
You get a flavor of what acoustics is
As you march down through the sections of the
It introduces that.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
It
63 1
discusses about Ldn sound level, but it's also based on
2
energy average or LOQ.
3
guidelines in the West Virginia Public Service
4
Commission.
5
And it also touches on the
So it's really meant as a piece to educate people
6
about what range of sound levels are.
The data that was
7
provided in the report shows that there --- from hour to
8
hour sound levels can vary.
9
charts in the figures that there are time periods where
You can see within the
10
there it is quite quiet when the wind may not be blowing.
11
Q.
12
term standards employed or utilized by the Commission.
13
You're referring to what I would call the siting rules;
14
correct, or the provision of the siting rules that
15
applies to noise studies?
16
A.
In what context?
17
Q.
150 Code of State Rules 30; does that sound right?
18
A.
Yeah, under the guidelines, the design of the study.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
provision?
21
earlier that it states that noise events during the night
22
defined as 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. shall be weighted or
23
penalized by 10 dB to reflect the greater perceived
24
impact of noise during the night.
25
correct?
Okay.
You talked about --- I believe you used the
Do you recall language from that applicable And I think you made a direct reference to it
Does that sound
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
64 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
I'm probably going to experience déjà vu here, but
3
could I ask you to define the word noise?
4
A.
Noise is simply defined as unwanted sound.
5
Q.
So what do you consider to be unwanted sound events
6
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. in your
7
project?
8
examples of what are unwanted sound events during those
9
times that you're monitoring?
Could you identify --- could you give me
10
A.
I guess I don’t quite understand your question.
11
Q.
Well, I'm trying to understand if you in your
12
monitoring considered every element of sound that
13
occurred between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m.
14
each day of your monitoring, whether you considered each
15
one of those to be a noise event or by your definition an
16
unwanted sound event.
17
A.
18
on my part that any of the sound out there was unwanted,
19
whether it be a dog barking or a bird, leaves in the
20
trees, a car pass by.
21
Q.
22
a rural area such as the one you characterized for the
23
project site would be bothered or annoyed in any way by
24
rustling of leaves, birds chirping, crickets during the
25
night, things like that?
It's an ambient sound survey.
Okay.
There was no judgment
It was all sound.
Would you happen to know whether residents in
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
65 1
A.
I would speculate that they're not bothered by it.
2
Q.
Those things were picked up in your monitoring;
3
correct?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
And you treated them as noise events; correct?
6
A.
Well, people tend to use many times noise and sound
7
interchangeably.
8
capture all the sound.
9
would be considered noise by those residents.
The intents of the survey was to It wasn’t just to capture what
10
Q.
But you told me essentially, have you not, that your
11
interpretation of the applicable provision in siting
12
rules is that you need to identify unwanted sound events
13
using some methodology?
14
A.
15
wasn’t what I intended.
16
the state, that the sound surveys include all the sound.
17
Q.
18
should interpret the siting rules as stating that
19
unwanted sound events between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
20
6:59 a.m. shall be weighted by ten dB to reflect the
21
greater perceived impact of such noise at night; correct?
22
A.
23
stated.
24
Q.
25
have multiple copies as an exhibit, but ---.
If I said that or it was interpreted that way, it I believe, as in past studies in
Based on your definition of the word noise, we
I'd have to look at the specific words and how it's
Okay.
I'd be happy to share it with you.
I don’t
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
66 1
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2
May I approach the witness?
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Say what it is you're showing.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
I have shared with the witness a copy of the
7
siting rules.
I have the page current to the provision
8
to which I understood Mr. Barnes to be referring.
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?
18
be vague or --- have you done that kind of monitoring
19
inside a home or any kind of any other structure,
20
building, et cetera?
21
A.
22
certainly calculate C-weighted value from that.
23
have not.
24
Q.
25
respect to C-weighted sound?
No.
I don’t mean to
I've collected data that if need be, I can But I
You haven't specifically done such monitoring with
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
67 1
A.
No.
2
Q.
So you really cannot say what the C-weighted sound
3
levels would be inside of residences in the vicinity of
4
the project?
5
A.
6
applied to the outdoors.
7
C-weighted sound levels and use those in helping design a
8
facility, the C-weight is to be a documented sound level.
9
Q.
I can estimate it.
Okay.
The C-weighted sound level is When people look at a range of
I believe your earlier testimony was that
10
whether or not sound from wind turbines is heard within a
11
home depends on the construction of the home?
12
sound like that was your testimony?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
To your knowledge do you know --- could you explain
15
to me how the construction of a home might impact whether
16
or not sounds from a wind turbine is heard within it?
17
A.
18
structure.
19
a very light say hunting cabin of light wood
20
construction, obviously would have different
21
characteristics from the sound transmission through those
22
walls and within the home.
23
Q.
24
indoors with respect to C-weighted levels, you wouldn’t
25
be able to speak to whether a person in a home in the
Does that
Well, certainly a home that is more massive in If it's a concrete formed home as opposed to
Seeing as you haven't conducted any monitoring
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
68 1
vicinity of the project would be impacted by those lower
2
frequency sounds; correct?
3
A.
4
project area within a one-mile perimeter of the area and
5
decided what the sound transmission characteristics are.
6
But we have looked at various noise reduction
7
characteristics in different homes.
8
EPA has done studies and published recommendations as to
9
what the sound characteristics --- or noise reduction
We have not visited every home, I guess, within the
That would be ---
10
characteristics would be for homes.
And this is
11
particularly used around airports.
12
different construction of homes around airports and
13
stuff.
14
Q.
15
referring?
16
A.
The bulk of them were done in the 1970s.
17
Q.
I guess before 1974; right?
18
A.
Yeah.
19
1970s, too.
20
by the early 1980s.
21
Q.
22
right?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Wasn't it --- isn't it correct that in 1982 the
25
EPA's Office Noise Abatement and Control had its funding
People look at
When did the EPA conduct the studies to which you're
And there was some additional studies in the Effectively most of that work was completed
I guess that would have been completed by 1982;
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
69 1
basically eliminated?
2
A.
That is correct.
3
Q.
So that office has done nothing since 1982?
4
A.
Right.
5
research programs continue to be still quite useful.
6
Q.
7
with respect to the noise impact of the industrial wind
8
turbines of the variety we're dealing with in this case?
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.
16
would have been in the past five years.
17
Q.
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
The information they had developed and
So would it be your testimony that they're useful
I don’t know for the specific model, but likely it
And that would probably be true for any industrial
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
70 1
would have come into development; correct?
2
A.
That is correct.
3
Q.
I believe you referred to the EPA standard that you
4
cite and you contend states that the 55 dBA level was
5
found to be protective of human health.
6
characterization of your ---?
7
A.
8
economics or technical feasibility.
9
recommended as a guideline as protective, and it's used
That's right.
Is that a proper
And that's not taking into account It's also
10
for outdoor areas, some rural areas where quiet is one of
11
the uses.
Quiet is one of the characteristics we used.
12
Q.
Now, the study of noise, feasible studies of
13
large --- it's evolved quite a bit since 1972 when you
14
started your professional experience; right?
15
A.
16
people.
17
makes it noise has evolved a bit, but ---.
18
Q.
19
much as they would have in the '70s; correct?
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
Okay.
Portions have.
It's matured.
People are still
A reaction to sound and judgment about what
But people can be annoyed by sounds today just as
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
71 1
those lower frequency sounds that, I believe, fall within
2
the dBc type measurements might have an adverse impact to
3
human health in the vicinity of these projects?
4
A.
5
hasn't to my recollection or my understanding been any
6
peer-reviewed reports that have been accepted to date.
7
Q.
8
talking about, identify the author?
9
A.
There have been some published studies, but there
Could you identify any of those studies you're
Well, there's a similar one, one author in New York
10
State.
I attended a talk at an international wind
11
turbine conference in 2007 where there was a researcher
12
from Portugal that gave one.
13
the findings that she had presented, I believe, were not
14
really accepted by the community at that meeting.
15
a technical conference.
That particular paper and
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
I didn’t hear you.
It was
What monitor ---?
18
A.
They weren't really accepted.
I mean, basically
19
discussions followed and talks were not supportive of
20
this issue.
21
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
22
Q.
23
monitoring particularly with respect to lower frequency
24
sound levels, you wouldn’t be in a position to know
25
whether or to what extent people's health may be impacted
Seeing as you haven't performed any indoor sound
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
72 1
inside their homes from sound from industrial wind
2
turbines; correct?
3
A.
4
sites and have taken measurements that support the data
5
that I've been using and creations that I've been
6
working.
7
Q.
8
health impact studies that were referred to a minute ago,
9
none of these have been peer reviewed; is that correct?
Well, in that position and I have witnessed these
I have not witnessed any problem.
You, I believe, indicated that any of these human
10
A.
That's my understanding.
11
Q.
Was your acoustical study in this case peer
12
reviewed?
13
A.
The one I presented here?
14
Q.
Yeah.
15
A.
I believe it was peer reviewed --- call it peer
16
reviewed certainly by the technical staff of the
17
Commission which accepted the methods and the findings
18
and the interpretation of what the ambient sound studies
19
should be.
20
Q.
21
when you say peer review?
22
A.
23
acoustics that can look at the methods that I had
24
employed and the conclusions that I reached and commented
25
upon those.
If I can back up and ask you to define what you mean
Independent professional who is experienced in
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
73 1
Q.
Do you happen to know whether any member of the
2
Staff here at the Commission has any expertise that might
3
be remotely comparable to a noise expert?
4
A.
5
was asked to do it would have these qualifications.
6
Q.
But you wouldn’t know either way; would you?
7
A.
No, I wouldn’t.
I would assume that the technical Staff member that
8
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9
I believe that's all I have for Mr. Barnes.
10
Thank you.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Do you have any idea why the sound level ---
13
U.S. EPA sound levels have been unchanged since March of
14
1974?
15
A.
I have some opinions.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Well, you're an expert. Okay.
Let's hear them.
18
A.
Well, as the previous attorney had noted, the
19
office at the EPA that dealt with noise had its funding
20
basically cut back in 1982.
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.
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,
There was basically one
But I did come on-board and maybe one
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
74 1
both OSHA as well as the U.S. EPA were trying to get a
2
handle as to what the basics were about acoustics and
3
about noise.
4
from adverse hearing loss from noise.
5
wanted to come up with some sort of federal guidelines.
6
And there was perhaps some discussion about coming up
7
with some federal regulations for noise.
8
basically stepped back and said, noise is a local issue.
9
We're going to let the states handle it and we're going
10 11
On the OSHA side, how to protect workers And the U.S. EPA
And Congress
to, for the most part, let local --- all noise is local. So the U.S. did set some regulations for particular
12
sources, air compressors and trucks and rail, a few other
13
things.
14
noise should be left to state and local officials.
15
since that time, there has been additional work done
16
throughout the world, the World Health Organization at
17
European countries where they have looked at the reaction
18
of communities to noise.
19
know, anything in those studies that has caused the
20
original work from U.S. EPA to, I guess, be nullified.
21
So some of it comes down to dollars, and there's maybe
22
nothing else that's felt to be new for those particular
23
standards.
But they specifically felt that the rest of And
And there hasn’t been, you
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Do you think the '74 standards are
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
75 1
reasonable?
2
A.
3
at overall sound and how people react to sound in the
4
community.
5
continues to use them for --- in cases that come in for
6
FERC.
7
hundred percent of the people, make any regulations that
8
are really tended to.
Well, they're guidelines.
I think that people look
Yeah, they're reasonable.
FERC uses them,
It's not to say, in my opinion, that it protects a
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 10
I was looking at your testimony on page ten
11
and it was sort of what prompted my questions about the
12
speed of the turbine blades earlier.
13
lines 15, 16 and 17 on page 10 that we assume that all 23
14
turbines were operating with a hub height wind speed of
15
10.9 miles per hour, the wind condition that produces the
16
greatest sound by this turbine model.
17
is that the turbines spin at --- and I'm probably just
18
dangerous to have a little bit of knowledge, but at 16 to
19
19 revolutions per minute if ---.
20
increase with the velocity of the wind if the turbine
21
blades continue to spin at roughly the same rate?
22
Q.
23
think the hub height wind speed where it's maximum sound
24
level is at 10.9 meters per second and in parenthesis,
25
quote, 1 to 24 miles per hour, and so that is sort of the
And you said on
My understanding
Does the sound
Well, there's maximum points for the wind speed.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
I
76 1
maximum of the --- the condition for the maximum sound
2
output.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Where do get that?
Is that from the specs
5
from the manufacturer?
6
A.
7
testing for major manufacturers.
8
parts of my testimony report, I noted what the difference
9
is as it drops off by a dB or so.
10
Yes, those are provided --- they're developed by Actually, in other
It says wind speeds
are actually somewhat higher.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
You also testified about moderate industrial
13
turbines, and I assume you're talking about wind turbines
14
are equipped with extensive noise control features and
15
you go on to talk about those.
16
refer to as recent changes in technology or ---?
17
A.
18
past ten years, and they're continuing to --- it's a
19
competitive market, and they're trying to come up with
20
quieter turbines all the time, more reliable.
Are those what you would
Well, they're improvements recently sort of in the
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
As a general proposition, are the turbines
23
that are sold today quieter than they were five years
24
ago?
25
A.
Certainly on a sort of per kilowatt or megawatt
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
77 1
basis they are quieter.
They're also growing larger,
2
too, to kind of --- to sort of competing forces.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Thank you, Mr. Barnes.
5
Mr. Alsop, do you
also have any Redirect?
6
ATTORNEY ALSOP:
7
Yes, Your Honor, just a few.
8
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
10
Q.
Let's start out, Mr. Barnes, with two points on the
11
ambient sound monitoring program that you did.
12
discussion with Mr. Stephens about the siting rules and
13
the ten dBA penalty applied.
14
discussion?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Is it your understanding that the citing rules
17
requiring monitoring over a week long period call for
18
results expressed as a DNL or Ldn?
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?
You had a
Do you recollect that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
78 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
In calling for the energy averages expressed as an
3
Ldn, in calling for that average, it was an average of
4
all sounds that occurred during that period?
5
understanding of the rules; correct?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
And so in the siting rules, as you understand,
8
applied to your study, when they called for a ten dBA
9
penalty during certain hours of the day, in calculating
Is that my
10
that Ldn you believe it was appropriate to apply that ten
11
dBA penalty during those nighttime hours; is that
12
correct?
13
A.
14
involving a ten dBA nighttime penalty is built into that.
15
Q.
16
about appendix A and a, quote, quiet rule at nighttime of
17
25 dBA and the ambient sound levels that you recorded in
18
the range for the project.
19
discussion?
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.
That's correct.
That's basically the definition
Mr. Stephens also had the conversation with you
Do you remember that
If there was not wind, that would be quite
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
79 1
surprising.
Obviously, there'd be some other factor in
2
play, but for this particular area or a similar type of
3
area where you end up having wind and trees on a very
4
regular basis both day and certainly at nighttime, no,
5
not surprised.
6
Q.
7
why this is a good resource for a wind project?
8
A.
Exactly.
9
Q.
And it's not surprising to you in terms of ambient
So I'm assuming that's probably one of the reasons
10
sound levels that you've done on this project?
11
A.
Correct.
12
Q.
The wind reading in most cases doesn’t note day or
13
nighttime.
14
in there's less nighttime activity.
15
A.
16
study.
In many other areas that we take measurements
Let's talk about the particular results for the If you can turn to page 26 of your report.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Are both of your microphones on?
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
80 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
That's fine.
It's the only function I serve
3
is monitor the microphones.
4
BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
5
Q.
6
There are five ambient sound monitors that you used for
7
this project; correct?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
And were those selected to be representative of the
Do you believe that the --- let me take a step back.
10
homes of the sounds in the area?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And given that the --- it looks like the dominant
13
feature of the structures around the home --- around this
14
project, for both projects by the residences, were the
15
sound monitoring locations selected to be representative
16
of the ambient sound of the residences around the
17
project?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Do you believe that the use of these sound monitors
20
resulted in you gaining an understanding of what the
21
ambient sound levels are in this area?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
Which way does the wind blow, if you can
24
characterize it, as it relates to the turbines and the
25
ridge?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
81 1
A.
The wind data that was provided to me in discussions
2
with Pinnacle Wind Force is --- it's my understanding
3
that the dominant wind direction is from west to east.
4
Q.
5
of some homes that I think you indicated in your
6
testimony gave you some concern.
7
map where those residences are?
8
A.
9
around locations four and five.
Mr. Auville asked you a question about the location
I see them.
Would you locate on the
They're residences that are located
10
Q.
And for the record would that be as it's located on
11
page 26, the residences A17, A9, A16, A56 and A55?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And you did --- after you had done the ambient sound
14
monitoring and then performed your expected predictions
15
using the model, did you have some concerns about those
16
residences?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Did you relay those concerns to Pinnacle?
19
A.
I did.
20
Q.
And what's your understanding about what Pinnacle
21
did in response to your concerns?
22
A.
23
owners and have --- and those owners are now participants
24
in the project.
25
owners.
My understanding is that Pinnacle contacted those
They have an agreement with those
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
82 1
Q.
Does that help to alleviate your concerns?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
There was a discussion about low frequency noise.
4
For this project you did do predictions for C-weighted
5
predicted noise levels for sound levels for the project;
6
correct?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
So even though you may not have been inside the home
9
measuring them, you were able to make those predictions;
10
correct?
11
A.
Yes, outside the residences or locations outside.
12
Q.
I'll talk a little bit about low frequency noise.
13
Has the design of the wind turbine changed over time to
14
address concerns that were addressed with previous models
15
as it specifically relates to low frequency noise --- low
16
frequency sound?
17
A.
18
but most substantially previous designs that had the
19
rotor downwind of the support structure has basically
20
been superseded for the most part by the upward rotor
21
design, which has greatly reduced the low frequency
22
component.
23
Q.
24
reduce it?
25
through the turbine, how that's sort of changed upwind
Yes.
Excuse me.
Certainly the blade design has been improved,
Can you explain a little bit how that helps to Is it a flow through --- how the wind flows
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
83 1
versus downwind that makes that difference?
2
A.
3
having a weight that's jutted off the back, and you'll
4
have a vortex.
5
if the blade is downwind of that structure, that will be
6
cutting through.
7
motion sight.
8
switching around so that the rotor is upwind of that
9
turbine, you do not have that same interaction.
Yes.
As the wind flows by the support you'll end up
And as you periodically have a blade ---
And it's basically just a very slow
You get a high level, but if you end up
10
Q.
Just go back quickly to page 26 of the noise study.
11
You mentioned that the homes located that we discussed
12
before on the east side of the project, you had a
13
concern.
14
fact that they're project participants.
15
other concerns about any of the rest of the residences in
16
the project area?
17
A.
18
closest on the west side, I had somewhat of a less
19
concern since the prominent and dominant wind direction
20
is from the west.
21
upwind from those turbines.
22
Q.
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
But those concerns have been alleviated by the Do you have any
The ones that were closest --- the one that was
For the most part those homes will be
That one home that's closest on the west, it is
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
84 1
that eliminate your concern with respect to the
2
residences with respect to this project?
3
A.
Yes.
4
ATTORNEY ALSOP:
5
I don’t have anything further, Mr. Chairman.
6
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
7
At the risk of beating something that's been
8
talked to death, I just want to make sure that the record
9
is clear.
10
RECROSS EXAMINATION
11
BY ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
12
Q.
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
19
different with it?
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
So then you just accepted all the sounds that came
22
in during that period of time?
23
A.
Correct.
24
Q.
What is this ten dB penalty that gets put on?
25
does that work in that calculation, if it does?
On this, what you call the Ldn the long term sound
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
How
85 1
A.
The monitors basically listen many times a second,
2
so it's continuously listening to the level when it
3
calculates both an A-weighted, and we program it to
4
calculate a C-weighted sound.
5
time.
6
the morning to 10:00 at night, it takes all that sound
7
energy and adds it up.
8
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 in the morning, it also adds all that
9
sound energy up, but it adds a ten dB penalty.
So it's listening all the
For the daytime hours that occur between 7:00 in
And for the nighttime hours from
And
10
penalty, basically it's an adjustment.
11
account people's increased sensitivity to sound during
12
the nighttime hours, tries to level things out, if you
13
will, between the impact of sound heard during the
14
daytime and nighttime.
15
It takes into
And so then it takes all that average sound level
16
--- sound energy, averages it up and comes up with one
17
number, and that's a number that's been used by the FAA,
18
by other federal agencies, by FERC because it takes into
19
account all of the sound level with the understanding
20
that you need sort of a nighttime adjustment.
21
Q.
22
Commission, what you just described; is that right?
23
A.
Correct.
24
Q.
And the ten dB is actually making it seem louder at
25
night than it really is in order to take into what you
And that's required by the regulations of this
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
86 1
discussed in terms of the sensitivity of people; is that
2
correct?
3
A.
Yes.
4
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
5
Thank you.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
Mr. Auville?
8
RECROSS EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
10
Q.
In response to some question from Mr. Alsop, you
11
said that you had expressed concerns to Pinnacle about
12
those homes that were closest to the project because of
13
noise.
14
they're now project participants; is that correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
What would your recommendation have been had those
17
homes decided not to become participants in the project?
18
A.
19
It'd be more difficult to answer that question up here.
20
Q.
21
not become concerned about a non-participating home from
22
a project, this one or in generalities?
23
distance that you're comfortable, like 1,000 feet is
24
going to generally take care of noise issues in relation
25
to a home?
Those concerns have been alleviated because
I would have continued to have expressed my concern.
Is there a distance at some point where you would
Is there some
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
87 1
A.
I haven't established a bright line to monitor and I
2
do think some things are different, whether it be the
3
local --- sort of the local values much like your U.S.
4
EPA.
5
make that decision.
6
where it's pretty much a seasonal issue, and for the most
7
part during that season where people may be living there,
8
then the turbines won't be operating much.
9
distances could be much smaller and there would be still
So noise level really is up to the community to If it's just a seasonal wind project
So the
10
not much risk, I guess, to the overall community.
11
don’t have a bright line of distance at this point.
12
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
13
Okay.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
16
Barnes, you're excused.
17
A.
So I
Thank you.
Anything else?
Okay.
Mr.
Thank you.
Thank you.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
I show it's around 11:25. All right.
We should take a
20
break.
We've got a conference set at noon,
21
so if we take a break we'll come back for about 10
22
minutes so --- or 15.
23
lunch break now and come back here about quarter to 1:00
24
and prepare to resume at that time.
25
LUNCH BREAK TAKEN
So why don’t we go head and take a
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
88 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
All right.
3
Barnes.
We finished with Mr.
I guess we're at Mr. Llewellyn.
4
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5
That's correct, Your Honor.
6
---------------------------------------------------------
7
WILLIAM E. LLEWELLYN, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
8
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
9
---------------------------------------------------------
10
DIRECT EXAMINATION
11
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
12
Q.
13
business address for the record.
14
A.
15
address is 27 East Main Street, Frostburg, Maryland,
16
21532.
17
Q.
Mr. Llewellyn, how are you employed?
18
A.
I'm a project director for CME Engineering.
19
Q.
Have you served as project director for CME in
20
respect to the Pinnacle project?
21
A.
Yes, sir, I have.
22
Q.
Did you cause to be prepared Direct testimony on
23
behalf of Pinnacle in this case?
24
A.
Yes, sir.
25
Q.
I'd like you to look into the white binder there
Good afternoon.
Please give your name and
My name is William Llewellyn.
The business
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
89 1
and see if you can identify what appears to be a copy of
2
that testimony.
3
a little bit closer to you, Mr. Llewellyn.
You might want to pull the microphone up Very good.
4
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5
Your Honor, I would like to ask that
6
Mr. Llewellyn's Direct testimony be marked for
7
identification purposes as Exhibit WEL-D.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
It will be so marked.
10
(Exhibit WEL-D marked for
11
identification.)
12
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
13
Q.
14
sir?
15
A.
Yes, it does.
16
Q.
Was this testimony prepared by you or under your
17
direction?
18
A.
Yes, it was.
19
Q.
Are there any changes or corrections that should
20
be made in order to make that testimony truthful and
21
accurate today?
22
A.
Does this appear to be a copy of your testimony,
No, sir.
23
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
24
There is, I'll point out, a couple of
25
changes or typographical ones, I'm sure are my fault,
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
90 1
that should be made.
2
two through six caption above, it says Direct testimony
3
of Paul Kerlinger.
4
of them should read as the first page does bearing Mr.
5
Llewellyn's name.
6
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
7
Q.
8
of testimony be introduced into evidence as your sworn
9
testimony in this case?
10
A.
You'll see on pages two --- pages
Of course, that's not correct.
Each
Mr. Llewellyn, do you intend that this exhibit
Yes, sir.
11
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
12
Your Honor, I move the admission of
13
Exhibit WEL-D and offer Mr. Llewellyn for Cross
14
Examination.
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
All right.
17
admitted.
Without objection, it is
Mr. Trivelli?
18
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
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:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
91 1
Q.
Good afternoon, Mr. Llewellyn.
2
A.
Good afternoon.
3
Q.
My name is Brad Stephens.
4
Front Alliance in this case.
5
you about one area of your testimony and that is with
6
respect to the NPDES General Construction Stormwater
7
Permit.
8
hear it stated different ways, but what is the status of
9
that permit as we sit here today that Pinnacle has
I represent Allegheny
I mainly just wanted to ask
I may have inverted a couple of words there.
I
10
applied for?
11
A.
12
Virginia DEP.
13
week for a comment period.
14
Q.
15
comment period is?
16
A.
I believe 30 days, if I'm not mistaken.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
West Virginia DEP would need to carry out even following
19
the conclusion of that comment period in connection with
20
the permit; correct?
21
A.
The draft permit has been issued by West
Okay.
Public notice was to be published this
Do you have any idea how long that
And there would be other tasks that the
Correct.
22
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
23
I'm about to distribute two exhibits.
24
I'll do them one at a time, of course.
First, I'll
25
represent to Mr. Llewellyn this is a printout obtained
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
92 1
from the DEP website on October 23rd.
I'll ask Mr.
2
Llewellyn about it, but I'll represent to him that it
3
reflects as of that date the status of the permit we're
4
discussing.
5
and I'm sure he'll recognize it, it's a fact sheet
6
outlining the process in connection with this type of
7
permit.
8
referred to is a printout on October 23rd.
9
that it be marked Alliance Exhibit Eight.
The second exhibit I'll represent to him,
First, the Application Milestones sheet I I would ask
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
Nine.
12
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Nine.
14
(Alliance Exhibit Nine marked for
15
identification.)
16
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17
And that will make this next exhibit
18
Okay.
--- I'll ask to be marked Alliance Exhibit Ten.
19
(Alliance Exhibit Ten marked for
20
identification.)
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
We marked for identification the
23
Application Milestone as Alliance Nine and the fact sheet
24
for DEP's Department of Environment Protection Division
25
of Water and Waste Water as Alliance Exhibit Ten.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
93 1
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2
Thank you, Your Honor.
3
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
4
Q.
5
we were discussing where in the process Pinnacle is for
6
this NPDES Stormwater Construction Permit.
7
first sheet, Alliance Exhibit Nine --- does this
8
accurately reflect to the best of your knowledge the
9
status of the permit?
When I left off before introducing the exhibits,
Does this
10
A.
No, sir, I don't believe it does.
11
Q.
How does this not accurately represent ---?
12
A.
I'm sorry.
13
draft permit was prepared on 10/20.
14
Q.
15
below where you had cited, you see draft permit prepared,
16
do we not see nine Application Milestones still required?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
the West Virginia DEP has identified that they will need
20
to carry out before the permit will be finalized if it's
21
to be; correct?
22
A.
Correct.
23
Q.
And I don't intend to go into much detail, but
24
I'll ask Alliance Exhibit Ten, which I represented to you
25
was a fact sheet --- are you familiar with this document
Okay.
It does in fact.
I see where the Yes, sir, it does.
But as we look down to just directly
And so that's nine discrete tasks that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
94 1
at all?
2
A.
I've seen this document before, yes, sir.
3
Q.
Okay.
4
the --- I guess the details of what West Virginia DEP
5
expects in connection with the construction stormwater
6
permit such as the one Pinnacle is seeking?
7
words, does it appear to be the most up-to-date version
8
of such a fact sheet?
9
A.
I believe it is to the best of my knowledge.
10
Q.
All right.
11
pour over it and take up a lot of time, but would you
12
agree with me that this fact sheet describes and sets
13
forth a process which is of a review by West Virginia DEP
14
that's much more detailed and lengthy than the one that
15
this Commission would engage in with respect to the
16
project's impacts to water resources?
Would you agree with me that it reflects
In other
Like I said, I don't think I want to
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
How would he know that?
19
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20
Well, to the extent ---.
21
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
22
Q.
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
I'll ask the witness, to the extent you're
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
95 1
process that is much more detailed and involves much
2
greater scrutiny than that based on the Commission under
3
the siting rules?
4
A.
I believe that's an accurate statement, yes.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
I believe that's all I have for you,
7
Mr. Llewellyn.
Thank you.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
All right.
Mr. Trivelli?
10
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
11
No questions.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
Staff?
14
Commissioners, do you have any
questions?
15
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
16
Mr. Llewellyn, could you define for me
17
the word environmental?
18
A.
19
environment.
The word environmental?
Being of the
20
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
21
Thank you.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
In your testimony, you say CME has been
No further questions.
24
involved since soon after its inception.
25
When was that, do you know?
What inception?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
96 1
A.
I started with CME in 2004, and we were involved
2
at that time.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
So it was some time prior to that.
All
5
right.
And on page four of six, you have an extensive
6
list of the permits that are required, and my question
7
was, as we sit here today, are you aware of opposition or
8
the need for any additional studies opposition to any of
9
the ones that are outlined here other than in this
10
proceeding, obviously, or the need for any additional
11
studies that aren't set forth in that testimony?
12
A.
13
presented.
I'm aware of nothing that hasn't already been
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
And in your testimony at page six, you
16
say subsequent revision of the application was made in
17
April and WV DEP is expected to complete its review by
18
June 1.
And obviously, that hasn't occurred, or has it?
19
A.
Yes, sir, it has.
20
subsequent review and revision of that plan that took it
21
to the point of actually approving ---.
That would have been the
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
And that's what you testified about
24
earlier?
25
A.
Yes, sir.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
97 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
All right.
3
all I have.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's
Any further questions?
4
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5
No, nothing to follow up with, Your
6
Honor.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
All right.
9
You're excused.
Thank you, Mr. Llewellyn.
I don't show that you moved the
10
admission of your Cross Examination Exhibits.
11
being coy or what are we ---?
Are you
12
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Yes, I'm being a little --- how about I
14
do that now?
I'm going to move the admission of Exhibits
15
Alliance --- Alliance Exhibits Nine and Ten.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
All right, sir.
18
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
19
No objection.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
All right.
22
Objection?
They're admitted.
Jeffrey
Maymon, is that who's next?
23
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24
Yes, Your Honor, we'd call Jeffrey
25
Maymon.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
98 1
---------------------------------------------------------
2
JEFFREY H. MAYMON, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
3
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
4
---------------------------------------------------------
5
DIRECT EXAMINATION
6
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
7
Q.
8
name and business address for the record, please?
9
A.
Good afternoon.
Jeffrey Maymon.
Would you please state your
It's 241 East Fourth Street,
10
Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland.
11
Q.
And what is your occupation?
12
A.
I'm a senior project manager for archeology with
13
a company called Goodwin & Associates.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
Is that mike on?
Is the blue
16
light ---?
17
A.
18
Christopher Goodwin & Associates.
19
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20
Q.
21
there?
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?
Yes, it is.
I work for a company called R.
Mr. Maymon, would you look in the white binder I think it's tab nine.
And look behind that and
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
99 1
A.
Yes, it is.
2
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
Your Honor, I'd like that testimony at
4
tab nine to be marked for identification as
5
Exhibit JHM-D.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
It will be so marked.
8
(Exhibit JHM-D marked for
9
identification.)
10
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
11
Q.
12
you or under your direction or supervision?
13
A.
Yes, it was.
14
Q.
Are there any changes or corrections or
15
additions that you would like to make to that testimony
16
today?
17
A.
18
received review letter from SHPO in June, and I continue
19
to consult with SHPO to resolve hopefully resource
20
issues.
21
Q.
22
of your testimony, there's a question, has WV SHPO
23
responded to the archeological surveyor report, and your
24
answer was no ---
25
A.
Mr. Maymon, is that your testimony prepared by
Yes.
I'd like to add the tab that's on --- we
Just to be clear for the record, in page seven
Right.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
100 1
Q.
--- as of that date.
So what you're advising
2
the Commission is that since the date of your --- that
3
testimony was prepared you have received response from
4
West Virginia SHPO?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
With that, is there anything else that you need
7
to correct or change?
8
A.
No.
9
Q.
With that supplementation, is the testimony you
10
have --- you believe it to be true and accurate to the
11
best of your knowledge and belief?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And if I were to sit here today and go through
14
and ask each of the questions contained in that
15
testimony, would your answers be substantially the same?
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
Do you adopt that prepared testimony, and it's
18
been marked JHM-D, as your testimony in this case?
19
A.
I do.
20
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21
Your Honor, subject to Cross
22
Examination, we move admission of Exhibit JHM-D and make
23
this witness available for Cross Examination.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Without objection, it will be admitted.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
101 1
Mr. Trivelli?
2
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
3
No questions.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Staff?
6
CROSS EXAMINATION
7
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
8
Q.
9
letter that you got?
What exactly did the WV SHPO tell you in that Was it June?
10
A.
Yeah, it was June.
They indicated that they had
11
concerns about the archeological sites.
12
identified nine archeological sites, they had concerns
13
about eight of them.
14
worked to redesign and provide more information on those
15
sites and they've provided that information and avoided
16
four of them ---.
Since that time, Pinnacle has
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Avoided or ---?
19
A.
Although we
Avoided four of the archeological sites.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
In your opinion or in SHPO's opinion?
22
A.
I believe in SHPO's opinion.
23
that's been concluded in a Memoranda of Agreement.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Sorry.
In fact, recently
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
102 1
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
2
You're fine.
3
A.
And so they are all in agreement that those four
4
are avoided.
5
by logging, timbering activity.
6
sites left yet to be resolved.
7
MOA that sets forth the protocol that provides for
8
consultation back and forth to resolve those issues.
9
have --- in verbal conversation with SHPO, I believe
One of the sites was found to be destroyed And there were three There's a protocol in the
10
those are resolved at this point, and we should be
11
getting a letter soon.
12
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
13
Okay.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
16
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17
Thank you.
I
Thank you.
Mr. Stephens?
18
CROSS EXAMINATION
19
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20
Q.
Good afternoon, Mr. Maymon.
21
A.
Good afternoon.
22
Q.
My name is Brad Stephens.
23
Front Alliance in this case.
24
scope of your review of archeological sites, did it
25
extend beyond areas which covered ground that may be
I represent Allegheny
Just so I understand the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
103 1
disturbed by construction of the project or was it
2
limited to that area of probable disturbance of ground?
3
A.
4
area that will be disturbed.
5
flexibility in terms of design.
6
between 400 and 800 feet wide up and down the top of the
7
mountain.
8
Q.
9
dealings with Ms. Kuranda in the scope of work on this
The survey extended quite a bit larger than the
Okay.
That was to provide some So we surveyed an area
And I take it you had a good bit of
10
project?
11
A.
Some.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
or land scope of your analysis is much narrower than
14
hers?
15
A.
16
and the direct effects.
17
underground, that's what we look at.
18
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19
I think that's all I have for you.
20
So it's fair to say that the geographic
For archeology it really is the direct impacts Since the resources tend to be
Thank you.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
I'm just curious.
23
you're talking about your professional experience and
24
education --- you're talking about large recoveries in
25
West Virginia.
Large recoveries,
What is a large recovery in West
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
104 1
Virginia?
2
A.
A large data recovery?
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
I don't know.
I have managed a wide
5
range of cultural research projects ranging from small
6
phase one and archeological surveys to large recoveries.
7
A.
8
recovery is basically salvage of a portion of an
9
archeological site that's been determined eligible for
10
It's just that data recovery.
I'm sorry.
Data
the national register or state register.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
And what would that involve?
13
A.
It's what you see on National Geographic.
It's
14
excavation of a larger area, trying to get much more
15
information about it and basically salvage that
16
information.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
The shovel test each measured a minimum
19
of 50 square centimeters.
Did you mean 50 centimeters on
20
a side or 50 square centimeters?
21
A.
Fifty (50) on a side.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Okay.
24
opposed ---
25
A.
So that would be 2,500 as
Right.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
105 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
--- to 50?
3
A.
Right.
Yes.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
All right.
6
thinking ---.
7
A.
Because I was sitting there
They're much bigger.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
All right.
I think I know the answer
10
to this.
What's the term flake?
11
Indian arrowhead or something?
12
A.
13
manufacturing of stone tools, you basically chip off
14
flakes to make an arrowhead or what have you.
Not even.
Is that something ---
It's a piece broken off during the
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
So it's the residue from a chipped off
17
arrowhead?
18
A.
Exactly.
It's the trash.
19
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20
And stills, S-T-I-L-L-S?
You say
21
possible historic stills.
22
A.
23
where someone had dug out some rocks and pilled them up
24
around these things.
25
thing we could come up with was that they were, you know,
We're not sure what they are.
Those were areas
We're speculating --- the only
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
106 1
backwoods distilleries of some sort.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
Oh, stills in ---?
4
A.
Yeah, still --- backwoods still.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
Interesting.
7
A.
But it was a ---.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Now you've got my attention.
10
that was some archeological term.
11
corn whiskey.
Okay.
I thought
I didn't even think
I have nothing further.
12
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
13
We have no more Direct.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
I ask this witness be excused.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
You may be excused.
20
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21
We would call Kathryn Kuranda.
22
---------------------------------------------------------
23
KATHRYN M. KURANDA, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
24
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
25
---------------------------------------------------------
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
107 1
DIRECT EXAMINATION
2
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
Q.
4
please state your name and business address for the
5
record?
6
A.
7
address is 241 East Fourth Street, Suite 100, Frederick,
8
Maryland.
9
Q.
And where do you work and what do you do?
10
A.
I'm senior vice president for architectural and
11
historian services for R. Christopher Goodwin &
12
Associates, a cultural resource management firm.
13
Q.
14
notebook that I think is in front of you ---
15
A.
Uh-huh (yes).
16
Q.
--- and identify for the record the testimony
17
there at tab ten?
18
A.
Kathryn --- I mean, Ms. Kuranda, would you
My name is Kathryn Kuranda and my business
And would you please turn to tab ten in the
It appears to be my testimony.
19
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20
Your Honor, I would ask that the
21
testimony that's been identified be marked as Exhibit
22
KMK-D.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
It will be so marked.
25
(Exhibit KMK-D marked for
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
108 1
identification.)
2
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
Q.
4
or under your direction?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
And do you wish to make any changes or
7
corrections or additions to your testimony?
8
A.
Not at this time.
9
Q.
All right.
Ms. Kuranda, was this testimony prepared by you
Is it true and accurate to the best
10
of your knowledge and belief?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
If I were to ask you questions that are
13
contained in that testimony, would your answers here
14
today be essentially the same?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And do you ask that this testimony be submitted
17
as your sworn testimony in this proceeding?
18
A.
Yes, I do.
19
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20
Your Honor, subject to Cross
21
Examination, we would ask that Exhibit KMK-D be admitted,
22
and we make this witness available for Cross Examination.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
All right.
25
admitted.
Without objection, it is
Mr. Trivelli, any questions?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
109 1
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
2
No questions.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Staff?
5
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
6
No questions.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
All right.
9
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
10
Mr. Stephens?
Thank you, Your Honor.
11
CROSS EXAMINATION
12
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Q.
Good afternoon, Ms. Kuranda.
14
A.
Good afternoon.
15
Q.
In determining the --- what is it called, area
16
of potential effect?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
You pronounce that APE or do you say A-P-E?
19
A.
A-P-E.
20
Q.
A-P-E.
21
A-P-E.
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
Do I have the term right?
I didn't want to be uncouth, so I'll say
I believe at least in appendix W to the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
110 1
verification.
What kind of computer modeling?
2
A.
3
outline of the area as well as vegetative cover and those
4
two factors were discussed with the West Virginia State
5
Historic Preservation Office.
6
that viewshed corridors were identified through that
7
computer modeling appropriate to the satisfaction of
8
SHPO.
9
Q.
We take into account typography of the area, the
We further field verified
And that was done in-house by someone with
10
Christopher Goodwin & Associates?
11
A.
Actually, we have in-house GIS capabilities.
12
Q.
So was there a certain distance beyond which ---
13
in terms of miles or meters or yards beyond which the APE
14
did not extend?
15
A.
16
Preservation Office, it was determined that they were
17
interested in a file-mile radius in West Virginia.
18
scope of work was proposed and discussed with them.
19
There was something in writing, and they agreed that it
20
was appropriate.
21
Q.
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.
In consultation with the State Historic
Okay.
A
But you would agree with me that there
I believe there are portions of Maryland, but
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
111 1
they were not all reviewed pursuant to West Virginia
2
Code.
3
Q.
4
of McCoole, Maryland and Westernport, Maryland are within
5
that five-mile radius?
6
A.
I haven't checked on that.
7
Q.
Would it assist you if I pulled out one of the
8
viewshed maps and we take a look at that?
9
A.
I'll take your word for it.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
towns are within a five-mile radius?
12
A.
13
then I take your word for it.
14
Q.
15
are numerous sites either listed on the National Register
16
of Historic Places or eligible for National Register
17
listing that are within the city limits of McCoole,
18
Maryland and Westernport, Maryland?
19
A.
20
investigations that have been undertaken in Maryland.
21
They are not part of our investigation.
22
Q.
23
resources listed on the National Register or eligible for
24
such listing?
25
A.
Would you agree with me that the towns or cities
I don't know.
Then you'll agree with me that those
If they're indicated within a five-mile radius,
Okay.
Would you also agree with me that there
I'm not familiar with the previous
Fair enough.
But would you agree that there are
I have no direct knowledge of that.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
112 1
Q.
Think about that.
Let me ask, have you done
2
these kinds of studies, these historic resource studies
3
in the State of Maryland?
4
A.
Yes, we have.
5
Q.
And just the same type of study I believe for
6
the Dan's Mountain Wind Energy Project?
7
kind of work in connection with that?
8
A.
9
determined in consultation with the Maryland Historical
It was similar in methodology.
You did the same
The scope was
10
Trust as a state historic preservation office.
And they
11
limited their concerns to a number of previously
12
identified sites within their inventory that had yet been
13
evaluated for significance under the National Register
14
criteria.
15
Q.
16
within the State of Maryland from which the Pinnacle
17
project would be visible if it's constructed?
18
A.
I believe that is true.
19
Q.
I ask because you said you performed an in-house
20
visibility analysis and that was sort of the starting
21
point in connection with the ABE; correct?
22
A.
23
pursuant to discussions with the state office in
24
accordance with the methodology and scope of work that
25
was developed in consultation and reviewed.
Would you agree with me that there are locations
Within the State of West Virginia.
That was
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
113 1
Q.
Understood.
2
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
3
Your Honor, I'm about to distribute
4
what I'll ask to be marked Alliance Exhibit 11.
And we
5
won't have a fight about this, but I'll represent to Ms.
6
Kuranda that the information contained on it was obtained
7
from the Maryland Historic Trust website on October 24th,
8
2009.
9
11.
But I'll ask that this be marked Alliance Exhibit
10
(Alliance Exhibit 11 marked for
11
identification.)
12
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Q.
14
Kuranda?
15
A.
16
yesterday, too.
17
Q.
18
you appear to be familiar with Allegany County, Maryland,
19
does this look like it's, to the best of your knowledge,
20
a listing of national registered eligible and national
21
registered listed resources in the towns of Westernport
22
and McCoole, Maryland?
23
A.
24
Maryland inventory historic properties.
25
does not indicate whether these resources have been
Have you had a chance to glance over that, Ms.
Yes.
Good.
And I had an opportunity to look at it
To the best of your knowledge seeing that
What this appears to be is a data search of I have --- it
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
114 1
evaluated for national register significance.
2
Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties is the
3
statewide database that includes any information that has
4
been collected on resources that may be under the purview
5
of MIHP.
6
Q.
7
whether any particular resource listed on either of these
8
pages isn't on the national register?
9
A.
Okay.
The
But you wouldn't be in a position to deny
There is insufficient information here.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear what you
12
said.
13
A.
14
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
15
Q.
16
Historic Properties differ from a listing that the
17
Maryland Historic Trust would have of national registered
18
listed and national registered eligible sites?
19
A.
20
Nation's inventory of resources that have been formally
21
nominated for listing on the national register as having
22
significance in integrity in accordance with the
23
criteria.
24
and those determinations are made by the keeper of the
25
register, who is an employee of the National Park
There's insufficient information here.
Okay.
How does the Maryland Inventory of
The National Register of Historic Places is the
It's maintained by the National Park Service,
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
115 1
Service.
The national --- Maryland Historical Trust
2
serves as Maryland's historic preservation office.
3
part of their mission, they collect inventory data on
4
resources that may meet this criteria.
5
on --- can be collected a number of ways.
6
collected subject to projects such as this on resources
7
that don't meet the criteria as well as some that do.
8
After this point, the inventory is collected, there's
9
generally an analysis that's undertaken in accordance
As
Data is collected It can be
10
with the National Park Service standards and
11
determination of eligibility.
12
determination of eligibility are made in concert with the
13
respective state historic preservation offices for
14
determination of eligibility.
15
purview of the keeper of the register.
16
Q.
17
Inventory of Historic Properties as the starting point
18
from which an eligibility determination or listing
19
determination can be made?
20
A.
21
that are used, the raw data that are used, as well as
22
data on resources that are actually listed.
23
Q.
Okay.
24
A.
But they're different --- they're designated in
25
different ways.
Concurrence of
Actual listing is the
So is it fair to characterize the Maryland
It collects --- it contains many of the data
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
116 1
Q.
Okay.
Well, then the sites you see listed on
2
the last --- Exhibit 11 that I shared with you ---?
3
A.
4
--- by county and it appears perhaps a particular survey
5
area or a potential district, but I don't know what
6
action was taken on those.
7
Q.
8
this listing in Alliance Exhibit 11, the fact that these
9
resources are on the Maryland Inventory of Historic
This appears to be your basic site numbering for
But this listing --- any particular resource on
10
Properties certainly does not indicate that any of the
11
resources are not actual registered eligible?
12
A.
That's correct.
13
Q.
Thank you.
14
dealings and correspondence with the Maryland Historical
15
Trust; correct?
16
A.
We deal with that agency extensively.
17
Q.
It seems so.
18
correspondence with the Maryland Historical Trust within
19
the scope of your work in connection with this Pinnacle
20
project?
21
A.
22
authority.
23
Q.
24
have review authority?
25
A.
And you've obviously had prior
Did you have any dealings or any
No, we did not.
They did not have review
How is it that you determined that they did not
Because the project was being licensed in the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
117 1
State of West Virginia and being reviewed by the West
2
Virginia State Historic Preservation Office.
3
certainly had the --- they identified resources that were
4
appropriate to look at in the surrounding states to a
5
certain degree or another.
6
Q.
7
determining eligibility for national register status or
8
for listing --- aren't essentially all those criteria
9
embodied in the Code of Federal Regulations?
That office
But aren't all of the pertinent criteria for
10
A.
That's true.
Those are the ones that are
11
accepted on a professional level nationwide.
12
Q.
Nationwide?
13
A.
Nationwide.
14
Q.
So there's no distinction made with respect to
15
which state office may be charged with administration of
16
--- or investigations of national register eligibility in
17
their respective states?
18
umbrella?
19
A.
20
is all pursuant to the National Historic Preservation
21
Act.
22
Q.
23
to page nine of your Direct testimony.
24
full paragraph that starts with WV SHPO.
25
where I am?
They're all working under an
Within their respective states, correct.
Understood.
That
If you could turn with me, please, I'm at the first Do you see
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
118 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
WV SHPO recommended that the identified effects
3
be mitigated through stipulations defined in a Memorandum
4
of Agreement negotiated among Pinnacle Wind Force and the
5
WV SHPO.
6
is that the West Virginia SHPO itself made this
7
recommendation unilaterally, that a Memorandum of
8
Agreement should be negotiated between Pinnacle Wind
9
Force and SHPO?
So what you're testifying to there, I believe,
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
It wasn't Pinnacle that proposed entering into a
12
Memorandum of Agreement.
13
A.
14
with an adverse effect that is identified in a project,
15
to seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate those
16
effects.
17
Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement.
18
That's standard throughout the industry.
19
Q.
20
but not a matter of legal obligation on any of these
21
parties, the Memorandum of Agreement?
22
A.
23
Pinnacle has taken into consideration the effects to
24
historic properties in identifying and submitting a list
25
of those.
It was SHPO itself?
I don't --- the standard operating procedure
And those measures are memorialized in the
So you're saying it's just an industry standard,
The Memorandum of Agreement memorializes that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
119 1
Q.
I realize this testimony was --- you authored
2
this testimony, I believe, dated May 26 of this year.
3
Where does Pinnacle stand on negotiating or, I guess,
4
finalizing this Memorandum of Agreement?
5
A.
6
week.
7
Q.
Do we have a copy of that here today?
8
A.
Not in our possession.
9
Q.
Okay.
The Memorandum of Agreement was signed last
So the Commission won't have any benefit
10
of being able to look at that in its review of this case;
11
right?
12
A.
I'd have to leave that to Counsel.
13
Q.
Well, then you told me that the Memorandum of
14
Agreement sets forth any mitigation measures that would
15
be taken to mitigate the impacts on these resources.
16
A.
Correct.
17
Q.
Since we don't have that, you don't know if and
18
to what extent those impacts would be mitigated; correct?
19
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20
Your Honor, if I may interrupt, we have
21
a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement.
22
available for Commission.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
That's fine.
25
here.
We'd make it
I mean, let's get it up
Have you seen this?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
120 1
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2
No, Your Honor.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
How do you want this marked?
5
Exhibit Two.
Company
I guess we'll do next in order.
6
(Company Exhibit Two marked for
7
identification.)
8
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
9
That'd be fine.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
Do you want to take some time to look
12
at it?
13
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
14
I'd like a couple minutes perhaps.
I
15
don't know if it's an appropriate time to take a break.
16
It seems we just returned from lunch.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Always an appropriate time to take a
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
121 1
SHORT BREAK TAKEN
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
All right.
4
Mr. Stephens, you've had a
chance to look at Company Exhibit Two.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
Yes, Your Honor.
7
I'm sorry.
What are
we terming this exhibit?
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Company Exhibit Two.
10
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
11
Company Exhibit Two.
12
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Q.
14
Memorandum of Agreement that's been marked Company
15
Exhibit Two.
16
refer to the Mineral County Historical Society and the
17
Mineral County Historical Foundation.
18
A.
Correct.
19
Q.
Would you know whether either or both of those
20
entities has expressed support for this project?
21
A.
22
Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, and made
23
their views known.
24
endorse or object to the project.
25
Q.
Ms. Kuranda, if we look at page two of the
The first two whereas paragraphs, they
I know they issued correspondence to West
Okay.
I think they declined to either
And they ---.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
122 1
A.
Dealing specifically with effects to listed
2
properties, not the project as a whole.
3
Q.
4
to this agreement; right?
5
A.
6
responsibilities under the agreement.
7
signatories on a document of this type have defined
8
responsibilities under the stipulation.
9
Q.
Okay.
But in any event, they're not signatories
It was not appropriate because they don't have Generally,
But under another scenario, would not either or
10
both of those entities perhaps be recipients of the
11
Historic Preservation Grant that's discussed further down
12
this page, if they were signatories?
13
A.
14
rephrase?
15
Q.
16
either or both of those entities, the Mineral County
17
Historical Society or the Mineral County Historical
18
Foundation --- might they be considered as the
19
appropriate entity or entities to administer the funds
20
contained within the Historic Preservation Grant
21
discussed further down under Roman Numeral One on that
22
same page?
23
A.
24
grant is --- will be through a local community
25
foundation.
They're --- I don't think that --- could you I'm not sure I understood that.
Okay.
Let me ask it a different way.
Would
I believe the anticipated administrator of that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
123 1
Q.
And I believe the agreement describes that as a
2
local community foundation to be established by Pinnacle?
3
A.
Correct.
4
Q.
Looking back at your Direct testimony, the same
5
page we looked at before, page nine, ---
6
A.
Uh-huh (yes).
7
Q.
--- where it started talking about the
8
Memorandum of Agreement.
9
paragraph we looked at before, it says this MOA will
The third sentence in that
10
define measures to mitigate the adverse visual effects to
11
the 18 historic properties within the APE.
12
those 18 you're referring to are ones that we've
13
determined, I guess, in concert would be adversely
14
impacted by the Pinnacle project?
15
A.
16
reports to the West Virginia State Historic Preservation
17
Office and they commented on those findings.
18
Q.
19
Agreement here where it is explained how measures will be
20
taken to mitigate the adverse visual effects to those 18
21
historic properties?
22
A.
23
buildings and there is an attachment that provides a
24
table of those resources, attachment one.
25
page two, the now therefore clause concluding the whereas
Correct.
I assume
And that was --- we issued technical
Could you point out to me in the Memorandum of
The fourth, whereas on page one references 18
And the --- on
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
124 1
clause.
2
Q.
3
mitigation measures are provided for.
4
anywhere in the agreement where that is provided?
5
perhaps I should step back and ask, what types of
6
mitigation ---?
7
A.
8
concluding paragraph, it reads execution of this
9
Memorandum of Agreement as it exists with Pinnacle Wind
Okay.
I guess I'm not seeing where any Do you see Or
Page five --- excuse me, page five, the
10
Force, LLC has taken into account the effects of the
11
undertaking of historic properties and has mitigated such
12
effects to the satisfaction of the West Virginia Division
13
of Culture and History.
14
Q.
15
explain how such mitigation would be achieved; correct?
16
A.
I'm not sure what you're asking.
17
Q.
Well, let me ask you it a different way than I
18
asked a minute ago.
19
on these 18 historic resources --- how might that be
20
achieved?
21
human hands and equipment?
22
A.
The adverse effects?
23
Q.
How might it be mitigated?
24
A.
The mitigation was identified in the
25
stipulations of this agreement as being offsite
Okay.
But the Memorandum of Agreement does not
How would the adverse visual impact
How might that be physically performed by
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
125 1
mitigation.
And the document in the paragraph that I
2
read references that to the satisfaction of the West
3
Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, compliance
4
with the terms of this agreement are evidence that
5
Pinnacle Wind Force has taken into account the effects of
6
the undertaking on the 18 historic properties and has
7
mitigated that effect through the implementation of the
8
stipulation.
9
Q.
So let me ask you about offsite --- I believe
10
you said offsite mitigation.
11
A.
12
appropriate by the West Virginia State Historic
13
Preservation Office and Pinnacle in consultation to
14
mitigate the effects to --- the visual effects to those
15
18 resources.
16
Q.
17
mitigation would be carried out and what --- which, if
18
any, of those 18 historic properties that might mitigate
19
impacts for?
20
A.
I'm still not clear about your question.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
mitigation.
23
A.
24
consideration the effects and provide compensation for
25
those effects to offset those effects to the culture
This is the mitigation that was determined as
Okay.
Explain to me in what manner that offsite
Define what you mean when you say offsite
Mitigation that would basically take into
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
126 1
resource.
2
Q.
3
that would be considered offsite mitigation.
4
A.
5
fund that would promote and encourage historic
6
preservation within the community under the supervision
7
of the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that
8
it meets the secretary's standards for historic
9
preservation.
I'm still searching for what might be achieved
The establishment of historic preservation grant
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.
14
that ---.
15
Q.
16
that offsite mitigation does nothing to mitigate the
17
adverse visual impact directly to those 18 historic
18
sites?
19
A.
20
of the signature of this document and negotiating this
21
document, these terms --- regarding these terms, the West
22
Virginia State Historic Preservation agrees.
23
Q.
24
described alter the way in which the turbines of the
25
Pinnacle project would be viewed from any one of these 18
This was found to be the mitigative measure
That's not what I'm asking.
I'm asking you,
In my opinion, it does and can --- by evidence
How would the offsite mitigation efforts you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
127 1
historic properties that would be adversely affected?
2
A.
3
mitigation.
4
Q.
5
anything to change how the turbines are visible from
6
those 18 sites; correct?
7
A.
I agree.
8
Q.
And you don't have any expertise in acoustical
9
studies or sound monitoring or anything that would enable
I don't think that's the nature of the
You would agree with me that it won't do
That's all I'm asking.
10
you to comment on whether the acoustical study performed
11
by Pinnacle's witness, James Barnes, was legitimate and
12
accurate; would you?
13
A.
14
submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office at
15
their request and they issued a letter in April of this
16
year that said that they found that noise would not be a
17
consideration of effects to historic properties.
18
Q.
19
State Historic Preservation Office has anybody on staff
20
that has expertise in acoustical studies or sound
21
monitoring that could make that determination?
22
A.
23
Preservation Office has expertise on determining effects
24
to historic properties.
25
Q.
No, I don't, but I believe his findings were
But you wouldn't know whether the West Virginia
The staff of the West Virginia State Historic
That's not what I asked.
I asked does --- would
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
128 1
you know either way whether ---?
2
A.
3
effect to historic properties.
4
effects that one considers.
5
Q.
6
either way whether West Virginia SHPO has on staff ---
7
A.
I don't know.
8
Q.
--- someone with that kind of expertise;
9
correct?
10
A.
Acoustics is --- noise is considered a potential
I understand that.
It's among the direct
But you would not know
No, I don't ---.
No, I would not.
11
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
12
At this time, I would move the
13
admission of Alliance Exhibit 11 into evidence, and I
14
believe that's all I have for you, Ms. Kuranda.
15
A.
Thank you.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Without objection, it will be admitted.
18
You want to move Company Exhibit Two?
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
129 1
CROSS EXAMINATION
2
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
3
Q.
4
Virginia SHPO, did you all discuss the fact that this
5
could potentially impact Maryland?
6
discussion?
7
A.
8
the best of my recollection.
When you were developing the APE with West
Was that part of your
It did not come up to the --- in conversation to
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
9 10
That's all I have.
Thank you.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Any questions?
13
COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
14
No questions.
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
Well, I had written --- I had written a
17
note to myself when you were describing your activities,
18
I put it as being natural --- or cultural resources
19
management from a national practice in the full spectrum
20
of preservation disciplines.
21
do that you get paid to do?
22
I just --- what is it that you do?
23
A.
24
architectural history, history and preservation planning.
25
I wrote what do you people I wasn't being flip --- but
We do underwater terrestrial archeology,
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
130 1
Okay.
And your preservation plans
2
result in what?
3
A.
4
installations, for government facilities.
5
Academy, for example, we just finished one in Maryland.
6
We do them for communities and localities where it would
7
have a set of resources that they consider significant
8
and want to work within preservation.
We do preservation plans for military The Naval
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 10
And what kind of recommendations would
11
you make incident to that work, just generally?
I'm not
12
looking for --- I'm trying to think categorically what
13
contents would you do.
14
A.
15
obviously.
16
that may require consultation with their state office.
17
We would identify resources that may be eligible for the
18
national register or for local designation.
19
incentive programs that could be enacted for --- to
20
heighten public interest and knowledge of the database
21
and the resource studies and encourage their
22
preservation.
We would --- it depends on the project But we would identify types of undertakings
We identify
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
Under the scope of the work proposed by
25
Goodwin, item number two, you say develop the historic
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
131 1
context appropriate to the assessment of built resources
2
within the APE.
3
A.
4
overview of history that identifies the important things
5
that had been in play in a particular area so that you
6
can anticipate the range of property types that might be
7
found there.
8
a field investigation so we know that, you know, this is
9
an agricultural area where they planted tobacco during
Okay.
And again, I wrote what's that mean. A historic context is basically an
And generally we develop that before we do
10
the 18th Century.
We're likely to find tobacco farms.
11
And the resources that would be associated with those
12
would include the full range of agricultural properties.
13
So it's enough to make informed decisions so that we're
14
not spinning our wheels.
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
At page five of your testimony down at
17
line 19, you say the phase two investigations included
18
intensive field survey evaluation and effects
19
determinations for 21 properties that may have views of
20
the project.
21
are the properties listed on attachment one to the memo
22
of understanding?
23
A.
24
are generally excluded from designation as historic sites
25
because they're thought to have a screen of protection on
Yes.
Are those 21 properties in part the --- or
Are they contained within that?
And the other three were cemeteries, which
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
132 1
their own.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
So these are --- these are not ---
4
these are properties that you all raised with SHPO as
5
being within what you discovered in your examination of
6
the project?
7
A.
8
a preliminary investigation in the whole five mile area.
9
We made recommendations and actually had staff out in the
Correct.
The way we worked this was that we did
10
field with us for a couple of days to verify those ---
11
our findings were appropriate.
12
determination and our investigation, we recommended 21
13
resources for further investigation, and those included
14
three cemeteries that the SHPO was interested in getting
15
data on even though they would not qualify as historic
16
properties.
Based on the field
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Okay.
19
other properties listed?
20
A.
The three cemeteries and the
Correct, the 18.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
And then you said you make an effects
23
determination.
What is that?
Is that saying you try to
24
assess the impact of the project on them?
25
A.
On the historic properties.
And there are
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
133 1
generally two kinds of effects that are recognized,
2
direct effects when property is going to be physically
3
altered or removed by a project.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Were any of the properties direct
6
affected --- or effected?
7
A.
8
there are also indirect effects, and that may change the
9
character of the resource that would qualify it for
No direct effects.
No direct effects.
And then
10
designation introducing either visual, noise or other
11
types of atmospheric effects that would diminish its
12
integrity.
13
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
14
Were any of those --- were any of these
15
facilities --- were there effect determinations made as
16
to any of these facilities, other than --- you said there
17
were no direct.
18
A.
19
the 18 historic properties.
20
adverse, hence the negotiation of the Memorandum of
21
Agreement.
Yes.
Were there indirect?
There will be views of the turbines from SHPO found those to be
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Okay.
And the satisfaction that SHPO
24
has is that money will be paid into this trust fund?
25
A.
Correct.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
134 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
And that satisfies their concerns about
3
the indirect effects on these?
4
A.
Correct.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
All right.
And there's actually a
7
report --- your phase two report that was tendered to
8
SHPO?
9
A.
There were two reports.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
Phase one and phase two.
12
A.
Yes.
13
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
14
All right.
And you said you had no
15
discussions with SHPO about Maryland or the impacts in
16
Maryland?
17
A.
18
of my memory, they didn't bring anything up in the
19
written comments.
We did not initiate discussions, and to the best
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
135 1
A.
Thank you.
2
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
Just a few questions, Your Honor.
4
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
5
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
6
Q.
7
the testimony and the question and your answers that you
8
have experience in this sort of undertaking, both in
9
Maryland and in West Virginia; correct?
Ms. Kuranda, I believe you've indicated through
10
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
And you worked with the respective historical
12
preservation agencies in both states?
13
A.
Right.
14
Q.
I just want --- I think we've covered this, but
15
I want to make sure the record's clear.
16
project is located in West Virginia.
17
Virginia project.
18
who you consult with to do the evaluation and
19
investigation that you did?
The Pinnacle
It's a West
So what does that dictate as far as
20
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
21
I'm going to object, Your Honor.
It's
22
sort of a grey area, but I think he's asking her for a
23
legal opinion on this.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
State your question again.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
136 1
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
2
Q.
3
evaluation on the project in West Virginia, in your
4
opinion as an expert, who would you consult with?
5
A.
6
Historic Preservation Office.
7
Q.
And is that who you consulted with?
8
A.
Yes, it is.
9
Q.
And in the course of that consultation, to the
Ms. Kuranda, to perform an investigation and
We would consult with the West Virginia State
10
best of your recollection, did anyone at West Virginia
11
SHPO request or even suggest that you consult with
12
counterparties in the State of Maryland, the Maryland
13
Historic Trust?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
And was that unusual in your experience?
16
A.
It is not unusual for projects that are being
17
reviewed under state legislation.
18
Q.
19
were involved in a similar investigation for a project in
20
Maryland, and that's Dan's Mountain.
21
A.
Correct.
22
Q.
Do you know whether the Dan's Mountain Project
23
is or would be visible from any point in West Virginia?
24
A.
I believe it would be visible.
25
Q.
Who did you consult with to determine the APE
And likewise, I think it was mentioned that you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
137 1
for that project, Dan's Mountain?
2
A.
3
historic preservation office.
4
Q.
5
Trust directed or suggested that you consult with West
6
Virginia SHPO on Dan's Mountain?
7
A.
They did not.
8
Q.
And would you have expected them to?
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.
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.
18
that can arise with federal funding?
19
a need to consult?
20
A.
21
that is, it is federally funded, licensed or permitted,
22
it is --- must comply with the requirements of Section
23
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended.
24
That requires the federal agency to take into
25
consideration the effects on historic properties, whether
The Maryland Historical Trust as the state
And do you recall whether the Maryland Historic
There are, and if they're being reviewed
Are there things with so called federal nexus Would that trigger
If a project is defined as federal undertaking,
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
138 1
they're built or are archeological.
It's a defined
2
consultation process with the state historic preservation
3
offices, interested parties as well as the Advisory
4
Council on Historic Preservation, which is a federal
5
agency.
6
recognize state boundaries and the areas of potential
7
effect are determined in part to reflect the impacts of
8
the projects.
9
Q.
The compliance with Section 106 is --- does not
So if this had been a federally funded project,
10
for example, it's conceivable that you might --- and you
11
did this sort of analysis and investigation, that you
12
might have investigated properties in Maryland?
13
A.
14
appropriate to involve more than one state historic
15
preservation office if there had been federal involvement
16
and there was an undertaking.
17
Q.
18
to your knowledge, does that document resolve all the
19
issues that West Virginia SHPO has or had with regard to
20
the Pinnacle project for both architectural and
21
archeological issues?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
And that's the same Memorandum of Agreement that
24
Mr. Maymon referenced in his testimony?
25
A.
Quite possibly, yes.
It would have been
Now, with regard to the Memorandum of Agreement,
Yes.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
139 1
Q.
So is there any further action required from
2
West Virginia SHPO for this project?
3
A.
No further action is anticipated.
4
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
5
That's all I have, Your Honor.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
All right.
8
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9
I don't think so, Your Honor.
Anything further?
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
All right.
12
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
13
Your Honor, I have ---
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
I'm sorry.
16
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
17
--- one small minor question.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
Sure.
Fine.
20
RECROSS EXAMINATION
21
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
22
Q.
23
parties to enter into these Memorandum of Agreement with
24
preservation offices.
25
that agreement, some sort of mitigation?
You said that it's typical in the industry for
Is mitigation normally a part of
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
140 1
A.
The purpose of the Memorandum of Agreement is to
2
identify ways to avoid, limit or mitigate effects to
3
historic properties.
4
Q.
5
mitigation a typical mitigation or are there other
6
methods?
7
A.
8
of the project and are designed to be commensurate with
9
the impact.
In your experience, is monetary --- a monetary
The methods are negotiated based on the nature
10
Q.
What kind of other mitigations have you seen
11
other than a monetary mitigation?
12
A.
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.
17
a cookie cutter agreement that you pull off the shelf.
They range from documenting historic resources,
18
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
19
Thank you.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
All right.
22
A.
So it's not
Thank you.
Thank you.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
You're excused.
25
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
141 1 2
We would ask that Ms. Kuranda be excused, Your Honor.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
She may.
5
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
6
That's all the witnesses we have, Your
7
Honor.
8
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9
Your Honor, very quickly, I was going
10
to say I had previously asked to be marked Exhibits ---
11
Alliance Exhibits Three and Four.
12
going to move those two exhibits into evidence.
13
the Order from the Virginia State Corporation Commission
14
we discussed yesterday, ---
The Alliance is not One was
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
Right.
17
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18
--- and the other was a letter from the
19
Chief of the National Battlefield Protection Program, but
20
we have no interest in moving those into evidence.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
All right.
23
Have you completed your
case then?
24
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
25
Yes, Your Honor.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
142 1
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
2
Your Honor, there's only going to be
3
--- we have one witness.
With the agreement of parties
4
and the Commission's Order that Mr. Snyder's testimony
5
could go in, and I would like to get that marked and move
6
that in ---.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
That would be fine.
9
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
10 11
Sure.
I'd like this marked as Building Trades Number Two.
12
(Building Trades Exhibit Two marked for
13
identification.)
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
Mr. Trivelli has tendered
16
the prepared Direct testimony of Darwin Snyder and had it
17
marked for identification as Building Trades Two.
18
agreement of the parties and by prior Order of the
19
Commission, we agreed that Mr. Snyder's testimony could
20
go into the record.
Anything else?
All right.
21
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
22
Staff calls Dixie Kellmeyer.
By
Staff?
23
---------------------------------------------------------
24
DIXIE L. KELLMEYER, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
25
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
143 1
---------------------------------------------------------
2
DIRECT EXAMINATION
3
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
4
Q.
Could you state your name?
5
A.
Dixie Kellmeyer.
6
Q.
By whom are you employed?
7
A.
The Public Service Commission of West Virginia.
8
Q.
And how long have you been employed there?
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.
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.
Did you prepare prefiled testimony in relation
23
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
24
I'd like to have that marked as Staff
25
Exhibit One.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
144 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
It will be so marked.
3
(Staff Exhibit One marked for
4
identification.)
5
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
6
Q.
7
document at this time?
8
A.
9
middle of that line Grant should be Mineral.
Do you have any changes or corrections to that
I do.
On page four, line number nine, in the Line 14,
10
Grant should be Mineral, and line 17, first word, Grant
11
should be Mineral.
12
Q.
13
wish to adopt that testimony as your testimony today?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Have you seen what has been marked as Joint
16
Exhibit One, the stipulation?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Are you familiar with that document?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And are you in agreement with the contents of
21
that document?
22
A.
With those small typographical changes, do you
Yes, I am.
23
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
24
At this time, I would move Staff
25
Exhibit One into evidence and tender Ms. Kellmeyer for
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
145 1
Cross Examination.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
All right.
Without objection, the
4
testimony of Ms. Kellmeyer will be admitted as Staff
5
Exhibit One.
6
Trivelli?
I guess we'll keep the same order.
7
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
8
No questions, Your Honor.
9
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
10
No questions, Your Honor.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Mr. Stephens?
13
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
14
Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr.
15
CROSS EXAMINATION
16
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17
Q.
Good afternoon, Ms. Kellmeyer.
18
A.
Good afternoon, Mr. Stephens.
19
Q.
I think I just want to ask you about one area of
20
your testimony.
21
actually started on page three.
22
recommendations, and really the substance of your
23
response to that question, I think, is more on page four
24
and it concerns decommissioning the project; correct?
25
A.
If you could bear with me, I think we Do you have any
Correct.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
146 1
Q.
You state here that you recommend that a report
2
of a qualified third party should provide an analysis and
3
set the fund amount for a decommissioning fund to cover
4
the dismantling of the turbines and towers and land
5
reclamation.
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
--- basically reflected there?
8
state that the report should be updated thereafter as
9
mutually agreed between Pinnacle and the Mineral County
10
Commission but no less frequently than every five years
11
thereafter; correct?
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
You further state the fund amount will vary over
14
time depending on changes in the estimated market or
15
salvage value of the project, estimated cost of
16
dismantling and removing turbines in the expected ongoing
17
life of the project; correct?
18
A.
Yes, sir.
19
Q.
You haven't had any communication with the
20
Mineral County Commission, have you, during the course of
21
this case?
22
A.
No.
23
Q.
So then you don't have any idea as to what the
24
Mineral County Commission would prefer to have done in
25
terms of a decommissioning fund; correct?
Is that ---
Okay.
And you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
147 1
A.
That's right.
2
Q.
So that Mineral County Commission could envision
3
a completely different scenario than the one you've
4
suggested here in terms of decommissioning; correct?
5
A.
I guess so.
6
Q.
Do you recall Alliance Exhibit One that I
7
distributed yesterday?
8
passed by the Allegany County of Maryland Commission.
9
you remember --- were you present for the discussion
It was a --- it was the bill
10
involving the decommissioning fund that sets forth ---
11
that is set forth by that law or ---?
12
you the part I'm talking about, but do you recall that
13
exchange?
14
A.
15
haven't studied that document.
16
Q.
17
I'm talking about?
I mean, I recall it.
That's fine.
Do
I'll happily show
I'm not --- you know, I
How about I just show you where
18
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19
And for reference purposes for the
20
benefit of the rest of the parties, I'm looking at page
21
six of Alliance Exhibit One the section entitled
22
Decommissioning Fund.
23
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
24
Q.
25
believe there of Section D, Decommissioning Fund --- what
And don't you see in the first subpart of one I
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
148 1
amount does the Allegany County Commission set forth in
2
that law to be provided per turbine in an installation
3
such as the Pinnacle project?
4
A.
$150,000.
5
Q.
Per turbine?
6
A.
It says for each wind energy device.
7
Q.
If you'll turn back, I believe it's page two of
8
that document, it has definitions.
9
see industrial wind energy device or wind energy
And I think you will
10
conversion device defined.
And I'll just ask you to look
11
at that definition and see if it --- if you understand it
12
to be talking about one particular industrial wind
13
turbine of the type that we would see at the Pinnacle
14
project?
15
A.
I notice it says using a turbine.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
talking about per industrial scale wind turbines such as
18
the ones that would be involved with the Pinnacle
19
project?
20
A.
That's my understanding from reading that.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
way now.
23
Beech Ridge case in terms of --- in the scope of
24
decommissioning; is that correct?
25
A.
Would you agree with me that they're
I'm going to get that exhibit out of your
I think previously you were involved in the
Yes.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
149 1
Q.
And I believe you concurred with the findings of
2
a decommission expert that was hired by Beech Ridge
3
Energy, LLC.
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
And what amount --- did that expert set forth a
6
specific amount per turbine to be provided for in a
7
decommissioning fund?
8
A.
9
believe, Beech Ridge has filed an expert report on
Is that generally accurate?
I don't recall.
I believe I recall that, I
10
decommissioning.
11
believe the report concluded that the salvage value was
12
sufficient to decommission the site.
13
Ridge agreed to provide a fund in the amount --- a
14
certain amount per turbine.
15
Q.
16
this case, there wouldn't be anything stopping you from
17
recommending a fixed amount to be provided upfront per
18
turbine, could you --- would there be?
19
A.
20
recommendation per turbine?
21
Q.
22
recommending say, for example, $50,000 per turbine be
23
provided by Pinnacle upfront for the project?
24
A.
25
that is I'm not an expert in that field.
Okay.
If my memory serves me correct, I
But I believe Beech
I don't recall how much.
Stepping back to your recommendation in
Are you asking me if I would make a
Would there be anything stopping you from
Well, the thing that would stop me from doing I wouldn't know
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
150 1
how much to recommend per turbine.
And that's why our
2
recommendation is that, you know, an expert be hired to
3
determine that.
4
Q.
5
with these types of projects and seeing as you have the
6
Beech Ridge case at least under your belt and that
7
experience with respect to what may be appropriate and
8
what may be inappropriate in terms of an amount
9
sufficient for decommissioning, would $150,000 per
Well, let me ask you based on your familiarity
10
turbine probably safely encompass what it would take per
11
turbine to dismantle the turbines and reclaim the site?
12
A.
13
that area.
14
retained to determine that.
15
at least I doubt that it would take the same amount of
16
money to decommission different turbines.
17
area.
18
the turbines are one size in one case and another size in
19
another case.
20
the cost of decommissioning different types.
21
know how similar the turbines in Beech Ridge are to the
22
ones in this case.
23
Q.
24
$150,000 per turbine, would there be an amount --- a
25
monetary amount with which you would be --- feel
I don't know.
I don't have any expertise in
That's why I suggested that an expert be I don't even know if --- or
That's not my
As I listen to these cases, we've had cases and
I assume there would be some difference in And I don't
Would there be an amount --- if it's not
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
151 1
comfortable recommending would be set forth ---?
2
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
3
I'm going to object at this time.
He's
4
already asked this question and she's already answered.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
I actually agree.
I think you've asked
7
it in at least three different ways, and she's told you
8
she's not an expert, and you continue to ask her to give
9
you an amount.
10
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
11
Understood, Your Honor.
12
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Q.
14
Mineral County Commission between now and the date by
15
which the Commission must make its decision on Pinnacle's
16
application?
17
A.
Do you intend to have any communication with the
No.
18
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19
I think that's all I have for you, Ms.
20
Kellmeyer.
Thanks.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
Anybody?
23
All right.
Do you have any
questions?
24
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
25
No questions.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
152 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Ms. Kellmeyer, you mentioned the
3
stipulation and indicated you were familiar with it.
4
me ask you some questions.
5
A.
Do you have a copy of it?
I do somewhere here.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
I had some questions about the
8
undertakings with respect to the study.
9
those to the engineering witness, the bat studies
10
and ---?
11
A.
Let
Should I direct
Yes, sir.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
CPA certification doesn't cover bats?
14
A.
No.
I don't want to go anywhere near them.
15
did have a bat in my living room once, though.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Close enough.
All right.
I
Other than
18
the two conditions that relate to certain of the towers
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?
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?
25
A.
Do you know?
To the best of my knowledge.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
Are all
153 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Yes, the micro-siting and the proximity
3
of certain of the turbines to Green Mountain Road, I
4
guess.
5
A.
Oh, those were not my areas.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
Well, that and bats we'll leave alone
8
then.
9
A.
Okay.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
All right.
12
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
13
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you, ma'am.
Just a few
14
questions.
15
CROSS EXAMINATION
16
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
17
Q.
Hello, Ms. Kellmeyer.
18
A.
Hello, Mr. Callas.
19
Q.
Do you have any reason to think the Mineral
20
County Commission would not be willing to participate in
21
the manner prescribed in the decommissioning provision
22
that you've recommended to the Commission?
23
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
24
I'm going to object to that, Your
25
Honor.
She's already testified she's had no
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
154 1
communication with the Mineral County Commission, so how
2
would she know that?
3
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
4
I'm asking her given what she knows
5
about the interests of the county commissions in the
6
decommissioning of facilities whether she thinks it's a
7
reasonable assumption to think that the Mineral County
8
Commission would be disinterested in participating in
9
this way.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
I think that's a fair question.
You
12
can answer whether or not based on her experience in
13
several of these projects they would have an interest in
14
setting up a fund.
15
A.
16
process and have input into that process.
17
directly affects their county and their constituents and
18
so I believe they would want to be apart of it.
19
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
20
Q.
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?
I believe they would want to participate in that You know, it
And, in fact, we know since they've filed
24
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
25
Objection, Your Honor.
We don't have
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
155 1
letters in the record from each of the members of the
2
Mineral County Commission expressing support for this
3
project.
4
Commission yesterday, but there's certainly nothing in
5
the record, and we have no evidence before us that all
6
three commissioners' support this, and that seemed to be
7
indicated in Mr. Callas' question.
I understand that two were filed with the
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
I thought Mr. Friend indicated that
10
letters had been filed, at least in his testimony.
11
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
12
That may very well be, but I have no
13
knowledge of --- what seemed to be embodied in Mr.
14
Callas' question was that --- or implied in it, was that
15
each of the members of the Mineral County Commission had
16
individually expressed support for this Pinnacle project.
17
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
18
I did not say that.
19
well, to be fair, Mr. Friend said in his testimony that
20
the letters that had been submitted to the Commission by
21
way of public comment yesterday by Mr. Helmick's
22
appearance, expressed in each of those letters that the
23
Mineral County Commission had voted two to one to support
24
this project.
25
that the Mineral County Commission has been very involved
I said that ---
And that does, in fact, evidence the fact
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
156 1
and, in fact, has taken efforts to support this project.
2
I didn't say that the letters themselves had been in the
3
record, but Mr. Friend's testimony about it certainly
4
was.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
I'm okay with that as long as the
7
record reflects that we don't have letters before the
8
Commission expressing support by each and every member of
9
the Mineral County Commission.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
Not by each and every member, but I get
12
copies of everything that's filed, and I've got --- you
13
know, obviously I have them, but ---.
14
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
15
Understood.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Okay.
Fair enough.
They were filed as protest
18
letters, so --- I mean, not protest, but they were filed
19
not as evidentiary filings.
20
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
21
Q.
Ms. Kellmeyer ---.
22
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
23
I know you'd rather me sit, but I'd
24 25
really like to stand. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
157 1
Knock yourself out.
2
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
3
Q.
4
the decommissioning provisions that were discussed and
5
approved in Beech Ridge.
6
more recent cases before the Commission in which the
7
matter of decommissioning has been addressed; did he?
8
A.
No.
9
Q.
And what were those two more recent than Beech
Mr. Stephens asked you a number of times about
He did not ask you about two
10
Ridge cases?
11
A.
AES Laurel Mountain and AES New Creek.
12
Q.
Does the recommendation embodied in the
13
stipulation of the decommissioning issue essentially
14
identical to the recommendations made to the Commission
15
and that the Commission approved in each of those two
16
cases?
17
A.
18
what the Commission --- was contained in the Commission's
19
Order in Laurel Mountain.
20
Laurel Mountain may have been somewhat different.
21
believe we had one issue that was discussed at the
22
hearing.
23
Commission's Order in the Laurel Mountain case.
24
Q.
And in New Creek?
25
A.
I'm not sure when I wrote this testimony if the
The recommendation, I believe, is identical to
Staff's recommendation in I
So this is I believe directly from the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
158 1
order in New Creek was out, but I believe it to be
2
--- them to be the same.
3
Q.
4
Grant County came from?
5
A.
I suspect so.
6
Q.
Do you know of any material differences between
7
those projects and this project that would lead the Staff
8
or any --- staff to make a different recommendation as to
9
the manner decommissioning should be handled than was the
In fact, would you suspect that that's where the
10
case in New Creek?
11
A.
12
a difference in our recommendation.
13
Q.
14
public, in particularly those who are involved in
15
preparing site certificate applications, to know how the
16
Commission handles at least one issue that's involved in
17
these cases and see it repeated and be the same over and
18
over again?
I'm not aware of any difference that should make
Do you think that there's a benefit to the
19
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20
I'm not sure what you're saying there.
21
But go ahead and answer the question.
22
A.
Thank you.
23
COMMISSIONER STAAT:
24
Mr. Chairman, I am sure what he's
25
saying.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
159 1
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
2
Q.
3
file site certificate applications to know in advance
4
what's going to be expected of them on at least one issue
5
of significance?
6
A.
7
going to file these applications to know what --- what
8
the Commission expects and needs, you know, contained in
9
the application.
Do you think there's some benefit to folks who
I think it's helpful for the people that are
10
Q.
Mr. Stephens referenced a $150,000 per turbine
11
decommissioning 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.
Is it possible that that amount
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
160 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
That was said in jest obviously,
3
consistency theory.
All right.
Is that all you have?
4
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5
Yes, sir.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
All right.
8
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
Mr. Auville?
10
Q.
Ms. Kellmeyer, is it your understanding that ---
11
you made a recommendation to the Commission of how the
12
decommissioning fund should work.
13
understanding that all of the parties are available to
14
make whatever recommendation of the Commission that they
15
see fit?
16
A.
Is it your
Yes.
17
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
18
Thank you.
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
Donald
161 1
Walker.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
All right.
4
---------------------------------------------------------
5
DONALD E. WALKER, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
6
AS FOLLOWS:
7
---------------------------------------------------------
8
DIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
10
Q.
Could you state your name for the record,
11
please?
12
A.
My name is Donald E. Walker.
13
Q.
And by whom are you employed?
14
A.
I am employed by the Public Service Commission
15
of West Virginia.
16
Q.
And in what capacity?
17
A.
I am a technical analyst for engineering.
18
Q.
And how long have you been with the Commission?
19
A.
Just under two years.
20
Q.
As part of your assignments, tell me a little
21
bit about what you do with the Commission.
22
A.
23
projects, also review and handle complaints --- utility
24
complaints, electrical engineering complaints of
25
utilities.
I review applications for certificate of
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
162 1
Q.
As part of your duties with the Commission, did
2
you profile Direct testimony in relation to this case?
3
A.
Yes, I did.
4
Q.
Do you have a copy of that in front of you?
5
A.
Yes.
6
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
7
We'd have that marked as Staff Exhibit
8
Two. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 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.
17
document?
18
A.
19
lines six and four, 2001 should be changed to 2007.
20
Q.
21
to adopt that testimony as your testimony here today?
22
A.
Yes, it is.
23
Q.
Are you familiar with what has been previously
24
marked as Joint Exhibit One?
25
A.
Do you have any changes or corrections to that
Yes, I do.
I have one change on page four, on
And with that one correction, is it your desire
Yes, I am.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
163 1
Q.
Do you agree with the contents of that exhibit?
2
A.
Yes.
3
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
4
At this time, I would move Staff
5
Exhibit Two into evidence and tender Mr. Walker for Cross
6
Examination.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
All right.
9 10
Without objection, Mr.
Walker's testimony will be received in evidence.
Mr.
Trivelli?
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
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
164 1
review of the Pinnacle application.
Is that your
2
recollection?
3
A.
Yes, it is.
4
Q.
Okay.
5
yourself, Ms. Kellmeyer, obviously, with respect to the
6
number crunching, Mr. Ellars, Mr. Perdue.
7
anyone out?
8
A.
Earl Melton.
9
Q.
Earl Melton.
And I believe those people would be
Okay.
Have I left
And all these gentlemen
10
including you --- we're going to exclude Ms. Kellmeyer.
11
We don't want to make her feel left out, but she's
12
dealing with different issues.
13
Melton and Mr. Perdue, all of your backgrounds are pretty
14
narrowly tailored to --- what would you say, electrical
15
engineering?
16
engineering perhaps in the case of Mr. Ellars?
17
A.
18
electrical engineering.
19
Q.
20
experience and education pretty well of these people as
21
it applies to their duties with the Staff?
22
A.
23
engineering principles, but engineering --- electrical is
24
the major focus, I think.
25
Q.
Yourself, Mr. Ellars, Mr.
Is that a fair assumption, or civil
Actually, I believe Mr. Ellars is also
So electrical engineering probably embodies the
I believe the education has quite a range of
Okay.
So neither you nor any of these other
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
165 1
gentlemen would have any expertise in hydrology or
2
impacts to water resources; correct?
3
A.
4
other --- other folks that we're talking about.
5
experience is mostly in the electrical component.
6
Q.
7
you're familiar with the backgrounds of the other
8
gentlemen, so would you have any reason to believe that
9
any of those three people have any expertise in hydrology
I'm not sure whether I can answer that for the
Okay.
My
Well, to the extent you sounded like
10
or impacts to water resources?
11
A.
12
résumés, so they speak for themselves.
13
Q.
14
have such experience; correct?
15
A.
I know that they have submitted their views and
You wouldn't have any reason to believe they
I have no reason to believe they don't, either.
16
I'm sure that through working in this area of the Public
17
Service Commission they've had quite a few experiences in
18
different areas.
19
Q.
20
would have any reason to think you or any of those three
21
gentlemen could go to work for the West Virginia
22
Department of Environmental Protection in reviewing
23
general construction stormwater permits?
24
A.
25
know that Mr. Ellars is, and I believe that he is
Let me ask the question differently.
But you
I know that I am a professional engineer.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
I
166 1
licensed in civil engineering, I believe.
2
think he probably would be able to do that.
3
Q.
But not the other three of you; correct?
4
A.
Pardon me?
5
Q.
Not the other three of you?
6
using it as shorthand so I don't say all your names each
7
time, Walker, Melton, Ellars.
8
A.
9
know he's a licensed engineer.
Okay.
So I would
When I say you, I'm
I'm not sure of Earl's credentials, but I
10
Q.
Would any of you four --- we'll come up with a
11
placeholder, I'll call it your four people --- you four
12
staff members, how about that?
13
you, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Melton and Mr. Ellars.
14
A.
That's fair.
15
Q.
You four staff members, nobody among that group
16
has any expertise in acoustical studies or sound
17
monitoring; correct?
18
A.
19
expertise, but that is also not our function at the
20
Commission.
21
Q.
22
granted what an applicant provides in that regard with
23
respect to an acoustical study?
24
A.
25
could research.
And I'm talking about Fair enough?
What I will say is that is really not our
So would it be fair to say you had to take for
No, I wouldn't say that.
I would say that we
We review the studies and review them to
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
167 1
ensure that they're within reasonable industrial
2
qualifications, and that's how we review the information,
3
yes.
4
Q.
5
this hearing --- I'm making an assumption here.
6
ask you first, have you been present for all of the
7
testimony elicited so far in this hearing?
8
A.
Yes, I have.
9
Q.
Has any of that testimony elicited changed your
Okay.
Has any of the testimony elicited during Let me
10
mind about any of the opinions you initially set forth in
11
your pre-filed Direct testimony?
12
A.
No, it hasn't.
13
Q.
Just one minute, Mr. Walker.
14
with me to page 17 of your Direct testimony?
15
the midst of, I believe, the Staff recommended
16
conditions, mainly general construction and operational
17
phase certificate conditions; is that --- does that sound
18
right?
19
A.
Could you give me a line number?
20
Q.
Okay.
21
specifically looking at item five is on line 344,
22
page 17.
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Do you agree with me that's under the heading
25
general construction and operational phase certificate
Could you turn This is in
Well, by saying in the midst, because I'm
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
168 1
conditions that starts on page 16?
2
A.
Yes, sir.
3
Q.
And do you say this condition would set forth
4
the applicant will consult with representatives of
5
Commission Staff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and West
6
Virginia Division of Natural Resources, collectively the
7
technical advisory committee on the scope, development
8
and implementation of post construction studies to
9
commence within a reasonable time and in any event no
10
later than one year, go to the next page, following the
11
commercial operations phase of the project and then you
12
go on to prescribe the specific tasks with --- that the
13
technical advisory committee would be consulted on.
14
the risk of beating a dead horse, at this point, any of
15
you four staff members have any expertise in the impacts
16
of industrial wind turbines on bats?
17
A.
18
committee set up, so we can have the expertise and rely
19
on those to do that for a living.
20
Q.
21
the Staff would essentially be relying on the U.S. Fish
22
and Wildlife Service and West Virginia Division of
23
Natural Resources for that type of expertise; correct?
24
A.
I believe that would be a resource, yes.
25
Q.
The Staff would be relying on those two agencies
At
I believe that's why we have the technical
So I guess if we go back to line 344 and 345,
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
169 1
for that type of expertise because that type of expertise
2
is not present among the four Staff members we were
3
talking about; correct?
4
A.
5
not been --- speaking for myself, I have not been
6
dedicated in that area, no.
7
Q.
8
from industrial wind turbines to birds including raptors
9
and migratory birds?
I would say that, yeah, we're not --- we have
So would your answer be the same with impacts
10
A.
That would be the same answer, yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
case?
13
A.
No, I didn't.
14
Q.
Are you familiar at all with the Beech Ridge
15
case?
16
A.
I'm not intimately, no.
17
Q.
Would you have any reason to dispute that the
18
Commission prescribed a condition similar to the one
19
you're recommending here, but that it provided for
20
inclusion of a technical advisory committee of a
21
statewide environmental organization with 500 plus
22
members and in existence for at least 10 years?
23
you deny that the Commission recommended --- or
24
prescribed that as its condition?
25
A.
Did you work at all on the Beech Ridge
Would
I don't have knowledge of that, so I can't
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
170 1
confirm or deny that.
2
Q.
3
group that I would suggest to you the Commission had
4
recommended to be a part of the technical advisory
5
committee in that case?
6
A.
Having to do with Beech Ridge, yes.
7
Q.
Okay.
8
three of your Direct --- or I'm sorry, page four of your
9
Direct testimony.
So your answer would be the same for any other
Mr. Walker, if we could turn to page
The question that's posed, is the
10
project's justification of needs satisfactory.
Are you
11
with me on that one?
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
Near the end of that page there, that last line,
14
77, sentence starts the load --- that's referring to the
15
load forecast report.
16
Load Forecast Report; right?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
We go on to the next page and you explain, you
19
know, what that report is and what it states.
20
in the PATH case, which I understand you're working on;
21
right?
22
A.
I am working --- yes.
23
Q.
You're working on the PATH case; right?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Okay.
Evidentially that's the 2009 PJM
The Staff
And in the PATH case, the Staff is ---
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
171 1
has engaged outside consultants to work with the Staff on
2
the PATH case; correct?
3
A.
We have for transmission purposes, yes.
4
Q.
Okay.
5
of work of those consultants in the PATH case?
6
A.
7
lines.
8
Q.
9
analyzing, those consultants, is one of them the 2009 PJM
Are you familiar generally with the scope
I believe there is a need for transmission
Okay.
In the universe of things they're
10
Load Forecast Report?
11
A.
I believe so.
12
Q.
So as of today's date, the Staff has not taken a
13
position on whether the 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report is
14
valid; correct?
15
A.
16
any positions as of this time.
17
case.
18
Q.
19
decision or taken any position whatsoever as to whether
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.
24
points here.
25
we're here for, is looking at transmission.
We have not made any recommendations or taken It's still early in the
But suffice it to say, Staff hasn't made any
I believe we're looking at a couple different For the PATH case, which this is not what We're
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
172 1
looking at generation in this case, which is really
2
totally different, and I'm not sure if I see the
3
connection that you're trying to make.
4
Q.
Okay.
5
A.
Okay.
6
Q.
Would you agree with me that either --- it's
7
going to be one of three things for the 2009 PJM Load
8
Forecast Report.
9
set forth in it are true, B would be some of the claims
Let me pose the question to you this way.
Either all of the claims and assertions
10
and assertions are true, and then C would be that none of
11
the claims and assertions are true in that report.
12
that fair to say that it's going to be one of those three
13
events?
That's what the Staff would determine?
14
A.
The Staff has hired an outside consultant to
15
make those determinations for us.
16
Q.
17
hired consultant.
18
one of those three scenarios was the case with respect to
19
the 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report in the PATH case;
20
correct?
21
A.
Could you list the ---?
22
Q.
Sure.
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.
Okay.
Is
Well, then I'll substitute the Staff The outside consultant would find that
Option A --- or scenario A would be all
It's going to be one of those three things;
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
173 1
correct?
2
A.
3
it.
4
Q.
5
correct?
6
A.
7
combinations.
8
Q.
9
which of those three scenarios it is in terms of what the
You didn't leave much else out, so that's about
So it has to be one of those three things;
I couldn't --- I couldn't think of any other
Okay.
So as we sit here today, we don't know
10
Staff consultant would determine; correct?
11
A.
12
correct.
13
Q.
14
forecast be true with respect to transmission but not
15
true with respect to generation?
16
A.
17
They can be built locally.
18
generation within West Virginia, more generation towards
19
the west.
20
that are requesting load --- or having a load, that would
21
determine whether there is transmission lines that are
22
needed or not.
23
turbine --- wind turbine generation because there is also
24
this need for this generation other than ---.
25
Q.
When looking at transmission, yes, you are
Okay.
Let me ask you this.
How can the load
Describe that to me.
Generation can be built in various other areas. They can be built --- more
So if there are more generation in those areas
Okay.
Generation is different, typically with
I understand that, but I don't see how
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
174 1
that changes the fact that one of those three scenarios
2
we discussed is going to be the case or not be the case.
3
I'm failing to understand how it matters whether we're
4
discussing generation or we're discussing transmission.
5
At the risk of asking the same question again, I'm trying
6
to clarify my understanding of the distinction you seem
7
to be making.
8
A.
9
case, this particular case.
Generation is what we are looking at in this The other case which you're
10
referring has to do with transmission, getting power from
11
one location to another location.
12
certificate involves only the need for this type of
13
generation.
14
one location to another.
15
that it can be used for other power companies in
16
replacement of coal fired generation possibly.
17
part of that is this has no bearing on ratepayers.
18
they can't --- if this company cannot sell the energy,
19
it's not out of the ratepayer's pocket.
20
other transmission case you were talking about, there is
21
an issue there.
22
different cases.
23
connection that you're probably having the trouble making
24
the connection with what I'm testifying ---.
25
don't see a connection between these two.
This particular
We're not looking at transferring it from We're looking at it as the need
Another If
Whereas, in the
So this is totally --- they're totally I'm having trouble making the
I really
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
175 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Hold on a second.
3
Commissioner McKinney has to leave.
4
offer that we made yesterday, and that is --- I guess it
5
was yesterday.
6
can adjourn 'til tomorrow morning.
I know that I'll make the same
That is we can continue with two or we
7
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
8
I'm going to vote for continuing with
9
two.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERTS:
11
All right.
12
COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
13
My apologies.
That's fine.
I have a doctor's
14
appointment.
15
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
16
Q.
17
posing a question to you that I've already posed to you,
18
one of the three scenarios that I presented you with just
19
minutes ago --- one of those is going to be determined to
20
be the case by the Staff's consultant in its review of
21
that 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report; isn't that correct?
22
A.
23
--- there are other issues involved with that other than
24
just the PJM case.
25
Q.
Again, at the risk of asking the question ---
Without going into that case too far, there's
Let me ask you whether one of those scenarios
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
176 1
can be true in the PATH case and not be true in this
2
case, and if your answer is yes, why is that?
3
A.
4
there are two different types of issues that we're
5
looking at.
6
transmission.
7
consultants agree or disagree with this study.
8
Q.
9
same kind of work or the same kind of work with outside
I believe I answered that previous to this, that
The one is generation.
The other is
So it's not dependent upon whether our
I'm not asking whether the Staff is doing the
10
consultants in this case that it is in the PATH case.
11
I'm just asking how can it be --- how can any one of
12
those three scenarios I discussed with you be true for
13
the purposes of the PATH case, but not be true for the
14
purposes of this case?
15
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
16
He's already answered this question
17
multiple times.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
Yes, I think that's the case.
I think
20
you just ought to move on.
You can argue it in a brief.
21
You can do what you want, but he's answered it at least
22
three or four different times.
23
satisfaction, but it's to the best of his ability
24
particularly.
25
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
It may not be to your
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
177 1
Q.
Does the construction and operation of the
2
Pinnacle project have any bearing on whether scenario A
3
that I set forth to you, scenario B or scenario C would
4
be true or false?
5
A.
6
and analyses.
7
Q.
8
the position that it's okay to take the 2009 PJM Load
9
Forecast at face value for this case, but to scrutinize
I have no way of knowing that without the study
Is it your testimony that the Staff is taking
10
it through an outside consultant in the PATH case?
11
that the Staff's position?
12
A.
Is
I know ---.
13
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
14
It's the same.
He's already answered
15
this question in one way or another.
16
him that it's two different looks.
17
for generation.
18
They're two different statutes.
19
looks.
20
multiple times.
He's already told One is a look at need
One is a look at need for transmission. They're two different
He's already answered this line of question
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
Well, it's a slightly different
23
question, and I think we'll let him finish the question
24
and the answer and then move on.
25
this to death.
I think we're beating
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
178 1
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2
Perhaps, Your Honor.
3
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
4
Q.
Do you need me to rephrase the question for you?
5
A.
Sure.
6
Q.
Okay.
7
acceptable for the Staff to take the 2009 PJM Load
8
Forecast and the claims and assertions set forth therein
9
at face value in this case, but in the PATH case subject
Is it the Staff's position that it's
10
it to scrutiny mainly through an outside consultant?
11
A.
No, that's not the case.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
outside consultant or another consultant to scrutinize
14
the 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report in this case, the
15
Pinnacle case?
16
A.
No.
And has the Staff engaged the same
Not for this case, no, they haven't.
17
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18
Thank you.
19
I believe that's all I
have, Mr. Walker.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
Commissioner?
22
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
23
I have no question.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
All right.
The Staff witnesses that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
179 1
you worked with in this case have had --- have
2
participated in other wind turbine cases; have they not?
3
A.
Yes, they have.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
And the same issues raised in those
6
cases were raised in this case?
7
A.
Yes.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
You've recommended and there have been
10
some things suggested as being matters for inclusion in a
11
stipulation about the ice shedding and setback distances.
12
Is that --- I was trying to get an appreciation for what
13
your --- why the necessity --- is it simply an abundance
14
of precaution, or is it that this is becoming more
15
frequent or ---?
16
A.
17
overabundance of caution, I'm sure.
18
issue that's been going on for a long time, and it's just
19
really coming to the forefront to our knowledge in the
20
past year or so.
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
I don't think that it's an --- it's not an This has been an
And this is why we've decided that it's
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
180 1
I had also circled the requirement for
2
posting warning signs around the O&M building.
What's
3
the necessity for that?
4
A.
5
it's just another --- it's another level of protection.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
Okay.
That may be an overabundance of precaution, but
And while I understand you're
8
not a bat expert or been involved in these proceedings
9
with respect to bats, I take it that the suggestion
10
that's been arrived at with respect to post --- three
11
years of post construction and what will be done was a
12
consensus with the Staff and with the parties to the
13
stipulation?
14
A.
15
that were here previously and along with some of the
16
legal staff and felt that it was important to include.
Yes.
I worked with all of the other co-workers
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
The provision of the stipulation with
19
respect to the post construction studies doesn't really
20
require three years of construction studies; does it?
21
A.
22
reevaluation according to the committee.
It requires at least one year and with
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
Who would make that determination,
25
whether to proceed to the second and third year of
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
181 1
studies?
2
A.
3
involved in that committee.
That would be a consensus among those that are
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
And that would be?
6
Fish and Wildlife, DNR and Staff?
7
A.
Yeah.
Would that be the
I was trying to find that paragraph, yes.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Okay.
I'm sorry.
I see it now.
10
That's page six under item 12, there's a committee.
11
A.
Yes.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
And that would simply be you would try
14
to work it out, I take it, and if all of you don't agree,
15
who decides then?
16
A.
17
experts there and they will be able to determine how to
18
proceed after they get all the data in.
19
probably up to the committee members to really figure
20
that out.
Well, there's --- we're going to have a lot of
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
Thank you, Mr. Walker.
23
I think that's
Other
questions?
24
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
25
I have a few follow up.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
182 1
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
2
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
3
Q.
4
construction studies, this recommendation is slightly
5
different than it was in the last two cases; is that
6
correct?
7
A.
Yes, it is.
8
Q.
Can you explain how that is or ---?
9
case, it's up to three years with a decision after the
Since he was just asking you about it, the post
In this
10
first year to move on.
Before it was one year and then
11
there was a decision to be made at that point whether
12
additional years would be added on; is that correct?
13
A.
Yes, that is correct.
14
Q.
So this is a little stronger than it has been in
15
the previous two cases?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Would you object if someone suggested other
18
members be added to the technical advisory committee?
19
A.
I have no objection to that.
20
Q.
The Chairman asked you about the setback issues.
21
That's an important issue amongst the members in the
22
engineering division; is that correct?
23
A.
It's very important.
24
Q.
And it's something that you all would like to
25
see on a going forward basis?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
183 1
A.
This is something that we'd really hope that
2
future wind projects would incorporate, at least the one
3
and a half times that we have stipulated in in my
4
testimony.
5
Q.
6
little bit about the 2007 ---.
And to not beat a dead horse on this issue, go a
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
The courtroom is littered with dead
9
horses.
10
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
11
Q.
12
little bit about engineering wise the difference between
13
forecasting the need for generation and the need for
14
transmission.
15
the need for generation, plants going in and out of
16
service; is that correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
You can refer to that, if you'd like.
19
plenty of definitions there.
20
is going up or down, the need for generation may be going
21
up simply because plants are retiring, going out of
22
service, that sort of thing?
23
A.
24
things.
25
Q.
About the 2007 PJM Load Forecast, let's talk a
There's a multitude of factors that impact
There's
So whether overall demand
Having read over this, yeah, all kinds of
The need for a transmission line is a completely
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
184 1
different look engineering wise; is that correct?
2
A.
Yes, it is.
3
Q.
Okay.
4
that would entail, or do you know?
5
A.
6
I can give you as accurately as I can at this point.
7
Q.
8
for this type of generation --- this type of --- you mean
9
renewable generation?
And can you talk a little bit about what
I've pretty much given you the information that
And you mentioned a little bit about the need
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:
17
Thank you.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
All right.
That's all I have.
Anything further?
You're excused.
Thank
20
you, Mr. Walker.
Is there any other
21
testimony to come before the Commission on this matter?
22
All right.
23
Order.
24
anything other than this order indicates that --- excuse
25
me, initial briefs will be due on Monday, November the
Actually, I was looking for the Procedural
I assume that the --- I don't recall a change in
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
185 1
16th.
Reply --- and I assume that's initial --- it is.
2
Initial simultaneous briefs due on Monday, November the
3
16th with reply briefs due on November the 25th, and the
4
Commission will issue its order on or before Monday,
5
January the 11th.
6
that I'm aware of.
7
that all exhibits have been admitted into the record with
8
the exception of Alliance Exhibits Three and Four which
9
were withdrawn by Mr. Stephens.
I don't think there's any open issues Looking over my sheet, it indicates
10
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
11
Your Honor, I'm not sure if Joint
12
Exhibit One was moved.
13
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
14
It was.
15
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
16
Sorry.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
I show it as having been admitted, but
19
if it wasn't, it is.
And if that's all there is, then
20
we'll consider the case as having been completed and we
21
will proceed with the --- that schedule.
22
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
23
Your Honor, a point of clarification,
24
if I might.
I don't have the order to establish the
25
procedural schedule in front of me, but is it the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
186 1
Commission's desire that along with the initial briefs we
2
tender proposed order?
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
I'm never opposed to a proposed order.
5
If you want to submit a proposed order, certainly we
6
would be willing to see it and look at it.
7
serve it on other parties.
8
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
9
Thank you.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
All right.
Just make you
Thank you very much.
12
* * * * * * * *
13
HEARING CONCLUDED AT 4:00 P.M.
14
* * * * * * * *
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
187 1 2
CERTIFICATE
3 4
I hereby certify, as the stenographic reporter,
5
that the foregoing proceedings were taken
6
stenographically by me, and thereafter reduced to
7
typewriting by me or under my direction; and that this
8
transcript is a true and accurate record to the best of
9
my ability.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
CASE NO. 09-0360-E-CS Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
Prepared Direct Testimony of Michael Jin
your name, occupation and business address.
Q:
Please state
A:
My name is Michael Jin. I am the Research Director for the Center for Labor & community Research (CLCR), 341 1 w. Diversey Avenue, chicago, rL 60647.
Q:
Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your current
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 the Research Director since 2001. (See Exhibit A hereto)
l.
hry
As a Research Director, my major responsibilities include overseeing the research projects involving clients, such as the
city of chicago
and the state
of
Illinois. I am also doing studies by myself like this one.
Q:
What is the purpose of your current testimony?
A:
The \Mest virginia state Building and construction Trades council,
AFL-cIo
commissioned a study conducted by the center for Labor and community Research (CLCR) that evaluated the probable economic impacts of the proposed
construction of a wholesale electric generating facility in Mineral county, rù/est
Virginia.
Q:
In your work at GLCR do you routinely conduct similar economic impact studies using economic simulation software?
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 certain amount of disposal income were taken away due to an increase of co-pay
for health insurance from the workers, what would happen to the local economy 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
construction Trades council,
AFL-cIo
in west virginia public service
commission proceedings including AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, case No. 0g0109-E-cs; Appalachian Power company, case No. 06-0033-E-cN; Liberry Gap
wind Force, LLC, case No. 05-r740-E-cs-cN; and, AES New creek, LLc, Case No. 08-2105,8-CS.
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 used
it for many occasions.
Q: A:
Have you received specialized training in the use of the IMPLAN software?
Q:
would you please explain the concept of economic impact analysis?
A:
Within an economY, ffiy single action by any individual or firm unleashes a series
Yes.
of subsequent transactions. For example, if you contract for the construction of a 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
involve specific economic activities also can initiate a widely-felt cascade of transactions. It is rarely instructive to evaluate the impacts of an individual purchase' but because of their magnitudes, policy decisions can substantively
affect the level of regional economic activity. Through the use of well-tested tools, economic impact analyses attempt to sum up the total economic effects associated with these policy decisions.
Q:
How is it possible to estimate the total impact of so many disparate transactions?
A:
In the short-run, resources are often used in fixed proportions within the
production of goods and services. The construction of a two-thousand square-foot house requires a certain number of laborers, a predictable amount of concrete, and a
readily knowable quantity of lumber. Similarly, an average household with a
$30,000 annual income spend
will
consume a predicable amount of groceries.
we
a great amount of time both identifring and quantifring these types of
relationships across the economy. The variety of productive relationships between various industrial sectors, along with information describing outputs and govemmental activities are
summarized in matrixes that are combined in mathematical simulations of the
overall economy. Moreover, these simulation models provide the capacity to anticipate the effects of economic activities or events that have not yet occurred. For example, it is possible within the model to increase the value of residential
4.
construction expenditures above current levels in order to determine how such an increase would affect various facets of the regional economy.
Q:
Please describe the specific activities that take place
within the context of an
economic impact analysis.
A:
The proper conduct of a defensible economic impact study consists of several
steps. The first, and often most difficult, task is to accurately represent the event or activity that is triggering the more broadly-felt set of economic changes. Most
simulation software packages require that data inputs be configured in specific
ways. However, available representations of real-world economic activities very often fail to conform to the me¿rsurement or format requirements of software
producers. Moreover, many economic activities are difficult to quantify in any
form. If data inputs do not accurately represent the event that is at the center of the aggregate change, there is very
little chance that subsequent calculations will
provide any usable impact estimates. once data inputs have been prepared, they must be properry processed
within the simulation software. In most cases this involves little more than correctly adhering to well-documented instructions. Still, there are decisions and judgments that must be made and, consequently, opportunities for error. Next,
if
possible, it is often instructive to test the results for robustness by varying one or more input parameters. This sort of exercise should yield stable and predictable changes in estimation results. Finally,
it is very often necessary to post_process
5.
estimation results. Results may be aggregated, disaggregated or otherwise
modified for çase of interpretation.
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.
However, nearly every package includes estimates of changes to incomes, outputs and employments and these are typically reported by industry or industrial sector. Results a¡e also routinely segregated into direct, indirect, and induced effects.
More elaborate software packages may also yield estimates ofpopulation migration, changes to regional investment, or even fiscal impacts.
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
activity, such as a major construction project, requires purchases from numerous 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
virginia cLcR used IMPLAN's input-output modeling software.
6.
Q:
Please
briefly summarize the economÍc impact estimates that your study has
estimated
will occur due to the construction of the Wholesale Generating
Facility in this matter. A:
If the completion of the project needs $l3t million and approximately I l3 craft workers on an averaged full+ime equivalent awualizedbasis as the company has 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)
Q:
Overall how would you characterize the economic impact of construction of the Electric wholesale Generating Facility in this matter?
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 impacts are set out in detail in my report.
Q:
Does that conclude
A:
Yes.
your testimony.
7.
Xiaochang (Mike) Jin Center for Labor & Community Research (CLCR) 3411 W. Diversey Avenue Chicago, 60647
IL
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. Prior to coming to Chicago, Jin worked at the headquarters of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union in New York as a researcher between 1989 and 1993. His main responsibility was to track the change in the garnent industry in New york as well as the entire nation. He conducted several studies on the economicimpact of company closures.
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. Since
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
B
Center for Labor Corn
munity
Research
The Estimated Economic Impact of Pinnacle Wind Power project In West Virginia
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 Uy 5ed_tlp 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. Output Impact of the Proposed power Station (In miltions)
Indirect Induced Total Impact
11.0 8.2
$
19.2
Source: Projection is bæed on the IMPLAN input-out model developed by the U.S. Forest Service and 2007 west Virginia economic Data compiled by IMPLAN.
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 Indirect & Induced
165
Total
279
113
Soutce: Projection is bæed on the IMPLAN input'out model developed by the u.s. Forest service and 2007 west virginia economic data compiled by IMPLAN.
'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 Indirect & Induced
$
Total
s
e.4 4.8 14.2
Source: Projection is based on the IMPLAN input-out model developed by the u.s. Forest service and 2007 west virginia economic data compiled by IMPLAN.
'rncome for the self-employed: The project would also yield profits for the West virginia selfemployed 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 million in pre-tax profits.
businesses
in West Virginia will have $2.g
'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. the proposed project may result in the following economic impact on the state of -ln :u-, West -Virginia on an annualized basis:
Estimated Economic Impact of Proposed Power Station Direct Sales (in millions) Jobs
Compensation for workers (in millions) Compensation, Self-employed (in millions)
Profits for Corporations (in millions) Tax Revenues: For Federal Government (in millions) For State Government (in millions)
Indirect & Induced
t9.2 r13 9.4
Total t9.2
t66
279
4.8
14.2
1.0
1.0
2.8
2.8 3.0 1.3
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
Ë
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
e ó zE À
cAsE NO.
09-0360-E_CS Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a siting certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Èacility and Related Transmission Support Line oiless than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in
Prepared Direct Testimony of Darwin L. Snyder
a.
Please state
A.
My name is Darwin L. snyder and I arn the president of the North centrar west Virginia state Building and construction Trades Council, AFL-cIo and
your name and busÍness address.
the Business Manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers
("IBEW") Local 596. My office is rocated at r00l North l2th street, Clarksburg, WV 26301.
a.
Please state
A.
In 1980, I became
your education and experience. 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.
çtdst
I was elected Business Manager of IBEW Local 596 in 1993. I
became
the President of the North central west virginia state Building
and
construction Trades council, AFL-cIo in 2000. I also serve on the National Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee.
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.
The North Central West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades
council, AFL-cIo and the west virginia state Building and construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, represent construction workers in North Central
west Virginia including Mineral county. on behalf of the two labor organizations' we entered into a Memorandum Agreement with U. S. Wind
Force, LLC which also covers the pinnacle wind Force project. The Agreement ensures to the greatest extent reasonably possible that the workers used
in the construction of the wholesale electric generating facility will
be
local workers. The Agreement is attached to this testimony as Exhibit A.
a.
can you tell me how many rocar workers wiil be working on
the
construction of the facitity? We have reviewed the company's manpower estimates for the construction, and
based
on those estimates, as well as my experience with other electric
generating facilities we agree that approximately l 13 craft workers, on an
averaged full-time equivalent annualized basis,
will be needed for
the
construction of the project. That's a lot of work for a lot of our members.
a'
In your experience
how would you characterize the construction
employmenú as it relates to the local area?
A'
The size of the project and the amount of construction employment needed
will have a very positive impact
a. A.
on the local economy and local emproyment.
Does that conclude your testimony? Yes
it does.
EXHIBIT
MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT This Memorandum Agreement is entered into effective the 28ú day of M ay,2001,by and among Mt. Storm wind Force, I .Lc and u.s. \tr/ind Force, LLC, (hereinafter collectively ,,wind Force") the North central west Virginia Building and construction Trades council, AFL-cIo and the west virginia state Building and consrruction Trades council, AFL-cIo (collectively referred to as the "Building Trades") regarding construction by wind Force of a wind power electric generatingfacility and related interconnectingtransmission lines in Grant andruckercounties, West
Virginia.
For purposes of this Memorandum Agreement the
generatingfacilityand relatedinterconnectingtransmission
"wind
Force wind power electric
lines in Grant and ruckercounties, west virginia" (hereinafter "Facility") shall mean all site preparation, infrastructure, buildings, structures,
equipment and appurtenances used or associated with the generation of electric power and as detailed in wind Force's Application for a certificate of convenience and necessity currently pending before the west virginia pubric service commission (case No. 0l-1664_E_cN).
as
follows:
It is hereby understood and acknowledged that the undersigned parties have agreed
A'
Wind Force will select one or more Engineering procurement and construction contractors ("EPC contractor") to construct the Facility. wind Force shall require such EPC Contractor(s) to enter into a project labor agreement with the Building Trades for labor used in the construction of the Facility. The agreement shall be in a form acceptable to both the respective EPC Contractor(s) and the Building Trades;provided however, such agreement shall be in the form similar to the Building Trades' standard Project Labor Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit I' The parties agree that the General superintendent, superintendent, clerical, professional, and supervisory ernployees of the EPC Contractor(s) will not be members of any bargaining unit(s) (i'e' those employees of the EPC contractor(s) for whom the Building Trades will collectively bargain) and these employees will not perform any work traditionally performed by Building and Trades craft persons. The parties agree that the EPC contractor(s) and the Building Trades shall negotiate in good faith over the project rabor agreernent tenns.
B'
The Building Trades shall support, and act in the best interest of, Wind Force
in all aspects of the development and construction process of the Facility or any other facility developed by wind Force, including, but not limited to, supporting the Facility and
any future public hearings or meetings and in the application process for all permits necessary for the construction and operation of the Facility and any future facility. The Building Trades agree not to contribute in any manner, directly or indirectly, to any delay in the permitting process for or construction of the Facility or any other facility developed by wind Force. facility
at
C.
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors, assigns of the parties and any and alr entities that may purchase, lease or otherwise acquire all or part of the Facility or V/ind Force.
D'
Failure to enforce or the waiver of any provision of this Agreement or any breach or nonperfonnance by any Party shall not be deemed a waiver by the any party of the right in the future to demand strict compliance and performance of any provision of this Agreement. No modifications to orrecission of this Agreement may be made except by a written document signed by authorized representatives of all parties.
E'
The parties undertake to act in good faith in relation to the performance and implementation of this Agreement and to take such other reasonable measures as may be necessary for the realization of its purposes and objectives.
F'
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
G.
The parties further agree that in the event that Wind Force proposes to construct a facility or facilities in \rr/est virginia simila¡ to the Facility that is the subjecr of this Agreement that the provisions and terms of this Agreement shalr appry to the construction of that facility or those facilities.
IN wITNEss WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, acting under the authority of the respective governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in multiple
counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.
US Wind Force, LLC
Mt. Storm Wind Force, LLC By: Name:
Name: Its:
State
By: Name: Its:
Buildi
and Construction Trades Council,
AFL-CIO
PROJECT I-.ABOR AGREEM ENT This Agreement trr'¡¡L rù is çurçreu entered into ul[ ttris
day
between
NoRTH CEI{TRAI wEsT
of
2002, by and
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 of construction work as defined in Attachment e orthe nro¡r.t Labor Agreement (pLA), both of which are attached hereto and made .
p;h;r*f
by reference. The parties to this Agreement, in consiår..ti* -utouipiå*ir., covenants herein contained, mutually agree as follows: "rtné
*ro
l'
The Project Labor Agreement.is to be signed by the council, the union, ârid those companies *ho b".or" r-u..rrrful as a bidder. 2. The agrees that in the Bidding
*.T.r"r"th;p,'..iffiiö:ää,i,ffiinå:, äffi äIIöä;
**:,*,.^:::.:1111,.191_yf negoriatioiîri::T::::T3i""li*¡,r,;1'.¡,;;äffi
i;
*::îi':fl T:9.* ll:i ::' i"u"i Àe""#J;ri #iii'r
to succ ess tur
Labor Agreement. ilå:îff"'g:::totheconstn¡*io"*o*il;nåi"îffúï,"å'#äi;ä:::
4' The union and the council agree that there sha[ be no picketing or other disruptive activity f:r *y_putpo* by t¡. urrior," tt. co*"il or any emproyee represented by the council or unionduring trreierm o-r*¡i, Agreement. This Agreement sha'become effective on the shall remain in effect until the complJili;;päj..r(Ð
_
of
ÏyT;;rio*oF,
day
of
iJ#,ri'ro
_,
"
2002 and
"*achment
rhe parties herero have ser their hands this
_
A.
day
NORTTI CENTRAL WV BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COuNcrL,
BY:
AÌL.CIO
BY:
BY:
Darvin L. Snyder, prcr¡¿"nt
ARTICLE ONE PANPOSE
The Parties to this Project Labor Agreement acknowredge that the construction of the is inrportant to the development of the , its community and to o.^"d for tñe t¡,n"r *". rhis Agreement i1'1åø.it" lryvrct¡Yg ft¡-t effort establishment of a framework for labor-managemenr cooperation and stabilþ.
i:jil::
11.:f.' ,i::itt¡:: îl:lq._ 9:T*,*"
;;h#,hr, ö"orive
The Contracto(s) and the Unions agree that the timely construction ofthis Project will require substantial nr¡rnbers oi.rproy.es from constn¡ction and supporting crafrs possessing skills and qualificatiåns that a¡e vital to its completion. They will work together to furnish skillèd, em"ient crafrsworkers for the constn¡ction of this project. Furttrer, the Paties desire to mutually est¿blish and stabilize wages, hours and working conditions for the craftrvork"r, oo this constn¡ction project, to encourage close cooperation between the Contracto(s) and the Unions to the end satisfactory, continuous and harmonior¡s relationship ." will exist between the Parties to this Agreement.
F
Therefore, in recognition ofthe special needs of this project and to maintain a spirit of harmony, labor-management peace, and stability dr:ring the term of this Agreement, the Parties agree to estauùsh eáèctive and binding methods for the settlement of all misr¡nderstandings, disputes, o, gri"rr*ces which may arise. Further, the contractor(s) and alt contractors ojwhatever ,¡"ì, oi)e not to engage in any lockout, and the (Jnions agree not to engage in any strike, srowdown' or inteftuption or other disruption of or interference with the work covered under this Agreement.
ARTICLE T\ryO Scope olAgreemcnt
1'
Section This Projgct Agreement shall apply and is tinited to the recognized and accepted historical definition of new consûr¡ction work under the direction of and performed by ttrc Contractor{s), of whatever tier, which may include the project Contractor, whohave confracts awarded for sucír work on th, project Such work shall include site preparation work and dedicated oËsite work. The Proiect is defined as: Any oyd øll siteprepørøtíons and constructíon of alt huíldìngs, equipment ond associøted ímpnvemenß wíth respect to the
It is agreed $ut th. hoject Contractor shall require all Contractors of whatever tier wh have
been áwarded contracts for work covered by this Agreement, to accept and be bound by the terms rtd rhis project Labor Agreement bytxecuting the Letter ofAssent (Attachrnent A) prior to cornmencing The Project Contractor shall assure compliance with this fgrlment by the contractors. It is fi¡rtlrer that the terms and conditions of this Project Agreement shall supersede and "grü oierride terms and conditions of any and all other national, area, or local collective urrg"ining agreements. It is understood that this is a self-conüained, stand-alone, egr.ãro.rrt and that by virtue ofhaving become bound to this Project Labor AgreeÃent, neither project contractor nor the contractors will be obligated to sign aãy ot¡r.lo.ul are4 or national agreement
;;diri;;f
*$'-
2'
Section Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit, restrict or interfere with the performance of any other operations, worlÇ or fi¡nction which may occur at the Project site or be associated with the development of the project.
section
3'
section
4'
Thb Agreement shall onlv be binding on the signatory pa¡ties hereto and shall not apply to their parents, affiliates or subsidiaries. The owner and/or the Project conüactor have the absolute right to select any qr:alified bidder for the awa¡d of contracts on this project without reference to the oristence or non-existence or*ry ugrrements between such bidder and any Parfy tothis Agreement; provided, however, only such bidder is willing, ready and able to become aparty to, and comply with this project Labor Agreement, should it be designated as the successful biddår. 3
5'
Section Items specifically excluded from the scope ofthis Agreement include but are not limited to the following:
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
Confactor(s) to abide by this Article. Section
6'
Union(s) or the
The provisions ofthis Project l¿borAgreement shall not apply to and nothing contained hãrein shall be corutrued
ffiersonnel'
ä"ffi
to
;i:iÏ:ï:,i:i"*ffi, ï,tå:'
evered bv rhis of the Project are irspected and õonstuction tested úy the nojecttontractor or contractors and accepted by the owner, th" Pt;j;;t Agreement will not have fi.¡rther force or effect on such items or areas, except when the project Contractor or contractoN are directed by the owner to engage in repairs, modifications, checkout' warrant¡l ft[rctions required by its contrãct-with t]r" o*rr". during the term of this Agreement. c
7'
secdon 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. section
8'
It is understood that the liabilit¡ of any employer and the liability of the separate unions under this Agreement shall ú. rcu.ol and ,tot joint. The unions agree that this Agreement doãs not have the effect of .reatirrg any joint employer
statw between or among the owner, contracto(s), or any employer.
ARTICLE THREE section
1. The contacto or"ffiffi',iffi
as rhe sole and excrr¡sive bargaining representatives of all t*n employees within their reqpective jurisdictions working on the hoject within the scope ôrtir¡ Agreement.
ARTICTE FOUR
#ffii##,"ffå'$**rever
The Project conüactors tier retain tun and exclusive atrthority manâgem:nt of their operations. Exceptas PI otherwise limited by tenns of this Agreemint, the conûactors shall direct trri. working forces at their prerogative, including, but not limited 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...'
tr
ARTICLE FT\18 Referral of Employees
section I' The contracto(s) agree to recognize and be bound by the local unions, hiring procedures as outlined in eãch craft's tîqp..tiu. collective nargaining Agreement and shall notis the appropriate union either in writing or by telephone when workers are required.
2.
section selection of appricants for refer¡ar to jobs sha[ be on a nondiscriminatory basis and shall not be based or,, o, way affected by, union membership, by laws, rules, regulations, constitutiãnal provisions, or any other aspect or obligation ofunion membe*hip, policies or requirements. There shall be no discrimination against any employee ;; for employment because his or her membership or non-membership in the üo; o. ¡r".¿ upon race, color, creed, sexr age' or national origin of such employee or applicant.
"
illl.*;
*,
3'
Section In the event the referral facilities maintained by the unions are unable to fill the requisition of the connaglors for employees within a forry-eight (4g) hour period after such request is made, (Saturdays,'sundays and rroüdays excluded) applicants for such requisition may be empioyed from
*y ,o*.r..
4'
The selection and nuurber ofForemen and/or $ection General Foremen shall be the responsibility ofthe contractor, it being r¡ndentood that in the selection of such employees the Contnactor will give fir$ co;ideration to the q*fin"¿ workers available in the local area. Forãmen and/or General Foremen shall take orders from supervisors designated by the contractor. Foremen and/or General Foremen will not absent themselves from the area where their crews are working unless presence is required elsewhere, and shall be held t rpo*iule for all work perfonned by employees under their supervision. Ttre connactor may require Foremen to be working employees.
5.
section In:"r:r of employnent positions requiring special sk¡rs or qualifications, the contractõr will notify the uniáå ofthe q¡alificarion tests or skills required' and the u¡ion may refer any qualified applicant. The contractor shall be the sole judge of all applicants qualifications.
6'
section The union shatl not refer employees employed at the project site by any conhactor to othgr nor ttr"u tt, union engug" in oth"r activities -employment, which encourage work force turnover or absenteeism.
7'
section Employees who voluntarily quit or who are terminated for caus¡e may be eligible for re-emplolmrent at the nó¡ect, .o¿ trr. referral facilþ may refer such former employees to the Project for re-h''e,'ú;; sooner than sixty (ó0) days after such termination.
8'
Section An employee or applicant required to satisfactorily demonstrate his or her ability to perform certain tasls througrr an examination or test (e.g., welding tests), shall be paid for that time requireJto take ,h" .*u- or test, provided the employee or applicant successfulry passes the exam or test.
section
9'
It is expressly understood and agreed that language
as contained in 5 shall not be construed to have estabîshed an exclusive referral system for any union(s) where.one-has not previously existJ where an exclusive referral system has not previously existeà, the stiput"tioro in the Local collective Bargaining Agreemenrs perraining to percenrag.J shalr apply.
Aticle
"i.ipr"y.es
ARTICLE SIX Appr e ntic e s /Tr aine
es
/H e lp e r s /S u bj o ur nøy m e n
1'
Section Recognizing th need to maintain continuing support ofprograms designed to develop adeçrate nunobers of compaent workers in the Corsûn¡ction Indutry, the contractol will employ apprentic;r i" the respective crafrs to perform such work as is within their capãbilitieì'and which is cr.rstomarily performed by the crafr in which they are indenn¡red.
2'
section The contractor will refer to the Local collective Bargaining Agreement for apprenticeship wage rates and applicabl.;d;.
ARTICLE SE\'EN Wages and Benefits
1'
section The agrlicalle wage rates and other contributions for the dr¡ration of each particular project of the shall be the established wage rate and the existing Local collective Bargaining Agreement and as sunrnarized by each signatory union.
other.on*O* -:
2'
section ft"iontractor agrees to recognize and install wage rates, including apprentice classifications where applicabl.L¿ *rlr. contribt¡tions to a trust or tnæt ofbona fide fringe benefits such as-lpensioq t."ith and welfare, vacation, affiuity apprenticeship and training filnds, uùtaing tr.a.r p"r capita, etc.) as may have been duly negotiated within the historically,.ãgoir.J ior.r ¿ùrea.
3'
section when the contractor contributes Êinge benefits payments into local, regional or national tn¡st funds, the contracto. to be bourd to all lawful tenns and conditions oftrust agreements, âod "g;", all amenãments thereto. The contractor fi'rther agrees to accept i* representatives in the administration of such funds, the 4t Contractor Tnætees serving.rr.it funds. F,rfth";;re, the contractor and union may establish other trust firnds by mutual agreement when necessary.
ARTICLE EIGHT Work Rules
section 1. Employnrent begins and ends at the project site.
2'
Section There shall be no limit on production by workmen nor resûictions on the full use of tools or equipment. CralLworkro *iog tools shall perform any of the work of the üade and shall work uder trr. foreman. there shall be no restrictions on efficient use of maurpower other than as may be required by safety regulations.
r,rp.*ili";;;A;.on
3'
Section Workers shall be at their place of work at the starting time and shall remain at their place of work performing their assigned tasla t¡n¿ä the supervision ofthe contracto¡ until quittini time, The Parties reaffirm theirpolicy of a fair day's work for a fair day's wage. It is understood and agreed that the Contractor shall allow a reasonable arnourt of time prior to the end ofthe work day for clean-up purposes' Adequate sanitary facilities and drinking water shall also be provided at or near the job site. Section
4'
All
e-quipment assigned to the projects shall be under the control ofthe contractor' The contractor shJl have flt" ;gñ;determine how many pieces of equipment an individr¡al shall operate providãd that no individual shall be required to operate more than trvo pieces ofmajor equipment in a given aay 1i.e., A_B-A). However, in an emergency, after agreement witt, t¡. Business Representative, tlree pieces of such equipment may be operated. Foremen shall, in an å*"rg"rr"y, operate any equipment assigned by the contactor and there shall be no restriction on foremen in the use ofthe tools ofhis craft in such emerg.n.f, rh. shall be from the crafr normally operating tf,.
.quipi.ni.
for"-*
5'
section The Contractor may utilize the most efficient methods or techniques of constn¡ctioq tools, or other labor-saving devices to accomplish the work. practices not a part of the terrns and conditions ofthe Agreement will not be recognized.
6'
section It is agreed that overtirne is undesirable and not in the best interests of the induüy or the craftsworkers; therefuI.,. excep-in unusual circumstances, overtime will be worked. where unusual circuuutances do exist, however, the contactor will have the right to assign specinc employees arr¿o, crews to perform such overtime work as is ræcessary to accomplish the job. The steward will work
when one or more members of that crafr or work crew are required to work overtime' In order for the Stewa¡d to work such overtime, the steward mr¡st be qualified to perform the work being undertaken during the overtime period. required by qualifications, a temporary steward may be appointed.
If
SectionT.
There will be no rest periods, organizsd coffee breaks or other non_ working tirne established during wðrking t o,"1. -
8'
Section tolerated.
slowdowllr¡' standby crews and featherbedding practices will not be
9'
section seniority shall not be recognized or applied to employees working on projects rmder this Agreement.
section 10' The contractor shall establish such reasonable project rules as the contractor deems appropriate. These rures will be reviewed at-the pre-job conference and posted at the project site by v! J trr" and may be a¡nended --- ðonouctor, thereafter as
necessary.
ARTICLE NINE
r.
*"*I::!#;K#::#if":y#n
ssction Dnring e no work srrikes, picketing, work stoppages, slow downs o, otn rãisrup1ive activþ for any reason by the unior¡ its applicable Local union(s) tt;temployee, excepr as outlined in Article Two, section 5' 1 and 5.2, andthere "r rLu t" no Iockout by the contractor. Failure of any unioq Locar union(s) or ,o .rors any picket rine established at the Project site, except ",oproy., as outiined in Article Two, section 5.1 and 5.2, is a violation ofthis Article.
2'
section The union and its applicable Local union(s) shall not sanctior¡ aid or abet, encourage or continue any work stoppage, ,o{kr, picketing or other disruptive activity at the contractot t ptoj..t site un¿ertate all reasonable means to prevent or to terminate any such acfvitr. No employee shall ,ngug. in activities which violare this Arricre. Any employãe øro p"ïìfþates in or ãrrão,r*g.s any activities which interfere withthe normal operation of the project sha¡ be subject to discþlinary action, in9luding discharge, *d ifjustifiably discharged for the above reasons' shall not be elþble for re-hile-on t¡ríto.¡.ct for a period of not less than ninety (90) days.
*Ïthäí
3'
Section Neither the Union nor its applicable Local Union(s) shall be liable for acts of employees for which it has no responsibility. The Internâtional Union General President or Presidents will imml¿iately instuct, order and use the best efforts of his office to cat¡se the Local UnionG)L union to cease any violations of this Article. An International Union .o.ptyini *itn mi, obligation shall not be held liable for unautfiot'aedacts of its Local Únion] The principaiomce or officers of a Local Union will immediately instuct, order and use the best efforts ofhÍs or her office to cause the employees the Local Union represents to cease any violations of this Article' A Local union complying with this åbügation shall not be liable for unauthorized acts ofemployees it reprcsents. The faihne of the Contractor to exercise its right in tty instance tttuu not be deemed a waiver of its right ir any other instance. Section
4'
In 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.
þ
5.
section There sha[ be no strikes, picketing, work stoppages, slowdowns or other disruptive actiyig the Project siie during the term of this Agreement. lffecting Any union or Local union(s) *tti.tt ffir-l*r oipatirþates in a work stoppage in violation ofthis Article, or which r:c.ogryze¡ or rupporrs the work stoppage of another union or Local union(s) which is violatioå ofthis Article, agrees as a remedy for said violatior¡ to pay liquidated O"m"g., in accordance with Section 6.
6'
section In lieu of, or in addition to, any other action at law or equity, any party may institute the-following procedure when a breach ofthis A¡ticle or of Article Twelve is alleged, after the union(s) and/or Lo.ai union(s) has been notifies of the fact.
(a)
The parry invoking this procedure shal notify the parties agree shall be the permanent Arbitrator under this procedr¡re. In the event that the permanent Arbinator is unavailable at any time, he shall appoint his alternate' Notice to the Arbitator shall be by trr.rnost expeditious means available, with notice by facsirnile, telegram or any other effective written me¿uls, to the parry alleged to be in violation and the involved International union president and/or Local Union. 10
(bì
receipt of said notice, the Arbitrator named above . 9pT shall set and hold a hearing within
violation still exists.
twenry-foi'ti+¡hours if it is contended that the
(c)
The A¡bihator sha[ notis the parties by facsimile, telegram or any other effective written oi*r. place and time he has chosen for this hearing. said hearing shall ur roo,ptËtø in one session. À of any party or parties to attend said hearing shalliot delay the hearing of evidence or issuance of an Awa¡d by ttre Arbitraior.
*."*,
aiu"
(d)
The sole issue at the hearing shall be whether or not a violation ofthis '{¡ticle orArticle )oI has in fi;t occr¡rred. The Award shall be issued in writing {thin three (3) hours ateitnr riorr of the hearing, and may be issued without *y party desires an opinion, one shall be issued within fifteen (15) days, but If its issuance shall not delay compliance with, or enforcement of , the Award. The Arbitrator r"y or¿.t cessation ofthe violation of this A¡ticle' and zuch Award shall be served o"äu parties by hand or registered mail upon issuance.
T9ffio}
(e)
such Awa¡d may be enforced by any cot¡rt of competent jurisdiction upon the fiting of this Agreement and all other relevant documents referred to hereinabove in ttt fo[owing manner. Facsirnile or expedited mail or personal service ofthe filing of such.úo..r.* pro.r.dings shall be given to the other party' In the proceeding to obtain t.*p"-..fu order enforcing the Arbitrator s Award as issued under section 6 ofthis " Atti.b;;i parries waive *,ã .igtrt to a hearing and agree that such proceedings u. ex parte. such agreement does not waive any parfy s right to participa^te in a hearing for a final order of enforcement. The court s order or orders enforcing trre erbiËtor s Award shall be served on all parties by hand or by delivery to their last known address or by registered mail.
-y
(f)
Any rights created by statute or law governing arbitration proceedings inconsistent with the above-prorrá*q or which interfere with compliance therewitb are hereby waived by p*ri;; ro whom they accrue.
(g)
The fees and e4penses ofthe A¡binator shalr be bome by the party or parties found in vioùtiorl or in the .u.n no violation is found, such fees and expenses shall be borne by the rrro"i"g p"rry.
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 and the union(s) and/or its applicable Local union have noJ comptied 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, pay an additional ten thousand dollars (Cto,ooo.ooli"r 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.
,ffi
;ñ'"ll
(Ð
lfthe
Arbiûator determines that the contractor is in violatior¡, the contractor shail, eight (g) horns orr.ceip ofthe Award, direct the tthin necessary remedial acrion. If rhe Conhacror fails å tak" remedial action by the beginning of the next rfgularly 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 an additional ten thousand dollars (úo,ooõ.õtË;htft for each shifr thereafter unril the remedy has been made.
;h;;;;rrry
7'
section The procedures contained in section 6 ttfough 6(i) shall be applicable to alleged violatioru ofthis Article and Articr. È1"u.r,, (section 3). Disputes alleging violation olTy gther provision rhir;;ement, incháing any underþing disputes alleged.to be in jnstification, "f .apru"ution"or mitigation of any violation of shall be resolved under rh. procedr¡res of Arricle "a¡uoi."tion
HT"le'
d;;.
ARTICLE TEN secrion
1. LaborÆVf
(a)
^*r^?;io;Jffi"fltevances
This Agreement is intended to provide crose cooperation between managefnent and labor; therefore, ¡"i", L"borÆvfanagement committee shall be forrned as soon as possible " followingm. ¿ut of this Agreement. The comminee shall exercise oversight ofthe pt"Ã;hced *¿"imi, Agreemenr. Ir is empowered to resorve. any aisfute over themeaning and application of the Agreement. The committeã wili schedure ,.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 oo side. The union memben will represent the interesrs ofthà Áib¡¿tory "*r, and the 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.
3!
úo*,
2. indivi
section The contractors, unions, ârid the employees, collectively and yalae the importance to all parties to maintain continuots and unintemrpted performance ofthe *g1k o{the itoi"t, and agree to resolve disputes in accordance with the grievance-arbitration provisions set forth in this Article.
3.
section Any question or dispute arising orÍ of a¡rd during the term of this Project Agreement (õther j,nir¿ictionaiarp,rt rl shall be considered a grievance and subject to resolution under tlt f"ld"ri;; proceú'es:
thrt;;;
(a)
Stgp 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 three (3) working days- afrer timely notice has been giu,; The representarive of the contractor shalr keep the.mãeting minutes *¿1nuù respond to rhe union representative in (copying the Project contractor) at the conclusion ofthe meeting but not later than twenty-fow trr"r.after. If they fail to resolve lzi¡tro* the matter withinrtre prescribe¿ p":"gì ,úgb"ùú parry may,within forty_eighr (48) hours therelfer, pfsuesd 2 of thec-¡.uan . hocedt¡re, provided the grievance, including a short desc'rþtion thereof, ttã ¿u,, on *rri.i, the grievance occurred, and the provision(s) of the Agreement ru.g.o to have been violated.
1-
d|g
(b)
should the Local or the project contracror or any -union(s) Contractor have a dispute with the other p t;,-¿-if"ner conferring a settlement is not reached within tl'ee (3) working dar, tnl airputr may be re¿ucã¿ to writing and proceed to step 2 in the same manner as outlined herein for the adjustnent of an employee complaint. 13
*ffi
3!,ffffiïi'"iäî"îfri:#'åî,ff
invorved c ,n"u l"ËL, r dispute to this. second step to arrive at a satisäárory settlement thereof " " Meeting minutes shall be kept by the contractor. If the parties fail to r.*r, an agreement,
ff trTi:"?,:ï:iåiïÍ,îüi:if; .ï;;;å*..;th*.ää",i",i"ist.l, StT 3'- (a) Ifthe grievance has been submitted br¡t not
adjusted under slep 2, eitheí patty-mairequest in uniting within seven (7) calendar days thereafter, that the griev;ce ue suumiueì io Arbit uto. mutually agreed upon by thern' The conhactor and the involved union,rruil select an arbinatol ifthey are unable to do so, they shall "tt".pt mutually to ?t't request the American Arbitration Associatign to ptóuia" them \ilirh; ist of arbitrators from which rhe Arbitrator shall be selected. The rules of the eJe¡can Arbitration Association shall govern the conduct of the arbitration hearing.'nt" decision orttre-eruitrator shall be final and binding on alr parries. Th: of such Arbitration sha, be borne equally be the contractor and the invoþJJlocal
*
F;;Lreä*.,
union(s).
(b)
Failure of the grieving party to adhere to the time limits est¿blished herein shañren{"iã;úi;;*.e n'll and void. The rime limits established herein may be ex"ng"d orrn" parties involved at the partic.ular tt"p ""Iñy written *rr.r" the extension "onsent is agreed upon. The Arbitrator shall have the authority to måke decisions-;;; issuä pÃ".:r"i ro hirn or her, ä¿¿ to or derracr from anv
#ï:îïåÏ;*"ltiil,tiä#*î";;;hólL'n¿'
4' The project contractor and owner shalr be notified of alr upon their request, be permiu;d ," parricipare in :,"ï"#iåÏË?,i1i.î:r:1"[, section
ARTICLE ELEVEN Juris dictional Disputes
I'
section The assignment of work will be solely the responsibility of the contractor performinÀ tn work involved; and ,u.i work assignments will be in accordance with the Plan for the settlement or¡,rrir¿i.tional Disputes in the Consûuction IndusUy (the plan any plan.
þr
successor 14
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 -1ny be adopted in 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 Section
3'
Section AII jnrisdictional disputes shall be resolved without the occurrence of any strike, work stoppage, or slow-do* and the conhactor s assigrrment shall ue adirered to until the dispute is resolved. Individuals violating this section shall ue suu3ect to immediate discharge.
orrrry;*.,
4'
section Each contractor will conduct a pre-job conference with the appropriate Building and construction Trades cotrncil prior to commencing work. The Project contractor and the owner will be of all such conferences and may participate if they wish. "J"ir.¿
ARTICLE T\ilEL\1E Union Securíty
l.
section Alr emproyees coveryd b1 this Agreemenr now in the employ of the conhactors sharl rJmain members in the ri,ri", drning the term of this Agreement' ârd all workers herefrafter emptoyø by the contractors shall become members of the uTo-n s-even (7) days ut", tr,. ãate oftheir employment and shall remain members of the union ¿*i"s the term- oîtrris -- *! Agreement. (ïhis claue shall be applied to the extent permitted by law.¡
2.
section A contractor shall not discharge any employee for nonmembership in the union: (a) if he, tr* r."rã*Itá gro*as for believing thar such membership was not availabie to 9" "-ptoy..;; ih. s¿rme terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denie¿ or tàtí,inutr¿ for reasons other than the faih¡¡e of the employee tó tender the periodir ¿"., *¿ initiation fee uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.
$¡irilh*
15
ARTICLE TITIRTEEN Union Representation
l'
section Authorized representatives ofthe uniorx and their Local unions shall have access to the hó¡ect,.provided ttrey Jo not interfere with the work of the employees an4 fi'¡rther p*"i¿"¿, that suffirlsenatives ftlly comply with the visitor and secnrity rules estabristre¿ r"itn
d"i..t.
2.
section Each union which is a par{y to this Agreemenf or its applicabre Local unior¡' have the right to àesignate a workingjoumeyman as a steward. such designated stewa¡d tttuu-u. u q*rftãJ**r.", perfomring the work of that craft and shall.not exercise any supervisory functions. Each stJwa¡d shall be concerned with the emproyees of his o, hei o*r L.ptoyer and not with the employees ofany other employer.
tþ!
Section3'
wrrere the owner s personnel r"y be working on the project in close proximity to the construction activiti.ñ. urrions agree that union representatives' stewards, and individual *orL,n.n will not-interfere in roy rnanner or with tr'. *or[*r,i.h i, by the
ä*$:3ffil"iîonnel section
b"i"s;;rr";d o"Tt:"lEorvaRrEEN
1'
The standard work day shall consist of eight (g) hours of work between 7:00a'and 5:3þm wiüt one-half hour as an unpaid period for lunch. standard work hor'rs may be changed {1vs consent by and berween rhe contracror and part_iesiignatory to this Agreement. The standard work week shall five (5) days of worËcommencing oriMonday *J.;di"g on Friday. Nothing herein shalr be construed .rptoyee eiehr (g) hours of work per day or forty (40) hours "r of wãrk p.i*rJlr.
ili
y::"
;i lyo-Lr
gr-;Ë.;;"ny
2'
section AnY^employee reporting for work and for whom no work is provided shall receive p"{ (z) rrår¡rs trr. appticaute rare for so reporring r¡nless he ?l has been notified Pt-*" before trt" orrrit shifr or before he left home by the proper authoritier.lot to "*¿ report. r.rg r.roni"g p"y is due to an employee who was absent the preceding *ott day unless'he haã'notified the contractor ofhis desire to be absent' fut/ctafrt"ãl.e(r) *rt" .rp"i -ti"n- ro, work and for whom work is provided and starts ruorl shail receiu. not t.r, rour (4) hours pay at the
rr"iirr;;g
16
applicable rate, and if such craftrvorker is required to continue work after four (a) hours' he shall receive eight (s) hgurs pay aritr applicable rate, except thar if the craftrvorker is not put to work or is hiä ótr¿u. to weather conditions, he shall be paid a minimr¡nn of two (2) hours ofactual time on the job site. The provisions of the Section are applicable wrrery.ü: volunrarily quirs or lays offor is 1ot out by reason of¿.strike' o1¿ùs provided dnt"tàe i" Åttirr. Fourteeq section 3 of this Agreemen! in which case he rh"n u. p"i¿ ø, tt L ach¡al time worked.
3'
section It will not be a violation ofthis Agreement when the contractor considers it necessary to shut down-to thi possible loss ofhrunan life because of an emergency situation that could "yoid *dan8;tË üf" and safety of an employee. In such cases' employees will be compensateJonly for the actual iime worked. In the case of a sitr¡ation described above whereuy tnãcontractor requests employees to "st¿nd by", the employees will be paid for the ,,stand by* time.
#;.
shifts may be established when considered.necessary by the
(a)
shifr hor¡rs and rates will be as fotows:
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 {or Yzhow unpaid lurch period. In addition, employees shall receive a ten(10) percent premium on the hourly wage.
¡
(b)
where three (3) shifts are est¿blished, the first and second shifrs shall be compensated as set forth t¡irJ snin srran recei,,re eight (g) houn pay for seven (7) hor'ns worked pl,s.%,ho* "-bou.. period and shall receive a premium of nventy (20) percentïn the houd|
r¡.
il;r*.rt *A;
consecuriu"
orlr.
shifr shall be established and conrinue for
(d)
a minimum
of five (5)
Ifonly two shifts are to be worked, the contractor rnay regulate starting times of the two shift operations to -ar,i-um utilization of daylighr hours.
p.r-iit"
17
5'
section 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 be perfornned on Labor Day excepting in ó*.r or.r.rgenjy involving life orproperty. In the event a holiday falls on a sruraa¡ tn rouã*ing Monday shall be observed as the holiday' lolidays shall be holorea in keeping with Federal Law. rhere shall be no paid holidays.- If employe., ro-work on á t ou¿ay, they shalr receive the appropriate overtime rate as established in the Local collective Bargaining Agreements, but in no case shan such overtime be morie than doubre the staight time.
m:t
* tî**¿
6'
section Hotidays in lieu ofthose reported in section 5 above may be established by agreement of the Labor&ianage;; committee and installed at rhe Contractofs projects.
7
section wtr-enþ five day, eight (g) hou work week is in effect, forty (40) hours per week shall constin¡tå rrr"r¿ay through Frida¡ inclusive. in the event the job is down fot "rtw r.ason beyond the contractot's control, then saturday rnay, at the option ofthe conor.tot, i" worked as a makeup day; straight time not to exceed eight (8) hours orforty t¿ol rr",* per week. Individuals not receiving a forty (40) hor,' work weeþ Frida¡ will not be scheduled for saturday for ress fu-.tgh, (g) h",^. ar no,rr"ir,.*..r, of fo4y (40) hours per wegk will be paid at the-ratè árri-. and one-halfl saturday work shall be perforrned on a votuntary basis.
*.trï"*,
t"ì*t-*"ugh
8'
section Eight(s) lous per day shall constirure a sþnda¡d work day and forty (40) hours per weeþ Monday tltoirgrt F id"t, rh.il consrih¡te a regular week,s work' A designated o1e-hali1¡ rto¡,, lunchperiod shall be scheduled ar the ylgaid midway point of the scheduleà wort shift.
t8
ARTICLE FIFTEEN Subcontractíng
subconüactors will sr¡bcontnact-any work to be done on the hoject except to a peñ¡orl firm or corporation who is or agrees to become party to this Agreement. Any contnactor or subconûractor tro*irt oo,n" no¡ect shall, as a condition to working on said Project become rigr"t;t p"rr"t- all work under rhe rerms ofthis Agreement.
ilãã
ARTICLE SDffEEN Safety and Heahh
l'
section Employees must use diligent care perform to their work in a safe Illrinner and to protect themselves and-the property- oftheir Fai¡¡re to do so may result in immediate
dismissal.
"*a;;r.
2.
section In order to protect the safety and heatth of erqployees, alr parties 4gree to comply with the gnrjgarir" of state and federal laws and regulations relating to job safety, nðua *ort practices, as well as those specific Project safety rures p.rúíirn"a btrr,.-pr"ject contractor.
pÑJo*
*d*r"
section
3'
At the discretion ofthe owner, the contractor may institr¡te a reasonable substa¡rce abuse policy whichr,;ñ4rde pre-hire,
reasonable cause,
and post-accident testing.
section
4'
It shall be the exclusive responsibility of each contractor to assure safe working conditions ør rp-emnr"y.*äg compriance by them with any safety rules contained herein or established út rrrJon*ctor. Notling in this Agreement will make the union or any of its Lcal unior¡s liable ;; employees or to otherperso* in the event trrat inj'ry o, occun¡.
*
"..i¿"n
19
ARTICTE SEVENTEEN General Sæings Clause
Ifany futicle orprovision ofthis Agrcement shall be decla¡ed invalid, inoperative or unenfot by any competent authority ofthe executive, i.br" legislative' j'dicial
or adminisn ti"r branch of tne re¿eral or any state government, and the union.hdÑñJthe operation of such Article or provision durÍr€ the period ofits invalidity *årn"ll rubstitr.üe by mtrnral consent, in its place and steaj' oiprovision whict r"il meer the objections T.{d:le to its validity and which will be in accórd with the intent and pupose of the Article or provision in question Any final determination that any provision of this Agreement violates any law or is othenvis" not uinainjana e#orceable, shall have no effect on the validþ ofthe remaining prouirio* the
hoject contractor
orñis ffiment.
ARTICLE EIGIITEEN Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall þs effective as of the and shall remain in fi¡lt r"t Project construction describe¿ in
20-'
__ the day of enrire period ofthe - -* "-*¿i#fi*i"g arti"l" . Section_, hereof.
This Agreement may be amended or supplemented onry by the mt¡tual consent of the parties hereto, reduced to a,rry signed by eactr.
,*itd;"ä
tn wiure;lwhereof, the parties have executed this Agreement this Day .20
of
20
ATTACHIVTENT A
All conhacton of whatever tier (except those constmction contractors who have directly
signed the Agreement) shall execr¡te the iollowing Letter ofAssent prior to
conmencing work:
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 that it will be bor¡rd by and comply with all terms and conditions of said 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: (C
þ",
21
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF \ryEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON CASE NO. 09-0360-E-CS Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
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: Christopher L. Callas, Esq. Stephen N. Chambers, Esq. Jackson Kelly PLLC 1600 Laidley Tower P. O. Box 553 Charleston, WV 25322
Auville, Esq. WV Public Service Commission John
201 Brooks Street P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323
Bradley W. Stephens, Esq. Stephens Law Office, PLLC 235 High Street #51 8 Monongahela Building Morgantown, WV 26505
The Law Office of Vincent Trivelli, PLLC 178 Chancery Row Morgantown,'Wv 26505 (304) 29t-s223
Applrcatron Actrvrtres
Page
I ot I
tå -ErãñAppl ication Milestones PINNACLE WIND FORCE LLC New NPDES Storm Water Construction WVRI04335 (14) Application Milestones Completed OFFICE OWR OWR OWR OWR OWR
MILESTONE Application Received / lnitiated Admin. Corr lntermission Begin
Admin. Corr lntermission
DATE
Ë'q = H
COMMENT
03t17t2009 Application created by CLTAYLOR 03t26t2009
End
04108t2009
Administratively Comp. Letter Sent
04t08t2009
SWAdministratively
A Áìt\ia¿r,cs
topo map and lat and long needed for ponds.
Complete
04t08t2009
OWR
Other lntermission Begin
04t09t2009
OWR
Other lntermission End
0411512009 Revised applications rec'd.
OWR
Other lntermission Begin
06t12t2009
OWR
Other lntermission End
09t11t2009 Response rec'd.
OWR
Other lntermission Begin
09i30/2009
OWR
Other lntermission End
10r09t2009 Response rec'd.
OWR
Other lntermission Begin
10t14t2009
OWR
Other lntermission End
10t20t2009 Revisions rec'd.
OWR
Draft Permit Prepared
10t20t2009
Consultant will be submitting revised plans before review.
Technicall corrections sent by email to applicant and preparer. Technical Corrections sent by email to applicant and preparer, Additional technical corrections sent by email.
{9) Application Milestones St¡ll Required OFFICE
MILESTONE
OWR
Permit Fees AllCurrent
OWR
FinalAction (lssued)
OWR
Public Notice Letter Sent
OWR
PCS Review at Draft
OWR
PCS Review before lssue
OWR
Public Notice Date
OWR
Draft Permit Approved
OWR
End of Public Comment Period
OWR
PN Affadavit Received
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
F.\CT SI'l EET. R¡\'fl()\..\LE ;\\ t) l\F()lì\,fA'f ION I-Oll (ìENER;\L NPDES PERivllT IrOR CONSl'RUCl'lON STORVIWi\]'Elì
This fact sltcct explai¡rs the r:cu, Constructiolr Stor¡rlu'atcr(ìcneral I'cntrit \,V\/011592.1, issuerl trrl Novcnlbcr -j. 2t107.
l. NÅil'IE ¡\ND ÂDDIIESS ()F;IPPLIC¡\N'l' An a¡l¡rlicartt is arty cstal'¡lislrnrenl \\,ith eliscliarges conrposcd e¡llirclr, of' stontì\\'¿ttr:r associated u'ilh irtdu.stt'ial activity (constructiorr) agrcciltg to bc regulated unrlcr the tcnns ol'tlris Gctlcr¿il Pcrrnit (crcc¡rt as ntrlcd hcrci¡l). ('oustruclion astivilies arc, detj¡re-tl as ll¡ltl rlisturbing opt-rt'atiotts such as gmbbirrg. gradirrg ancl c.xcar,¿rtilrg opr:rutitrns cluring sitc devcltlp¡ltent I'or resitlclrtial. crl¡trmsrci¿tl or irtdustri¡l ¡rurpo.scs rxccpt lìrr o¡rcr:rtions thtt rcsull in thc tlisturllance crt' lcss tiratl olle acrc of trltal l¿rntl ürca rvhich irrç llùl ¡rarl ot' ¿ larger Lìorìlìl()r1 pllrr rif clcveltl¡rmctll or salu. A coulnron plan of dcr,clopnrcrrt is a contigu{)us colts{¡'uetion ¡rrojcct n'llere
nrulti¡rle separate anrl tlistillct construction lctir.itics rì'ts)' be taking ¡rlacc at difleru¡rt lilncs on dilìL'rcnt schcclulcs trut un<ìcr one ¡:i¡rr. inclutling ¡lost subclir isions. 2.
GI|NER'\t- WY/)jI'DES l,nR\ll'l'
\0:
\\r\/01 1 592J
lìIÌCI MNG
3. CIOU|(TY: Any \VV cor:nry
S'f RE.,1,i\,I : An\' \\1V strc¿un
{. PLiIILIC (lo}I}lliNT I}tìt{IoD I.'Ito}I J_Lrlrjl-2,0Q?'t'o Septc¡nbcr.t. 5. SICr
ú.
D
CODI|: l7
tiSCRI
l''[tON
O
IÌ AI]I'1, I C.t
Thc aetivitics ancl tacilirics
I'l"S u'ill
F;\Cl
I
LIT\' ()R r\C'|'IVI'I'Y
be r.arictl.
:
2007
FACT SHEET WV/NPDES PERMTT No. WVOI 15924 Page 2 of
l3
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
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. Tllre 1972 Amendments
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: a.
b. d.
Involve the same or substantially similar t¡pes ofoperations; Discharge the same t1çes of wastes; Require the same effluent limitations or op€rating conditions; Require the same or similar monitoring; and In the opinion of the Director, sre more appropriately controlled under a general permit than under individual permits.
FACT SHEET WV/NPDES PERMIT No. WV0l15924 Page 4
of
13
About 370 constn¡ction sites per ye¿¡r have been permitted over the last 14 years. The 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. general
10.
COVERAGE T'NDER THE GENERAL PERMIT
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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
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. Stormwater discharges associated with land disturbing activities that may reasonably be expected to be causing or contributing to a violation of a water quality standard as determined by the Director. Land disn¡rbing activities governed by other NPDES permits issued by the Departnrent of Environmental Protection. This includes Division of Mining and Rsclamation permits for coal mining and non-metallic quanies.
Landfills, except in the preparation of a new landfill, landfill trea[nent facilities and/or borrow areas. Other activities exempt from NPDES permitting requirements as set forth in 40CFR122.3 and 47CSR10.3.2.b. 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
ConsEuction of singls family reside¡¡ces by the homæwner or homeowner's conEactor reguiring land distu¡tances less than ttree acres in sÞe are provided coverage under the General \4/V/NPDES Water Pollution Contol P€ñrrit and do not require application for regisration. However, all other terms and conditions of the Gcneral \\w|NPDES Water Pollution Control P€rmit still apply €fi,c€pt for thc Notice of Ter¡nination requirenrent For minor ænstn¡ction activities (one to less than tbree acres) a simpler program exists.
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. These minor
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
13. SECTION.BY.SECTION Section
A.
RATIONALE
Terms of Permit
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. Section
B.
Schedule of Compliance
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. Section
C.
Management Condition
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. Section
D.
Operation and Maintenance
This section is boilerplate language essentially exkacted from Title 4?, Series l0 of the ïVest Virginia lægislative Rules. Sætion
E.
Monitoring and Reporting
Unless directed by the Director of the Division of Water and T¡lVaste Managernent monitoring 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
will
permitting program. Section
F.
Other Re,porting
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 permit this 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.c. This section details when the STVPPP must be modified. 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 Page
15924
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. Site descrintion section- Development projects must be phased or sequenced in order to minimize the amount of exposed soil at any one time and prevent the transport of sediment from the site during construction. Constr¡ction sequencing cån be an effective tool for erosion and sediment control because it ensures that management practices are insalled where nec€ssary and when appropriate. A comparison of sedime,nt loss from a t)rpical development and from a comparable phased project showed a 42 percent reduction in sediment export in the phased project (EPA, 2OO2). As discuss€d previously, permittees are required to evaluate BMP performance. Based on the results of inspections and monitoring remedial actioos must be implernented, documented and reported in accordance with specifi c timeframes. The purpose of stabilizing entrances to constn¡ction sites is to minimize the amount of sediment and mud being tracked offsite by motorized vehicles. lnstalling and maintaining a pad of gravel over filter cloth where constn¡ction traffic leaves a site can help stabilize the entrance. As a vehicle drives over tl¡e gravel pad, mud and other sediments are loose,ned and removed from the vehicle's wheels therebyreducing the offsite transport of sedime,nt. The gravel pad also reduces mechanic¿l e¡osion and prwents the formation of muddy wheel ruts, which ca¡r be a source of "track-out". The ñlter fabric reduces the amount of nrtting caused by vehicle tires by spreading the vehicle's weigþt over a larger soil area than just the tire $'idth. The filter fabric also separates the gravel from the soil below, preventing the gravel ûom being ground into the soil. Limiting eonskuction site acoess to one point minimizes the surface area that could be affected by tracked out mud and sediment from construction mffic. 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 This section also details what is required on the site maps.
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.
Hayand straw bales arc not accÊptable BMPs. 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.
B,
Large long-term proj ects 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.
c.
Projecæ that discharge to or upstream
ofTier 2.5
and Tier 3 waters.
FACT SHEET WV/NPDES PERMIT No. WVOI15924
Pagellof13
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 2.5 or Tier 3 antidegradation review process.
will go through the Tier
No degradation will be allowed on Tier 3 waters except for ûemporary, short term activities. Stormwate.rmanaeement plari section- A description of measues that will be installed during construction to confrol pollutants in stormwater discharges after the project is completed shall be included in the STWPP. The completed project shall convey stormwater runoffin a ma¡¡ner that will protect both the site and the receiving steam from post consFuction erosiorr. All waterways and other runoffconve)¡ance structures shall bc perman€ntly stabilized as appropriate for expected flows. Velocity dissipation devices shall be placed at the outlet of all detention or retention structures and along the length of any outlet channel as ltecessary to provide a non-erosive velocity flow f¡om the structure to a natural water course. 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" Permanent stormwatermanagement structures that will impound watçr (detention/retention orsimila¡ stnrctures) shall be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer. These structures shall also have a cert¡fid as-built drawing submitted with the Notice of Termination at the completion of the project. basins
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
6.5.
Discharges to Impaired Waters
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.
G.6,
Endangered and Threatened Species.
If a site discharges to a stream where a federally endangered or threatened species or its habitat is present, the applicant shall contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act are met. 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.
H.
This paragraph serves as a reopener mechanism to go back to a permittee covered under the general permit and places any necessary additional requirements upon the site as necessa¡y, due to potential or realized water quality impacts by the site stormwater discharges.
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
Thc Statc of \\¡esr Virginia, Dcpartmcnt of'lìnvironrlctìl¿ìl Protcction, Division of Watcr and Waste V{anagemeut, has madc a tentativc ciecision ftrr a state NPDES pennit as listecl on this iact sheet. In order to provicle ¡rublic participatio¡r on thc propose(l issua¡rce of thc rcc¡uired pemrit, the fbltorvi¡tg infbnnation is be ing suppliecl in accordance rvith Titlc 47, Series 10, Scctio¡r 11.3.c.2 ¿l¡rd i, of the Wcst Virginia Legislativc lìules'
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;
Dircctot', Division of \\¡atcr antl \\¡astc l'lanagenrcnt, DEP 601 57th Street SE Charlcston, WV 25304-2345 Attcntion: Alice \Yallier E-mail : arvalker(¿Ùrvvtlep.o rq 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
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
$
g
Search Criteria: Town:'Westernport Displayi ng 22 record(s). Site Number Site Name
ô
I Ë Address
Town
Main Sheet (MD 937)
Westernport
Main Sheet (MD 937)
Westempoft
4r
Poplar Street
Westemport
4IrVL-D: Jsl
213 Smoot Street
Westemport
AL-VI-D204 A-I,-Y-I:Ðz0-7
AL:YLÞ
AL-VI-C--
DuckworthFarmhouse
Stoney Run Road
Westernport
Al:YI4:
First Baptist Church Parsonage
109 Main Street (MD 937)
Westernport
Fusner-Hanna House
342 Front Street
Westemport
Green colonial Revival House
119 Vine Street
Westemport
;:,ñ 128
AL-VI-Dzt0
AL:V[:D4L:V[Ð307
A,L:yI:Dt3s AI=,-V[:D:
2t3 ALTYLD129
AI':YI-D: 214
îiF{IaD al:Y-I:Ð-
Hammond's Addition Historic District
Mt. Calvary LutheranÆvangelical Lutheran Church
Norris Bruce House Odd Fellows Hall #91 Shugars Board and Batten
Westernport Westernport
Front Street 163 Church Street
(MD 135)
310 Johnson Street & Hammond Street Stoney Run Road
South Westemport Historic District
Westemport Westernport Westernport Westernport
st. James Episcopal church
Main Sheet(MD 937)
V/esternport
St. Peter's Convent
Church Street (MD 135)
Westernport
St. Peter's Rectory
Church Street (MD 135)
Westernport
St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church
Church Street (MD 135)
Westernport
*F, -'
Tibbets stick stvle House
112 Main Street
åul*tn"Jlu'-' aL:YI D:
Waverþ Sfeet @owstring Arch Truss) Bridge Waverly Street
ALIVL-Ð:
t3l AL]1IÐ: t32
A!-vLD:
westemport Bridge
(MD 937)
Main Street (MD 937)
westernport survey District
http J / www. mdihp. net/dsp_search. cfrn?search:address
Westernport Westemport Westernport Westernport
t012412009
I
Page 1 ofl
Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties
Search
CrÍteria: Town: McCoole
Displaying 11 record(s). Site
Number
AL-YLE: 019
4-L:-V-I-!a!,6-
ffi*
4t rLEr t3.7
AI¿:VI-E-
t28
Al:Vl-I-
'r)<
.{L:VLE: 02t AL-VT-E-
Site Name
Address
Town
Cunningham Frame House
old us
McCoole
Dayton Frame House
21st Bridge Road
Fletcher Frame House (Ambrose Frame House)
Yöiät*-
Landis Brick House, ruin
Westemport Road (MD 135)
McCoole
Patchett Frame House
650 Main Street
McCoole
21st Bridge Road
McCoole
Queen's Point
Kiln
Reese Frame House
(Miller Frame House)
43
Town of McCoole
AL:YLE.
Twenty-First Lane Schoolhouse (Dayton
221.
Schoolhouse)
AI..YI- E: 020
AL-VI-E224
Walters Brick House (Rice Brick House)
West Street
Road
McCoole
(MD
135)
& Westemport
135)
& old
Road (MD
McCoole
McCoole
McCoole ZTstLane
McCoole
I Main
McCoole
Westem Maryland Right- of-Way
http / / www.mdihp.netldsp_search. cft n?search:address :
220
Street
McCoole
t0/24/20a9
ta I
å o
C øwrçrany
g
ñ c
a.'
MEMORANDUM OF' AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 82 CSR 2 BET\ryEEN THE WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE AND HISTORY
AND PINNACLE WIND FORCE, LLC FOR THE
PINNACLE \ryIND ENERGY PROJECT
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
Historic Preservation Officer, WV Division of Culture and History (WVSHPO), pursuant to 82 CSR 2, in particular 82-2-5: State Review Process, regulations implementing W. Va. Code 29-18; and
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
finding and proposed mitigation;
NOW, therefore, Pinnacle and the WVSHPO
agree that the undertaking
accordance with the following stipulations
in
order
will be implemented in
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.
A.
These monies
will be administered by the community
decisions being made independent of Pinnacle, and
assisting
foundation with funding
will be for the express purpose of
in the preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic properties in
Mineral County, West Virginia.
B.
Written approval by the WVSHPO that projects proposed for assistance through the historic preservation fund comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Historic Preservation shall be a condition of funding such projects with historic preservation fund proceeds.
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 WVSHPO to assess their significance.
If
will
continue
determined that avoidance
Pinnacle
the
Pinnacle and the WVSHPO agree that the
sites do not qualify as historic properties, then no further work
is
to consult with
will be required. If it
of an eligible archeological site is
will consult with the WVSHPO to develop
impracticable,
a treatment plan consistent
the Secretary of the Interior's Støndqrds ønd Guidelines for
with
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. Pinnacle shall ensure lhat,
if
In
consultation with \ /VSHPO,
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
it relates to the avoidance of the identified archaeological sites. Upon complete
as
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 V/est Virginia Division of Culture and History
Offrcer
Date
ï
Date
Attachment 1: List of Subject Properties Attachment 2: Correspondence from WVSHPO to Pinnacle regarding study reports
Attachment 1 List of Subject Properties
Site
Tlrye of Resource
2
Potomac State College Agricultural
Possible view
Meets National
of wind
RegÍster
Distance to nearest wind
nearest wind
Criteria
turbine fmiles)
turbine
turbines Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Farm
1.872342
5
Dwelline
Yes
9
Dwellins
t6
Dwelline Dwelline
Yes Yes
23
24 25 26 33
35 37 39
s7.tt 59.2 59.8 60 64.5 65
Dwellins Dwellins Dwelline Dwelline
Dwellins Dwellins
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dwelline Dwelline Dwelline Dwelline Dwelline
Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Grocery Keyser
Ycs Yes
Yes Yes
Direction to
\A/NV/
2.318389
wNw
2.47977
NW NW
2.s01086 2.678607 2.652979 2.663733 2.673s91 2.595332 2.741638 2.633057 2.512607 2.871442 4.057732 3.40841I 4.515577 5. I 83s64 2.1009s3
NW NW NW NW
wNw wNw NW NW NNW N NNW N ENE
w
March 12,2009
Mr. James M. Cookman US r#ind Force P.O. Box 550 Petersburg, WV 2684i
RE: FR:
US tilind Force, LLC Pinnacle wind Project - proposed v/ind power ceneration Facility
08-450-MI-5
-ìffiTiftil¡¡A-
Dear Mr. Cookman:
CULTL'RE& HÍSTORY
lile have reviewed
DMSION OF
The Culturol Center 1900 Konowho Blvd., EChsrleston, WV
2s305-0300 Phone 304.558.A220
Fox3Oa.558,2779
TDD304.5s8.35ó2 www.wvcufture.org ËEO/AAÊ¡FloF
the
lhay II hryeslígationfar
Archirecfin'al and Structut-al Resources, county. The following
February 26,2009 for the pinnacre wiñd ero¡eet in Minerat comments are oflered under'West Virginia Code 29-l _g
According to the information submitted the initial plans for the pinnacle Wind project proposed the construction of eastem and western arrays of wind turbines in Minerãl County- Since the initial plans the western array has now been eiiminated from the proposed project- Therefore, the currentproject consìsts of a maximum of 23
commercial wind turbines and assocíateðequipment. studies were completed to determine the visual and cultural effects to architectural and structu¡al rðsorr"es eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic places by the project. lVe have reviewed the Findings as presented Ín the Report. vy'e concur that the pinnacle rü/ind project rvíli have no direct effect on properties listed in or eligible for Iisting in the National Regisrer of Histor¡c Places.
we concur that as a result of this change an analysis of the current project qloposal and photo simularions found that f¡ve olthe properties lsiîe il. rClaysville Church. 6l-Kanter Cut OffRoad-drvelling aná OZ.l-irors School, 62'2-Cross Church. 62.4-Cross Methodist Church) rãconrrnended for phase II investigation will no longer be within the viervshed of the proposed project due to project changes, topography and vegetation. Though there is some contemporary constuction within the viewshed of eight properties (sites 5. g' 16,?3,24,37,39 and 65) the addition of rhe rvind ruibines will lrave an accumulative effect to tlrese historic resources. AIso, rhe consEuction of the 30 wind turbines will introduce a new industrial element to the ru¡al landscape of these individual sites 2, 25,26,33, 35, i7.l I, 5g.2, 59.g, 60. and 64.5.
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). In antícipation of an Adverse Effect tû architectural and shucËural resources eligible for lísting in the National Register of Historic Places the US Wind Force has proviãed a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) for the adverse visual effects of tr," I g resources and adverse cultural effects rvithin the APE. In addition, during our meeting on February ?6,2a09 we discussed severar other mitigation possibilities. \ile have checked our records and at this tirne do not have any requesffrom the public for a National Register nomination. However, we do suggest ihat the Minerãl county Historic¿l society be contacted to provide them wiìñ an oppoüuniry to comment and to ínçire if they rvould like to be a concurring parfy on the NiOe. Also, ir our opinion the establishment of a local grant program that was discussed in our meeting could provide the best long term mitigation. Please provide a drafr MOA that incorporates some or all of the suggested mítigarion.
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 resources. l-t-*i{: v/e will provide fi¡rther comment upon ieceipt of the reiort and other items listed above. We appreciate the oppornrnity to be ofservice and look forward to rvorlcing rvith you on this project. Ifyou have any guestìons regarding orr conmß¡tts or ilrc sectrcn I a6 process, please call Ginger williford, stntctural Historian, or Lora Å. Lamarre, senior
at (304) 558-0
,ò, ú/.øe4ûx1Wot¿,<_ M. Pierce ÇfÉan
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer SMP/Gtvt//LAL cc: Rebecca Gatewood, R. Chrístopher Goodwin & Associates
June 22, 2009
Mr. Jeffrey H.lvlaymon Senior Prolect Manager R. Chnstopher Goodw¡n & Associates 241 East Foufth Srreet, Suite 100 Frederick, MD ?1701
RE:
US Wind Fo¡ce, LLC Pinnacle wind Project - Proposed wind Power Generation Facility
FR:
08450-MI-6
Dear lvlr. Maymon:
WESTVIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE & HISTORY
The Culturol Center 1900 Konowho Blvd., E. Chorleston, WV 25305-0300 Phone 304.558.0?2O
Fox304.558.2779 TDD 304.558.35ó2 www.wvcu lture,org EEO/A€mployer
lVe have reviewed the cirafr report titled Phase I Årchaeological Survey far the Proposed PínnacÌe lyitzd prolect fulíneral Cozutty, Htest llirgmia, which was submitted for the above ref€renced project to determine effecs io historic rãsourres. The followrng cornments are províded according io Wrrt Virginia Code $ 29-l -8. We apologize for the delay in our comments, but as you tcnorv from our emlail and tetephone correspondencer rve are concerned about the nature ofresources identified ín the project area a¡d have been attempting to locate useful reference materials' According to the report, systemattc survey of the proposed project area, including the wind turbine corridor ind the T-line and revised interconnection conidors, resulted in the identification of 9 new archaeological resources; which are numbered 46Mi74 - 46Mi82. One of these sites,46Mi75' consists of a prehistoric rsotated find, which we agree has no research potentral. The remaining sites constst of roclt caims and walls and are thought to date to the historic Period. 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.
State H ístoric Preservatton Offlcer
SMP/LAL
$
å e
Ë
PINNACLE WIND FORCE, LLC CASE NO. O9-0360-E-CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY PREPARED BY
DIXIE L. KELLMEYER UTILITIES DIVISION ON BEHALF OF TTIE STAFF OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA ****:k*
SEPTEMBER 15,2009
201 Brooks Street, P. O. Box 812. Charleston. WV ZS3Z3
CASE NO. O9.O36()-E.CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF: DIXIE L.
1
KELLMEYER
PAGE
Q.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AI.{D BUSINESS ADDRESS.
A'
My name is Dixie L. Kellmeyer. My business address is 201 Brooks Street
1
2
3 4
Charleston, West
Virginia, 2fiA1
5
6
A.
BY WHOM AND IN WHAT CAPACITY ARE YOU EMPLOYED?
A'
i
7
I I
am employed by the Public Service Commission of V/est Virginia as a Utility
Analyst Manager in the Utilities Division.
10
11
O.
IIAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMISSION?
A.
Yes.
A.
PLEASE STATE YOUR BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS.
A'
I have
12
13 14
15 l6
17 18 19
a Bachelor
of Business Administration degree from Marshall University. I
am a Certified Public Accountant. i was employed in public practice from 1974 to
1999. I have been employed by the Public Service Commission since Iggg.
20
21 22
A.
WIIAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING?
23
24
A'
I witl address whether Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle,,) has fulfilled the
CASE NO. O9.(}36O-E.CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF: DIXIE L. KELLMEYER
1 2
PAGE 2
requirements of Section 3.1.1 of the Rules Governing Siting Certificates for Exempt Wholesale Generators.
3
4 5 6 7 I I l0
O.
SECTION 3.1.I.1.A OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT THE
APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNTS OF DEBT AND EQUITY CAPITAL FOR THE PROJECT. WHAT
HAS PINNACLE PROVIDED?
A'
Pinnacle provided estimates of the amount of debt and equity capital in a
confidental filing.
11
12 13 14 15 16
A.
SECTIONS 3.1.I.1.8 REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO DESCRIBE ANY AGREEMENTS WITH PUBLIC ENTITIES AND WHETHER SUCH AGREEMENTS WOULD TRANSFER TO A FUTURE PURCHASER OF THE FACILITY. HAS PINNA.CLE COMPLIED WITH THIS REQUIREMENT?
17
l8
A'
In its application Pinnacle stated that it has no agreements with any public entities.
A.
SECTION 3.1.I.1.C REQUIRES THAT IF THE PROJECT WILL HAVE
19
2A 21 22 23 24
ANY FUNDING FROM PUBLIC SOURCES, THE AMOUNT AND TERMS FOR SUCH FUNDING MUST BE FULLY DISCLOSED. HAS PINNACLE
COMPLIED WITH THIS REQUIREMENT?
CASE NO. O9-O36O.E.CS
DIRECTTESTIMONYOF:@ 1
PAGE
A.
Pinnacle has testifîed that there wiil be no funding from public sources.
a.
SECTION 3.1.I.2 OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE PROFORMA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
3
2 3
4
WHAT
HAS PINNACLE PROVIDED?
5 þ
7
A'
I
Pinnacle has provided the proforma financial statements subject to a
confidentiaiity agreement. The assumptions upon which the proforma financial
o
statements are based appear to be reasonable.
l0 11
a.
SECTION 3.1.I.3 OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVTDE ESTIMATES OF THE EFFECT OF THE PROJECT ON THE LOCAL AND STATE ECONOMY AS WELL AS THE MODEL USED TO DERIVE THE ESTIMATES. WHAT HAS PINNACLE PROVIDED?
A.
Pinnacle provided testimony concerning estimates of the effect of the project on
12 13
14
t5 t6 17
the iocal and state economy' Pinnacle performed an economic impact study using
l8
the
l9
impact.
IMPLAN econmic impact model. The study indicates a positive economic
2A 21
a.
DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS?
A.
Staff recommends that if a siting certificate is granted that pinnacie prior to the coÛlmencing of construction be required to obtain a report from a qualified
22 23
24
cAsE NO.
09-0360-E-CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF: DIXIE L. KELLMEYER
PAGE
4
1
independent third parry regarding a decommissioning fund to cover the
2
dismantling of the turbines and towers and land reclamation. The report of the
3
qualified third parly should provide the anaiysis and set the fund amount. The
4
report should be updated thereafter as mutually agreed between pinnacie and the
5
Mineral county commission, but no less frequently than every five years
þ
thereafter. The fund amount will vary over time depending on changes in the
7
estimated market or salvage value of the Project, the estimated cost of dismantiing
I 9
and removing the turbines, and the expected ongoing life of the project. pinnacle
should obtain the approval of the Grant County Commission of the evaiuative
10
expert and of each of the periodic reports. The decommissioning fund should not
11
be a part of Pinnacle's assets. 'within 90 days of any report that requires a
12
contribution to the decommissioning fund, Pinnacle should make that contribution
13
into an escrow account held by an agent pursuant to an escrow agreement between Pinnacle and the Grant County Commission. The methods for deposits to and
14
l5
disbursements from the fr¡nd should be established within and governed by the
16
escrow agreement' The escrow agreement should clearly reflect the role of the
17
Grant Counfy Commission and state that the obligations set forth in the escrow
18
agreement apply to Pinnacle, its successors and assigns. The escrow agreement
19
and each report of the qualified independent third party should be filed with the
20
Commission as a closed entry in this matter. The Commission should retain the
21
right to hire its own evaluative experl to review any of the periodic reports and to take such fuither action within its jurisdiction as the Commission
22 23
24
may determine is
necessary to protect the public interest.
CASE NO. ()9-()36O.E-CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY oF: DIXIE L.
1
Q.
PLEASE SUMMARTZE
KELLMEYER
PAGE
youR TESTIMONY.
2
3 4
A'
Pinnacle has met the requirements of Section 3.1.1 of the Rules Governing Siting
certificates for Exempt'whoiesare Generators.
5
6
a.
DOES THrS CONCLUDE
A.
Yes, it does.
7
I I 10 11
12
youR TESTIMON'?
5
ô
ñ E
t Ê¡
IH
PINNACLE WIND FORCE, LLC CASE NO. O9-0360-E-CS
PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DONALD E. WALKER ENGINEERING DIVISION ON BEHALF OF THE STAFF OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA
September 74,2009
201 Brooks Street, P. O. Box 812, Charleston, WV 25323
StoÎ* å
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force. LLC Engineering Division Direct and Rebuttal Testimony Submitted by Donald E. Watker, Technical Analyst DZt! September 14,2009
1 Q. Please state your name, occupation and business address. 2 A. My name is Donald E, Walker. I 'West
am employed by the Public Service
3
Commission of
4
My Office address is 201 Brooks Street, Charleston, 'West Virginia 25323.
Virginia
as a Technical
Analyst in the Engineering Division.
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,
8
where
9
basis. Much of my work inciudes contact with complainants, where I assist them
I have been investigating electric utitity complaints mostly on a formal
10
in interpreting the electric rules as applied to their situations. I also review
11
analyze the technical aspects
12
supportive data through research that
13
memorandums.
14
various wind power generation projects and
15
Potomac
16
responsible for reviewing the application,
17 0. 18
-
I
and
of complaints and provide Commission Staff with
is
presented
in written technical
have peripherally assisted engineering staff colleagues on
I
am currentl.v assigned to the
Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project where
I
am
What is your educational background and job experience as it relates to
your position at the commission?
Page2 of20
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker
19 A. I
earned a Bachelor
of
Science degree
in Electrical
Design Engineering
20
Technology
21
related experience included working as
22
Electric Power (AEP) Mountaineer 1300 MW Power Plant, where
23
responsible
24
(DCES) which monitored crucial operating conditions of the plant.
25
from the Mountaineer Plant to the American Electric Power Service Corporation,
26
System Measurements Section
27
factory acceptance testing of the DCES, and retrofitting the AEP Gavin Units
28
and
29
system which, monitored and recorded critical operating conditions of the
30
completed
31
Engineer, Sr. at the AEP John E. Amos Power Plant.
32
performance testing, related improvement projects and generator
33
troubleshooting on the Amos Plant 1300 MW Unit
34
at the plant level included environmental monitoring, coal pile surveys as well as
35
Outage Coordinator for the Unit 3 annual and major outages.
in
1979 from The Pennsylvania State University.
a start-up
My engineering
engineer at the American
for the installation of the Data Collection and Evaluation
I
was
System
I transferred
in 1980. In this position. I was responsible for the
2 and the Amos Unit 3 AEP System
1300
1
MW generating units with this
my over nine years of engineering
experience as
a
plant. I
Performance
I was responsible for all
/
exciler
3. Additional responsibilities
36 a. What is the purpose of your testimony and how was this task 37
approached?
38 A.
The purpose of my testimony is to describe and discuss the Engineering
39
Division's technical review of the siting certificate of the Pinnacle V/ind Force
40
Project, Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS, with respect to compliance with the
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimonl, of Donald E. Walker
Page 3
of20
41
commission's siting rules,t This task was systematically approached
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
46
September
21,2009. Further testimony will be submiued by the Engineering
47
Division if these events require additional comment.
b¡z
¡syie\¡/ing
site visit and public hearings are scheduled during the week of
48 Q. Is the technical portion of the application complete? 49 A. A comprehensive three-volume
application submiued by Pinnacle Vlind Force,
50
LLC (Pinnacle or Applicant) appears to be complete. Additional information was
51
requested from the Applicant for clarification of the application and of a few direct
52
testimonies which were provided by Pinnacle. The additional information that
53
was provided to the Engineering Division Staff assisted us in determining that the
54
Applicant has met the siting rules requirements,
55
application where additional comments
56
presented by Pinnacle and
of the
either clarify the information lissues
concerns and recommendations for this
project.
59 Q. Is the Applicant's 60 A. 61
discuss portions
/ or the intervening parties. The Engineering Division
57 will also present potential engineering 58
will
I will
wind project experience sufficiently presented?
US 'Wind Force has previously submitted wind projects for Certificate of
Convenience and Necessity I
for the Commission to consider. The Mt.
West Virginia Code of State Ruies 150-30 Ê24-2-11c
Storm
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page
4 of20
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
64
County was denied a certificate in 2001. Additional information about the
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
67
Applicant has had experience in acquiring certificates for the development,
68
construction and operating of wind turbine electrical generating facilities.
69
Q. Is the project's justification of need satisfactory?
70
A.
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-
73
term supply and demand projections. completed by the local
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
It
has been established in previous siting cases presented to the Commission,
13 states and the District
of Columbia including
West
Regional
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-adequacypian¡rin g/-/media/dosuments/reports/2 009 -pj m-load-report.ashx
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
78
Forecast Report contains
79
through the year 2024.
80
The Report states:
Page 5
of20
a quantitative analysis of regional electric demand
81
. An eçonomic rebound in 2010 causes load growth to resume in
82
2010, though summer peak load
83
2011. Summer peak load growth
84
average l.7o/o pu year over the next 10 years, and 1.4o/o ovet the
85
next 15 years. The PJM RTO summer peak is forecasted to
86
158,617
87
reaches 166,581
88
Annualized l0-year growth rates for individual zones range from
89
49% to
90
Pinnacle witness David Friend suggests that within the regional whoiesale
will not exceed the 2008 level until
MW in 2019, a l0-year MW in
for PJM RTO is projected to
increase
of 24,189 MW,
2024, a 15- year increase
of
be
and
32,153 MW.
2.8o/o.
9I
power markets, there
92
renewable sources such as
93
energy includes consumer demand as well as the Renewable Portfolio Standard
94
(RPS) or similar legislation found in several states.6 There appears to be sufficient
95
information presented in the case fiie to support the justification of need.
is a
demand
for a mix of energy sources,
including
wind. He explains the growing demand for renewable
96 Q. Is the required technical data satisfactory?
6
Pin¡racle witness David Friend Direct Testimony fited with the Commission on May 25,2009.
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker
97 A.
Page 6
of20
The technical content of the appiication appears to meet the siting rule
98
requirements. Clarifications requested by Staff were provided by the Applicant
99
which may be discussed later in this testimony.
100 Q. Were the maps included with the application 101
adequate to review the scope
ofthe project?
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
108
this project as has been with recent wind turbine generation projects,
109
Q. Are the photo simulations provided in the application satisfactory?
110 A.
staff. As a result, similar criteria could be applied
Pinnacle is required to provide photo simulations (renderings)
111 overlooks
and vieu,s of the project that
of ali
to
scenic
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
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),
to 10.9 mile radius of the project. In addition to an
t Refer to the website af: hffp:llearth.google.com/
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 7
of20
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
I21
clear, suggesting the photo simulations may not provide an accurate representation
70o/o
of the days in the area of this project were expected to
122 of the visibility of the project. It
be
appears the photographs represent hazy
123
conditions on 30Yo of days suggesting the turbines are visible most or the majority
124
of time,
125
The Commission Staff, intervenor representatives and other participants
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
131
additional testimony if required
132 Q. Is Pinnacle's
will be addressed with
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
138
Barnes was responsible
in 2006
and Liberty Gap Wind Force project in
2007. Mr.
for the preparation of the Acentech study entitles,
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker
Page 8
of20
139
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Pinnaele Wind farm, Mineral County. 'WV"
140
("Acoustical Report").8
141
The Acoustical Report summarizes the approach Acentech foliowed while
142
addressing the requirements of the commission siting
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
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"
rules. Their
.analysis and
in the community; and
as
149 it applies to the siting rules. 150 A. The siting rules specify that noise levels will be represented
as average DNL,
151
also referred to as Ldn (Day-Night sound level). The day-night sound level is the
152
average equivalent sound level (Leq)
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
for a 24 hour period. The data in this
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 Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 9
of20
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
162
the purpose of identifying and evaluating levels of environmental noise.
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
166
form of sound contour maps,
167 a. 168
Has the Applicant provided adequate sound contour (noise exposure)
maps representing accurate results of their sound studies?
169 A. The Applicant
requested
a waiver for the requirement of filing
a
170
preconstruction noise exposure
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
176
preconstruction noise exposure map,e
177
map, The Engineering Division
a waiver
agreed
to this
requiring the filing
of
a
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,
n
AES New Crcek, LLC Case No. 08-2105-E-CS
It appears
that
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E.'Walker
180
there
will
Page 10
of20
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
185
noise level at all but one of these receptors is estimated at or below 55dBA. The
project. The
186 maximum measured ambient noise level was found to be 56dBA. Pinnacle points 187 out that these levels are considered 188
"worst case" conditions, and at lower wind
speeds, the turbine sound levels would also be reduced.
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
I92
communities. He goes on to explain that vibrations in a building structure may
193
result in the rattling of china or moving windows and mirrors from this lou'
194
frequency component of sound. Pinnacle addresses these concerns by utilizing
195
technique
196
mathematical calculations. By measuring the sound at any given iocation, with
197
standard sound level meter, a value which emphasizes mid-range frequencies is
for
calculating these
low level
198 obtained, referred to as "A-weighted" 199
frequency components through
sound level
a
(dBA), Another measurement
of the same noise utiiizes a specialized filter which is caiibrated to de-emphasize
200 the low and high frequenoy 201
a
components of the noise being measured, referred to
"C-weighted" sound ievel (dBC) is also obtained. By comparing an A-weighted
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page I 1 of20
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
210
than the
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
215
as an acceptable level
216
comparison because
217
Literature published by the Acoustic Ecology Institute suggests low frequency
218
noise at fevels 60 dbc or higher is considered an indicator that iow-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
221
was not required by the Commission's Siting Rules.
r0
and 5 respectively, which are higher
l}'day ambient Ldn of 57 dbc and 56 dbC which are currently being
of 75 dbc to 80 dbc. Staff is
of different circumstances
unsure
if this is a fair
present between the projects,
AEI Special Report: Wind Energy Noise impacts,l16/2009. Website, acousticecology.org
Pubiic Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker
222
Pinnacle has addressed the issue
Page 12
of20
of low-frequency sound by indicating in
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
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.
231 Q. Are the required
Bird and Bat studies complete?
232 A. Yes. The studies presented in the application 233
a
as
well
as the
Direct Testimonies
of Witness Paul Kerlinger and 'Witness Mike Sponsler appears to have fulfilled the
234
.requirements of the Commission.
235
Q. Did Staff review the direct testimonies for Pinnacle?
236 A. Yes. Staff has reviewed all of the available direct testimony related to this 237
case,
238 a. 239
Does the Engineering Division have any concerns
that have not been
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 Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker
Page 13
of20
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
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
250
structure falling to the ground causing harm to anyone in it path. Blade throw can
251
occur for several reasons; but, basically,
252
turbine-generating unit,
253
and angle at which
or improper
maintenance.
off of
the
if a blade becomes detached from the
it can be projected long
distances depending on the speed
it becomes separated.12
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
261
proposed turbines. The Engineering Staff has reviewed the literature and has in its
of roads and power lines to
l]lnternational
the
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 Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker
262
of20
rocommendation submitted a reasonable solution to these concerns. Another safefy
263 issue that has been addressed 264
Page 14
in previous wind farm cases before the Comrnission
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.
267
Q. What is the Engineering Divisionos recommendation?
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
27A
Engineering Division respectfully recommends that the Commission includes the
the
271 conditions in its orders: 272
Preconstruction Certificate Issues
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
275 have been met. 276
2) The Applicant must not dispose of excavated rock and/or any bedding material
277
during or following construction of the facility by spreading the material on
278
agricultural land.
279
3) The Applicant must dispose of all contaminated soil and construction debris in
280 approved landfills in accordance with appropriate
environmental regulations,
281
4) The Applicant must design and install any needed fire protection systems in
282
accordance
283
standards.
with the National Fire Protection Association or other accepted
Public Sen ice Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 15
of20
284
5) The Applicant must coordinate with appropriate fire safety and
285
personnel during the pre-construction stage of the Project to promote efficient and
286
timely emergenc¡, preparedness and response,
287
6) The siting certificate shall become invalid if the Applicant has not commenced
288 a continuous 289
course
of
construction within five years
emergency
of the date the final
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
292
environmental permits and/or cerlifications prior
293
(including letters from United States Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia
294
Division of Natural Resources,320 West Virginia Division of Cultural; Historl'
295
and West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office; any local governmental
296
agency requiring permits for construction
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
300
similar action by others.
301
8) The Applicant must file a copy of the Wetiands Survey and Delineation,
302
evidence
303
endangered species study
of approval
304 historical/archeoiogical 305
/
andlor acceptance
to commencing construction
operation of this project) indicating
a
of the wetiands delineation, final
with any required mitigation plans, and
significance study with any required mitigation plans prior
to commencing construction.
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 16
of20
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.)
310
governmental agency or court with competent jurisdiction finds that the Applicant
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
315
jurisdiction to seek, including injunctive reiief, to address any such findings.
316
10) The Applicant must
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
32I
are ofconcern.
31
322 323
in both the construction and operation of the Project. If any
A)
authorized
it
has
construct and maintain a fence around the O&M
General Construction and Operational Phase Certificate 1) During construction, the Applicant shali:
324
a) Require contractors to use standard noise buffers on all construction
325
equipment and trucks;
326
b) Require contractors to use piie driving equipment which have the least
327
noise impact;
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 17 o120
328
c) Perform construction activities mostly during the dayiight hours;
329
d) Avoid noise impacts at certain noise sensitive locations, such as a
330
church, during the weekend church activities and services and during other
331
normally scheduled church weekday activities;
332
e)
333
Federal rules, regulations and/or laws.
334
Limit any dynamiting to daylight hours and follow all
2) The Applicant must coordinate with appropriate fire safety and emergency
335 personnel 336
during all other stages of the Project, including Construction and
Operations, to promote efficient and timely emergency preparedness and response,
337 3) The Applicant 338
State and
must file evidence of its EIVG status from FERC prior to
commencing operation.
339 4) If the Applicant seeks to transfer its certificate, 340 pursuant to Siting Rule 7.1 to notifl'the Commission
the Applicant is required
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
343
condition applies at anytime - not just in the operational stage.
344
5) The Appiicant
345
U.S. Fish &. Wiidlife Service, and the West Virginia Division
346 Resources
will consult with
the representatives of Commission Staff, the
of
Natural
(collectively the Technical Advisory Committee) on the scope,
347
development, and implementation
348
commence within a reasonable time, and
of
post-construction studies (Studies) to
in any event no later than one year
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Case Number; 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 18
of20
349
following the commercial operations date of the Project. Pinnacle shall consult
350
with the Technical Advisory Committee on the following:
351
a) Three years of post-construction bat mortality and adaptive management
352
studies, after operations commence, to assess,
353
1) The project's impact,
354
2) The potential for adaptive
355
such impacts.
356
3) The expected costs over a range of mitigation effectiveness levels.
if any, upon bat life management techniques
to mitigate
357
b)
358
commence, to assess the impact, if any, on birds.
359
c) The Applicant will file copies of each Study with the Commission and
360
provide copies to each member of the Technical Advisory Committee
361
within thirty days of its completion.
Three years
of
post-construction
bird studies, after
operations
362
363 If 364
the project causes significant leveis of bat or bird mortalify and adaptive
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
369 Commission's 370
Executive Secretary. Unless Pinnacle obtains Commission consent
for other deadlines, the updates shall be filed on or before January 30 and Juiy 3
1
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
of
Page
l9 oî20
)/I
each year. Pinnacle shall provide a copy
Jtz
Technical Advisory Committee.
Jt)
6) The Applicant will minimíze the visibility of the Project by only using project
374
lighting
375
authorized to be in the area except that the Applicant may use Project lighting
376
required by the Federal Aviation Administration and any applicable fire or safety
5t/
code, regulation, or accepted good utiiity practice,
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
382
final interconnection agreements prior to commencing operation,
383
9)
384
equal at least i.5 times the total combined height of the tower, turbine and
385
maximum blade height.
386
legal agreement with Pinnacle and reside in the project area are exempt from this
387
condition.
388
Q. Have these conditions been imposed on other similar applications?
389
A. Yes, most recently
390
wind turbine-generator projects certificated by the Commission, Specifically,
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:
each report to the members
of the
in the presence of the project's personnel and any other persons as
Tower setbacks from residences, roads and power lines will be imposed to
It
is understood fhaf. pafücipants (residents) who have
a
some or all of these conditions were imposed on previous
Public service commission of west virginia 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
394
(Case No. 08-0109-E-CS) and AES New Creek
395
08-2i05-E-CS).r4
396
exception of the implementation of setbacks,
397
Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
398
A. Yes,
o '
#/q
page 20 of 20
htrp'//www.psc.
All of these conditions
state, wv.
us/
-
Proposed Final Order (Case No.
have been previously imposed with the
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
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
I
a.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A.
My name is Terrence J. DeWan. My
a
business address
Associates, 121 West Main Street, Yarmouth,
J
is
Terrence J. DeWan &
Maine 04096.
4
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5
6
a.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
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 assessments, and reviewing the production of visualizations in the office.
10 11
a.
t2 13
PLEASE DESCRIBE DEWAN
&
ASSOCIATES AND ITS WORK
IN VISUAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS. 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
15
projects into sensitive environments. The staff
t6
backgrounds
t7
inventories, recreation planning, graphic design, and computer modeling. DeWan &
18
Associates has worked on over
19
United States for projects including port facilities, electrical power generation and
20
transmission facilities, natural gas storage facilities, co-generation facilities, LNG
2I
terminals, industrial buildings, sanitary landfills, hydroelectric projects, wind energy
22
facilities, and new communities. DeWan &, Associates incorporates
in landscape architecture,
is
composed
of
professionals with
planning, visual resource assessment, scenic
fifty visual impact assessments throughout the
eastem
accepted
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page2
of2l
to
visual impacts on scenic resources and the
I
professional methodologies
2
surrounding viewshed through
J
inventorying scenic resources; describing the viewshed and project site characteristics;
4
determining the affected population; developing
5
examining specific areas of potential visibility through cross-sectional analysis; creating
6
photosimulations
7
mitigation measures.
to accurately
assess
a
process that includes: defining
a
study
atea;,
a GIS based viewshed analysis;
represent visual impacts; and evaluating potential
8
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
9 10
a.
BACKGROUND.
11
I2
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
A.
I received
a Bachelors of Science in Landscape Architecture
in
1968 from the State
13
University of New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry in Syracuse,
I4
New York. I hold Maine Landscape Architect license #6. For the past three decades
15
have concentrated a major part of my practice on visual impact assessments, serving
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
18
facilities in Maine, Massachusetts, and now'West Virginia. I have served as a consultant
t9
to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection for the development of Maine's
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
I
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 3
of2l
I
recently completed a peer review of the Draft Environmental
1
the past two decades.
2
Impact Statement prepared by Mineral Management Service for the Cape Energy Project
J
in Nantucket Sound,
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.
MA. I am the author of the Scenic
Assessment Handbook for the
6
DEWAN & ASSOCIATES INVOLVEMENT
7 8
a.
ASSOCIATES IN THE PROJECT.
9 10
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF DEWAN &
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
13
("VIA") that we prepared is included in Appendix "J" to the Siting
t4
Application.
15
Certificate
In connection with the VIA, we drove the major public roads within the study a view of the Project and visited known public recreation
16
area that may have
I7
historic properties, scenic overlooks, major transportation corridors, population centers,
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
2l
opportunity
22
independently verified the accuracy
to verify the viewshed maps for accuracy. DeWan &
areas,
an
Associates also
of photosimulations prepared by Pinnacle Wind
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page
4 of27
Force through comparison with three-dimensional digital models created separately.
1
ln addition to the written reports
2
and graphics described above, DeWan &
a
J
Associates prepared poster-sized enlargements
4
public discussions, agency presentations, and similar venues. An important component 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
9
into the title block of each image.
of the photosimulations to be used in
it
10
VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
11
t2
a.
13
A.
WHAT IS A VIEWSHED ANALYSIS?
A
viewshed analysis is a computer-generated way of determining where the Project
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
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.
2t
a.
&
Associates. The results
DESCRIBE THE VIEWSHED MAPS AND THE VIEWSHED ANALYSIS.
of
Piruracle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
Page 5
1
A.
of21
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
4
maps are included in Appendix "J" to the Siting Certificate Application.
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
9
of the turbines would be visible. While this map is informative, it over-represents
10
project visibility since it does not consider vegetation or other obstacles, which
t1
block the turbines from view.
I2
'
will
The negative viewshed map shows where views of the turbines will be blocked by
13
topographic features, irrespective of local vegetation or obstruction. While this map
t4
is also informative, it under-represents the extent of the area from which
15
turbines cannot be seen because
I6
other localized screening.
I7
'
it
does not reflect the effects
the
of forest cover and
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
2I
topography or
22
assumption,
it
by intervening vegetation. While this is a somewhat imperfect
has proven to be generally accurate
in providing a realistic estimate
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 6
of27
1
of where the project will actually be visible from. As noted earlier, the viewshed
2
maps were verified during our field work.
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
5
exaggerated picture of the extent of possible visibility, since the blades are rarely visible
6
beyond a distance of 8 miles due to their thinness.
7
a.
will still be an
THE VIEWSHED MAPS INDICATE THAT THE PROJECT MAY THEORETICALLY
8
BE VISIBLE FROM AS FAR AS TWENTY MILES AWAY FROM THE PROJECT
9
SITE. IS IT LIKELY THAT THE PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY BE VISIBLE FROM SUCH DISTANCES?
10
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
13
intervening topography or vegetation. At distances greater than 10 miles, wind turbines
I4
are generally perceived aS very small elements in the landscape and do not result in
15
unacceptable contrasts
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.
rea
PLEASE DESCRIBE IN GENERAL TERMS THE CONCEPT OF DISTANCE ZONES
20
AS IT APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT.
in form, line, color,
texture,
or scale. Turbine blades will
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
I
Page7
of2I
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
4
criteria for forested landscapes and is generally accepted by professionals in visual
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
8
Commission's rules.l
based upon
USDA Forest Service visual analysis
of the applicable
provisions
of the Public
Service
Foreground: 0 to I mile in distance. Within the foreground, observers are able to
9
fulI spectrum of color. For example, the details of
10
detect surface textures, details, and a
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
I4
completed, those who wish to see the Project may be able to use this road network to get
15
a closer
I6
is
view of the turbines.
Midground:
1
mile to 5 miles in distance. The midground is a critical part of the
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
t
distance is intensified in hazy weather conditions, which tend to mute
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
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
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).
will limit its visibility.
Representative midground
in Keyser
Background: 5 miles to 20 miles. Background distances provide the setting for
9
of the larger landscape.
10
panoramic views that give the observer the greatest sense
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
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
15
minimally visible in the background, and not visible at aIl at distances greater than 8 to
t6
10
t7
towers and the nacelles,
18
should not be a noticeable part of the landscape beyond 8-10 miles.
t9
a.
22
miles. At these distances, the most visible parts of the turbines will be the
if they are visible
at
all. Under most circumstances,
be
8O-meter
the turbines
WILL THE PROJECT BE VISIBLE FROM HISTORIC AREAS OR PLACES WITHIN FIVE MILES?
20
2t
will be highly visible
A.
The West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office ("WVSHPO") determined that a 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.
6
a.
DESCRIBE THE MANAGED LANDS WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE PROJECT.
7
A.
In West Virginia, the following managed lands are located within 10 miles of the Project:
8
9
.
Alleshenv Wildlife Management Area ("AWMA'ì (including the abandoned fre tower on Pinnacle Mountain). Viewshed mapping indicates that portions of the
10
AWMA may have views of the Project. However, most views from within
11
AWMA (with the exception of the fire tower) would most likely be filtered by
T2
dense hardwood vegetation. The most prominent
13
AWMA will be from an abandoned fire tower on Pinnacle Mountain that is
t4
miles southwest of the closest turbine. From this viewpoint, the turbines will be
15
seen
f6
(out of a total 360o panorama). The view from Pinnacle Mountain also includes
t7
multiple nearby communication towers on the summit, the development in the
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
2I
leaf and leaf off conditions.
the
view of the Project within the 1.8*
in a relatively tight cluster (due to the alignment of the ridge) over a 5.5o arc
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
Page 10 of21
1
.
Jennings Randolph Lake Pro.iect (in both West Virginia and Maryland).
At
will be approximately 3 miles from the edge of
its
2
closest point the Project
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,
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
the
the intervening topography, and the surrounding forest cover. The
In
to the existing
10
man-made features.
11
turbines
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
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
18
be seen on the horizon at a distance of over 4+ miles. Photosimulation Viewpoint
I9
17 (panoramic view) provides a view of the Project from the northern end of the
20
lake and the surrounding landscape.
comparison
man-made structures, the
will be seen as a relatively small addition to the landscape. In the other
of the turbines from many of the remaining
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page
1l of21
.
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. Additional managed lands in Maryland are located within 10 miles of the Project.
4
These are described on pages 10 through 15 of the
5
6
a.
9
DESCRIBE THE MANAGED LANDS BETV/EEN
A
10
AND 2O-MILE RADruS OF
THE PROJECT.
7 8
VIA.
A.
In West Virginia, three managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles from the project: Fort
Mill Ridge WMA, Springfield WMA,
and Nathan Mountain
\ryMA.
Úr Maryland, five
WMA, Big
10
managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles from the project: Mount Nebo
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
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
20
the project should be blocked by intervening vegetation on Dan's
2t
communication towers in the foreground would have a far more significant visual impact
of
distance and atmospheric perspective. The most
of
Mountain. The existing
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
2
panorama).
1o
arc (out of a total 360o
3
PHOTOSIMULATIONS
4
5
a.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PHOTOSIMULATIONS?
6
A.
Photosimulations are computer-altered photographs that are used
to
illustrate the
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
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
t9
conditions (i.e., to make it appear "full size" or lifelike).
20 2l
a.
to
demonshate the visual changes from the
Project.
WHAT FACTORS WENT INTO THE SELECTION OF THE VIEWPOINTS USED FOR THE PHOTOSIMULATIONS?
Where
SPECIFIC
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeV/an
I
Page 13
of2l
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
of the Project where the most number of turbines would
10
selected to provide views
11
visible. From many of the viewpoints, the Project will be partially
t2
intervening topography or vegetation.
be
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.
I7
a.
THE COMMISSION?
18
t9
WHICH SITES V/ERE SELECTED FOR PHOTOSIMULATIONS TO SUBMIT TO
A.
A
total
of 19 photosimulations were prepared by Pinnacle Wind Force, with
the
& Associates, for inclusion in the VIA. The viewpoints, which
are
20
assistance of DeWan
2T
all on public property or publicly accessible locations, include the Keyser industrial park,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
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),
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
9
(less than 5 miles to the closest turbine).
f*o rural cemeteries,
10
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
11
t2
a.
WHO WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE PROJECT?
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
T7
tempered by the presence of other structures within the visible area.
l8
a.
2t 22
The visual sensitivity of each of these groups
will vary
and is
DESCRIBE THE VISUAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE.
19
20
VIA.
A.
Landscape compatibility can be described in terms of the potential that the Project has for being similar or dissimilar relative to color, form, line, texture, scale, and dominance.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
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
4
light gray, especially when seen on hazy or overcast days. White turbines will allow the
5
project to have only red nighttime lighting.
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
9
and weather conditions.
10
will
change
If
will
appear as
an altemate color were selected, the FAA
with the time of day, viewer orientation, sun angle, and atmospheric
Form. With several other wind energy projects in neighboring counties, turbines
to
a more familiar form on the West Virginia landscape.
11
are starting
t2
Nonetheless, the three-bladed turbines set on tall towers breaking the horizon
13
a noticeable contrast in form. By following the ridgeline of Green Mountain
t4
preserving as much vegetation as possible, the Project
15
become
will present and
will minimize contrasts in form.
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
t7
minimal contrast in line as a result.
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
2T
texture of the surrounding mountains.
will
present a noticeable contrast with the natural hardwood
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 16
of2I Scale Contrast. The scale of the Project area is def,rned by the space between the
1
-
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
5
as a very large man-made element
6
will be influenced by their immediate surroundings. To
7
surrounded by commercial buildings,
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
will
extend over 3.4 miles of the Green Mountain ridgeline and
will
be perceived
in the larger landscape. Observers'perception of scale someone in downtown Keyser,
utility structures, and similar types of development,
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
will be highly visible and will
12
midground (less than five miles), where the turbines
13
seen
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
I6
against the sky, due to their elevated position from virtually all viewpoints. However, as
I7
illustrated
18
composition (the mountains, the sky, or nearby waterbodies).
t9 20
2t 22
a.
in the context of the Green Mountain ridgeline and other local
be
and regional
will be seen
by the photosimulations, they will not dominate the entire landscape
WHAT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT?
A. The Project
will be visible to a portion of the population who live, work, drive, and
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
J
minimize the creation of new lines on the mountain.
will be used where
feasible to
Areas of Scenic or Cultural Significance. There are no areas of scenic or cultural
4
will be unreasonably affected by
it.
The
5
significance within the project viewshed that
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
10
unreasonably affect areas of scenic or cultural significance within its viewshed.
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
t4
Randolph Lake Project at
l5
15, 16, and 17, the wind turbines
t6
these locations (both of which are on the West Virginia / Maryland line).
4.I miles. As
demonshated
by Photosimulation Viewpoints
will not block or interfere with
the views from either
of
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
I
l8 of2l
Traveled Ways. As noted above, the Project will be visible from several public
will
2
highways within the 2O-mile study area. In most of these instances, the Project
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
5
in the study area.
6
Landscape Uniqueness. Green Mountain is a major landform
it
is not considered unique to this part of West
be
in the immediate
Virginia. The mountain has been
7
area, but
8
extensively used and developed with roads, home sites, mining and forestry activity,
9
transmission corridors, and other t¡rpes of activity so it cannot be considered an intact or
10
1l
undisturbed landscape.
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
15
to the general public. The resultant Project should present a simple,
16
appearance.
t7
The Project
will not usually
be visible
uncluttered
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
2I
or other scenic resources. Throughout the majority of the 2O-mile study area, views of
will the Project block the views from or the views of lakes, mountains, rivers,
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
2
on the hills in the foreground and midground, and roadside vegetation.
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
6
ancillary facilities harmoniously into the existing natural environment.
The VIA was conducted by DeWan
7
&
Associates
in compliance with the
of the Public Service Commission's Siting Rules and it is our
8
applicable provisions
9
conclusion that the Project
will not unreasonably
interfere with existing scenic or
will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic
10
aesthetic uses and
11
land within the viewshed of the Project.
character of the
I2 MITIGATION
13
t4
a.
WHAT MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACTS?
15
A.
Mitigation is defined as any action taken or not taken to avoid, minimize, rectiff, reduce,
T6
eliminate, or compensate for actual or potential adverse environmental impact. The
t7
Project has been conceived and designed
18
surrounding environment. A description of how the Project has been designed to follow
I9
current professional thinking on wind power facility planning is provided in Appendix B
20
(Aesthetic Considerations) to the VIA. The main mitigation measure was selecting a site
2l
that has:
to have minimal visual impacts on
the
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page20 of2l Case
1
.
turbine siting.
2 a
J
o A network of existing
o An existing transmission
will provide
access
to the site, thus minimizing
line very close to the project site, thus minimizing the
amount of clearing necessary.
6 7
roads that
potential construction impacts.
4 5
Favorable topography requiring no major earth moving for road constructlon or
o
A minimal number of scenic resources that could be affected by the Project.
in
8
Additionally, the following design standards have been employed
9
development of the Project to enhance the appearance of the wind turbines and minimize
10
1l
adverse public reactions:
o
¡ o
I6 t7
will
Vegetation clearing along the ridgeline will be minimized, particularly between the
individual turbine sites.
o
The turbine support towers provide a clean simplified profile that will have less complex surface characteristics and less reflectance.
18
I9
The electrical collection system between individual turbines and the substation
be located underground to the extent practicable, primarily along the access roads.
T4 15
Turbines will be placed in an orderly arrangement along the ridgeline, minimizing perceived clutter.
12 13
the
o
The color of all wind turbine components (tower, nacelle, and rotor blades) will be
20
a uniform white or ofÊwhite to achieve greatest visibility for pilots, particularly
2l
during cloudy, overcast and inclement conditions. This will avoid the use of high-
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
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
4
Federal Aviation Administration requirements. Lighting
5 g
will not be required on every turbine.
o Security lighting
will be synchronized
and
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.
9 Q. 10 A.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTMONY? Yes, it does.
PTIBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia
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
1
a
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A.
James D. Barnes. Mybusiness address is 33 Moulton Street, Cambridge,
MA 02138.
J
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
4 5
a.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
6
A.
I
am a Supervisory Consultant of Acentech Incorporated ("Acentech"). In this role,
I
7
typically serve as principal investigator and/or manager on projects that
8
community sound associated with industrial, energy, institutional, and transportation
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
1l
at New Page
t2
a.
l3 t4
address
("Project").
PLEASE DESCRIBE ACENTECH AND ITS WORK
IN RELATION TO
NOISE
ISSUES AND STUDIES.
A.
Acentech is a multi-disciplinary consulting firm with offices located in Massachusetts,
15
Pennsylvania, and California. The staff of more than 50 professionals is comprised of
t6
acoustical consultants, audiovisual consultants, noise and vibration consultants, and IT
t7
consultants. For environmental sound studies, Acentech consultants apply experience,
l8
technical expertise, current computer modeling techniques, and measurement procedures
I9
to assess conditions and to develop design recommendations.
20
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
Page 2
of
16
I 2
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
a.
a
BACKGROUND.
J 4
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
A.
My educational
and professional qualifications that relate to providing this testimony are
JDB-I. I have over 35 years of experience relating to the study of
5
set forth on Exhibit
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,
9
with desigu team engineers, architects and planners, attomeys, equipment suppliers,
10
owners, community representatives, private citizens, and state and local government
1t
personnel.
l2
from Cornell University) am a registered Professional Engineer in multiple states, and
l3
currently co-teach the Fundamentals Exam Preparation Course for the Institute of Noise
t4
Control Engineering.
l5
a.
Science degree and a Masters
have worked
of Engineering
HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC
degree
SERVICE
COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
16
t7
I hold a Bachelor of
I
A.
Yes. I have testified before the Commission in the hearings on the Beech Ridge Energy
I
18
project in 2006 and the Liberty Gap Wind Force project in 2007. ln addition,
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
2T
planning board meetings.
22
have
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 3
of
16
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
I 2
a.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTMONY.
3
A.
The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor the study prepared under my direction by
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
6
Appendix U to the Siting Certificate Application.
as
7
THE PINNACLE ACOUSTICAL REPORT
8
9
a.
PLEASE PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACOUSTICAL REPORT.
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
t7
ambient conditions at representative community locations; and estimated construction
18
and operation sound levels for the
t9
analysis and presents the pertinent results of the acoustical study. I performed or directly
20
supervised all work tasks in this study.
facility. The Acoustical Report
summarizes our
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 4
I
a.
a
16
PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW NOISE IS MEASURED BY DECIBELS AND PROVIDE SOME TYPICAL SOUND LEVEL COMPARISONS.
2 J
of
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
5
magnitude of a sound is measured in decibels, abbreviated
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.
Decibels are used to
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.
t2
At any location, a complete
physical description
of the ambient acoustic
13
environment might include its sound pressure level at various frequencies, as a function
t4
of time. As a first step toward simpliffing this multi-dimensional description, it
15
become coÍrmon practice
t6
weighted sound level (dBA) as observed on a standard sound level meter. The A-
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.
20
Examples of common sound levels include:
has
to eliminate the frequency variable by measuring the A-
2t
o
truck passby at 100 feet
-
80 dBA;
22
o
lawn mower at 100 feet
-
65 dBA;
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 5
of
16
I
.
average speech
2
o
private and open offices
a
o
calîr, quiet suburban nighttime and daytime periods
J
4
a.
- 40 to 50 dBA; and -
35 to 45 dBA.
THE ACOUSTICAL STUDY REFERENCES "LEQ'' AND "LDN'' SOUND LEVELS. PLEASE DESCRIBE WHAT THE LEQ AND LDN SOUND LEVELS REPRESENT.
5
6
- 60 dBA;
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
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
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
20
and operation phases.
2t 22
a.
traffic or steady wind in the trees). The day-night
of identiffing and evaluating levels of
HAS THE USEPA IDENTIFIED A GUIDELINE LDN SOTIND LEVEL THAT IS PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALTH AND WELFARE?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
Page 6
I
A.
of
16
Yes. USEPA has identified a guideline Ldn level of 55 dBA of humans for outdoor residential
as protective
of the health
areas and farms and other outdoor areas
2
and welfare
J
where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a
4
basis for
5
developed without regard
6
Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels
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
use. This
recommended level, which includes
for
technical
or
a margin of safety,
economic feasibility. (United
of
55 dBA as its criterion during review of proposed projects (Part 157, Chapter I,
1l
Code of Federal Regulations).
a.
l3 t4
States
Environmental Noise
10
t2
was
Title
18,
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATIONS YOU MADE AND THE METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE ACOUSTICAL REPORT.
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
T6
ambient conditions at representative community locations; and estimated construction
t7
and operation sound levels for the
l8
program during the period of 28 November to 11 December 2007. We then developed
T9
the facility construction and operation sound estimates with methods in the ESEERCO
20
Power Plant Construction Noise Guide and
2t
package that is used widely
22
been used
facility.
'We
conducted the ambient sound monitoring
with Cadna/A, a commercial
software
for environmental sound modeling projects. Cadna/A
in numerous other wind turbine noise studies, including the Beech
has
Ridge,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 7
of
16
by
1
Laurel Mountain, and New Creek applications that have been reviewed
2
Commission. Finally, we summarizedthe ambient sound measurements and the pertinent
J
results of this acoustical study in the Acoustical Report.
the
4 THE AMBIENT SOUND MONITORING PROGRAM
5
6
a.
LOCATIONS FOR THE AMBIENT SOUND MONITORING PROGRAM.
7 8 9
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROCESS USED TO SELECT THE MONITORING
A.
The purpose of the monitoring progrcm is to charactenze the existing ambient sound environment at noise-sensitive receptors, e.g., residences.
It is well
known
in
the
10
acoustics community that the ambient sound environment is directly related to the land
1l
uses and sound sources
t2
turbine layout plans; toured the project site and nearby community areas; and then
l3
identified candidate monitoring locations that would be representative of the noise-
t4
sensitive areas (all residences, in this case) in the vicinity of the Project
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 o
2t 22
-
site. The actual
wooded area in the vicinity homes to the south of the existing Beryl
Electrical Substation, east of open fields, and west of the Project site.
T9
20
Location 1
in an area. We reviewed maps, aerial photographs, and initial
Location 2
-
residential yard adjacent to a pond and in the vicinity of a cluster of
homes to the west of the Project site.
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.
NEAR THE PROJECT SITE.
4 5
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE AMBIENT SOI-IND LEVELS PRESENT IN LOCATIONS
A.
The measured long-term Ldn sound levels ranged from 49 dBA to 63 dBA, with an
of 54 dBA and a standard deviation of 5.5 dBA across the five monitoring
6
average value
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
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
l5
the Project and,49 to 50 dBA around the nearest receptors to the northeast ofthe Project.
vicinity of Locations
1 and 3 on the
of 55 dBA around the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the southwest of
T6
a.
DOES THE STUDY AREA INCLUDE ANY DOMINANT SOUND SOURCE?
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
22
within one-mile of the Project site was relatively homogeneous.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
Page 9
of
16
I 2
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE
J
4
a.
IN
PREPARING THE
CONSTRUCTION NOISE ESTIMATES.
5
6
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU USED
A.
'We
assumed that construction
fall. The initial activities
of the Project will start in early spring and continue into (Phase
I) will include improvements and new construction
7
late
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-
will
be directly trucked-in from an offsite
10
site batch plants using trucked-in materials or
ll
plant.
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
t7
level contours (Figure 16 in the Acoustical Report) for the simulated worst case of Phase
l8
I
t9
the majority of construction activities
20
and that any construction
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
Phase
II will include erection of the turbine towers
and installation of the turbines;
it displays the Ldn sound
construction occurring simultaneously at each turbine location. We also assumed that
will be conducted during lO-hour daytime
in the evening
and nighttime periods
shifts
will be limited
to
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,
J
a.
by the Siting Rules.
WILL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT NOISE MPACT FOR THE AREAS SURROUNDING PROJECT SITE?
4 5
as required
A.
The construction activity at the site will be temporary, will occur mostly in the daytime
will
produce sounds that are already familiar to the community, including
6
hours, and
7
sounds from home construction. Although construction activity
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.
will
be audible to nearby
l0 1l
l2
ANTICIPATED OPERATIONAL NOISE
a.
IN PREPARING THE
OPERATION NOISE ESTIMATES.
13
t4
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU USED
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
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
2t
based on octave-frequency-band sound pressure levels, downwind conditions with a
22
moderate temperature inversion, and an absorptive ground effect.
model. The Cadna/A program model accounts for spreading losses,
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
I
Page 11
of
a.
WHAT NOISE LEVELS ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR FROM
PROJECT
OPERATION AT THE NEAREST COMMUNITY RESIDENCES?
2 J
16
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
t6
sounds levels for each turbine, and for the entire Project,
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
18
be reduced by more during times with even less wind, including the times below the
t9
minimum cut-off wind speed when the turbines do not operate.
20
a.
will be less than the maximum level. For
example, the predicted Ldn
will be reduced by I dBA
at
will
HOW DO THE SOUND LEVELS THAT WILL OCCUR FROM PROJECT
2l
OPERATION COMPARE TO THE EXISTING AMBIENT SOI.IND LEVELS AT THE
22
RECEPTORS?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
I
Page 12
of l6
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
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
6
measured near those locations.
7
a.
WHAT NOISE IMPACT WILL THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT HAVE ON AREAS SURROI.INDING THE PROJECT?
8
9
noise-sensitive
A.
It is anticipated that the turbine
sound
will be heard at times at the nearest residences.
will most likely be heard is during times when the
l0
The scenario in which the Project
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
15
than 55 dBA, the guideline level identified by the USEPA as protective of the health and
t6
welfare of humans for outdoor recreational areas.
t7
this aÍea
are
all equal to or less
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
l9
several other factors indicate that the actual sound, when heard,
20
guideline. First, the model includes the conservative assumptions that all turbines would
I
will
areas,
be below the USEPA
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),
2
with downwind conditions in all directions and a moderate temperature inversion.
J
For those times when the receptors are upwind or crosswind of the
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
8
and by 24 dB.A or more with the windows closed.
nearest
Second, the nearest residences include those to the southwest of the Project near
9
6. I understand that
10
Location 2 and to the northeast of the Project near Locations 5 and
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.
l8
a.
WHAT DESIGN/CONTROL MEASURES ARE INCORPORATED INTO WIND
t9
TURBINES TO MITIGATE NOISE, AND HOV/ HAVE DESIGN CHANGES IN
20
MODERN TURBINES CHANGED THE SOUND OUTPUT FROM EARLIER
2t
DESIGNS?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No.
09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
I
Page 14
of l6
A.
Modem industrial turbines are equipped with extensive noise control features, including a
2
noise-insulated enclosure over the gearbox and generator, reduced-noise gearbox,
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
7
low frequency sound. When low frequency sound is substantially greater than the
8
background ambient sound,
9
annoyance. The most significant concern of low frequency sound is that
it
may be noticed
of
in the community and can cause 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
I2
low frequency sound is not an issue.
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
t7
be less. In addition, the Project
18
including the main facility transformer.
t9
A.
will
be less; however, the turbine sound emissions
will install high-efficiency, reduced-noise
will
also
transformers,
YOU STATED THAT MODERN WIND TURBINE DESIGN HAS ELIMINATED
20
THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLDER WIND
2t
TURBINES. NONETHELESS, DID YOU INVESTIGATE THE DEGREE OF LOW
22
FREQUENCY NOISE EXPECTED FROM THE PROJECT?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
I
Page 15
of
A.
Although the Siting Rules do not specifically address low frequency sound, we did
16
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
7
component
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
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
t6
is recommended in ANSVASME Standard 8133.8-1977 (R2001) for another type of
17
power facllity.2
of the sound. We measured the C-weighted Ldn
low
frequency
sound levels at the
will be less
limit of 75 to 80 dBC that
18
t9 20
CONCLUSION
A. 2
DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS FOR THE COMMISSION?
| 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
I
Page 16
of
A.
Yes. The estimated facility average Ldn sound levels are all within the range of the daily
16
2
ambient Ldn values that were measured in the area. The fltndings of our noise study
a
J
indicate that the Project
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
8
operate.
will
will produce sound levels that are equal to or lower than
be reduced, including the relatively calm times when the turbines do not
Sounds from Project construction
9
the
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.
t3
a.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMO}TY?
t4
A.
Yes.
Staff Resume JAMES D. BARNES Supervisory Consultant
Aeentpnlt, EDUCATION M. Eng., Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University,
1973
8.S., Mechanical Engineering, Comell University, 1972 Additional Graduate Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
197
6
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS Acentech Incorporated, Cambridge, MA 1989-present Bolt Beranek and Newman hc., Cambridge, MA 1973'1989 Cornell University, Ithaca, l{Y, 197 2'197 3 Johnson Controls, Indianapolis, IN, 1972
HONORS AND PROFESSIONAL SOCMTIES Registered Professional Engineer (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, New York) NASA Fellow, Past Member of Institute of Noise Control Engineering
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROJECTS 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.
PUBLICATIONS, ORAL PRESENTATIONS, AND COMMITTEES "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).
Acentech Incorporated
James D. Barnes
., .1 .,
"A Seminar on Noise Control," seminar presented for Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico with 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). Co-chaired Session on Community Noise at Noise-Con 2@5 with L. Finegold, Minneapolis, MN (October 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
Acentech lncorporated
James D. Barnes Francisco, CA (May 1982).
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).
SPONSORED TECHNICAL REPORTS "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 Report No. 386 (November 2007).
-
Beverly, MA," Acentech
"Acousrical Study of hoposed Mill Maximum Achievable Control Technology Project Acentech Report No. 383 (Ma¡ch zOW).
-
Easton, ME,"
"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) Report No. 384 (June 2006).
-
Stamford, NY," Acentech
"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,
Acentech Incorporated
James D. Barnes
i:!: ,..".-,.i
"Sound Study of Planned Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements at Upper Blackstone Water 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 Puerto Rico," AI Report Nos. 212 and 218 (February 1999).
-
Buildings
I
and2
-
Aguadilla,
"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)'
i
"La Sierra Simple Cycle Power Project - Sound Level Estimates and Recornmendations - La Sierra, Colombia," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0148 (November 1997).
Åcexa të¡iÍt,
James D. Barnes
Acentech Incorporated
Colombia," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0147 (November 1997). "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 Test Report," (January 1995). "Allegany Cogeneration Facility Noise Study," AI Report No. 0125 (September 1994).
"MIT Cogeneration Faciliry Noise Study," AI Report No. 0122, (August 1994). "Acoustical Evaluation of Proposed Changes to East Beverly Substation in Beverly, Massachusetts," Repon No. 0116 (March 1994).
Al
"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). "Georgetown University Cogeneration Project - Background Sound Measurements," AI Technical Memorandum No.0034 (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 MetroNorth Railroad," AI Report No. 0077 (August 1992).
,åc*sa tûcÍt,
James D. Barnes
i,.,,,i
Acentech Incorporated
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).
,
i' :
"Environmental Sound Survey in Vicinity of Mamaroneck Wastewater Treatment Plant," BBN Technical 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.
(May
5521
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).
Acentech [ncorporated
James D. Barnes
!::
,_-
"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).
Complex," BBN Report No. 3844 (November 1978)' "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
Acentech Incorporated
James D. Barnes
"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
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
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. Page 1
Llewelþ
of6
1
a.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A.
V/illiam (Bill) E. Llewellyn, CME Engineering LP, 27 East Main Street,
Frostburg,
Maryland 21532.
J
4
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5
6
a.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
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
9
for the Pinnacle wind power project ("Project").
10
a.
LP AND ITS
EXPERIENCE IN
RELATION TO THE WORK PERFORMED FOR THE PROJECT.
11
l2
PLEASE DESCRIBE CME ENGINEERING
A.
CME Engineering LP ("CME") is a multidisciplinary firm that provides engineering,
13
environmental science, surveying, construction management, material testing, and solid
14
waste services. CME has a staff of over 80 professional and support personnel
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
in four
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 2 of 6
EXPERIENCE
1
2
a
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.
J
A.
As a project director for CME,
of CME's work,
I
have broad responsibilities for many of the technical
as well as managerial and client interface responsibilities.
4
aspects
5
Pinnacle Wind Force
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
is one of those clients. My project management experience
staff. I hold certifications
80%o
of
the
related to surveying and quarry
10
workload for me and my
11
permitting from the West Virginia Board
12
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP"), respectively. Prior to
13
joining CME in 2003,I served as President and CEO of Llewellyn & Associates, Inc.,
t4
company that I purchased
15
individuals.
t6
a.
t9 20
Professional Surveyors and the West
a
1995 and expanded, ultimately employing as many as fifteen
IIAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
I7 18
in
of
A.
Yes. I provided testimony before this Commission in connection with the Liberty wind energy project in2007.
Gap
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 3
of6
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
I 2
a.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR 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
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.
9
a.
with the coordination or preparation of permit applications for
the
CAN YOU DESCRIBE GENERALLY THE SCOPE OF CME'S WORK ON THE
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.
t4
Pinnacle with numerous aspects of the Project, including but not limited to production
15
base mapping, turbine layout, surveying, coordination with other consultants, lease
t6
negotiation support, environmental site assessments, geotechnical support, wetland
1,7
delineations, West Virginia Division
t8
transmission line layout, traffic studies and civil engineering.
t9
I am the CME Project Manager
assigned
of
to the Project. CME has
assisted
of
Highways entrance designs, preliminary
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Case
Page 4 of 6
PERMITTING
2Q.
WHAT PERMITS HAS PINNACLE WORK FORCE APPLIED FOR IN
J
CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT?
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
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
States Fish and
Tyrell. Likewise, the State Historic
V/ildlife Service and West
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
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
t7
application
18
application for a Siting Certificate in this proceeding.
re 20
a.
in the Direct Testimonies of Kate
Kuranda and Jeff
will be requested after the Commission reaches a decision on Pinnacle's
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS ENGINEERS' REVIEW OF THE WETLANDS DELINEATION?
OF
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 5
I
A.
a.
4 5
On January 27,2009, Pinnacle submitted a Wetlands Delineation Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ('USACE") and it is currently under review.
2 J
of6
V/ILL A SECTION 404 DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT?
A.
In consultation with the USACE, Pinnacle Wind Force and CME are currentþ working to
will be affected by the construction of the
6
determine whether any streams or wetlands
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,
9
Project
will
10
should
11
Section
t2
corridors and turbine sites
13
therefore, we do not anticipate the need to f,rle a Section 404 NWP application. However,
t4
if it is determined
15
so advised.
T6
a
however, the USACE determines that the
cause relatively minimal impacts on streams and wetlands, then Pinnacle
qualiff for one of the existing "nationwide permits" (or "NWPs") available under
404.
Pinnacle Wind Force and CME have located road construction, utility
to minimize
disturbance
to
streams and wetlands and,
that a Section 404 approval is necessary, the Commission Staff
will
be
WILL A SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION BE REQUIRED FOR
t7
THE PROJECT?
18
A
I9
state waters results from a federally-permitted action (such as construction under a
20
Section 404 permit).
2I
certification is not required.
22
Section 401 certification is automatic.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from WVDEP when an impact to
If no Section 404 Permit is needed for the Project, then Section
If
401
a Section 404 NWP is required for the Project, then
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 6 of 6
I
a
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE WVDEP REVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR
THE NPDES
2
REGISTRATION UNDER
J
GENERAL PERMIT?
4
A National Pollutant
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
7
Stormwater General Permit on March 17,2009. The application includes a Stormwater
8
Pollution Prevention Plan, a Groundwater Protection Plan, a Spill Prevention Control and
9
Countermeasure Plan, and a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.
CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit
is
A
generally
subsequent
10
revision to the application was made on April 15,2009. V/VDEP is expected to complete
11
its review of the application by June I,2009.
t2
a.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
13
A.
Yes.
PTIBLIC SERVICE COMN/ilSSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
RANDALL A. CHILDS
NI.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Case
Page 1 of6
I
a.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A.
My name is Dr. Randall A. Childs. My business address is 210 Valley Street, Reedsville,
wv
J
26s47.
4
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5
6
a.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
7
A.
I am a
principal
of
Community
&, Economic Development Consultants, hc.
I
("CEDCON"). I am also a research assistant professor in the West Virginia University
9
("WVU") Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
10
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
1l
l2
a
l3 t4
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
BACKGROUND. A.
I
have a bachelor's degree in resource management; a master's degree in resource
I have 17 years
l5
economics; and a Ph.D. in economics from West Virginia University.
t6
experience
l7
have, completed numerous research projects ,and, associated reports on
18
economic impact studies, including wind power projects and coal-fired power plants.
t9
work includes research on the effects of state and national energy policy on the West
20
Virginia economy. My vita, which includes my educational and professional
2I
qualifications, is attached as Exhibit A to this testimony.
workng
as an economist at
WVU and more than 10 years as a consultant. I
,a variety- of My
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 2 of 6
1 Q. 2
HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC
3 A.
Yes,
4
Wind Force power project.
SERVICE
COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
I
previously testif,red before the Commission in connection with the Liberfy Gap
5
6
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
7 A 8 A.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY.
9
and Mineral County economies associated with the construction and operation of the
l0 I
I
The purpose of my testimony is to address the economic impacts on the West Virginia
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind Force") wind power project ("Project").
A.
DID YOU
PERFORM
AN ANALYASIS OF THE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
12
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
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
17
Appendix "N" of the application.
18
AND OPERATION OF
THE
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Case
Page 3
of6
I 2
THE IMPLAN@ MODEL
a.
THE APPLICATION INDICATES THAT THE IMPLAN@ MODEL WAS USED TO
THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
J
DEMONSTRATE
4
CONSTRUCTING
5
DESCRIBE THE IMPLAN@ MODNL.
6
A.
ASSOCIATED WITH
AND OPERATING THE PROJECT. PLEASE
BRIEFLY
IMPLAN@ is an economic model that allows users to estimate the economic impact of an
7
activity or business on a state or regional economy. IMPLAN@ is utilized by government
8
agencies
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
13
developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States Department
t4
Energy. IMPLAN@ has also been used by universities and private consultants to provide
l5
the economic impacts of numerous other projects.
t6
a.
t7
l8
at all levels (federal,
state, and local), as
in the Jobs and Economic
well as universities and private
Development Impact
or JEDI model that was of
WHAT TYPE OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS IS TITE IMPLAN@ IVTOOEL CAPABLE OF ESTIMATING?
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
lQ.
PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT, INDIRECT,
2
AND INDUCED EFFECTS.
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
8
businesses
9
effecf' of the original spending of the project for goods and services purchased from
created as these other businesses purchase goods and services from yet other
in the state or region. Thus the indirect impacts measure the "multiplier
within the state or region. The induced impacts measure the spending and re-
10
businesses
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.
t4
a.
W}IAT ASSUMPTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT DID YOU USE WITH
l5
RESPECT TO THE IMPLAN@ MODEL?
l6
The economic impacts presented hère and in the Report assume that the Project will be
l7
constructed in Mineral County,
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
WV with a total construction cost of $131 million. It
is
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 5
of6
ECONOMIC IMPACT DURING CONSTRUCTION
2 a. 3
WILL THE CONSTRUCTTON OF THE PROJECT PRODUCE ANY EFFECTS ON
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
9
employee compensation.
THE ECONOMY?
increased
10 A. II
WHAT KIND OF INDIRECT AND INDUCED JOBS IS THE PROJECT CAPABLE
12 A.
The jobs created by the indirect and induced effects of expenditures associated with the
13
Project
14
numerous industries in the county and state as the businesses and employees purchase a
15
wide variety of goods and services.
17
REVENUES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?
18 A.
The economic activity attributable to the Project during construction
19
approximately $603,000 in additional assorted state taxes.
20
OF SUPPORTING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?
will not be in just a few select
industries, but rather jobs
will be created in
will
generate
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 6
of6
ECONOMIC MPACT DURING OPERATION
1
2
a.
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY FOR THE LOCAL AREA AND THE STATE?
J
4
ONCE OPERATIONAL, V/ILL THE PROJECT CONTINUE TO GENERATE NEW
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
6
S705,000 annually
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.
10
a.
1l T2
in
increased employee compensation. The impacts on the West
IN SUMMARY, WILL THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE LOCAL AND STATE ECONOMY?
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.
t7
a.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMO}TY?
l8
A.
Yes, it does.
l9
Randall A. Childs, Ph.D. CONTACT INFORMATION Office: 318 Business and Economics
Flome:
Building
Bureau of Business and Economic Research College of Business and Economics \üüest Virginia
210 ValleyStreet Reedsville, UIV 26547 Phone: (304) 86+0543 Cellulan (304) 233-0689
Univenity
Morgantown, WV 26506 - 6025
Phone:
Fax:
Q04) 293-7832 (304) 293-7061
E-lvIaiL
randy.childs(a mail.wvu.edu
P.O. Box 398
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
Masterof Science in Resourre Economics Vest Virginia University, Morgantown,
W'esr
Virgi"i"
Janraary1993
Bachelor of Science in Resource Management West Virginia Universiry, Morgantown, Wesr Viryinia lvlay 1990
RELEVAI{T EMPLOYI4ENT 2008 - present
Research Assist¿nt Professor, Wesr Virginia
UnivenþBureau of Business
and Economic Research
2000. presenr 1999
- 2008
Princþl; C.ommunity & Economic Develo¡iment fünsuha¡ts; Inc. Economisq West Virginia UnivenþBureau of Business and Economic Research
1993
- t999
Business Research Analysq west
virginia univenþBureau of Business and
Economic Research 1992
Database Specialist, \üüest Virginia Economic Research
UnivenþBureau of
Business and
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS Childs, Randall. "Effect of Excise Taxation on Demand for Gasoline byGrade' Significantly hþher gasoline prices and the effecs these price increases have had on consumers and businesses has become increasingly imponant. In additior\ these large increases in price have led to an increasing interest into the way in which gasoline is talred gallon unit tær vs. ad valorem sales tæ<). The large inc¡ease in gasoline prices coupled with the per gallon gasoline ta:<es prcvalent in most states has dramaticallyincreased state highway departrrcnt's expenditures without incrcasing the state's tax rcvenu€ ¡p"lized from the gasoline ta:r, a major revenue source for manystate highway departments. This paper examines the inefficiencies created bythe unit tax on gasoline and thus provides fu¡ther justification for ad valorem taxes on gasoline in place of the popular unit tax This paper also. examines the dra¡natic decrease in the sha¡e of premium qp9li". T pd*: -"f regular and prcmium increased bythe same dolla¡ amount... an apparcnt contradiction of the Alchian and Allen Theorern-
þr
Childs, Rândall and George Fhmmond. "Smoking Regulation's Effect on Employment: An Establishment-Iævel Panel Daa Anallris " Numercus governrnental jurisdictions across the countryhave adoptcd partiai orcornplete smoking b""s based, at least pafiiâlly, on the negative heahh effects of second-hand smoke. These smoking rcgu.Læions rnayaffect onlya ponion of buinesses (e.g. rcstau?nts) or mayinclude all businesses in the jurisdiction There have been numerous sudies on the effects of these regulatiors on the local economywith some studies reportiry a positive change or no change in economic activþ dæ to the regulanior¡ while other srudies reporting a negative effect on local economic activiry. The effects of smoking bans has become of increasing importance to people in \Øest Vugi"i" as manyof the counry heafth departments in the state have considered or are considering some type of smoking ban for their counry. Indee4 Monongalia Coutrty, V.Va. is currentlydebæints proposed smoking ban for " throughout \{tesr Virginia the counry. This research uses a panel dæa set of individual estabfishments from 1990 to 2006 and thus addresses the weakness inhercnt in the previous research thæ examined onlythe net change in employment or sales forthe local economyand ignores the possible offsening effecr on individual businesses.
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.
*d Randâll-Childs. 'Do People ReallyVoæ with Their"Feetl A Spatial Economeuic A""t)"ir of lvßA to IvISA lr4gration Flows' Using IvISA to MSA migration flows for the period 1995-2000, this paper seels to determine if local
.Nesbit, Todd, Kerry-King,
expendirures on educatior¡ heafth, and socìal q¡elfa¡r together with ta¡res influence the choice ro move from one lvlSA to another. Following a method set fonh in a working paper by Lesage and Pace (2008), we empþa spatial econometric technique to account forthe neighbor influences at both the origin and destination of each lvßÀ \X/hile most studies of this natu¡e only examine mþration flows between lvßA's, our model also incoqporates those who mþrued within their origin lvßA Ou.t our primarygoal is to determine if local public expendfuures and taxarion policies do, in fact, influence where people choose to move.
lt
Childs, Randall and Ar¡ri Chester. "Valuing the Public Funding of the West Virginia Fleakh Science
and Technology .Academy'
Childs, Randall. "Does Tax Increment Financing Increase Business Growth?" 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
auaü$ A Test of the Alchian
and Allen
Theorem"
ACADEMIC CONFE RENCE PRE SE NTAÏIONS Southem Economic Association (Presenter), New Orleans, LA (Nov. 2002) "smoking Regulation's Effect on Employment: An Est¿blishment-Iævel Panel Data Analysis"
GRAI{T. SIJPPORTE D RE SE ARCH PUBLICATIONS Eæwricfupø {\Y/øt Vtìginia Unixeßiry FY2007, Arrryfúgginbotharn, Randall .\ Childs, and Tom S.]üüitt" February2OO8
,
Eæwric_Inpø Childs,
{tln
lVatviryinia
SM
BüWAr¿tlørity FVZ003-FY2007, Rândall ,A.
fttober2007
Eøwriclnpø
{B&
pø
{ A t\
Panux ot
the ÀA owgilia Cn øny E
Inpo
{ A t\
Pattax m
t}te
E
æwric h
AùÌù USA, Randall .{. Childs, lv1ay2007 æwgt, Randall ,{. Chlds, December
2Q06 E
æwric
2006 E
æwric hrpø
2006
t
æ*r,¡, t"Wa
M uwqnlid Ca,rty
E
wwry
Rândall
,\
Childs, December
{ A n s Panax or tlæ M owgilia Canty E øwny Randall ,A. Childs, Dece mber {
th I,lwEdHa Natioal Forct Pl¿n R""d"ll
A
Childs, nprit
20062007 Væt Virginid Cnrty Data Ptú16, Kwasi Yeboah and Randall 2006
A
ZOO6
Childs, August
ThEúwichpø{VatVi?giniaUnùmtty,Ctristiadiand RandallA Childs, 2005-2006 2005
Vat
Viryiniø C-a,øry Daa
Ml6, Kwasi Yeboah and Randall ,\
August 2005
Chlds, Augr.st
E
æwric
{ RØriÌS Rtuer, Randa[ À Childs, July 200 5
Inpa
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
æwric Inpø lvlay2004
{ t}æ Sronøt Towc C.oter m ilæ Mqwgilia eaxy E æwy, Randâll ,4. Childs,
E
2003-2004 W'øtViryinia Cnaty Daa 2003
Eæwric Cntrih.tisr
A
{
tLÊ
A
Childs, August
Cotnr Heahh SyrøninVøt Vi@niaRandall
Childs,January2003
2002-2003 W'øt Viryinia Cnaty Data
æwric Cotrihtisx
t@øtiur {Pûstial tE
Kwasi Yeboah and Randall
MatmA¡e¿ lutdirnl
2002 E
IW4
m.lVatviT
Ml4
Chris Condon and Randall
À
Childs, August
{ Pouø Plarc in l{øø.t&y, Randall A Childs, lvlay 2OO2 Ewwric Inpæ
{høihx
Bøh\ Natinal Erng Pdþ
æú
uarqic P lørnirg før E æwnic Daelqmt Bt& e a¡d H C-øatiø, Randall George W. Hammond, and Jim Fairbanh November 2001 S
E
uwric Inpø
and
lgûoFdlow
fuia,rüffrlliamS. Reece and Randall ,{- Childs, lvlay2002
'\ Childs,
{ 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
Eæwric Inpo {tlß Bafurrszille Expitim@ø,Terrell Ellis and Randall
A
Childs,
September2000 2000-2001WætViryinia
CnatyDaaIWl6,
CLris Condon and Randâll
A
Childs, August
2000
Eøwnic Inpø {lï/æt Viryfuia Unirusiry FY 1998,R^ndall Tom S. VÍ:r'r,,lv[ay L999
Euwric
lrpo
A
Childs, David Greensrreer, and
{ru Wbriø 1998,Rêrdall ,\ Childs and Tom S. !üin, lvlay t999
æwric hrpø February 1999
E
{ M anxaùwz
Raæ Tra& ard Ganirq Rø,ort F iscil
Yør
1
99
I , Randall ,{. Childs
TrardardTarismEæwniclnpø 1997lVstviryinia (anaþis onÌ¡), Randall ,A. Childs
,
and
David Greenstreet, July 1999 1999-2000 W'æt Viryinia Cnaty Daø and Randall Á" Childs,July 1999
Ilatm
Cøûty
Lab
Ml4
Chris C¡ndon, Brian
kg",
Cathleen Criswell,
Mathø Datahse, Brian Lego and Randall ..{. Childs, June 1999
\YøtViryiniaUniwsþ\ CnxributimnVïøtViryinia\ ExpotBaseFY 1998,Randâll.A" Childs, David Greenstreet, and Tom S. rü(i'rtt, lvla¡Th 1999
Rqinal Daa Wils RqtmVIII, AndySuper and Randall ,{- Childs, À4arch 1999 1998-1999
\YatViryiniaCaatyDaalfiln,Rândall,A. Childs
and Chris C-ondon, Iaruary
1999
VatVitginia Brci¡øs ûdEØwricRedeqvarious issues 1994 - 1999
Eøwric Inpø {V/VHTC} Merrhr Cnrrynis
dnd Ferdb Sqprtd Fatilitiø in North Væt Virglnia 19961997,David Greenstreet and RandyChilds, December 1998
høtmcoaty LdhrMûhøDatahse,Rândall A
Gtrdl
Childs, lvlay 1998
Pleasart CãnúyFadM, Randall,A. Childs, 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
øwric Irpa Histsric l+wffiztitt in W'st ViTginia, Randall and TomS.lX/itt, September 1997
{
E
'Rqioul Daø Pæoruc
lffIe
Hrþkrú
Rqìm VIII,
S:etge
Karalli
¿rnd
Randall
A
A
Childs, David Greensrreer,
drilds; Juþ 1997
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,
1
994- 1 99 5
Plezsam
Rândall A" Childs, August 1995
lVøt V iryinia Cnrty Daa Wilß, Randâll ,A' Chìlds, August I 994
CsûtyFaûM, RandallA Childs,
1994
1993-1994
VøtViryiniøCnatyDaa Ws,Randall ,4. Childs, August 1993
1992-1993 wæt
Qtalþ btptoørert
Vahãrg Vatø Randall
A
viryinidca'myDaa Wl*,Randall in
tlæ
a childs, Seprember
MowrytMa Natioal Forct Usag
1992
&tugvx
Vdh4arim,
Childs, Jalrnnry 1993
REtEVAi\iT GRAI{TS ANID CONTRACTS
Fb*-g
Iøèst Virginia
Ftr"*-g
Development Fund, "Economic Impact of the ìùØest Virginia Development Fund," ï24,500, 2007
Briclc.Street Insurance, "Economic Impact of
\üV Emplopn Mun¡al Insurance C-ompan¡"
$15,000,2002
\irg¡lvrginia School Building Authority, "Economic Impact of the \Øest Virginia School Building Authority FY2003-FII2007,'
$5,OOO, 2OOZ
Trans Alleghenylntentate Line Compan¡ Economic Impact of 500KV
Powerline and
fusociated IGCC Power Plants, $16,000, 2007 Bridge Ctimb IJSA' "Economic Impacr of Bridge Climb
USÀ"
$1O,OOO,2OOZ
National Instituæ of Justice, "Economic Impact of the Forensic Indusrry," $600,000, 2OO52007
Ans lvtronongahela,'Economiclmpact of Aru Patron's Spending on the Monongalia Connty Econom¡" $20,000 þrincipal investigator), 200+2006 USDAForest Service,lvtronongahela National Forest, "Economic Impact of Land and Resource lvlanagement Plan," $17,687 (co-principal investigator) ,200í-2006
land Resources Comganies, LLq "Economic Impact of Roaring River," $10,000 (coproject director, principal investigator), 2005 ]üíest Vlrginia
Division of Forestry "Economic Contributions of Wesr Virginia's Foresrs,"
$80,000 þroject director), 2005-2006
lvlanhall CountyCommission and the Ohio Valleylndustrial and Btsiness Development Corporatron, "lvlanh3ll CountyRegion: Fconomic Development and Strategic Ph;," $55,000 (co projecr director, co-principal investigator), 2OO4 Progress Alliance, "Jefferson C-ounry, Ohio ClusrerAnallais," $18,500 (co-principal
investigator) ,2003 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 Charleston A¡ea lvfedical C-orporation, "Economic Impact of investigator) ,2002
Fill $
E¿ Associates, Inc., "Economic Impact of 10,500 þrincipal investigator), 2002
CAMG"
$15,OOO
þrincipal
Kentucþ Electric Power Generation Planß,"
U.S. Envi¡onmental Protection Agenc¡ Economic Analysis of the Impacts of l\íountaintop Mining Resuictions on the Economyof 'West Vttgini", 5120,291(co-principal investigatorf 2000 Preservation Alliance of rü(i'est Vttgioi", Inc., Fleritage Tou¡ism Demonstmrion Projecg $20,000 (ceprincipal investþator), 2000
Terrell Ellis Er Associates, Economic Impact of the Bartounville Exposition Gnter, $4,500 þrincipal investigator), 2000 Sgæ o!
rü(lest Viqginia,
Joint C.ommission on Govemment and Finance, Economic Impacs of Modifying Mounaintop tvtining and ValleyFills in Vest Virginiâ, $185,000 (coprincipal investþator) ,2000 The Greenbrier Resort lvlanagement Company, An fuat)rsis of the Increased Economic C-ontributions of The Greenbrier 7999 $2A,Q00 (co-principal director),2000 President's Office, Iüf'estVirginia University, Economic Impact of $16,000 þrincipal investigator), 1998
rü(i'est
Virginia Univeniry,
President's Office, Vest Virginia Univenity,lü(/est Virginia Univeniry's C,ontribudon to West Virginia's Export Base, $12,000 þrincipal investigator) ,lggï
The Greenbrier Resort lvlanagement Compan¡ Economic Impact of The Greenbrier Resort, $6150 (coprincipal director), 1998 lvlarketVision Research Inc., Economic Impact of West $22,7 84 (co-principal investigator), 199 8
V"Bi"i" Travel
and Tourisn¡
Mountaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort, lt¿lou¡rtaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort Impact Stud¡ $8,200 þrincipal investigator), 1998
Pre¡t9n CountyEconomic Development Authoriuy, Presron Counrylabor lvlarket Study and Outlooh $S,8OO (co-principal investigatorwith George \üØ. Fbmmond), 1998 Preservation Alliance of W'est Vttgitti", Economic Impact of Füstoric Preservation in West
Vttgitti", $ 10,309 (co-principal investigator), lgg7
\üest Vi¡ginia FÍgh TechnologyConsortium For¡ndation, Economic Impact of WVFITCF ì¡Iemben and FederallySuppon Facilities, $30,608 (co-principal investigator),1997 Potomac State C.ollege, Potomac Ffuhtands Region I¿borlvlarlat Stud¡ $10,000 þrincipal invesrigator) , L997 Pleasants C.ountyDevelopment
Authorir¡ Pleasants C-ountyFactbooh
investþator) ,1997
$4,OOO
þrincipal
Governor's Office, State of Vest Virginia,'$ü'est Vi"gi"ir Business and Economic Information Spter¡ $30,000 þroject director and principal investþator), L99S SE
LE CTE D NON. CONFE RE NCE PRE SE NTATIONS/ LE CTURE S Commr¡nitf Development Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, Ilnderstanding Yor:r Regional Econom/
W
(September 2006)
W
(September 200ó)
"
CommunityDevelopment Institute " Economic Impact Anallais"
-
East (Presenær), Charleston,
2006 GovemoCs Conference on Ftrousing (Panelist), Charleston, WV (September 2006) "Condition of Ftrousing in \ü'est VLBinia"
CommunityDevelopment Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, WV (September IJndentanding Your Regional E conomy''
2OO5)
Economics, Environmenl and Education in West Vogi"i" (Presenter), Elkins, \üøV 2005) "Economic C-ontributions of \Øest Virginia's Foresrs"
(l"ly
"
Cnmmunity Development Institute "Economic Modeling"
-
East (Presenter), Charleston, I7V (Sepæmb er 2004)
local Government Iæadenhip Academy(Presenter), Morgantown,'ùøV (April 2002) "Economic Development Strategies forrü(/est Virginia: Regional Perspecrives and Breakout Sections" Numerous oth€I presglÍations of study resuhs presentrd to board of dir.ecton, ar press èonferenCèi,'iô legislaiivé commiuees, erc.
CONSUI,TING PROJECTS Economic Irypact of Liberry Gap W'rnd Power Facility (Provided testimony for the ÏØesr V"Bi"i" Public Service Commission) Condition of \)íest VuBi"i" Ftrousing byProperryTax District and Implications to Local Public Finance
Economic Impact of Flousing C-onstruction by Type of Ftrotsing for Selected C-ounties and the Staæ of W'est Vugi"i" Economic Importance of Mining and Loggrng on Counties in Southem West Virginia Various other labor marl¡et studies and economic impact studies
PROFE SSIONAL MEMBE RSHIPS National Tax Association American E conomic fu sociation Southern E conomic fu sociation Southem Regional Science Association
REFERENCES Dr. Russell S. Sobel Professor of Economics James Cla¡k CofÊnan Distinguished Chair Department of Economics West Virginia University P.O. Box 6025 Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 Offi ce Phone: (304) 293 -7 864 Email : rssobel(Omail.wvu.edu
Dr. George W. Hammond Associate Director Bureau of Business and Economic Research West Virginia University P.O. Box 6025 Morgantown, W'est Virginia 26506 Offi ce Phone: (304) 293 -7 87 6 Email : [email protected] Dr. Todd M. Nesbit Assistant Professor of Economics Sam & Irene Black School of Business Penn State - Erie, The Beh¡end College 5l0l Jordan Road Erie, Pennsylvania 16563 Office Phone: (814) 898-6326 Email: tmnl [email protected]
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA
CTIARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
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
I
Q. 2 A. 3
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
My name is Jeffrey H. Maymon, M.A. My business address is R. Christopher Goodwin SLAssociates,
lnc.,24I East Fourth Street, Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland 21701
4
5
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6 A. 7 A.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
8 g
Associates") as a Senior Project Manager for Archeology in the Frederick, Maryland,
I
am employed by R. Christopher Goodwin &. Associates, Inc. ("Goodwin
&.
office. i
10 a. I1
PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES AND ITS WORK IN
RELATION
i
TO CULTURAL RESOURCES.
l2A.Goodwin&Associatesisatwenty-eight-year-oldcu1tura1reSourcemanagementfirm
firm
13
with a national practice in the fuIl spectrum of the preservation disciplines. Our
14
provides comprehensive services in history, architectural history, historic
15
planning, terrestrial archeology, and underwater archeology. We mainJain offices in
16
Frederick, Maryland; New Oleans, Louisiana; Tallahassee, Florida; and Lawrence,
17
Kansas.
l8
standards established by the Secretary of the Interior in their respective f,relds.
All of our professional staff
preservation
meet or exceed the professional qualification
i :
i
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon PageZ of1 Case
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
2 A. 3
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
4 A.
I have more than twenty-six
5
management, including fifteen years
6
managed
7
archeological surveys
8
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, Connecticut,
9
and
l0
BACKGROUND. years
of experience in archeology and cultural
resource
of work in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
I
have
a wide range of cultural resource projects ranging from small Phase I
Maine. I hold
a
to large data recoveries in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia,
B.A. in Anthropology from the University of New Hampshire and an
M.A. in Anthropology from Binghamton University.
11
12
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
13 a. 14 A.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTMONY.
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
18
application filed in this case.
t9
The purpose of my testimony is to describe the cultural resource investigations in
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Page 3
of7
I 2
AGENCY CONSULTATION
a
PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN
&
ASSOCIATES' CONSULATIONS WTIH THE
a
J
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE AND HISTORY FOR THE WORK
4
UNDERTAKEN TO IDENTIFY ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
5
RELATING TO THE PROJECT.
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
9
historical investigations for the project. Archeological investigations were initiated in
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
13
resources anticipated occurred at this time.
t4
a.
l5
to discuss scoping architectural
and
PURSUANT TO THE CONSULTATION WITH WVSHPO, PLEASE PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN
I6 t7
A.
Pursuant to the initial consultation, a Phase I Archeological Survey was conducted within
to
all
l8
a
t9
associated
20
engineers, this survey corridor varied between 500 and 800 feet wide and extended for
2t
approximately 3.27 miles along the ridgetop.
survey corridor that was intended
encompass
ground-disturbing activities
with construction and operation of the wind farm. Defined by project
A
narrower interconnection corridor
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Case
Page 4 of 7
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
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.
A
7
total
of
in the northern portion of the project area. A
448 shovel tests were excavated
by
Goodwin &, Associates
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),
liuer. The testing was conducted
t0
exposed rock, or rock immediately beneath the leaf
ll
15 meter (50
t2
corridors, which generally followed the mountain ridge. The shovel tests each measured
13
a minimum of 50 square centimeters of soil and were excavated to a minimum depth
t4
l0
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.
I9
were screened through
at
ft) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 ft) apart along the survey
of
centimeters into culfurally sterile subsoil, except where soil conditions prevented fulI
Yo
All
excavated soils
inch hardware cloth.
20
Nine archeological sites were identified within the survey area during
2t
investigations. Five of the sites (designated as sites 46Mi76, 46M177, 46M178, 46M179,
these
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
4
stones, confirming that
5
46Mí82) represent remains of possible historic stills in a wooded area north of Green
6
Mountain Road. These sites are charactenzed by a circular feature constructed by
7
removing natural stone from a central area and stacking
8
One site (46Mi75) consists of a single isolated chert flake and was likely the byproduct
9
shaping or sharpening a stone tool.
markers. The characters "COR No 21 NC Co" were carved into one of these
it represented a survey marker. Two other sites (46Mi81,
it to form a low circular wall. 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
13
cluster of rock cairns/walls is located in one of the few locations along the ridge where a
t4
plowzone was observed
15
suggested that these cairns/walls were the result of
t6
early twentieth century. These sites do not appear to possess either substantive research
ti
potential or those qualities of significance as defined by the National Register Criterial.
l8
No further work was recommended at any of the nine sites.
eastern margin
of the ridge, this
in soil profiles. The thicker soil deposits and plowzone field clearing during the nineteenth or
t9
I The criteria for evaluating properties for the National Register are found in the Code of Federal CFR 60.4 [a-d].
Regulations at 36
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Case
Page 6
of7
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND STUDY
1
2a
DID GOODWIN
J
IDENTIFY KNOWN ARCTIAEOLOGICAL SITES NEAR THE PROJECT AREA
4
THAT ARE BEYOND THE DIRECT AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ("APE'')?
5
A.
&
ASSOCIATES CONDUCT BACKGROUND RESEARCH TO
Goodwin &, Associates conducted background research as part
of the Phase I
6
Archeological Survey for the Project. This background research compiled information on
7
known archeological sites and historic properties that, while not within the Project APE,
8
are located within 5 miles of the Project
9
2008 and included examination of site files at the Division of Culture and History in
to
corridor. The research was conducted in
June
l0
Charleston, West Virginia,
ll
examine archeological studies conducted within the 5 miles of the Project area. None
t2
the 21 archeological sites recorded
l3
for or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
t4
a.
l5 T6
document previously recorded archeological sites and
of
within the 5-mile area were determined to be eligible
HAVE YOU PROVIDED THE RESULTS OF THE PHASE
I ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY TO WVSHPO?
A.
Yes:
The
background - research;- methods, and
-results of '.the - Phase-- I
t7
Archaeological Survey, along
recorlmendations
of
Goodwin
l8
Associates, are contained in a draft Phase I Archeological Survey
for
the Proposed
t9
Pinnacle Wind Project, Mineral County, West Vìrginia ("Archeological Survey
20
Report") that was submitted to the WVSHPO on March 11,2009.
with the
A
&,
redacted
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon PageT of7
I
version of the Archeological Survey Report is included in Appendix
2
application filed in this case.
3 Q. 4 A.
HAS WVSHPO RESPONDED TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT?
No. To date, Goodwin &
5
Archeological Survey Report from the WVSHPO.
6 a. 7 A.
DOES THrS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? Yes, it does.
"Y" to the
Associates has not received any formal response
to
the
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CIIARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia
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
I of 10
Q. 2 A.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
3
Associates,
My name is Kathryn M. Kuranda. My business address is R. Christopher Goodwin & Inc.,Z4l E. 4th Street, Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland
21701.
4
5
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6 Q. 7 A.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
8
Associates") as Senior Vice President for Architectural & Historical Services.
9 Q. 10 I
I
A.
I
am employed with R. Christopher Goodwin
PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN
&
&
Associates, Inc. ("Goodwin &
ASSOCIATES, INC., AND ITS WORK IN
RELATION TO CULTURAL RESOURCES. Goodwin
&
Associates is a twenty-eight-year-old cultural resources management firm
12
with a national practice in the firll spectrum of the preservation disciplines. Our firm
13
provides comprehensive services in history, architectural history, historic preservation
14
planning, terrestrial archeology, and underwater archeology. We maintain offices in
15
Frederick, Maryland; New Orleans, Louisiana; Tallahassee, Florida; and Lawrence,
l7
standards established by the Secretary of the Interior in their respective fields.
18
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
l9
20 A. 2I
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
BACKGROI.IND.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 2
I
A.
of
I
10
hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in American Studies from Dickinson College and
a
Master of Architectural History degree from the University of Virginia. My professional
2
qualifications exceed those established by the Secretary of the Interior in the field of architectural history.
4
I am a court-qualified architectural historian.
Prior to joining Goodwin
5
&
Associates
in 1989, I
served as the architectural
I coordinated the
6
historian with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, where
7
state's program for built resources, and as Architectural Historian with the Bureau
8
Reclamation at their headquarters office in Denver. Since joining Goodwin
9
as a Senior Project
of
& Associates
Manager in 1989, I have served as Principal Investigator on numerous
10
architectural identification, evaluation, planning, and management projects across the
11
nation. I currently direct the architectural history and history programs of Goodwin &
12
Associates company-wide.
13
t4
PURPOSE OF
TESTMO}ry
l5
a.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTMONY.
16
A.
The purpose of my testimony is to describe the cultural resource investigations in history
17
and architectural hisiory completeJ UV à""¿*io
18
Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind Force") in Mineral County, West Virginia.
t9
A errociates on U"t um of piooacte
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 3
of
10
1
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
2 Q. 3
WERE ANY FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCIES CONSULTED CONCERNING THE
4
RESOURCES? IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN.
5 A.
Yes.
6
("WVSHPO") was initiated in February 2008. Representatives of Pinnacle Wind Force
I
and Goodwin
8
Preservation Officer, and Ms. Ginger Williford, Structural Historian, on 13 February
9
2008 to discuss project scope, methodologies, and reporting.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE WORK DONE TO IDENTIFY CULTURAL
Consultation
&
with the West Virginia Division of Cultural and
Associates met
History
with Ms. Susan Pierce, Deputy State Historic
A
summary
of
this
t0
discussion was submitted
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
t3
coordination was maintained with the WVSHPO throughout the investigation.
t4 a. 15
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SCOPE OF WORK PROPOSED
16 A.
The Scope of Work defined a two-phase investigation. Phase I included five tasks:
17
1.
WVSHPO
for review on 20
February
By
2008.
GOODWIN &
Refine Area of Potential Effects ("APE") through computer modeling and field verification;
2.
Develop the historic context appropriate to the assessment of built resources within the APE;
21
In
ASSOCIATES TO WVSHPO.
r8
19
to
3.
lnitiate public outreach to identiff resources of importance to the community;
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 4
of
10
4.
1
Complete reconnaissance-level survey of all resources rel="nofollow">50 yr of age within the APE; and
2
5.
J
Identify resources requiring further investigation, including intensive-level
4
survey.
5
The APE for the proposed Pinnacle wind power project ("Project") was defined to
effects. The area of direct effects was defined as the
6
address both direct and indirect
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
l1
modeling and verified in the field.
l2
a.
THIS EFFORT?
l3 14
WHAT KINDS OF RESEARCH DID GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES UNDERTAKE IN
A.
Archival research was undertaken to identify previously recorded historic properties and
15
to develop the historic context appropriate to the assessment of previously unidentified
t6
resources
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
20
include coal, timber, railroad, settlement, transportation, and education.
within the refined APE. Archival research was completed at the Keyser-
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 historical concern from the general public. Reconnaissance-level architectural survey to locate and to identifu built resources
older than 50 years was completed for both the areas of direct and indirect effects. Three 5
objectives were established for the field investigation:
6
1.
the Project area;
7
2.
8
3.
l0
a.
a
view of the proposed tower locations; and,
To identiff resources requiring Phase II investigation to determine Project effects.
PLEASE REVIEW THE RESULTS
OF THE PHASE I AND PHASE II
INVESTIGATIONS.
t2 13
To complete reconnaissance-level survey of all resources 50 years of age or older
within the APE with
9
11
To veriff and to refine the areas likely to be in the viewshed within five miles of
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
l5
were presented in a detailed technical report, Pinnacle Wind Project Phase
I Investigation
t6
for Architectural and Structural
t7
review and comment on23 June 2008. The 'WVSHPO concurred with the findings of the
l8
Phase
t9
Resources,
investigation
which was submitted the WVSHPO for
I investigation in correspondence dated 3 July 2008. The Phase
II investigations included intensive-level field survey, evaluation,
of the Project.
and
20
effects determinations for 21 properties that may have views
21
properties include 17 buildings,
22
Property lnventory Forms with accompanying graphic and photographic materials were
I
These
district, and 3 cemeteries. West Virginia Historic
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 6
of
10
righrof-
I
prepared for each of the resources; all survey data was compiled from the public
2
way. The integrity of
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.
7
Phase
II
each property was assessed, and individual resources and districts
investigations were
initially
recommended
for 26
properties.
8
Modifications to the Project led to the reduction of the APE in consultation with the
9
WVSHPO. As a result, Phase II investigations were undertaken for
l0 1l
including 17 buildings,
1
2t
properties,
district, and 3 cemeteries.
The investigation identified a total
of
18 properties that meet the National
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
t7
for National Register consideratioo
l8
completed
t9
Inventory forms ("HPI").
20
for
B.
The remaining properties possess the significance and integrity
*¿r,
Criterion
each resource and was included
C. A staternent of significance
was
in West Virginia Historic Properfy
Three cemeteries also were documented under Phase
II investigation. Although
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
II
documentation submitted to WVSHPO.
All HPI forms
and accompanying
I
the Phase
2
graphic and photographic documentation were submitted to the WVSHPO as part of the
J
Phase tr technical report.
4
a.
HOTV WERE EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES DETERMINED?
5
A.
Following guidance provided
in 36 CFR
800.5, analysis was completed to identifii
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
11
property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. It
t2
was determined that the Project
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
15
investigation. Unrelated contemporary construction already is present within
t6
viewsheds of eight of these properties, and therefore a visual impact already exists at
1.7
these properties.
18
a.
have no direct effect on properties listed in, or
the
WHEN DID YOU PROVIDE THE PHASE II INVESTIGATION REPORT TO TVVSHPO, AND WHAT WAS ITS RESPONSE?
t9 20
will
A.
The Phase tr lnvestigation for Architectural and Structural Resources was submitted to
2l
WVSHPO 26 February 2009 during a consultation meeting with representatives of
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 historic resources were included with the Phase II submission.
A
12 March 2009 review letter from WVSHPO regarding the Phase II
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
t2
result
13
contemporary development already within the viewshed. Indirect effects to 10 additional
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
t7
identified and docurneoi.¿
18
in a cumulative
indirect effect
*
u
r"r.rfiof
the
to
those resources when combined with
".rrr"niinvestigation.
WVSHPO also requested that the acoustical study of the Project be submitted to
t9
their off,rce for review to address possible effects to historic property from
20
generated
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
noise
by the Project. An electronic version of the Acoustical Study of Proposed
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
listed in the National Register of Historic Places."
WVSHPO recommended that the identified effects be mitigated through stipulations defined
in a Memorandum of
Agreement ("MOA") negotiated among
Pinnacle Wind Force and the WVSHPO. These negotiations had been initiated during
meeting. This MOA will define measures to mitigate the
adverse
8
the 26 February 2009
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
12
fulfill requirements for architectural and historical
r3
particular $ 82-2-5: State Review Process.
resources pursuant
to 82 CSR 2, in
t4
a.
ARE ANY RESOURCES WITHIN THE APE LISTED IN THE NRHP?
15
A.
Review of the National Register filed maintained by the WVSHPO identified ¡wo
of Historic
t6
properties within the APE that are listed in the National Register
t7
These are the Mineral County Courthouse, listed in 2005, and the Thomas R. Carskadon
18
House, which was designated
t9
architectural investigations as part of the Keyser historic district.
20 a.
SECTION 15 OF THE PSC APPLICATION STATES THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE
21
FILING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY, THE PROJECT LAYOUT WAS
in 2002. These properties
were included
Places.
in
the
MODIFIED, THEREBY REDUCING THE APE. HOW HAS THIS MODIFICATION
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 10
of
10
AFFECTED THE CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED
IN THE ARCHITECTURAL
2
SURVEY?
3 A.
Analysis of the modified layout and photo simulations of the tower turbine anay in
4
September 2008 refined the APE for Phase
5
from further study. While these properties will not have views to the Project and are
6 j
outside the APE, West Virginia Historic Property Inventory Forms were prepared and
s 9
II investigation and eliminated five properties
ftled with the WVSHPO to archive data collected prior to the Project modif,rcation.
The modifications to the Project layout were addressed in the Phase
II technical
report submitted to the WVSHPO on 26 February 2009. The WVSHPO concurred with
l0
the results of our reanalysis in correspondence dated 12 March 2009.
11 a. 12 A.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY? Yes, it does.
* 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
Reporter: Brett Steele
Any reproduction of this transcript is prohibited without authorization by the certifying agency.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
2 1
A P P E A R A N C E S
2 3
JOHN R. AUVILLE, ESQUIRE
4
Public Service Commission of West Virginia
5
201 Brooks Street
6
Charleston, WV
7
25301
Counsel for the Public Service Commission
8 9
CHRISTOPHER L. CALLAS, ESQUIRE
10
JAMES R. ALSOP, ESQUIRE
11
STEPHEN N. CHAMBERS, ESQUIRE
12
Jackson Kelly, PLLC
13
1600 Laidley Tower
14
P.O. Box 553
15
Charleston, WV
16
25322
Counsel for Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
17 18
BRADLEY W. STEPHENS, ESQUIRE
19
Stephens Law Office, PLLC
20
235 High Street
21
#518 Monongahela Building
22
Morgantown, WV
23
26505
Counsel for Allegheny Front Alliance
24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
3 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES
2 3
WITNESS: Michael Jin
4
DIRECT EXAMINATION
5 6 7 8 9
by Attorney Trivelli CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert WITNESS: Randall Childs
11
DIRECT EXAMINATION
13 14 15 16 17
by Attorney Chambers
by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert
WITNESS: Terrance DeWan
20
DIRECT EXAMINATION
24 25
23 - 29
29 - 32
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19
23
20 - 23
EXAMINATION
by Attorney Chambers
22
17 - 20
CROSS EXAMINATION
18
21
13 - 17
EXAMINATION
10
12
10 - 12
by Attorney Chambers
32
33 - 35
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
35 - 36
EXAMINATION by Commissioner Albert
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
36 - 49
4 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2 3 4 5 6
REDIRECT EXAMINATION by Attorney Chambers RECROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
7
WITNESS: James D. Barnes
8
DIRECT EXAMINATION
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
by Attorney Alsop
by Attorney Auville
by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert
by Attorney Alsop
21
59 - 73
73 - 77
77 - 84
RECROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Trivelli
84 - 86
RECROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
22
WITNESS: William Llewellyn
23
DIRECT EXAMINATION
24
56 - 58
EXAMINATION
17
20
54 - 56
CROSS EXAMINATION
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19
53
CROSS EXAMINATION
16
18
49 - 52
by Attorney Callas
25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
86 - 87
88 - 90
5 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2 3 4 5 6
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert WITNESS: Jeffrey Maymon
8
DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 11 12 13 14 15
by Attorney Chambers
by Attorney Auville
by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert
DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 22 23 24
98 - 100
101 - 102
102 - 103
EXAMINATION
17
20
97
CROSS EXAMINATION
WITNESS: Kathryn Kuranda
19
95 -
CROSS EXAMINATION
16
18
95
EXAMINATION
7
9
90 -
by Attorney Chambers
103 - 106
106 - 108
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
109 - 129
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
129
EXAMINATION by Commissioner Albert
129 - 134
25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
6 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2 3 4 5 6
REDIRECT EXAMINATION by Attorney Chambers RECROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
7
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES
8
WITNESS: Dixie Kellmeyer
9
DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
by Attorney Auville
by Attorney Stephens
by Commissioner Albert
by Attorney Callas
20
DIRECT EXAMINATION
25
145 - 151
151 - 153
153 - 160
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
WITNESS: Donald Walker
24
143 - 145
CROSS EXAMINATION
19
23
140 - 142
EXAMINATION
by Attorney Auville
22
139 - 140
CROSS EXAMINATION
18
21
135 - 139
by Attorney Auville
160
161 - 163
CROSS EXAMINATION by Attorney Stephens
163 - 178
EXAMINATION by Commissioner Albert
178 - 181
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
7 1
INDEX TO WITNESSES (cont'd)
2 3 4
REDIRECT EXAMINATION by Attorney Auville
5
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES
6
CERTIFICATE
182 - 184 184 - 186
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
187
8 1
E X H I B I T S
2 3
Page
4
Number
5
Building Trades
6
1
7 8
Description
Offered
Prepared Direct Testimony of Michael Jin
2
9
10
Prepared Direct Testimony of Darwin L. Snyder
142
10 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
18
Memorandum of Agreement Pursuant to 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
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
9 1
E X H I B I T S (cont.)
2 3
Page
4
Number
Description
Offered
5
RAC-D
Direct Testimony of Randall Childs
21
6
JHM-D
Direct Testimony of Jeffery Maymon
99
7
KMK-D
Direct Testimony of Kathryn Kuranda
107
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
10 1
P R O C E E D I N G S
2
---------------------------------------------------------
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Good morning.
5
record.
6
as the first matter.
7
call your witness?
We are back on the
I think we're going to take Mr. Jin this morning So Mr. Trivelli, do you want to
8
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
9
Yes.
Thank you.
And I appreciate the
10
parties and the Commission agreeing to the slight change
11
in schedule.
12
like --- I just handed out a document, which I'd like to
13
be marked for identification purposes Building Trades
14
Number One.
I'd like to call Mr. Jin to the stand.
I'd
Mr. Jin needs to be sworn in.
15
(Building Trades Exhibit One marked for
16
identification.)
17
------------------------------------------------------
18
MICHAEL JIN, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS
19
FOLLOWS:
20
------------------------------------------------------
21
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
22
I'm going to try to sit to make this
23
work.
24
DIRECT EXAMINATION
25
BY ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
11 1
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Jin.
2
your name for the record, please?
3
A.
4
X-I-A-O C-H-E-N or call me Michael.
5
Q.
6
document that I've just handed you, which is marked for
7
identification purposes as Building Trades Number One?
8
It starts out as prepared Direct testimony by Michael
9
Jin?
My last name is J-I-N.
Okay.
Would you say and spell
My first name is
Mr. Jin, do you have in front of you a
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.
20
Q.
Did you prepare this?
21
or under your direction?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
If I ask you the questions that are in the
24
testimony today in person, would your answers be about
25
the same?
Was this prepared by you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
12 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Do you know of any corrections that you need to
3
make in this testimony?
4
A.
No, not that I'm aware of.
5
Q.
So therefore you adopt this testimony as your
6
Direct testimony in this case?
7
A.
Yes.
8
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
9
Okay.
Mr. Chairman, then I'd like to
10
move the admission of Building Trades One into evidence,
11
and with that Mr. Jin is available for Cross Examination.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
All right.
Without objection, Building
14
Trades One is admitted in evidence.
15
want to ---?
Mr. Callas, do you
16
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
17
No questions.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
All right.
20
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
21
No questions.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Mr. Stephens?
24
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Fine.
Mr. Auville?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
13 1
CROSS EXAMINATION
2
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
3
Q.
4
I represent Allegheny Front Alliance, the Intervenor in
5
this case.
6
one of the following questions, until I tell you
7
otherwise, I'm asking whether you've prepared any
8
opinions expressed in your Direct testimony and your
9
Exhibit B, the report you prepared, whether you took
Good morning, Mr. Jin.
My name's Brad Stephens.
I'd like to ask you a few questions.
Each
10
these things into account.
Do you understand?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
First, I want to ask if you, in doing those
13
things, did you consider or evaluate potential impacts to
14
property values in the vicinity of the property?
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
to do in an economic analysis?
18
A.
You know, the answer is yes and a no.
Our
19
model, we didn’t take that into consideration.
The
20
reason is very simple.
21
kind of an impact it would have on the property tax, so,
22
you know, it would take a certain time to make estimate
23
and to look at all kinds of models and see if the project
24
I guess would have a negative or positive impact on the
25
property.
Would that be possible to do or feasible
Because we really don’t know what
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
14 1
Q.
Okay.
Just to clarify, Mr. Jin, I'm not going
2
so far as to ask about property taxes.
3
about property values.
4
A.
Property value.
5
Q.
Yeah.
6
property values perhaps, but let's just stick with
7
property values.
8
into consideration any impacts to property values?
9
A.
No, it is not.
10
Q.
And why is that?
11
A.
You know --- I mean ---.
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.
16
pump up the property value or depress property value.
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
Q.
21
whether it would increase or decrease property values;
22
right?
23
A.
24
very simple.
25
into that project, what kind of impact you will have on
I'm just asking
Well, I understand that's an extension of
Would it be feasible for you to take
Okay.
Property value,
It will probably It
And you did not perform any research into
No, not at this moment.
You know, my focus was
When you have the amount of dollars going
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
15 1
the local economy, that's it.
2
property value.
3
Q.
4
potential direct or indirect social, environmental or
5
human health impacts of the project into account?
6
A.
7
wouldn’t do that.
8
Q.
9
taken into account either social, environmental or human
I understand.
No.
I'm not talking about
Second, did you take any
It's much more complex, so usually people
Okay.
Would it be feasible for you to have
10
health impacts of the project?
11
A.
At this moment, my answer is no.
12
Q.
And why is that?
13
A.
It's too complex.
14
all those kind of issues.
15
you know, what kind of --- in the way we deal with wind
16
power, I know we will have all kinds of concerns; for
17
example, sound.
18
concerns into an economic number and say what kind of
19
benefits or damages it would have.
20
to ---.
21
Q.
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?
Okay.
It's --- you know, you have For example, health issues,
It's hard to translate those kind of
So it's difficult
But the bottom line is you did not
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
16 1
A.
No.
2
Q.
All right.
3
potential direct or indirect impact to historic resources
4
in the vicinity of the project or the tourism potentially
5
spurred by the integrity of those resources?
6
A.
No.
7
Q.
Okay.
8
elements into an economic analysis?
9
A.
Third, did you take into effect any
Would it be possible to integrate such
As I said, you know, my study is a much more
10
focused study.
I mean, I don’t take into consideration
11
those kind of deviations.
12
Q.
13
impacts on historic resources or tourism?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
Did you take into account the federal production
16
tax credit which would be available to Pinnacle and
17
possibly successors in interest in the project?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Would it have been feasible to take that into
20
account in your analysis?
21
A.
22
study, only focused on the construction phase of the
23
project, so I didn’t take into consideration some of
24
those things.
25
Q.
So you didn’t perform any research and do any
As I said, you know, my study is a very focused
I understand.
Did you take into account any
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
17 1
other state or federal tax credit or incentive, which
2
would be available to Pinnacle or any successor in
3
interest in the project?
4
A.
No, I did not do that either.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
I believe that is all I have for you,
7
Mr. Jin.
8
A.
Thank you. Okay. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 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
19
Council for at least four or five that I'm aware of.
20
you go back and look to see or assess the accuracy of
21
your study, this one vis-à-vis earlier ones?
22
do you adjust your approach in any way?
23
A.
And if so,
Yes, I do.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
How do you do that?
Do
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
18 1
A.
You know, I mean, first of all, those study ---
2
okay.
3
use a model.
4
impact.
I have --- how to put it.
This is --- I usually
A model is --- you know, generates by
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
Right.
7
A.
And when I use an impact model, you know, I have
8
to make certain assumptions and when I make certain
9
assumptions, I try to stay consistent on making those
10
assumptions.
11
project, construction project that's $300 million and the
12
labor cost, which is a very important variable, to put
13
into an impact I would say probably less than 27 percent
14
of labor costs.
15
assumptions.
16
numbers with written documents such as, let's say,
17
prevailing wages charts produced by West Virginia.
18
try to, you know, stay consistent on those issues.
19
When say, for example, if you have a big
And then I try to stay consistent on the
And by doing this I also verify those
So I
And after I do the study, I always compare those
20
numbers and look at all the studies I did.
For example,
21
with one of those numbers, we call them multiples,
22
multiplies.
23
use of job can produce by one direct job.
24
certain extent is a fixed ratio, 3:1 or 2.31.
25
will look at this as a verification to see if those
When direct job, how many indirect and the And that to a And then I
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
19 1
numbers are consistent.
So basically when I do those
2
four, five studies I always look back and use previous
3
study as a standard and to verify the numbers to see if
4
they are, you know, good or not.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
Then I assume that based on your look
7
back or review of the prior projects, that you're
8
satisfied that the approach you've been using accurately
9
predicts the economic impact of these projects?
10
A.
Oh, yes.
Yes, I always do that.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Is there any --- are there any
13
empirical ---?
14
forward, do you do any empirical studies on each project
15
to determine whether your projection of that project
16
matches actuality or can that even be done?
17
I ---.
18
A.
19
you know, in reality we really don’t know, you know.
20
economic impact would be realized in a certain way, you
21
know, I mean, unless you talk to the state, talk to the
22
county people, you know, to see if they do see those ---
23
for example, the tax revenues and those type of things we
24
have to, you know, do --- have to talk to the people in
25
the field.
Yeah.
Other than correcting your data as you go
I'm not ---
It's hard to be done like this because,
Then you can know if it's severe or not.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
The
20 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
All right.
3
A.
But this is an estimate.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Well, I understand.
6
Mr. Trivelli, any Redirect?
7
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
8
No, sir.
9
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
10 11
Thank you, sir.
All right. you, Mr. Jin.
Any other questions?
Thank
We appreciate your participation.
12
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
13
May Mr. Jin be excused?
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
Yes, sir, you may.
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
Your Honor, we'd call Randall Childs.
18
------------------------------------------------------
19
RANDALL CHILDS, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
20
AS FOLLOWS:
21
------------------------------------------------------
22
DIRECT EXAMINATION
23
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Childs.
25
A.
Good morning.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
21 1
Q.
Would you please state your name and business
2
address for the record, please?
3
A.
4
398, Reedsville, West Virginia 26547.
5
Q.
What is your occupation?
6
A.
I'm a principal with Community and Economic
7
Development Consultants and also a research assistant
8
professor at WVU.
9
Q.
Randall Childs.
Business address is P.O. Box
There's a notebook that should be in front of
10
you of testimony, Pinnacle testimony.
I believe tab
11
eight?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Is the document behind tab eight --- do you
14
recognize that?
15
A.
Yes, it's my Direct testimony.
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
Your Honor, I request that the
18
testimony nine, tab eight be identified for --- marked
19
for identification as Exhibit RAC-D.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
It's so marked.
22
(Exhibit RAC-D marked for
23
identification.)
24
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
25
Q.
Mr. Childs, was your testimony prepared by you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
22 1
under your direction?
2
A.
Yes, it was.
3
Q.
Do you wish to make any changes or corrections
4
to your testimony?
5
A.
No.
6
Q.
Is your testimony true and accurate to the best
7
of your knowledge and belief?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
If I were to ask you here today the questions
10
that appear in that written testimony, would your answers
11
be substantially the same?
12
A.
Yes, they would.
13
Q.
Do you wish to adopt this testimony as your
14
Direct testimony in this case?
15
A.
Yes, I do.
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
Subject to Cross Examination, we would
18
move for the admission of Exhibit RAC-D.
19
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20
All right.
21
Without objection, it'll be
admitted.
22
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
23
This witness is available for Cross
24 25
Examination. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
23 1
All right, sir.
Mr. Trivelli?
2
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
3
I have no questions.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Staff?
6
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
7
No questions.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Mr. Stephens?
10
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
11
Thank you, Your Honor.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
Yes, sir.
14
CROSS EXAMINATION
15
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
16
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Childs.
17
A.
Good morning.
18
Q.
Brad Stephens.
19
Alliance in this case, and I'm sure you heard my
20
questions for Mr. Jin.
21
parallel those precisely pretty much.
22
you a series of elements --- ask about the series of
23
elements and ask ---.
24
you took into account, considered or evaluated in
25
preparing either your testimony or your economic
I represent Allegheny Front
My questions to you are going to I'm going to ask
I'm asking for each one whether
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
24 1
analysis, each one of these elements.
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
First, I want to ask if you took into account
4
potential impacts to property values in the vicinity of
5
the project?
6
A.
7
consideration.
8
no credible studies that indicate that there would be
9
negative or substantially positive impact on the property
It's kind of yes and no.
Do you understand?
Yes, I took into
I didn’t make any adjustments.
There are
10
values.
11
Q.
12
referring to?
13
A.
14
Policy Project, I believe.
15
around the country.
16
Virginia.
17
they discussed those studies and difficulties and tried
18
to come up with credible estimates.
19
Q.
20
by something called a Renewable Energy Policy Project and
21
the Industrial Wind Working Group would tend to find that
22
property values were adversely affected or not affected
23
or positively affected by construction projects?
24
A.
25
Group.
Okay.
Could you tell me what studies you're
There was some by Renewable Energy Project --There have been other studies
There's studies underway in West
Just recently the West Virginia working group,
Would you tend to think that studies sponsored
The one, it wasn’t Industrial Wind Working It's actually another university, so I don’t have
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
25 1
any reason to think that their results are going to be
2
slighted one way or the other.
3
Q.
4
potential direct or indirect social, environmental or
5
human health impacts of the project?
6
A.
7
any of those types of impacts.
8
Q.
9
considerations into an economic analysis such as the one
Okay.
Second, did you take into account any
I did not make any adjustments in the models for
But would it be feasible to incorporate such
10
you performed?
11
A.
12
economically, then it could be incorporated into the
13
model.
14
Q.
15
that; correct?
16
A.
No, I did not.
17
Q.
Third, did you take into account any potential
18
direct or indirect impact to historic resources in the
19
vicinity of the project?
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
I'll split this off separately.
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.
If there --- if you can quantify it
So you did not make any attempts to quantify
I rolled them
Again, that's one where there's not been
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
26 1
credible studies to indicate that there is a negative ---
2
some of the studies that I've seen have actually
3
indicates there's positive impacts that there are now
4
wind tours at the facilities.
5
positive or negative adjustments for tourism.
6
Q.
7
or not with any degree of confidence that the
8
construction of industrial wind projects either --- or
9
impacts to any degree tourism?
But I didn’t make any
But you wouldn’t be in a position to say whether
And when I say tourism,
10
people coming to see things other than the wind turbine
11
facility itself.
12
A.
13
make adjustment for how many come to see the wind
14
turbine, so I don’t know ---.
15
seen, there's no indication of any net change in tourism
16
positive or negative.
17
Q.
18
the --- I guess you're referring to studies that suggest
19
that people come to visit wind turbines?
20
A.
21
--- you know, search on the internet and find that there
22
are now tours where they go and visit.
23
have bus tours that go visit different wind turbines.
24
what I included in my impacts are the things that I can
25
easily quantify and have credible results for.
Well, I make --- in the adjustment for that I
From the studies that I've
Could you tell me anything about the studies are
Well, it was wind tours.
You know, you can do
You know, they
I don't
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
So
27 1
know of any credible studies that indicate any negative
2
or substantially positive impacts on the wind turbine.
3
Q.
4
Tax Credit available to Pinnacle or any successors of
5
interest in the project?
6
A.
7
--- without it it may --- probably it couldn’t go
8
forward.
9
than that, it's not included.
Did you take into account the Federal Production
Only in a sense that, you know, the tax credit
Then in that sense it would be included.
Other
10
Q.
And just to clarify, would it be feasible to
11
incorporate into your analysis that the impact of the
12
Federal Production Tax Credit itself as it applied ---
13
would apply to Pinnacle or a successor in interest in the
14
project?
15
A.
16
if it meant the project happened or didn’t happen.
17
economic impact just traces the expenditures that happen
18
and how that multiplies through the economy through the
19
different rounds of spending.
20
Credit --- it doesn’t exist and the project still moved
21
forward, then the impacts are zero.
22
happen.
23
indicated.
24
Q.
25
you could indulge me, can you define for me what exactly
It would really only have an impact whether --The
If the Production Tax
The project doesn’t
If it happens then the impacts are what I
Okay.
Well, let me back up then and ask you, if
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
28 1
is a tax credit in the sense of an income tax credit,
2
federal income tax credit.
3
for me?
4
A.
5
what you're really looking for here, but the Production
6
Tax Credit, it's a tax credit that they receive for
7
producing electricity and generating electricity both.
8
Q.
9
affect of Pinnacle or a successor in interest in the
Could you just define that
The tax credit that you apply --- I don’t know
Okay.
And what is --- what would be the actual
10
project having available to it that Federal Production
11
Tax Credit?
12
successor in interest end up paying less federal income
13
tax under that provision, that tax credit than it
14
otherwise would without it?
15
A.
16
fruition without it.
17
Q.
18
revenue than it would without the Production Tax Credit
19
in place; correct?
20
A.
21
survive without that, the project doesn’t exist and they
22
would receive zero.
23
Q.
24
extent that it may impact decision making as to whether
25
to go forward with the project, but you would not
In other words, would Pinnacle or a
Yes, only if the project was able to come to
So the federal government would receive less
If the project went forward.
The project can't
I understand it can end up being circular to the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
29 1
disagree with me that under the Federal Production Tax
2
Credit in place that Pinnacle and any successor in
3
interest in the project would pay less in federal income
4
taxes each year than we would without it?
5
A.
6
without it, it means that the project doesn’t happen,
7
then no.
8
Q.
9
state tax credit that might be available to Pinnacle or a
I'll just restate, if the project happens
Did you take into account any other federal or
10
successor in interest of the project?
11
A.
No.
12
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
I believe that's all I have for you,
14
Mr. Childs.
15
A.
Okay.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
All right.
18
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
19
No questions.
20
COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
21
No.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Mr. Childs, I'd like to sort of explore
Commissioners?
24
with you the same questions I asked Mr. Jin and that is,
25
have you been involved in prior wind turbine economic
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
30 1
analysis studies?
2
A.
3
different energy, coal, cogen, wind.
Yes, I've done a lot of economic impacts of
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Okay.
With respect to the wind
6
projects, you indicated in your testimony that you
7
project $2 million annually in increased business volume,
8
15 new jobs and 705,000 increased employee compensation.
9
That's the impact in Mineral County.
Then you have a
10
second series of similar for the statewide.
Do you go
11
back sort as an after-the-fact assessment to look at ---
12
or can you, in fact, go back after the fact and look at
13
your analysis and your estimates and compare them with
14
the real world results from the construction of a
15
project?
16
A.
17
everything else changing at the same time, so you can't
18
pull that out after the fact.
19
have is anecdotal evidence of when you see, for example,
20
a plant closing or something happening to have a ripple
21
effect.
22
back through and say after the fact, was it $2 million
23
created or was it, you know, $1.3 quarter million or was
24
it $2.5 million, we can't really say because it traces
25
all that extending from not just what the business spends
It's not really possible because you have
The only thing that we
We can easily see that it has an effect.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
To go
31 1
but what its employees spend and then the expenditures
2
that it takes.
3
businesses, then that business in turn spends with other
4
local businesses.
5
those rounds of spending, it's just impossible to trace
6
it fully, particularly with confidentiality of data from
7
private business.
If they buy something from the local
It pays its employees, so through all
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Given the fact of the ripple effect
10
then of some of the projects, the wind turbine projects,
11
have you been able to verify at least to your own
12
satisfaction that there has been a positive impact from
13
these projects?
14
A.
Oh, yes.
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
How so?
I mean, ---.
17
A.
Well, the same way we look at when, you know, a
18
business closes, when we look at any new activity
19
happening in an area, whether it's the construction or
20
the operation, we see increased economic activity in the
21
area.
22
economic activity.
23
positive impacts just the same way we know when a
24
business closes, we see a negative impact from that.
25
we have that information, we just can't verify what the
When you see construction, you see an increase in So we know that those are having
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
So
32 1
exact dollar is because of, you know, the confidentiality
2
of data from individual firms.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Thank you, sir.
5
That's all I have.
Questions?
6
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
7
Your Honor, just brief follow up.
8
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
10
Q.
Mr. Childs, you can confirm the direct impact in
11
terms of verifying things like employees hired and
12
payroll and things of that nature?
13
A.
14
it goes down to successive businesses.
15
that, but the directs of it, absolutely.
Yeah, just not the all the ripple effects once
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
That's all I have.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
All right.
20
We can't get
Anyone else?
Thank you,
Mr. Childs.
21
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
22
I ask that this witness be allowed to
23
be excused.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
He certainly may.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
33 1
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
2
We call Terrance DeWan.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Okay.
5
------------------------------------------------------
6
TERRANCE DEWAN, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
7
AS FOLLOWS:
8
------------------------------------------------------
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.
16
Terrance J. DeWan & Associates, 121 West Main Street,
17
Yarmouth, Maine.
18
Q.
19
notebook there?
20
testimony that was previously filed, your prepared Direct
21
testimony?
22
A.
My name is Terrance DeWan.
I'm the principal of
Mr. DeWan, would turn to your testimony in the I believe it's tab five.
Is that the
Yes, it is.
23
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24
Your Honor, I ask that Mr. DeWan's
25
testimony be marked for identification as TJD-D.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
34 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
It'll be so marked.
3
(Exhibit TJD-D marked for
4
identification.)
5
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
6
Q.
7
under your supervision?
8
A.
Yes, it was.
9
Q.
Do you wish to make any changes or corrections
Mr. DeWan, was that testimony prepared by you or
10
to it?
11
A.
No, I don't.
12
Q.
To the best of your knowledge, is it true and
13
accurate?
14
A.
Yes, it is.
15
Q.
If I were to ask you various questions contained
16
in that testimony here today, would your answers be
17
substantially the same?
18
A.
Yes, they would.
19
Q.
And do you wish to adopt that testimony as your
20
official testimony in this case?
21
A.
Yes, I do.
22
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
23
Your Honor, subject to Cross
24 25
Examination, we move the admission of TJD-D. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
35 1
Without objection it'll be admitted.
2
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
We tender Mr. DeWan for Cross
4
Examination.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
All right.
7
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
8
No questions.
9
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Mr. Trivelli?
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.
19
Q.
Brad Stephens.
20
Alliance in this case.
21
questions for you.
22
account the viewshed impact of the Pinnacle project, what
23
it would be in the State of Maryland; is that correct?
24
A.
25
about 20 miles, including into Maryland.
I represent Allegheny Front I only have maybe two or three
First is, I believe you took into
As part of the work we did, we extended out
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
36 1
Q.
And why did you do that?
Why did you take into
2
account the viewshed impact for the State of Maryland?
3
A.
4
power projects, we go out I a prescribed radius, and it
5
happened to be across the state lines.
6
Q.
7
your preparation of your testimony or the report that
8
appears at appendix J with any of the other witnesses
9
being presented by Pinnacle in this hearing?
When we typically do viewshed analyses for wind
Did you have any communications in the course of
10
A.
I don’t believe I did.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
with Ms. Kuranda or Mr. Maymon?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
supervision; correct?
16
A.
So that would include no communications
Nor anyone working under their
That's correct.
17
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18
Okay.
19
Thanks.
I believe that's all
for you, Mr. DeWan.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
All right.
22
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
23
No questions.
24
COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
25
No questions.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
37 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Mr. DeWan, are you --- if I have
3
questions about the photo simulations, are you the person
4
I should ask?
5
A.
You can try.
I am ---.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
I can try.
Well, let me try then.
8
A.
9
you heard yesterday, prepared the majority of the photo
10
The reason I say that is that Mr. Friend, who
simulations.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Okay.
We're going to try to get him
13
back up then, but let me ask you some questions.
14
--- you did site visits on all these things?
15
A.
Did you
On two different occasions, yes.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
And to the extent that the photo
18
simulations represent simulated views from various and
19
sundry locations around the project site, you visited
20
each of those in preparing this?
21
A.
22
as part of the --- our testimony we did not visit.
Some of the photo simulations that were included
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
Okay.
25
A.
We did visit the majority of them.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
38 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
I looked at all of the photo
3
simulations.
I just have a reaction to them and I wanted
4
to ask if I'm --- where I'm wrong or if I'm wrong and it
5
seemed to me that when I was visiting these sites that
6
when we looked up at the tops and saw the MET towers and
7
those things, they looked fairly large from two to three
8
and five miles around.
9
was sort of --- I expected them to appear larger in the
But yet when I see the towers, I
10
photo simulations.
Now, I realize you can't get in my
11
mind and assess what I expected, but what is the
12
explanation for that?
13
A.
14
visiting the sites, did you have the photo simulations
15
with you?
Let me ask you a question.
When you were up
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
No.
All I was doing was looking up at
18
the MET tower and thinking, well, that's 200 feet, then
19
the tower ought to be some ---
20
A.
Yeah.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
--- magnitude larger than that and ---.
23
A.
I think if you would have the photo simulations
24
and you held it up like this (indicating) you would find
25
it would have been a very accurate representation.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
When
39 1
we did the photo simulations --- as you know, David
2
Friend did the photo simulations, our office did a
3
computer generated model of the area and inserted it
4
above the MET tower as well as the turbines.
5
know that they were accurate.
6
you know, the ability to perceive more detail than you
7
actually can get in photographs.
And so we
I think the human eye has,
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Not necessarily my human eye, but I
10
appreciate that.
11
A.
In general.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
All right.
Did you attend any of the
14
meetings that were held with, I don’t know, the county
15
commission or the city or any of those?
16
A.
No, I did not.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
All right.
And do you know whether or
19
not in time the photo simulations were available at the
20
time of those meetings?
21
A.
It's my understanding they were available.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Did you understand --- is it your
24
understanding that they were shown at those meetings?
25
A.
My understanding is that they were shown at
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
40 1
those meetings.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
All right.
In your testimony at page
4
three, you talked about you visited non-profit recreation
5
areas.
6
recreation areas, historic properties, scenic overlooks,
7
et cetera, within a 25-mile radius.
8
where to go?
9
A.
You drove major public roads, visited known
How did you decide
The first order of business was to review the
10
viewshed analysis map that was prepared by Mr. Friend and
11
that showed us where there was potential visibility.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
The viewshed analysis map is not the
14
photo simulations at that stage?
15
A.
That is correct.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
All right.
18
A.
And as you know, there is a negative and a
19
positive photo simulation --- or a viewshed map.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
Right.
22
A.
And we use that to scope out where we should
23
travel.
It was two days for the field trip, and we
24
stopped periodically along the way to check the accuracy
25
of the viewshed map and then to record photographs and
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
41 1
observations at various viewpoints.
We wanted to make
2
sure that we had a sense of what we called a
3
characteristic landscape.
4
driving and working in the area, this is typically what
5
they would expect to see.
6
from observation points that were representative of the
7
area and the view that people would expect.
From people that are living or
So we tried to get photographs
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
So the decision in that regard was
10
yours?
11
A.
We guided the process with Mr. Friend.
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
19
prepared by Pinnacle Wind.
20
that's --- I was interested in that statement when you
21
say you independently verified the accuracy of those
22
prepared by Pinnacle, what did you do to independently
23
verify the accuracy of them?
24
through?
25
A.
And given my reaction to them
What process did you go
Independent --- Mr. Friend used a program called
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
42 1
WindPRO.
We did not own the software at the time.
We
2
have it now.
3
of software, and in our software we were able to
4
construct a three dimensional model of the landscape and
5
then insert the turbines in the exact locations that they
6
were proposed to be located.
7
computer model on top of the existing photographs and
8
then compared that to the simulations that Mr. Friend
9
prepared.
We used another process using another piece
We then superimposed our
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
And your decision or your judgment was
12
that they were accurate?
13
A.
They were very accurate.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
On page four you say your --- DeWan &
16
Associates calculated the viewing distance of each photo
17
simulation and incorporated it into the title block of
18
each image.
19
that you did?
20
A.
21
them out in the field because when you're out there it
22
says, you know, hold this ---.
Is that the process you were talking about
Yes, it is.
That's why I asked if you had had
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
I read all that.
25
After the fact, it
would have been great to have them there.
Next time we
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
43 1
do one, we will have them there.
2
unfortunately.
3
A.
4
correct.
But we didn’t
But that's what you were doing then?
That's one of the steps we went through.
That's
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
How many viewshed photo simulation
7
analyses has DeWan & Association undertaken to date?
8
Well, either in your own --- I mean, to the extent you
9
were in some other enterprise, but let's talk about you
10
specifically.
11
A.
12
far.
Yes.
We've been involved in about 15 of them so
13
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
14
Okay.
As a matter of curiosity, have
15
you been involved in any where there was a city or a town
16
within three to five miles of the wind turbine projects?
17
Three to six, I guess, is probably more accurate.
18
A.
19
rural parts of Maine.
20
permitted called Record Hill in which there was a
21
community within three miles, I believe.
22
know, we have been involved in some where there are
23
communities in similar instances.
Most of the work we were doing is in Maine, There are --- we just got one
And so, you
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Roughly the same size towers?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
44 1
A.
Yes, probably 400 feet tall.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
So most of the views from the City of
4
Keyser would fall on what you would define just as the
5
mid ground?
6
A.
That's correct.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
And the same with the views from the
9
Potomac State College?
10
A.
That's correct.
That was a little bit --- it's
11
about a little over two miles.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
There was a --- there were questions
14
asked about --- of the economic witnesses about the
15
impact on environment --- not environmental but historic
16
areas.
17
fact, look at historic and scenic areas and the impact of
18
the project on those?
19
A.
20
historic structures analysis.
21
example, to prepare an illustration about what the
22
presence of the turbine would do to the site of Duling
23
Church.
I take it that your work in this area did, in
To a certain extent.
We did not do an impact on SHPO had asked us, for
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Do you make a --- I realize most of
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
45 1
what you do is an objective, mathematical and I'll use
2
the term scientific as sort of a broad capture of the
3
thought with respect to the photo simulations.
4
also make a subjective assessment of the impact in any
5
way or do you feel that's part of your project?
6
A.
7
make certain quantitative and qualitative assessments.
Do you
I hesitate to use the word subjective, but we do
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
What are the qualitative assessments
10
that you make?
11
A.
12
there contrast in the color, form, line, texture, scale,
13
and dominance.
14
for example, color.
15
will be painted white, and generally that produces a
16
contrast in color because most of the landscape is green
17
or a dark brown.
Well, you look for --- the terms we use are is
And then we do an analysis to find out, You know, the turbines as we know
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
Why don’t they paint it camouflage?
20
Because you have to put night lights on them then, I
21
guess?
22
A.
That is correct.
Strobe lights.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
And it makes them even more visible?
25
A.
I've seen in some places in New York where the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
46 1
bottom of the base are painted green.
That, to me, looks
2
like there's moss or mold growing out of them.
3
hard to camouflage a structure like this.
4
intent is to make them as clean as possible.
It's very
I think the
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
You talked about two structures within
7
five miles and indicated that the project is not expected
8
to have a significant impact on either of these
9
structures.
What's your basis for that statement?
10
A.
Those would be historic structures you were
11
talking about.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
The --- well, whatever.
14
C-A-R-S-K-A-D-O-N House and Mineral County Courthouse.
15
A.
16
is a structure that's imbedded deep within the pattern of
17
the city and has only occasional views up to the
18
ridgeline there.
19
floors to be able to see it.
20
particular courthouse is not going to be radically
21
altered by the presence of the wind turbines.
22
Carskadon House, I think we have a photo simulation.
23
of the panoramas we gave you that shows the house with a
24
tennis court in the foreground a running track, a
25
McDonald's off to one side, the turbine's on a hillside
Mineral County Courthouse, as I understand it,
I think you have to go up on the upper So the setting of that
The
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
One
47 1
and surrounded by grove of deciduous trees.
And from our
2
analysis of that property when you are within --- or near
3
the house, you know, you're going to be aware of the
4
turbines probably through the trees, but, again, the
5
house is orientated towards the street, on Mineral
6
Street, I believe.
7
village like or urban like.
8
hillside are in the mid ground and will appear to be very
9
much in the background from that vantage point.
And it's in a context that is very The turbines up in the
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
You also talk about the Jennings
12
Randolph Lake project which we went to see.
You say in
13
comparison to the existing manmade structures, the
14
turbines will seem --- will be seen as a relatively small
15
addition to the landscape.
16
what is the basis for that statement?
17
A.
18
the lake itself, especially at the northern end there,
19
which is the only place where you're going to be seeing
20
the turbines.
21
that there was a long dam there, there's a snow wave
22
(phonetic), there's a very large water intake structure,
23
there are buildings there, there's a railroad bridge,
24
there's parking lots.
25
environment and so the additional manmade elements is not
And again, I --- my query is,
Well, you're at the overlook and then go down to
The human eye is also aware of the fact
It's clearly not a natural
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
48 1
going to be seen as such a contrast as it would be if you
2
were in the middle of a totally natural environment and
3
all of a sudden had these turbines appear on the horizon.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
You described visits to three managed
6
land projects, and we were shown and ferried around.
7
not sure that we --- maybe we visited some of them, but
8
in any event what exactly was the reaction to those and
9
your assessment of those, the impact on those?
10
A.
I'm
Which three ---?
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Well, there's --- your testimony at
13
page 11 talks about the Fort Mill Ridge WMA, which is, I
14
guess, a wildlife management or --- Springfield WMA and
15
Mason Mountain WMA.
16
it was 10 to 20 miles from the project, those being Mount
17
Nebo, Big Run, New Germany, Deep Creek and Dan's Rock.
18
And I was trying to assess whether you had made any
19
evaluation with respect to the impact on those sites.
20
A.
21
in our visual impact assessment.
22
upon map analysis, looking at the distance that the
23
turbines were from each of these resources and the
24
distance of 10 to 20 miles they're going to be fairly
25
visible most of the time.
We did.
You said that in Maryland five where
It's part of our testimony we provided For those we relied
The fact is you don’t even see
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
49 1
the blade because of the thinness of the blades and so
2
given the fact that these are, for the most part, largely
3
wooded environments with very little visual contact out
4
behind those resources, we didn’t feel that the turbines
5
at a distance of 10 to 20 miles had any effect
6
whatsoever.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
I think I asked you.
9
any of the community advisory panel meetings, open house
Did you attend
10
discussions or meetings with the local organizations?
11
A.
No, I did not.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
You shot down my camouflage idea.
14
though I was on to something.
15
A.
What pattern would you make it?
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Essentially nothing.
18
patterns are, in fact, a pattern.
19
Like on trucks and tanks and things.
20
throw the paint on there.
21
it.
22
A.
Most camouflage
They're not different. You think you just
There's actually a pattern to
A little something I can share with you. That's a whole different discussion.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
Isn't it, though?
25
I
The testimony at
pages 19 and 20 of your --- of the questions and answers
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
50 1
on pages 19 and 20 of your testimony talks about
2
mitigation measures.
3
the prime measure is the selection of the site.
4
there other matters that can be actively pursued beyond
5
site selection to mitigate the visual impact of the
6
turbines?
7
wondered if there's --- if any of these are --- were
8
discussed with Pinnacle or need to be breaching
9
confidences, but ---.
And you indicated that, obviously, Are
You mentioned something here and I just
10
A.
Everything that we're showing on this page are
11
things that were actively considered and are being
12
adopted.
13
thought about that would be on this list.
I don’t think there's anything else that we
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
16
you.
17
A.
Okay.
Mr. DeWan, thank
Thank you.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
Questions?
20
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21
Yes, Your Honor.
22
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
23
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24
Q.
25
questions, I think you indicated that a significant
Mr. DeWan, in response to one of the Chairman's
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
51 1
amount of your experience is in your own state of Maine?
2
A.
Yes, it is.
3
Q.
In the projects you've done, how does --- just
4
generally speaking, how does the terrain or landscape
5
that you work with, assessed in other --- in Maine or
6
other places compare with the Pinnacle project?
7
A.
8
a lot of different landscapes and every one's different.
9
When you approach it with that attitude, Maine is very
One of the fascinations about our job is to see
10
similar to West Virginia in the fact that it is
11
consisting of a lot of rolling hills with a lot of plains
12
in between those hills.
13
in north, south directions, there's little villages
14
throughout, so it's somewhat comparable.
15
Q.
16
you used to conduct your assessment and how do you decide
17
what --- how you go about doing such an assessment?
18
there any guidelines or regulations?
19
A.
20
really established by the forest service, the United
21
States Department of Agriculture back in the late 1970s
22
and has gone through many iterations over the last
23
several years to look at the impact of the these sorts of
24
things, from road construction performing practices,
25
utility siting on landscapes.
They also generally are oriented
Let's speak a minute about the methodology that
Is
The practice of visual impact assessment was
And the work that we do is
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
52 1
based upon a lot of studies that grew out of that initial
2
effort.
3
Smardon about visual impacts that we use as a basis for
4
our work.
5
the evaluation of a wind turbine.
6
Q.
7
and reflected in the application were appropriate both in
8
terms of where they were and how many there were in order
9
to give the Commission an adequate understanding of the
There's a book by Dr. James Palmer and Richard
It's a very common methodology that's used in
Do you believe that the sites that were selected
10
visual impact of the project?
11
A.
We do.
12
Q.
In terms of the photo simulations, was there any
13
--- are they ---?
14
reflecting what some might say is a worst case scenario?
15
In other words, do they --- is there any possible visual
16
aspect that's been intentionally deleted or minimized?
17
A.
18
trying to evaluate where you take the photographs from,
19
make sure that you are looking for that, quote, worst
20
case.
21
the turbines might disappear.
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:
25
That's all we had, Your Honor.
Could they be characterized as
That's one of the things we always look at in
Sometimes you get down the road, you know, half You make sure that when
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
53 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Staff, do you have any questions?
3
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
4
I just have one kind of curiosity
5
question now.
6
RECROSS EXAMINATION
7
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
8
Q.
9
that you've done?
Do you ever go back and verify the simulation In other words, go back to the same
10
spot where the photograph was taken from once the project
11
is up and running and compare it to the simulation that
12
was done?
13
A.
14
project called Stetson Mountain in Maine and we did a
15
series of photo simulations, and we went back and they
16
were --- I wouldn't say they were dead on because you
17
always have micro siting changes during construction.
18
turbine may move a few feet one way or the other, but,
19
you know, they were --- sometimes it'd be hard to tell
20
which was the photo simulation and which was the actual
21
photograph.
We just had the opportunity to do that in a
22
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
23
Thank you.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Thank you, Mr. DeWan.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
A
54 1
A.
Appreciate it.
May I be excused?
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
Sure.
Mr. Barnes, I guess, is next.
4
------------------------------------------------------
5
JAMES D. BARNES, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
6
AS FOLLOWS:
7
------------------------------------------------------
8
DIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
10
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Barnes.
11
name and business address for the record, please?
12
A.
13
Incorporated, business address is 33 Moulton Street,
14
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
15
Q.
By whom are you employed?
16
A.
My firm's name is Acentech, Incorporated.
17
Q.
And did you cause to be prepared or was prepared
18
under your supervision an acoustical study of the
19
proposed Pinnacle wind farm?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And also in this case did you prepare a copy of
22
your Direct testimony?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
If you look at, I believe it's tab six in the
25
notebook, if you have it at the witness stand.
My name is James D. Barnes.
Would you state your
I'm with Acentech,
Is that a
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
55 1
copy of your Direct testimony?
2
A.
Yes, it is.
3
ATTORNEY ALSOP:
4
Your Honor, I would like to have marked
5
for identification purposes the Direct testimony of James
6
D. Barnes as Exhibit JDB-D.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
It'll be so marked.
9
(Exhibit JDB-D marked for
10
identification.)
11
BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
12
Q.
13
direction?
14
A.
Yes, it was.
15
Q.
Do you have any corrections or changes you'd
16
like to make at this time?
17
A.
18
my testimony I was listed as a past member of the
19
Institute of Noise Control and Engineering.
20
current active member of that organization.
21
Q.
22
Direct testimony?
23
A.
That's correct.
24
Q.
With that change, is this testimony true and
25
accurate?
Was this testimony prepared by you or under your
Yes, just one.
On my résumé I've listed --- in
I'm a
And that's on Exhibit JDB-1 as attached to your
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
56 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
If I would ask you these same questions today,
3
would your answers in substance be the same?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
Do you intend for this Direct testimony to be
6
your sole testimony in this proceeding?
7
A.
Yes.
8
ATTORNEY ALSOP:
9
At this time subject to Cross
10
Examination, I'd move the admission of Exhibit JDB-D and
11
offer Mr. Barnes for Cross Examination.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
Without objection, it'll be admitted.
14
Mr. Trivelli?
15
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
16
No questions.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Staff?
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.
25
study with predicted noise levels and compared the actual
Do you ever go back after you've done a
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
57 1
levels that occur with the predicted levels that you made
2
in your reports?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
What do you normally find?
5
A.
Measurements --- some levels are inconsistent
6
with the data that I used for the source levels as well
7
as predicted levels.
8
Q.
9
approach because of your findings that were made once you
Do you ever --- have you ever varied your
10
went back and measured the noise?
11
A.
12
looking to the next project.
13
Q.
14
residences that are to the east of the project and that
15
the predicted levels are louder than the --- or greater
16
than the ambient levels in the area.
17
exactly what that means for those residences?
18
means the project will be heard, but can you tell us what
19
it will mean for those residences in those areas?
20
A.
21
operating those residences are downwind, and that's a
22
relatively quiet background in those areas, or even a
23
moderate background for those particular locations.
24
turbine sounds wouldn’t be heard much.
25
Q.
My approach, I think it helps inform my judgment
On page 12 of your testimony, you speak to some
Can you tell us I know it
For those time periods when the turbines are
The
But would you think inside and outside sounds?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
58 1
A.
Certainly outside.
Inside it really depends on
2
the construction of the home.
3
so, I would say.
4
not.
5
Q.
6
what --- how often or what percentage of the time do you
7
think those conditions would exist that you spoke of
8
where the noise would be heard at these residences?
9
A.
It's unlikely.
Much less
Perhaps with windows open, otherwise
And maybe you can or you can't tell me this, but
It's difficult for me to say on a statistic
10
basis, but since they --- the prevailing wind is from the
11
west to east, more often than not the sound would be one
12
direction.
13
Q.
14
those residences are?
15
A.
16
feet.
Do you remember how --- what distance most of
Certainly more than 1,000 feet, 1,000, 1,500
17
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
18
That's all I have.
19
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20
Commissioner?
21
ATTORNEY STAATS:
22
No questions.
23
ATTORNEY MCKINNEY:
24
No questions.
25
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Thank you.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
59 1 2
Sorry.
All wrapped up in my Cross
here, didn’t give you the opportunity.
3
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
4
Your Honor, you can go first if you'd
5
like, but I need to ask some questions.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
Well, you go ahead, Mr. Stephens.
8
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9
Thank you.
10
CROSS EXAMINATION
11
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
12
Q.
13
I represent Allegheny Front Alliance in this case.
14
professional experience --- I believe your résumé states
15
that started in 1972 with Johnson Controls; is that
16
correct?
17
A.
That's correct.
18
Q.
I believe on pages --- it's pages seven and eight of
19
your Direct testimony.
20
term ambient sound monitoring locations that you or those
21
under your supervision utilized in the course of the
22
acoustical study?
23
page 7.
24
A.
It describes the locations, yes.
25
Q.
Is that the only locations where you performed sound
Good morning, Mr. Barnes.
My name is Brad Stephens. Your
Can you tell us about the long
Pages 7 and 8, starting at line 18 on
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
60 1
monitoring or those under your supervision performed
2
sound monitoring?
3
A.
Yes.
4
Q.
Did you perform any monitoring at those locations
5
inside of a home or other structure?
6
A.
I did not.
7
Q.
Looking on page eight, I am down on line 17, your
8
response to the last question on page 8.
9
measured and all the N values in the observed METS of
You state, the
10
sound source types the land use has indicated that the
11
study area contains no dominant sound sources, for
12
example, a factory or well-traveled interstate highway.
13
Do you see that?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
No dominant sound sources; right?
16
A.
Correct.
17
Q.
Would you describe the vicinity of the project site
18
as rural?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Do you happen to have --- I believe it's volume
21
three of the application, the third binder contains
22
appendix U, which is the acoustical study?
23
turn to that with me, please.
24
specifically at appendix U acoustical study, however, I
25
wanted you to confirm that --- I think on page eight here
If you could
Before we look
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
61 1
you tell us that the measured long term Ldn ambient sound
2
levels in the vicinity ranged from 48 dBA to 63 dBA; is
3
that correct?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
That's the --- when you say ambient sound levels,
6
that's what you're monitoring determined to be --- what
7
you, I guess, would claim the monitoring flushes out is
8
the normal sound level in those locations; correct?
9
A.
The monitoring measures all encompassing sound.
10
Basically that's the definition of ambient.
11
Q.
12
looking at appendix A of that acoustical study.
13
first page is labeled A-1.
14
you set forth a table of various common outdoor sound
15
levels.
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And if you look down the last entry it says 25 dBA,
18
quiet rural nighttime.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
that 25 dBA is representative of a quiet rural nighttime
22
with your claim that the ambient sound levels range from
23
49 to 63 in what you characterize as a rural area?
24
A.
25
different measures.
Turning to appendix U, the acoustical study --- I am The
You'll see there it's a ---
Do you see that in the middle of the page?
Do you see that?
How can you reconcile with your claim here
Not all rural areas are equal.
There are two
The State of West Virginia rules
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
62 1
require data to be provided as a 24 Ldn actually, for one
2
week logged Ldn.
3
value includes --- it's an energy average of all the
4
different sound levels through a 24-hour period and
5
includes in addition of the nighttime levels.
6
levels that are presented in appendix A here, however,
7
are very short term levels based on instantaneous levels.
8
And all we're looking at in this case is 25 dBA.
9
sound level is very low, short term sound level in the
As many people here understand, the Ldn
The sound
The
10
absence of all the other sounds that are required to be
11
measured within West Virginia for the rules.
12
Q.
13
acoustical study that the quite rural nighttime level is
14
25 dBA if it does not comport with your standards you
15
used in doing your ambient monitoring?
16
A.
17
the lay reader an understanding of sound, and it
18
incorporates definitions of what sound is, talks about
19
overall rating.
20
through so that people can understand.
21
speaking, the average speech sound level is 60 dBA, it's
22
three feet away.
23
about.
24
paragraphs in appendix A, it does bring the concept of
25
the energy average sound level.
First, why did you tell us in appendix A of your
I was confused.
Well, the intent of providing appendix A is to give
It gives sort of a range of sounds Say when we're
You get a flavor of what acoustics is
As you march down through the sections of the
It introduces that.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
It
63 1
discusses about Ldn sound level, but it's also based on
2
energy average or LOQ.
3
guidelines in the West Virginia Public Service
4
Commission.
5
And it also touches on the
So it's really meant as a piece to educate people
6
about what range of sound levels are.
The data that was
7
provided in the report shows that there --- from hour to
8
hour sound levels can vary.
9
charts in the figures that there are time periods where
You can see within the
10
there it is quite quiet when the wind may not be blowing.
11
Q.
12
term standards employed or utilized by the Commission.
13
You're referring to what I would call the siting rules;
14
correct, or the provision of the siting rules that
15
applies to noise studies?
16
A.
In what context?
17
Q.
150 Code of State Rules 30; does that sound right?
18
A.
Yeah, under the guidelines, the design of the study.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
provision?
21
earlier that it states that noise events during the night
22
defined as 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. shall be weighted or
23
penalized by 10 dB to reflect the greater perceived
24
impact of noise during the night.
25
correct?
Okay.
You talked about --- I believe you used the
Do you recall language from that applicable And I think you made a direct reference to it
Does that sound
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
64 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
I'm probably going to experience déjà vu here, but
3
could I ask you to define the word noise?
4
A.
Noise is simply defined as unwanted sound.
5
Q.
So what do you consider to be unwanted sound events
6
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. in your
7
project?
8
examples of what are unwanted sound events during those
9
times that you're monitoring?
Could you identify --- could you give me
10
A.
I guess I don’t quite understand your question.
11
Q.
Well, I'm trying to understand if you in your
12
monitoring considered every element of sound that
13
occurred between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m.
14
each day of your monitoring, whether you considered each
15
one of those to be a noise event or by your definition an
16
unwanted sound event.
17
A.
18
on my part that any of the sound out there was unwanted,
19
whether it be a dog barking or a bird, leaves in the
20
trees, a car pass by.
21
Q.
22
a rural area such as the one you characterized for the
23
project site would be bothered or annoyed in any way by
24
rustling of leaves, birds chirping, crickets during the
25
night, things like that?
It's an ambient sound survey.
Okay.
There was no judgment
It was all sound.
Would you happen to know whether residents in
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
65 1
A.
I would speculate that they're not bothered by it.
2
Q.
Those things were picked up in your monitoring;
3
correct?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
And you treated them as noise events; correct?
6
A.
Well, people tend to use many times noise and sound
7
interchangeably.
8
capture all the sound.
9
would be considered noise by those residents.
The intents of the survey was to It wasn’t just to capture what
10
Q.
But you told me essentially, have you not, that your
11
interpretation of the applicable provision in siting
12
rules is that you need to identify unwanted sound events
13
using some methodology?
14
A.
15
wasn’t what I intended.
16
the state, that the sound surveys include all the sound.
17
Q.
18
should interpret the siting rules as stating that
19
unwanted sound events between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
20
6:59 a.m. shall be weighted by ten dB to reflect the
21
greater perceived impact of such noise at night; correct?
22
A.
23
stated.
24
Q.
25
have multiple copies as an exhibit, but ---.
If I said that or it was interpreted that way, it I believe, as in past studies in
Based on your definition of the word noise, we
I'd have to look at the specific words and how it's
Okay.
I'd be happy to share it with you.
I don’t
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
66 1
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2
May I approach the witness?
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Say what it is you're showing.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
I have shared with the witness a copy of the
7
siting rules.
I have the page current to the provision
8
to which I understood Mr. Barnes to be referring.
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?
18
be vague or --- have you done that kind of monitoring
19
inside a home or any kind of any other structure,
20
building, et cetera?
21
A.
22
certainly calculate C-weighted value from that.
23
have not.
24
Q.
25
respect to C-weighted sound?
No.
I don’t mean to
I've collected data that if need be, I can But I
You haven't specifically done such monitoring with
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
67 1
A.
No.
2
Q.
So you really cannot say what the C-weighted sound
3
levels would be inside of residences in the vicinity of
4
the project?
5
A.
6
applied to the outdoors.
7
C-weighted sound levels and use those in helping design a
8
facility, the C-weight is to be a documented sound level.
9
Q.
I can estimate it.
Okay.
The C-weighted sound level is When people look at a range of
I believe your earlier testimony was that
10
whether or not sound from wind turbines is heard within a
11
home depends on the construction of the home?
12
sound like that was your testimony?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
To your knowledge do you know --- could you explain
15
to me how the construction of a home might impact whether
16
or not sounds from a wind turbine is heard within it?
17
A.
18
structure.
19
a very light say hunting cabin of light wood
20
construction, obviously would have different
21
characteristics from the sound transmission through those
22
walls and within the home.
23
Q.
24
indoors with respect to C-weighted levels, you wouldn’t
25
be able to speak to whether a person in a home in the
Does that
Well, certainly a home that is more massive in If it's a concrete formed home as opposed to
Seeing as you haven't conducted any monitoring
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
68 1
vicinity of the project would be impacted by those lower
2
frequency sounds; correct?
3
A.
4
project area within a one-mile perimeter of the area and
5
decided what the sound transmission characteristics are.
6
But we have looked at various noise reduction
7
characteristics in different homes.
8
EPA has done studies and published recommendations as to
9
what the sound characteristics --- or noise reduction
We have not visited every home, I guess, within the
That would be ---
10
characteristics would be for homes.
And this is
11
particularly used around airports.
12
different construction of homes around airports and
13
stuff.
14
Q.
15
referring?
16
A.
The bulk of them were done in the 1970s.
17
Q.
I guess before 1974; right?
18
A.
Yeah.
19
1970s, too.
20
by the early 1980s.
21
Q.
22
right?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Wasn't it --- isn't it correct that in 1982 the
25
EPA's Office Noise Abatement and Control had its funding
People look at
When did the EPA conduct the studies to which you're
And there was some additional studies in the Effectively most of that work was completed
I guess that would have been completed by 1982;
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
69 1
basically eliminated?
2
A.
That is correct.
3
Q.
So that office has done nothing since 1982?
4
A.
Right.
5
research programs continue to be still quite useful.
6
Q.
7
with respect to the noise impact of the industrial wind
8
turbines of the variety we're dealing with in this case?
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.
16
would have been in the past five years.
17
Q.
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
The information they had developed and
So would it be your testimony that they're useful
I don’t know for the specific model, but likely it
And that would probably be true for any industrial
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
70 1
would have come into development; correct?
2
A.
That is correct.
3
Q.
I believe you referred to the EPA standard that you
4
cite and you contend states that the 55 dBA level was
5
found to be protective of human health.
6
characterization of your ---?
7
A.
8
economics or technical feasibility.
9
recommended as a guideline as protective, and it's used
That's right.
Is that a proper
And that's not taking into account It's also
10
for outdoor areas, some rural areas where quiet is one of
11
the uses.
Quiet is one of the characteristics we used.
12
Q.
Now, the study of noise, feasible studies of
13
large --- it's evolved quite a bit since 1972 when you
14
started your professional experience; right?
15
A.
16
people.
17
makes it noise has evolved a bit, but ---.
18
Q.
19
much as they would have in the '70s; correct?
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
Okay.
Portions have.
It's matured.
People are still
A reaction to sound and judgment about what
But people can be annoyed by sounds today just as
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
71 1
those lower frequency sounds that, I believe, fall within
2
the dBc type measurements might have an adverse impact to
3
human health in the vicinity of these projects?
4
A.
5
hasn't to my recollection or my understanding been any
6
peer-reviewed reports that have been accepted to date.
7
Q.
8
talking about, identify the author?
9
A.
There have been some published studies, but there
Could you identify any of those studies you're
Well, there's a similar one, one author in New York
10
State.
I attended a talk at an international wind
11
turbine conference in 2007 where there was a researcher
12
from Portugal that gave one.
13
the findings that she had presented, I believe, were not
14
really accepted by the community at that meeting.
15
a technical conference.
That particular paper and
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
I didn’t hear you.
It was
What monitor ---?
18
A.
They weren't really accepted.
I mean, basically
19
discussions followed and talks were not supportive of
20
this issue.
21
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
22
Q.
23
monitoring particularly with respect to lower frequency
24
sound levels, you wouldn’t be in a position to know
25
whether or to what extent people's health may be impacted
Seeing as you haven't performed any indoor sound
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
72 1
inside their homes from sound from industrial wind
2
turbines; correct?
3
A.
4
sites and have taken measurements that support the data
5
that I've been using and creations that I've been
6
working.
7
Q.
8
health impact studies that were referred to a minute ago,
9
none of these have been peer reviewed; is that correct?
Well, in that position and I have witnessed these
I have not witnessed any problem.
You, I believe, indicated that any of these human
10
A.
That's my understanding.
11
Q.
Was your acoustical study in this case peer
12
reviewed?
13
A.
The one I presented here?
14
Q.
Yeah.
15
A.
I believe it was peer reviewed --- call it peer
16
reviewed certainly by the technical staff of the
17
Commission which accepted the methods and the findings
18
and the interpretation of what the ambient sound studies
19
should be.
20
Q.
21
when you say peer review?
22
A.
23
acoustics that can look at the methods that I had
24
employed and the conclusions that I reached and commented
25
upon those.
If I can back up and ask you to define what you mean
Independent professional who is experienced in
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
73 1
Q.
Do you happen to know whether any member of the
2
Staff here at the Commission has any expertise that might
3
be remotely comparable to a noise expert?
4
A.
5
was asked to do it would have these qualifications.
6
Q.
But you wouldn’t know either way; would you?
7
A.
No, I wouldn’t.
I would assume that the technical Staff member that
8
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9
I believe that's all I have for Mr. Barnes.
10
Thank you.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Do you have any idea why the sound level ---
13
U.S. EPA sound levels have been unchanged since March of
14
1974?
15
A.
I have some opinions.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Well, you're an expert. Okay.
Let's hear them.
18
A.
Well, as the previous attorney had noted, the
19
office at the EPA that dealt with noise had its funding
20
basically cut back in 1982.
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.
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,
There was basically one
But I did come on-board and maybe one
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
74 1
both OSHA as well as the U.S. EPA were trying to get a
2
handle as to what the basics were about acoustics and
3
about noise.
4
from adverse hearing loss from noise.
5
wanted to come up with some sort of federal guidelines.
6
And there was perhaps some discussion about coming up
7
with some federal regulations for noise.
8
basically stepped back and said, noise is a local issue.
9
We're going to let the states handle it and we're going
10 11
On the OSHA side, how to protect workers And the U.S. EPA
And Congress
to, for the most part, let local --- all noise is local. So the U.S. did set some regulations for particular
12
sources, air compressors and trucks and rail, a few other
13
things.
14
noise should be left to state and local officials.
15
since that time, there has been additional work done
16
throughout the world, the World Health Organization at
17
European countries where they have looked at the reaction
18
of communities to noise.
19
know, anything in those studies that has caused the
20
original work from U.S. EPA to, I guess, be nullified.
21
So some of it comes down to dollars, and there's maybe
22
nothing else that's felt to be new for those particular
23
standards.
But they specifically felt that the rest of And
And there hasn’t been, you
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Do you think the '74 standards are
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
75 1
reasonable?
2
A.
3
at overall sound and how people react to sound in the
4
community.
5
continues to use them for --- in cases that come in for
6
FERC.
7
hundred percent of the people, make any regulations that
8
are really tended to.
Well, they're guidelines.
I think that people look
Yeah, they're reasonable.
FERC uses them,
It's not to say, in my opinion, that it protects a
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 10
I was looking at your testimony on page ten
11
and it was sort of what prompted my questions about the
12
speed of the turbine blades earlier.
13
lines 15, 16 and 17 on page 10 that we assume that all 23
14
turbines were operating with a hub height wind speed of
15
10.9 miles per hour, the wind condition that produces the
16
greatest sound by this turbine model.
17
is that the turbines spin at --- and I'm probably just
18
dangerous to have a little bit of knowledge, but at 16 to
19
19 revolutions per minute if ---.
20
increase with the velocity of the wind if the turbine
21
blades continue to spin at roughly the same rate?
22
Q.
23
think the hub height wind speed where it's maximum sound
24
level is at 10.9 meters per second and in parenthesis,
25
quote, 1 to 24 miles per hour, and so that is sort of the
And you said on
My understanding
Does the sound
Well, there's maximum points for the wind speed.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
I
76 1
maximum of the --- the condition for the maximum sound
2
output.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Where do get that?
Is that from the specs
5
from the manufacturer?
6
A.
7
testing for major manufacturers.
8
parts of my testimony report, I noted what the difference
9
is as it drops off by a dB or so.
10
Yes, those are provided --- they're developed by Actually, in other
It says wind speeds
are actually somewhat higher.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
You also testified about moderate industrial
13
turbines, and I assume you're talking about wind turbines
14
are equipped with extensive noise control features and
15
you go on to talk about those.
16
refer to as recent changes in technology or ---?
17
A.
18
past ten years, and they're continuing to --- it's a
19
competitive market, and they're trying to come up with
20
quieter turbines all the time, more reliable.
Are those what you would
Well, they're improvements recently sort of in the
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
As a general proposition, are the turbines
23
that are sold today quieter than they were five years
24
ago?
25
A.
Certainly on a sort of per kilowatt or megawatt
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
77 1
basis they are quieter.
They're also growing larger,
2
too, to kind of --- to sort of competing forces.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Thank you, Mr. Barnes.
5
Mr. Alsop, do you
also have any Redirect?
6
ATTORNEY ALSOP:
7
Yes, Your Honor, just a few.
8
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
10
Q.
Let's start out, Mr. Barnes, with two points on the
11
ambient sound monitoring program that you did.
12
discussion with Mr. Stephens about the siting rules and
13
the ten dBA penalty applied.
14
discussion?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Is it your understanding that the citing rules
17
requiring monitoring over a week long period call for
18
results expressed as a DNL or Ldn?
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?
You had a
Do you recollect that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
78 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
In calling for the energy averages expressed as an
3
Ldn, in calling for that average, it was an average of
4
all sounds that occurred during that period?
5
understanding of the rules; correct?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
And so in the siting rules, as you understand,
8
applied to your study, when they called for a ten dBA
9
penalty during certain hours of the day, in calculating
Is that my
10
that Ldn you believe it was appropriate to apply that ten
11
dBA penalty during those nighttime hours; is that
12
correct?
13
A.
14
involving a ten dBA nighttime penalty is built into that.
15
Q.
16
about appendix A and a, quote, quiet rule at nighttime of
17
25 dBA and the ambient sound levels that you recorded in
18
the range for the project.
19
discussion?
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.
That's correct.
That's basically the definition
Mr. Stephens also had the conversation with you
Do you remember that
If there was not wind, that would be quite
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
79 1
surprising.
Obviously, there'd be some other factor in
2
play, but for this particular area or a similar type of
3
area where you end up having wind and trees on a very
4
regular basis both day and certainly at nighttime, no,
5
not surprised.
6
Q.
7
why this is a good resource for a wind project?
8
A.
Exactly.
9
Q.
And it's not surprising to you in terms of ambient
So I'm assuming that's probably one of the reasons
10
sound levels that you've done on this project?
11
A.
Correct.
12
Q.
The wind reading in most cases doesn’t note day or
13
nighttime.
14
in there's less nighttime activity.
15
A.
16
study.
In many other areas that we take measurements
Let's talk about the particular results for the If you can turn to page 26 of your report.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Are both of your microphones on?
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
80 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
That's fine.
It's the only function I serve
3
is monitor the microphones.
4
BY ATTORNEY ALSOP:
5
Q.
6
There are five ambient sound monitors that you used for
7
this project; correct?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
And were those selected to be representative of the
Do you believe that the --- let me take a step back.
10
homes of the sounds in the area?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And given that the --- it looks like the dominant
13
feature of the structures around the home --- around this
14
project, for both projects by the residences, were the
15
sound monitoring locations selected to be representative
16
of the ambient sound of the residences around the
17
project?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Do you believe that the use of these sound monitors
20
resulted in you gaining an understanding of what the
21
ambient sound levels are in this area?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
Which way does the wind blow, if you can
24
characterize it, as it relates to the turbines and the
25
ridge?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
81 1
A.
The wind data that was provided to me in discussions
2
with Pinnacle Wind Force is --- it's my understanding
3
that the dominant wind direction is from west to east.
4
Q.
5
of some homes that I think you indicated in your
6
testimony gave you some concern.
7
map where those residences are?
8
A.
9
around locations four and five.
Mr. Auville asked you a question about the location
I see them.
Would you locate on the
They're residences that are located
10
Q.
And for the record would that be as it's located on
11
page 26, the residences A17, A9, A16, A56 and A55?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And you did --- after you had done the ambient sound
14
monitoring and then performed your expected predictions
15
using the model, did you have some concerns about those
16
residences?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Did you relay those concerns to Pinnacle?
19
A.
I did.
20
Q.
And what's your understanding about what Pinnacle
21
did in response to your concerns?
22
A.
23
owners and have --- and those owners are now participants
24
in the project.
25
owners.
My understanding is that Pinnacle contacted those
They have an agreement with those
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
82 1
Q.
Does that help to alleviate your concerns?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
There was a discussion about low frequency noise.
4
For this project you did do predictions for C-weighted
5
predicted noise levels for sound levels for the project;
6
correct?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
So even though you may not have been inside the home
9
measuring them, you were able to make those predictions;
10
correct?
11
A.
Yes, outside the residences or locations outside.
12
Q.
I'll talk a little bit about low frequency noise.
13
Has the design of the wind turbine changed over time to
14
address concerns that were addressed with previous models
15
as it specifically relates to low frequency noise --- low
16
frequency sound?
17
A.
18
but most substantially previous designs that had the
19
rotor downwind of the support structure has basically
20
been superseded for the most part by the upward rotor
21
design, which has greatly reduced the low frequency
22
component.
23
Q.
24
reduce it?
25
through the turbine, how that's sort of changed upwind
Yes.
Excuse me.
Certainly the blade design has been improved,
Can you explain a little bit how that helps to Is it a flow through --- how the wind flows
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
83 1
versus downwind that makes that difference?
2
A.
3
having a weight that's jutted off the back, and you'll
4
have a vortex.
5
if the blade is downwind of that structure, that will be
6
cutting through.
7
motion sight.
8
switching around so that the rotor is upwind of that
9
turbine, you do not have that same interaction.
Yes.
As the wind flows by the support you'll end up
And as you periodically have a blade ---
And it's basically just a very slow
You get a high level, but if you end up
10
Q.
Just go back quickly to page 26 of the noise study.
11
You mentioned that the homes located that we discussed
12
before on the east side of the project, you had a
13
concern.
14
fact that they're project participants.
15
other concerns about any of the rest of the residences in
16
the project area?
17
A.
18
closest on the west side, I had somewhat of a less
19
concern since the prominent and dominant wind direction
20
is from the west.
21
upwind from those turbines.
22
Q.
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
But those concerns have been alleviated by the Do you have any
The ones that were closest --- the one that was
For the most part those homes will be
That one home that's closest on the west, it is
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
84 1
that eliminate your concern with respect to the
2
residences with respect to this project?
3
A.
Yes.
4
ATTORNEY ALSOP:
5
I don’t have anything further, Mr. Chairman.
6
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
7
At the risk of beating something that's been
8
talked to death, I just want to make sure that the record
9
is clear.
10
RECROSS EXAMINATION
11
BY ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
12
Q.
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
19
different with it?
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
So then you just accepted all the sounds that came
22
in during that period of time?
23
A.
Correct.
24
Q.
What is this ten dB penalty that gets put on?
25
does that work in that calculation, if it does?
On this, what you call the Ldn the long term sound
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
How
85 1
A.
The monitors basically listen many times a second,
2
so it's continuously listening to the level when it
3
calculates both an A-weighted, and we program it to
4
calculate a C-weighted sound.
5
time.
6
the morning to 10:00 at night, it takes all that sound
7
energy and adds it up.
8
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 in the morning, it also adds all that
9
sound energy up, but it adds a ten dB penalty.
So it's listening all the
For the daytime hours that occur between 7:00 in
And for the nighttime hours from
And
10
penalty, basically it's an adjustment.
11
account people's increased sensitivity to sound during
12
the nighttime hours, tries to level things out, if you
13
will, between the impact of sound heard during the
14
daytime and nighttime.
15
It takes into
And so then it takes all that average sound level
16
--- sound energy, averages it up and comes up with one
17
number, and that's a number that's been used by the FAA,
18
by other federal agencies, by FERC because it takes into
19
account all of the sound level with the understanding
20
that you need sort of a nighttime adjustment.
21
Q.
22
Commission, what you just described; is that right?
23
A.
Correct.
24
Q.
And the ten dB is actually making it seem louder at
25
night than it really is in order to take into what you
And that's required by the regulations of this
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
86 1
discussed in terms of the sensitivity of people; is that
2
correct?
3
A.
Yes.
4
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
5
Thank you.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
Mr. Auville?
8
RECROSS EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
10
Q.
In response to some question from Mr. Alsop, you
11
said that you had expressed concerns to Pinnacle about
12
those homes that were closest to the project because of
13
noise.
14
they're now project participants; is that correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
What would your recommendation have been had those
17
homes decided not to become participants in the project?
18
A.
19
It'd be more difficult to answer that question up here.
20
Q.
21
not become concerned about a non-participating home from
22
a project, this one or in generalities?
23
distance that you're comfortable, like 1,000 feet is
24
going to generally take care of noise issues in relation
25
to a home?
Those concerns have been alleviated because
I would have continued to have expressed my concern.
Is there a distance at some point where you would
Is there some
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
87 1
A.
I haven't established a bright line to monitor and I
2
do think some things are different, whether it be the
3
local --- sort of the local values much like your U.S.
4
EPA.
5
make that decision.
6
where it's pretty much a seasonal issue, and for the most
7
part during that season where people may be living there,
8
then the turbines won't be operating much.
9
distances could be much smaller and there would be still
So noise level really is up to the community to If it's just a seasonal wind project
So the
10
not much risk, I guess, to the overall community.
11
don’t have a bright line of distance at this point.
12
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
13
Okay.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
16
Barnes, you're excused.
17
A.
So I
Thank you.
Anything else?
Okay.
Mr.
Thank you.
Thank you.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
I show it's around 11:25. All right.
We should take a
20
break.
We've got a conference set at noon,
21
so if we take a break we'll come back for about 10
22
minutes so --- or 15.
23
lunch break now and come back here about quarter to 1:00
24
and prepare to resume at that time.
25
LUNCH BREAK TAKEN
So why don’t we go head and take a
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
88 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
All right.
3
Barnes.
We finished with Mr.
I guess we're at Mr. Llewellyn.
4
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5
That's correct, Your Honor.
6
---------------------------------------------------------
7
WILLIAM E. LLEWELLYN, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
8
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
9
---------------------------------------------------------
10
DIRECT EXAMINATION
11
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
12
Q.
13
business address for the record.
14
A.
15
address is 27 East Main Street, Frostburg, Maryland,
16
21532.
17
Q.
Mr. Llewellyn, how are you employed?
18
A.
I'm a project director for CME Engineering.
19
Q.
Have you served as project director for CME in
20
respect to the Pinnacle project?
21
A.
Yes, sir, I have.
22
Q.
Did you cause to be prepared Direct testimony on
23
behalf of Pinnacle in this case?
24
A.
Yes, sir.
25
Q.
I'd like you to look into the white binder there
Good afternoon.
Please give your name and
My name is William Llewellyn.
The business
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
89 1
and see if you can identify what appears to be a copy of
2
that testimony.
3
a little bit closer to you, Mr. Llewellyn.
You might want to pull the microphone up Very good.
4
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5
Your Honor, I would like to ask that
6
Mr. Llewellyn's Direct testimony be marked for
7
identification purposes as Exhibit WEL-D.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
It will be so marked.
10
(Exhibit WEL-D marked for
11
identification.)
12
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
13
Q.
14
sir?
15
A.
Yes, it does.
16
Q.
Was this testimony prepared by you or under your
17
direction?
18
A.
Yes, it was.
19
Q.
Are there any changes or corrections that should
20
be made in order to make that testimony truthful and
21
accurate today?
22
A.
Does this appear to be a copy of your testimony,
No, sir.
23
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
24
There is, I'll point out, a couple of
25
changes or typographical ones, I'm sure are my fault,
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
90 1
that should be made.
2
two through six caption above, it says Direct testimony
3
of Paul Kerlinger.
4
of them should read as the first page does bearing Mr.
5
Llewellyn's name.
6
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
7
Q.
8
of testimony be introduced into evidence as your sworn
9
testimony in this case?
10
A.
You'll see on pages two --- pages
Of course, that's not correct.
Each
Mr. Llewellyn, do you intend that this exhibit
Yes, sir.
11
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
12
Your Honor, I move the admission of
13
Exhibit WEL-D and offer Mr. Llewellyn for Cross
14
Examination.
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
All right.
17
admitted.
Without objection, it is
Mr. Trivelli?
18
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
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:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
91 1
Q.
Good afternoon, Mr. Llewellyn.
2
A.
Good afternoon.
3
Q.
My name is Brad Stephens.
4
Front Alliance in this case.
5
you about one area of your testimony and that is with
6
respect to the NPDES General Construction Stormwater
7
Permit.
8
hear it stated different ways, but what is the status of
9
that permit as we sit here today that Pinnacle has
I represent Allegheny
I mainly just wanted to ask
I may have inverted a couple of words there.
I
10
applied for?
11
A.
12
Virginia DEP.
13
week for a comment period.
14
Q.
15
comment period is?
16
A.
I believe 30 days, if I'm not mistaken.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
West Virginia DEP would need to carry out even following
19
the conclusion of that comment period in connection with
20
the permit; correct?
21
A.
The draft permit has been issued by West
Okay.
Public notice was to be published this
Do you have any idea how long that
And there would be other tasks that the
Correct.
22
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
23
I'm about to distribute two exhibits.
24
I'll do them one at a time, of course.
First, I'll
25
represent to Mr. Llewellyn this is a printout obtained
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
92 1
from the DEP website on October 23rd.
I'll ask Mr.
2
Llewellyn about it, but I'll represent to him that it
3
reflects as of that date the status of the permit we're
4
discussing.
5
and I'm sure he'll recognize it, it's a fact sheet
6
outlining the process in connection with this type of
7
permit.
8
referred to is a printout on October 23rd.
9
that it be marked Alliance Exhibit Eight.
The second exhibit I'll represent to him,
First, the Application Milestones sheet I I would ask
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
Nine.
12
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Nine.
14
(Alliance Exhibit Nine marked for
15
identification.)
16
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17
And that will make this next exhibit
18
Okay.
--- I'll ask to be marked Alliance Exhibit Ten.
19
(Alliance Exhibit Ten marked for
20
identification.)
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
We marked for identification the
23
Application Milestone as Alliance Nine and the fact sheet
24
for DEP's Department of Environment Protection Division
25
of Water and Waste Water as Alliance Exhibit Ten.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
93 1
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2
Thank you, Your Honor.
3
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
4
Q.
5
we were discussing where in the process Pinnacle is for
6
this NPDES Stormwater Construction Permit.
7
first sheet, Alliance Exhibit Nine --- does this
8
accurately reflect to the best of your knowledge the
9
status of the permit?
When I left off before introducing the exhibits,
Does this
10
A.
No, sir, I don't believe it does.
11
Q.
How does this not accurately represent ---?
12
A.
I'm sorry.
13
draft permit was prepared on 10/20.
14
Q.
15
below where you had cited, you see draft permit prepared,
16
do we not see nine Application Milestones still required?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
the West Virginia DEP has identified that they will need
20
to carry out before the permit will be finalized if it's
21
to be; correct?
22
A.
Correct.
23
Q.
And I don't intend to go into much detail, but
24
I'll ask Alliance Exhibit Ten, which I represented to you
25
was a fact sheet --- are you familiar with this document
Okay.
It does in fact.
I see where the Yes, sir, it does.
But as we look down to just directly
And so that's nine discrete tasks that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
94 1
at all?
2
A.
I've seen this document before, yes, sir.
3
Q.
Okay.
4
the --- I guess the details of what West Virginia DEP
5
expects in connection with the construction stormwater
6
permit such as the one Pinnacle is seeking?
7
words, does it appear to be the most up-to-date version
8
of such a fact sheet?
9
A.
I believe it is to the best of my knowledge.
10
Q.
All right.
11
pour over it and take up a lot of time, but would you
12
agree with me that this fact sheet describes and sets
13
forth a process which is of a review by West Virginia DEP
14
that's much more detailed and lengthy than the one that
15
this Commission would engage in with respect to the
16
project's impacts to water resources?
Would you agree with me that it reflects
In other
Like I said, I don't think I want to
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
How would he know that?
19
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20
Well, to the extent ---.
21
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
22
Q.
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
I'll ask the witness, to the extent you're
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
95 1
process that is much more detailed and involves much
2
greater scrutiny than that based on the Commission under
3
the siting rules?
4
A.
I believe that's an accurate statement, yes.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
I believe that's all I have for you,
7
Mr. Llewellyn.
Thank you.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
All right.
Mr. Trivelli?
10
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
11
No questions.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
Staff?
14
Commissioners, do you have any
questions?
15
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
16
Mr. Llewellyn, could you define for me
17
the word environmental?
18
A.
19
environment.
The word environmental?
Being of the
20
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
21
Thank you.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
In your testimony, you say CME has been
No further questions.
24
involved since soon after its inception.
25
When was that, do you know?
What inception?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
96 1
A.
I started with CME in 2004, and we were involved
2
at that time.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
So it was some time prior to that.
All
5
right.
And on page four of six, you have an extensive
6
list of the permits that are required, and my question
7
was, as we sit here today, are you aware of opposition or
8
the need for any additional studies opposition to any of
9
the ones that are outlined here other than in this
10
proceeding, obviously, or the need for any additional
11
studies that aren't set forth in that testimony?
12
A.
13
presented.
I'm aware of nothing that hasn't already been
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
And in your testimony at page six, you
16
say subsequent revision of the application was made in
17
April and WV DEP is expected to complete its review by
18
June 1.
And obviously, that hasn't occurred, or has it?
19
A.
Yes, sir, it has.
20
subsequent review and revision of that plan that took it
21
to the point of actually approving ---.
That would have been the
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
And that's what you testified about
24
earlier?
25
A.
Yes, sir.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
97 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
All right.
3
all I have.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's
Any further questions?
4
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5
No, nothing to follow up with, Your
6
Honor.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
All right.
9
You're excused.
Thank you, Mr. Llewellyn.
I don't show that you moved the
10
admission of your Cross Examination Exhibits.
11
being coy or what are we ---?
Are you
12
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Yes, I'm being a little --- how about I
14
do that now?
I'm going to move the admission of Exhibits
15
Alliance --- Alliance Exhibits Nine and Ten.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
All right, sir.
18
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
19
No objection.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
All right.
22
Objection?
They're admitted.
Jeffrey
Maymon, is that who's next?
23
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
24
Yes, Your Honor, we'd call Jeffrey
25
Maymon.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
98 1
---------------------------------------------------------
2
JEFFREY H. MAYMON, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
3
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
4
---------------------------------------------------------
5
DIRECT EXAMINATION
6
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
7
Q.
8
name and business address for the record, please?
9
A.
Good afternoon.
Jeffrey Maymon.
Would you please state your
It's 241 East Fourth Street,
10
Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland.
11
Q.
And what is your occupation?
12
A.
I'm a senior project manager for archeology with
13
a company called Goodwin & Associates.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
Is that mike on?
Is the blue
16
light ---?
17
A.
18
Christopher Goodwin & Associates.
19
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20
Q.
21
there?
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?
Yes, it is.
I work for a company called R.
Mr. Maymon, would you look in the white binder I think it's tab nine.
And look behind that and
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
99 1
A.
Yes, it is.
2
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
Your Honor, I'd like that testimony at
4
tab nine to be marked for identification as
5
Exhibit JHM-D.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
It will be so marked.
8
(Exhibit JHM-D marked for
9
identification.)
10
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
11
Q.
12
you or under your direction or supervision?
13
A.
Yes, it was.
14
Q.
Are there any changes or corrections or
15
additions that you would like to make to that testimony
16
today?
17
A.
18
received review letter from SHPO in June, and I continue
19
to consult with SHPO to resolve hopefully resource
20
issues.
21
Q.
22
of your testimony, there's a question, has WV SHPO
23
responded to the archeological surveyor report, and your
24
answer was no ---
25
A.
Mr. Maymon, is that your testimony prepared by
Yes.
I'd like to add the tab that's on --- we
Just to be clear for the record, in page seven
Right.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
100 1
Q.
--- as of that date.
So what you're advising
2
the Commission is that since the date of your --- that
3
testimony was prepared you have received response from
4
West Virginia SHPO?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
With that, is there anything else that you need
7
to correct or change?
8
A.
No.
9
Q.
With that supplementation, is the testimony you
10
have --- you believe it to be true and accurate to the
11
best of your knowledge and belief?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And if I were to sit here today and go through
14
and ask each of the questions contained in that
15
testimony, would your answers be substantially the same?
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
Do you adopt that prepared testimony, and it's
18
been marked JHM-D, as your testimony in this case?
19
A.
I do.
20
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21
Your Honor, subject to Cross
22
Examination, we move admission of Exhibit JHM-D and make
23
this witness available for Cross Examination.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Without objection, it will be admitted.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
101 1
Mr. Trivelli?
2
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
3
No questions.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Staff?
6
CROSS EXAMINATION
7
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
8
Q.
9
letter that you got?
What exactly did the WV SHPO tell you in that Was it June?
10
A.
Yeah, it was June.
They indicated that they had
11
concerns about the archeological sites.
12
identified nine archeological sites, they had concerns
13
about eight of them.
14
worked to redesign and provide more information on those
15
sites and they've provided that information and avoided
16
four of them ---.
Since that time, Pinnacle has
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Avoided or ---?
19
A.
Although we
Avoided four of the archeological sites.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
In your opinion or in SHPO's opinion?
22
A.
I believe in SHPO's opinion.
23
that's been concluded in a Memoranda of Agreement.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
Sorry.
In fact, recently
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
102 1
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
2
You're fine.
3
A.
And so they are all in agreement that those four
4
are avoided.
5
by logging, timbering activity.
6
sites left yet to be resolved.
7
MOA that sets forth the protocol that provides for
8
consultation back and forth to resolve those issues.
9
have --- in verbal conversation with SHPO, I believe
One of the sites was found to be destroyed And there were three There's a protocol in the
10
those are resolved at this point, and we should be
11
getting a letter soon.
12
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
13
Okay.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
16
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17
Thank you.
I
Thank you.
Mr. Stephens?
18
CROSS EXAMINATION
19
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
20
Q.
Good afternoon, Mr. Maymon.
21
A.
Good afternoon.
22
Q.
My name is Brad Stephens.
23
Front Alliance in this case.
24
scope of your review of archeological sites, did it
25
extend beyond areas which covered ground that may be
I represent Allegheny
Just so I understand the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
103 1
disturbed by construction of the project or was it
2
limited to that area of probable disturbance of ground?
3
A.
4
area that will be disturbed.
5
flexibility in terms of design.
6
between 400 and 800 feet wide up and down the top of the
7
mountain.
8
Q.
9
dealings with Ms. Kuranda in the scope of work on this
The survey extended quite a bit larger than the
Okay.
That was to provide some So we surveyed an area
And I take it you had a good bit of
10
project?
11
A.
Some.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
or land scope of your analysis is much narrower than
14
hers?
15
A.
16
and the direct effects.
17
underground, that's what we look at.
18
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19
I think that's all I have for you.
20
So it's fair to say that the geographic
For archeology it really is the direct impacts Since the resources tend to be
Thank you.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
I'm just curious.
23
you're talking about your professional experience and
24
education --- you're talking about large recoveries in
25
West Virginia.
Large recoveries,
What is a large recovery in West
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
104 1
Virginia?
2
A.
A large data recovery?
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
I don't know.
I have managed a wide
5
range of cultural research projects ranging from small
6
phase one and archeological surveys to large recoveries.
7
A.
8
recovery is basically salvage of a portion of an
9
archeological site that's been determined eligible for
10
It's just that data recovery.
I'm sorry.
Data
the national register or state register.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
And what would that involve?
13
A.
It's what you see on National Geographic.
It's
14
excavation of a larger area, trying to get much more
15
information about it and basically salvage that
16
information.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
The shovel test each measured a minimum
19
of 50 square centimeters.
Did you mean 50 centimeters on
20
a side or 50 square centimeters?
21
A.
Fifty (50) on a side.
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Okay.
24
opposed ---
25
A.
So that would be 2,500 as
Right.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
105 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
--- to 50?
3
A.
Right.
Yes.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
All right.
6
thinking ---.
7
A.
Because I was sitting there
They're much bigger.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
All right.
I think I know the answer
10
to this.
What's the term flake?
11
Indian arrowhead or something?
12
A.
13
manufacturing of stone tools, you basically chip off
14
flakes to make an arrowhead or what have you.
Not even.
Is that something ---
It's a piece broken off during the
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
So it's the residue from a chipped off
17
arrowhead?
18
A.
Exactly.
It's the trash.
19
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20
And stills, S-T-I-L-L-S?
You say
21
possible historic stills.
22
A.
23
where someone had dug out some rocks and pilled them up
24
around these things.
25
thing we could come up with was that they were, you know,
We're not sure what they are.
Those were areas
We're speculating --- the only
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
106 1
backwoods distilleries of some sort.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
Oh, stills in ---?
4
A.
Yeah, still --- backwoods still.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
Interesting.
7
A.
But it was a ---.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Now you've got my attention.
10
that was some archeological term.
11
corn whiskey.
Okay.
I thought
I didn't even think
I have nothing further.
12
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
13
We have no more Direct.
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
16
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
17
I ask this witness be excused.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
You may be excused.
20
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
21
We would call Kathryn Kuranda.
22
---------------------------------------------------------
23
KATHRYN M. KURANDA, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
24
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
25
---------------------------------------------------------
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
107 1
DIRECT EXAMINATION
2
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
Q.
4
please state your name and business address for the
5
record?
6
A.
7
address is 241 East Fourth Street, Suite 100, Frederick,
8
Maryland.
9
Q.
And where do you work and what do you do?
10
A.
I'm senior vice president for architectural and
11
historian services for R. Christopher Goodwin &
12
Associates, a cultural resource management firm.
13
Q.
14
notebook that I think is in front of you ---
15
A.
Uh-huh (yes).
16
Q.
--- and identify for the record the testimony
17
there at tab ten?
18
A.
Kathryn --- I mean, Ms. Kuranda, would you
My name is Kathryn Kuranda and my business
And would you please turn to tab ten in the
It appears to be my testimony.
19
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20
Your Honor, I would ask that the
21
testimony that's been identified be marked as Exhibit
22
KMK-D.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
It will be so marked.
25
(Exhibit KMK-D marked for
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
108 1
identification.)
2
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
Q.
4
or under your direction?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
And do you wish to make any changes or
7
corrections or additions to your testimony?
8
A.
Not at this time.
9
Q.
All right.
Ms. Kuranda, was this testimony prepared by you
Is it true and accurate to the best
10
of your knowledge and belief?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
If I were to ask you questions that are
13
contained in that testimony, would your answers here
14
today be essentially the same?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And do you ask that this testimony be submitted
17
as your sworn testimony in this proceeding?
18
A.
Yes, I do.
19
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20
Your Honor, subject to Cross
21
Examination, we would ask that Exhibit KMK-D be admitted,
22
and we make this witness available for Cross Examination.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
All right.
25
admitted.
Without objection, it is
Mr. Trivelli, any questions?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
109 1
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
2
No questions.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
Staff?
5
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
6
No questions.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
All right.
9
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
10
Mr. Stephens?
Thank you, Your Honor.
11
CROSS EXAMINATION
12
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Q.
Good afternoon, Ms. Kuranda.
14
A.
Good afternoon.
15
Q.
In determining the --- what is it called, area
16
of potential effect?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
You pronounce that APE or do you say A-P-E?
19
A.
A-P-E.
20
Q.
A-P-E.
21
A-P-E.
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
Do I have the term right?
I didn't want to be uncouth, so I'll say
I believe at least in appendix W to the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
110 1
verification.
What kind of computer modeling?
2
A.
3
outline of the area as well as vegetative cover and those
4
two factors were discussed with the West Virginia State
5
Historic Preservation Office.
6
that viewshed corridors were identified through that
7
computer modeling appropriate to the satisfaction of
8
SHPO.
9
Q.
We take into account typography of the area, the
We further field verified
And that was done in-house by someone with
10
Christopher Goodwin & Associates?
11
A.
Actually, we have in-house GIS capabilities.
12
Q.
So was there a certain distance beyond which ---
13
in terms of miles or meters or yards beyond which the APE
14
did not extend?
15
A.
16
Preservation Office, it was determined that they were
17
interested in a file-mile radius in West Virginia.
18
scope of work was proposed and discussed with them.
19
There was something in writing, and they agreed that it
20
was appropriate.
21
Q.
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.
In consultation with the State Historic
Okay.
A
But you would agree with me that there
I believe there are portions of Maryland, but
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
111 1
they were not all reviewed pursuant to West Virginia
2
Code.
3
Q.
4
of McCoole, Maryland and Westernport, Maryland are within
5
that five-mile radius?
6
A.
I haven't checked on that.
7
Q.
Would it assist you if I pulled out one of the
8
viewshed maps and we take a look at that?
9
A.
I'll take your word for it.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
towns are within a five-mile radius?
12
A.
13
then I take your word for it.
14
Q.
15
are numerous sites either listed on the National Register
16
of Historic Places or eligible for National Register
17
listing that are within the city limits of McCoole,
18
Maryland and Westernport, Maryland?
19
A.
20
investigations that have been undertaken in Maryland.
21
They are not part of our investigation.
22
Q.
23
resources listed on the National Register or eligible for
24
such listing?
25
A.
Would you agree with me that the towns or cities
I don't know.
Then you'll agree with me that those
If they're indicated within a five-mile radius,
Okay.
Would you also agree with me that there
I'm not familiar with the previous
Fair enough.
But would you agree that there are
I have no direct knowledge of that.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
112 1
Q.
Think about that.
Let me ask, have you done
2
these kinds of studies, these historic resource studies
3
in the State of Maryland?
4
A.
Yes, we have.
5
Q.
And just the same type of study I believe for
6
the Dan's Mountain Wind Energy Project?
7
kind of work in connection with that?
8
A.
9
determined in consultation with the Maryland Historical
It was similar in methodology.
You did the same
The scope was
10
Trust as a state historic preservation office.
And they
11
limited their concerns to a number of previously
12
identified sites within their inventory that had yet been
13
evaluated for significance under the National Register
14
criteria.
15
Q.
16
within the State of Maryland from which the Pinnacle
17
project would be visible if it's constructed?
18
A.
I believe that is true.
19
Q.
I ask because you said you performed an in-house
20
visibility analysis and that was sort of the starting
21
point in connection with the ABE; correct?
22
A.
23
pursuant to discussions with the state office in
24
accordance with the methodology and scope of work that
25
was developed in consultation and reviewed.
Would you agree with me that there are locations
Within the State of West Virginia.
That was
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
113 1
Q.
Understood.
2
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
3
Your Honor, I'm about to distribute
4
what I'll ask to be marked Alliance Exhibit 11.
And we
5
won't have a fight about this, but I'll represent to Ms.
6
Kuranda that the information contained on it was obtained
7
from the Maryland Historic Trust website on October 24th,
8
2009.
9
11.
But I'll ask that this be marked Alliance Exhibit
10
(Alliance Exhibit 11 marked for
11
identification.)
12
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Q.
14
Kuranda?
15
A.
16
yesterday, too.
17
Q.
18
you appear to be familiar with Allegany County, Maryland,
19
does this look like it's, to the best of your knowledge,
20
a listing of national registered eligible and national
21
registered listed resources in the towns of Westernport
22
and McCoole, Maryland?
23
A.
24
Maryland inventory historic properties.
25
does not indicate whether these resources have been
Have you had a chance to glance over that, Ms.
Yes.
Good.
And I had an opportunity to look at it
To the best of your knowledge seeing that
What this appears to be is a data search of I have --- it
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
114 1
evaluated for national register significance.
2
Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties is the
3
statewide database that includes any information that has
4
been collected on resources that may be under the purview
5
of MIHP.
6
Q.
7
whether any particular resource listed on either of these
8
pages isn't on the national register?
9
A.
Okay.
The
But you wouldn't be in a position to deny
There is insufficient information here.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear what you
12
said.
13
A.
14
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
15
Q.
16
Historic Properties differ from a listing that the
17
Maryland Historic Trust would have of national registered
18
listed and national registered eligible sites?
19
A.
20
Nation's inventory of resources that have been formally
21
nominated for listing on the national register as having
22
significance in integrity in accordance with the
23
criteria.
24
and those determinations are made by the keeper of the
25
register, who is an employee of the National Park
There's insufficient information here.
Okay.
How does the Maryland Inventory of
The National Register of Historic Places is the
It's maintained by the National Park Service,
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
115 1
Service.
The national --- Maryland Historical Trust
2
serves as Maryland's historic preservation office.
3
part of their mission, they collect inventory data on
4
resources that may meet this criteria.
5
on --- can be collected a number of ways.
6
collected subject to projects such as this on resources
7
that don't meet the criteria as well as some that do.
8
After this point, the inventory is collected, there's
9
generally an analysis that's undertaken in accordance
As
Data is collected It can be
10
with the National Park Service standards and
11
determination of eligibility.
12
determination of eligibility are made in concert with the
13
respective state historic preservation offices for
14
determination of eligibility.
15
purview of the keeper of the register.
16
Q.
17
Inventory of Historic Properties as the starting point
18
from which an eligibility determination or listing
19
determination can be made?
20
A.
21
that are used, the raw data that are used, as well as
22
data on resources that are actually listed.
23
Q.
Okay.
24
A.
But they're different --- they're designated in
25
different ways.
Concurrence of
Actual listing is the
So is it fair to characterize the Maryland
It collects --- it contains many of the data
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
116 1
Q.
Okay.
Well, then the sites you see listed on
2
the last --- Exhibit 11 that I shared with you ---?
3
A.
4
--- by county and it appears perhaps a particular survey
5
area or a potential district, but I don't know what
6
action was taken on those.
7
Q.
8
this listing in Alliance Exhibit 11, the fact that these
9
resources are on the Maryland Inventory of Historic
This appears to be your basic site numbering for
But this listing --- any particular resource on
10
Properties certainly does not indicate that any of the
11
resources are not actual registered eligible?
12
A.
That's correct.
13
Q.
Thank you.
14
dealings and correspondence with the Maryland Historical
15
Trust; correct?
16
A.
We deal with that agency extensively.
17
Q.
It seems so.
18
correspondence with the Maryland Historical Trust within
19
the scope of your work in connection with this Pinnacle
20
project?
21
A.
22
authority.
23
Q.
24
have review authority?
25
A.
And you've obviously had prior
Did you have any dealings or any
No, we did not.
They did not have review
How is it that you determined that they did not
Because the project was being licensed in the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
117 1
State of West Virginia and being reviewed by the West
2
Virginia State Historic Preservation Office.
3
certainly had the --- they identified resources that were
4
appropriate to look at in the surrounding states to a
5
certain degree or another.
6
Q.
7
determining eligibility for national register status or
8
for listing --- aren't essentially all those criteria
9
embodied in the Code of Federal Regulations?
That office
But aren't all of the pertinent criteria for
10
A.
That's true.
Those are the ones that are
11
accepted on a professional level nationwide.
12
Q.
Nationwide?
13
A.
Nationwide.
14
Q.
So there's no distinction made with respect to
15
which state office may be charged with administration of
16
--- or investigations of national register eligibility in
17
their respective states?
18
umbrella?
19
A.
20
is all pursuant to the National Historic Preservation
21
Act.
22
Q.
23
to page nine of your Direct testimony.
24
full paragraph that starts with WV SHPO.
25
where I am?
They're all working under an
Within their respective states, correct.
Understood.
That
If you could turn with me, please, I'm at the first Do you see
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
118 1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
WV SHPO recommended that the identified effects
3
be mitigated through stipulations defined in a Memorandum
4
of Agreement negotiated among Pinnacle Wind Force and the
5
WV SHPO.
6
is that the West Virginia SHPO itself made this
7
recommendation unilaterally, that a Memorandum of
8
Agreement should be negotiated between Pinnacle Wind
9
Force and SHPO?
So what you're testifying to there, I believe,
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
It wasn't Pinnacle that proposed entering into a
12
Memorandum of Agreement.
13
A.
14
with an adverse effect that is identified in a project,
15
to seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate those
16
effects.
17
Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement.
18
That's standard throughout the industry.
19
Q.
20
but not a matter of legal obligation on any of these
21
parties, the Memorandum of Agreement?
22
A.
23
Pinnacle has taken into consideration the effects to
24
historic properties in identifying and submitting a list
25
of those.
It was SHPO itself?
I don't --- the standard operating procedure
And those measures are memorialized in the
So you're saying it's just an industry standard,
The Memorandum of Agreement memorializes that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
119 1
Q.
I realize this testimony was --- you authored
2
this testimony, I believe, dated May 26 of this year.
3
Where does Pinnacle stand on negotiating or, I guess,
4
finalizing this Memorandum of Agreement?
5
A.
6
week.
7
Q.
Do we have a copy of that here today?
8
A.
Not in our possession.
9
Q.
Okay.
The Memorandum of Agreement was signed last
So the Commission won't have any benefit
10
of being able to look at that in its review of this case;
11
right?
12
A.
I'd have to leave that to Counsel.
13
Q.
Well, then you told me that the Memorandum of
14
Agreement sets forth any mitigation measures that would
15
be taken to mitigate the impacts on these resources.
16
A.
Correct.
17
Q.
Since we don't have that, you don't know if and
18
to what extent those impacts would be mitigated; correct?
19
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
20
Your Honor, if I may interrupt, we have
21
a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement.
22
available for Commission.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
That's fine.
25
here.
We'd make it
I mean, let's get it up
Have you seen this?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
120 1
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2
No, Your Honor.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
How do you want this marked?
5
Exhibit Two.
Company
I guess we'll do next in order.
6
(Company Exhibit Two marked for
7
identification.)
8
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
9
That'd be fine.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
Do you want to take some time to look
12
at it?
13
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
14
I'd like a couple minutes perhaps.
I
15
don't know if it's an appropriate time to take a break.
16
It seems we just returned from lunch.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Always an appropriate time to take a
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
121 1
SHORT BREAK TAKEN
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
All right.
4
Mr. Stephens, you've had a
chance to look at Company Exhibit Two.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
Yes, Your Honor.
7
I'm sorry.
What are
we terming this exhibit?
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Company Exhibit Two.
10
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
11
Company Exhibit Two.
12
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Q.
14
Memorandum of Agreement that's been marked Company
15
Exhibit Two.
16
refer to the Mineral County Historical Society and the
17
Mineral County Historical Foundation.
18
A.
Correct.
19
Q.
Would you know whether either or both of those
20
entities has expressed support for this project?
21
A.
22
Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, and made
23
their views known.
24
endorse or object to the project.
25
Q.
Ms. Kuranda, if we look at page two of the
The first two whereas paragraphs, they
I know they issued correspondence to West
Okay.
I think they declined to either
And they ---.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
122 1
A.
Dealing specifically with effects to listed
2
properties, not the project as a whole.
3
Q.
4
to this agreement; right?
5
A.
6
responsibilities under the agreement.
7
signatories on a document of this type have defined
8
responsibilities under the stipulation.
9
Q.
Okay.
But in any event, they're not signatories
It was not appropriate because they don't have Generally,
But under another scenario, would not either or
10
both of those entities perhaps be recipients of the
11
Historic Preservation Grant that's discussed further down
12
this page, if they were signatories?
13
A.
14
rephrase?
15
Q.
16
either or both of those entities, the Mineral County
17
Historical Society or the Mineral County Historical
18
Foundation --- might they be considered as the
19
appropriate entity or entities to administer the funds
20
contained within the Historic Preservation Grant
21
discussed further down under Roman Numeral One on that
22
same page?
23
A.
24
grant is --- will be through a local community
25
foundation.
They're --- I don't think that --- could you I'm not sure I understood that.
Okay.
Let me ask it a different way.
Would
I believe the anticipated administrator of that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
123 1
Q.
And I believe the agreement describes that as a
2
local community foundation to be established by Pinnacle?
3
A.
Correct.
4
Q.
Looking back at your Direct testimony, the same
5
page we looked at before, page nine, ---
6
A.
Uh-huh (yes).
7
Q.
--- where it started talking about the
8
Memorandum of Agreement.
9
paragraph we looked at before, it says this MOA will
The third sentence in that
10
define measures to mitigate the adverse visual effects to
11
the 18 historic properties within the APE.
12
those 18 you're referring to are ones that we've
13
determined, I guess, in concert would be adversely
14
impacted by the Pinnacle project?
15
A.
16
reports to the West Virginia State Historic Preservation
17
Office and they commented on those findings.
18
Q.
19
Agreement here where it is explained how measures will be
20
taken to mitigate the adverse visual effects to those 18
21
historic properties?
22
A.
23
buildings and there is an attachment that provides a
24
table of those resources, attachment one.
25
page two, the now therefore clause concluding the whereas
Correct.
I assume
And that was --- we issued technical
Could you point out to me in the Memorandum of
The fourth, whereas on page one references 18
And the --- on
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
124 1
clause.
2
Q.
3
mitigation measures are provided for.
4
anywhere in the agreement where that is provided?
5
perhaps I should step back and ask, what types of
6
mitigation ---?
7
A.
8
concluding paragraph, it reads execution of this
9
Memorandum of Agreement as it exists with Pinnacle Wind
Okay.
I guess I'm not seeing where any Do you see Or
Page five --- excuse me, page five, the
10
Force, LLC has taken into account the effects of the
11
undertaking of historic properties and has mitigated such
12
effects to the satisfaction of the West Virginia Division
13
of Culture and History.
14
Q.
15
explain how such mitigation would be achieved; correct?
16
A.
I'm not sure what you're asking.
17
Q.
Well, let me ask you it a different way than I
18
asked a minute ago.
19
on these 18 historic resources --- how might that be
20
achieved?
21
human hands and equipment?
22
A.
The adverse effects?
23
Q.
How might it be mitigated?
24
A.
The mitigation was identified in the
25
stipulations of this agreement as being offsite
Okay.
But the Memorandum of Agreement does not
How would the adverse visual impact
How might that be physically performed by
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
125 1
mitigation.
And the document in the paragraph that I
2
read references that to the satisfaction of the West
3
Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, compliance
4
with the terms of this agreement are evidence that
5
Pinnacle Wind Force has taken into account the effects of
6
the undertaking on the 18 historic properties and has
7
mitigated that effect through the implementation of the
8
stipulation.
9
Q.
So let me ask you about offsite --- I believe
10
you said offsite mitigation.
11
A.
12
appropriate by the West Virginia State Historic
13
Preservation Office and Pinnacle in consultation to
14
mitigate the effects to --- the visual effects to those
15
18 resources.
16
Q.
17
mitigation would be carried out and what --- which, if
18
any, of those 18 historic properties that might mitigate
19
impacts for?
20
A.
I'm still not clear about your question.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
mitigation.
23
A.
24
consideration the effects and provide compensation for
25
those effects to offset those effects to the culture
This is the mitigation that was determined as
Okay.
Explain to me in what manner that offsite
Define what you mean when you say offsite
Mitigation that would basically take into
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
126 1
resource.
2
Q.
3
that would be considered offsite mitigation.
4
A.
5
fund that would promote and encourage historic
6
preservation within the community under the supervision
7
of the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that
8
it meets the secretary's standards for historic
9
preservation.
I'm still searching for what might be achieved
The establishment of historic preservation grant
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.
14
that ---.
15
Q.
16
that offsite mitigation does nothing to mitigate the
17
adverse visual impact directly to those 18 historic
18
sites?
19
A.
20
of the signature of this document and negotiating this
21
document, these terms --- regarding these terms, the West
22
Virginia State Historic Preservation agrees.
23
Q.
24
described alter the way in which the turbines of the
25
Pinnacle project would be viewed from any one of these 18
This was found to be the mitigative measure
That's not what I'm asking.
I'm asking you,
In my opinion, it does and can --- by evidence
How would the offsite mitigation efforts you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
127 1
historic properties that would be adversely affected?
2
A.
3
mitigation.
4
Q.
5
anything to change how the turbines are visible from
6
those 18 sites; correct?
7
A.
I agree.
8
Q.
And you don't have any expertise in acoustical
9
studies or sound monitoring or anything that would enable
I don't think that's the nature of the
You would agree with me that it won't do
That's all I'm asking.
10
you to comment on whether the acoustical study performed
11
by Pinnacle's witness, James Barnes, was legitimate and
12
accurate; would you?
13
A.
14
submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office at
15
their request and they issued a letter in April of this
16
year that said that they found that noise would not be a
17
consideration of effects to historic properties.
18
Q.
19
State Historic Preservation Office has anybody on staff
20
that has expertise in acoustical studies or sound
21
monitoring that could make that determination?
22
A.
23
Preservation Office has expertise on determining effects
24
to historic properties.
25
Q.
No, I don't, but I believe his findings were
But you wouldn't know whether the West Virginia
The staff of the West Virginia State Historic
That's not what I asked.
I asked does --- would
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
128 1
you know either way whether ---?
2
A.
3
effect to historic properties.
4
effects that one considers.
5
Q.
6
either way whether West Virginia SHPO has on staff ---
7
A.
I don't know.
8
Q.
--- someone with that kind of expertise;
9
correct?
10
A.
Acoustics is --- noise is considered a potential
I understand that.
It's among the direct
But you would not know
No, I don't ---.
No, I would not.
11
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
12
At this time, I would move the
13
admission of Alliance Exhibit 11 into evidence, and I
14
believe that's all I have for you, Ms. Kuranda.
15
A.
Thank you.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Without objection, it will be admitted.
18
You want to move Company Exhibit Two?
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
129 1
CROSS EXAMINATION
2
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
3
Q.
4
Virginia SHPO, did you all discuss the fact that this
5
could potentially impact Maryland?
6
discussion?
7
A.
8
the best of my recollection.
When you were developing the APE with West
Was that part of your
It did not come up to the --- in conversation to
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
9 10
That's all I have.
Thank you.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Any questions?
13
COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
14
No questions.
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
Well, I had written --- I had written a
17
note to myself when you were describing your activities,
18
I put it as being natural --- or cultural resources
19
management from a national practice in the full spectrum
20
of preservation disciplines.
21
do that you get paid to do?
22
I just --- what is it that you do?
23
A.
24
architectural history, history and preservation planning.
25
I wrote what do you people I wasn't being flip --- but
We do underwater terrestrial archeology,
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
130 1
Okay.
And your preservation plans
2
result in what?
3
A.
4
installations, for government facilities.
5
Academy, for example, we just finished one in Maryland.
6
We do them for communities and localities where it would
7
have a set of resources that they consider significant
8
and want to work within preservation.
We do preservation plans for military The Naval
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 10
And what kind of recommendations would
11
you make incident to that work, just generally?
I'm not
12
looking for --- I'm trying to think categorically what
13
contents would you do.
14
A.
15
obviously.
16
that may require consultation with their state office.
17
We would identify resources that may be eligible for the
18
national register or for local designation.
19
incentive programs that could be enacted for --- to
20
heighten public interest and knowledge of the database
21
and the resource studies and encourage their
22
preservation.
We would --- it depends on the project But we would identify types of undertakings
We identify
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
Under the scope of the work proposed by
25
Goodwin, item number two, you say develop the historic
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
131 1
context appropriate to the assessment of built resources
2
within the APE.
3
A.
4
overview of history that identifies the important things
5
that had been in play in a particular area so that you
6
can anticipate the range of property types that might be
7
found there.
8
a field investigation so we know that, you know, this is
9
an agricultural area where they planted tobacco during
Okay.
And again, I wrote what's that mean. A historic context is basically an
And generally we develop that before we do
10
the 18th Century.
We're likely to find tobacco farms.
11
And the resources that would be associated with those
12
would include the full range of agricultural properties.
13
So it's enough to make informed decisions so that we're
14
not spinning our wheels.
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
At page five of your testimony down at
17
line 19, you say the phase two investigations included
18
intensive field survey evaluation and effects
19
determinations for 21 properties that may have views of
20
the project.
21
are the properties listed on attachment one to the memo
22
of understanding?
23
A.
24
are generally excluded from designation as historic sites
25
because they're thought to have a screen of protection on
Yes.
Are those 21 properties in part the --- or
Are they contained within that?
And the other three were cemeteries, which
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
132 1
their own.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
So these are --- these are not ---
4
these are properties that you all raised with SHPO as
5
being within what you discovered in your examination of
6
the project?
7
A.
8
a preliminary investigation in the whole five mile area.
9
We made recommendations and actually had staff out in the
Correct.
The way we worked this was that we did
10
field with us for a couple of days to verify those ---
11
our findings were appropriate.
12
determination and our investigation, we recommended 21
13
resources for further investigation, and those included
14
three cemeteries that the SHPO was interested in getting
15
data on even though they would not qualify as historic
16
properties.
Based on the field
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
Okay.
19
other properties listed?
20
A.
The three cemeteries and the
Correct, the 18.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
And then you said you make an effects
23
determination.
What is that?
Is that saying you try to
24
assess the impact of the project on them?
25
A.
On the historic properties.
And there are
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
133 1
generally two kinds of effects that are recognized,
2
direct effects when property is going to be physically
3
altered or removed by a project.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
Were any of the properties direct
6
affected --- or effected?
7
A.
8
there are also indirect effects, and that may change the
9
character of the resource that would qualify it for
No direct effects.
No direct effects.
And then
10
designation introducing either visual, noise or other
11
types of atmospheric effects that would diminish its
12
integrity.
13
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
14
Were any of those --- were any of these
15
facilities --- were there effect determinations made as
16
to any of these facilities, other than --- you said there
17
were no direct.
18
A.
19
the 18 historic properties.
20
adverse, hence the negotiation of the Memorandum of
21
Agreement.
Yes.
Were there indirect?
There will be views of the turbines from SHPO found those to be
22
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
23
Okay.
And the satisfaction that SHPO
24
has is that money will be paid into this trust fund?
25
A.
Correct.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
134 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
And that satisfies their concerns about
3
the indirect effects on these?
4
A.
Correct.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
All right.
And there's actually a
7
report --- your phase two report that was tendered to
8
SHPO?
9
A.
There were two reports.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
Phase one and phase two.
12
A.
Yes.
13
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
14
All right.
And you said you had no
15
discussions with SHPO about Maryland or the impacts in
16
Maryland?
17
A.
18
of my memory, they didn't bring anything up in the
19
written comments.
We did not initiate discussions, and to the best
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
135 1
A.
Thank you.
2
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
3
Just a few questions, Your Honor.
4
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
5
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
6
Q.
7
the testimony and the question and your answers that you
8
have experience in this sort of undertaking, both in
9
Maryland and in West Virginia; correct?
Ms. Kuranda, I believe you've indicated through
10
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
And you worked with the respective historical
12
preservation agencies in both states?
13
A.
Right.
14
Q.
I just want --- I think we've covered this, but
15
I want to make sure the record's clear.
16
project is located in West Virginia.
17
Virginia project.
18
who you consult with to do the evaluation and
19
investigation that you did?
The Pinnacle
It's a West
So what does that dictate as far as
20
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
21
I'm going to object, Your Honor.
It's
22
sort of a grey area, but I think he's asking her for a
23
legal opinion on this.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
State your question again.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
136 1
BY ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
2
Q.
3
evaluation on the project in West Virginia, in your
4
opinion as an expert, who would you consult with?
5
A.
6
Historic Preservation Office.
7
Q.
And is that who you consulted with?
8
A.
Yes, it is.
9
Q.
And in the course of that consultation, to the
Ms. Kuranda, to perform an investigation and
We would consult with the West Virginia State
10
best of your recollection, did anyone at West Virginia
11
SHPO request or even suggest that you consult with
12
counterparties in the State of Maryland, the Maryland
13
Historic Trust?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
And was that unusual in your experience?
16
A.
It is not unusual for projects that are being
17
reviewed under state legislation.
18
Q.
19
were involved in a similar investigation for a project in
20
Maryland, and that's Dan's Mountain.
21
A.
Correct.
22
Q.
Do you know whether the Dan's Mountain Project
23
is or would be visible from any point in West Virginia?
24
A.
I believe it would be visible.
25
Q.
Who did you consult with to determine the APE
And likewise, I think it was mentioned that you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
137 1
for that project, Dan's Mountain?
2
A.
3
historic preservation office.
4
Q.
5
Trust directed or suggested that you consult with West
6
Virginia SHPO on Dan's Mountain?
7
A.
They did not.
8
Q.
And would you have expected them to?
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.
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.
18
that can arise with federal funding?
19
a need to consult?
20
A.
21
that is, it is federally funded, licensed or permitted,
22
it is --- must comply with the requirements of Section
23
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended.
24
That requires the federal agency to take into
25
consideration the effects on historic properties, whether
The Maryland Historical Trust as the state
And do you recall whether the Maryland Historic
There are, and if they're being reviewed
Are there things with so called federal nexus Would that trigger
If a project is defined as federal undertaking,
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
138 1
they're built or are archeological.
It's a defined
2
consultation process with the state historic preservation
3
offices, interested parties as well as the Advisory
4
Council on Historic Preservation, which is a federal
5
agency.
6
recognize state boundaries and the areas of potential
7
effect are determined in part to reflect the impacts of
8
the projects.
9
Q.
The compliance with Section 106 is --- does not
So if this had been a federally funded project,
10
for example, it's conceivable that you might --- and you
11
did this sort of analysis and investigation, that you
12
might have investigated properties in Maryland?
13
A.
14
appropriate to involve more than one state historic
15
preservation office if there had been federal involvement
16
and there was an undertaking.
17
Q.
18
to your knowledge, does that document resolve all the
19
issues that West Virginia SHPO has or had with regard to
20
the Pinnacle project for both architectural and
21
archeological issues?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
And that's the same Memorandum of Agreement that
24
Mr. Maymon referenced in his testimony?
25
A.
Quite possibly, yes.
It would have been
Now, with regard to the Memorandum of Agreement,
Yes.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
139 1
Q.
So is there any further action required from
2
West Virginia SHPO for this project?
3
A.
No further action is anticipated.
4
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
5
That's all I have, Your Honor.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
All right.
8
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9
I don't think so, Your Honor.
Anything further?
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
All right.
12
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
13
Your Honor, I have ---
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
I'm sorry.
16
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
17
--- one small minor question.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
Sure.
Fine.
20
RECROSS EXAMINATION
21
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
22
Q.
23
parties to enter into these Memorandum of Agreement with
24
preservation offices.
25
that agreement, some sort of mitigation?
You said that it's typical in the industry for
Is mitigation normally a part of
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
140 1
A.
The purpose of the Memorandum of Agreement is to
2
identify ways to avoid, limit or mitigate effects to
3
historic properties.
4
Q.
5
mitigation a typical mitigation or are there other
6
methods?
7
A.
8
of the project and are designed to be commensurate with
9
the impact.
In your experience, is monetary --- a monetary
The methods are negotiated based on the nature
10
Q.
What kind of other mitigations have you seen
11
other than a monetary mitigation?
12
A.
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.
17
a cookie cutter agreement that you pull off the shelf.
They range from documenting historic resources,
18
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
19
Thank you.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
All right.
22
A.
So it's not
Thank you.
Thank you.
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
You're excused.
25
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
141 1 2
We would ask that Ms. Kuranda be excused, Your Honor.
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
She may.
5
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
6
That's all the witnesses we have, Your
7
Honor.
8
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
9
Your Honor, very quickly, I was going
10
to say I had previously asked to be marked Exhibits ---
11
Alliance Exhibits Three and Four.
12
going to move those two exhibits into evidence.
13
the Order from the Virginia State Corporation Commission
14
we discussed yesterday, ---
The Alliance is not One was
15
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
16
Right.
17
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18
--- and the other was a letter from the
19
Chief of the National Battlefield Protection Program, but
20
we have no interest in moving those into evidence.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
All right.
23
Have you completed your
case then?
24
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
25
Yes, Your Honor.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
142 1
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
2
Your Honor, there's only going to be
3
--- we have one witness.
With the agreement of parties
4
and the Commission's Order that Mr. Snyder's testimony
5
could go in, and I would like to get that marked and move
6
that in ---.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
That would be fine.
9
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
10 11
Sure.
I'd like this marked as Building Trades Number Two.
12
(Building Trades Exhibit Two marked for
13
identification.)
14
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
15
All right.
Mr. Trivelli has tendered
16
the prepared Direct testimony of Darwin Snyder and had it
17
marked for identification as Building Trades Two.
18
agreement of the parties and by prior Order of the
19
Commission, we agreed that Mr. Snyder's testimony could
20
go into the record.
Anything else?
All right.
21
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
22
Staff calls Dixie Kellmeyer.
By
Staff?
23
---------------------------------------------------------
24
DIXIE L. KELLMEYER, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
25
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
143 1
---------------------------------------------------------
2
DIRECT EXAMINATION
3
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
4
Q.
Could you state your name?
5
A.
Dixie Kellmeyer.
6
Q.
By whom are you employed?
7
A.
The Public Service Commission of West Virginia.
8
Q.
And how long have you been employed there?
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.
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.
Did you prepare prefiled testimony in relation
23
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
24
I'd like to have that marked as Staff
25
Exhibit One.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
144 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
It will be so marked.
3
(Staff Exhibit One marked for
4
identification.)
5
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
6
Q.
7
document at this time?
8
A.
9
middle of that line Grant should be Mineral.
Do you have any changes or corrections to that
I do.
On page four, line number nine, in the Line 14,
10
Grant should be Mineral, and line 17, first word, Grant
11
should be Mineral.
12
Q.
13
wish to adopt that testimony as your testimony today?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Have you seen what has been marked as Joint
16
Exhibit One, the stipulation?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Are you familiar with that document?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And are you in agreement with the contents of
21
that document?
22
A.
With those small typographical changes, do you
Yes, I am.
23
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
24
At this time, I would move Staff
25
Exhibit One into evidence and tender Ms. Kellmeyer for
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
145 1
Cross Examination.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
All right.
Without objection, the
4
testimony of Ms. Kellmeyer will be admitted as Staff
5
Exhibit One.
6
Trivelli?
I guess we'll keep the same order.
7
ATTORNEY TRIVELLI:
8
No questions, Your Honor.
9
ATTORNEY CHAMBERS:
10
No questions, Your Honor.
11
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
12
Mr. Stephens?
13
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
14
Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr.
15
CROSS EXAMINATION
16
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
17
Q.
Good afternoon, Ms. Kellmeyer.
18
A.
Good afternoon, Mr. Stephens.
19
Q.
I think I just want to ask you about one area of
20
your testimony.
21
actually started on page three.
22
recommendations, and really the substance of your
23
response to that question, I think, is more on page four
24
and it concerns decommissioning the project; correct?
25
A.
If you could bear with me, I think we Do you have any
Correct.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
146 1
Q.
You state here that you recommend that a report
2
of a qualified third party should provide an analysis and
3
set the fund amount for a decommissioning fund to cover
4
the dismantling of the turbines and towers and land
5
reclamation.
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
--- basically reflected there?
8
state that the report should be updated thereafter as
9
mutually agreed between Pinnacle and the Mineral County
10
Commission but no less frequently than every five years
11
thereafter; correct?
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
You further state the fund amount will vary over
14
time depending on changes in the estimated market or
15
salvage value of the project, estimated cost of
16
dismantling and removing turbines in the expected ongoing
17
life of the project; correct?
18
A.
Yes, sir.
19
Q.
You haven't had any communication with the
20
Mineral County Commission, have you, during the course of
21
this case?
22
A.
No.
23
Q.
So then you don't have any idea as to what the
24
Mineral County Commission would prefer to have done in
25
terms of a decommissioning fund; correct?
Is that ---
Okay.
And you
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
147 1
A.
That's right.
2
Q.
So that Mineral County Commission could envision
3
a completely different scenario than the one you've
4
suggested here in terms of decommissioning; correct?
5
A.
I guess so.
6
Q.
Do you recall Alliance Exhibit One that I
7
distributed yesterday?
8
passed by the Allegany County of Maryland Commission.
9
you remember --- were you present for the discussion
It was a --- it was the bill
10
involving the decommissioning fund that sets forth ---
11
that is set forth by that law or ---?
12
you the part I'm talking about, but do you recall that
13
exchange?
14
A.
15
haven't studied that document.
16
Q.
17
I'm talking about?
I mean, I recall it.
That's fine.
Do
I'll happily show
I'm not --- you know, I
How about I just show you where
18
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19
And for reference purposes for the
20
benefit of the rest of the parties, I'm looking at page
21
six of Alliance Exhibit One the section entitled
22
Decommissioning Fund.
23
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
24
Q.
25
believe there of Section D, Decommissioning Fund --- what
And don't you see in the first subpart of one I
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
148 1
amount does the Allegany County Commission set forth in
2
that law to be provided per turbine in an installation
3
such as the Pinnacle project?
4
A.
$150,000.
5
Q.
Per turbine?
6
A.
It says for each wind energy device.
7
Q.
If you'll turn back, I believe it's page two of
8
that document, it has definitions.
9
see industrial wind energy device or wind energy
And I think you will
10
conversion device defined.
And I'll just ask you to look
11
at that definition and see if it --- if you understand it
12
to be talking about one particular industrial wind
13
turbine of the type that we would see at the Pinnacle
14
project?
15
A.
I notice it says using a turbine.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
talking about per industrial scale wind turbines such as
18
the ones that would be involved with the Pinnacle
19
project?
20
A.
That's my understanding from reading that.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
way now.
23
Beech Ridge case in terms of --- in the scope of
24
decommissioning; is that correct?
25
A.
Would you agree with me that they're
I'm going to get that exhibit out of your
I think previously you were involved in the
Yes.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
149 1
Q.
And I believe you concurred with the findings of
2
a decommission expert that was hired by Beech Ridge
3
Energy, LLC.
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
And what amount --- did that expert set forth a
6
specific amount per turbine to be provided for in a
7
decommissioning fund?
8
A.
9
believe, Beech Ridge has filed an expert report on
Is that generally accurate?
I don't recall.
I believe I recall that, I
10
decommissioning.
11
believe the report concluded that the salvage value was
12
sufficient to decommission the site.
13
Ridge agreed to provide a fund in the amount --- a
14
certain amount per turbine.
15
Q.
16
this case, there wouldn't be anything stopping you from
17
recommending a fixed amount to be provided upfront per
18
turbine, could you --- would there be?
19
A.
20
recommendation per turbine?
21
Q.
22
recommending say, for example, $50,000 per turbine be
23
provided by Pinnacle upfront for the project?
24
A.
25
that is I'm not an expert in that field.
Okay.
If my memory serves me correct, I
But I believe Beech
I don't recall how much.
Stepping back to your recommendation in
Are you asking me if I would make a
Would there be anything stopping you from
Well, the thing that would stop me from doing I wouldn't know
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
150 1
how much to recommend per turbine.
And that's why our
2
recommendation is that, you know, an expert be hired to
3
determine that.
4
Q.
5
with these types of projects and seeing as you have the
6
Beech Ridge case at least under your belt and that
7
experience with respect to what may be appropriate and
8
what may be inappropriate in terms of an amount
9
sufficient for decommissioning, would $150,000 per
Well, let me ask you based on your familiarity
10
turbine probably safely encompass what it would take per
11
turbine to dismantle the turbines and reclaim the site?
12
A.
13
that area.
14
retained to determine that.
15
at least I doubt that it would take the same amount of
16
money to decommission different turbines.
17
area.
18
the turbines are one size in one case and another size in
19
another case.
20
the cost of decommissioning different types.
21
know how similar the turbines in Beech Ridge are to the
22
ones in this case.
23
Q.
24
$150,000 per turbine, would there be an amount --- a
25
monetary amount with which you would be --- feel
I don't know.
I don't have any expertise in
That's why I suggested that an expert be I don't even know if --- or
That's not my
As I listen to these cases, we've had cases and
I assume there would be some difference in And I don't
Would there be an amount --- if it's not
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
151 1
comfortable recommending would be set forth ---?
2
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
3
I'm going to object at this time.
He's
4
already asked this question and she's already answered.
5
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
6
I actually agree.
I think you've asked
7
it in at least three different ways, and she's told you
8
she's not an expert, and you continue to ask her to give
9
you an amount.
10
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
11
Understood, Your Honor.
12
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
13
Q.
14
Mineral County Commission between now and the date by
15
which the Commission must make its decision on Pinnacle's
16
application?
17
A.
Do you intend to have any communication with the
No.
18
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
19
I think that's all I have for you, Ms.
20
Kellmeyer.
Thanks.
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
Anybody?
23
All right.
Do you have any
questions?
24
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
25
No questions.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
152 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Ms. Kellmeyer, you mentioned the
3
stipulation and indicated you were familiar with it.
4
me ask you some questions.
5
A.
Do you have a copy of it?
I do somewhere here.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
I had some questions about the
8
undertakings with respect to the study.
9
those to the engineering witness, the bat studies
10
and ---?
11
A.
Let
Should I direct
Yes, sir.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
CPA certification doesn't cover bats?
14
A.
No.
I don't want to go anywhere near them.
15
did have a bat in my living room once, though.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Close enough.
All right.
I
Other than
18
the two conditions that relate to certain of the towers
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?
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?
25
A.
Do you know?
To the best of my knowledge.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
Are all
153 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Yes, the micro-siting and the proximity
3
of certain of the turbines to Green Mountain Road, I
4
guess.
5
A.
Oh, those were not my areas.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
Well, that and bats we'll leave alone
8
then.
9
A.
Okay.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
All right.
12
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
13
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you, ma'am.
Just a few
14
questions.
15
CROSS EXAMINATION
16
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
17
Q.
Hello, Ms. Kellmeyer.
18
A.
Hello, Mr. Callas.
19
Q.
Do you have any reason to think the Mineral
20
County Commission would not be willing to participate in
21
the manner prescribed in the decommissioning provision
22
that you've recommended to the Commission?
23
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
24
I'm going to object to that, Your
25
Honor.
She's already testified she's had no
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
154 1
communication with the Mineral County Commission, so how
2
would she know that?
3
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
4
I'm asking her given what she knows
5
about the interests of the county commissions in the
6
decommissioning of facilities whether she thinks it's a
7
reasonable assumption to think that the Mineral County
8
Commission would be disinterested in participating in
9
this way.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
I think that's a fair question.
You
12
can answer whether or not based on her experience in
13
several of these projects they would have an interest in
14
setting up a fund.
15
A.
16
process and have input into that process.
17
directly affects their county and their constituents and
18
so I believe they would want to be apart of it.
19
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
20
Q.
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?
I believe they would want to participate in that You know, it
And, in fact, we know since they've filed
24
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
25
Objection, Your Honor.
We don't have
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
155 1
letters in the record from each of the members of the
2
Mineral County Commission expressing support for this
3
project.
4
Commission yesterday, but there's certainly nothing in
5
the record, and we have no evidence before us that all
6
three commissioners' support this, and that seemed to be
7
indicated in Mr. Callas' question.
I understand that two were filed with the
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
I thought Mr. Friend indicated that
10
letters had been filed, at least in his testimony.
11
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
12
That may very well be, but I have no
13
knowledge of --- what seemed to be embodied in Mr.
14
Callas' question was that --- or implied in it, was that
15
each of the members of the Mineral County Commission had
16
individually expressed support for this Pinnacle project.
17
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
18
I did not say that.
19
well, to be fair, Mr. Friend said in his testimony that
20
the letters that had been submitted to the Commission by
21
way of public comment yesterday by Mr. Helmick's
22
appearance, expressed in each of those letters that the
23
Mineral County Commission had voted two to one to support
24
this project.
25
that the Mineral County Commission has been very involved
I said that ---
And that does, in fact, evidence the fact
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
156 1
and, in fact, has taken efforts to support this project.
2
I didn't say that the letters themselves had been in the
3
record, but Mr. Friend's testimony about it certainly
4
was.
5
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
6
I'm okay with that as long as the
7
record reflects that we don't have letters before the
8
Commission expressing support by each and every member of
9
the Mineral County Commission.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
Not by each and every member, but I get
12
copies of everything that's filed, and I've got --- you
13
know, obviously I have them, but ---.
14
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
15
Understood.
16
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
17
Okay.
Fair enough.
They were filed as protest
18
letters, so --- I mean, not protest, but they were filed
19
not as evidentiary filings.
20
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
21
Q.
Ms. Kellmeyer ---.
22
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
23
I know you'd rather me sit, but I'd
24 25
really like to stand. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
157 1
Knock yourself out.
2
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
3
Q.
4
the decommissioning provisions that were discussed and
5
approved in Beech Ridge.
6
more recent cases before the Commission in which the
7
matter of decommissioning has been addressed; did he?
8
A.
No.
9
Q.
And what were those two more recent than Beech
Mr. Stephens asked you a number of times about
He did not ask you about two
10
Ridge cases?
11
A.
AES Laurel Mountain and AES New Creek.
12
Q.
Does the recommendation embodied in the
13
stipulation of the decommissioning issue essentially
14
identical to the recommendations made to the Commission
15
and that the Commission approved in each of those two
16
cases?
17
A.
18
what the Commission --- was contained in the Commission's
19
Order in Laurel Mountain.
20
Laurel Mountain may have been somewhat different.
21
believe we had one issue that was discussed at the
22
hearing.
23
Commission's Order in the Laurel Mountain case.
24
Q.
And in New Creek?
25
A.
I'm not sure when I wrote this testimony if the
The recommendation, I believe, is identical to
Staff's recommendation in I
So this is I believe directly from the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
158 1
order in New Creek was out, but I believe it to be
2
--- them to be the same.
3
Q.
4
Grant County came from?
5
A.
I suspect so.
6
Q.
Do you know of any material differences between
7
those projects and this project that would lead the Staff
8
or any --- staff to make a different recommendation as to
9
the manner decommissioning should be handled than was the
In fact, would you suspect that that's where the
10
case in New Creek?
11
A.
12
a difference in our recommendation.
13
Q.
14
public, in particularly those who are involved in
15
preparing site certificate applications, to know how the
16
Commission handles at least one issue that's involved in
17
these cases and see it repeated and be the same over and
18
over again?
I'm not aware of any difference that should make
Do you think that there's a benefit to the
19
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
20
I'm not sure what you're saying there.
21
But go ahead and answer the question.
22
A.
Thank you.
23
COMMISSIONER STAAT:
24
Mr. Chairman, I am sure what he's
25
saying.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
159 1
BY ATTORNEY CALLAS:
2
Q.
3
file site certificate applications to know in advance
4
what's going to be expected of them on at least one issue
5
of significance?
6
A.
7
going to file these applications to know what --- what
8
the Commission expects and needs, you know, contained in
9
the application.
Do you think there's some benefit to folks who
I think it's helpful for the people that are
10
Q.
Mr. Stephens referenced a $150,000 per turbine
11
decommissioning 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.
Is it possible that that amount
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
160 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
That was said in jest obviously,
3
consistency theory.
All right.
Is that all you have?
4
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
5
Yes, sir.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
All right.
8
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
Mr. Auville?
10
Q.
Ms. Kellmeyer, is it your understanding that ---
11
you made a recommendation to the Commission of how the
12
decommissioning fund should work.
13
understanding that all of the parties are available to
14
make whatever recommendation of the Commission that they
15
see fit?
16
A.
Is it your
Yes.
17
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
18
Thank you.
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.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
Donald
161 1
Walker.
2
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
3
All right.
4
---------------------------------------------------------
5
DONALD E. WALKER, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED
6
AS FOLLOWS:
7
---------------------------------------------------------
8
DIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
10
Q.
Could you state your name for the record,
11
please?
12
A.
My name is Donald E. Walker.
13
Q.
And by whom are you employed?
14
A.
I am employed by the Public Service Commission
15
of West Virginia.
16
Q.
And in what capacity?
17
A.
I am a technical analyst for engineering.
18
Q.
And how long have you been with the Commission?
19
A.
Just under two years.
20
Q.
As part of your assignments, tell me a little
21
bit about what you do with the Commission.
22
A.
23
projects, also review and handle complaints --- utility
24
complaints, electrical engineering complaints of
25
utilities.
I review applications for certificate of
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
162 1
Q.
As part of your duties with the Commission, did
2
you profile Direct testimony in relation to this case?
3
A.
Yes, I did.
4
Q.
Do you have a copy of that in front of you?
5
A.
Yes.
6
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
7
We'd have that marked as Staff Exhibit
8
Two. COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9 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.
17
document?
18
A.
19
lines six and four, 2001 should be changed to 2007.
20
Q.
21
to adopt that testimony as your testimony here today?
22
A.
Yes, it is.
23
Q.
Are you familiar with what has been previously
24
marked as Joint Exhibit One?
25
A.
Do you have any changes or corrections to that
Yes, I do.
I have one change on page four, on
And with that one correction, is it your desire
Yes, I am.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
163 1
Q.
Do you agree with the contents of that exhibit?
2
A.
Yes.
3
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
4
At this time, I would move Staff
5
Exhibit Two into evidence and tender Mr. Walker for Cross
6
Examination.
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
All right.
9 10
Without objection, Mr.
Walker's testimony will be received in evidence.
Mr.
Trivelli?
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
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
164 1
review of the Pinnacle application.
Is that your
2
recollection?
3
A.
Yes, it is.
4
Q.
Okay.
5
yourself, Ms. Kellmeyer, obviously, with respect to the
6
number crunching, Mr. Ellars, Mr. Perdue.
7
anyone out?
8
A.
Earl Melton.
9
Q.
Earl Melton.
And I believe those people would be
Okay.
Have I left
And all these gentlemen
10
including you --- we're going to exclude Ms. Kellmeyer.
11
We don't want to make her feel left out, but she's
12
dealing with different issues.
13
Melton and Mr. Perdue, all of your backgrounds are pretty
14
narrowly tailored to --- what would you say, electrical
15
engineering?
16
engineering perhaps in the case of Mr. Ellars?
17
A.
18
electrical engineering.
19
Q.
20
experience and education pretty well of these people as
21
it applies to their duties with the Staff?
22
A.
23
engineering principles, but engineering --- electrical is
24
the major focus, I think.
25
Q.
Yourself, Mr. Ellars, Mr.
Is that a fair assumption, or civil
Actually, I believe Mr. Ellars is also
So electrical engineering probably embodies the
I believe the education has quite a range of
Okay.
So neither you nor any of these other
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
165 1
gentlemen would have any expertise in hydrology or
2
impacts to water resources; correct?
3
A.
4
other --- other folks that we're talking about.
5
experience is mostly in the electrical component.
6
Q.
7
you're familiar with the backgrounds of the other
8
gentlemen, so would you have any reason to believe that
9
any of those three people have any expertise in hydrology
I'm not sure whether I can answer that for the
Okay.
My
Well, to the extent you sounded like
10
or impacts to water resources?
11
A.
12
résumés, so they speak for themselves.
13
Q.
14
have such experience; correct?
15
A.
I know that they have submitted their views and
You wouldn't have any reason to believe they
I have no reason to believe they don't, either.
16
I'm sure that through working in this area of the Public
17
Service Commission they've had quite a few experiences in
18
different areas.
19
Q.
20
would have any reason to think you or any of those three
21
gentlemen could go to work for the West Virginia
22
Department of Environmental Protection in reviewing
23
general construction stormwater permits?
24
A.
25
know that Mr. Ellars is, and I believe that he is
Let me ask the question differently.
But you
I know that I am a professional engineer.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
I
166 1
licensed in civil engineering, I believe.
2
think he probably would be able to do that.
3
Q.
But not the other three of you; correct?
4
A.
Pardon me?
5
Q.
Not the other three of you?
6
using it as shorthand so I don't say all your names each
7
time, Walker, Melton, Ellars.
8
A.
9
know he's a licensed engineer.
Okay.
So I would
When I say you, I'm
I'm not sure of Earl's credentials, but I
10
Q.
Would any of you four --- we'll come up with a
11
placeholder, I'll call it your four people --- you four
12
staff members, how about that?
13
you, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Melton and Mr. Ellars.
14
A.
That's fair.
15
Q.
You four staff members, nobody among that group
16
has any expertise in acoustical studies or sound
17
monitoring; correct?
18
A.
19
expertise, but that is also not our function at the
20
Commission.
21
Q.
22
granted what an applicant provides in that regard with
23
respect to an acoustical study?
24
A.
25
could research.
And I'm talking about Fair enough?
What I will say is that is really not our
So would it be fair to say you had to take for
No, I wouldn't say that.
I would say that we
We review the studies and review them to
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
167 1
ensure that they're within reasonable industrial
2
qualifications, and that's how we review the information,
3
yes.
4
Q.
5
this hearing --- I'm making an assumption here.
6
ask you first, have you been present for all of the
7
testimony elicited so far in this hearing?
8
A.
Yes, I have.
9
Q.
Has any of that testimony elicited changed your
Okay.
Has any of the testimony elicited during Let me
10
mind about any of the opinions you initially set forth in
11
your pre-filed Direct testimony?
12
A.
No, it hasn't.
13
Q.
Just one minute, Mr. Walker.
14
with me to page 17 of your Direct testimony?
15
the midst of, I believe, the Staff recommended
16
conditions, mainly general construction and operational
17
phase certificate conditions; is that --- does that sound
18
right?
19
A.
Could you give me a line number?
20
Q.
Okay.
21
specifically looking at item five is on line 344,
22
page 17.
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Do you agree with me that's under the heading
25
general construction and operational phase certificate
Could you turn This is in
Well, by saying in the midst, because I'm
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
168 1
conditions that starts on page 16?
2
A.
Yes, sir.
3
Q.
And do you say this condition would set forth
4
the applicant will consult with representatives of
5
Commission Staff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and West
6
Virginia Division of Natural Resources, collectively the
7
technical advisory committee on the scope, development
8
and implementation of post construction studies to
9
commence within a reasonable time and in any event no
10
later than one year, go to the next page, following the
11
commercial operations phase of the project and then you
12
go on to prescribe the specific tasks with --- that the
13
technical advisory committee would be consulted on.
14
the risk of beating a dead horse, at this point, any of
15
you four staff members have any expertise in the impacts
16
of industrial wind turbines on bats?
17
A.
18
committee set up, so we can have the expertise and rely
19
on those to do that for a living.
20
Q.
21
the Staff would essentially be relying on the U.S. Fish
22
and Wildlife Service and West Virginia Division of
23
Natural Resources for that type of expertise; correct?
24
A.
I believe that would be a resource, yes.
25
Q.
The Staff would be relying on those two agencies
At
I believe that's why we have the technical
So I guess if we go back to line 344 and 345,
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
169 1
for that type of expertise because that type of expertise
2
is not present among the four Staff members we were
3
talking about; correct?
4
A.
5
not been --- speaking for myself, I have not been
6
dedicated in that area, no.
7
Q.
8
from industrial wind turbines to birds including raptors
9
and migratory birds?
I would say that, yeah, we're not --- we have
So would your answer be the same with impacts
10
A.
That would be the same answer, yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
case?
13
A.
No, I didn't.
14
Q.
Are you familiar at all with the Beech Ridge
15
case?
16
A.
I'm not intimately, no.
17
Q.
Would you have any reason to dispute that the
18
Commission prescribed a condition similar to the one
19
you're recommending here, but that it provided for
20
inclusion of a technical advisory committee of a
21
statewide environmental organization with 500 plus
22
members and in existence for at least 10 years?
23
you deny that the Commission recommended --- or
24
prescribed that as its condition?
25
A.
Did you work at all on the Beech Ridge
Would
I don't have knowledge of that, so I can't
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
170 1
confirm or deny that.
2
Q.
3
group that I would suggest to you the Commission had
4
recommended to be a part of the technical advisory
5
committee in that case?
6
A.
Having to do with Beech Ridge, yes.
7
Q.
Okay.
8
three of your Direct --- or I'm sorry, page four of your
9
Direct testimony.
So your answer would be the same for any other
Mr. Walker, if we could turn to page
The question that's posed, is the
10
project's justification of needs satisfactory.
Are you
11
with me on that one?
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
Near the end of that page there, that last line,
14
77, sentence starts the load --- that's referring to the
15
load forecast report.
16
Load Forecast Report; right?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
We go on to the next page and you explain, you
19
know, what that report is and what it states.
20
in the PATH case, which I understand you're working on;
21
right?
22
A.
I am working --- yes.
23
Q.
You're working on the PATH case; right?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Okay.
Evidentially that's the 2009 PJM
The Staff
And in the PATH case, the Staff is ---
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
171 1
has engaged outside consultants to work with the Staff on
2
the PATH case; correct?
3
A.
We have for transmission purposes, yes.
4
Q.
Okay.
5
of work of those consultants in the PATH case?
6
A.
7
lines.
8
Q.
9
analyzing, those consultants, is one of them the 2009 PJM
Are you familiar generally with the scope
I believe there is a need for transmission
Okay.
In the universe of things they're
10
Load Forecast Report?
11
A.
I believe so.
12
Q.
So as of today's date, the Staff has not taken a
13
position on whether the 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report is
14
valid; correct?
15
A.
16
any positions as of this time.
17
case.
18
Q.
19
decision or taken any position whatsoever as to whether
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.
24
points here.
25
we're here for, is looking at transmission.
We have not made any recommendations or taken It's still early in the
But suffice it to say, Staff hasn't made any
I believe we're looking at a couple different For the PATH case, which this is not what We're
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
172 1
looking at generation in this case, which is really
2
totally different, and I'm not sure if I see the
3
connection that you're trying to make.
4
Q.
Okay.
5
A.
Okay.
6
Q.
Would you agree with me that either --- it's
7
going to be one of three things for the 2009 PJM Load
8
Forecast Report.
9
set forth in it are true, B would be some of the claims
Let me pose the question to you this way.
Either all of the claims and assertions
10
and assertions are true, and then C would be that none of
11
the claims and assertions are true in that report.
12
that fair to say that it's going to be one of those three
13
events?
That's what the Staff would determine?
14
A.
The Staff has hired an outside consultant to
15
make those determinations for us.
16
Q.
17
hired consultant.
18
one of those three scenarios was the case with respect to
19
the 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report in the PATH case;
20
correct?
21
A.
Could you list the ---?
22
Q.
Sure.
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.
Okay.
Is
Well, then I'll substitute the Staff The outside consultant would find that
Option A --- or scenario A would be all
It's going to be one of those three things;
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
173 1
correct?
2
A.
3
it.
4
Q.
5
correct?
6
A.
7
combinations.
8
Q.
9
which of those three scenarios it is in terms of what the
You didn't leave much else out, so that's about
So it has to be one of those three things;
I couldn't --- I couldn't think of any other
Okay.
So as we sit here today, we don't know
10
Staff consultant would determine; correct?
11
A.
12
correct.
13
Q.
14
forecast be true with respect to transmission but not
15
true with respect to generation?
16
A.
17
They can be built locally.
18
generation within West Virginia, more generation towards
19
the west.
20
that are requesting load --- or having a load, that would
21
determine whether there is transmission lines that are
22
needed or not.
23
turbine --- wind turbine generation because there is also
24
this need for this generation other than ---.
25
Q.
When looking at transmission, yes, you are
Okay.
Let me ask you this.
How can the load
Describe that to me.
Generation can be built in various other areas. They can be built --- more
So if there are more generation in those areas
Okay.
Generation is different, typically with
I understand that, but I don't see how
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
174 1
that changes the fact that one of those three scenarios
2
we discussed is going to be the case or not be the case.
3
I'm failing to understand how it matters whether we're
4
discussing generation or we're discussing transmission.
5
At the risk of asking the same question again, I'm trying
6
to clarify my understanding of the distinction you seem
7
to be making.
8
A.
9
case, this particular case.
Generation is what we are looking at in this The other case which you're
10
referring has to do with transmission, getting power from
11
one location to another location.
12
certificate involves only the need for this type of
13
generation.
14
one location to another.
15
that it can be used for other power companies in
16
replacement of coal fired generation possibly.
17
part of that is this has no bearing on ratepayers.
18
they can't --- if this company cannot sell the energy,
19
it's not out of the ratepayer's pocket.
20
other transmission case you were talking about, there is
21
an issue there.
22
different cases.
23
connection that you're probably having the trouble making
24
the connection with what I'm testifying ---.
25
don't see a connection between these two.
This particular
We're not looking at transferring it from We're looking at it as the need
Another If
Whereas, in the
So this is totally --- they're totally I'm having trouble making the
I really
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
175 1
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
2
Hold on a second.
3
Commissioner McKinney has to leave.
4
offer that we made yesterday, and that is --- I guess it
5
was yesterday.
6
can adjourn 'til tomorrow morning.
I know that I'll make the same
That is we can continue with two or we
7
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
8
I'm going to vote for continuing with
9
two.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERTS:
11
All right.
12
COMMISSIONER MCKINNEY:
13
My apologies.
That's fine.
I have a doctor's
14
appointment.
15
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
16
Q.
17
posing a question to you that I've already posed to you,
18
one of the three scenarios that I presented you with just
19
minutes ago --- one of those is going to be determined to
20
be the case by the Staff's consultant in its review of
21
that 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report; isn't that correct?
22
A.
23
--- there are other issues involved with that other than
24
just the PJM case.
25
Q.
Again, at the risk of asking the question ---
Without going into that case too far, there's
Let me ask you whether one of those scenarios
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
176 1
can be true in the PATH case and not be true in this
2
case, and if your answer is yes, why is that?
3
A.
4
there are two different types of issues that we're
5
looking at.
6
transmission.
7
consultants agree or disagree with this study.
8
Q.
9
same kind of work or the same kind of work with outside
I believe I answered that previous to this, that
The one is generation.
The other is
So it's not dependent upon whether our
I'm not asking whether the Staff is doing the
10
consultants in this case that it is in the PATH case.
11
I'm just asking how can it be --- how can any one of
12
those three scenarios I discussed with you be true for
13
the purposes of the PATH case, but not be true for the
14
purposes of this case?
15
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
16
He's already answered this question
17
multiple times.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
Yes, I think that's the case.
I think
20
you just ought to move on.
You can argue it in a brief.
21
You can do what you want, but he's answered it at least
22
three or four different times.
23
satisfaction, but it's to the best of his ability
24
particularly.
25
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
It may not be to your
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
177 1
Q.
Does the construction and operation of the
2
Pinnacle project have any bearing on whether scenario A
3
that I set forth to you, scenario B or scenario C would
4
be true or false?
5
A.
6
and analyses.
7
Q.
8
the position that it's okay to take the 2009 PJM Load
9
Forecast at face value for this case, but to scrutinize
I have no way of knowing that without the study
Is it your testimony that the Staff is taking
10
it through an outside consultant in the PATH case?
11
that the Staff's position?
12
A.
Is
I know ---.
13
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
14
It's the same.
He's already answered
15
this question in one way or another.
16
him that it's two different looks.
17
for generation.
18
They're two different statutes.
19
looks.
20
multiple times.
He's already told One is a look at need
One is a look at need for transmission. They're two different
He's already answered this line of question
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
Well, it's a slightly different
23
question, and I think we'll let him finish the question
24
and the answer and then move on.
25
this to death.
I think we're beating
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
178 1
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
2
Perhaps, Your Honor.
3
BY ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
4
Q.
Do you need me to rephrase the question for you?
5
A.
Sure.
6
Q.
Okay.
7
acceptable for the Staff to take the 2009 PJM Load
8
Forecast and the claims and assertions set forth therein
9
at face value in this case, but in the PATH case subject
Is it the Staff's position that it's
10
it to scrutiny mainly through an outside consultant?
11
A.
No, that's not the case.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
outside consultant or another consultant to scrutinize
14
the 2009 PJM Load Forecast Report in this case, the
15
Pinnacle case?
16
A.
No.
And has the Staff engaged the same
Not for this case, no, they haven't.
17
ATTORNEY STEPHENS:
18
Thank you.
19
I believe that's all I
have, Mr. Walker.
20
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
21
Commissioner?
22
COMMISSIONER STAATS:
23
I have no question.
24
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
25
All right.
The Staff witnesses that
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
179 1
you worked with in this case have had --- have
2
participated in other wind turbine cases; have they not?
3
A.
Yes, they have.
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
And the same issues raised in those
6
cases were raised in this case?
7
A.
Yes.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
You've recommended and there have been
10
some things suggested as being matters for inclusion in a
11
stipulation about the ice shedding and setback distances.
12
Is that --- I was trying to get an appreciation for what
13
your --- why the necessity --- is it simply an abundance
14
of precaution, or is it that this is becoming more
15
frequent or ---?
16
A.
17
overabundance of caution, I'm sure.
18
issue that's been going on for a long time, and it's just
19
really coming to the forefront to our knowledge in the
20
past year or so.
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
I don't think that it's an --- it's not an This has been an
And this is why we've decided that it's
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
180 1
I had also circled the requirement for
2
posting warning signs around the O&M building.
What's
3
the necessity for that?
4
A.
5
it's just another --- it's another level of protection.
6
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
7
Okay.
That may be an overabundance of precaution, but
And while I understand you're
8
not a bat expert or been involved in these proceedings
9
with respect to bats, I take it that the suggestion
10
that's been arrived at with respect to post --- three
11
years of post construction and what will be done was a
12
consensus with the Staff and with the parties to the
13
stipulation?
14
A.
15
that were here previously and along with some of the
16
legal staff and felt that it was important to include.
Yes.
I worked with all of the other co-workers
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
The provision of the stipulation with
19
respect to the post construction studies doesn't really
20
require three years of construction studies; does it?
21
A.
22
reevaluation according to the committee.
It requires at least one year and with
23
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
24
Who would make that determination,
25
whether to proceed to the second and third year of
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
181 1
studies?
2
A.
3
involved in that committee.
That would be a consensus among those that are
4
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
5
And that would be?
6
Fish and Wildlife, DNR and Staff?
7
A.
Yeah.
Would that be the
I was trying to find that paragraph, yes.
8
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
9
Okay.
I'm sorry.
I see it now.
10
That's page six under item 12, there's a committee.
11
A.
Yes.
12
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
13
And that would simply be you would try
14
to work it out, I take it, and if all of you don't agree,
15
who decides then?
16
A.
17
experts there and they will be able to determine how to
18
proceed after they get all the data in.
19
probably up to the committee members to really figure
20
that out.
Well, there's --- we're going to have a lot of
21
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
22
Thank you, Mr. Walker.
23
I think that's
Other
questions?
24
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
25
I have a few follow up.
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
182 1
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
2
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
3
Q.
4
construction studies, this recommendation is slightly
5
different than it was in the last two cases; is that
6
correct?
7
A.
Yes, it is.
8
Q.
Can you explain how that is or ---?
9
case, it's up to three years with a decision after the
Since he was just asking you about it, the post
In this
10
first year to move on.
Before it was one year and then
11
there was a decision to be made at that point whether
12
additional years would be added on; is that correct?
13
A.
Yes, that is correct.
14
Q.
So this is a little stronger than it has been in
15
the previous two cases?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Would you object if someone suggested other
18
members be added to the technical advisory committee?
19
A.
I have no objection to that.
20
Q.
The Chairman asked you about the setback issues.
21
That's an important issue amongst the members in the
22
engineering division; is that correct?
23
A.
It's very important.
24
Q.
And it's something that you all would like to
25
see on a going forward basis?
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
183 1
A.
This is something that we'd really hope that
2
future wind projects would incorporate, at least the one
3
and a half times that we have stipulated in in my
4
testimony.
5
Q.
6
little bit about the 2007 ---.
And to not beat a dead horse on this issue, go a
7
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
8
The courtroom is littered with dead
9
horses.
10
BY ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
11
Q.
12
little bit about engineering wise the difference between
13
forecasting the need for generation and the need for
14
transmission.
15
the need for generation, plants going in and out of
16
service; is that correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
You can refer to that, if you'd like.
19
plenty of definitions there.
20
is going up or down, the need for generation may be going
21
up simply because plants are retiring, going out of
22
service, that sort of thing?
23
A.
24
things.
25
Q.
About the 2007 PJM Load Forecast, let's talk a
There's a multitude of factors that impact
There's
So whether overall demand
Having read over this, yeah, all kinds of
The need for a transmission line is a completely
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
184 1
different look engineering wise; is that correct?
2
A.
Yes, it is.
3
Q.
Okay.
4
that would entail, or do you know?
5
A.
6
I can give you as accurately as I can at this point.
7
Q.
8
for this type of generation --- this type of --- you mean
9
renewable generation?
And can you talk a little bit about what
I've pretty much given you the information that
And you mentioned a little bit about the need
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:
17
Thank you.
18
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
19
All right.
That's all I have.
Anything further?
You're excused.
Thank
20
you, Mr. Walker.
Is there any other
21
testimony to come before the Commission on this matter?
22
All right.
23
Order.
24
anything other than this order indicates that --- excuse
25
me, initial briefs will be due on Monday, November the
Actually, I was looking for the Procedural
I assume that the --- I don't recall a change in
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
185 1
16th.
Reply --- and I assume that's initial --- it is.
2
Initial simultaneous briefs due on Monday, November the
3
16th with reply briefs due on November the 25th, and the
4
Commission will issue its order on or before Monday,
5
January the 11th.
6
that I'm aware of.
7
that all exhibits have been admitted into the record with
8
the exception of Alliance Exhibits Three and Four which
9
were withdrawn by Mr. Stephens.
I don't think there's any open issues Looking over my sheet, it indicates
10
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
11
Your Honor, I'm not sure if Joint
12
Exhibit One was moved.
13
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
14
It was.
15
ATTORNEY AUVILLE:
16
Sorry.
17
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
18
I show it as having been admitted, but
19
if it wasn't, it is.
And if that's all there is, then
20
we'll consider the case as having been completed and we
21
will proceed with the --- that schedule.
22
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
23
Your Honor, a point of clarification,
24
if I might.
I don't have the order to establish the
25
procedural schedule in front of me, but is it the
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
186 1
Commission's desire that along with the initial briefs we
2
tender proposed order?
3
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
4
I'm never opposed to a proposed order.
5
If you want to submit a proposed order, certainly we
6
would be willing to see it and look at it.
7
serve it on other parties.
8
ATTORNEY CALLAS:
9
Thank you.
10
COMMISSIONER ALBERT:
11
All right.
Just make you
Thank you very much.
12
* * * * * * * *
13
HEARING CONCLUDED AT 4:00 P.M.
14
* * * * * * * *
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
187 1 2
CERTIFICATE
3 4
I hereby certify, as the stenographic reporter,
5
that the foregoing proceedings were taken
6
stenographically by me, and thereafter reduced to
7
typewriting by me or under my direction; and that this
8
transcript is a true and accurate record to the best of
9
my ability.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
CASE NO. 09-0360-E-CS Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
Prepared Direct Testimony of Michael Jin
your name, occupation and business address.
Q:
Please state
A:
My name is Michael Jin. I am the Research Director for the Center for Labor & community Research (CLCR), 341 1 w. Diversey Avenue, chicago, rL 60647.
Q:
Please summarize your professional qualifications and describe your current
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 the Research Director since 2001. (See Exhibit A hereto)
l.
hry
As a Research Director, my major responsibilities include overseeing the research projects involving clients, such as the
city of chicago
and the state
of
Illinois. I am also doing studies by myself like this one.
Q:
What is the purpose of your current testimony?
A:
The \Mest virginia state Building and construction Trades council,
AFL-cIo
commissioned a study conducted by the center for Labor and community Research (CLCR) that evaluated the probable economic impacts of the proposed
construction of a wholesale electric generating facility in Mineral county, rù/est
Virginia.
Q:
In your work at GLCR do you routinely conduct similar economic impact studies using economic simulation software?
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 certain amount of disposal income were taken away due to an increase of co-pay
for health insurance from the workers, what would happen to the local economy 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
construction Trades council,
AFL-cIo
in west virginia public service
commission proceedings including AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, case No. 0g0109-E-cs; Appalachian Power company, case No. 06-0033-E-cN; Liberry Gap
wind Force, LLC, case No. 05-r740-E-cs-cN; and, AES New creek, LLc, Case No. 08-2105,8-CS.
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 used
it for many occasions.
Q: A:
Have you received specialized training in the use of the IMPLAN software?
Q:
would you please explain the concept of economic impact analysis?
A:
Within an economY, ffiy single action by any individual or firm unleashes a series
Yes.
of subsequent transactions. For example, if you contract for the construction of a 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
involve specific economic activities also can initiate a widely-felt cascade of transactions. It is rarely instructive to evaluate the impacts of an individual purchase' but because of their magnitudes, policy decisions can substantively
affect the level of regional economic activity. Through the use of well-tested tools, economic impact analyses attempt to sum up the total economic effects associated with these policy decisions.
Q:
How is it possible to estimate the total impact of so many disparate transactions?
A:
In the short-run, resources are often used in fixed proportions within the
production of goods and services. The construction of a two-thousand square-foot house requires a certain number of laborers, a predictable amount of concrete, and a
readily knowable quantity of lumber. Similarly, an average household with a
$30,000 annual income spend
will
consume a predicable amount of groceries.
we
a great amount of time both identifring and quantifring these types of
relationships across the economy. The variety of productive relationships between various industrial sectors, along with information describing outputs and govemmental activities are
summarized in matrixes that are combined in mathematical simulations of the
overall economy. Moreover, these simulation models provide the capacity to anticipate the effects of economic activities or events that have not yet occurred. For example, it is possible within the model to increase the value of residential
4.
construction expenditures above current levels in order to determine how such an increase would affect various facets of the regional economy.
Q:
Please describe the specific activities that take place
within the context of an
economic impact analysis.
A:
The proper conduct of a defensible economic impact study consists of several
steps. The first, and often most difficult, task is to accurately represent the event or activity that is triggering the more broadly-felt set of economic changes. Most
simulation software packages require that data inputs be configured in specific
ways. However, available representations of real-world economic activities very often fail to conform to the me¿rsurement or format requirements of software
producers. Moreover, many economic activities are difficult to quantify in any
form. If data inputs do not accurately represent the event that is at the center of the aggregate change, there is very
little chance that subsequent calculations will
provide any usable impact estimates. once data inputs have been prepared, they must be properry processed
within the simulation software. In most cases this involves little more than correctly adhering to well-documented instructions. Still, there are decisions and judgments that must be made and, consequently, opportunities for error. Next,
if
possible, it is often instructive to test the results for robustness by varying one or more input parameters. This sort of exercise should yield stable and predictable changes in estimation results. Finally,
it is very often necessary to post_process
5.
estimation results. Results may be aggregated, disaggregated or otherwise
modified for çase of interpretation.
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.
However, nearly every package includes estimates of changes to incomes, outputs and employments and these are typically reported by industry or industrial sector. Results a¡e also routinely segregated into direct, indirect, and induced effects.
More elaborate software packages may also yield estimates ofpopulation migration, changes to regional investment, or even fiscal impacts.
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
activity, such as a major construction project, requires purchases from numerous 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
virginia cLcR used IMPLAN's input-output modeling software.
6.
Q:
Please
briefly summarize the economÍc impact estimates that your study has
estimated
will occur due to the construction of the Wholesale Generating
Facility in this matter. A:
If the completion of the project needs $l3t million and approximately I l3 craft workers on an averaged full+ime equivalent awualizedbasis as the company has 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)
Q:
Overall how would you characterize the economic impact of construction of the Electric wholesale Generating Facility in this matter?
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 impacts are set out in detail in my report.
Q:
Does that conclude
A:
Yes.
your testimony.
7.
Xiaochang (Mike) Jin Center for Labor & Community Research (CLCR) 3411 W. Diversey Avenue Chicago, 60647
IL
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. Prior to coming to Chicago, Jin worked at the headquarters of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union in New York as a researcher between 1989 and 1993. His main responsibility was to track the change in the garnent industry in New york as well as the entire nation. He conducted several studies on the economicimpact of company closures.
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. Since
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
B
Center for Labor Corn
munity
Research
The Estimated Economic Impact of Pinnacle Wind Power project In West Virginia
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 Uy 5ed_tlp 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. Output Impact of the Proposed power Station (In miltions)
Indirect Induced Total Impact
11.0 8.2
$
19.2
Source: Projection is bæed on the IMPLAN input-out model developed by the U.S. Forest Service and 2007 west Virginia economic Data compiled by IMPLAN.
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 Indirect & Induced
165
Total
279
113
Soutce: Projection is bæed on the IMPLAN input'out model developed by the u.s. Forest service and 2007 west virginia economic data compiled by IMPLAN.
'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 Indirect & Induced
$
Total
s
e.4 4.8 14.2
Source: Projection is based on the IMPLAN input-out model developed by the u.s. Forest service and 2007 west virginia economic data compiled by IMPLAN.
'rncome for the self-employed: The project would also yield profits for the West virginia selfemployed 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 million in pre-tax profits.
businesses
in West Virginia will have $2.g
'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. the proposed project may result in the following economic impact on the state of -ln :u-, West -Virginia on an annualized basis:
Estimated Economic Impact of Proposed Power Station Direct Sales (in millions) Jobs
Compensation for workers (in millions) Compensation, Self-employed (in millions)
Profits for Corporations (in millions) Tax Revenues: For Federal Government (in millions) For State Government (in millions)
Indirect & Induced
t9.2 r13 9.4
Total t9.2
t66
279
4.8
14.2
1.0
1.0
2.8
2.8 3.0 1.3
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
Ë
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
e ó zE À
cAsE NO.
09-0360-E_CS Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a siting certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Èacility and Related Transmission Support Line oiless than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in
Prepared Direct Testimony of Darwin L. Snyder
a.
Please state
A.
My name is Darwin L. snyder and I arn the president of the North centrar west Virginia state Building and construction Trades Council, AFL-cIo and
your name and busÍness address.
the Business Manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers
("IBEW") Local 596. My office is rocated at r00l North l2th street, Clarksburg, WV 26301.
a.
Please state
A.
In 1980, I became
your education and experience. 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.
çtdst
I was elected Business Manager of IBEW Local 596 in 1993. I
became
the President of the North central west virginia state Building
and
construction Trades council, AFL-cIo in 2000. I also serve on the National Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee.
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.
The North Central West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades
council, AFL-cIo and the west virginia state Building and construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, represent construction workers in North Central
west Virginia including Mineral county. on behalf of the two labor organizations' we entered into a Memorandum Agreement with U. S. Wind
Force, LLC which also covers the pinnacle wind Force project. The Agreement ensures to the greatest extent reasonably possible that the workers used
in the construction of the wholesale electric generating facility will
be
local workers. The Agreement is attached to this testimony as Exhibit A.
a.
can you tell me how many rocar workers wiil be working on
the
construction of the facitity? We have reviewed the company's manpower estimates for the construction, and
based
on those estimates, as well as my experience with other electric
generating facilities we agree that approximately l 13 craft workers, on an
averaged full-time equivalent annualized basis,
will be needed for
the
construction of the project. That's a lot of work for a lot of our members.
a'
In your experience
how would you characterize the construction
employmenú as it relates to the local area?
A'
The size of the project and the amount of construction employment needed
will have a very positive impact
a. A.
on the local economy and local emproyment.
Does that conclude your testimony? Yes
it does.
EXHIBIT
MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT This Memorandum Agreement is entered into effective the 28ú day of M ay,2001,by and among Mt. Storm wind Force, I .Lc and u.s. \tr/ind Force, LLC, (hereinafter collectively ,,wind Force") the North central west Virginia Building and construction Trades council, AFL-cIo and the west virginia state Building and consrruction Trades council, AFL-cIo (collectively referred to as the "Building Trades") regarding construction by wind Force of a wind power electric generatingfacility and related interconnectingtransmission lines in Grant andruckercounties, West
Virginia.
For purposes of this Memorandum Agreement the
generatingfacilityand relatedinterconnectingtransmission
"wind
Force wind power electric
lines in Grant and ruckercounties, west virginia" (hereinafter "Facility") shall mean all site preparation, infrastructure, buildings, structures,
equipment and appurtenances used or associated with the generation of electric power and as detailed in wind Force's Application for a certificate of convenience and necessity currently pending before the west virginia pubric service commission (case No. 0l-1664_E_cN).
as
follows:
It is hereby understood and acknowledged that the undersigned parties have agreed
A'
Wind Force will select one or more Engineering procurement and construction contractors ("EPC contractor") to construct the Facility. wind Force shall require such EPC Contractor(s) to enter into a project labor agreement with the Building Trades for labor used in the construction of the Facility. The agreement shall be in a form acceptable to both the respective EPC Contractor(s) and the Building Trades;provided however, such agreement shall be in the form similar to the Building Trades' standard Project Labor Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit I' The parties agree that the General superintendent, superintendent, clerical, professional, and supervisory ernployees of the EPC Contractor(s) will not be members of any bargaining unit(s) (i'e' those employees of the EPC contractor(s) for whom the Building Trades will collectively bargain) and these employees will not perform any work traditionally performed by Building and Trades craft persons. The parties agree that the EPC contractor(s) and the Building Trades shall negotiate in good faith over the project rabor agreernent tenns.
B'
The Building Trades shall support, and act in the best interest of, Wind Force
in all aspects of the development and construction process of the Facility or any other facility developed by wind Force, including, but not limited to, supporting the Facility and
any future public hearings or meetings and in the application process for all permits necessary for the construction and operation of the Facility and any future facility. The Building Trades agree not to contribute in any manner, directly or indirectly, to any delay in the permitting process for or construction of the Facility or any other facility developed by wind Force. facility
at
C.
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors, assigns of the parties and any and alr entities that may purchase, lease or otherwise acquire all or part of the Facility or V/ind Force.
D'
Failure to enforce or the waiver of any provision of this Agreement or any breach or nonperfonnance by any Party shall not be deemed a waiver by the any party of the right in the future to demand strict compliance and performance of any provision of this Agreement. No modifications to orrecission of this Agreement may be made except by a written document signed by authorized representatives of all parties.
E'
The parties undertake to act in good faith in relation to the performance and implementation of this Agreement and to take such other reasonable measures as may be necessary for the realization of its purposes and objectives.
F'
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
G.
The parties further agree that in the event that Wind Force proposes to construct a facility or facilities in \rr/est virginia simila¡ to the Facility that is the subjecr of this Agreement that the provisions and terms of this Agreement shalr appry to the construction of that facility or those facilities.
IN wITNEss WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, acting under the authority of the respective governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in multiple
counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.
US Wind Force, LLC
Mt. Storm Wind Force, LLC By: Name:
Name: Its:
State
By: Name: Its:
Buildi
and Construction Trades Council,
AFL-CIO
PROJECT I-.ABOR AGREEM ENT This Agreement trr'¡¡L rù is çurçreu entered into ul[ ttris
day
between
NoRTH CEI{TRAI wEsT
of
2002, by and
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 of construction work as defined in Attachment e orthe nro¡r.t Labor Agreement (pLA), both of which are attached hereto and made .
p;h;r*f
by reference. The parties to this Agreement, in consiår..ti* -utouipiå*ir., covenants herein contained, mutually agree as follows: "rtné
*ro
l'
The Project Labor Agreement.is to be signed by the council, the union, ârid those companies *ho b".or" r-u..rrrful as a bidder. 2. The agrees that in the Bidding
*.T.r"r"th;p,'..iffiiö:ää,i,ffiinå:, äffi äIIöä;
**:,*,.^:::.:1111,.191_yf negoriatioiîri::T::::T3i""li*¡,r,;1'.¡,;;äffi
i;
*::îi':fl T:9.* ll:i ::' i"u"i Àe""#J;ri #iii'r
to succ ess tur
Labor Agreement. ilå:îff"'g:::totheconstn¡*io"*o*il;nåi"îffúï,"å'#äi;ä:::
4' The union and the council agree that there sha[ be no picketing or other disruptive activity f:r *y_putpo* by t¡. urrior," tt. co*"il or any emproyee represented by the council or unionduring trreierm o-r*¡i, Agreement. This Agreement sha'become effective on the shall remain in effect until the complJili;;päj..r(Ð
_
of
ÏyT;;rio*oF,
day
of
iJ#,ri'ro
_,
"
2002 and
"*achment
rhe parties herero have ser their hands this
_
A.
day
NORTTI CENTRAL WV BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COuNcrL,
BY:
AÌL.CIO
BY:
BY:
Darvin L. Snyder, prcr¡¿"nt
ARTICLE ONE PANPOSE
The Parties to this Project Labor Agreement acknowredge that the construction of the is inrportant to the development of the , its community and to o.^"d for tñe t¡,n"r *". rhis Agreement i1'1åø.it" lryvrct¡Yg ft¡-t effort establishment of a framework for labor-managemenr cooperation and stabilþ.
i:jil::
11.:f.' ,i::itt¡:: îl:lq._ 9:T*,*"
;;h#,hr, ö"orive
The Contracto(s) and the Unions agree that the timely construction ofthis Project will require substantial nr¡rnbers oi.rproy.es from constn¡ction and supporting crafrs possessing skills and qualificatiåns that a¡e vital to its completion. They will work together to furnish skillèd, em"ient crafrsworkers for the constn¡ction of this project. Furttrer, the Paties desire to mutually est¿blish and stabilize wages, hours and working conditions for the craftrvork"r, oo this constn¡ction project, to encourage close cooperation between the Contracto(s) and the Unions to the end satisfactory, continuous and harmonior¡s relationship ." will exist between the Parties to this Agreement.
F
Therefore, in recognition ofthe special needs of this project and to maintain a spirit of harmony, labor-management peace, and stability dr:ring the term of this Agreement, the Parties agree to estauùsh eáèctive and binding methods for the settlement of all misr¡nderstandings, disputes, o, gri"rr*ces which may arise. Further, the contractor(s) and alt contractors ojwhatever ,¡"ì, oi)e not to engage in any lockout, and the (Jnions agree not to engage in any strike, srowdown' or inteftuption or other disruption of or interference with the work covered under this Agreement.
ARTICLE T\ryO Scope olAgreemcnt
1'
Section This Projgct Agreement shall apply and is tinited to the recognized and accepted historical definition of new consûr¡ction work under the direction of and performed by ttrc Contractor{s), of whatever tier, which may include the project Contractor, whohave confracts awarded for sucír work on th, project Such work shall include site preparation work and dedicated oËsite work. The Proiect is defined as: Any oyd øll siteprepørøtíons and constructíon of alt huíldìngs, equipment ond associøted ímpnvemenß wíth respect to the
It is agreed $ut th. hoject Contractor shall require all Contractors of whatever tier wh have
been áwarded contracts for work covered by this Agreement, to accept and be bound by the terms rtd rhis project Labor Agreement bytxecuting the Letter ofAssent (Attachrnent A) prior to cornmencing The Project Contractor shall assure compliance with this fgrlment by the contractors. It is fi¡rtlrer that the terms and conditions of this Project Agreement shall supersede and "grü oierride terms and conditions of any and all other national, area, or local collective urrg"ining agreements. It is understood that this is a self-conüained, stand-alone, egr.ãro.rrt and that by virtue ofhaving become bound to this Project Labor AgreeÃent, neither project contractor nor the contractors will be obligated to sign aãy ot¡r.lo.ul are4 or national agreement
;;diri;;f
*$'-
2'
Section Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit, restrict or interfere with the performance of any other operations, worlÇ or fi¡nction which may occur at the Project site or be associated with the development of the project.
section
3'
section
4'
Thb Agreement shall onlv be binding on the signatory pa¡ties hereto and shall not apply to their parents, affiliates or subsidiaries. The owner and/or the Project conüactor have the absolute right to select any qr:alified bidder for the awa¡d of contracts on this project without reference to the oristence or non-existence or*ry ugrrements between such bidder and any Parfy tothis Agreement; provided, however, only such bidder is willing, ready and able to become aparty to, and comply with this project Labor Agreement, should it be designated as the successful biddår. 3
5'
Section Items specifically excluded from the scope ofthis Agreement include but are not limited to the following:
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
Confactor(s) to abide by this Article. Section
6'
Union(s) or the
The provisions ofthis Project l¿borAgreement shall not apply to and nothing contained hãrein shall be corutrued
ffiersonnel'
ä"ffi
to
;i:iÏ:ï:,i:i"*ffi, ï,tå:'
evered bv rhis of the Project are irspected and õonstuction tested úy the nojecttontractor or contractors and accepted by the owner, th" Pt;j;;t Agreement will not have fi.¡rther force or effect on such items or areas, except when the project Contractor or contractoN are directed by the owner to engage in repairs, modifications, checkout' warrant¡l ft[rctions required by its contrãct-with t]r" o*rr". during the term of this Agreement. c
7'
secdon 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. section
8'
It is understood that the liabilit¡ of any employer and the liability of the separate unions under this Agreement shall ú. rcu.ol and ,tot joint. The unions agree that this Agreement doãs not have the effect of .reatirrg any joint employer
statw between or among the owner, contracto(s), or any employer.
ARTICLE THREE section
1. The contacto or"ffiffi',iffi
as rhe sole and excrr¡sive bargaining representatives of all t*n employees within their reqpective jurisdictions working on the hoject within the scope ôrtir¡ Agreement.
ARTICTE FOUR
#ffii##,"ffå'$**rever
The Project conüactors tier retain tun and exclusive atrthority manâgem:nt of their operations. Exceptas PI otherwise limited by tenns of this Agreemint, the conûactors shall direct trri. working forces at their prerogative, including, but not limited 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...'
tr
ARTICLE FT\18 Referral of Employees
section I' The contracto(s) agree to recognize and be bound by the local unions, hiring procedures as outlined in eãch craft's tîqp..tiu. collective nargaining Agreement and shall notis the appropriate union either in writing or by telephone when workers are required.
2.
section selection of appricants for refer¡ar to jobs sha[ be on a nondiscriminatory basis and shall not be based or,, o, way affected by, union membership, by laws, rules, regulations, constitutiãnal provisions, or any other aspect or obligation ofunion membe*hip, policies or requirements. There shall be no discrimination against any employee ;; for employment because his or her membership or non-membership in the üo; o. ¡r".¿ upon race, color, creed, sexr age' or national origin of such employee or applicant.
"
illl.*;
*,
3'
Section In the event the referral facilities maintained by the unions are unable to fill the requisition of the connaglors for employees within a forry-eight (4g) hour period after such request is made, (Saturdays,'sundays and rroüdays excluded) applicants for such requisition may be empioyed from
*y ,o*.r..
4'
The selection and nuurber ofForemen and/or $ection General Foremen shall be the responsibility ofthe contractor, it being r¡ndentood that in the selection of such employees the Contnactor will give fir$ co;ideration to the q*fin"¿ workers available in the local area. Forãmen and/or General Foremen shall take orders from supervisors designated by the contractor. Foremen and/or General Foremen will not absent themselves from the area where their crews are working unless presence is required elsewhere, and shall be held t rpo*iule for all work perfonned by employees under their supervision. Ttre connactor may require Foremen to be working employees.
5.
section In:"r:r of employnent positions requiring special sk¡rs or qualifications, the contractõr will notify the uniáå ofthe q¡alificarion tests or skills required' and the u¡ion may refer any qualified applicant. The contractor shall be the sole judge of all applicants qualifications.
6'
section The union shatl not refer employees employed at the project site by any conhactor to othgr nor ttr"u tt, union engug" in oth"r activities -employment, which encourage work force turnover or absenteeism.
7'
section Employees who voluntarily quit or who are terminated for caus¡e may be eligible for re-emplolmrent at the nó¡ect, .o¿ trr. referral facilþ may refer such former employees to the Project for re-h''e,'ú;; sooner than sixty (ó0) days after such termination.
8'
Section An employee or applicant required to satisfactorily demonstrate his or her ability to perform certain tasls througrr an examination or test (e.g., welding tests), shall be paid for that time requireJto take ,h" .*u- or test, provided the employee or applicant successfulry passes the exam or test.
section
9'
It is expressly understood and agreed that language
as contained in 5 shall not be construed to have estabîshed an exclusive referral system for any union(s) where.one-has not previously existJ where an exclusive referral system has not previously existeà, the stiput"tioro in the Local collective Bargaining Agreemenrs perraining to percenrag.J shalr apply.
Aticle
"i.ipr"y.es
ARTICLE SIX Appr e ntic e s /Tr aine
es
/H e lp e r s /S u bj o ur nøy m e n
1'
Section Recognizing th need to maintain continuing support ofprograms designed to develop adeçrate nunobers of compaent workers in the Corsûn¡ction Indutry, the contractol will employ apprentic;r i" the respective crafrs to perform such work as is within their capãbilitieì'and which is cr.rstomarily performed by the crafr in which they are indenn¡red.
2'
section The contractor will refer to the Local collective Bargaining Agreement for apprenticeship wage rates and applicabl.;d;.
ARTICLE SE\'EN Wages and Benefits
1'
section The agrlicalle wage rates and other contributions for the dr¡ration of each particular project of the shall be the established wage rate and the existing Local collective Bargaining Agreement and as sunrnarized by each signatory union.
other.on*O* -:
2'
section ft"iontractor agrees to recognize and install wage rates, including apprentice classifications where applicabl.L¿ *rlr. contribt¡tions to a trust or tnæt ofbona fide fringe benefits such as-lpensioq t."ith and welfare, vacation, affiuity apprenticeship and training filnds, uùtaing tr.a.r p"r capita, etc.) as may have been duly negotiated within the historically,.ãgoir.J ior.r ¿ùrea.
3'
section when the contractor contributes Êinge benefits payments into local, regional or national tn¡st funds, the contracto. to be bourd to all lawful tenns and conditions oftrust agreements, âod "g;", all amenãments thereto. The contractor fi'rther agrees to accept i* representatives in the administration of such funds, the 4t Contractor Tnætees serving.rr.it funds. F,rfth";;re, the contractor and union may establish other trust firnds by mutual agreement when necessary.
ARTICLE EIGHT Work Rules
section 1. Employnrent begins and ends at the project site.
2'
Section There shall be no limit on production by workmen nor resûictions on the full use of tools or equipment. CralLworkro *iog tools shall perform any of the work of the üade and shall work uder trr. foreman. there shall be no restrictions on efficient use of maurpower other than as may be required by safety regulations.
r,rp.*ili";;;A;.on
3'
Section Workers shall be at their place of work at the starting time and shall remain at their place of work performing their assigned tasla t¡n¿ä the supervision ofthe contracto¡ until quittini time, The Parties reaffirm theirpolicy of a fair day's work for a fair day's wage. It is understood and agreed that the Contractor shall allow a reasonable arnourt of time prior to the end ofthe work day for clean-up purposes' Adequate sanitary facilities and drinking water shall also be provided at or near the job site. Section
4'
All
e-quipment assigned to the projects shall be under the control ofthe contractor' The contractor shJl have flt" ;gñ;determine how many pieces of equipment an individr¡al shall operate providãd that no individual shall be required to operate more than trvo pieces ofmajor equipment in a given aay 1i.e., A_B-A). However, in an emergency, after agreement witt, t¡. Business Representative, tlree pieces of such equipment may be operated. Foremen shall, in an å*"rg"rr"y, operate any equipment assigned by the contactor and there shall be no restriction on foremen in the use ofthe tools ofhis craft in such emerg.n.f, rh. shall be from the crafr normally operating tf,.
.quipi.ni.
for"-*
5'
section The Contractor may utilize the most efficient methods or techniques of constn¡ctioq tools, or other labor-saving devices to accomplish the work. practices not a part of the terrns and conditions ofthe Agreement will not be recognized.
6'
section It is agreed that overtirne is undesirable and not in the best interests of the induüy or the craftsworkers; therefuI.,. excep-in unusual circumstances, overtime will be worked. where unusual circuuutances do exist, however, the contactor will have the right to assign specinc employees arr¿o, crews to perform such overtime work as is ræcessary to accomplish the job. The steward will work
when one or more members of that crafr or work crew are required to work overtime' In order for the Stewa¡d to work such overtime, the steward mr¡st be qualified to perform the work being undertaken during the overtime period. required by qualifications, a temporary steward may be appointed.
If
SectionT.
There will be no rest periods, organizsd coffee breaks or other non_ working tirne established during wðrking t o,"1. -
8'
Section tolerated.
slowdowllr¡' standby crews and featherbedding practices will not be
9'
section seniority shall not be recognized or applied to employees working on projects rmder this Agreement.
section 10' The contractor shall establish such reasonable project rules as the contractor deems appropriate. These rures will be reviewed at-the pre-job conference and posted at the project site by v! J trr" and may be a¡nended --- ðonouctor, thereafter as
necessary.
ARTICLE NINE
r.
*"*I::!#;K#::#if":y#n
ssction Dnring e no work srrikes, picketing, work stoppages, slow downs o, otn rãisrup1ive activþ for any reason by the unior¡ its applicable Local union(s) tt;temployee, excepr as outlined in Article Two, section 5' 1 and 5.2, andthere "r rLu t" no Iockout by the contractor. Failure of any unioq Locar union(s) or ,o .rors any picket rine established at the Project site, except ",oproy., as outiined in Article Two, section 5.1 and 5.2, is a violation ofthis Article.
2'
section The union and its applicable Local union(s) shall not sanctior¡ aid or abet, encourage or continue any work stoppage, ,o{kr, picketing or other disruptive activity at the contractot t ptoj..t site un¿ertate all reasonable means to prevent or to terminate any such acfvitr. No employee shall ,ngug. in activities which violare this Arricre. Any employãe øro p"ïìfþates in or ãrrão,r*g.s any activities which interfere withthe normal operation of the project sha¡ be subject to discþlinary action, in9luding discharge, *d ifjustifiably discharged for the above reasons' shall not be elþble for re-hile-on t¡ríto.¡.ct for a period of not less than ninety (90) days.
*Ïthäí
3'
Section Neither the Union nor its applicable Local Union(s) shall be liable for acts of employees for which it has no responsibility. The Internâtional Union General President or Presidents will imml¿iately instuct, order and use the best efforts of his office to cat¡se the Local UnionG)L union to cease any violations of this Article. An International Union .o.ptyini *itn mi, obligation shall not be held liable for unautfiot'aedacts of its Local Únion] The principaiomce or officers of a Local Union will immediately instuct, order and use the best efforts ofhÍs or her office to cause the employees the Local Union represents to cease any violations of this Article' A Local union complying with this åbügation shall not be liable for unauthorized acts ofemployees it reprcsents. The faihne of the Contractor to exercise its right in tty instance tttuu not be deemed a waiver of its right ir any other instance. Section
4'
In 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.
þ
5.
section There sha[ be no strikes, picketing, work stoppages, slowdowns or other disruptive actiyig the Project siie during the term of this Agreement. lffecting Any union or Local union(s) *tti.tt ffir-l*r oipatirþates in a work stoppage in violation ofthis Article, or which r:c.ogryze¡ or rupporrs the work stoppage of another union or Local union(s) which is violatioå ofthis Article, agrees as a remedy for said violatior¡ to pay liquidated O"m"g., in accordance with Section 6.
6'
section In lieu of, or in addition to, any other action at law or equity, any party may institute the-following procedure when a breach ofthis A¡ticle or of Article Twelve is alleged, after the union(s) and/or Lo.ai union(s) has been notifies of the fact.
(a)
The parry invoking this procedure shal notify the parties agree shall be the permanent Arbitrator under this procedr¡re. In the event that the permanent Arbinator is unavailable at any time, he shall appoint his alternate' Notice to the Arbitator shall be by trr.rnost expeditious means available, with notice by facsirnile, telegram or any other effective written me¿uls, to the parry alleged to be in violation and the involved International union president and/or Local Union. 10
(bì
receipt of said notice, the Arbitrator named above . 9pT shall set and hold a hearing within
violation still exists.
twenry-foi'ti+¡hours if it is contended that the
(c)
The A¡bihator sha[ notis the parties by facsimile, telegram or any other effective written oi*r. place and time he has chosen for this hearing. said hearing shall ur roo,ptËtø in one session. À of any party or parties to attend said hearing shalliot delay the hearing of evidence or issuance of an Awa¡d by ttre Arbitraior.
*."*,
aiu"
(d)
The sole issue at the hearing shall be whether or not a violation ofthis '{¡ticle orArticle )oI has in fi;t occr¡rred. The Award shall be issued in writing {thin three (3) hours ateitnr riorr of the hearing, and may be issued without *y party desires an opinion, one shall be issued within fifteen (15) days, but If its issuance shall not delay compliance with, or enforcement of , the Award. The Arbitrator r"y or¿.t cessation ofthe violation of this A¡ticle' and zuch Award shall be served o"äu parties by hand or registered mail upon issuance.
T9ffio}
(e)
such Awa¡d may be enforced by any cot¡rt of competent jurisdiction upon the fiting of this Agreement and all other relevant documents referred to hereinabove in ttt fo[owing manner. Facsirnile or expedited mail or personal service ofthe filing of such.úo..r.* pro.r.dings shall be given to the other party' In the proceeding to obtain t.*p"-..fu order enforcing the Arbitrator s Award as issued under section 6 ofthis " Atti.b;;i parries waive *,ã .igtrt to a hearing and agree that such proceedings u. ex parte. such agreement does not waive any parfy s right to participa^te in a hearing for a final order of enforcement. The court s order or orders enforcing trre erbiËtor s Award shall be served on all parties by hand or by delivery to their last known address or by registered mail.
-y
(f)
Any rights created by statute or law governing arbitration proceedings inconsistent with the above-prorrá*q or which interfere with compliance therewitb are hereby waived by p*ri;; ro whom they accrue.
(g)
The fees and e4penses ofthe A¡binator shalr be bome by the party or parties found in vioùtiorl or in the .u.n no violation is found, such fees and expenses shall be borne by the rrro"i"g p"rry.
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 and the union(s) and/or its applicable Local union have noJ comptied 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, pay an additional ten thousand dollars (Cto,ooo.ooli"r 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.
,ffi
;ñ'"ll
(Ð
lfthe
Arbiûator determines that the contractor is in violatior¡, the contractor shail, eight (g) horns orr.ceip ofthe Award, direct the tthin necessary remedial acrion. If rhe Conhacror fails å tak" remedial action by the beginning of the next rfgularly 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 an additional ten thousand dollars (úo,ooõ.õtË;htft for each shifr thereafter unril the remedy has been made.
;h;;;;rrry
7'
section The procedures contained in section 6 ttfough 6(i) shall be applicable to alleged violatioru ofthis Article and Articr. È1"u.r,, (section 3). Disputes alleging violation olTy gther provision rhir;;ement, incháing any underþing disputes alleged.to be in jnstification, "f .apru"ution"or mitigation of any violation of shall be resolved under rh. procedr¡res of Arricle "a¡uoi."tion
HT"le'
d;;.
ARTICLE TEN secrion
1. LaborÆVf
(a)
^*r^?;io;Jffi"fltevances
This Agreement is intended to provide crose cooperation between managefnent and labor; therefore, ¡"i", L"borÆvfanagement committee shall be forrned as soon as possible " followingm. ¿ut of this Agreement. The comminee shall exercise oversight ofthe pt"Ã;hced *¿"imi, Agreemenr. Ir is empowered to resorve. any aisfute over themeaning and application of the Agreement. The committeã wili schedure ,.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 oo side. The union memben will represent the interesrs ofthà Áib¡¿tory "*r, and the 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.
3!
úo*,
2. indivi
section The contractors, unions, ârid the employees, collectively and yalae the importance to all parties to maintain continuots and unintemrpted performance ofthe *g1k o{the itoi"t, and agree to resolve disputes in accordance with the grievance-arbitration provisions set forth in this Article.
3.
section Any question or dispute arising orÍ of a¡rd during the term of this Project Agreement (õther j,nir¿ictionaiarp,rt rl shall be considered a grievance and subject to resolution under tlt f"ld"ri;; proceú'es:
thrt;;;
(a)
Stgp 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 three (3) working days- afrer timely notice has been giu,; The representarive of the contractor shalr keep the.mãeting minutes *¿1nuù respond to rhe union representative in (copying the Project contractor) at the conclusion ofthe meeting but not later than twenty-fow trr"r.after. If they fail to resolve lzi¡tro* the matter withinrtre prescribe¿ p":"gì ,úgb"ùú parry may,within forty_eighr (48) hours therelfer, pfsuesd 2 of thec-¡.uan . hocedt¡re, provided the grievance, including a short desc'rþtion thereof, ttã ¿u,, on *rri.i, the grievance occurred, and the provision(s) of the Agreement ru.g.o to have been violated.
1-
d|g
(b)
should the Local or the project contracror or any -union(s) Contractor have a dispute with the other p t;,-¿-if"ner conferring a settlement is not reached within tl'ee (3) working dar, tnl airputr may be re¿ucã¿ to writing and proceed to step 2 in the same manner as outlined herein for the adjustnent of an employee complaint. 13
*ffi
3!,ffffiïi'"iäî"îfri:#'åî,ff
invorved c ,n"u l"ËL, r dispute to this. second step to arrive at a satisäárory settlement thereof " " Meeting minutes shall be kept by the contractor. If the parties fail to r.*r, an agreement,
ff trTi:"?,:ï:iåiïÍ,îüi:if; .ï;;;å*..;th*.ää",i",i"ist.l, StT 3'- (a) Ifthe grievance has been submitted br¡t not
adjusted under slep 2, eitheí patty-mairequest in uniting within seven (7) calendar days thereafter, that the griev;ce ue suumiueì io Arbit uto. mutually agreed upon by thern' The conhactor and the involved union,rruil select an arbinatol ifthey are unable to do so, they shall "tt".pt mutually to ?t't request the American Arbitration Associatign to ptóuia" them \ilirh; ist of arbitrators from which rhe Arbitrator shall be selected. The rules of the eJe¡can Arbitration Association shall govern the conduct of the arbitration hearing.'nt" decision orttre-eruitrator shall be final and binding on alr parries. Th: of such Arbitration sha, be borne equally be the contractor and the invoþJJlocal
*
F;;Lreä*.,
union(s).
(b)
Failure of the grieving party to adhere to the time limits est¿blished herein shañren{"iã;úi;;*.e n'll and void. The rime limits established herein may be ex"ng"d orrn" parties involved at the partic.ular tt"p ""Iñy written *rr.r" the extension "onsent is agreed upon. The Arbitrator shall have the authority to måke decisions-;;; issuä pÃ".:r"i ro hirn or her, ä¿¿ to or derracr from anv
#ï:îïåÏ;*"ltiil,tiä#*î";;;hólL'n¿'
4' The project contractor and owner shalr be notified of alr upon their request, be permiu;d ," parricipare in :,"ï"#iåÏË?,i1i.î:r:1"[, section
ARTICLE ELEVEN Juris dictional Disputes
I'
section The assignment of work will be solely the responsibility of the contractor performinÀ tn work involved; and ,u.i work assignments will be in accordance with the Plan for the settlement or¡,rrir¿i.tional Disputes in the Consûuction IndusUy (the plan any plan.
þr
successor 14
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 -1ny be adopted in 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 Section
3'
Section AII jnrisdictional disputes shall be resolved without the occurrence of any strike, work stoppage, or slow-do* and the conhactor s assigrrment shall ue adirered to until the dispute is resolved. Individuals violating this section shall ue suu3ect to immediate discharge.
orrrry;*.,
4'
section Each contractor will conduct a pre-job conference with the appropriate Building and construction Trades cotrncil prior to commencing work. The Project contractor and the owner will be of all such conferences and may participate if they wish. "J"ir.¿
ARTICLE T\ilEL\1E Union Securíty
l.
section Alr emproyees coveryd b1 this Agreemenr now in the employ of the conhactors sharl rJmain members in the ri,ri", drning the term of this Agreement' ârd all workers herefrafter emptoyø by the contractors shall become members of the uTo-n s-even (7) days ut", tr,. ãate oftheir employment and shall remain members of the union ¿*i"s the term- oîtrris -- *! Agreement. (ïhis claue shall be applied to the extent permitted by law.¡
2.
section A contractor shall not discharge any employee for nonmembership in the union: (a) if he, tr* r."rã*Itá gro*as for believing thar such membership was not availabie to 9" "-ptoy..;; ih. s¿rme terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denie¿ or tàtí,inutr¿ for reasons other than the faih¡¡e of the employee tó tender the periodir ¿"., *¿ initiation fee uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.
$¡irilh*
15
ARTICLE TITIRTEEN Union Representation
l'
section Authorized representatives ofthe uniorx and their Local unions shall have access to the hó¡ect,.provided ttrey Jo not interfere with the work of the employees an4 fi'¡rther p*"i¿"¿, that suffirlsenatives ftlly comply with the visitor and secnrity rules estabristre¿ r"itn
d"i..t.
2.
section Each union which is a par{y to this Agreemenf or its applicabre Local unior¡' have the right to àesignate a workingjoumeyman as a steward. such designated stewa¡d tttuu-u. u q*rftãJ**r.", perfomring the work of that craft and shall.not exercise any supervisory functions. Each stJwa¡d shall be concerned with the emproyees of his o, hei o*r L.ptoyer and not with the employees ofany other employer.
tþ!
Section3'
wrrere the owner s personnel r"y be working on the project in close proximity to the construction activiti.ñ. urrions agree that union representatives' stewards, and individual *orL,n.n will not-interfere in roy rnanner or with tr'. *or[*r,i.h i, by the
ä*$:3ffil"iîonnel section
b"i"s;;rr";d o"Tt:"lEorvaRrEEN
1'
The standard work day shall consist of eight (g) hours of work between 7:00a'and 5:3þm wiüt one-half hour as an unpaid period for lunch. standard work hor'rs may be changed {1vs consent by and berween rhe contracror and part_iesiignatory to this Agreement. The standard work week shall five (5) days of worËcommencing oriMonday *J.;di"g on Friday. Nothing herein shalr be construed .rptoyee eiehr (g) hours of work per day or forty (40) hours "r of wãrk p.i*rJlr.
ili
y::"
;i lyo-Lr
gr-;Ë.;;"ny
2'
section AnY^employee reporting for work and for whom no work is provided shall receive p"{ (z) rrår¡rs trr. appticaute rare for so reporring r¡nless he ?l has been notified Pt-*" before trt" orrrit shifr or before he left home by the proper authoritier.lot to "*¿ report. r.rg r.roni"g p"y is due to an employee who was absent the preceding *ott day unless'he haã'notified the contractor ofhis desire to be absent' fut/ctafrt"ãl.e(r) *rt" .rp"i -ti"n- ro, work and for whom work is provided and starts ruorl shail receiu. not t.r, rour (4) hours pay at the
rr"iirr;;g
16
applicable rate, and if such craftrvorker is required to continue work after four (a) hours' he shall receive eight (s) hgurs pay aritr applicable rate, except thar if the craftrvorker is not put to work or is hiä ótr¿u. to weather conditions, he shall be paid a minimr¡nn of two (2) hours ofactual time on the job site. The provisions of the Section are applicable wrrery.ü: volunrarily quirs or lays offor is 1ot out by reason of¿.strike' o1¿ùs provided dnt"tàe i" Åttirr. Fourteeq section 3 of this Agreemen! in which case he rh"n u. p"i¿ ø, tt L ach¡al time worked.
3'
section It will not be a violation ofthis Agreement when the contractor considers it necessary to shut down-to thi possible loss ofhrunan life because of an emergency situation that could "yoid *dan8;tË üf" and safety of an employee. In such cases' employees will be compensateJonly for the actual iime worked. In the case of a sitr¡ation described above whereuy tnãcontractor requests employees to "st¿nd by", the employees will be paid for the ,,stand by* time.
#;.
shifts may be established when considered.necessary by the
(a)
shifr hor¡rs and rates will be as fotows:
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 {or Yzhow unpaid lurch period. In addition, employees shall receive a ten(10) percent premium on the hourly wage.
¡
(b)
where three (3) shifts are est¿blished, the first and second shifrs shall be compensated as set forth t¡irJ snin srran recei,,re eight (g) houn pay for seven (7) hor'ns worked pl,s.%,ho* "-bou.. period and shall receive a premium of nventy (20) percentïn the houd|
r¡.
il;r*.rt *A;
consecuriu"
orlr.
shifr shall be established and conrinue for
(d)
a minimum
of five (5)
Ifonly two shifts are to be worked, the contractor rnay regulate starting times of the two shift operations to -ar,i-um utilization of daylighr hours.
p.r-iit"
17
5'
section 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 be perfornned on Labor Day excepting in ó*.r or.r.rgenjy involving life orproperty. In the event a holiday falls on a sruraa¡ tn rouã*ing Monday shall be observed as the holiday' lolidays shall be holorea in keeping with Federal Law. rhere shall be no paid holidays.- If employe., ro-work on á t ou¿ay, they shalr receive the appropriate overtime rate as established in the Local collective Bargaining Agreements, but in no case shan such overtime be morie than doubre the staight time.
m:t
* tî**¿
6'
section Hotidays in lieu ofthose reported in section 5 above may be established by agreement of the Labor&ianage;; committee and installed at rhe Contractofs projects.
7
section wtr-enþ five day, eight (g) hou work week is in effect, forty (40) hours per week shall constin¡tå rrr"r¿ay through Frida¡ inclusive. in the event the job is down fot "rtw r.ason beyond the contractot's control, then saturday rnay, at the option ofthe conor.tot, i" worked as a makeup day; straight time not to exceed eight (8) hours orforty t¿ol rr",* per week. Individuals not receiving a forty (40) hor,' work weeþ Frida¡ will not be scheduled for saturday for ress fu-.tgh, (g) h",^. ar no,rr"ir,.*..r, of fo4y (40) hours per wegk will be paid at the-ratè árri-. and one-halfl saturday work shall be perforrned on a votuntary basis.
*.trï"*,
t"ì*t-*"ugh
8'
section Eight(s) lous per day shall constirure a sþnda¡d work day and forty (40) hours per weeþ Monday tltoirgrt F id"t, rh.il consrih¡te a regular week,s work' A designated o1e-hali1¡ rto¡,, lunchperiod shall be scheduled ar the ylgaid midway point of the scheduleà wort shift.
t8
ARTICLE FIFTEEN Subcontractíng
subconüactors will sr¡bcontnact-any work to be done on the hoject except to a peñ¡orl firm or corporation who is or agrees to become party to this Agreement. Any contnactor or subconûractor tro*irt oo,n" no¡ect shall, as a condition to working on said Project become rigr"t;t p"rr"t- all work under rhe rerms ofthis Agreement.
ilãã
ARTICLE SDffEEN Safety and Heahh
l'
section Employees must use diligent care perform to their work in a safe Illrinner and to protect themselves and-the property- oftheir Fai¡¡re to do so may result in immediate
dismissal.
"*a;;r.
2.
section In order to protect the safety and heatth of erqployees, alr parties 4gree to comply with the gnrjgarir" of state and federal laws and regulations relating to job safety, nðua *ort practices, as well as those specific Project safety rures p.rúíirn"a btrr,.-pr"ject contractor.
pÑJo*
*d*r"
section
3'
At the discretion ofthe owner, the contractor may institr¡te a reasonable substa¡rce abuse policy whichr,;ñ4rde pre-hire,
reasonable cause,
and post-accident testing.
section
4'
It shall be the exclusive responsibility of each contractor to assure safe working conditions ør rp-emnr"y.*äg compriance by them with any safety rules contained herein or established út rrrJon*ctor. Notling in this Agreement will make the union or any of its Lcal unior¡s liable ;; employees or to otherperso* in the event trrat inj'ry o, occun¡.
*
"..i¿"n
19
ARTICTE SEVENTEEN General Sæings Clause
Ifany futicle orprovision ofthis Agrcement shall be decla¡ed invalid, inoperative or unenfot by any competent authority ofthe executive, i.br" legislative' j'dicial
or adminisn ti"r branch of tne re¿eral or any state government, and the union.hdÑñJthe operation of such Article or provision durÍr€ the period ofits invalidity *årn"ll rubstitr.üe by mtrnral consent, in its place and steaj' oiprovision whict r"il meer the objections T.{d:le to its validity and which will be in accórd with the intent and pupose of the Article or provision in question Any final determination that any provision of this Agreement violates any law or is othenvis" not uinainjana e#orceable, shall have no effect on the validþ ofthe remaining prouirio* the
hoject contractor
orñis ffiment.
ARTICLE EIGIITEEN Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall þs effective as of the and shall remain in fi¡lt r"t Project construction describe¿ in
20-'
__ the day of enrire period ofthe - -* "-*¿i#fi*i"g arti"l" . Section_, hereof.
This Agreement may be amended or supplemented onry by the mt¡tual consent of the parties hereto, reduced to a,rry signed by eactr.
,*itd;"ä
tn wiure;lwhereof, the parties have executed this Agreement this Day .20
of
20
ATTACHIVTENT A
All conhacton of whatever tier (except those constmction contractors who have directly
signed the Agreement) shall execr¡te the iollowing Letter ofAssent prior to
conmencing work:
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 that it will be bor¡rd by and comply with all terms and conditions of said 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: (C
þ",
21
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF \ryEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON CASE NO. 09-0360-E-CS Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
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: Christopher L. Callas, Esq. Stephen N. Chambers, Esq. Jackson Kelly PLLC 1600 Laidley Tower P. O. Box 553 Charleston, WV 25322
Auville, Esq. WV Public Service Commission John
201 Brooks Street P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323
Bradley W. Stephens, Esq. Stephens Law Office, PLLC 235 High Street #51 8 Monongahela Building Morgantown, WV 26505
The Law Office of Vincent Trivelli, PLLC 178 Chancery Row Morgantown,'Wv 26505 (304) 29t-s223
Applrcatron Actrvrtres
Page
I ot I
tå -ErãñAppl ication Milestones PINNACLE WIND FORCE LLC New NPDES Storm Water Construction WVRI04335 (14) Application Milestones Completed OFFICE OWR OWR OWR OWR OWR
MILESTONE Application Received / lnitiated Admin. Corr lntermission Begin
Admin. Corr lntermission
DATE
Ë'q = H
COMMENT
03t17t2009 Application created by CLTAYLOR 03t26t2009
End
04108t2009
Administratively Comp. Letter Sent
04t08t2009
SWAdministratively
A Áìt\ia¿r,cs
topo map and lat and long needed for ponds.
Complete
04t08t2009
OWR
Other lntermission Begin
04t09t2009
OWR
Other lntermission End
0411512009 Revised applications rec'd.
OWR
Other lntermission Begin
06t12t2009
OWR
Other lntermission End
09t11t2009 Response rec'd.
OWR
Other lntermission Begin
09i30/2009
OWR
Other lntermission End
10r09t2009 Response rec'd.
OWR
Other lntermission Begin
10t14t2009
OWR
Other lntermission End
10t20t2009 Revisions rec'd.
OWR
Draft Permit Prepared
10t20t2009
Consultant will be submitting revised plans before review.
Technicall corrections sent by email to applicant and preparer. Technical Corrections sent by email to applicant and preparer, Additional technical corrections sent by email.
{9) Application Milestones St¡ll Required OFFICE
MILESTONE
OWR
Permit Fees AllCurrent
OWR
FinalAction (lssued)
OWR
Public Notice Letter Sent
OWR
PCS Review at Draft
OWR
PCS Review before lssue
OWR
Public Notice Date
OWR
Draft Permit Approved
OWR
End of Public Comment Period
OWR
PN Affadavit Received
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
F.\CT SI'l EET. R¡\'fl()\..\LE ;\\ t) l\F()lì\,fA'f ION I-Oll (ìENER;\L NPDES PERivllT IrOR CONSl'RUCl'lON STORVIWi\]'Elì
This fact sltcct explai¡rs the r:cu, Constructiolr Stor¡rlu'atcr(ìcneral I'cntrit \,V\/011592.1, issuerl trrl Novcnlbcr -j. 2t107.
l. NÅil'IE ¡\ND ÂDDIIESS ()F;IPPLIC¡\N'l' An a¡l¡rlicartt is arty cstal'¡lislrnrenl \\,ith eliscliarges conrposcd e¡llirclr, of' stontì\\'¿ttr:r associated u'ilh irtdu.stt'ial activity (constructiorr) agrcciltg to bc regulated unrlcr the tcnns ol'tlris Gctlcr¿il Pcrrnit (crcc¡rt as ntrlcd hcrci¡l). ('oustruclion astivilies arc, detj¡re-tl as ll¡ltl rlisturbing opt-rt'atiotts such as gmbbirrg. gradirrg ancl c.xcar,¿rtilrg opr:rutitrns cluring sitc devcltlp¡ltent I'or resitlclrtial. crl¡trmsrci¿tl or irtdustri¡l ¡rurpo.scs rxccpt lìrr o¡rcr:rtions thtt rcsull in thc tlisturllance crt' lcss tiratl olle acrc of trltal l¿rntl ürca rvhich irrç llùl ¡rarl ot' ¿ larger Lìorìlìl()r1 pllrr rif clcveltl¡rmctll or salu. A coulnron plan of dcr,clopnrcrrt is a contigu{)us colts{¡'uetion ¡rrojcct n'llere
nrulti¡rle separate anrl tlistillct construction lctir.itics rì'ts)' be taking ¡rlacc at difleru¡rt lilncs on dilìL'rcnt schcclulcs trut un<ìcr one ¡:i¡rr. inclutling ¡lost subclir isions. 2.
GI|NER'\t- WY/)jI'DES l,nR\ll'l'
\0:
\\r\/01 1 592J
lìIÌCI MNG
3. CIOU|(TY: Any \VV cor:nry
S'f RE.,1,i\,I : An\' \\1V strc¿un
{. PLiIILIC (lo}I}lliNT I}tìt{IoD I.'Ito}I J_Lrlrjl-2,0Q?'t'o Septc¡nbcr.t. 5. SICr
ú.
D
CODI|: l7
tiSCRI
l''[tON
O
IÌ AI]I'1, I C.t
Thc aetivitics ancl tacilirics
I'l"S u'ill
F;\Cl
I
LIT\' ()R r\C'|'IVI'I'Y
be r.arictl.
:
2007
FACT SHEET WV/NPDES PERMTT No. WVOI 15924 Page 2 of
l3
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
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. Tllre 1972 Amendments
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: a.
b. d.
Involve the same or substantially similar t¡pes ofoperations; Discharge the same t1çes of wastes; Require the same effluent limitations or op€rating conditions; Require the same or similar monitoring; and In the opinion of the Director, sre more appropriately controlled under a general permit than under individual permits.
FACT SHEET WV/NPDES PERMIT No. WV0l15924 Page 4
of
13
About 370 constn¡ction sites per ye¿¡r have been permitted over the last 14 years. The 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. general
10.
COVERAGE T'NDER THE GENERAL PERMIT
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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
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. Stormwater discharges associated with land disturbing activities that may reasonably be expected to be causing or contributing to a violation of a water quality standard as determined by the Director. Land disn¡rbing activities governed by other NPDES permits issued by the Departnrent of Environmental Protection. This includes Division of Mining and Rsclamation permits for coal mining and non-metallic quanies.
Landfills, except in the preparation of a new landfill, landfill trea[nent facilities and/or borrow areas. Other activities exempt from NPDES permitting requirements as set forth in 40CFR122.3 and 47CSR10.3.2.b. 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
ConsEuction of singls family reside¡¡ces by the homæwner or homeowner's conEactor reguiring land distu¡tances less than ttree acres in sÞe are provided coverage under the General \4/V/NPDES Water Pollution Contol P€ñrrit and do not require application for regisration. However, all other terms and conditions of the Gcneral \\w|NPDES Water Pollution Control P€rmit still apply €fi,c€pt for thc Notice of Ter¡nination requirenrent For minor ænstn¡ction activities (one to less than tbree acres) a simpler program exists.
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. These minor
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
13. SECTION.BY.SECTION Section
A.
RATIONALE
Terms of Permit
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. Section
B.
Schedule of Compliance
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. Section
C.
Management Condition
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. Section
D.
Operation and Maintenance
This section is boilerplate language essentially exkacted from Title 4?, Series l0 of the ïVest Virginia lægislative Rules. Sætion
E.
Monitoring and Reporting
Unless directed by the Director of the Division of Water and T¡lVaste Managernent monitoring 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
will
permitting program. Section
F.
Other Re,porting
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 permit this 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.c. This section details when the STVPPP must be modified. 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 Page
15924
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. Site descrintion section- Development projects must be phased or sequenced in order to minimize the amount of exposed soil at any one time and prevent the transport of sediment from the site during construction. Constr¡ction sequencing cån be an effective tool for erosion and sediment control because it ensures that management practices are insalled where nec€ssary and when appropriate. A comparison of sedime,nt loss from a t)rpical development and from a comparable phased project showed a 42 percent reduction in sediment export in the phased project (EPA, 2OO2). As discuss€d previously, permittees are required to evaluate BMP performance. Based on the results of inspections and monitoring remedial actioos must be implernented, documented and reported in accordance with specifi c timeframes. The purpose of stabilizing entrances to constn¡ction sites is to minimize the amount of sediment and mud being tracked offsite by motorized vehicles. lnstalling and maintaining a pad of gravel over filter cloth where constn¡ction traffic leaves a site can help stabilize the entrance. As a vehicle drives over tl¡e gravel pad, mud and other sediments are loose,ned and removed from the vehicle's wheels therebyreducing the offsite transport of sedime,nt. The gravel pad also reduces mechanic¿l e¡osion and prwents the formation of muddy wheel ruts, which ca¡r be a source of "track-out". The ñlter fabric reduces the amount of nrtting caused by vehicle tires by spreading the vehicle's weigþt over a larger soil area than just the tire $'idth. The filter fabric also separates the gravel from the soil below, preventing the gravel ûom being ground into the soil. Limiting eonskuction site acoess to one point minimizes the surface area that could be affected by tracked out mud and sediment from construction mffic. 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 This section also details what is required on the site maps.
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.
Hayand straw bales arc not accÊptable BMPs. 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.
B,
Large long-term proj ects 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.
c.
Projecæ that discharge to or upstream
ofTier 2.5
and Tier 3 waters.
FACT SHEET WV/NPDES PERMIT No. WVOI15924
Pagellof13
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 2.5 or Tier 3 antidegradation review process.
will go through the Tier
No degradation will be allowed on Tier 3 waters except for ûemporary, short term activities. Stormwate.rmanaeement plari section- A description of measues that will be installed during construction to confrol pollutants in stormwater discharges after the project is completed shall be included in the STWPP. The completed project shall convey stormwater runoffin a ma¡¡ner that will protect both the site and the receiving steam from post consFuction erosiorr. All waterways and other runoffconve)¡ance structures shall bc perman€ntly stabilized as appropriate for expected flows. Velocity dissipation devices shall be placed at the outlet of all detention or retention structures and along the length of any outlet channel as ltecessary to provide a non-erosive velocity flow f¡om the structure to a natural water course. 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" Permanent stormwatermanagement structures that will impound watçr (detention/retention orsimila¡ stnrctures) shall be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer. These structures shall also have a cert¡fid as-built drawing submitted with the Notice of Termination at the completion of the project. basins
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
6.5.
Discharges to Impaired Waters
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.
G.6,
Endangered and Threatened Species.
If a site discharges to a stream where a federally endangered or threatened species or its habitat is present, the applicant shall contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act are met. 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.
H.
This paragraph serves as a reopener mechanism to go back to a permittee covered under the general permit and places any necessary additional requirements upon the site as necessa¡y, due to potential or realized water quality impacts by the site stormwater discharges.
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
Thc Statc of \\¡esr Virginia, Dcpartmcnt of'lìnvironrlctìl¿ìl Protcction, Division of Watcr and Waste V{anagemeut, has madc a tentativc ciecision ftrr a state NPDES pennit as listecl on this iact sheet. In order to provicle ¡rublic participatio¡r on thc propose(l issua¡rce of thc rcc¡uired pemrit, the fbltorvi¡tg infbnnation is be ing suppliecl in accordance rvith Titlc 47, Series 10, Scctio¡r 11.3.c.2 ¿l¡rd i, of the Wcst Virginia Legislativc lìules'
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;
Dircctot', Division of \\¡atcr antl \\¡astc l'lanagenrcnt, DEP 601 57th Street SE Charlcston, WV 25304-2345 Attcntion: Alice \Yallier E-mail : arvalker(¿Ùrvvtlep.o rq 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
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
$
g
Search Criteria: Town:'Westernport Displayi ng 22 record(s). Site Number Site Name
ô
I Ë Address
Town
Main Sheet (MD 937)
Westernport
Main Sheet (MD 937)
Westempoft
4r
Poplar Street
Westemport
4IrVL-D: Jsl
213 Smoot Street
Westemport
AL-VI-D204 A-I,-Y-I:Ðz0-7
AL:YLÞ
AL-VI-C--
DuckworthFarmhouse
Stoney Run Road
Westernport
Al:YI4:
First Baptist Church Parsonage
109 Main Street (MD 937)
Westernport
Fusner-Hanna House
342 Front Street
Westemport
Green colonial Revival House
119 Vine Street
Westemport
;:,ñ 128
AL-VI-Dzt0
AL:V[:D4L:V[Ð307
A,L:yI:Dt3s AI=,-V[:D:
2t3 ALTYLD129
AI':YI-D: 214
îiF{IaD al:Y-I:Ð-
Hammond's Addition Historic District
Mt. Calvary LutheranÆvangelical Lutheran Church
Norris Bruce House Odd Fellows Hall #91 Shugars Board and Batten
Westernport Westernport
Front Street 163 Church Street
(MD 135)
310 Johnson Street & Hammond Street Stoney Run Road
South Westemport Historic District
Westemport Westernport Westernport Westernport
st. James Episcopal church
Main Sheet(MD 937)
V/esternport
St. Peter's Convent
Church Street (MD 135)
Westernport
St. Peter's Rectory
Church Street (MD 135)
Westernport
St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church
Church Street (MD 135)
Westernport
*F, -'
Tibbets stick stvle House
112 Main Street
åul*tn"Jlu'-' aL:YI D:
Waverþ Sfeet @owstring Arch Truss) Bridge Waverly Street
ALIVL-Ð:
t3l AL]1IÐ: t32
A!-vLD:
westemport Bridge
(MD 937)
Main Street (MD 937)
westernport survey District
http J / www. mdihp. net/dsp_search. cfrn?search:address
Westernport Westemport Westernport Westernport
t012412009
I
Page 1 ofl
Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties
Search
CrÍteria: Town: McCoole
Displaying 11 record(s). Site
Number
AL-YLE: 019
4-L:-V-I-!a!,6-
ffi*
4t rLEr t3.7
AI¿:VI-E-
t28
Al:Vl-I-
'r)<
.{L:VLE: 02t AL-VT-E-
Site Name
Address
Town
Cunningham Frame House
old us
McCoole
Dayton Frame House
21st Bridge Road
Fletcher Frame House (Ambrose Frame House)
Yöiät*-
Landis Brick House, ruin
Westemport Road (MD 135)
McCoole
Patchett Frame House
650 Main Street
McCoole
21st Bridge Road
McCoole
Queen's Point
Kiln
Reese Frame House
(Miller Frame House)
43
Town of McCoole
AL:YLE.
Twenty-First Lane Schoolhouse (Dayton
221.
Schoolhouse)
AI..YI- E: 020
AL-VI-E224
Walters Brick House (Rice Brick House)
West Street
Road
McCoole
(MD
135)
& Westemport
135)
& old
Road (MD
McCoole
McCoole
McCoole ZTstLane
McCoole
I Main
McCoole
Westem Maryland Right- of-Way
http / / www.mdihp.netldsp_search. cft n?search:address :
220
Street
McCoole
t0/24/20a9
ta I
å o
C øwrçrany
g
ñ c
a.'
MEMORANDUM OF' AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 82 CSR 2 BET\ryEEN THE WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE AND HISTORY
AND PINNACLE WIND FORCE, LLC FOR THE
PINNACLE \ryIND ENERGY PROJECT
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
Historic Preservation Officer, WV Division of Culture and History (WVSHPO), pursuant to 82 CSR 2, in particular 82-2-5: State Review Process, regulations implementing W. Va. Code 29-18; and
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
finding and proposed mitigation;
NOW, therefore, Pinnacle and the WVSHPO
agree that the undertaking
accordance with the following stipulations
in
order
will be implemented in
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.
A.
These monies
will be administered by the community
decisions being made independent of Pinnacle, and
assisting
foundation with funding
will be for the express purpose of
in the preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic properties in
Mineral County, West Virginia.
B.
Written approval by the WVSHPO that projects proposed for assistance through the historic preservation fund comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Historic Preservation shall be a condition of funding such projects with historic preservation fund proceeds.
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 WVSHPO to assess their significance.
If
will
continue
determined that avoidance
Pinnacle
the
Pinnacle and the WVSHPO agree that the
sites do not qualify as historic properties, then no further work
is
to consult with
will be required. If it
of an eligible archeological site is
will consult with the WVSHPO to develop
impracticable,
a treatment plan consistent
the Secretary of the Interior's Støndqrds ønd Guidelines for
with
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. Pinnacle shall ensure lhat,
if
In
consultation with \ /VSHPO,
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
it relates to the avoidance of the identified archaeological sites. Upon complete
as
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 V/est Virginia Division of Culture and History
Offrcer
Date
ï
Date
Attachment 1: List of Subject Properties Attachment 2: Correspondence from WVSHPO to Pinnacle regarding study reports
Attachment 1 List of Subject Properties
Site
Tlrye of Resource
2
Potomac State College Agricultural
Possible view
Meets National
of wind
RegÍster
Distance to nearest wind
nearest wind
Criteria
turbine fmiles)
turbine
turbines Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Farm
1.872342
5
Dwelline
Yes
9
Dwellins
t6
Dwelline Dwelline
Yes Yes
23
24 25 26 33
35 37 39
s7.tt 59.2 59.8 60 64.5 65
Dwellins Dwellins Dwelline Dwelline
Dwellins Dwellins
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dwelline Dwelline Dwelline Dwelline Dwelline
Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Grocery Keyser
Ycs Yes
Yes Yes
Direction to
\A/NV/
2.318389
wNw
2.47977
NW NW
2.s01086 2.678607 2.652979 2.663733 2.673s91 2.595332 2.741638 2.633057 2.512607 2.871442 4.057732 3.40841I 4.515577 5. I 83s64 2.1009s3
NW NW NW NW
wNw wNw NW NW NNW N NNW N ENE
w
March 12,2009
Mr. James M. Cookman US r#ind Force P.O. Box 550 Petersburg, WV 2684i
RE: FR:
US tilind Force, LLC Pinnacle wind Project - proposed v/ind power ceneration Facility
08-450-MI-5
-ìffiTiftil¡¡A-
Dear Mr. Cookman:
CULTL'RE& HÍSTORY
lile have reviewed
DMSION OF
The Culturol Center 1900 Konowho Blvd., EChsrleston, WV
2s305-0300 Phone 304.558.A220
Fox3Oa.558,2779
TDD304.5s8.35ó2 www.wvcufture.org ËEO/AAÊ¡FloF
the
lhay II hryeslígationfar
Archirecfin'al and Structut-al Resources, county. The following
February 26,2009 for the pinnacre wiñd ero¡eet in Minerat comments are oflered under'West Virginia Code 29-l _g
According to the information submitted the initial plans for the pinnacle Wind project proposed the construction of eastem and western arrays of wind turbines in Minerãl County- Since the initial plans the western array has now been eiiminated from the proposed project- Therefore, the currentproject consìsts of a maximum of 23
commercial wind turbines and assocíateðequipment. studies were completed to determine the visual and cultural effects to architectural and structu¡al rðsorr"es eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic places by the project. lVe have reviewed the Findings as presented Ín the Report. vy'e concur that the pinnacle rü/ind project rvíli have no direct effect on properties listed in or eligible for Iisting in the National Regisrer of Histor¡c Places.
we concur that as a result of this change an analysis of the current project qloposal and photo simularions found that f¡ve olthe properties lsiîe il. rClaysville Church. 6l-Kanter Cut OffRoad-drvelling aná OZ.l-irors School, 62'2-Cross Church. 62.4-Cross Methodist Church) rãconrrnended for phase II investigation will no longer be within the viervshed of the proposed project due to project changes, topography and vegetation. Though there is some contemporary constuction within the viewshed of eight properties (sites 5. g' 16,?3,24,37,39 and 65) the addition of rhe rvind ruibines will lrave an accumulative effect to tlrese historic resources. AIso, rhe consEuction of the 30 wind turbines will introduce a new industrial element to the ru¡al landscape of these individual sites 2, 25,26,33, 35, i7.l I, 5g.2, 59.g, 60. and 64.5.
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). In antícipation of an Adverse Effect tû architectural and shucËural resources eligible for lísting in the National Register of Historic Places the US Wind Force has proviãed a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) for the adverse visual effects of tr," I g resources and adverse cultural effects rvithin the APE. In addition, during our meeting on February ?6,2a09 we discussed severar other mitigation possibilities. \ile have checked our records and at this tirne do not have any requesffrom the public for a National Register nomination. However, we do suggest ihat the Minerãl county Historic¿l society be contacted to provide them wiìñ an oppoüuniry to comment and to ínçire if they rvould like to be a concurring parfy on the NiOe. Also, ir our opinion the establishment of a local grant program that was discussed in our meeting could provide the best long term mitigation. Please provide a drafr MOA that incorporates some or all of the suggested mítigarion.
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 resources. l-t-*i{: v/e will provide fi¡rther comment upon ieceipt of the reiort and other items listed above. We appreciate the oppornrnity to be ofservice and look forward to rvorlcing rvith you on this project. Ifyou have any guestìons regarding orr conmß¡tts or ilrc sectrcn I a6 process, please call Ginger williford, stntctural Historian, or Lora Å. Lamarre, senior
at (304) 558-0
,ò, ú/.øe4ûx1Wot¿,<_ M. Pierce ÇfÉan
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer SMP/Gtvt//LAL cc: Rebecca Gatewood, R. Chrístopher Goodwin & Associates
June 22, 2009
Mr. Jeffrey H.lvlaymon Senior Prolect Manager R. Chnstopher Goodw¡n & Associates 241 East Foufth Srreet, Suite 100 Frederick, MD ?1701
RE:
US Wind Fo¡ce, LLC Pinnacle wind Project - Proposed wind Power Generation Facility
FR:
08450-MI-6
Dear lvlr. Maymon:
WESTVIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE & HISTORY
The Culturol Center 1900 Konowho Blvd., E. Chorleston, WV 25305-0300 Phone 304.558.0?2O
Fox304.558.2779 TDD 304.558.35ó2 www.wvcu lture,org EEO/A€mployer
lVe have reviewed the cirafr report titled Phase I Årchaeological Survey far the Proposed PínnacÌe lyitzd prolect fulíneral Cozutty, Htest llirgmia, which was submitted for the above ref€renced project to determine effecs io historic rãsourres. The followrng cornments are províded according io Wrrt Virginia Code $ 29-l -8. We apologize for the delay in our comments, but as you tcnorv from our emlail and tetephone correspondencer rve are concerned about the nature ofresources identified ín the project area a¡d have been attempting to locate useful reference materials' According to the report, systemattc survey of the proposed project area, including the wind turbine corridor ind the T-line and revised interconnection conidors, resulted in the identification of 9 new archaeological resources; which are numbered 46Mi74 - 46Mi82. One of these sites,46Mi75' consists of a prehistoric rsotated find, which we agree has no research potentral. The remaining sites constst of roclt caims and walls and are thought to date to the historic Period. 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.
State H ístoric Preservatton Offlcer
SMP/LAL
$
å e
Ë
PINNACLE WIND FORCE, LLC CASE NO. O9-0360-E-CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY PREPARED BY
DIXIE L. KELLMEYER UTILITIES DIVISION ON BEHALF OF TTIE STAFF OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA ****:k*
SEPTEMBER 15,2009
201 Brooks Street, P. O. Box 812. Charleston. WV ZS3Z3
CASE NO. O9.O36()-E.CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF: DIXIE L.
1
KELLMEYER
PAGE
Q.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AI.{D BUSINESS ADDRESS.
A'
My name is Dixie L. Kellmeyer. My business address is 201 Brooks Street
1
2
3 4
Charleston, West
Virginia, 2fiA1
5
6
A.
BY WHOM AND IN WHAT CAPACITY ARE YOU EMPLOYED?
A'
i
7
I I
am employed by the Public Service Commission of V/est Virginia as a Utility
Analyst Manager in the Utilities Division.
10
11
O.
IIAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMISSION?
A.
Yes.
A.
PLEASE STATE YOUR BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS.
A'
I have
12
13 14
15 l6
17 18 19
a Bachelor
of Business Administration degree from Marshall University. I
am a Certified Public Accountant. i was employed in public practice from 1974 to
1999. I have been employed by the Public Service Commission since Iggg.
20
21 22
A.
WIIAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING?
23
24
A'
I witl address whether Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle,,) has fulfilled the
CASE NO. O9.(}36O-E.CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF: DIXIE L. KELLMEYER
1 2
PAGE 2
requirements of Section 3.1.1 of the Rules Governing Siting Certificates for Exempt Wholesale Generators.
3
4 5 6 7 I I l0
O.
SECTION 3.1.I.1.A OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT THE
APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNTS OF DEBT AND EQUITY CAPITAL FOR THE PROJECT. WHAT
HAS PINNACLE PROVIDED?
A'
Pinnacle provided estimates of the amount of debt and equity capital in a
confidental filing.
11
12 13 14 15 16
A.
SECTIONS 3.1.I.1.8 REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO DESCRIBE ANY AGREEMENTS WITH PUBLIC ENTITIES AND WHETHER SUCH AGREEMENTS WOULD TRANSFER TO A FUTURE PURCHASER OF THE FACILITY. HAS PINNA.CLE COMPLIED WITH THIS REQUIREMENT?
17
l8
A'
In its application Pinnacle stated that it has no agreements with any public entities.
A.
SECTION 3.1.I.1.C REQUIRES THAT IF THE PROJECT WILL HAVE
19
2A 21 22 23 24
ANY FUNDING FROM PUBLIC SOURCES, THE AMOUNT AND TERMS FOR SUCH FUNDING MUST BE FULLY DISCLOSED. HAS PINNACLE
COMPLIED WITH THIS REQUIREMENT?
CASE NO. O9-O36O.E.CS
DIRECTTESTIMONYOF:@ 1
PAGE
A.
Pinnacle has testifîed that there wiil be no funding from public sources.
a.
SECTION 3.1.I.2 OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE PROFORMA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
3
2 3
4
WHAT
HAS PINNACLE PROVIDED?
5 þ
7
A'
I
Pinnacle has provided the proforma financial statements subject to a
confidentiaiity agreement. The assumptions upon which the proforma financial
o
statements are based appear to be reasonable.
l0 11
a.
SECTION 3.1.I.3 OF THE RULES PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVTDE ESTIMATES OF THE EFFECT OF THE PROJECT ON THE LOCAL AND STATE ECONOMY AS WELL AS THE MODEL USED TO DERIVE THE ESTIMATES. WHAT HAS PINNACLE PROVIDED?
A.
Pinnacle provided testimony concerning estimates of the effect of the project on
12 13
14
t5 t6 17
the iocal and state economy' Pinnacle performed an economic impact study using
l8
the
l9
impact.
IMPLAN econmic impact model. The study indicates a positive economic
2A 21
a.
DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS?
A.
Staff recommends that if a siting certificate is granted that pinnacie prior to the coÛlmencing of construction be required to obtain a report from a qualified
22 23
24
cAsE NO.
09-0360-E-CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF: DIXIE L. KELLMEYER
PAGE
4
1
independent third parry regarding a decommissioning fund to cover the
2
dismantling of the turbines and towers and land reclamation. The report of the
3
qualified third parly should provide the anaiysis and set the fund amount. The
4
report should be updated thereafter as mutually agreed between pinnacie and the
5
Mineral county commission, but no less frequently than every five years
þ
thereafter. The fund amount will vary over time depending on changes in the
7
estimated market or salvage value of the Project, the estimated cost of dismantiing
I 9
and removing the turbines, and the expected ongoing life of the project. pinnacle
should obtain the approval of the Grant County Commission of the evaiuative
10
expert and of each of the periodic reports. The decommissioning fund should not
11
be a part of Pinnacle's assets. 'within 90 days of any report that requires a
12
contribution to the decommissioning fund, Pinnacle should make that contribution
13
into an escrow account held by an agent pursuant to an escrow agreement between Pinnacle and the Grant County Commission. The methods for deposits to and
14
l5
disbursements from the fr¡nd should be established within and governed by the
16
escrow agreement' The escrow agreement should clearly reflect the role of the
17
Grant Counfy Commission and state that the obligations set forth in the escrow
18
agreement apply to Pinnacle, its successors and assigns. The escrow agreement
19
and each report of the qualified independent third party should be filed with the
20
Commission as a closed entry in this matter. The Commission should retain the
21
right to hire its own evaluative experl to review any of the periodic reports and to take such fuither action within its jurisdiction as the Commission
22 23
24
may determine is
necessary to protect the public interest.
CASE NO. ()9-()36O.E-CS
DIRECT TESTIMONY oF: DIXIE L.
1
Q.
PLEASE SUMMARTZE
KELLMEYER
PAGE
youR TESTIMONY.
2
3 4
A'
Pinnacle has met the requirements of Section 3.1.1 of the Rules Governing Siting
certificates for Exempt'whoiesare Generators.
5
6
a.
DOES THrS CONCLUDE
A.
Yes, it does.
7
I I 10 11
12
youR TESTIMON'?
5
ô
ñ E
t Ê¡
IH
PINNACLE WIND FORCE, LLC CASE NO. O9-0360-E-CS
PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DONALD E. WALKER ENGINEERING DIVISION ON BEHALF OF THE STAFF OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA
September 74,2009
201 Brooks Street, P. O. Box 812, Charleston, WV 25323
StoÎ* å
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force. LLC Engineering Division Direct and Rebuttal Testimony Submitted by Donald E. Watker, Technical Analyst DZt! September 14,2009
1 Q. Please state your name, occupation and business address. 2 A. My name is Donald E, Walker. I 'West
am employed by the Public Service
3
Commission of
4
My Office address is 201 Brooks Street, Charleston, 'West Virginia 25323.
Virginia
as a Technical
Analyst in the Engineering Division.
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,
8
where
9
basis. Much of my work inciudes contact with complainants, where I assist them
I have been investigating electric utitity complaints mostly on a formal
10
in interpreting the electric rules as applied to their situations. I also review
11
analyze the technical aspects
12
supportive data through research that
13
memorandums.
14
various wind power generation projects and
15
Potomac
16
responsible for reviewing the application,
17 0. 18
-
I
and
of complaints and provide Commission Staff with
is
presented
in written technical
have peripherally assisted engineering staff colleagues on
I
am currentl.v assigned to the
Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project where
I
am
What is your educational background and job experience as it relates to
your position at the commission?
Page2 of20
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker
19 A. I
earned a Bachelor
of
Science degree
in Electrical
Design Engineering
20
Technology
21
related experience included working as
22
Electric Power (AEP) Mountaineer 1300 MW Power Plant, where
23
responsible
24
(DCES) which monitored crucial operating conditions of the plant.
25
from the Mountaineer Plant to the American Electric Power Service Corporation,
26
System Measurements Section
27
factory acceptance testing of the DCES, and retrofitting the AEP Gavin Units
28
and
29
system which, monitored and recorded critical operating conditions of the
30
completed
31
Engineer, Sr. at the AEP John E. Amos Power Plant.
32
performance testing, related improvement projects and generator
33
troubleshooting on the Amos Plant 1300 MW Unit
34
at the plant level included environmental monitoring, coal pile surveys as well as
35
Outage Coordinator for the Unit 3 annual and major outages.
in
1979 from The Pennsylvania State University.
a start-up
My engineering
engineer at the American
for the installation of the Data Collection and Evaluation
I
was
System
I transferred
in 1980. In this position. I was responsible for the
2 and the Amos Unit 3 AEP System
1300
1
MW generating units with this
my over nine years of engineering
experience as
a
plant. I
Performance
I was responsible for all
/
exciler
3. Additional responsibilities
36 a. What is the purpose of your testimony and how was this task 37
approached?
38 A.
The purpose of my testimony is to describe and discuss the Engineering
39
Division's technical review of the siting certificate of the Pinnacle V/ind Force
40
Project, Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS, with respect to compliance with the
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimonl, of Donald E. Walker
Page 3
of20
41
commission's siting rules,t This task was systematically approached
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
46
September
21,2009. Further testimony will be submiued by the Engineering
47
Division if these events require additional comment.
b¡z
¡syie\¡/ing
site visit and public hearings are scheduled during the week of
48 Q. Is the technical portion of the application complete? 49 A. A comprehensive three-volume
application submiued by Pinnacle Vlind Force,
50
LLC (Pinnacle or Applicant) appears to be complete. Additional information was
51
requested from the Applicant for clarification of the application and of a few direct
52
testimonies which were provided by Pinnacle. The additional information that
53
was provided to the Engineering Division Staff assisted us in determining that the
54
Applicant has met the siting rules requirements,
55
application where additional comments
56
presented by Pinnacle and
of the
either clarify the information lissues
concerns and recommendations for this
project.
59 Q. Is the Applicant's 60 A. 61
discuss portions
/ or the intervening parties. The Engineering Division
57 will also present potential engineering 58
will
I will
wind project experience sufficiently presented?
US 'Wind Force has previously submitted wind projects for Certificate of
Convenience and Necessity I
for the Commission to consider. The Mt.
West Virginia Code of State Ruies 150-30 Ê24-2-11c
Storm
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page
4 of20
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
64
County was denied a certificate in 2001. Additional information about the
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
67
Applicant has had experience in acquiring certificates for the development,
68
construction and operating of wind turbine electrical generating facilities.
69
Q. Is the project's justification of need satisfactory?
70
A.
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-
73
term supply and demand projections. completed by the local
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
It
has been established in previous siting cases presented to the Commission,
13 states and the District
of Columbia including
West
Regional
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-adequacypian¡rin g/-/media/dosuments/reports/2 009 -pj m-load-report.ashx
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
78
Forecast Report contains
79
through the year 2024.
80
The Report states:
Page 5
of20
a quantitative analysis of regional electric demand
81
. An eçonomic rebound in 2010 causes load growth to resume in
82
2010, though summer peak load
83
2011. Summer peak load growth
84
average l.7o/o pu year over the next 10 years, and 1.4o/o ovet the
85
next 15 years. The PJM RTO summer peak is forecasted to
86
158,617
87
reaches 166,581
88
Annualized l0-year growth rates for individual zones range from
89
49% to
90
Pinnacle witness David Friend suggests that within the regional whoiesale
will not exceed the 2008 level until
MW in 2019, a l0-year MW in
for PJM RTO is projected to
increase
of 24,189 MW,
2024, a 15- year increase
of
be
and
32,153 MW.
2.8o/o.
9I
power markets, there
92
renewable sources such as
93
energy includes consumer demand as well as the Renewable Portfolio Standard
94
(RPS) or similar legislation found in several states.6 There appears to be sufficient
95
information presented in the case fiie to support the justification of need.
is a
demand
for a mix of energy sources,
including
wind. He explains the growing demand for renewable
96 Q. Is the required technical data satisfactory?
6
Pin¡racle witness David Friend Direct Testimony fited with the Commission on May 25,2009.
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker
97 A.
Page 6
of20
The technical content of the appiication appears to meet the siting rule
98
requirements. Clarifications requested by Staff were provided by the Applicant
99
which may be discussed later in this testimony.
100 Q. Were the maps included with the application 101
adequate to review the scope
ofthe project?
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
108
this project as has been with recent wind turbine generation projects,
109
Q. Are the photo simulations provided in the application satisfactory?
110 A.
staff. As a result, similar criteria could be applied
Pinnacle is required to provide photo simulations (renderings)
111 overlooks
and vieu,s of the project that
of ali
to
scenic
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
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),
to 10.9 mile radius of the project. In addition to an
t Refer to the website af: hffp:llearth.google.com/
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 7
of20
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
I21
clear, suggesting the photo simulations may not provide an accurate representation
70o/o
of the days in the area of this project were expected to
122 of the visibility of the project. It
be
appears the photographs represent hazy
123
conditions on 30Yo of days suggesting the turbines are visible most or the majority
124
of time,
125
The Commission Staff, intervenor representatives and other participants
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
131
additional testimony if required
132 Q. Is Pinnacle's
will be addressed with
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
138
Barnes was responsible
in 2006
and Liberty Gap Wind Force project in
2007. Mr.
for the preparation of the Acentech study entitles,
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker
Page 8
of20
139
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Pinnaele Wind farm, Mineral County. 'WV"
140
("Acoustical Report").8
141
The Acoustical Report summarizes the approach Acentech foliowed while
142
addressing the requirements of the commission siting
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
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"
rules. Their
.analysis and
in the community; and
as
149 it applies to the siting rules. 150 A. The siting rules specify that noise levels will be represented
as average DNL,
151
also referred to as Ldn (Day-Night sound level). The day-night sound level is the
152
average equivalent sound level (Leq)
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
for a 24 hour period. The data in this
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 Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 9
of20
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
162
the purpose of identifying and evaluating levels of environmental noise.
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
166
form of sound contour maps,
167 a. 168
Has the Applicant provided adequate sound contour (noise exposure)
maps representing accurate results of their sound studies?
169 A. The Applicant
requested
a waiver for the requirement of filing
a
170
preconstruction noise exposure
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
176
preconstruction noise exposure map,e
177
map, The Engineering Division
a waiver
agreed
to this
requiring the filing
of
a
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,
n
AES New Crcek, LLC Case No. 08-2105-E-CS
It appears
that
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E.'Walker
180
there
will
Page 10
of20
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
185
noise level at all but one of these receptors is estimated at or below 55dBA. The
project. The
186 maximum measured ambient noise level was found to be 56dBA. Pinnacle points 187 out that these levels are considered 188
"worst case" conditions, and at lower wind
speeds, the turbine sound levels would also be reduced.
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
I92
communities. He goes on to explain that vibrations in a building structure may
193
result in the rattling of china or moving windows and mirrors from this lou'
194
frequency component of sound. Pinnacle addresses these concerns by utilizing
195
technique
196
mathematical calculations. By measuring the sound at any given iocation, with
197
standard sound level meter, a value which emphasizes mid-range frequencies is
for
calculating these
low level
198 obtained, referred to as "A-weighted" 199
frequency components through
sound level
a
(dBA), Another measurement
of the same noise utiiizes a specialized filter which is caiibrated to de-emphasize
200 the low and high frequenoy 201
a
components of the noise being measured, referred to
"C-weighted" sound ievel (dBC) is also obtained. By comparing an A-weighted
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page I 1 of20
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
210
than the
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
215
as an acceptable level
216
comparison because
217
Literature published by the Acoustic Ecology Institute suggests low frequency
218
noise at fevels 60 dbc or higher is considered an indicator that iow-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
221
was not required by the Commission's Siting Rules.
r0
and 5 respectively, which are higher
l}'day ambient Ldn of 57 dbc and 56 dbC which are currently being
of 75 dbc to 80 dbc. Staff is
of different circumstances
unsure
if this is a fair
present between the projects,
AEI Special Report: Wind Energy Noise impacts,l16/2009. Website, acousticecology.org
Pubiic Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker
222
Pinnacle has addressed the issue
Page 12
of20
of low-frequency sound by indicating in
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
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.
231 Q. Are the required
Bird and Bat studies complete?
232 A. Yes. The studies presented in the application 233
a
as
well
as the
Direct Testimonies
of Witness Paul Kerlinger and 'Witness Mike Sponsler appears to have fulfilled the
234
.requirements of the Commission.
235
Q. Did Staff review the direct testimonies for Pinnacle?
236 A. Yes. Staff has reviewed all of the available direct testimony related to this 237
case,
238 a. 239
Does the Engineering Division have any concerns
that have not been
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 Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donaid E. Walker
Page 13
of20
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
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
250
structure falling to the ground causing harm to anyone in it path. Blade throw can
251
occur for several reasons; but, basically,
252
turbine-generating unit,
253
and angle at which
or improper
maintenance.
off of
the
if a blade becomes detached from the
it can be projected long
distances depending on the speed
it becomes separated.12
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
261
proposed turbines. The Engineering Staff has reviewed the literature and has in its
of roads and power lines to
l]lnternational
the
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 Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E, Walker
262
of20
rocommendation submitted a reasonable solution to these concerns. Another safefy
263 issue that has been addressed 264
Page 14
in previous wind farm cases before the Comrnission
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.
267
Q. What is the Engineering Divisionos recommendation?
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
27A
Engineering Division respectfully recommends that the Commission includes the
the
271 conditions in its orders: 272
Preconstruction Certificate Issues
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
275 have been met. 276
2) The Applicant must not dispose of excavated rock and/or any bedding material
277
during or following construction of the facility by spreading the material on
278
agricultural land.
279
3) The Applicant must dispose of all contaminated soil and construction debris in
280 approved landfills in accordance with appropriate
environmental regulations,
281
4) The Applicant must design and install any needed fire protection systems in
282
accordance
283
standards.
with the National Fire Protection Association or other accepted
Public Sen ice Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 15
of20
284
5) The Applicant must coordinate with appropriate fire safety and
285
personnel during the pre-construction stage of the Project to promote efficient and
286
timely emergenc¡, preparedness and response,
287
6) The siting certificate shall become invalid if the Applicant has not commenced
288 a continuous 289
course
of
construction within five years
emergency
of the date the final
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
292
environmental permits and/or cerlifications prior
293
(including letters from United States Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia
294
Division of Natural Resources,320 West Virginia Division of Cultural; Historl'
295
and West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office; any local governmental
296
agency requiring permits for construction
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
300
similar action by others.
301
8) The Applicant must file a copy of the Wetiands Survey and Delineation,
302
evidence
303
endangered species study
of approval
304 historical/archeoiogical 305
/
andlor acceptance
to commencing construction
operation of this project) indicating
a
of the wetiands delineation, final
with any required mitigation plans, and
significance study with any required mitigation plans prior
to commencing construction.
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 16
of20
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.)
310
governmental agency or court with competent jurisdiction finds that the Applicant
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
315
jurisdiction to seek, including injunctive reiief, to address any such findings.
316
10) The Applicant must
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
32I
are ofconcern.
31
322 323
in both the construction and operation of the Project. If any
A)
authorized
it
has
construct and maintain a fence around the O&M
General Construction and Operational Phase Certificate 1) During construction, the Applicant shali:
324
a) Require contractors to use standard noise buffers on all construction
325
equipment and trucks;
326
b) Require contractors to use piie driving equipment which have the least
327
noise impact;
Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 17 o120
328
c) Perform construction activities mostly during the dayiight hours;
329
d) Avoid noise impacts at certain noise sensitive locations, such as a
330
church, during the weekend church activities and services and during other
331
normally scheduled church weekday activities;
332
e)
333
Federal rules, regulations and/or laws.
334
Limit any dynamiting to daylight hours and follow all
2) The Applicant must coordinate with appropriate fire safety and emergency
335 personnel 336
during all other stages of the Project, including Construction and
Operations, to promote efficient and timely emergency preparedness and response,
337 3) The Applicant 338
State and
must file evidence of its EIVG status from FERC prior to
commencing operation.
339 4) If the Applicant seeks to transfer its certificate, 340 pursuant to Siting Rule 7.1 to notifl'the Commission
the Applicant is required
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
343
condition applies at anytime - not just in the operational stage.
344
5) The Appiicant
345
U.S. Fish &. Wiidlife Service, and the West Virginia Division
346 Resources
will consult with
the representatives of Commission Staff, the
of
Natural
(collectively the Technical Advisory Committee) on the scope,
347
development, and implementation
348
commence within a reasonable time, and
of
post-construction studies (Studies) to
in any event no later than one year
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Case Number; 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
Page 18
of20
349
following the commercial operations date of the Project. Pinnacle shall consult
350
with the Technical Advisory Committee on the following:
351
a) Three years of post-construction bat mortality and adaptive management
352
studies, after operations commence, to assess,
353
1) The project's impact,
354
2) The potential for adaptive
355
such impacts.
356
3) The expected costs over a range of mitigation effectiveness levels.
if any, upon bat life management techniques
to mitigate
357
b)
358
commence, to assess the impact, if any, on birds.
359
c) The Applicant will file copies of each Study with the Commission and
360
provide copies to each member of the Technical Advisory Committee
361
within thirty days of its completion.
Three years
of
post-construction
bird studies, after
operations
362
363 If 364
the project causes significant leveis of bat or bird mortalify and adaptive
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
369 Commission's 370
Executive Secretary. Unless Pinnacle obtains Commission consent
for other deadlines, the updates shall be filed on or before January 30 and Juiy 3
1
Public Service Commission of 'West Virginia Case Number: 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Donald E. Walker
of
Page
l9 oî20
)/I
each year. Pinnacle shall provide a copy
Jtz
Technical Advisory Committee.
Jt)
6) The Applicant will minimíze the visibility of the Project by only using project
374
lighting
375
authorized to be in the area except that the Applicant may use Project lighting
376
required by the Federal Aviation Administration and any applicable fire or safety
5t/
code, regulation, or accepted good utiiity practice,
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
382
final interconnection agreements prior to commencing operation,
383
9)
384
equal at least i.5 times the total combined height of the tower, turbine and
385
maximum blade height.
386
legal agreement with Pinnacle and reside in the project area are exempt from this
387
condition.
388
Q. Have these conditions been imposed on other similar applications?
389
A. Yes, most recently
390
wind turbine-generator projects certificated by the Commission, Specifically,
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:
each report to the members
of the
in the presence of the project's personnel and any other persons as
Tower setbacks from residences, roads and power lines will be imposed to
It
is understood fhaf. pafücipants (residents) who have
a
some or all of these conditions were imposed on previous
Public service commission of west virginia 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
394
(Case No. 08-0109-E-CS) and AES New Creek
395
08-2i05-E-CS).r4
396
exception of the implementation of setbacks,
397
Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
398
A. Yes,
o '
#/q
page 20 of 20
htrp'//www.psc.
All of these conditions
state, wv.
us/
-
Proposed Final Order (Case No.
have been previously imposed with the
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
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
I
a.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A.
My name is Terrence J. DeWan. My
a
business address
Associates, 121 West Main Street, Yarmouth,
J
is
Terrence J. DeWan &
Maine 04096.
4
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5
6
a.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
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 assessments, and reviewing the production of visualizations in the office.
10 11
a.
t2 13
PLEASE DESCRIBE DEWAN
&
ASSOCIATES AND ITS WORK
IN VISUAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS. 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
15
projects into sensitive environments. The staff
t6
backgrounds
t7
inventories, recreation planning, graphic design, and computer modeling. DeWan &
18
Associates has worked on over
19
United States for projects including port facilities, electrical power generation and
20
transmission facilities, natural gas storage facilities, co-generation facilities, LNG
2I
terminals, industrial buildings, sanitary landfills, hydroelectric projects, wind energy
22
facilities, and new communities. DeWan &, Associates incorporates
in landscape architecture,
is
composed
of
professionals with
planning, visual resource assessment, scenic
fifty visual impact assessments throughout the
eastem
accepted
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
Page2
of2l
to
visual impacts on scenic resources and the
I
professional methodologies
2
surrounding viewshed through
J
inventorying scenic resources; describing the viewshed and project site characteristics;
4
determining the affected population; developing
5
examining specific areas of potential visibility through cross-sectional analysis; creating
6
photosimulations
7
mitigation measures.
to accurately
assess
a
process that includes: defining
a
study
atea;,
a GIS based viewshed analysis;
represent visual impacts; and evaluating potential
8
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
9 10
a.
BACKGROUND.
11
I2
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
A.
I received
a Bachelors of Science in Landscape Architecture
in
1968 from the State
13
University of New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry in Syracuse,
I4
New York. I hold Maine Landscape Architect license #6. For the past three decades
15
have concentrated a major part of my practice on visual impact assessments, serving
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
18
facilities in Maine, Massachusetts, and now'West Virginia. I have served as a consultant
t9
to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection for the development of Maine's
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
I
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 3
of2l
I
recently completed a peer review of the Draft Environmental
1
the past two decades.
2
Impact Statement prepared by Mineral Management Service for the Cape Energy Project
J
in Nantucket Sound,
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.
MA. I am the author of the Scenic
Assessment Handbook for the
6
DEWAN & ASSOCIATES INVOLVEMENT
7 8
a.
ASSOCIATES IN THE PROJECT.
9 10
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF DEWAN &
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
13
("VIA") that we prepared is included in Appendix "J" to the Siting
t4
Application.
15
Certificate
In connection with the VIA, we drove the major public roads within the study a view of the Project and visited known public recreation
16
area that may have
I7
historic properties, scenic overlooks, major transportation corridors, population centers,
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
2l
opportunity
22
independently verified the accuracy
to verify the viewshed maps for accuracy. DeWan &
areas,
an
Associates also
of photosimulations prepared by Pinnacle Wind
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page
4 of27
Force through comparison with three-dimensional digital models created separately.
1
ln addition to the written reports
2
and graphics described above, DeWan &
a
J
Associates prepared poster-sized enlargements
4
public discussions, agency presentations, and similar venues. An important component 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
9
into the title block of each image.
of the photosimulations to be used in
it
10
VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
11
t2
a.
13
A.
WHAT IS A VIEWSHED ANALYSIS?
A
viewshed analysis is a computer-generated way of determining where the Project
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
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.
2t
a.
&
Associates. The results
DESCRIBE THE VIEWSHED MAPS AND THE VIEWSHED ANALYSIS.
of
Piruracle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
Page 5
1
A.
of21
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
4
maps are included in Appendix "J" to the Siting Certificate Application.
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
9
of the turbines would be visible. While this map is informative, it over-represents
10
project visibility since it does not consider vegetation or other obstacles, which
t1
block the turbines from view.
I2
'
will
The negative viewshed map shows where views of the turbines will be blocked by
13
topographic features, irrespective of local vegetation or obstruction. While this map
t4
is also informative, it under-represents the extent of the area from which
15
turbines cannot be seen because
I6
other localized screening.
I7
'
it
does not reflect the effects
the
of forest cover and
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
2I
topography or
22
assumption,
it
by intervening vegetation. While this is a somewhat imperfect
has proven to be generally accurate
in providing a realistic estimate
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 6
of27
1
of where the project will actually be visible from. As noted earlier, the viewshed
2
maps were verified during our field work.
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
5
exaggerated picture of the extent of possible visibility, since the blades are rarely visible
6
beyond a distance of 8 miles due to their thinness.
7
a.
will still be an
THE VIEWSHED MAPS INDICATE THAT THE PROJECT MAY THEORETICALLY
8
BE VISIBLE FROM AS FAR AS TWENTY MILES AWAY FROM THE PROJECT
9
SITE. IS IT LIKELY THAT THE PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY BE VISIBLE FROM SUCH DISTANCES?
10
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
13
intervening topography or vegetation. At distances greater than 10 miles, wind turbines
I4
are generally perceived aS very small elements in the landscape and do not result in
15
unacceptable contrasts
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.
rea
PLEASE DESCRIBE IN GENERAL TERMS THE CONCEPT OF DISTANCE ZONES
20
AS IT APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT.
in form, line, color,
texture,
or scale. Turbine blades will
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan
I
Page7
of2I
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
4
criteria for forested landscapes and is generally accepted by professionals in visual
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
8
Commission's rules.l
based upon
USDA Forest Service visual analysis
of the applicable
provisions
of the Public
Service
Foreground: 0 to I mile in distance. Within the foreground, observers are able to
9
fulI spectrum of color. For example, the details of
10
detect surface textures, details, and a
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
I4
completed, those who wish to see the Project may be able to use this road network to get
15
a closer
I6
is
view of the turbines.
Midground:
1
mile to 5 miles in distance. The midground is a critical part of the
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
t
distance is intensified in hazy weather conditions, which tend to mute
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
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
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).
will limit its visibility.
Representative midground
in Keyser
Background: 5 miles to 20 miles. Background distances provide the setting for
9
of the larger landscape.
10
panoramic views that give the observer the greatest sense
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
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
15
minimally visible in the background, and not visible at aIl at distances greater than 8 to
t6
10
t7
towers and the nacelles,
18
should not be a noticeable part of the landscape beyond 8-10 miles.
t9
a.
22
miles. At these distances, the most visible parts of the turbines will be the
if they are visible
at
all. Under most circumstances,
be
8O-meter
the turbines
WILL THE PROJECT BE VISIBLE FROM HISTORIC AREAS OR PLACES WITHIN FIVE MILES?
20
2t
will be highly visible
A.
The West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office ("WVSHPO") determined that a 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.
6
a.
DESCRIBE THE MANAGED LANDS WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE PROJECT.
7
A.
In West Virginia, the following managed lands are located within 10 miles of the Project:
8
9
.
Alleshenv Wildlife Management Area ("AWMA'ì (including the abandoned fre tower on Pinnacle Mountain). Viewshed mapping indicates that portions of the
10
AWMA may have views of the Project. However, most views from within
11
AWMA (with the exception of the fire tower) would most likely be filtered by
T2
dense hardwood vegetation. The most prominent
13
AWMA will be from an abandoned fire tower on Pinnacle Mountain that is
t4
miles southwest of the closest turbine. From this viewpoint, the turbines will be
15
seen
f6
(out of a total 360o panorama). The view from Pinnacle Mountain also includes
t7
multiple nearby communication towers on the summit, the development in the
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
2I
leaf and leaf off conditions.
the
view of the Project within the 1.8*
in a relatively tight cluster (due to the alignment of the ridge) over a 5.5o arc
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
Page 10 of21
1
.
Jennings Randolph Lake Pro.iect (in both West Virginia and Maryland).
At
will be approximately 3 miles from the edge of
its
2
closest point the Project
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,
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
the
the intervening topography, and the surrounding forest cover. The
In
to the existing
10
man-made features.
11
turbines
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
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
18
be seen on the horizon at a distance of over 4+ miles. Photosimulation Viewpoint
I9
17 (panoramic view) provides a view of the Project from the northern end of the
20
lake and the surrounding landscape.
comparison
man-made structures, the
will be seen as a relatively small addition to the landscape. In the other
of the turbines from many of the remaining
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page
1l of21
.
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. Additional managed lands in Maryland are located within 10 miles of the Project.
4
These are described on pages 10 through 15 of the
5
6
a.
9
DESCRIBE THE MANAGED LANDS BETV/EEN
A
10
AND 2O-MILE RADruS OF
THE PROJECT.
7 8
VIA.
A.
In West Virginia, three managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles from the project: Fort
Mill Ridge WMA, Springfield WMA,
and Nathan Mountain
\ryMA.
Úr Maryland, five
WMA, Big
10
managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles from the project: Mount Nebo
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
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
20
the project should be blocked by intervening vegetation on Dan's
2t
communication towers in the foreground would have a far more significant visual impact
of
distance and atmospheric perspective. The most
of
Mountain. The existing
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
2
panorama).
1o
arc (out of a total 360o
3
PHOTOSIMULATIONS
4
5
a.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PHOTOSIMULATIONS?
6
A.
Photosimulations are computer-altered photographs that are used
to
illustrate the
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
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
t9
conditions (i.e., to make it appear "full size" or lifelike).
20 2l
a.
to
demonshate the visual changes from the
Project.
WHAT FACTORS WENT INTO THE SELECTION OF THE VIEWPOINTS USED FOR THE PHOTOSIMULATIONS?
Where
SPECIFIC
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeV/an
I
Page 13
of2l
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
of the Project where the most number of turbines would
10
selected to provide views
11
visible. From many of the viewpoints, the Project will be partially
t2
intervening topography or vegetation.
be
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.
I7
a.
THE COMMISSION?
18
t9
WHICH SITES V/ERE SELECTED FOR PHOTOSIMULATIONS TO SUBMIT TO
A.
A
total
of 19 photosimulations were prepared by Pinnacle Wind Force, with
the
& Associates, for inclusion in the VIA. The viewpoints, which
are
20
assistance of DeWan
2T
all on public property or publicly accessible locations, include the Keyser industrial park,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
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),
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
9
(less than 5 miles to the closest turbine).
f*o rural cemeteries,
10
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
11
t2
a.
WHO WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE PROJECT?
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
T7
tempered by the presence of other structures within the visible area.
l8
a.
2t 22
The visual sensitivity of each of these groups
will vary
and is
DESCRIBE THE VISUAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE.
19
20
VIA.
A.
Landscape compatibility can be described in terms of the potential that the Project has for being similar or dissimilar relative to color, form, line, texture, scale, and dominance.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
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
4
light gray, especially when seen on hazy or overcast days. White turbines will allow the
5
project to have only red nighttime lighting.
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
9
and weather conditions.
10
will
change
If
will
appear as
an altemate color were selected, the FAA
with the time of day, viewer orientation, sun angle, and atmospheric
Form. With several other wind energy projects in neighboring counties, turbines
to
a more familiar form on the West Virginia landscape.
11
are starting
t2
Nonetheless, the three-bladed turbines set on tall towers breaking the horizon
13
a noticeable contrast in form. By following the ridgeline of Green Mountain
t4
preserving as much vegetation as possible, the Project
15
become
will present and
will minimize contrasts in form.
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
t7
minimal contrast in line as a result.
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
2T
texture of the surrounding mountains.
will
present a noticeable contrast with the natural hardwood
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 16
of2I Scale Contrast. The scale of the Project area is def,rned by the space between the
1
-
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
5
as a very large man-made element
6
will be influenced by their immediate surroundings. To
7
surrounded by commercial buildings,
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
will
extend over 3.4 miles of the Green Mountain ridgeline and
will
be perceived
in the larger landscape. Observers'perception of scale someone in downtown Keyser,
utility structures, and similar types of development,
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
will be highly visible and will
12
midground (less than five miles), where the turbines
13
seen
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
I6
against the sky, due to their elevated position from virtually all viewpoints. However, as
I7
illustrated
18
composition (the mountains, the sky, or nearby waterbodies).
t9 20
2t 22
a.
in the context of the Green Mountain ridgeline and other local
be
and regional
will be seen
by the photosimulations, they will not dominate the entire landscape
WHAT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT?
A. The Project
will be visible to a portion of the population who live, work, drive, and
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
J
minimize the creation of new lines on the mountain.
will be used where
feasible to
Areas of Scenic or Cultural Significance. There are no areas of scenic or cultural
4
will be unreasonably affected by
it.
The
5
significance within the project viewshed that
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
10
unreasonably affect areas of scenic or cultural significance within its viewshed.
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
t4
Randolph Lake Project at
l5
15, 16, and 17, the wind turbines
t6
these locations (both of which are on the West Virginia / Maryland line).
4.I miles. As
demonshated
by Photosimulation Viewpoints
will not block or interfere with
the views from either
of
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
I
l8 of2l
Traveled Ways. As noted above, the Project will be visible from several public
will
2
highways within the 2O-mile study area. In most of these instances, the Project
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
5
in the study area.
6
Landscape Uniqueness. Green Mountain is a major landform
it
is not considered unique to this part of West
be
in the immediate
Virginia. The mountain has been
7
area, but
8
extensively used and developed with roads, home sites, mining and forestry activity,
9
transmission corridors, and other t¡rpes of activity so it cannot be considered an intact or
10
1l
undisturbed landscape.
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
15
to the general public. The resultant Project should present a simple,
16
appearance.
t7
The Project
will not usually
be visible
uncluttered
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
2I
or other scenic resources. Throughout the majority of the 2O-mile study area, views of
will the Project block the views from or the views of lakes, mountains, rivers,
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
2
on the hills in the foreground and midground, and roadside vegetation.
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
6
ancillary facilities harmoniously into the existing natural environment.
The VIA was conducted by DeWan
7
&
Associates
in compliance with the
of the Public Service Commission's Siting Rules and it is our
8
applicable provisions
9
conclusion that the Project
will not unreasonably
interfere with existing scenic or
will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic
10
aesthetic uses and
11
land within the viewshed of the Project.
character of the
I2 MITIGATION
13
t4
a.
WHAT MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACTS?
15
A.
Mitigation is defined as any action taken or not taken to avoid, minimize, rectiff, reduce,
T6
eliminate, or compensate for actual or potential adverse environmental impact. The
t7
Project has been conceived and designed
18
surrounding environment. A description of how the Project has been designed to follow
I9
current professional thinking on wind power facility planning is provided in Appendix B
20
(Aesthetic Considerations) to the VIA. The main mitigation measure was selecting a site
2l
that has:
to have minimal visual impacts on
the
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page20 of2l Case
1
.
turbine siting.
2 a
J
o A network of existing
o An existing transmission
will provide
access
to the site, thus minimizing
line very close to the project site, thus minimizing the
amount of clearing necessary.
6 7
roads that
potential construction impacts.
4 5
Favorable topography requiring no major earth moving for road constructlon or
o
A minimal number of scenic resources that could be affected by the Project.
in
8
Additionally, the following design standards have been employed
9
development of the Project to enhance the appearance of the wind turbines and minimize
10
1l
adverse public reactions:
o
¡ o
I6 t7
will
Vegetation clearing along the ridgeline will be minimized, particularly between the
individual turbine sites.
o
The turbine support towers provide a clean simplified profile that will have less complex surface characteristics and less reflectance.
18
I9
The electrical collection system between individual turbines and the substation
be located underground to the extent practicable, primarily along the access roads.
T4 15
Turbines will be placed in an orderly arrangement along the ridgeline, minimizing perceived clutter.
12 13
the
o
The color of all wind turbine components (tower, nacelle, and rotor blades) will be
20
a uniform white or ofÊwhite to achieve greatest visibility for pilots, particularly
2l
during cloudy, overcast and inclement conditions. This will avoid the use of high-
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Case
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
4
Federal Aviation Administration requirements. Lighting
5 g
will not be required on every turbine.
o Security lighting
will be synchronized
and
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.
9 Q. 10 A.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTMONY? Yes, it does.
PTIBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia
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
1
a
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A.
James D. Barnes. Mybusiness address is 33 Moulton Street, Cambridge,
MA 02138.
J
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
4 5
a.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
6
A.
I
am a Supervisory Consultant of Acentech Incorporated ("Acentech"). In this role,
I
7
typically serve as principal investigator and/or manager on projects that
8
community sound associated with industrial, energy, institutional, and transportation
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
1l
at New Page
t2
a.
l3 t4
address
("Project").
PLEASE DESCRIBE ACENTECH AND ITS WORK
IN RELATION TO
NOISE
ISSUES AND STUDIES.
A.
Acentech is a multi-disciplinary consulting firm with offices located in Massachusetts,
15
Pennsylvania, and California. The staff of more than 50 professionals is comprised of
t6
acoustical consultants, audiovisual consultants, noise and vibration consultants, and IT
t7
consultants. For environmental sound studies, Acentech consultants apply experience,
l8
technical expertise, current computer modeling techniques, and measurement procedures
I9
to assess conditions and to develop design recommendations.
20
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
Page 2
of
16
I 2
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
a.
a
BACKGROUND.
J 4
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
A.
My educational
and professional qualifications that relate to providing this testimony are
JDB-I. I have over 35 years of experience relating to the study of
5
set forth on Exhibit
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,
9
with desigu team engineers, architects and planners, attomeys, equipment suppliers,
10
owners, community representatives, private citizens, and state and local government
1t
personnel.
l2
from Cornell University) am a registered Professional Engineer in multiple states, and
l3
currently co-teach the Fundamentals Exam Preparation Course for the Institute of Noise
t4
Control Engineering.
l5
a.
Science degree and a Masters
have worked
of Engineering
HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC
degree
SERVICE
COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
16
t7
I hold a Bachelor of
I
A.
Yes. I have testified before the Commission in the hearings on the Beech Ridge Energy
I
18
project in 2006 and the Liberty Gap Wind Force project in 2007. ln addition,
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
2T
planning board meetings.
22
have
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 3
of
16
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
I 2
a.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTMONY.
3
A.
The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor the study prepared under my direction by
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
6
Appendix U to the Siting Certificate Application.
as
7
THE PINNACLE ACOUSTICAL REPORT
8
9
a.
PLEASE PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACOUSTICAL REPORT.
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
t7
ambient conditions at representative community locations; and estimated construction
18
and operation sound levels for the
t9
analysis and presents the pertinent results of the acoustical study. I performed or directly
20
supervised all work tasks in this study.
facility. The Acoustical Report
summarizes our
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 4
I
a.
a
16
PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW NOISE IS MEASURED BY DECIBELS AND PROVIDE SOME TYPICAL SOUND LEVEL COMPARISONS.
2 J
of
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
5
magnitude of a sound is measured in decibels, abbreviated
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.
Decibels are used to
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.
t2
At any location, a complete
physical description
of the ambient acoustic
13
environment might include its sound pressure level at various frequencies, as a function
t4
of time. As a first step toward simpliffing this multi-dimensional description, it
15
become coÍrmon practice
t6
weighted sound level (dBA) as observed on a standard sound level meter. The A-
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.
20
Examples of common sound levels include:
has
to eliminate the frequency variable by measuring the A-
2t
o
truck passby at 100 feet
-
80 dBA;
22
o
lawn mower at 100 feet
-
65 dBA;
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 5
of
16
I
.
average speech
2
o
private and open offices
a
o
calîr, quiet suburban nighttime and daytime periods
J
4
a.
- 40 to 50 dBA; and -
35 to 45 dBA.
THE ACOUSTICAL STUDY REFERENCES "LEQ'' AND "LDN'' SOUND LEVELS. PLEASE DESCRIBE WHAT THE LEQ AND LDN SOUND LEVELS REPRESENT.
5
6
- 60 dBA;
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
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
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
20
and operation phases.
2t 22
a.
traffic or steady wind in the trees). The day-night
of identiffing and evaluating levels of
HAS THE USEPA IDENTIFIED A GUIDELINE LDN SOTIND LEVEL THAT IS PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALTH AND WELFARE?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
Page 6
I
A.
of
16
Yes. USEPA has identified a guideline Ldn level of 55 dBA of humans for outdoor residential
as protective
of the health
areas and farms and other outdoor areas
2
and welfare
J
where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a
4
basis for
5
developed without regard
6
Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels
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
use. This
recommended level, which includes
for
technical
or
a margin of safety,
economic feasibility. (United
of
55 dBA as its criterion during review of proposed projects (Part 157, Chapter I,
1l
Code of Federal Regulations).
a.
l3 t4
States
Environmental Noise
10
t2
was
Title
18,
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATIONS YOU MADE AND THE METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE ACOUSTICAL REPORT.
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
T6
ambient conditions at representative community locations; and estimated construction
t7
and operation sound levels for the
l8
program during the period of 28 November to 11 December 2007. We then developed
T9
the facility construction and operation sound estimates with methods in the ESEERCO
20
Power Plant Construction Noise Guide and
2t
package that is used widely
22
been used
facility.
'We
conducted the ambient sound monitoring
with Cadna/A, a commercial
software
for environmental sound modeling projects. Cadna/A
in numerous other wind turbine noise studies, including the Beech
has
Ridge,
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 7
of
16
by
1
Laurel Mountain, and New Creek applications that have been reviewed
2
Commission. Finally, we summarizedthe ambient sound measurements and the pertinent
J
results of this acoustical study in the Acoustical Report.
the
4 THE AMBIENT SOUND MONITORING PROGRAM
5
6
a.
LOCATIONS FOR THE AMBIENT SOUND MONITORING PROGRAM.
7 8 9
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROCESS USED TO SELECT THE MONITORING
A.
The purpose of the monitoring progrcm is to charactenze the existing ambient sound environment at noise-sensitive receptors, e.g., residences.
It is well
known
in
the
10
acoustics community that the ambient sound environment is directly related to the land
1l
uses and sound sources
t2
turbine layout plans; toured the project site and nearby community areas; and then
l3
identified candidate monitoring locations that would be representative of the noise-
t4
sensitive areas (all residences, in this case) in the vicinity of the Project
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 o
2t 22
-
site. The actual
wooded area in the vicinity homes to the south of the existing Beryl
Electrical Substation, east of open fields, and west of the Project site.
T9
20
Location 1
in an area. We reviewed maps, aerial photographs, and initial
Location 2
-
residential yard adjacent to a pond and in the vicinity of a cluster of
homes to the west of the Project site.
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.
NEAR THE PROJECT SITE.
4 5
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE AMBIENT SOI-IND LEVELS PRESENT IN LOCATIONS
A.
The measured long-term Ldn sound levels ranged from 49 dBA to 63 dBA, with an
of 54 dBA and a standard deviation of 5.5 dBA across the five monitoring
6
average value
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
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
l5
the Project and,49 to 50 dBA around the nearest receptors to the northeast ofthe Project.
vicinity of Locations
1 and 3 on the
of 55 dBA around the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the southwest of
T6
a.
DOES THE STUDY AREA INCLUDE ANY DOMINANT SOUND SOURCE?
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
22
within one-mile of the Project site was relatively homogeneous.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
Page 9
of
16
I 2
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE
J
4
a.
IN
PREPARING THE
CONSTRUCTION NOISE ESTIMATES.
5
6
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU USED
A.
'We
assumed that construction
fall. The initial activities
of the Project will start in early spring and continue into (Phase
I) will include improvements and new construction
7
late
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-
will
be directly trucked-in from an offsite
10
site batch plants using trucked-in materials or
ll
plant.
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
t7
level contours (Figure 16 in the Acoustical Report) for the simulated worst case of Phase
l8
I
t9
the majority of construction activities
20
and that any construction
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
Phase
II will include erection of the turbine towers
and installation of the turbines;
it displays the Ldn sound
construction occurring simultaneously at each turbine location. We also assumed that
will be conducted during lO-hour daytime
in the evening
and nighttime periods
shifts
will be limited
to
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,
J
a.
by the Siting Rules.
WILL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT NOISE MPACT FOR THE AREAS SURROUNDING PROJECT SITE?
4 5
as required
A.
The construction activity at the site will be temporary, will occur mostly in the daytime
will
produce sounds that are already familiar to the community, including
6
hours, and
7
sounds from home construction. Although construction activity
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.
will
be audible to nearby
l0 1l
l2
ANTICIPATED OPERATIONAL NOISE
a.
IN PREPARING THE
OPERATION NOISE ESTIMATES.
13
t4
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU USED
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
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
2t
based on octave-frequency-band sound pressure levels, downwind conditions with a
22
moderate temperature inversion, and an absorptive ground effect.
model. The Cadna/A program model accounts for spreading losses,
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
I
Page 11
of
a.
WHAT NOISE LEVELS ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR FROM
PROJECT
OPERATION AT THE NEAREST COMMUNITY RESIDENCES?
2 J
16
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
t6
sounds levels for each turbine, and for the entire Project,
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
18
be reduced by more during times with even less wind, including the times below the
t9
minimum cut-off wind speed when the turbines do not operate.
20
a.
will be less than the maximum level. For
example, the predicted Ldn
will be reduced by I dBA
at
will
HOW DO THE SOUND LEVELS THAT WILL OCCUR FROM PROJECT
2l
OPERATION COMPARE TO THE EXISTING AMBIENT SOI.IND LEVELS AT THE
22
RECEPTORS?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
I
Page 12
of l6
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
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
6
measured near those locations.
7
a.
WHAT NOISE IMPACT WILL THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT HAVE ON AREAS SURROI.INDING THE PROJECT?
8
9
noise-sensitive
A.
It is anticipated that the turbine
sound
will be heard at times at the nearest residences.
will most likely be heard is during times when the
l0
The scenario in which the Project
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
15
than 55 dBA, the guideline level identified by the USEPA as protective of the health and
t6
welfare of humans for outdoor recreational areas.
t7
this aÍea
are
all equal to or less
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
l9
several other factors indicate that the actual sound, when heard,
20
guideline. First, the model includes the conservative assumptions that all turbines would
I
will
areas,
be below the USEPA
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),
2
with downwind conditions in all directions and a moderate temperature inversion.
J
For those times when the receptors are upwind or crosswind of the
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
8
and by 24 dB.A or more with the windows closed.
nearest
Second, the nearest residences include those to the southwest of the Project near
9
6. I understand that
10
Location 2 and to the northeast of the Project near Locations 5 and
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.
l8
a.
WHAT DESIGN/CONTROL MEASURES ARE INCORPORATED INTO WIND
t9
TURBINES TO MITIGATE NOISE, AND HOV/ HAVE DESIGN CHANGES IN
20
MODERN TURBINES CHANGED THE SOUND OUTPUT FROM EARLIER
2t
DESIGNS?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case
No.
09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes
I
Page 14
of l6
A.
Modem industrial turbines are equipped with extensive noise control features, including a
2
noise-insulated enclosure over the gearbox and generator, reduced-noise gearbox,
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
7
low frequency sound. When low frequency sound is substantially greater than the
8
background ambient sound,
9
annoyance. The most significant concern of low frequency sound is that
it
may be noticed
of
in the community and can cause 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
I2
low frequency sound is not an issue.
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
t7
be less. In addition, the Project
18
including the main facility transformer.
t9
A.
will
be less; however, the turbine sound emissions
will install high-efficiency, reduced-noise
will
also
transformers,
YOU STATED THAT MODERN WIND TURBINE DESIGN HAS ELIMINATED
20
THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLDER WIND
2t
TURBINES. NONETHELESS, DID YOU INVESTIGATE THE DEGREE OF LOW
22
FREQUENCY NOISE EXPECTED FROM THE PROJECT?
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Case
I
Page 15
of
A.
Although the Siting Rules do not specifically address low frequency sound, we did
16
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
7
component
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
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
t6
is recommended in ANSVASME Standard 8133.8-1977 (R2001) for another type of
17
power facllity.2
of the sound. We measured the C-weighted Ldn
low
frequency
sound levels at the
will be less
limit of 75 to 80 dBC that
18
t9 20
CONCLUSION
A. 2
DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS FOR THE COMMISSION?
| 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
I
Page 16
of
A.
Yes. The estimated facility average Ldn sound levels are all within the range of the daily
16
2
ambient Ldn values that were measured in the area. The fltndings of our noise study
a
J
indicate that the Project
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
8
operate.
will
will produce sound levels that are equal to or lower than
be reduced, including the relatively calm times when the turbines do not
Sounds from Project construction
9
the
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.
t3
a.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMO}TY?
t4
A.
Yes.
Staff Resume JAMES D. BARNES Supervisory Consultant
Aeentpnlt, EDUCATION M. Eng., Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University,
1973
8.S., Mechanical Engineering, Comell University, 1972 Additional Graduate Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
197
6
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS Acentech Incorporated, Cambridge, MA 1989-present Bolt Beranek and Newman hc., Cambridge, MA 1973'1989 Cornell University, Ithaca, l{Y, 197 2'197 3 Johnson Controls, Indianapolis, IN, 1972
HONORS AND PROFESSIONAL SOCMTIES Registered Professional Engineer (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, New York) NASA Fellow, Past Member of Institute of Noise Control Engineering
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROJECTS 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.
PUBLICATIONS, ORAL PRESENTATIONS, AND COMMITTEES "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).
Acentech Incorporated
James D. Barnes
., .1 .,
"A Seminar on Noise Control," seminar presented for Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico with 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). Co-chaired Session on Community Noise at Noise-Con 2@5 with L. Finegold, Minneapolis, MN (October 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
Acentech lncorporated
James D. Barnes Francisco, CA (May 1982).
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).
SPONSORED TECHNICAL REPORTS "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 Report No. 386 (November 2007).
-
Beverly, MA," Acentech
"Acousrical Study of hoposed Mill Maximum Achievable Control Technology Project Acentech Report No. 383 (Ma¡ch zOW).
-
Easton, ME,"
"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) Report No. 384 (June 2006).
-
Stamford, NY," Acentech
"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,
Acentech Incorporated
James D. Barnes
i:!: ,..".-,.i
"Sound Study of Planned Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements at Upper Blackstone Water 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 Puerto Rico," AI Report Nos. 212 and 218 (February 1999).
-
Buildings
I
and2
-
Aguadilla,
"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)'
i
"La Sierra Simple Cycle Power Project - Sound Level Estimates and Recornmendations - La Sierra, Colombia," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0148 (November 1997).
Åcexa të¡iÍt,
James D. Barnes
Acentech Incorporated
Colombia," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0147 (November 1997). "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 Test Report," (January 1995). "Allegany Cogeneration Facility Noise Study," AI Report No. 0125 (September 1994).
"MIT Cogeneration Faciliry Noise Study," AI Report No. 0122, (August 1994). "Acoustical Evaluation of Proposed Changes to East Beverly Substation in Beverly, Massachusetts," Repon No. 0116 (March 1994).
Al
"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). "Georgetown University Cogeneration Project - Background Sound Measurements," AI Technical Memorandum No.0034 (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 MetroNorth Railroad," AI Report No. 0077 (August 1992).
,åc*sa tûcÍt,
James D. Barnes
i,.,,,i
Acentech Incorporated
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).
,
i' :
"Environmental Sound Survey in Vicinity of Mamaroneck Wastewater Treatment Plant," BBN Technical 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.
(May
5521
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).
Acentech [ncorporated
James D. Barnes
!::
,_-
"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).
Complex," BBN Report No. 3844 (November 1978)' "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
Acentech Incorporated
James D. Barnes
"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
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
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. Page 1
Llewelþ
of6
1
a.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A.
V/illiam (Bill) E. Llewellyn, CME Engineering LP, 27 East Main Street,
Frostburg,
Maryland 21532.
J
4
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5
6
a.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
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
9
for the Pinnacle wind power project ("Project").
10
a.
LP AND ITS
EXPERIENCE IN
RELATION TO THE WORK PERFORMED FOR THE PROJECT.
11
l2
PLEASE DESCRIBE CME ENGINEERING
A.
CME Engineering LP ("CME") is a multidisciplinary firm that provides engineering,
13
environmental science, surveying, construction management, material testing, and solid
14
waste services. CME has a staff of over 80 professional and support personnel
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
in four
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 2 of 6
EXPERIENCE
1
2
a
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.
J
A.
As a project director for CME,
of CME's work,
I
have broad responsibilities for many of the technical
as well as managerial and client interface responsibilities.
4
aspects
5
Pinnacle Wind Force
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
is one of those clients. My project management experience
staff. I hold certifications
80%o
of
the
related to surveying and quarry
10
workload for me and my
11
permitting from the West Virginia Board
12
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP"), respectively. Prior to
13
joining CME in 2003,I served as President and CEO of Llewellyn & Associates, Inc.,
t4
company that I purchased
15
individuals.
t6
a.
t9 20
Professional Surveyors and the West
a
1995 and expanded, ultimately employing as many as fifteen
IIAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC
SERVICE
COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
I7 18
in
of
A.
Yes. I provided testimony before this Commission in connection with the Liberty wind energy project in2007.
Gap
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 3
of6
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
I 2
a.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR 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
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.
9
a.
with the coordination or preparation of permit applications for
the
CAN YOU DESCRIBE GENERALLY THE SCOPE OF CME'S WORK ON THE
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.
t4
Pinnacle with numerous aspects of the Project, including but not limited to production
15
base mapping, turbine layout, surveying, coordination with other consultants, lease
t6
negotiation support, environmental site assessments, geotechnical support, wetland
1,7
delineations, West Virginia Division
t8
transmission line layout, traffic studies and civil engineering.
t9
I am the CME Project Manager
assigned
of
to the Project. CME has
assisted
of
Highways entrance designs, preliminary
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Case
Page 4 of 6
PERMITTING
2Q.
WHAT PERMITS HAS PINNACLE WORK FORCE APPLIED FOR IN
J
CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROJECT?
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
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
States Fish and
Tyrell. Likewise, the State Historic
V/ildlife Service and West
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
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
t7
application
18
application for a Siting Certificate in this proceeding.
re 20
a.
in the Direct Testimonies of Kate
Kuranda and Jeff
will be requested after the Commission reaches a decision on Pinnacle's
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS ENGINEERS' REVIEW OF THE WETLANDS DELINEATION?
OF
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 5
I
A.
a.
4 5
On January 27,2009, Pinnacle submitted a Wetlands Delineation Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ('USACE") and it is currently under review.
2 J
of6
V/ILL A SECTION 404 DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT?
A.
In consultation with the USACE, Pinnacle Wind Force and CME are currentþ working to
will be affected by the construction of the
6
determine whether any streams or wetlands
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,
9
Project
will
10
should
11
Section
t2
corridors and turbine sites
13
therefore, we do not anticipate the need to f,rle a Section 404 NWP application. However,
t4
if it is determined
15
so advised.
T6
a
however, the USACE determines that the
cause relatively minimal impacts on streams and wetlands, then Pinnacle
qualiff for one of the existing "nationwide permits" (or "NWPs") available under
404.
Pinnacle Wind Force and CME have located road construction, utility
to minimize
disturbance
to
streams and wetlands and,
that a Section 404 approval is necessary, the Commission Staff
will
be
WILL A SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION BE REQUIRED FOR
t7
THE PROJECT?
18
A
I9
state waters results from a federally-permitted action (such as construction under a
20
Section 404 permit).
2I
certification is not required.
22
Section 401 certification is automatic.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from WVDEP when an impact to
If no Section 404 Permit is needed for the Project, then Section
If
401
a Section 404 NWP is required for the Project, then
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 6 of 6
I
a
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE WVDEP REVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR
THE NPDES
2
REGISTRATION UNDER
J
GENERAL PERMIT?
4
A National Pollutant
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
7
Stormwater General Permit on March 17,2009. The application includes a Stormwater
8
Pollution Prevention Plan, a Groundwater Protection Plan, a Spill Prevention Control and
9
Countermeasure Plan, and a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.
CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit
is
A
generally
subsequent
10
revision to the application was made on April 15,2009. V/VDEP is expected to complete
11
its review of the application by June I,2009.
t2
a.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
13
A.
Yes.
PTIBLIC SERVICE COMN/ilSSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
RANDALL A. CHILDS
NI.ay 26,2009
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Case
Page 1 of6
I
a.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2
A.
My name is Dr. Randall A. Childs. My business address is 210 Valley Street, Reedsville,
wv
J
26s47.
4
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5
6
a.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
7
A.
I am a
principal
of
Community
&, Economic Development Consultants, hc.
I
("CEDCON"). I am also a research assistant professor in the West Virginia University
9
("WVU") Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
10
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
1l
l2
a
l3 t4
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
BACKGROUND. A.
I
have a bachelor's degree in resource management; a master's degree in resource
I have 17 years
l5
economics; and a Ph.D. in economics from West Virginia University.
t6
experience
l7
have, completed numerous research projects ,and, associated reports on
18
economic impact studies, including wind power projects and coal-fired power plants.
t9
work includes research on the effects of state and national energy policy on the West
20
Virginia economy. My vita, which includes my educational and professional
2I
qualifications, is attached as Exhibit A to this testimony.
workng
as an economist at
WVU and more than 10 years as a consultant. I
,a variety- of My
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 2 of 6
1 Q. 2
HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC
3 A.
Yes,
4
Wind Force power project.
SERVICE
COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
I
previously testif,red before the Commission in connection with the Liberfy Gap
5
6
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
7 A 8 A.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY.
9
and Mineral County economies associated with the construction and operation of the
l0 I
I
The purpose of my testimony is to address the economic impacts on the West Virginia
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind Force") wind power project ("Project").
A.
DID YOU
PERFORM
AN ANALYASIS OF THE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
12
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
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
17
Appendix "N" of the application.
18
AND OPERATION OF
THE
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Case
Page 3
of6
I 2
THE IMPLAN@ MODEL
a.
THE APPLICATION INDICATES THAT THE IMPLAN@ MODEL WAS USED TO
THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
J
DEMONSTRATE
4
CONSTRUCTING
5
DESCRIBE THE IMPLAN@ MODNL.
6
A.
ASSOCIATED WITH
AND OPERATING THE PROJECT. PLEASE
BRIEFLY
IMPLAN@ is an economic model that allows users to estimate the economic impact of an
7
activity or business on a state or regional economy. IMPLAN@ is utilized by government
8
agencies
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
13
developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States Department
t4
Energy. IMPLAN@ has also been used by universities and private consultants to provide
l5
the economic impacts of numerous other projects.
t6
a.
t7
l8
at all levels (federal,
state, and local), as
in the Jobs and Economic
well as universities and private
Development Impact
or JEDI model that was of
WHAT TYPE OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS IS TITE IMPLAN@ IVTOOEL CAPABLE OF ESTIMATING?
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
lQ.
PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT, INDIRECT,
2
AND INDUCED EFFECTS.
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
8
businesses
9
effecf' of the original spending of the project for goods and services purchased from
created as these other businesses purchase goods and services from yet other
in the state or region. Thus the indirect impacts measure the "multiplier
within the state or region. The induced impacts measure the spending and re-
10
businesses
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.
t4
a.
W}IAT ASSUMPTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT DID YOU USE WITH
l5
RESPECT TO THE IMPLAN@ MODEL?
l6
The economic impacts presented hère and in the Report assume that the Project will be
l7
constructed in Mineral County,
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
WV with a total construction cost of $131 million. It
is
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 5
of6
ECONOMIC IMPACT DURING CONSTRUCTION
2 a. 3
WILL THE CONSTRUCTTON OF THE PROJECT PRODUCE ANY EFFECTS ON
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
9
employee compensation.
THE ECONOMY?
increased
10 A. II
WHAT KIND OF INDIRECT AND INDUCED JOBS IS THE PROJECT CAPABLE
12 A.
The jobs created by the indirect and induced effects of expenditures associated with the
13
Project
14
numerous industries in the county and state as the businesses and employees purchase a
15
wide variety of goods and services.
17
REVENUES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?
18 A.
The economic activity attributable to the Project during construction
19
approximately $603,000 in additional assorted state taxes.
20
OF SUPPORTING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?
will not be in just a few select
industries, but rather jobs
will be created in
will
generate
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 6
of6
ECONOMIC MPACT DURING OPERATION
1
2
a.
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY FOR THE LOCAL AREA AND THE STATE?
J
4
ONCE OPERATIONAL, V/ILL THE PROJECT CONTINUE TO GENERATE NEW
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
6
S705,000 annually
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.
10
a.
1l T2
in
increased employee compensation. The impacts on the West
IN SUMMARY, WILL THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE LOCAL AND STATE ECONOMY?
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.
t7
a.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMO}TY?
l8
A.
Yes, it does.
l9
Randall A. Childs, Ph.D. CONTACT INFORMATION Office: 318 Business and Economics
Flome:
Building
Bureau of Business and Economic Research College of Business and Economics \üüest Virginia
210 ValleyStreet Reedsville, UIV 26547 Phone: (304) 86+0543 Cellulan (304) 233-0689
Univenity
Morgantown, WV 26506 - 6025
Phone:
Fax:
Q04) 293-7832 (304) 293-7061
E-lvIaiL
randy.childs(a mail.wvu.edu
P.O. Box 398
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
Masterof Science in Resourre Economics Vest Virginia University, Morgantown,
W'esr
Virgi"i"
Janraary1993
Bachelor of Science in Resource Management West Virginia Universiry, Morgantown, Wesr Viryinia lvlay 1990
RELEVAI{T EMPLOYI4ENT 2008 - present
Research Assist¿nt Professor, Wesr Virginia
UnivenþBureau of Business
and Economic Research
2000. presenr 1999
- 2008
Princþl; C.ommunity & Economic Develo¡iment fünsuha¡ts; Inc. Economisq West Virginia UnivenþBureau of Business and Economic Research
1993
- t999
Business Research Analysq west
virginia univenþBureau of Business and
Economic Research 1992
Database Specialist, \üüest Virginia Economic Research
UnivenþBureau of
Business and
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS Childs, Randall. "Effect of Excise Taxation on Demand for Gasoline byGrade' Significantly hþher gasoline prices and the effecs these price increases have had on consumers and businesses has become increasingly imponant. In additior\ these large increases in price have led to an increasing interest into the way in which gasoline is talred gallon unit tær vs. ad valorem sales tæ<). The large inc¡ease in gasoline prices coupled with the per gallon gasoline ta:<es prcvalent in most states has dramaticallyincreased state highway departrrcnt's expenditures without incrcasing the state's tax rcvenu€ ¡p"lized from the gasoline ta:r, a major revenue source for manystate highway departments. This paper examines the inefficiencies created bythe unit tax on gasoline and thus provides fu¡ther justification for ad valorem taxes on gasoline in place of the popular unit tax This paper also. examines the dra¡natic decrease in the sha¡e of premium qp9li". T pd*: -"f regular and prcmium increased bythe same dolla¡ amount... an apparcnt contradiction of the Alchian and Allen Theorern-
þr
Childs, Rândall and George Fhmmond. "Smoking Regulation's Effect on Employment: An Establishment-Iævel Panel Daa Anallris " Numercus governrnental jurisdictions across the countryhave adoptcd partiai orcornplete smoking b""s based, at least pafiiâlly, on the negative heahh effects of second-hand smoke. These smoking rcgu.Læions rnayaffect onlya ponion of buinesses (e.g. rcstau?nts) or mayinclude all businesses in the jurisdiction There have been numerous sudies on the effects of these regulatiors on the local economywith some studies reportiry a positive change or no change in economic activþ dæ to the regulanior¡ while other srudies reporting a negative effect on local economic activiry. The effects of smoking bans has become of increasing importance to people in \Øest Vugi"i" as manyof the counry heafth departments in the state have considered or are considering some type of smoking ban for their counry. Indee4 Monongalia Coutrty, V.Va. is currentlydebæints proposed smoking ban for " throughout \{tesr Virginia the counry. This research uses a panel dæa set of individual estabfishments from 1990 to 2006 and thus addresses the weakness inhercnt in the previous research thæ examined onlythe net change in employment or sales forthe local economyand ignores the possible offsening effecr on individual businesses.
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.
*d Randâll-Childs. 'Do People ReallyVoæ with Their"Feetl A Spatial Economeuic A""t)"ir of lvßA to IvISA lr4gration Flows' Using IvISA to MSA migration flows for the period 1995-2000, this paper seels to determine if local
.Nesbit, Todd, Kerry-King,
expendirures on educatior¡ heafth, and socìal q¡elfa¡r together with ta¡res influence the choice ro move from one lvlSA to another. Following a method set fonh in a working paper by Lesage and Pace (2008), we empþa spatial econometric technique to account forthe neighbor influences at both the origin and destination of each lvßÀ \X/hile most studies of this natu¡e only examine mþration flows between lvßA's, our model also incoqporates those who mþrued within their origin lvßA Ou.t our primarygoal is to determine if local public expendfuures and taxarion policies do, in fact, influence where people choose to move.
lt
Childs, Randall and Ar¡ri Chester. "Valuing the Public Funding of the West Virginia Fleakh Science
and Technology .Academy'
Childs, Randall. "Does Tax Increment Financing Increase Business Growth?" 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
auaü$ A Test of the Alchian
and Allen
Theorem"
ACADEMIC CONFE RENCE PRE SE NTAÏIONS Southem Economic Association (Presenter), New Orleans, LA (Nov. 2002) "smoking Regulation's Effect on Employment: An Est¿blishment-Iævel Panel Data Analysis"
GRAI{T. SIJPPORTE D RE SE ARCH PUBLICATIONS Eæwricfupø {\Y/øt Vtìginia Unixeßiry FY2007, Arrryfúgginbotharn, Randall .\ Childs, and Tom S.]üüitt" February2OO8
,
Eæwric_Inpø Childs,
{tln
lVatviryinia
SM
BüWAr¿tlørity FVZ003-FY2007, Rândall ,A.
fttober2007
Eøwriclnpø
{B&
pø
{ A t\
Panux ot
the ÀA owgilia Cn øny E
Inpo
{ A t\
Pattax m
t}te
E
æwric h
AùÌù USA, Randall .{. Childs, lv1ay2007 æwgt, Randall ,{. Chlds, December
2Q06 E
æwric
2006 E
æwric hrpø
2006
t
æ*r,¡, t"Wa
M uwqnlid Ca,rty
E
wwry
Rândall
,\
Childs, December
{ A n s Panax or tlæ M owgilia Canty E øwny Randall ,A. Childs, Dece mber {
th I,lwEdHa Natioal Forct Pl¿n R""d"ll
A
Childs, nprit
20062007 Væt Virginid Cnrty Data Ptú16, Kwasi Yeboah and Randall 2006
A
ZOO6
Childs, August
ThEúwichpø{VatVi?giniaUnùmtty,Ctristiadiand RandallA Childs, 2005-2006 2005
Vat
Viryiniø C-a,øry Daa
Ml6, Kwasi Yeboah and Randall ,\
August 2005
Chlds, Augr.st
E
æwric
{ RØriÌS Rtuer, Randa[ À Childs, July 200 5
Inpa
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
æwric Inpø lvlay2004
{ t}æ Sronøt Towc C.oter m ilæ Mqwgilia eaxy E æwy, Randâll ,4. Childs,
E
2003-2004 W'øtViryinia Cnaty Daa 2003
Eæwric Cntrih.tisr
A
{
tLÊ
A
Childs, August
Cotnr Heahh SyrøninVøt Vi@niaRandall
Childs,January2003
2002-2003 W'øt Viryinia Cnaty Data
æwric Cotrihtisx
t@øtiur {Pûstial tE
Kwasi Yeboah and Randall
MatmA¡e¿ lutdirnl
2002 E
IW4
m.lVatviT
Ml4
Chris Condon and Randall
À
Childs, August
{ Pouø Plarc in l{øø.t&y, Randall A Childs, lvlay 2OO2 Ewwric Inpæ
{høihx
Bøh\ Natinal Erng Pdþ
æú
uarqic P lørnirg før E æwnic Daelqmt Bt& e a¡d H C-øatiø, Randall George W. Hammond, and Jim Fairbanh November 2001 S
E
uwric Inpø
and
lgûoFdlow
fuia,rüffrlliamS. Reece and Randall ,{- Childs, lvlay2002
'\ Childs,
{ 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
Eæwric Inpo {tlß Bafurrszille Expitim@ø,Terrell Ellis and Randall
A
Childs,
September2000 2000-2001WætViryinia
CnatyDaaIWl6,
CLris Condon and Randâll
A
Childs, August
2000
Eøwnic Inpø {lï/æt Viryfuia Unirusiry FY 1998,R^ndall Tom S. VÍ:r'r,,lv[ay L999
Euwric
lrpo
A
Childs, David Greensrreer, and
{ru Wbriø 1998,Rêrdall ,\ Childs and Tom S. !üin, lvlay t999
æwric hrpø February 1999
E
{ M anxaùwz
Raæ Tra& ard Ganirq Rø,ort F iscil
Yør
1
99
I , Randall ,{. Childs
TrardardTarismEæwniclnpø 1997lVstviryinia (anaþis onÌ¡), Randall ,A. Childs
,
and
David Greenstreet, July 1999 1999-2000 W'æt Viryinia Cnaty Daø and Randall Á" Childs,July 1999
Ilatm
Cøûty
Lab
Ml4
Chris C¡ndon, Brian
kg",
Cathleen Criswell,
Mathø Datahse, Brian Lego and Randall ..{. Childs, June 1999
\YøtViryiniaUniwsþ\ CnxributimnVïøtViryinia\ ExpotBaseFY 1998,Randâll.A" Childs, David Greenstreet, and Tom S. rü(i'rtt, lvla¡Th 1999
Rqinal Daa Wils RqtmVIII, AndySuper and Randall ,{- Childs, À4arch 1999 1998-1999
\YatViryiniaCaatyDaalfiln,Rândall,A. Childs
and Chris C-ondon, Iaruary
1999
VatVitginia Brci¡øs ûdEØwricRedeqvarious issues 1994 - 1999
Eøwric Inpø {V/VHTC} Merrhr Cnrrynis
dnd Ferdb Sqprtd Fatilitiø in North Væt Virglnia 19961997,David Greenstreet and RandyChilds, December 1998
høtmcoaty LdhrMûhøDatahse,Rândall A
Gtrdl
Childs, lvlay 1998
Pleasart CãnúyFadM, Randall,A. Childs, 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
øwric Irpa Histsric l+wffiztitt in W'st ViTginia, Randall and TomS.lX/itt, September 1997
{
E
'Rqioul Daø Pæoruc
lffIe
Hrþkrú
Rqìm VIII,
S:etge
Karalli
¿rnd
Randall
A
A
Childs, David Greensrreer,
drilds; Juþ 1997
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,
1
994- 1 99 5
Plezsam
Rândall A" Childs, August 1995
lVøt V iryinia Cnrty Daa Wilß, Randâll ,A' Chìlds, August I 994
CsûtyFaûM, RandallA Childs,
1994
1993-1994
VøtViryiniøCnatyDaa Ws,Randall ,4. Childs, August 1993
1992-1993 wæt
Qtalþ btptoørert
Vahãrg Vatø Randall
A
viryinidca'myDaa Wl*,Randall in
tlæ
a childs, Seprember
MowrytMa Natioal Forct Usag
1992
&tugvx
Vdh4arim,
Childs, Jalrnnry 1993
REtEVAi\iT GRAI{TS ANID CONTRACTS
Fb*-g
Iøèst Virginia
Ftr"*-g
Development Fund, "Economic Impact of the ìùØest Virginia Development Fund," ï24,500, 2007
Briclc.Street Insurance, "Economic Impact of
\üV Emplopn Mun¡al Insurance C-ompan¡"
$15,000,2002
\irg¡lvrginia School Building Authority, "Economic Impact of the \Øest Virginia School Building Authority FY2003-FII2007,'
$5,OOO, 2OOZ
Trans Alleghenylntentate Line Compan¡ Economic Impact of 500KV
Powerline and
fusociated IGCC Power Plants, $16,000, 2007 Bridge Ctimb IJSA' "Economic Impacr of Bridge Climb
USÀ"
$1O,OOO,2OOZ
National Instituæ of Justice, "Economic Impact of the Forensic Indusrry," $600,000, 2OO52007
Ans lvtronongahela,'Economiclmpact of Aru Patron's Spending on the Monongalia Connty Econom¡" $20,000 þrincipal investigator), 200+2006 USDAForest Service,lvtronongahela National Forest, "Economic Impact of Land and Resource lvlanagement Plan," $17,687 (co-principal investigator) ,200í-2006
land Resources Comganies, LLq "Economic Impact of Roaring River," $10,000 (coproject director, principal investigator), 2005 ]üíest Vlrginia
Division of Forestry "Economic Contributions of Wesr Virginia's Foresrs,"
$80,000 þroject director), 2005-2006
lvlanhall CountyCommission and the Ohio Valleylndustrial and Btsiness Development Corporatron, "lvlanh3ll CountyRegion: Fconomic Development and Strategic Ph;," $55,000 (co projecr director, co-principal investigator), 2OO4 Progress Alliance, "Jefferson C-ounry, Ohio ClusrerAnallais," $18,500 (co-principal
investigator) ,2003 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 Charleston A¡ea lvfedical C-orporation, "Economic Impact of investigator) ,2002
Fill $
E¿ Associates, Inc., "Economic Impact of 10,500 þrincipal investigator), 2002
CAMG"
$15,OOO
þrincipal
Kentucþ Electric Power Generation Planß,"
U.S. Envi¡onmental Protection Agenc¡ Economic Analysis of the Impacts of l\íountaintop Mining Resuictions on the Economyof 'West Vttgini", 5120,291(co-principal investigatorf 2000 Preservation Alliance of rü(i'est Vttgioi", Inc., Fleritage Tou¡ism Demonstmrion Projecg $20,000 (ceprincipal investþator), 2000
Terrell Ellis Er Associates, Economic Impact of the Bartounville Exposition Gnter, $4,500 þrincipal investigator), 2000 Sgæ o!
rü(lest Viqginia,
Joint C.ommission on Govemment and Finance, Economic Impacs of Modifying Mounaintop tvtining and ValleyFills in Vest Virginiâ, $185,000 (coprincipal investþator) ,2000 The Greenbrier Resort lvlanagement Company, An fuat)rsis of the Increased Economic C-ontributions of The Greenbrier 7999 $2A,Q00 (co-principal director),2000 President's Office, Iüf'estVirginia University, Economic Impact of $16,000 þrincipal investigator), 1998
rü(i'est
Virginia Univeniry,
President's Office, Vest Virginia Univenity,lü(/est Virginia Univeniry's C,ontribudon to West Virginia's Export Base, $12,000 þrincipal investigator) ,lggï
The Greenbrier Resort lvlanagement Compan¡ Economic Impact of The Greenbrier Resort, $6150 (coprincipal director), 1998 lvlarketVision Research Inc., Economic Impact of West $22,7 84 (co-principal investigator), 199 8
V"Bi"i" Travel
and Tourisn¡
Mountaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort, lt¿lou¡rtaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort Impact Stud¡ $8,200 þrincipal investigator), 1998
Pre¡t9n CountyEconomic Development Authoriuy, Presron Counrylabor lvlarket Study and Outlooh $S,8OO (co-principal investigatorwith George \üØ. Fbmmond), 1998 Preservation Alliance of W'est Vttgitti", Economic Impact of Füstoric Preservation in West
Vttgitti", $ 10,309 (co-principal investigator), lgg7
\üest Vi¡ginia FÍgh TechnologyConsortium For¡ndation, Economic Impact of WVFITCF ì¡Iemben and FederallySuppon Facilities, $30,608 (co-principal investigator),1997 Potomac State C.ollege, Potomac Ffuhtands Region I¿borlvlarlat Stud¡ $10,000 þrincipal invesrigator) , L997 Pleasants C.ountyDevelopment
Authorir¡ Pleasants C-ountyFactbooh
investþator) ,1997
$4,OOO
þrincipal
Governor's Office, State of Vest Virginia,'$ü'est Vi"gi"ir Business and Economic Information Spter¡ $30,000 þroject director and principal investþator), L99S SE
LE CTE D NON. CONFE RE NCE PRE SE NTATIONS/ LE CTURE S Commr¡nitf Development Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, Ilnderstanding Yor:r Regional Econom/
W
(September 2006)
W
(September 200ó)
"
CommunityDevelopment Institute " Economic Impact Anallais"
-
East (Presenær), Charleston,
2006 GovemoCs Conference on Ftrousing (Panelist), Charleston, WV (September 2006) "Condition of Ftrousing in \ü'est VLBinia"
CommunityDevelopment Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, WV (September IJndentanding Your Regional E conomy''
2OO5)
Economics, Environmenl and Education in West Vogi"i" (Presenter), Elkins, \üøV 2005) "Economic C-ontributions of \Øest Virginia's Foresrs"
(l"ly
"
Cnmmunity Development Institute "Economic Modeling"
-
East (Presenter), Charleston, I7V (Sepæmb er 2004)
local Government Iæadenhip Academy(Presenter), Morgantown,'ùøV (April 2002) "Economic Development Strategies forrü(/est Virginia: Regional Perspecrives and Breakout Sections" Numerous oth€I presglÍations of study resuhs presentrd to board of dir.ecton, ar press èonferenCèi,'iô legislaiivé commiuees, erc.
CONSUI,TING PROJECTS Economic Irypact of Liberry Gap W'rnd Power Facility (Provided testimony for the ÏØesr V"Bi"i" Public Service Commission) Condition of \)íest VuBi"i" Ftrousing byProperryTax District and Implications to Local Public Finance
Economic Impact of Flousing C-onstruction by Type of Ftrotsing for Selected C-ounties and the Staæ of W'est Vugi"i" Economic Importance of Mining and Loggrng on Counties in Southem West Virginia Various other labor marl¡et studies and economic impact studies
PROFE SSIONAL MEMBE RSHIPS National Tax Association American E conomic fu sociation Southern E conomic fu sociation Southem Regional Science Association
REFERENCES Dr. Russell S. Sobel Professor of Economics James Cla¡k CofÊnan Distinguished Chair Department of Economics West Virginia University P.O. Box 6025 Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 Offi ce Phone: (304) 293 -7 864 Email : rssobel(Omail.wvu.edu
Dr. George W. Hammond Associate Director Bureau of Business and Economic Research West Virginia University P.O. Box 6025 Morgantown, W'est Virginia 26506 Offi ce Phone: (304) 293 -7 87 6 Email : [email protected] Dr. Todd M. Nesbit Assistant Professor of Economics Sam & Irene Black School of Business Penn State - Erie, The Beh¡end College 5l0l Jordan Road Erie, Pennsylvania 16563 Office Phone: (814) 898-6326 Email: tmnl [email protected]
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA
CTIARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia.
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
I
Q. 2 A. 3
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
My name is Jeffrey H. Maymon, M.A. My business address is R. Christopher Goodwin SLAssociates,
lnc.,24I East Fourth Street, Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland 21701
4
5
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6 A. 7 A.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
8 g
Associates") as a Senior Project Manager for Archeology in the Frederick, Maryland,
I
am employed by R. Christopher Goodwin &. Associates, Inc. ("Goodwin
&.
office. i
10 a. I1
PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES AND ITS WORK IN
RELATION
i
TO CULTURAL RESOURCES.
l2A.Goodwin&Associatesisatwenty-eight-year-oldcu1tura1reSourcemanagementfirm
firm
13
with a national practice in the fuIl spectrum of the preservation disciplines. Our
14
provides comprehensive services in history, architectural history, historic
15
planning, terrestrial archeology, and underwater archeology. We mainJain offices in
16
Frederick, Maryland; New Oleans, Louisiana; Tallahassee, Florida; and Lawrence,
17
Kansas.
l8
standards established by the Secretary of the Interior in their respective f,relds.
All of our professional staff
preservation
meet or exceed the professional qualification
i :
i
Pinnacle V/ind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon PageZ of1 Case
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
2 A. 3
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
4 A.
I have more than twenty-six
5
management, including fifteen years
6
managed
7
archeological surveys
8
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, Connecticut,
9
and
l0
BACKGROUND. years
of experience in archeology and cultural
resource
of work in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
I
have
a wide range of cultural resource projects ranging from small Phase I
Maine. I hold
a
to large data recoveries in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia,
B.A. in Anthropology from the University of New Hampshire and an
M.A. in Anthropology from Binghamton University.
11
12
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
13 a. 14 A.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTMONY.
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
18
application filed in this case.
t9
The purpose of my testimony is to describe the cultural resource investigations in
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Page 3
of7
I 2
AGENCY CONSULTATION
a
PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN
&
ASSOCIATES' CONSULATIONS WTIH THE
a
J
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE AND HISTORY FOR THE WORK
4
UNDERTAKEN TO IDENTIFY ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
5
RELATING TO THE PROJECT.
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
9
historical investigations for the project. Archeological investigations were initiated in
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
13
resources anticipated occurred at this time.
t4
a.
l5
to discuss scoping architectural
and
PURSUANT TO THE CONSULTATION WITH WVSHPO, PLEASE PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN
I6 t7
A.
Pursuant to the initial consultation, a Phase I Archeological Survey was conducted within
to
all
l8
a
t9
associated
20
engineers, this survey corridor varied between 500 and 800 feet wide and extended for
2t
approximately 3.27 miles along the ridgetop.
survey corridor that was intended
encompass
ground-disturbing activities
with construction and operation of the wind farm. Defined by project
A
narrower interconnection corridor
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Case
Page 4 of 7
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
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.
A
7
total
of
in the northern portion of the project area. A
448 shovel tests were excavated
by
Goodwin &, Associates
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),
liuer. The testing was conducted
t0
exposed rock, or rock immediately beneath the leaf
ll
15 meter (50
t2
corridors, which generally followed the mountain ridge. The shovel tests each measured
13
a minimum of 50 square centimeters of soil and were excavated to a minimum depth
t4
l0
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.
I9
were screened through
at
ft) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 ft) apart along the survey
of
centimeters into culfurally sterile subsoil, except where soil conditions prevented fulI
Yo
All
excavated soils
inch hardware cloth.
20
Nine archeological sites were identified within the survey area during
2t
investigations. Five of the sites (designated as sites 46Mi76, 46M177, 46M178, 46M179,
these
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
4
stones, confirming that
5
46Mí82) represent remains of possible historic stills in a wooded area north of Green
6
Mountain Road. These sites are charactenzed by a circular feature constructed by
7
removing natural stone from a central area and stacking
8
One site (46Mi75) consists of a single isolated chert flake and was likely the byproduct
9
shaping or sharpening a stone tool.
markers. The characters "COR No 21 NC Co" were carved into one of these
it represented a survey marker. Two other sites (46Mi81,
it to form a low circular wall. 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
13
cluster of rock cairns/walls is located in one of the few locations along the ridge where a
t4
plowzone was observed
15
suggested that these cairns/walls were the result of
t6
early twentieth century. These sites do not appear to possess either substantive research
ti
potential or those qualities of significance as defined by the National Register Criterial.
l8
No further work was recommended at any of the nine sites.
eastern margin
of the ridge, this
in soil profiles. The thicker soil deposits and plowzone field clearing during the nineteenth or
t9
I The criteria for evaluating properties for the National Register are found in the Code of Federal CFR 60.4 [a-d].
Regulations at 36
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Case
Page 6
of7
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND STUDY
1
2a
DID GOODWIN
J
IDENTIFY KNOWN ARCTIAEOLOGICAL SITES NEAR THE PROJECT AREA
4
THAT ARE BEYOND THE DIRECT AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ("APE'')?
5
A.
&
ASSOCIATES CONDUCT BACKGROUND RESEARCH TO
Goodwin &, Associates conducted background research as part
of the Phase I
6
Archeological Survey for the Project. This background research compiled information on
7
known archeological sites and historic properties that, while not within the Project APE,
8
are located within 5 miles of the Project
9
2008 and included examination of site files at the Division of Culture and History in
to
corridor. The research was conducted in
June
l0
Charleston, West Virginia,
ll
examine archeological studies conducted within the 5 miles of the Project area. None
t2
the 21 archeological sites recorded
l3
for or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
t4
a.
l5 T6
document previously recorded archeological sites and
of
within the 5-mile area were determined to be eligible
HAVE YOU PROVIDED THE RESULTS OF THE PHASE
I ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY TO WVSHPO?
A.
Yes:
The
background - research;- methods, and
-results of '.the - Phase-- I
t7
Archaeological Survey, along
recorlmendations
of
Goodwin
l8
Associates, are contained in a draft Phase I Archeological Survey
for
the Proposed
t9
Pinnacle Wind Project, Mineral County, West Vìrginia ("Archeological Survey
20
Report") that was submitted to the WVSHPO on March 11,2009.
with the
A
&,
redacted
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon PageT of7
I
version of the Archeological Survey Report is included in Appendix
2
application filed in this case.
3 Q. 4 A.
HAS WVSHPO RESPONDED TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT?
No. To date, Goodwin &
5
Archeological Survey Report from the WVSHPO.
6 a. 7 A.
DOES THrS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? Yes, it does.
"Y" to the
Associates has not received any formal response
to
the
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CIIARLESTON
Case
No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of an Electric Wholesale Generating Facility and Related Transmission Support Line of Less than 200 kV and Associated Interconnection Facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia
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
I of 10
Q. 2 A.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
3
Associates,
My name is Kathryn M. Kuranda. My business address is R. Christopher Goodwin & Inc.,Z4l E. 4th Street, Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland
21701.
4
5
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6 Q. 7 A.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
8
Associates") as Senior Vice President for Architectural & Historical Services.
9 Q. 10 I
I
A.
I
am employed with R. Christopher Goodwin
PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN
&
&
Associates, Inc. ("Goodwin &
ASSOCIATES, INC., AND ITS WORK IN
RELATION TO CULTURAL RESOURCES. Goodwin
&
Associates is a twenty-eight-year-old cultural resources management firm
12
with a national practice in the firll spectrum of the preservation disciplines. Our firm
13
provides comprehensive services in history, architectural history, historic preservation
14
planning, terrestrial archeology, and underwater archeology. We maintain offices in
15
Frederick, Maryland; New Orleans, Louisiana; Tallahassee, Florida; and Lawrence,
l7
standards established by the Secretary of the Interior in their respective fields.
18
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
l9
20 A. 2I
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
BACKGROI.IND.
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 2
I
A.
of
I
10
hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in American Studies from Dickinson College and
a
Master of Architectural History degree from the University of Virginia. My professional
2
qualifications exceed those established by the Secretary of the Interior in the field of architectural history.
4
I am a court-qualified architectural historian.
Prior to joining Goodwin
5
&
Associates
in 1989, I
served as the architectural
I coordinated the
6
historian with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, where
7
state's program for built resources, and as Architectural Historian with the Bureau
8
Reclamation at their headquarters office in Denver. Since joining Goodwin
9
as a Senior Project
of
& Associates
Manager in 1989, I have served as Principal Investigator on numerous
10
architectural identification, evaluation, planning, and management projects across the
11
nation. I currently direct the architectural history and history programs of Goodwin &
12
Associates company-wide.
13
t4
PURPOSE OF
TESTMO}ry
l5
a.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTMONY.
16
A.
The purpose of my testimony is to describe the cultural resource investigations in history
17
and architectural hisiory completeJ UV à""¿*io
18
Wind Force, LLC ("Pinnacle Wind Force") in Mineral County, West Virginia.
t9
A errociates on U"t um of piooacte
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 3
of
10
1
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
2 Q. 3
WERE ANY FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCIES CONSULTED CONCERNING THE
4
RESOURCES? IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN.
5 A.
Yes.
6
("WVSHPO") was initiated in February 2008. Representatives of Pinnacle Wind Force
I
and Goodwin
8
Preservation Officer, and Ms. Ginger Williford, Structural Historian, on 13 February
9
2008 to discuss project scope, methodologies, and reporting.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE WORK DONE TO IDENTIFY CULTURAL
Consultation
&
with the West Virginia Division of Cultural and
Associates met
History
with Ms. Susan Pierce, Deputy State Historic
A
summary
of
this
t0
discussion was submitted
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
t3
coordination was maintained with the WVSHPO throughout the investigation.
t4 a. 15
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SCOPE OF WORK PROPOSED
16 A.
The Scope of Work defined a two-phase investigation. Phase I included five tasks:
17
1.
WVSHPO
for review on 20
February
By
2008.
GOODWIN &
Refine Area of Potential Effects ("APE") through computer modeling and field verification;
2.
Develop the historic context appropriate to the assessment of built resources within the APE;
21
In
ASSOCIATES TO WVSHPO.
r8
19
to
3.
lnitiate public outreach to identiff resources of importance to the community;
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 4
of
10
4.
1
Complete reconnaissance-level survey of all resources rel="nofollow">50 yr of age within the APE; and
2
5.
J
Identify resources requiring further investigation, including intensive-level
4
survey.
5
The APE for the proposed Pinnacle wind power project ("Project") was defined to
effects. The area of direct effects was defined as the
6
address both direct and indirect
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
l1
modeling and verified in the field.
l2
a.
THIS EFFORT?
l3 14
WHAT KINDS OF RESEARCH DID GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES UNDERTAKE IN
A.
Archival research was undertaken to identify previously recorded historic properties and
15
to develop the historic context appropriate to the assessment of previously unidentified
t6
resources
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
20
include coal, timber, railroad, settlement, transportation, and education.
within the refined APE. Archival research was completed at the Keyser-
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 historical concern from the general public. Reconnaissance-level architectural survey to locate and to identifu built resources
older than 50 years was completed for both the areas of direct and indirect effects. Three 5
objectives were established for the field investigation:
6
1.
the Project area;
7
2.
8
3.
l0
a.
a
view of the proposed tower locations; and,
To identiff resources requiring Phase II investigation to determine Project effects.
PLEASE REVIEW THE RESULTS
OF THE PHASE I AND PHASE II
INVESTIGATIONS.
t2 13
To complete reconnaissance-level survey of all resources 50 years of age or older
within the APE with
9
11
To veriff and to refine the areas likely to be in the viewshed within five miles of
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
l5
were presented in a detailed technical report, Pinnacle Wind Project Phase
I Investigation
t6
for Architectural and Structural
t7
review and comment on23 June 2008. The 'WVSHPO concurred with the findings of the
l8
Phase
t9
Resources,
investigation
which was submitted the WVSHPO for
I investigation in correspondence dated 3 July 2008. The Phase
II investigations included intensive-level field survey, evaluation,
of the Project.
and
20
effects determinations for 21 properties that may have views
21
properties include 17 buildings,
22
Property lnventory Forms with accompanying graphic and photographic materials were
I
These
district, and 3 cemeteries. West Virginia Historic
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 6
of
10
righrof-
I
prepared for each of the resources; all survey data was compiled from the public
2
way. The integrity of
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.
7
Phase
II
each property was assessed, and individual resources and districts
investigations were
initially
recommended
for 26
properties.
8
Modifications to the Project led to the reduction of the APE in consultation with the
9
WVSHPO. As a result, Phase II investigations were undertaken for
l0 1l
including 17 buildings,
1
2t
properties,
district, and 3 cemeteries.
The investigation identified a total
of
18 properties that meet the National
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
t7
for National Register consideratioo
l8
completed
t9
Inventory forms ("HPI").
20
for
B.
The remaining properties possess the significance and integrity
*¿r,
Criterion
each resource and was included
C. A staternent of significance
was
in West Virginia Historic Properfy
Three cemeteries also were documented under Phase
II investigation. Although
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
II
documentation submitted to WVSHPO.
All HPI forms
and accompanying
I
the Phase
2
graphic and photographic documentation were submitted to the WVSHPO as part of the
J
Phase tr technical report.
4
a.
HOTV WERE EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES DETERMINED?
5
A.
Following guidance provided
in 36 CFR
800.5, analysis was completed to identifii
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
11
property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. It
t2
was determined that the Project
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
15
investigation. Unrelated contemporary construction already is present within
t6
viewsheds of eight of these properties, and therefore a visual impact already exists at
1.7
these properties.
18
a.
have no direct effect on properties listed in, or
the
WHEN DID YOU PROVIDE THE PHASE II INVESTIGATION REPORT TO TVVSHPO, AND WHAT WAS ITS RESPONSE?
t9 20
will
A.
The Phase tr lnvestigation for Architectural and Structural Resources was submitted to
2l
WVSHPO 26 February 2009 during a consultation meeting with representatives of
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 historic resources were included with the Phase II submission.
A
12 March 2009 review letter from WVSHPO regarding the Phase II
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
t2
result
13
contemporary development already within the viewshed. Indirect effects to 10 additional
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
t7
identified and docurneoi.¿
18
in a cumulative
indirect effect
*
u
r"r.rfiof
the
to
those resources when combined with
".rrr"niinvestigation.
WVSHPO also requested that the acoustical study of the Project be submitted to
t9
their off,rce for review to address possible effects to historic property from
20
generated
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
noise
by the Project. An electronic version of the Acoustical Study of Proposed
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
listed in the National Register of Historic Places."
WVSHPO recommended that the identified effects be mitigated through stipulations defined
in a Memorandum of
Agreement ("MOA") negotiated among
Pinnacle Wind Force and the WVSHPO. These negotiations had been initiated during
meeting. This MOA will define measures to mitigate the
adverse
8
the 26 February 2009
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
12
fulfill requirements for architectural and historical
r3
particular $ 82-2-5: State Review Process.
resources pursuant
to 82 CSR 2, in
t4
a.
ARE ANY RESOURCES WITHIN THE APE LISTED IN THE NRHP?
15
A.
Review of the National Register filed maintained by the WVSHPO identified ¡wo
of Historic
t6
properties within the APE that are listed in the National Register
t7
These are the Mineral County Courthouse, listed in 2005, and the Thomas R. Carskadon
18
House, which was designated
t9
architectural investigations as part of the Keyser historic district.
20 a.
SECTION 15 OF THE PSC APPLICATION STATES THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE
21
FILING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY, THE PROJECT LAYOUT WAS
in 2002. These properties
were included
Places.
in
the
MODIFIED, THEREBY REDUCING THE APE. HOW HAS THIS MODIFICATION
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 10
of
10
AFFECTED THE CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED
IN THE ARCHITECTURAL
2
SURVEY?
3 A.
Analysis of the modified layout and photo simulations of the tower turbine anay in
4
September 2008 refined the APE for Phase
5
from further study. While these properties will not have views to the Project and are
6 j
outside the APE, West Virginia Historic Property Inventory Forms were prepared and
s 9
II investigation and eliminated five properties
ftled with the WVSHPO to archive data collected prior to the Project modif,rcation.
The modifications to the Project layout were addressed in the Phase
II technical
report submitted to the WVSHPO on 26 February 2009. The WVSHPO concurred with
l0
the results of our reanalysis in correspondence dated 12 March 2009.
11 a. 12 A.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY? Yes, it does.
Related Documents
Wv Psc October 27 2009
June 2020 6
Tuesday October 27, 2009
June 2020 9
27 October 2009
June 2020 6
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
June 2020 7
October 27, 2009
June 2020 8