J ATTORNEYS AT LAW\ PLLC 1600 LAIDLEYTOWER EO.BOX 553 CHARLESTON,WESTVIRGINIA 25322 *TELEPHONE 304-340-1000 *TELECOPIER: 304-340-1 I30 wJacksonkelkcorn DIRECT TELEPHONE: (304) 340-1214 DIRECT TELECOPIER (304) 340-1080 E-Mail: snchambersldiacksonkellv.com State Bar No. 694
May 26,2009
Via Hand Delivery
Ms. Sandra Squire Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301
Re: 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.
Dear Ms. Squire:
Enclosed for filing on behalf of Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC in the above-styled case are an original and twelve copies of Direct Testimony of the following:
1. James D. Barnes 2. Randall A. Childs 3. Terrence J. DeWan 4. David Friend 5. Paul Kerlinger 6. Kathryn M. Kuranda 7. William E. Llewellyn 8. Jeffrey H. Maymon 9. Mike Sponsler 10. Karen Tyrell, Ph.D.
{C1547103.1} Clarksburg, WV Martinsburg, WV Morgantown, WV Wheeling, WV Denver, CO Lexington, KY Pittsburgh, PA Washington, D.C. Ms. Sandra Squire May 26,2009 Page 2
Please advise if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
SNC/dmb Enclosures cc: John R. Auville, Esq. (w/enc.) Bradley W. Stephens, Esq. (wlenc.) Vincent Trivelli, Esq. (w/enc.) James M. Cookman (w/enc.) David K. Friend (w/enc.) Jennie Henthorn (w/enc.)
{C 1453 103.1}
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
JAMES D. BARNES
May 26,2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 1 of 16
1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. 2 A. James D. Barnes. My business address is 33 Moulton Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.
3
4 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5 Q. 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 address
8 community sound associated with industrial, energy, institutional, and transportation
9 facilities. My firm has been retained by Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC (“Pinnacle Wind
10 Force”) to perform and prepare an acoustical study of the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm
11 at New Page ((‘Project”).
12 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE ACENTECH AND ITS WORK IN RELATION TO NOISE
13 ISSUES AND STUDIES.
14 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
16 acoustical consultants, audiovisual consultants, noise and vibration consultants, and IT
17 consultants. For environmental sound studies, Acentech consultants apply experience,
18 technical expertise, current computer modeling techniques, and measurement procedures
19 to assess conditions and to develop design recommendations.
20 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 2 of 16
1 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
2 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
3 BACKGROUND.
4 A. My educational and professional qualifications that relate to providing this testimony are
5 set forth on Exhibit JDB-1. I have over 35 years of experience relating to the study of
6 sound, which has encompassed interior and community noise studies for existing sources,
7 prediction of construction and operation noise levels, and ambient sound studies for
8 proposed industrial sites and transportation corridors. During this time, I have worked
9 with design team engineers, architects and planners, attorneys, equipment suppliers,
10 owners, community representatives, private citizens, and state and local government
11 personnel. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree and a Masters of Engineering degree
12 from Cornel1 University, am a registered Professional Engineer in multiple states, and
13 currently co-teach the Fundamentals Exam Preparation Course for the Institute of Noise
14 Control Engineering.
15 Q. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE
16 COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
17 A. Yes. I have testified before the Commission in the hearings on the Beech Ridge Energy
18 project in 2006 and the Liberty Gap Wind Force project in 2007. In addition, I have
19 presented testimony in hearings before the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board,
20 the New Hampshire Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee, and at local town and
21 planning board meetings.
22 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 3 of 16
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY.
A. The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor the study prepared under my direction by
Acentech entitled “Acoustical Study of Proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County,
W’(“Acoustical Report”), a copy of which has been submitted to the Commission as
Appendix U to the Siting Certificate Application.
THE PINNACLE ACOUSTICAL REPORT
9 Q. PLEASE PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACOUSTICAL REPORT.
10 A. In its Siting Rules, the Commission has adopted requirements for the study of sound to
11 aid its review of proposed electric generating facilities, including wind farm projects.
12 The Acoustical Report responded to the Siting Rules by developing information about the
13 existing land uses, noise-sensitive receptors, and ambient sound levels in the community;
14 and developing sound level estimates for the construction and operation phases of the
15 Project. Acentech reviewed the facility and site drawings, and equipment information;
16 toured the Project area; conducted sound measurements and observations of the existing
17 ambient conditions at representative community locations; and estimated construction
18 and operation sound levels for the facility. The Acoustical Report summarizes our
19 analysis and presents the pertinent results of the acoustical study. I performed or directly
20 supervised all work tasks in this study. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 4 of 16
Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW NOISE IS MEASURED BY DECIBELS AND PROVIDE
SOME TYPICAL SOUND LEVEL COMPARISONS.
A. The magnitude, or loudness, of sound waves (pressure oscillations) is described
quantitatively by the terms sound pressure level, sound level, or simply noise level. The
5 magnitude of a sound is measured in decibels, abbreviated dB. Decibels are used to
6 quantify sound pressure levels just as degrees are used to quanti@ temperature and inches
7 are used to quantify distance. Since the decibel is a logarithmic rather than linear
8 quantity, adding two sound levels of 50 dB each results in a total sound level of 53 dB
9 rather than 100 dB. The faintest sound level that can be heard by a young healthy ear is
10 about 0 dB, a moderate sound level is about 50 dB, and a loud sound level is about 100
11 dB.
12 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
14 of time. As a first step toward simplifylng this multi-dimensional description, it has
15 become common practice to eliminate the frequency variable by measuring the A-
16 weighted sound level (dBA) as observed on a standard sound level meter. The A-
17 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
19 human ear. A-weighted sound levels correlate well with our perception of most sounds.
20 Examples of common sound levels include:
21 0 truck passby at 100 feet - 80 dBA;
22 0 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
~~ ~~
1 0 average speech - 60 dBA;
2 0 private and open offices - 40 to 50 dBA; and
3 0 calm, quiet suburban nighttime and daytime periods - 35 to 45 dBA.
4 Q. THE ACOUSTICAL STUDY REFERENCES “LEQ” AND “LDN” SOUND LEVELS. 5 PLEASE DESCRIBE WHAT THE LEQ AND LDN SOUND LEVELS REPRESENT.
6 A. The equivalent sound level (Leq) is the level of steady-state sound that has the same
7 (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of interest, taken over a specified time
8 period. Thus, the equivalent sound level is a single-valued level that expresses the time-
9 averaged total energy of the entire ambient sound energy. It includes both the high-level
10 single event sounds (e.g., bird chirps, dog barks, or local car passbys) and the relatively
11 steady background sounds (distant traffic or steady wind in the trees). The day-night
12 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
14 dBA to the nighttime sound levels accounts for people’s expectations that the nighttime
15 should be a quiet period. Both the equivalent sound level (Leq) and the day-night sound
16 level (Ldn) have been selected by the US Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”)
17 as the best descriptors to use for the purpose of identifying and evaluating levels of
18 environmental noise. The Siting Rules require that Ldn sound levels be provided for
19 existing ambient conditions and projected Ldn sound levels be submitted for construction
20 and operation phases.
21 Q. HAS THE USEPA IDENTIFIED A GUIDELINE LDN SOUND LEVEL THAT IS 22 PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALTH AND WELFARE? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 6 of 16
~ ~~
1 A. Yes. USEPA has identified a guideline Ldn level of 55 dBA as protective of the health
2 and welfare of humans for outdoor residential areas and farms and other outdoor areas
3 where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a
4 basis for use. This recommended level, which includes a margin of safety, was
5 developed without regard for technical or economic feasibility. (United States
6 Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
7 Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA
8 550/9-74-004, March 1974, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C.)
9 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has also adopted an Ldn level of
10 55 dBA as its criterion during review of proposed projects (Part 157, Chapter I, Title 18,
11 Code of Federal Regulations).
12 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATIONS YOU MADE AND THE
13 METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE ACOUSTICAL REPORT.
14 A. We reviewed the facility and site drawings, equipment information, and the Siting Rules;
15 toured the Project area; conducted sound measurements and observations of the existing
16 ambient conditions at representative community locations; and estimated construction
17 and operation sound levels for the facility. We conducted the ambient sound monitoring
18 program during the period of 28 November to 11 December 2007. We then developed
19 the facility construction and operation sound estimates with methods in the ESEERCO
20 Power Plant Construction Noise Guide and with CadndA, a commercial software
21 package that is used widely for environmental sound modeling projects. CadndA has
22 been used in numerous other wind turbine noise studies, including the Beech Ridge, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 7 of 16
1 Laurel Mountain, and New Creek applications that have been reviewed by the
2 Commission. Finally, we summarized the ambient sound measurements and the pertinent
3 results of this acoustical study in the Acoustical Report.
4
5 THE AMBIENT SOUND MONITORING PROGRAM
6 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROCESS USED TO SELECT THE MONITORING
7 LOCATIONS FOR THE AMBIENT SOUND MONITORING PROGRAM.
8 A. The purpose of the monitoring program is to characterize the existing ambient sound
9 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
11 uses and sound sources in an area. We reviewed maps, aerial photographs, and initial
12 turbine layout plans; toured the project site and nearby community areas; and then
13 identified candidate monitoring locations that would be representative of the noise-
14 sensitive areas (all residences, in this case) in the vicinity of the Project site. The actual
15 location for each long-term monitor was then selected to allow for relative security of the
16 equipment. Long-term ambient sound monitoring was conducted at the following five
17 community locations:
18 0 Location 1 - wooded area in the vicinity homes to the south of the existing Beryl
19 Electrical Substation, east of open fields, and west of the Project site.
20 Location 2 - residential yard adjacent to a pond and in the vicinity of a cluster of
21 homes to the west of the Project site.
22 0 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
-~ ~ ~~~~~
1 0 Location 4 - wooded area near two homes to the east of the Project site.
2 0 Location 5 - residential yard near two homes to the east of the Project site.
3 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE AMBIENT SOUND LEVELS PRESENT IN LOCATIONS
4 NEAR THE PROJECT SITE.
5 A. The measured long-term Ldn sound levels ranged from 49 dBA to 63 dBA, with an
6 average value of 54 dBA and a standard deviation of 5.5 dBA across the five monitoring
7 locations. The measured hourly and daily sound levels varied widely at each location,
8 with individual 24-hr Ldn sound levels that ranged from 41 to 72 dBA across Locations 1
9 and 3 and from 39 dBA to 56 dBA across Locations 4 and 5. The wind direction was
10 typically from the west during the ambient sound survey. Therefore, the winds and
11 associated sound levels due to wind in the trees in the vicinity of Locations 1 and 3 on the
12 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
14 sound levels of 55 dBA around the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the southwest of
15 the Project and 49 to 50 dBA around the nearest receptors to the northeast of the Project.
16 Q. DOES THE STUDY AREA INCLUDE ANY DOMINANT SOUND SOURCE?
17 A. No. The measured Ldn values and the observed mix of sound source types and land uses
18 indicate that the study area contains no dominant sound sources, for example, a factory or
19 a well-traveled Interstate highway. Although the sound levels in the community varied
20 daily depending on weather conditions (e.g., wind speed) and other local conditions, the
21 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 Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 9 of 16
2
3 ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU USED IN PREPARING THE
5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ESTIMATES.
6 A. We assumed that construction of the Project will start in early spring and continue into
7 late fall. The initial activities (Phase I) will include improvements and new construction
8 of the facility access road; and then clearing, excavation, foundation, and backfill work at
9 the turbines and the substation. Concrete for the Project will be made at temporary on-
10 site batch plants using trucked-in materials or will be directly trucked-in from an offsite
11 plant. Phase I1 will include erection of the turbine towers and installation of the turbines;
12 trenching and installation of the electrical collection system; and installation of substation
13 equipment. Prior to commercial operation, the individual equipment items and the entire
14 facility will be tested and commissioned in Phase 111. The Acoustical Report lists the
15 representative construction equipment for each phase with their associated individual
16 sound level estimates (Table 4 in the Acoustical Report), and it displays the Ldn sound
17 level contours (Figure 16 in the Acoustical Report) for the simulated worst case of Phase
18 I construction occurring simultaneously at each turbine location. We also assumed that
19 the majority of construction activities will be conducted during 10-hour daytime shifts
and that any construction in the evening and nighttime periods will be limited to
21 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 Construction Noise Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 10 of 16
1 Guide. The sound contours on Figure 16 of the Acoustical Report, which were calculated
2 with the CadndA program, represent Ldn sound levels, as required by the Siting Rules.
3 Q. WILL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT NOISE
4 IMPACT FOR THE AREAS SURROUNDING PROJECT SITE?
5 A. The construction activity at the site will be temporary, will occur mostly in the daytime
6 hours, and will produce sounds that are already familiar to the community, including
7 sounds from home construction. Although construction activity will be audible to nearby
8 residents at times over the planned construction schedule, its overall noise impact on the
9 community beyond 1000 ft. of the nearest turbine is not expected to be significant. 10
11 ANTICIPATED OPERATIONAL NOISE
12 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU USED IN PREPARING THE
13 OPERATION NOISE ESTIMATES.
14 A. For purposes of the Acoustical Study, we used the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)
15 Model MWT95/2.4 turbine. We assumed that all 23 turbines were operating with a hub-
16 height wind speed of 10.9 m/s (24 mph), the wind condition that produces the greatest
17 sound by this turbine model. The CadndA program model accounts for spreading losses,
18 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 CadndA model were
21 based on octave-frequency-band sound pressure levels, downwind conditions with a
22 moderate temperature inversion, and an absorptive ground effect. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 1 1 of 16
1 Q. WHAT NOISE LEVELS ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR FROM PROJECT 2 OPERATION AT THE NEAREST COMMUNITY RESIDENCES?
3 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 and 7 of the Report and contours on Figures 17 to
5 19 of the Report were calculated with the CadndA 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 output from all 23 wind turbines, the
8 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
11 estimated operation Ldn sound levels vary fi-om 46 dBA to 52 dBA with one residence at
12 54 dBA; and at the closest few residences to the northeast of the Project near Locations 4
13 and 5, the estimated 24-hr Ldn sound levels for operation are 52,52, 55, 55, and 56 dBA.
14 Under conditions of wind speeds lower and greater than 10.9 m/s (24 mph), the turbine
15 sound emissions will be less than the maximum level. For example, the predicted Ldn
16 sounds levels for each turbine, and for the entire Project, will be reduced by 1 dBA at
17 12.3 m/s (28 mph), 2 dBA at 13.7 m/s (31 mph), and 3 dBA at 8.2 m/s (18 mph); and will
18 be reduced by more during times with even less wind, including the times below the
19 minimum cut-off wind speed when the turbines do not operate.
20 Q. HOW DO THE SOUND LEVELS THAT WILL OCCUR FROM PROJECT
21 OPERATION COMPARE TO THE EXISTING AMBIENT SOUND LEVELS AT THE
22 RECEPTORS? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 12 of 16
1 A. The estimated average Ldn sound levels due to routine operation of the Project are equal
2 to or lower than the measured existing ambient Ldn sound levels at noise-sensitive
3 locations to the west of turbines. Although the estimated Project average day-night sound
4 levels are greater than the measured 12-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 Q- WHAT NOISE IMPACT WILL THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT HAVE ON 8 AREAS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT?
9 A. It is anticipated that the turbine sound will be heard at times at the nearest residences.
10 The scenario in which the Project will most likely be heard is during times when the
11 turbines operate, wind conditions favor sound propagation, and local ambient sound
12 levels are low. It is important to remember, however, that although the turbines will be
13 heard at times at the nearest residences, except for one residence where the estimated Ldn
14 sound level is 56l dBA, the estimated Ldn sound levels in this area are all equal to or less
15 than 55 dBA, the guideline level identified by the USEPA as protective of the health and
16 welfare of humans for outdoor recreational areas.
17 In addition to the fact that the expected long-term sound levels for the Project are
18 (in all but one instance) equal to or below the USEPA guideline level for rural areas,
19 several other factors indicate that the actual sound, when heard, will be below the USEPA
20 guideline. First, the model includes the conservative assumptions that all turbines would
' 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
1 be operating at the maximum sound output wind speed condition of 10.9 m/s (24 mph),
2 with downwind conditions in all directions and a moderate temperature inversion.
3 For those times when the receptors are upwind or crosswind of the nearest
4 turbines or when hub-height winds are less or greater than 10.9 m/s (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 dBA or more with the windows closed.
9 Second, the nearest residences include those to the southwest of the Project near
10 Location 2 and to the northeast of the Project near Locations 5 and 6. I understand that
11 wind data collected by the Project indicate a predominant wind direction from west to
12 east. This wind condition will significantly mitigate impacts at the upwind residences to
13 the southwest of the Project. For the nearest residences to the northeast of the Project
14 (and the most affected residences), I understand that Pinnacle has entered into agreements
15 for them to participate in the Project. In particular, Pinnacle has entered into an
16 agreement with the owners of the residence where the estimated Ldn sound level is 56
17 dBA.
18 Q. WHAT DESIGNKONTROL MEASURES ARE INCORPORATED INTO WIND
19 TURBINES TO MITIGATE NOISE, AND HOW HAVE DESIGN CHANGES IN
20 MODERN TURBINES CHANGED THE SOUND OUTPUT FROM EARLIER
21 DESIGNS? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 14 of 16
1 A. Modern 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, Le., the turbine rotor blades are positioned to be
5 upwind of the support tower during operation. Some earlier wind turbine designs that
6 used downwind rotors (rotors downwind of the support tower) produced higher levels of
7 low frequency sound. When low frequency sound is substantially greater than the
8 background ambient sound, it may be noticed in the community and can cause
9 annoyance. The most significant concern of low frequency sound is that it can induce
10 vibration in a building structure, which may result in rattling china or moving mirrors and
11 windows. Fortunately, modern wind turbines incorporate the upwind rotor design so that
12 low frequency sound is not an issue.
13 We also note that the MHI Model MWT95/2.4 unit incorporates noise control
14 treatments into the design of its various components, including the rotor blades, gearbox,
15 and generator. Under conditions of reduced wind speeds, the background sound
16 associated with wind in trees will be less; however, the turbine sound emissions will also
17 be less. In addition, the Project will install high-efficiency, reduced-noise transformers,
18 including the main facility transformer.
19 Q. YOU STATED THAT MODERN WIND TURBINE DESIGN HAS ELIMINATED 20 THE LOW FREQUENCY NOISE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLDER WIND
21 TURBINES. NONETHELESS, DID YOU INVESTIGATE THE DEGREE OF LOW
22 FREQUENCY NOISE EXPECTED FROM THE PROJECT? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 15 of 16
1 A. Although the Siting Rules do not specifically address low frequency sound, we did
2 provide an analysis of low frequency sound in the Acoustical Report. The C-weighting
3 filter slightly de-emphasizes the low and high frequencies relative to the mid frequency
4 components of sound, which results in less de-emphasis of low frequency sound than
5 with the A-weighting filter. By comparing the C-weighted sound level with an A-
6 weighted sound level (i.e., dBC vs. dBA), one can determine the low frequency
7 component of the sound. We measured the C-weighted Ldn sound levels at the
8 community locations during the ambient sound monitoring program and estimated the C-
9 weighted Ldn sound levels for facility operation at the five locations. Table 6 in the
10 Report compares the measured ambient and the estimated facility operation levels. The
11 results indicate that the long-term C-weighted Ldn sound levels of the facility will be less
12 than the existing ambient C-weighted Ldn levels at both outdoor and indoor locations in
13 the community at the distant locations to the west of the turbines. At the closest locations
14 to the east of the facility, the estimated C-weighted Ldn sound levels are greater than the
15 measured ambient levels, although they are less than the upper limit of 75 to 80 dBC that
16 is recommended in ANSYASME Standard B133.8-1977 (R2001) for another type of
17 power facility.2
18
19 CONCLUSION
20 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS FOR THE COMMISSION?
2 I 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 ANWASME Standard B 133.8-1977 (Wool) for another type of power facility.” (emphasis added). The sentence should have referenced 75 to 80 dBC. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of James D. Barnes Page 16 of 16
1 A. Yes. The estimated facility average Ldn sound levels are all within the range of the daily
2 ambient Ldn values that were measured in the area. The findings of our noise study
3 indicate that the Project will produce sound levels that are equal to or lower than the
4 USEPA guideline level of 55 dBA at all but one of the noise-sensitive receptors in the
5 Project area. At times when the receptors are upwind or crosswind of the nearest turbines
6 or when the hub-height winds are less than or greater than 10.9 m/s (24 mph), the turbine
7 sound levels will be reduced, including the relatively calm times when the turbines do not
8 operat e.
9 Sounds from Project construction will be temporary, will occur mostly in the
10 daytime hours, and will be similar to those of other activities, such as home construction.
11 As a result, the overall noise impact from construction is not expected to be significant in
12 the community.
13 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?
14 A. Yes. Staff Resume
JAMES D. BARNES Supervisory Consultant
EDUCATION
M. Eng., Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University, 1973 B .S., Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University, 1972 Additional Graduate Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
Acentech Incorporated, Cambridge, MA 1989-present Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA 1973-1989 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1972-1973 Johnson Controls, Indianapolis, IN, 1972
HONORS AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
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 workplace noise problems. Over the past thirty years, he has managed and technically supervised hundreds of projects covering the energy, transportation, manufacturing, and processing markets. His projects have encompassed interior and community noise and vibration control studies for existing sources, prediction of construction and operation noise levels, and ambient sound studies for proposed industrial sites and transportation corridors. To fulfill the requirements of these projects, Mr. Barnes 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. Wood, Noise-Con2007, Reno, NV (October 2007) and Noise-Con2008, Dearborn, MI (July 2008).
“A Variety of Wind Turbine Noise Regulations in the United States - 2007,” paper with R. Gomez, presented at Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise 2007 in Lyon, France (September 2007).
“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).
1 James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
“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 2005 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 143rd meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Pittsburgh, PA (June 2002).
“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 Park, committee appointed by HMMH, National Park Service, and FAA (1999-2000).
“Exhaust Silencer Upgrade for ID Fan System at 500 MW 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 EEUAcentech Noise Workshop for Electric Power Industry, Toronto, Ontario (July 1993).
“Cogeneration Plant Noise Monitoring,” talk presented at EEUAcentech 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 1991).
“Effects of Track Fixation on Groundborne Noise of Train Passage,” talk presented at the 121st 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 EEUBBN Noise Workshop for Electric Power Industry, Cambridge, MA (July 1986).
“Electric Motor Noise Control over the Past Ten Years,” paper presented at INTER-NOISE ‘82, San
2 James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
Francisco, CA (May 1982).
“Non-Acoustical Considerations in Noise Control Design,” talk presented at NOISEXPO 80, Rosemont, IL (April 1980).
“A Method for the Detailed Assessment of Aircraft Exhaust Emissions,” paper presented at the A.P.C.A. Northeast Atlantic International Section Technical Meeting, Wakefield, MA (April 1978).
“Measurement of the Varying Noise Level from Power Plant Construction Sites,” paper 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 1974).
SPONSORED TECHNICAL REPORTS
“Acoustical Study of Proposed Dans Mountain Wind Farm - Allegany County, MD,” Acentech Report No. 387 (April 2008).
“Acoustical Study of Proposed Reconstruction of Route 128 Interchange #19 - Beverly, MA,” Acentech Report No. 386 (November 2007).
“Acoustical Study of Proposed Mill Maximum Achievable Control Technology Project - Easton, ME,” Acentech Report No. 383 (March 2007).
“Community Noise Evaluation NEA Bellingham Cogeneration Power Plant - Bellingham, MA,” Acentech Report No. 385 (February 2007).
“Acoustical Study of Proposed Moresville Energy Center (Wind Farm) - Stamford, NY,” Acentech Report No. 384 (June 2006).
“Acoustical Study of Proposed High Sheldon Wind Farm - Sheldon, NY,” Acentech Report No. 377 (May 2006).
“Acoustical Study of Proposed Beech Ridge Wind Farm - Greenbrier County, WV,” Acentech Report No. 359R (May 2006).
“Acoustical Study of Proposed Liberty Gap Wind Farm - Pendleton County, WV,” Acentech Report No. 376 (April 2006).
“Acoustical Study of Proposed NSTAR Colburn Street Station No. 350 in Boston, MA,” Technical Memorandum No. 0055 (May 2004).
“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 2003).
“Sound Compliance Measurements on Phases I and 2 ODEC Peaker Power Plant in Rock Springs, MD,” (July 2003).
3 James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
“Sound Study of Planned Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements at Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District Plant in Millbury, MA,” Technical Memorandum No. 0053 (March 2003).
“Sound Level Measurements at Transformer Station No. 247 in Walpole, MA,” Technical Memorandum No. 0052 (August 2002).
“Sound Level Measurements at Transformer Station No. 240 in Framingham, MA,” Technical Memorandum No. 005 1 (July 2002).
“Noise Assessment of Proposed Peaker Power Project at Rock Springs, MD,” AI Report No. 03 11 (February 2002).
“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 200 1 ) .
“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, IL,” AI Report No. 0297 (July 2001).
“Preliminary Noise Study of Proposed Peaker Power Project in West Frankfort, IL,” AI Report No. 0295 (April 2001).
“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 1999).
“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 Alternatives - Ink Jet Business Unit - Buildings 1 and 2 - Aguadilla, Puerto Rico,” AI Report Nos. 2 12 and 2 18 (February 1999).
“Noise Study in Control Room Areas at Clinton Power Station,” AI Technical Memorandum No. 0049 (July 1998).
“Development Study of Piezoelectric Microphones for Animal Noise Monitor, Sonic Boom Monitor, and Other Applications,” AI Report No. 0200 (March 1998).
“Study of Air-Spring-Supported Isolation Slab at Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, IN,” AI Report No. 0193 (December 1997).
“La Sierra Simple Cycle Power Project - Sound Level Estimates and Recommendations - La Sierra, Colombia,” AI Technical Memorandum No. 0148 (November 1997).
4 James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
"La Sierra Simple Cycle Power Project - May 1997 Environmental Sound Measurements - La Sierra, 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 -0168 (April 1996).
"Acoustic Test and Survey Results at the Olean Cogeneration Facility," (April 1996).
"Noise Study at Central Plant - Denver International Airport," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0042 (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).
"MJT Cogeneration Facility Noise Study," AI Report No. 0122, (August 1994).
"Acoustical Evaluation of Proposed Changes to East Beverly Substation in Beverly, Massachusetts," AI Report No. 01 16 (March 1994).
"Acoustic Test and Survey Results at Onondaga Cogeneration Plant," (February 1994).
Vibration Tests of Curtain Wall Mockup for Combined Operations Centre at Heathrow Airport," AI Report No. 0097 (April 1993).
"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).
"Noise Study of Deck and Track Alternatives - Rehabilitation of the Park Avenue Viaduct for Metro- North Railroad," AI Report No. 0077 (August 1992). 5 James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
Operation Sound Study of CAES Project in McIntosh, 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. 007 1 (September 1991).
"Community Sound Study in Vicinity of Midland Cogeneration Plant," AI Report No. 0066 (July 1991).
"Community Sound Study of Carver Transformer Substation," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0023 (June 1991).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Control Room for Incinerator Units 1-4," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0025 (March 1991).
"Investigation and Abatement of Community Noise - Brewery and Power Plant Operations," AI Technical Memorandum No. 0021 (January 1991).
Community Sound Study of Deerfield Transformer Substation," AI Report No. 0050 (October 1990).
"Acoustic Evaluation of Proposed Hopkinton Transformer Station 126," AI Report No. 0047 (September 1990).
"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 McIntosh, 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. 6875A (August 1988).
"Commuter Train Noise and Vibration in the Needham Junction and the Needham Heights Community," BBN Report No. 6880 (September 1988).
"Transformer Sound Level Evaluation - Proposed Expansion of Duxbury Substation 738," BBN Report No. 6844 (May 1988).
"Acoustic Noise Reduction Study of S-280 CPI and ISO-20 IDP Shelters," BBN Report No. 6632 (January 1988).
"Effects of Track Fixation on Transit Train Passage Noise and Vibration at Southwest Corridor Project," BBN Report No. 6549 (August 1987).
"Environmental Sound Survey in Vicinity of Mamaroneck Wastewater Treatment Plant," BBN Technical Memorandum No. 0971 (June 1987).
6 James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
"Evaluation of Exterior Paging System at Somerset Station," BBN Report No. 61 18 "Induced Draft Fan Noise at Salem Harbor Unit No. 3," BBN Report 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 110," 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 Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1984 - Operation Noise Progress Report," BBN Report No. 3024A-9 (April 1985).
"Acoustic Study for Proposed Electric Generating Facility at Lincoln Mill Site," BBN Report No. 5521 (May 1984).
"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1983 - Operation Noise Progress Report," BBN Report No. 3024A-8 (April 1984).
"Acoustical Study of Wet Scrubber Module," BBN Report No. 5223 (July 1983).
"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site 1982 - Operation Noise Progress Report," BBN Report No. 3024A-7 (March 1983).
"Noise Control Study of Type 1(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 Level Measurements of Video Display Terminals," BBN Report No. 4841 (February 1982).
"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1981," BBN Report No. 3024A-6 (December 1981).
"Community Noise Study of Worthington Gas Turbine Generators at Ravenswood Station," BBN Report No. 4711 (July 1981).
"Noise Monitoring at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport," BBN Report No. 4675 (May 1981).
"Program Plan for Measurement, Evaluation, and Control of Environmental Noise at the Omega and McGaw Sites," BBN Report No 4650 (April 1981).
"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1980," BBN Report No. 3024A-5 (March 1981).
7 James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
"Noise and Air Quality Impact Analysis of the Sampson Connector, Lowell, MA," BBN Report No. 4608 (February 1981).
"Acoustic Study of Type I(V) CNCE," BBN Report No. 4566 (December 1980).
"Noise Study of Clay 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 Timber Swamp Road Substation," BBN Report No. 4468 (July 1980).
"Ambient Acoustic Environment of Catawba Site," BBN Report No. 3986 (March 1980).
"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1979," BBN Report No. 3024A-4 (March 1980).
"Acoustical Study of Proposed Small Arms Range at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station," BBN Report No. 4169 (July 1979).
"Community Sound Level Survey near the Madbury Substation," BBN Report No. 4097 (April 1979).
"Sound Level Measurements near Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Site Construction 1978," BBN Report No. 3024A-3 (March 1979).
"Preliminary Noise Assessment for the Reconstruction of the MBTA Reservoir Carhouse and Yard Complex," BBN Report No. 3844 (November 1978).
"Noise Control Study of Peru Plant: 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. 3024A-2 (April 1977).
"Survey and Assessment of Worker Exposure to Carbon Monoxide at the Waltham Facility," BBN Report No. 3474 (December 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 1976).
"Winter and Summer Acoustic Environment of the Sears Island Site," BBN Report No. 3219 (December 1975).
"The Acoustic Environment of the Pomfret and Sheridan Sites," BBN Report No. 2981 (April 1975).
8 James D. Barnes Acentech Incorporated
"Sound Measurement Survey of the W-25 lGas Turbine Installation at the Mistersky Power Station Detroit, MI," BBN Report No. 3058 (April 1975).
"Response to Article VU, NYSPSC Laws Part 75, Bowline Unit No. 3," BBN Report No. 2916 (December 1974).
"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).
9
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
RANDALL A. CHILDS
May 26,2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 1 of 6
1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A. My name is Dr. Randall A. Childs. My business address is 210 Valley Street, Reedsville,
3 WV26547.
4
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
A. I am a principal of Community & Economic Development Consultants, Inc.
8 (“CEDCON”). I am also a research assistant professor in the West Virginia University
9 (“WVU”) Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
10
11 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
12 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL 13 BACKGROUND.
14 A. I have a bachelor’s degree in resource management; a master’s degree in resource
15 economics; and a Ph.D. in economics from West Virginia University. I have 17 years
16 experience working as an economist at WVU and more than 10 years as a consultant. I
17 have completed numerous research projects and associated reports on a variety of
18 economic impact studies, including wind power projects and coal-fired power plants. My
19 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
21 qualifications, is attached as Exhibit A to this testimony. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 2 of 6
1 Q. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE 2 COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
3 A. Yes, I previously testified before the Commission in connection with the Liberty Gap
4 Wind Force power project.
5
6 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
7 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY, 8 A. The purpose of my testimony is to address the economic impacts on the West Virginia
9 and Mineral County economies associated with the construction and operation of the
10 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC (“Pinnacle Wind Force”) wind power project (“Project”).
11 Q. DID YOU PERFORM AN ANALYASIS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
12 ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE
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
16 of Pinnacle Wind Force in this proceeding. The Report is also included in its entirety in
17 Appendix “N” of the application.
18 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 3 of 6
1 THE IMPLAN~MODEL
2 Q. THE APPLICATION INDICATES THAT THE IMPLAN@MODEL WAS USED TO 3 DEMONSTRATE THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH
4 CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING THE PROJECT. PLEASE BRIEFLY
5 DESCRIBE THE IMPLAN@MODEL.
6 A. 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 at all levels (federal, state, and local), as well as universities and private
9 consulting organizations. The IMPLAN@methodology has been peer reviewed by the
10 academic community and is widely accepted as the economic model to use for estimating
11 economic impacts. IMPLAND is also the model used for computing the economic
12 impacts in the Jobs and Economic Development Impact or JEDI model that was
13 developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States Department of
14 Energy. IMPLAN@has also been used by universities and private consultants to provide
15 the economic impacts of numerous other projects.
16 Q. WHAT TYPE OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS IS THE IMPLAN~MODEL CAPABLE OF
17 ESTIMATING?
18 A. IMPLAN@estimates the indirect and induced impacts of expenditures associated with an
19 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
1 Q. PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT, INDIRECT, 2 AND INDUCED EFFECTS.
3 A. The direct impacts of a project or event are represented by the expenditures that are made
4 to purchase goods and services (including labor) for that project or event. The indirect
5 impacts measure the spending and re-spending that occurs in the state or region from the
6 direct purchases of goods and services (excluding labor) and the additional spending that
7 is created as these other businesses purchase goods and services from yet other
8 businesses in the state or region. Thus the indirect impacts measure the “multiplier
9 effect” of the original spending of the project for goods and services purchased from
10 businesses within the state or region. The induced impacts measure the spending and re-
11 spending that occurs in the state or region from the wages paid by the project. Thus, the
- 12 induced impacts measure the “multiplier effect” of the wages paid by the project that are
13 used to buy goods and services from businesses within the state or region.
14 Q. WHAT ASSUMPTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT DID YOU USE WITH
15 RESPECT TO THE IMPLAN~MODEL?
16 A. The economic impacts presented here and in the Report assume that the Project will be
17 constructed in Mineral County, WV with a total construction cost of $131 million. It is
18 further assumed that the turbines and towers will be manufactured outside of West
19 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.
21 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 5 of 6
1 ECONOMIC IMPACT DURING CONSTRUCTION
2 Q. WILL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT PRODUCE ANY EFFECTS ON 3 THE ECONOMY?
4 A. Yes, estimated economic impacts on the Mineral County economy resulting from the
5 construction of the Project include: $28 million in increased business volume; 275 new
6 jobs; and $7 million in increased employee compensation. The estimated impacts on the
7 West Virginia economy resulting from the construction of the Project include: $37
8 million in increased business volume; 310 new jobs; and $10 million in increased
9 employee compensation.
10 Q. WHAT KIND OF INDIRECT AND INDUCED JOBS IS THE PROJECT CAPABLE
11 OF SUPPORTING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?
12 A. The jobs created by the indirect and induced effects of expenditures associated with the
13 Project will not be in just a few select industries, but rather jobs will be created in
14 numerous industries in the county and state as the businesses and employees purchase a
15 wide variety of goods and services,
16 Q. HOW MUCH WILL THE PROJECT GENERATE IN STATE AND LOCAL TAX
17 REVENUES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD?
18 A. The economic activity attributable to the Project during construction will generate
19 approximately $603,000 in additional assorted state taxes.
20 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Randall A. Childs Page 6 of 6
1 ECONOMIC IMPACT DURING OPERATION
2 Q. ONCE OPERATIONAL, WILL THE PROJECT CONTINUE TO GENERATE NEW 3 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY FOR THE LOCAL AREA AND THE STATE?
4 A. Yes, economic impacts on the Mineral County economy resulting from the operation of
5 the Project include: $2 million annually in increased business volume; 15 new jobs; and
6 $705,000 annually in increased employee compensation. The impacts on the West
7 Virginia economy resulting from the operation of the Project include: $3 million annually
8 in increased business volume; 18 new jobs; and $832,000 annually in increased employee
9 compensation.
10 Q. IN SUMMARY, WILL THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL POSITIVE IMPACT
11 ON THE LOCAL AND STATE ECONOMY?
12 A. Yes, this Project will generate a significant amount of new dollars and jobs for both the
13 Mineral County and West Virginia economies. In addition, it will further strengthen the
14 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
16 plans.
17 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
18 A. Yes, it does.
19 Randall A. Childs, Ph.D.
CONTACT INFORMATION Office: 318 Business and Economics Building Home: P.O. Box 398 Bureau of Business and Economic Research 210 Valley Street College of Business and Economics Reedsville, WV 26547 West Virginia University Phone: (304) 864-0543 Morgantown, WV 26506-6025 Cellular. (304) 288-0689 Phone: (304) 293-7832 Fax: (304) 293-7061 E-Mail: randychilds@ rnail.wvu.edu
EDUCATION
Doctor of Philosophy in Economics West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia Dissertation Chair: Russell Sobel, Ph.D. Dissertation Title: Essays on the Effects of Taxation and Government Regulation Fields: Public Economics (Public Finance) and UrbadRegional Economics July 2008
Master of Science in Resource Economics West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia January 1993
Bachelor of Science in Resource Management West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia May 1990 RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT
2008 - present Research Assistant Professor, West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research
2000 - present Principal, Community & Economic Development Consultants, Inc.
1999 - 2008 Economist, West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research
1993- 1999 Business Research Analyst, West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research
1992 Database Specialist, West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research
1 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
Childs, Randall. “Effect of Excise Taxation on Demand for Gasoline by Grade” Significantly higher gasoline prices and the effects these price increases have had on consumers and businesses has become increasingly important. In addition, these large increases in price have led to an increasing interest into the way in which gasoline is taxed (per gallon unit tax vs. ad valorem sales tax). The large increase in gasoline prices coupled with the per gallon gasoline taxes prevalent in most states has dramatically increased state highway department’s expenditures without increasing the state’s tax revenue realized from the gasoline tax, a major revenue source for many state khway departments. This paper examines the inefficiencies created by the unit tax on gasoline and thus provides further justification for ad valorem taxes on gasoline in place of the popular unit tax. This paper also examines the dramatic decrease in the share of premium gasoline as prices of regular and premium increased by the same dollar amount.,. an apparent contradiction of the Alchian and Allen Theorem
ads,Randall and George Hammond. “Smoking Regulation’s Effect on Employment: An Establishment-Level Panel Data Analysis” Numerous governmental jurisdictions across the country have adopted partial or complete smokq bans based, at least partially, on the negative health effects of second-hand smoke. These smokmg regulations may affect only a portion of businesses (e.g. restamts) or may include all businesses in the jurisdiction. There have been numerous studies on the effects of these regulations on the local economy with some studies reporting a positive change or no change in economic activity due to the regulation, whde other studies reporting a negative effect on local economic activity. The effects of smolung bans has become of increasing importance to people in West Virginia as many of the county health departments in the state have considered or are considering some type of smoking ban for their county. Indeed, Monongalia County, W.Va. is cmntlydebating a proposed smokq ban for the county. This research uses a panel data set of individual establishments throughout West Vbginia from 1990 to 2006 and thus addresses the weakness inherent in the previous research that examined only the net change in employment or sales for the local economy and ignores the possible offsetting effects on individual businesses.
Childs, Randall. “Business and Occupation Taxes Effect on Business Growth and Location” Municipalities within West Virginia have the ability to impose a Business and Occupation (B&O) tax on businesses within the citylimits. There has been significant debate regding the impact of this tax on employment and/or establishment growth in the municipalities that impose the tax. This research, utlLvng establishment level data of businesses that participate in the unemployment insmce progmn, provides the first detailed analysis of the effects of the B&O tax. This research examines business growth in areas subject to the tax compared to businesses not subject to the B&O tax. Nesbit, Todd, Kerry King, and Randall Childs. “Do People Really Vote with Their Feet? A Spatial Econometric Analysis of MSA to MSA Migration Flows” Using MSA to MSA migration flows for the period 1995-2000, this paper seeks to determine if local expenditures on education, health, and social welfare together with taxes influence the choice to move from one MSA to another. Following a method set forth in a working paper by Lesage and Pace (2008), we employ a spatial econometric technique to account for the neighbor influences at both the origin and destination of each MSA. While most studies of tbnature only examine migration flows between MSA’s, our model also incorporates those who migmed within their origin MSA Overall, our primary goal is to determine if local public expenditures and taxation policies do, in fact, influence where people choose to move.
Childs, Randall and Ann Chester. “Valuing the Public Funding of the West Virginia Health Science 2 and Technology Academy”
Childs, Randall. “Does Tax Increment Financing Increase Business Growth?”
Childs, Randall. “An Input-Output Analysis of How the Price of &de Oil Should Affect the Price of Gasoline at the Pump”
Childs, Randall. “Does Wal-Mart Hurt Small Business? An Establishment-Level Panel Data Analysis”
Childs, Randall. “Cigarette Taxation’s Effect on Cigarette Quality A Test of the Alchian and Allen Theorem” ACADEMIC CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
Southern Economic Association (Presenter), New Orleans, LA (Nov. 2007) “Smoking Regulation’s Effect on Employment: An Establishment-Level Panel Data Analysis” GRANT-SUPPORTED RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS
E& Iqm$ WBt Viw‘iniaUnimity FY2007, Amy Higginbotham, Randall A. Childs, and Tom S. Win, February 2008
EamnicIqmt $the WBt Vi@ira;ZSotlool B&rgAdrn’ty FY2003-FY2007, Randall A. Childs, October 2007 Eamnic Iqm$B& Clid USA, Randall A. Childs, May 2007 E& I- $Art’s Paman the Moiwqdiz Gxqy E-, Randall A. Childs, December 2006
EamnicIqm $Art’s Pamon theMonorgdia Gxqy E-, Randall A. Childs, December 2006
EamnicInpu~$Art’s PamwaheMonorgdizGxqyE~,RandallA. Childs,December 2006
E& Iw$the Monorg& National FmtPhn, Randall A. Childs, April 2006
2006-2007 Wtst Virginia &my Data Pqfk,Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A. Childs, August 2006
Ecvmk Iqm$ Wtst Virginia Unimity, Qlristiadi and Randall A. Childs, August 2005
20052006 Wtst Vighk &my Data Prsl;l.(, Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A. Childs, August 2005
3 EdIqzt $Rmri% Rim, Randall A. Childs, July 2005
Wet Vi@;nia’s Fmts: OfozOq Wet Virg;ni’sFui~r, Randall A. Childs, June 2005
2004-2005 Wet Vil;ginid Cbmy Data Pn$h,Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A. Childs, August 2004 EdIqzt4th SmtTm 0.mterm the Monoq~diaccRa?cy E-, Randall A. Childs, May 2004
2003-2004 Wet Virgznia Grimy Data Pn$h,Kwasi Yeboah and Randall A. Childs, August 2003 .. ECW7W?k- cfth &&m AmM& Grnter HdhSytem in Wst Vip‘;nia,Randall A. Childs, January2003 2002-2003 Wet Vi@;nia Gmty Data Pn$h,Chris Condon and Randall A. Childs, August 2002 .. ECW7W?kG2@&&VBcfPm Phm in My,Randall A. Childs, May 2002 I*& I*& cfPmntd EdIrrpxras $Pmiderrt Bwb3 Natid Energy PdqandKpFaIlozer q on Wet Viw‘k,William S. Reece and Randall A. Childs, May2002
StxategicPkannirgfmEdDezkpmnt BdeandHad cat#2ties, Randall A. childs, George W. Hammond, and Jim Fairbank, November 2001 E&Inpz~ 6th C%aplnHill Horse Pa&, Randall A. Childs, October 2001 E& I- $Steel in Wet Virginia 2000, Randall A. Childs, September 2001 2001-2002 Wet Vi@izccRa?cy Data Pn$h,Chris Condon and Randall A. ads,August 200 1 .. AnAnd@$&ImtdECW7W?k~ cf% o/eenbner 1999, Randall A. Childs and Tom S. Witt, October 2000 E& Inpz~$& Bab& Expaitin 0.mter,Terrell Ellis and Randall A. Childs, September 2000
2000-2001 Wst Virginia ccRa?cy Data Pn$h,Chris Condon and Randall A. Childs, August 2000
Eawuwfiic Input $Wst Virgik UnizwityFY 1998, Randall A. Childs, David Greenstreet, and Tom S. Witt, May 1999
Eawuwfiic Inpact cffi Gmnbrim 1998, Randall A. Childs and Tom S. Witt, May 1999
4 E wnomk Inpa$MmimRae Trmk and GaniQ Reart Fljd Ym1998, Randall A. Childs, February 1999
TrazelandTcRtrismEcvnmkI~1997 Wet Virginia (analysis onlf), Randall A. Childs and David Greenstreet, July 1999
1999-2000 Wst Vitpniu Grimy Data prdiles, Chris Condon, Brian Lego, Cathleen CrisweU, and Randall A. Childs, July 1999
Pmm Chay LaborMadet Database, Brian Leg0 and Randall A. Childs, June 1999 Wet Virga&Unimity’s Ckwnbmm to Wet Virginia’sExpart Base FY 1998, Randall A. Childs, David Greenstreet, and Tom S. Win, March 1999 R@ Dau Prsl;lt: Regicnz VIII, Andy Super and Randall A. Childs, March 1999 1998-1999 Wet Vi@inia cbtmt;y Data PqGks, Randall A. Childs and Chris Condon, January 1999
Wet Virg‘iniaBwims andE&Rezkzq various issues 1994 - 1999 EwnomkI~$~HT~M~~~andF~~S~F~i~inNo/thGmii Wet Vi@+ 1996-1997,David Greenstreet and Randy Childs, December 1998 Pmm Chay LabwMadet SO&, Randall A. Childs and George W. Hammond, May 1998 Pmm Chay LaborMadet Dahhae, Randall A. Childs, May 1998
PhamGrimy Faah&, Randall A. Childs, 1998 Potomrc Hi&kzd Rqjm LabwMadet Datahe, Randall A. childs, May 1997 1997-1998 Wet Virginia Gzmy Data PqGks, Serge Karalli and Randall A. Childs, December 1997
E& Input cfHljtmk Pmmticwl in Wet Virginia, Randall A. Childs, David Greenstreet, and Tom S. Witt, September 1997 R@ Dau PMRegicnz VIII, Serge Karalli and Randall A. Childs, July 1997
PotonrrcHi&kzd Rqjm LabwMadet SO&, Randall A. Childs, May 1997 1996-1997 Wet Viyginid cbtmt;y Data Pq%, Randall A. Childs and Serge Karalli, July 1996 1995-1996 Wcst Vi@h-Data Prsl;l.F, Randall A. childs,August 1995 1994-199s WGt Virginia Gzmy Data Prsl;l.F, Randall A. Childs, August 1994
PhamChmy Faah&, Randall A. Childs, 1994 5 1993-1994 W0t Vi@nik -Data Pq%k,Randall A. Childs, August 1993
1992-1993 WOt Virgnik GnmyData Pn$k, Randall A. Childs, September 1992
Valuiqg Water Quality I- in theMorwqyb& Nahnd FmtUsiqg Cbntqp Vduatim, Randall A. Childs, January 1993 RELEVANT GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
West Virginia Housing Development Fund, “Economic Impact of the West Virginia Housing Development Fund,” $24,500,2007
BrickStreet Insurance, “Economic Impact of WV Employers Mutual Insurance Company,” $15,000,2007
West Virginia School Building Authority, “Economic Impact of the West Virginia School Building Authority FY2003-FY2007,” $5,000,2007
Trans Allegheny Interstate Line Company, Economic Impact of 500KV Power Line and Associated IGCC Power Plants, $16,000,2007
Bridge Climb USA, “Economic Impact of Bridge Climb USA,” $10,000,2007
National Institute of Justice, “Economic Impact of the Forensic Industry,,” $600,000,2005- 2007 Arts Monongahela, “Economic Impact of Arts Patron’s Spending on the Monongalia County Economy,” $20,000 (principal investigator), 2004-2006 USDA Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest, “Economic Impact of Land and Resource Management Plan,” $17,687 (co-principal investigator), 2005-2006
Land Resources Companies, LLC, “Economic Impact of Roaring River,” $10,000 (co- project director, principal investigator), 2005
West Virginia Division of Forestry, “Economic Contributions of West Virginia’s Forests,” $80,000 (project director), 2005-2006
Marshall County Commission and the Ohio Valley Industrial and Business Development Corporation, “Marshall County Region: Economic Development and Strategic Plan,” $55,000 (co-project director, co-principal investigator), 2004
Progress Alliance, “Jefferson County, Ohio Cluster Analysis,” $18,500 (co-principal investigator), 2003
Region VI1 Workforce Investment Board, “Environmental Scan and Implementation Plan,” $98,700 (co-principal investigator), 2002 6 Arts Monongahela, “Economic Impact of the Arts in Monongalia County,” $20,000 (principal investigator), 2002
Charleston Area Medical Corporation, “Economic Impact of CAMC,” $15,000 (principal investigator), 2002
Hill & Associates, Inc., “Economic Impact of Kentucky Electric Power Generation Plants,” $10,500 (principal investigator), 2002
US. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis of the Impacts of Mountaintop Mining Restrictions on the Economy of West Virginia, $120,291 (co-principal investigator), 2000
Preservation Alliance of West Virginia, Inc., Heritage Tourism Demonstration Project, $20,000 (co-principal investigator), 2000
Terrell Ellis & Associates, Economic Impact of the Barboursvile Exposition Center, $4,500 (principal investigator), 2000
State of West Virginia, Joint Commission on Government and Finance, Economic Impacts of Modkymg Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills in West Virginia, $185,000 (co-principal investigator), 2000
“he Greenbrier Resort Management Company, An Analysis of the Increased Economic Contributions of The Greenbrier 1999 $20,000 (co-principal director), 2000
President’s Office, West Virginia University, Economic Impact of West Virginia University, $16,000 (principal investigator), 1998
President’s Office, West Virginia University, West Virginia University‘s Contribution to West Virginia’s Export Base, $12,000 (principal investigator), 1998
The Greenbrier Resort Management Company, Economic Impact of The Greenbrier Resort, $6,250 (co-principal director), 1998
Marketvision Research Inc., Economic Impact of West Virginia Travel and Tourism, $22,784 (co-principal investigator), 1998
Mountaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort, Mountaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort Impact Study, $8,200 (principal investigator), 1998
Preston County Economic Development Authority, Preston County Labor Market Study and Outlook, $8,800 (co-principal investigator with George W. Hammond), 1998
Preservation Alliance of West Virginia, Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in West Virginia, $10,309 (co-principal investigator), 1997
7 West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation, Economic Impact of W“m Members and Fedenlly Support Facilities, $30,608 (co-principal investigator), 1997
Potomac State College, Potomac Highlands Region Labor Market Study, $10,000 (principal investigator), 1997
Pleasants County Development Authority, Pleasants County Factbook, $4,000 (principal investigator), 1997
Governor’s Office, State of West Virginia, West Virginia Business and Economic Information System, $30,000 (project director and principal investigator), 1995 SELECTED NON-CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS/LECTUS
Community Development Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, WV (September 2006) “Understanding Your Regional Economy
Community Development Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, WV (September 2006) “Economic Impact Analysis”
2006 Governor’s Conference on Housing (Panelist), Charleston, WV (September 2006) “Condition of Housing in West Virginia” Community Development Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, WV (September 2005) “Understanding Your Regional Economy
Economics, Environment, and Education in West Virginia (Presenter), Elkins, WV (July 2005) “Economic Contributions of West Virginia’s Forests”
Community Development Institute - East (Presenter), Charleston, WV (September 2004) (‘Economic Modeling”
Local Government Leadership Academy (Presenter), Morgantom, WV (April 2002) “Economic Development Stntegies for West Virginia: Regional Perspectives and Breakout Sections”
Numerous other presentations of study results presented to board of directors, at press conferences, to legislative committees, etc. CONSULTING PROTECTS
Economic Impact of Liberty Gap Wmd Power Facility (Provided testimony for the West Virginia Public Service Commission)
Condition of West Virginia Housing by Property Tax District and Implications to Local Public Finance Economic Impact of Housing Construction by Type of Housing for Selected Counties and the State of West Virginia
Economic Importance of Mining and Logging on Counties in Southern West Virginia
Various other labor market studies and economic impact studies PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
National Tax Association American Economic Association Southern Economic Association Southern Regional Science Association REFERENCES
Dr. Russell S. Sobel Professor of Economics James Clark Coffman Distinguished Chair Department of Economics West Virginia University P.O. Box 6025 Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 Office Phone: (304) 293-7864 Email: rssobel@,mail.wvu.edu
Dr. George W. Hammond Associate Director Bureau of Business and Economic Research West Virginia University P.O. Box 6025 Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 Office Phone: (304) 293-7876 Email: [email protected]
Dr. Todd M. Nesbit Assistant Professor of Economics Sam & Irene Black School of Business Penn State - Erie, The Behrend College 5101 Jordan Road Erie, Pennsylvania 16563 Office Phone: (8 14) 898-6326 Email: tmnl l@,psu.edu
9
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. DEWAN
May 26,2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 1 of 21
1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A. My name is Terrence J. DeWan. My business address is Terrence J. DeWan &
3 Associates, 121 West Main Street, Yarmouth, Maine 04096.
4
5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6 Q. 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
10 assessments, and reviewing the production of visualizations in the office. 11 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE DEWAN & ASSOCIATES AND ITS WORK IN VISUAL 12 IMPACT ASSESSMENTS.
13 A. DeWan & Associates is a land planning firm with a specialty in scenic inventories, visual
14 impact assessment, open space planning, design guidelines, and integration of large-scale
15 projects into sensitive environments. The staff is composed of professionals with
16 backgrounds in landscape architecture, planning, visual resource assessment, scenic
17 inventories, recreation planning, graphic design, and computer modeling. DeWan &
18 Associates has worked on over fifty visual impact assessments throughout the eastern
19 United States for projects including port facilities, electrical power generation and
20 transmission facilities, natural gas storage facilities, co-generation facilities, LNG
21 terminals, industrial buildings, sanitary landfills, hydroelectric projects, wind energy
22 facilities, and new communities. DeWan & Associates incorporates accepted Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 2 of 21
1 professional methodologies to assess visual impacts on scenic resources and the
2 surrounding viewshed through a process that includes: defining a study area;
3 inventorying scenic resources; describing the viewshed and project site characteristics;
4 determining the affected population; developing a GIS based viewshed analysis;
5 examining specific areas of potential visibility through cross-sectional analysis; creating
6 photosimulations to accurately represent visual impacts; and evaluating potential
7 mitigation measures.
8
9 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
10 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
11 BACKGROUND.
12 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,
14 New York. I hold Maine Landscape Architect license #6. For the past three decades I
15 have concentrated a major part of my practice on visual impact assessments, serving
16 industrial, municipal, and state agency clients throughout the eastern United States and
17 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
19 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
21 on Wind Power Development. I have testified before the Maine Board of Environmental
22 Protection and the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission on numerous occasions over Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 3 of 21
1 the past two decades. I recently completed a peer review of the Draft Environmental
2 Impact Statement prepared by Mineral Management Service for the Cape Energy Project
3 in Nantucket Sound, MA. I am the author of the Scenic Assessment Handbook for the
4 Maine State Planning Office (2008), which developed a methodology to identify areas of
5 statewide and national significance for purposes of the Maine Wind Power Law.
6
7 DEWAN & ASSOCIATES INVOLVEMENT
8 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF DEWAN & 9 ASSOCIATES IN THE PROJECT.
10 A. DeWan & Associates was retained by Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC (“Pinnacle Wind
11 Force”) to provide a visual impact assessment of the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm at
12 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 Certificate
14 Application.
15 In connection with the VIA, we drove the major public roads within the study
16 area that may have a view of the Project and visited known public recreation areas,
17 historic properties, scenic overlooks, major transportation corridors, population centers,
18 and other sensitive viewing locations within a twenty-mile radius of Green Mountain.
19 Sites were selected in part by a review of viewshed maps, which identified where views
20 of the Project would be possible. The field work we performed also provided an
21 opportunity to verify the viewshed maps for accuracy. DeWan & Associates also
22 independently verified the accuracy of photosimulations prepared by Pinnacle Wind Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 4 of 21
I Force through comparison with three-dimensional digital models created separately.
2 In addition to the written reports and graphics described above, DeWan &
3 Associates prepared poster-sized enlargements of the photosimulations to be used in
public discussions, agency presentations, and similar venues. An important component in
the proper understanding and use of these images (at any size of reproduction) is the
viewing distance, Le., the horizontal distance that the reviewer should hold the
photosimulation from the eye to accurately replicate real-world conditions. DeWan &
Associates calculated the viewing distance for each photosimulation and incorporated it
9 into the title block of each image.
10
11 VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
12 Q. WHAT IS A VIEWSHED ANALYSIS?
13 A. A viewshed analysis is a computer-generated way of determining where the Project
14 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
16 prepared by Pinnacle Wind Force and reviewed by DeWan & Associates. The results of
17 this analysis were used in the identification, selection, and evaluation of appropriate
18 observer points for the site photography and photosimulations. The viewshed analysis
19 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.
21 Q. DESCRIBE THE VIEWSHED MAPS AND THE VIEWSHED ANALYSIS. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 5 of 21
1 A. Pinnacle Wind Force developed three types of viewshed maps using “WindPRO”
2 software: a positive viewshed map, a negative viewshed map, and a negative viewshed
3 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
were no trees, buildings, or other obstacles to block the view. Darker green colors
on the map indicate where all the turbines would be visible, while lighter shading
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 will
11 block the turbines from view.
12 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
14 is also informative, it under-represents the extent of the area from which the
15 turbines cannot be seen because it does not reflect the effects of forest cover and
16 other localized screening.
17 The negative viewshed map with vegetation adds a separate layer, representing
18 forested areas, to the negative viewshed map, to more realistically illustrate the
19 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
21 topography or by intervening vegetation. While this is a somewhat imperfect
22 assumption, it 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 of 21
1 of where the project will actually be visible fi-om. As noted earlier, the viewshed
2 maps were verified during our field work.
3 The combined use of all three of the maps provides the most accurate understanding of
4 potential Project visibility within the 20-mile study area. However, this will still be an
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 Q. 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
10 SUCH DISTANCES?
11 A. In our experience, under optimum conditions (very low atmospheric haze, direct sunlight,
12 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
14 are generally perceived as very small elements in the landscape and do not result in
15 unacceptable contrasts in form, line, color, texture, or scale. Turbine blades will
16 generally not be visible beyond 8 miles due to their thinness, the effects of atmospheric
17 perspective, and the limitations of the human eye to detect objects of that size at these
18 distances.
19 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE IN GENERAL TERMS THE CONCEPT OF DISTANCE ZONES
20 AS IT APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 7 of 21
1 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
3 in the landscape. This concept is based upon USDA Forest Service visual analysis
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 of the applicable provisions of the Public Service
8 Commission’s rules.
9 Foreaound: 0 to 1 mile in distance. Within the foreground, observers are able to
10 detect surface textures, details, and a full spectrum of color. For example, the details of
11 the turbines (blades, nacelles, support towers) are easily recognized within one mile.
12 Public viewpoints within one mile of the Project are limited to local roads on Green
13 Mountain (e.g., Pinnacle Road and Hoover Hollow Road). When the project is
14 completed, those who wish to see the Project may be able to use this road network to get
15 a closer view of the turbines.
16 Midground: 1 mile to 5 miles in distance. The midground is a critical part of the
17 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
19 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
21 line. The effect of distance is intensified in hazy weather conditions, which tend to mute
1 Rule 3.1 .m.3 of the Commission’s Rules Governing Siting Certifications for Exempt Wholesale Generators (150 C.S.R. 30), 6 150-30-3.1.m.3 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 8 of 21
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
3 visible from a number of public viewpoints within five miles, the dense roadside
4 vegetation and the folded hills will limit its visibility. Representative midground
5 viewpoints where the Project will be visible include: Potomac State College in Keyser
6 (2.6* miles to closest turbine), many of the residential and commercial streets in Keyser
7 (2.5’ miles to closest turbine); the US Route 220 Bridge over the Potomac River (2.8*
8 miles to closest turbine); Jennings Randolph Lake (4.1* miles to closest turbine).
9 Backaound: 5 miles to 20 miles. Background distances provide the setting for
10 panoramic views that give the observer the greatest sense of the larger landscape.
11 However, the effects of distance and haze will tend to obliterate the surface textures and
12 details of the Project components. Objects seen at this distance will be highly visible
13 only if they present a noticeable contrast in form or line and when weather conditions are
14 favorable. Due to the thinness of the design, the ends of the turbine blades will be
15 minimally visible in the background, and not visible at all at distances greater than 8 to
16 10 miles. At these distances, the most visible parts of the turbines will be the 80-meter
17 towers and the nacelles, if they are visible at all. Under most circumstances, the turbines
18 should not be a noticeable part of the landscape beyond 8-10 miles.
19 Q. WILL THE PROJECT BE VISIBLE FROM HISTORIC AREAS OR PLACES WITHIN
20 FIVE MILES?
21 A. The West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office (“WVSHPO’) determined that a
22 five-mile area of potential effect (“APE”) was adequate for the investigation of potential Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 9 of 21
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
3 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 of these structures.
6 Q. 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 Allehenv Wildlife Management Area ("AWMA") (including the abandoned fire
9 tower on Pinnacle Mountain). Viewshed mapping indicates that portions of the
10 AWMA may have views of the Project. However, most views from within the
11 AWMA (with the exception of the fire tower) would most likely be filtered by
12 dense hardwood vegetation. The most prominent view of the Project within the
13 AWMA will be from an abandoned fire tower on Pinnacle Mountain that is 1.8*
14 miles southwest of the closest turbine. From this viewpoint, the turbines will be
15 seen in a relatively tight cluster (due to the alignment of the ridge) over a 5.5" arc
16 (out of a total 360" panorama). The view from Pinnacle Mountain also includes
17 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, 9* miles to the southwest. Photosimulations
20 from Viewpoint 8, included in the VIA, provide views from the fire tower in both
21 leaf and leaf off conditions. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 10 of 21
~
1 Jenninas Randolph Lake Proiect (in both West Virginia and Maryland). At its
2 closest point the Project will be approximately 3 miles from the edge of the
3 impoundment. The viewshed analysis determined that the turbines would be visible
4 from less than 20% of the surface of the lake, due to the folded nature of the
5 landscape, the intervening topography, and the surrounding forest cover. The
6 majority of the views of the turbines from the water will be at the northern end of
I the lake in Maryland, where the existing landscape includes a 2,13O’-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
10 man-made features. In comparison to the existing man-made structures, the
11 turbines will be seen as a relatively small addition to the landscape. In the other
12 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
14 vegetation may block the view of the turbines from many of the remaining
15 viewpoints. The Maryland Overlook at the northern end of the lake provides a
16 panoramic view of the impoundment and its related facilities, set against a backdrop
17 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
19 17 (panoramic view) provides a view of the Project from the northern end of the
20 lake and the surrounding landscape. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 11 of 21
1 Barnum Whitewater Area (leased by Mineral County from the Army Corps of
2 Engineers). Based upon the visibility analysis, the Project should not be visible
3 within this 40-acre area due to the surrounding topography and vegetation.
4 Additional managed lands in Maryland are located within 10 miles of the Project.
5 These are described on pages 10 through 15 of the VIA.
6 Q. DESCRIBE THE MANAGED LANDS BETWEEN A 10 AND 20-MILE RADIUS OF 7 THE PROJECT.
8 A. In West Virginia, three managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles fkom the project: Fort
9 Mill Ridge WMA, Springfield WMA, and Nathan Mountain WMA. In Maryland, five
10 managed lands are between 10 and 20 miles from the project: Mount Neb0 WMA, Big
11 Run State Park, New Germany State Park, Deep Creek Lake State Park, and Dan’s Rock
12 Overlook Park.
13 Viewshed mapping indicates that some of these locations may have views of the
14 Project. However, most views would likely be filtered by dense hardwood vegetation
15 and obscured by the effects of distance and atmospheric perspective. The most
16 prominent viewpoint in this viewing range is at Dan’s Rock Overlook Park in Maryland.
17 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
19 closest turbines would be approximately 1 1.7 miles to the southwest. However, views of
20 the project should be blocked by intervening vegetation on Dan’s Mountain. The existing
21 communication towers in the foreground would have a far more significant visual impact Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 12 of 21
- ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~
than wind turbines in the background that would be seen over a 1” arc (out of a total 360”
panorama).
PHOTOSIMULATIONS
5 Q. 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
12 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
14 photograph was used to demonstrate the visual changes from the Project. Where
15 photosimulations have been created by merging multiple images, a ‘normal’ view is also
16 provided, since panoramic images tend to diminish the size of the turbines and under-
17 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
19 conditions tie., to make it appear “full size” or lifelike),
20 Q. WHAT FACTORS WENT INTO THE SELECTION OF THE SPECIFIC
21 VIEWPOINTS USED FOR THE PHOTOSIMULATIONS? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 13 of 21
1 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
3 where the Project might be visible from public vantage points within the 20-mile study
4 area. DeWan & Associates and Pinnacle Wind Force selected locations within the study
5 area that (a) are publicly accessible (Le., 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 of the diverse land use patterns in
8 this part of West Virginia and Maryland, and (c) are characteristic of the views of the
9 Project from a wide variety of vantage points and viewer positions. Locations were also
10 selected to provide views of the Project where the most number of turbines would be
11 visible. From many of the viewpoints, the Project will be partially screened by
12 intervening topography or vegetation.
13 Pinnacle Wind Force shared the photosimulations of the Project with the public in
14 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
16 appropriateness of the selected viewpoints and the qualitative aspects of the Project.
17 Q. WHICH SITES WERE SELECTED FOR PHOTOSIMULATIONS TO SUBMIT TO
18 THE COMMISSION?
19 A. A total of 19 photosimulations were prepared by Pinnacle Wind Force, with the
20 assistance of DeWan & Associates, for inclusion in the VIA. The viewpoints, which are
21 all on public property or publicly accessible locations, include the Keyser industrial park, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 14 of 21
1 the Route 220 bridge over the Potomac River, the Potomac State College campus,
2 representative sites in the residential and commercial areas of Keyser, the Duling Church
3 near New Creek, the Pinnacle Mountain fire tower (abandoned), two rural cemeteries,
4 Jennings Randolph Lake, and a variety of major highways and rural roads. Of these
5 viewpoints, 14 are in West Virginia and 5 are in Maryland. The viewing distances vary
6 from less than two miles to the closest turbine (Potomac State College Farm and the
7 Pinnacle Mountain fire tower) to over ten miles to the closest turbine (a viewpoint on CR
8 50-6 (Ridge Road)). The majority of the views are in the midground viewing distance
9 (less than 5 miles to the closest turbine).
10
11 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
12 Q. WHO WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE PROJECT? 13 A. Four major viewer groups will be able to see the turbines and other aspects of the Project.
14 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
16 on pages 26-29 of the VIA. The visual sensitivity of each of these groups will vary and is
17 tempered by the presence of other structures within the visible area. 18 Q. DESCRIBE THE VISUAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE SURROUNDING 19 LANDSCAPE.
20 A. Landscape compatibility can be described in terms of the potential that the Project has for
21 being similar or dissimilar relative to color, form, line, texture, scale, and dominance.
22 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 15 of 21
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
3 the Project (foreground). As the distance from the turbines increases, they will appear as
4 light gray, especially when seen on hazy or overcast days. White turbines will allow the
5 project to have only red nighttime lighting. If an alternate color were selected, the FAA
6 would likely recommend white strobes for daytime lighting, which would draw attention
7 to the turbines and make them considerably more noticeable during the day. The color
8 contrast will change with the time of day, viewer orientation, sun angle, and atmospheric
9 and weather conditions.
10 Form. With several other wind energy projects in neighboring counties, turbines
11 are starting to become a more familiar form on the West Virginia landscape.
12 Nonetheless, the three-bladed turbines set on tall towers breaking the horizon will present
13 a noticeable contrast in form. By following the ridgeline of Green Mountain and
14 preserving as much vegetation as possible, the Project will minimize contrasts in form.
15 &. 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
17 minimal contrast in line as a result.
18 Texture. Texture contrasts will be most noticeable within a five-mile radius of the
19 Project (i.e,, in the foreground and midground viewing distances). The smoothly finished
20 surfaces of the turbines will present a noticeable contrast with the natural hardwood
21 texture of the surrounding mountains. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 16 of 21
1 Scale Contrast. The scale of the Project area is defined by the space between the
2 mountain ridges (e.g., 3 to 3.5 miles on the east side of Green Mountain in the Keyser -
3 New Creek valley), extensive areas of active agricultural lands, and open vistas. The
4 Project will extend over 3.4 miles of the Green Mountain ridgeline and will be perceived
5 as a very large man-made element in the larger landscape. Observers’ perception of scale
6 will be influenced by their immediate surroundings. To someone in downtown Keyser,
7 surrounded by commercial buildings, utility structures, and similar types of development,
8 wind turbines 2.5 miles away will appear relatively small and in scale with the Green
9 Mountain ridgeline. To someone standing near the turbines (within the foreground
10 viewing distance), the turbines will be the largest element in the visible landscape.
11 Spatial Dominance. The majority of the views of the Project will be in the
12 midground (less than five miles), where the turbines will be highly visible and will be
13 seen in the context of the Green Mountain ridgeline and other local and regional
14 landforms. By comparison to the size of the underlying mountains, the wind turbines will
15 be seen as co-dominant or subservient to the larger landscape. The turbines will be seen
16 against the sky, due to their elevated position from virtually all viewpoints. However, as
17 illustrated by the photosimulations, they will not dominate the entire landscape
18 composition (the mountains, the sky, or nearby waterbodies).
19 Q. WHAT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE
20 PROJECT?
21 A. The Project will be visible to a portion of the population who live, work, drive, and
22 recreate within the study area. The turbines have been sited along the ridgeline of Green Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 17 of 21
~~ ~~ ~
1 Mountain to take advantage of the available wind resource on a property that has been
2 used for commercial forestry. Existing access roads will be used where feasible to
3 minimize the creation of new lines on the mountain.
4 Areas of Scenic or Cultural Significance. There are no areas of scenic or cultural
5 significance within the project viewshed that will be unreasonably affected by it. The
6 most significant 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.
11 Impact on Significant Views. There are very few views within the study area that
12 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
14 Randolph Lake Project at 4.1 miles. As demonstrated by Photosimulation Viewpoints
15 15, 16, and 17, the wind turbines will not block or interfere with the views from either of
16 these locations (both of which are on the West Virginia / Maryland line).
17 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-
19 topped landform and characteristic of much of the landscape that makes up the Allegheny
20 Front.
21 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 18 of 21
1 Traveled Ways. As noted above, the Project will be visible from several public
2 highways within the 20-mile study area. In most of these instances, the Project will be
3 visible in the midground or background viewing distance and will not block or interrupt
4 the views. There are no designated scenic byways or scenic overlooks in West Virginia
5 in the study area.
6 LandscaDe Uniqueness. Green Mountain is a major landform in the immediate
7 area, but it is not considered unique to this part of West Virginia. The mountain has been
8 extensively used and developed with roads, home sites, mining and forestry activity,
9 transmission corridors, and other types of activity so it cannot be considered an intact or
10 undisturbed landscape.
11 Clutter. The turbines will be spaced across the top of Green Mountain at an
12 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
14 roads, and other project infrastructure have been sited so they will not usually be visible
15 to the general public. The resultant Project should present a simple, uncluttered
16 appearance.
17 The Project will have some minor visual impacts on a limited number of scenic
18 and recreational resources within the project viewshed. However, the Project location
19 and layout have been selected to minimize impacts to the extent practicable. In no
20 instances will the Project block the views from or the views of lakes, mountains, rivers,
21 or other scenic resources. Throughout the majority of the 20-mile study area, views of Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 19 of 21
1 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.
3 The Project has been conceived and designed 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.
7 The VIA was conducted by DeWan & Associates in compliance with the
8 applicable provisions of the Public Service Commission’s Siting Rules and it is our
9 conclusion that the Project will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic or
10 aesthetic uses and will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic character of the
11 land within the viewshed of the Project.
12
13 MITIGATION
14 Q. WHAT MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACTS?
15 A. Mitigation is defined as any action taken or not taken to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce,
16 eliminate, or compensate for actual or potential adverse environmental impact. The
17 Project has been conceived and designed to have minimal visual impacts on the
18 surrounding environment. A description of how the Project has been designed to follow
19 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
21 that has: Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 20 of 21
1 0 Favorable topography requiring no major earth moving for road construction or
2 turbine siting.
3 0 A network of existing roads that will provide access to the site, thus minimizing
4 potential construction impacts.
5 0 An existing transmission line very close to the project site, thus minimizing the
6 amount of clearing necessary.
7 0 A minimal number of scenic resources that could be affected by the Project.
8 Additionally, the following design standards have been employed in the
9 development of the Project to enhance the appearance of the wind turbines and minimize
10 adverse public reactions:
11 0 Turbines will be placed in an orderly arrangement along the ridgeline, minimizing
12 perceived clutter.
13 0 The electrical collection system between individual turbines and the substation will
14 be located underground to the extent practicable, primarily along the access roads.
15 0 Vegetation clearing along the ridgeline will be minimized, particularly between the
16 individual turbine sites.
17 0 The turbine support towers provide a clean simplified profile that will have less
18 complex surface characteristics and less reflectance.
19 0 The color of all wind turbine components (tower, nacelle, and rotor blades) will be
20 a uniform white or off-white to achieve greatest visibility for pilots, particularly
21 during cloudy, overcast and inclement conditions. This will avoid the use of high- Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Terrence J. DeWan Page 21 of 21
visibility strobe lights during daylight hours, which would increase the visual
2 impact,
0 Nighttime lighting of the wind turbines will be the minimal amount required by
Federal Aviation Administration requirements. Lighting will be synchronized and
will not be required on every turbine.
6 0 Security lighting at the substation and O&M building will be minimal. Where
7 lighting is needed, the source of the light will be shielded to prevent off-site light
8 spillage.
9 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
10 A. Yes, it does.
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
DAVID FRIEND
May 26,2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 1 of
1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. 2 A. David K. Friend, 645 E. Pittsburgh St, Box 356, Greensburg PA 15601.
3
4 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5 Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY? 6 A. I am employed by US Wind Force, LLC, as Vice President, Sales and Marketing.
7
8 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
9 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL 10 BACKGROUND.
11 A. My current role at US Wind Force includes a broad variety of responsibilities with
12 respect to the Pinnacle Wind Farm at New Page (the “Project”), including Project related
13 sales and marketing, Project development, community outreach, regulatory compliance,
14 and a number of technical duties.
15 Prior to joining US Wind Force, LLC on a full-time basis in 2004, I was
16 employed by Allegheny Energy and its subsidiaries for 24 years. During that time, I held
17 a variety of technical and managerial positions in marketing, customer services,
18 distribution engineering, energy trading, and risk management. My educational and
19 professional qualifications are set forth on Exhibit DF-1 to this testimony.
20
21 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
22 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 2 of 24
1 A. The purpose of my testimony is to:
2 0 Identify the witnesses who will be providing direct testimony on behalf of
3 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC (“Pinnacle Wind Force”) in this proceeding;
4 0 Describe the significant experience of Pinnacle Wind Force and its joint
5 development partner, Edison Mission Group, in the development,
6 construction, and operation of a wide variety of energy producing facilities,
7 including wind power projects;
8 0 Provide a description of the Project, including the Project Area;
9 0 Describe the factors and process that led to the selection of Green Mountain
10 for the Project;
11 0 Explain the need for the Project and the plans for the interconnection of the
12 Project into the grid;
13 0 Provide an overview of the cost and financing of the Project;
14 0 Detail the local and economic benefits of the Project to West Virginia and
15 Mineral County;
16 0 Describe Project design, construction, operation, and maintenance; and
17 0 Support Pinnacle Wind Force’s request that the Commission approve its
18 application for siting certificate for the Project (“Application”).
19 Q. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN 20 DEVELOPING THE PROJECT. PLEASE ELABORATE.
21 A. I am responsible for the coordination of the various studies that have been completed in
22 preparation of the Application. I managed the consultants who have worked on the Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 3 of 24
1 Project. I participated in the consultation with state and federal agencies, including the
2 West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (“WVDNR’), United States Fish and
3 Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), West Virginia Division of Culture and History
4 (“WVSHPO”), and the West Virginia Division of Highways. I also met with local
5 leaders and community groups to provide information about the Project and was
6 instrumental in the formation and operation of a Community Advisory Panel established
7 to engage the local communities in a dialogue about the Project.
8 I had primary responsibility for the development of the Application. I provided
9 significant input regarding the Application content relating to Project scope, schedule,
10 and overall plans.
11
12 INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES
13 Q. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE OTHER WITNESS WHO WILL BE PROVIDING DIRECT
14 TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF PINNACLE WIND FORCE IN THIS PROCEEDING. A5 In addition to my testimony, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC is providing testimony from a 16 variety of professional consultants in their respective areas of expertise.
17 1. James D. Barnes, Supervisory Consultant for Acentech, will provide an
18 overview of his investigation of existing ambient noise conditions and
19 predicted noise associated with the construction and operation of the
20 Project. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 4 of 24
1 2. Randall A. Childs, Ph D., Principal, Community and Economic
2 Development Consultants, Inc., will present testimony regarding the
3 economic impacts of the Project to the State and local community.
4 3. Terrence J. DeWan, Principal, Terrence J. DeWan & Associates, will
5 provide testimony related to the viewshed mapping and photosimulations
6 that were prepared for the Project. Mr. DeWan will also present his
7 conclusions regarding the visual impact of the Project.
8 4. Paul Kerlinger Ph.D., Principal, Curry & Kerlinger, LLC, will provide
9 testimony related to the avian studies conducted for the Project and the
10 conclusions he drew from those studies.
11 5. William E. Llewellyn, Project Director for CME Engineering LP, will
12 provide testimony regarding his company’s work on environmental
13 investigations, mapping, design, and engineering for the Project, as well as
14 the status of certain permits and approvals required for the Project.
15 6. Kathryn M. Kuranda, Senior Vice President for Architectural & Historical
16 Services, R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., will provide
17 testimony regarding architectural resource investigations completed for
18 the Project, the ongoing consultations with WVSHPO on those
19 investigations, and the anticipated results related to the Project.
20 7. Jeffrey H Maymon, Senior Project Manager for Archeology, R.
21 Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., will provide testimony regarding
22 archaeological studies that have been completed in and around the Project Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 5 of 24
1 area, the ongoing consultations with WVSHPO on those studies, and the
2 anticipated results related to the Project.
3 8. Michael Sponsler, Technical Director, BHE Environmental, Inc., will
4 explain the potential impacts of the Project on rare, threatened and
5 endangered wildlife and plant species in the area, as reflected in the report
6 prepared by BHE on this subject.
7 9. Karen Tyrell, Senior Vice President, BHE Environmental, Inc., will
8 provide testimony related to the bat studies conducted for the Project and
9 the conclusions she drew from those studies.
10
11 PINNACLE WIND FORCE
12 Q. PLEASE OUTLINE PINNACLE WIND FORCE’S ORGANIZATIONAL
13 STRUCTURE.
14 A. Pinnacle Wind Force is a Delaware limited liability company. Pinnacle Wind Force
15 holds a Certificate of Authority from the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office and is
16 authorized to transact business in West Virginia. Pinnacle Wind Force is a subsidiary of
17 US Wind Force, LLC, a Delaware company with its principal offices in Greensburg,
18 Pennsylvania. US Wind Force operates under a joint development arrangement with
19 Edison Mission Group, a subsidiary of Edison International (EIX) based in Imine,
20 California.
21 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE PINNACLE WIND FORCE’S EXPERIENCE WITH WIND
22 POWER AND OTHER ENERGY PROJECTS. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 6 of 24
1 A. Pinnacle Wind Force, through its affiliation with US Wind Force and Edison Mission
2 Group, has access to significant experience developing and operating wind farms
3 throughout the United States. In particular, US Wind Force developed the Mt. Storm
4 wind farm, which was approved by this Commission in 2002. It has also developed the
5 Savage Mountain and Dans Mountain wind farms, both located in Western Maryland.
6 Edison Mission Group currently owns and operates more than 1,200 megawatts of wind
7 farms in seven states, including two wind farms in Southern Pennsylvania. It also owns
8 and operates two coal-fired generating stations in the region: the Grant Town power
9 plant in West Virginia that burns waste coal and the Homer City power plant in
10 Pennsylvania. In total, Edison Mission Group's continuing operations consist of owned
11 or leased interests in 44 power generation facilities, with an aggregate capacity of 11,413
12 megawatts (MW), of which EMG's ownership share is 10,214 MW.
13
14 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 15 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROJECT. 16 A. Pinnacle Wind Force proposes to construct approximately twenty-three (23) wind
17 turbines and associated equipment along the Allegheny Front near Keyser in northern
18 Mineral County, West Virginia. The Pinnacle Wind Farm at NewPage is projected to
19 have a total operating capacity of 55.2 MW. In addition to the wind turbines, Pinnacle
20 Wind Force proposes to construct tubular supporting towers and foundations, access
21 roads, an underground or overhead electric collection system, transmission line, and
22 interconnection substations. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 7 of 24
As we indicated in the Application, other turbine models may be considered for
the Project. If a model other than the MWT 9Y2.4 is selected, it will fall within the
general size and scale (both physically and in terms of generating capacity) of the turbine
model outlined in the Application. The final determination of turbine locations and the
model of wind turbine ultimately selected will affect the size and generating capacity of
the Project.
7 Q. WHERE IS THE PROJECT LOCATED? 8 A. The wind turbine array ranges from a distance of approximately 2.8 miles to the west of
9 Keyser to approximately 5.3 miles to the southwest of Keyser.
10 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROJECT SITE.
11 A. The Project will be located in select portions of privately-owned mountain top land
12 generally composed of uninhabited forested or timbered areas. Pinnacle Wind Force has
13 obtained the leases and options necessary for the construction and operation of the
14 Project. The area disturbed for the Project (limits of disturbance) will be approximately
15 102 acres. Operational land requirements will be much smaller, because the access road
16 width will be reduced from 35 feet to 16 feet, and turbine clearings and laydown areas
17 will be allowed to revegetate as described in Section 6.
18 Q. IS THE PROJECT CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS?
19 A. The area generally consists of sparsely populated undeveloped mountainous woodlands.
20 A few homes and cabins are present in the area, the nearest of which is located
21 approximately 916 feet from the nearest turbine. Those homes located closest to the Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 8 of 24
1 turbines are Project participants and have executed agreements with Pinnacle Wind
2 Force.
3 Q. WHAT DOCUMENTATION HAS PINNACLE WIND FORCE PROVIDED TO THE 4 COMMISSION AND COMMISSION STAFF WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT
5 AND PROJECT SITE?
6 A. The Pinnacle Wind Force team spent a significant amount of time preparing the
7 Application and believes that it is very complete. Pinnacle Wind Force has provided a
8 detailed explanation of the Project and extremely detailed maps, studies, tables, and
9 figures. The Application contains the information required by the Siting Rules.
10 Additional studies and information, organized by subject matter, are supplied as
11 appendices to the Application.
12 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT. 13 A. Each turbine contains an electrical generator housed in the nacelle located at the top of
14 the wind turbine tower. Once generated, power is transmitted on cables running internal
15 to the turbine towers, then underground to a pad mounted transformer adjacent to the
16 turbine tower and then through the underground collection system to the Project
17 substation. At the substation, the voltage is transformed from 34.5 kV to the transmission
18 voltage of 138 kV. The substation will be located west of the turbines, north of Green
19 Mountain Road. From there, an overhead 138 kV line will interconnect to the Albright-
20 Black Oak 138 kV transmission line owned by Allegheny Power.
21 Q. WILL THE PROJECT REQUIRE THE EXPANSION OR CONSTRUCTION OF A 22 TRANSMISSION LINE? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 9 of 24
1 A. As mentioned above, the Project will require the construction of about 3/4 mile of 138
2 kV transmission line to connect the Project substation with the interconnection
3 switchyard.
4
5 SELECTION OF THE PROJECT SITE 6 Q. WHAT FACTORS LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROJECT AREA ON 7 THE NEW CREEK RIDGE WOULD BE FAVORABLE FOR ELECTRIC WIND
8 GENERATION?
9 A. The Project site has several positive attributes for wind generation. First, the Project site
10 is located in an area that has an excellent wind resource. Further, the proximity of an
11 existing transmission line located near the Project site will allow for interconnection and
12 for output from the Project to get to market without the construction of any significant
13 new transmission lines. The site is also distant from most residences and sensitive
14 receptors. Finally, the land and the Project area is favorable for construction, and many
15 landowners in the area support the Project. In fact, one landowner, NewPage
16 Corporation, has committed to purchase a certain number of renewable energy credits
17 (RECs) from the Project. Its participation in the Project as a landowner is an example of
18 Newpage’s commitment to support the growth of sustainable energy and is consistent
19 with its goal to continuously explore renewable energy opportunities for its facilities,
20 increases its marketing opportunities, and adds an additional source of funding to a plant
21 operating in an extremely competitive environment in a time of economic uncertainty. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 10 of 24
1 Q. DESCRIBE THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS THAT RESULTED IN THE 2 SELECTION OF THE PROJECT SITE.
3 A. Pinnacle Wind Force selected the Project site based primarily on the available wind
4 resources, which are among the best in West Virginia. Other factors that weigh heavily
5 in favor of the Project site include the following:
6 The availability of privately-owned land with current land uses that are
7 compatible with wind power development;
8 Favorable transmission access within the PJM transmission grid system;
9 Access to a robust wholesale energy market within PJM;
10 Minimal impact on nearby residents;
11 Reasonable highway access; and
12 Relative scarcity of nearby residential dwellings.
13 With regard to environmental factors, the Project site also has many favorable attributes:
14 e No endangered species were identified at the Project site;
15 e No wetlands were identified within the area to be disturbed by the construction of
16 the wind turbines, roads, or ancillary equipment;
17 e No adverse impacts to plants or habitat will occur; and
18 e No unacceptable adverse impacts on wildlife were identified in the avian and bat
19 risk assessments.
20 Q. DID PINNACLE WIND FORCE INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL
21 IMPACT THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 11 of 24
1 A. Certainly. Pinnacle Wind Force's consultants conducted detailed studies of habitat,
2 plants, birds, bats, and other wildlife, including rare, threatened or endangered species.
3 These studies were based on Scopes of Work developed in consultation with the
4 WVDNR and the USFWS. No endangered species were identified at the site. Please see
5 the testimonies of Paul Kerlinger, Michael Sponsler, and Karen Tyrell for the results of
6 our investigations.
7
8 NEED, COMPETITION, AND INTERCONNECTION
9 Q. IS THERE A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL GENERATING CAPACITY IN THIS
10 REGION?
11 A. Yes. The 2009 Load Forecast Report predicts an average summer peak load growth for
12 PJM of 1.7% per year over the next 10 years and 1.4% per year over the next 15 years.'
13 Therefore, the PJM summer peak is predicted to see a 15-year increase of 32,153 MW.
14 Winter peak load growth for PJM is projected to average 1.2% per year over the next ten-
15 year period and 1.1% over the next 15-year period. The PJM winter peak load is
16 expected to see a 15-year increase of 20,036 MW. Simultaneously, as environmental
17 regulations evolve and the cost of maintaining older plants increases, the region is
18 expected to experience retirement of older fossil hel-fired generating units.
19 Additionally, within the regional wholesale power markets, the demand is growing for a
20 mix of energy sources, including renewable sources such as wind. This growing demand
21 for renewables is driven by continued consumer demand and by Renewable Portfolio
1 January 2009. PJM Load Forecast Reporthttp://www.pjm.com/planning/resource-adequacy- planning/-/media/documents/reports/2009-pjm-load-report .ash Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 12 of 24
1 Standard (RPS) or similar legislation in a number of states. These factors demonstrate
2 that the PJM region is in need of additional generating facilities, and Pinnacle Wind
3 Force believes that the energy produced by the Project will have access to a viable and
4 valuable market in PJM for many years to come. 5 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE STEPS PINNACLE WIND FORCE HAS TAKEN TO 6 PREPARE FOR INTERCONNECTION WITH THE TRANSMISSION GRID.
7 A. Pinnacle Wind Force submitted the Generation Interconnection Feasibility Study
8 Agreement and associated fee for the Project to PJM on January 3 1, 2005. PJM assigned
9 queue position N47 to the Project, which is referred to by PJM as the “Beryl
10 interconnection Project.” Pinnacle Wind Force also submitted a System Impact Study
11 Agreement on September 21 , 2005. As part of the study, PJM identified the type, scope,
12 and facilities necessary to interconnect and also any network upgrades and costs.
13 Pinnacle Wind Force submitted the Facilities Study Agreement to PJM on August 30,
14 2006. This study is ongoing and is expected to be completed in the first half of 2009. 15 Q. WILL THE PROJECT OPERATE AS AN EXEMPT WHOLESALE GENERATOR? 16 A. Yes. Pinnacle Wind Force anticipates filing for Exempt Wholesale Generator (EWG)
17 status at the appropriate time. 18 Q. WILL THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BE SOLD IN THE WHOLESALE 19 MARKET?
20 A. Yes. Upon the completion of the Project, it would generate electricity exclusively for
21 wholesale sales in the competitive market.
22 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 13 of 24
1 COST AND FINANCING
2 Q. WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROJECT? 3 A. The Project is estimated to cost $13 1 million.
4 Q. HOW WILL PINNACLE WIND FORCE FINANCE THE PROJECT? 5 A. The Project costs are currently expected to be privately funded by equity and/or debt
6 contributions secured by Pinnacle Wind Force.
7 Q. WILL ANY PUBLIC FUNDS BE USED IN THE PROJECT? 8 A. Pinnacle Wind Force has no agreements with any public entities, no economic assistance
9 has been promised to Pinnacle Wind Force by state, federal, or local governments, and no
10 agreements are contemplated that would provide any property tax abatement for the
11 Project. Pinnacle Wind Force notes that the federal government is and has been
12 considering programs, such as the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, that would provide
13 funding to foster the development of renewable energy projects, including wind power
14 projects. Pinnacle Wind Force may seek funding under any such program. If any such
15 funding is obtained, Pinnacle Wind Force will promptly make any disclosures required
16 by the Commission’s Siting Rules.
17 Q. WILL ANY WEST VIRGINIA UTILITY RATEPAYERS BEAR ANY RISK FROM
18 THE PROJECT?
19 A. No. Pinnacle Wind Force will bear full financial risk associated with the construction
20 and operation of the Project. No West Virginia utility ratepayer will bear any risk
21 associated with the Project.
22 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 14 of 24
1 ECONOMIC BENEFIT AND LOCAL SUPPORT
2 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE LOCAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO BE GENERATED 3 BY THE PROJECT.
4 A. If the Project is constructed as planned, it is expected to generate property taxes for
5 Mineral County averaging nearly $430,000 annually. Pinnacle Wind Force has
6 committed to make an investment in the future of the communities surrounding the
7 Project by providing an annual financial commitment from the Project to a fund that will
8 be managed exclusively by the local community. The Community Benefit Fund will help
9 develop the community and will provide funding to directly benefit residents within the
10 Project area. Projected contributions to the Community Benefit Fund will be $50,000 in
11 the first year of operation and $20,000 per year over the life of the Project. The
12 developers and the Community Advisory Panel are working in concert with West
13 Virginia Grantmakers to develop the appropriate and necessary organizational and
14 administrative guidelines, as well as the mission and donation guidelines for the Fund.
15 The financial obligation for the Community Benefit Fund will transfer to the ultimate
16 owner/operator of the Project.
17 Greater detail on both the direct and indirect economic benefits of the Project is
18 provided in the direct testimony of Randy Childs.
19 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE LOCAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT.
20 A. Pinnacle Wind Force has spoken with many local people who recognize the need for
21 diversified sources of electricity, including renewables such as wind. Pinnacle Wind
22 Force has received a number of unsolicited inquiries from people who would like to have Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 15 of 24
1 turbines on their property as well. Pinnacle Wind Force has involved the local
2 community in the Project through the Community Advisory Panel and a number of open
3 houses. We have met with many local elected officials and other community leaders and
4 civic groups. Based on our communication with these groups, the local support for the
5 Project is strong. Of course, the Project has some local opponents. The opponents often
6 focus on the visual aspects of the Project. Others do not support the concept of wind
7 energy. 8 Q. WILL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON 9 TOURISM?
10 A. It is unlikely that the Project will negatively affect tourism in the area. A number of
11 studies suggest there may be a boost in tourism should people decide to travel to the area
12 to see the modern wind power facilities. For example, the operating wind farm in nearby
13 Tucker County, West Virginia has been used to promote tourism in that county. In
14 response to local traffic conditions, the state has constructed an area for vehicles to stop
15 and observe the wind farm. 16 Q. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA OF THE 17 PROJECT?
18 A. The Project will have minimal impact on the value of properties within its viewshed.
19 Several studies have investigated the effect of wind development on local property
20 values. The vast majority of these studies have found little to no impact on property
21 values. In some cases, the results actually found a positive correlation between wind
22 development and property values. Moreover, for landowners who have signed leases and Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 16 of 24
1 will host turbines on their property (including many whose properties are among those
2 closest to the Project), it is very likely that their land will become more valuable due to
3 the added lease payments. Property values are also affected by property tax rates, the
4 services that are available in the area, and the quality of area schools. Since the Project is
5 expected to be among the largest taxpayers in Mineral County, it is reasonable to expect
6 that the steady influx of additional tax revenue will allow the county to add services, or
7 control property tax rates. Either one of these may have a positive impact on property
8 values over the long term.
9
10 PROJECT DESIGN
11 Q. HOW HAS PINNACLE WIND FORCE APPROACHED PLANNING AND DESIGN 12 OF THE PROJECT?
13 A. From the start, the goal has been to provide generation from a renewable source while
14 minimizing negative impacts to the site and local area. Pinnacle Wind Force has made
15 extensive efforts to avoid critical areas and sensitive species, and to ensure that the land
16 can continue to be available for its current uses. To accomplish these goals and develop a
17 successful Project design, Pinnacle Wind Force has relied on its internal expertise and the
18 expertise of its consultants who have vast knowledge in environmental and engineering
19 areas related to wind energy generation.
20 Q. WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 21 OF THE PROJECT? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 17 of 24
1 A. Pinnacle Wind Force has been developing this Project since 2002. During the past seven
2 years, we have been working with government agencies to obtain the necessary permits
3 and have been performing the studies necessary for approval to proceed with the Project.
4 Pinnacle Wind Force intends to finalize all permitting and study issues and obtain all
5 necessary approvals by early 2010 and begin construction in the spring of 2010.
6
7 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
8 Q. WILL PINNACLE WIND FORCE BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 9 CONSTRUCTION OF ALL PROJECT PHASES?
10 A. Yes. Pinnacle Wind Force will utilize contractors to perform the construction, but will
11 remain solely responsible for the Project.
12 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PINNACLE WIND FORCE APPROACH TO
13 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
14 A. Our approach to Project construction is described in more detail in Section 6 of the
15 Application, in particular on pages 39 to 44. The Project will be constructed with a
16 phased approach. Initially, access roads will be constructed to allow materials to be
17 transported to the Project site. The access road will be constructed from where Green
18 Mountain Road crosses the ridge and then will run both north and south along the
19 ridgeline from turbine to turbine. Next, turbine sites will be prepared and foundation
20 construction will begin. Once a particular foundation has been constructed, towers,
21 nacelles, and blades will be erected and foundation construction will move to a new
22 location. Towers, blades, and nacelles are assembled using specialized cranes used for Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 18 of 24
1 wind turbine construction. Following construction of the main components, the electrical
2 connections and controls are completed. All of the tower, nacelle, and blade assembly
3 will be completed by contractors with the necessary experience and capability in
4 construction of wind turbines. Concurrent with this work, the electrical collection
5 system, substation, and Operations and Maintenance building will be constructed. The
6 work will be undertaken by a general contractor with the experience necessary to build a
7 wind generation project, but it is expected that much of the labor hired will be from the
8 local area. In fact, Pinnacle Wind Force has an agreement with the local labor unions to
9 utilize their manpower for the construction of the Project. As turbines are completed and
10 the collection system and substation are completed, individual turbines will be
11 commissioned and placed into service while the remainder of the turbines are completed.
12 Q. DOES PINNACLE WIND FORCE HAVE A PLAN FOR THE SAFE
13 TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
14 THE PROJECT?
15 A. Yes. A traffic study was completed to determine the impact of the Project on local and
16 regional traffic conditions. This study is provided in Appendix V of the Application.
17 Pinnacle Wind Force will work with the turbine manufacturer selected for the Project to
18 ensure the safe transportation of the equipment to the Project site. The determination of
19 final transportation route and method is influenced greatly by the requirements of the
20 turbine manufacturer, which can vary considerably. However, our transportation reviews
21 to date indicate that the turbines can be successfully transported to the Project site. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 19 of 24
1 Q- WHAT EFFECT WILL THE PROJECT HAVE ON TRAFFIC DURING 2 CONSTRUCTION?
3 A. Pinnacle Wind Force anticipates that the impact to county and state roads will be minimal
4 and mostly confined to the Green Mountain locale. The majority of impacts will occur
5 during construction and are temporary in nature. During operation, traffic associated
6 with the Project will be drastically reduced. This traffic will be limited to Pinnacle Wind
7 Force personnel commuting to and from the Project site, material and equipment
8 deliveries, and routine maintenance vehicles mobilizing around the Project site. The
9 Project is not expected to affect traffic system development.
10
11 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
12 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT.
13 A. Under normal operations, the turbines can operate automatically based on wind data
14 collected by the onsite meteorological tower and automatic control systems. Each turbine
15 does have the ability to be manually controlled. They can be shut down for maintenance
16 or in the event of an emergency. Initially, the turbine manufacturer will provide
17 personnel to assist in the operation and training of Pinnacle Wind Force employees.
18 Routine maintenance activities will be determined by the manufacturer’s requirements
19 and by the operator’s experience from the operation of other wind energy facilities.
20 Q. WILL PINNACLE WIND FORCE BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE TURBINES
21 REMOTELY? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 20 of 24
1 A. We expect that the turbines will have the ability to be controlled remotely. This, of
2 course, can be influenced by final turbine selection and control system design.
3 Q. HAS PINNACLE WIND FORCE DEVELOPED A LIGHTING PLAN FOR THE 4 TURBINES OR CONSULTED WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION
5 ADMINISTRATION?
6 A. Yes. Aviation Systems, Inc., has interacted with the Federal Aviation Administration
7 (FAA) on behalf of Pinnacle in this regard. Specifically, 30 test points for the Project
8 were submitted to the FAA for a determination of no hazard (DNH). The test points
9 reflected a preliminary layout, which was deemed to be the worst case scenario at the
10 time of submittal to the FAA. In June 2008, the FAA returned a DNH letter for each of
11 the test points, which are included in Appendix F of the Application. Since then, the
12 Project layout has been modified but still remains within the limits covered by the
13 original submission. As required, Pinnacle Wind Force will submit the final design
14 layout to the FAA for a final determination. Based on the results of the initial submittal,
15 it is expected that a DNH letter will be returned for the final layout after all micro-siting
16 has been completed.
17 Q. HOW WILL THIS LIGHTING PLAN AFFECT THE PROJECT AREA?
18 A. The expected lighting scenario for the Project turbines is to have lights on the
19 northernmost and southernmost turbines as well as every third or fourth turbine in
20 between. The lighting of the wind turbines will be in accordance with FAA Advisory
21 Circular 70/7460-1 K and will be flashing, red FAA-approved lights that are lower in
22 intensity than the approved white lighting. The lighting will be synchronized so that it Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 21 of 24
1 appears uniform. Pinnacle Wind Force and its consultant, Aviation Systems, will
2 continue to consult with the FAA to obtain the appropriate final approval for the lighting
3 plan.
4 Q. WHAT MEASURES WILL PINNACLE WIND FORCE TAKE TO ENSURE SAFETY
5 DURING OPERATION OF THE PROJECT?
6 A. Public access to private lands is already restricted by landowners and is expected to
7 continue to be restricted in accordance with the agreements with the landowners. The
8 substation and switchyard will be fenced as required for public safety. This is the only
9 fencing proposed for the Project. Gates are planned at all entrances to the facility. Each
10 wind turbine tower has a maintenance door located at its base to provide access to the
11 components inside the nacelle. This door will remain locked to prevent unauthorized
12 entry. Signs will be posted around the towers, transformers, other high-voltage facilities,
13 and along roads to comply with applicable state and federal regulations. Pinnacle Wind
14 Force will maintain fire extinguishers and first-aid equipment to manage any minor
15 incidents that might occur at the facility. The Project will have automatic shutdown
16 features that will stop and lock the turbines in the event wind speeds exceed their
17 operating range or in the event of an electrical or mechanical malfunction. Pinnacle
18 Wind Force will also provide appropriate training to local fire and emergency response
19 personnel regarding the operation and safe access to the site and facilities, if necessary.
20 Material Safety Data Sheets will be maintained on site for all required materials.
21
22 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 22 of 24
1 DECOMMISSIONING
2 Q. WHAT OBLIGATIONS WILL PINNACLE WIND FORCE HAVE SHOULD
3 PROJECT OPERATIONS CEASE IN THE FUTURE?
4 A. As set forth in section six of the Application, Pinnacle Wind Force’s decommissioning
5 program will be designed to address the removal of the wind turbines and associated
6 equipment at the end of the useful life of the Project. The decommissioning program will
7 ensure that adequate funds are available and a plan is in place for the appropriate
8 decommissioning of the Project turbines. In the event that the decision is made to close
9 the facility and decommission the turbines, all towers, blades, nacelles, and transformers
10 would be removed and properly recycled or disposed offsite. Foundations will be
11 removed to a depth of approximately 3 to 4 feet, and the land will be reclaimed through
12 grading and seeding of disturbed areas, in accordance with the desires of the land owners
13 and the terms of the leases. Pinnacle Wind Force’s lease agreements require the turbines
14 to be removed once the Project is no longer operational. Pinnacle Wind Force is
15 committed to using a process, similar to those previously approved by the Commission,
16 whereby it would coordinate with Mineral County to procure the services of an
17 independent engineer to determine the amount of security necessary to provide for
18 decommissioning.
19 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
20 Q. HAVE PINNACLE WIND FORCE AND ITS CONSULTANTS CONSULTED WITH
21 THE USFWS AND THE WVDNR CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF
22 ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES ON THE PROJECT SITE? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 23 of 24
1 A. Yes. Pinnacle Wind Force began consultation with the USFWS and the WVDN in
2 March 2007 with correspondence from BHE Environmental, Inc. (BHE), requesting
3 information on wildlife, unique habitats, and rare, threatened and endangered species that
4 might be located on or near the Project site. Pinnacle Wind Force continues to consult
5 with these agencies and submitted the reports of environmental studies performed at the
6 Project site to USFWS and WVDNR for review on March 11, 2009. Based on the
7 information currently available, Pinnacle is not aware of any permits required for the
8 Project regarding RTE species.
9 Q- DID FIELD SURVEYS DETECT THE PRESENCE OF THE INDIANA BAT OR THE 10 VIRGINIA BIG-EARED BAT?
11 A. No. The bat risk assessment, included as Appendix T to the Application, concluded that
12 the risk to endangered bats is considered to be low.
13
14 ADDITIONAL PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS
15 Q. WHAT IS THE STATUS ON THE OTHER PERMITS OR AUTHORIZATIONS THAT
16 PINNACLE WIND FORCE WILL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN FOR THE PROJECT?
17 A. Most of the required permits or authorizations required for the Project are in progress, or
18 require a start date after the issuance of a Siting Certificate. This is discussed in the
19 testimony of William Llewellyn and in Section 1, pp. 4-5, of the Application. 20
21 CONCLUSION
22 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of David Friend Page 24 of 24
1 A. The Project site is an excellent choice for the development of wind generation. It has an
2 excellent wind resource, available access to transmission on site, limited environmental
3 impact, and minimal negative impact on the local community due to the relative distance
4 from homes and other areas of significance. Importantly, the Project will provide clean
5 renewable energy and valuable economic benefits to the local area. Pinnacle Wind Force
6 looks forward to working with the Commission and Staff on this important project.
7 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
8 A. Yes, it does. David K. Friend W,Sales and Marketing US Wind Force, LLC Mr. Friend is one of the principals of US Wind Force and has served in his current capacity since May 2001. His responsibilities include, in addition to sales and marketing, information technology, wind data management and assessment, government affairs and PJM interaction. Prior to joining USWF, Mr. Friend was employed by Allegheny Energy, Inc. for over 23 years. During his tenure with Allegheny, its predecessors and affiliates, he served in a number of capacities, primarily in managing Marketing, Customer Services, Operations and Engineering. In 1998, he was recruited to help build wholesale power marketing and trading operation for an unregulated subsidiary of Allegheny Energy. He negotiated power purchase and sales agreements throughout the eastern interconnect and traded actively through the turbulent summers of 1999 and 2000. He later assumed responsibility for its unregulated retail operations and subsequently for the operations and rebuilding of the Corporate Risk Management function. The extensive and varied experience gained during his tenure with this Fortune 500 utility has proven valuable to the growth of US Wind Force. A graduate of Penn State University and Point Park University, Mr. Friend holds a Bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering Technology and degrees in Architectural Engineering Technology and Solar Engineering Technology. He also serves on the Board of Directors of the Allegheny Energy Federal Credit Union, a credit union with approximately $50 million in assets.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
Case No. 09-0360-E-CS
Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC and the end
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
PAUL KERLINGER
May 26,2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 1 of 14
1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. 2 A. Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D., P.O. Box 453, Cape May Point, NJ 08212.
3
4 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5 Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY? 6 A. I am a principal in the firm of Curry & Kerlinger, LLC. As such, I serve as the chief
7 scientist, overseeing all aspects of field studies (design, execution, analysis, and report
8 writing), research design, risk assessments, and expert testimony.
9 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE CURRY AND KERLINGER, LLC, AND ITS EXPERIENCE IN 10 RELATION TO AVIAN STUDIES, INCLUDING RISK ASSESSMENTS.
11 A. Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, and its principals (Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. and Richard Curry,
12 Ph.D.) are a small environmental consulting firm that focuses only on avian studies and
13 impacts at wind power and communication tower facilities. We have conducted these
14 studies since about 1993. Projects we have worked on span at least 17 states, Puerto
15 Rico, Mexico, Spain, and Canada. To date, we have assisted in the permitting of more
16 than 2,500 turbines (currently operating or actively being constructed). Our risk
17 assessments and the methodology we use for assessing risk have proven to be accurate.
18 Biologically significant impacts to birds have not occurred at any projects where we have
19 predicted little risk. The principals have served on various committees relevant to the
20 wind power industry, including the American Wind Energy Association’s Siting
21 Committee, the National Wind Coordinating Committee’s Wildlife Working Group, and
22 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Communication Tower Working Group. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 2 of 14
1 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
2 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL 3 BACKGROUND.
4 A. I hold M.S. (Master of Science) and Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) degrees from the State
5 University of New York at Albany. After receiving my Ph.D. in 1982, I served as a
6 research fellow and an Assistant Professor at several universities (Clemson University,
7 University of Calgary, and University of Southern Mississippi) before becoming Director
8 of New Jersey Audubon Society’s Cape May Bird Observatory in 1987. In addition to
9 being the director of the Observatory, I became the first Director of the Society’s
10 Research Program, for which I was tasked with developing the Society’s first research
11 program. During my seven-year tenure at New Jersey Audubon (1987- 1994), and before
12 that as an academic, I conducted a series of pioneering studies in the fields of bird
13 migration and bird conservation. For the latter work, I received a commendation from
14 the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. After leaving New Jersey Audubon, I
15 started my own consulting firm, primarily doing work in the wind power industry. In
16 1997, Curry & Kerlinger, LLC was formed with Dr. Richard Curry, former assistant to
17 the Secretary of Interior Rogers Morton.
18 Since entering the wind power and communication tower arena, I have designed
19 and directed numerous pre- and post-construction studies. Our research regarding FAA
20 obstruction lights on both wind turbines and communication towers, the latter done for
21 the Michigan Attorney General’s office, are now being used by the FAA to mitigate
22 impacts by communication towers to migrating birds. During my academic, non-profit, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 3 of 14
1 and business careers, I published five books (two on bird migration), as well as 50
2 scientific papers and hundreds of technical papers on wind and communication tower
3 projects. For more details, please see my resume and publication list, which are attached
4 as Exhibit PK-1 to this testimony. 5 Q. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE 6 COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
7 A. Yes. I provided testimony before this Commission in connection with the Mountaineer
8 and Liberty Gap wind energy projects in 2000 and 2007, respectively.
9
10 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY 11 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. 12 A. The purpose of my testimony is to summarize the studies I conducted as part of my
13 evaluation of the site for the proposed Pinnacle wind power project (the “Project”). I was
14 retained by Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC (“Pinnacle Wind Force”), to conduct those studies
15 and an avian risk assessment. Specifically, I was asked to conduct spring and fall raptor
16 migration studies, a breeding bird study, a review of radar studies of nocturnal migrants,
17 an analysis of the impact of FAA obstruction lighting on night migrating birds, and an
18 overall avian risk assessment. My testimony summarizes those studies along with my
19 conclusions regarding risk to birds posed by the Project.
20 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 4 of 14
~~ ~
1 BIRD STUDIES
2 Q. EXPLAIN HOW CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC DEVELOPED SURVEY METHODS
3 AND A WORK SCOPE FOR ON-SITE BIRD SURVEYS.
4 A. The studies we conducted were designed to determine the likelihood of risk to nesting,
5 migrating, foraging, and resting birds at the Project site. We started by using research
6 designs recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their 2003 guidance
7 document and the basic risk assessment approach that has been employed successfully at
8 existing wind power facilities in the U.S. From these, we developed the studies (listed
9 below) as a means of determining potential risk to birds specific to the Project. In
10 addition, we conducted preconstruction studies required by the Commission’s Siting
11 Rules for the permitting of wind power facilities. By adapting the preconstruction
12 research plan using what we now know about risk to birds at wind power facilities, I put
13 together a comprehensive approach to risk assessment for the Project. Note that our risk
14 assessment relied not only on our field studies, but on the overall body of knowledge
15 about actual risk at wind power facilities. That knowledge was based on about 25 post-
16 construction impact studies at existing wind plants during which the number of fatalities
17 and species involved were determined for each facility. The key to designing
18 preconstruction risk assessment studies and to assessing risk is an understanding of what
19 has transpired at other wind power facilities. That is, understanding the empirical studies
20 of impact at existing wind farms. Without using and depending on this information,
21 assessing risk is meaningless. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 5 of 14
1 We have used this approach successfully to assess risk in many states and in many
2 different topographic and habitat situations. As a result of post-construction studies
3 conducted at wind plants in many states, our pre-construction risk assessments and the
4 methodologies we use have been validated.
5 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE BIRD STUDIES AND CONCLUSIONS.
6 A. To assess potential risk to birds at the Project, we conducted the following studies:
7 0 Breeding Bird Study. During the spring of 2007, we established 36 point count
8 locations throughout the Project area. We sampled each point twice during the
9 migration season (June) using standard breeding bird study protocols. We found
10 61 species of birds, most of which were nesting locally. None were species that
11 are considered endangered or threatened.
12 a Spring and Fall Raptor Migration Studies. Two seasonal studies of raptor
13 migration were undertaken using an observation point just to the south of where
14 turbines would be placed on the ridge at the Project site. The site was chosen at
15 the top of the ridge so that birds migrating along the ridge could be seen as they
16 passed through the Project site. In fall 2007, we spent 699 hours on 87 days
17 between September 1 and December 15 counting migrants and recording their
18 behavior. In spring 2008, we conducted observations on 45 days (406 hours)
19 between March 2 and April 29 at the same observation point as used in fall.
20 During our observations, we basically mapped out where the birds were migrating
21 in relation to the ridge and turbine locations, their height in relation to the turbine
22 rotors, and other aspects of their behavior that might be related to potential risk. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 6 of 14
1 During the two seasons of observations, we noted a modest raptor migration, at
2 least in comparison to the well known raptor migration locations in eastern North
3 America. Of interest during those seasons was the large number of Golden Eagles
4 (99 in fall, 102 in spring) and Bald Eagles (57 in fall and 37 in spring) observed.
5 s A Summary and Review of Radar Studies of Nocturnal Migration. In 2008, I
6 reviewed 2 1 marine radar studies conducted at prospective wind power facilities
7 in six eastern states. The review was conducted to test the hypothesis that night
8 migrating birds (mostly songbirds) followed ridges during migration. In addition,
9 information regarding altitude and direction of flight were examined in an effort
10 to determine if risk at the Project site is likely to be greater than other sites where
11 wind turbines have been studied. Several of the studies were conducted at ridges,
12 including the Allegheny Front, which is the same ridge on which the Project site
13 is located. The other studies were conducted at sites away from ridges so that
14 results from ridge sites could be compared to non-ridge sites. The results rejected
15 the hypothesis that birds follow ridges during night migration and supported the
16 idea that night migrants fly across broad fronts and do not concentrate on
17 topographic features like Appalachian ridges. Data from the 2 1 studies relating to
18 numbers of migrants, height of migrants, and direction of migrants do not support
19 the hypothesis that night migrants concentrate and follow ridges. Overall, there
20 was little difference in numbers of migrants, their direction and their height at
21 ridge sites as opposed to non-ridge sites. Instead, most migrants’ paths crossed
22 the ridges without turning or following them and the altitude of migrants was Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 7 of 14
1 quite high, averaging 350-500 meters above ground level. The results of the
2 review strongly suggest that night migrants at the Project site will be similar in
3 number and behavior to other sites in the region.
4 e A Study of the Impact of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Obstruction
5 Lighting on Night Migrating Birds at Wind Power Facilities. In 2008, I
6 conducted a review of 24 post-construction fatality studies at wind plants in the
7 United States in an effort to determine whether FAA lights attracted night
8 migrating birds to wind turbines, thereby increasing the number of fatalities of
9 those birds. These studies represent a minimum of 15,000 individual turbine
10 fatality searches during the past decade. The results demonstrated that red-
11 flashing strobe-like lights do not attract night migrants. Evidence for this
12 conclusion comes from two types of data that emerged from the studies. First,
13 there were no large-scale fatality events (many birds killed by a single turbine on
14 a given night) reported from the studies. Such events occur at tall (generally >600
15 feet), guyed communication towers, which have different lighting than is the
16 norm for wind turbines.
17 Second, at wind power sites where a subset of turbines is lit, there were no
18 statistical differences in fatality rates between lit and unlit turbines. If FAA red
19 flashing lights - like those deployed on wind turbines - attracted night migrants,
20 the numbers of fatalities at lit turbines would be statistically greater than those at
21 turbines without lights. This was not the case. Overall, fatality rates of night Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 8 of 14
1 migrating birds at wind turbines was relatively low, ranging from less than one
2 bird per turbine per year to about seven birds per turbine per year
3
4 THE BIRD RISK ASSESSMENT
5 Q. PLEASE PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BIRD RISK
6 ASSESSMENT.
7 A. The avian risk assessment was conducted by using the results from the studies
8 summarized above, along with a literature search regarding impacts to birds at wind
9 power facilities. All the studies and past experience with respect to bird impacts were
10 then assimilated into a risk assessment. For example, we compared the number and type
11 of night migrants and raptors that are likely to fly over the Project site with other sites in
12 the northeastern United States, including the ridges of Appalachia. Note that the
13 assessment relied heavily on the avian impacts found on the Allegheny Front ridge at the
14 NedPower Mount Storm project, which is located on the same ridge as the Pinnacle
15 project, and on the Mountaineer project, which is located on a parallel ridge to the west of
16 the Allegheny Front. Both those sites revealed fatality rates that did not suggest
17 biological significance and were no greater than rates found at most other eastern wind
18 power projects.
19
20 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
21 Q. WERE ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES DOCUMENTED AT THE 22 PROJECT AREA DURING ON-SITE FIELD SURVEYS? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 9 of 14
1 A. During our studies, we encountered no endangered or threatened species at the Project
2 site. In addition, we did not find any habitat that was suitable for nesting of endangered
3 or threatened species. 4 Q* ARE THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES EXPECTED TO BREED, 5 RESIDE IN, OR USE THE PROJECT AREA AS A PRIMARY HABITAT?
6 A. No endangered or threatened birds are likely to nest, forage, or winter within the
7 boundaries of the Project.
8
9 MIGRATION ACTIVITY 10 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE NOCTURNAL MIGRATION ACTIVITY AT OR NEAR 11 TURBINE HEIGHTS.
12 A. From my knowledge of the behavior and ecology of night migrating birds and from the
13 review of the radar studies described above, I concluded that migration at the Project
14 would, in all likelihood, be very similar in passage rate, direction, and altitude to what
15 has been reported in dozens of radar studies that have been done in the eastern U.S. I
16 also concluded that night migrants would be distributed across a broad front as they
17 migrate over the general region that includes the Project site. By broad front, I mean that
18 there will be no dense aggregations of migrants at particular geographic or topographic
19 sites such as Appalachian ridges. My review of radar studies from eastern states provides
20 no indication that there are migration concentrations.
21 Although I conducted a review of the relevant radar studies and used them in the
22 risk assessment, it is important to note that radar has never been used with any degree of Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 10 of 14
1 precision to predict risk to night migrating birds. There are two reasons for this. First,
2 the numbers of night migrants killed at wind power facilities has been so small as to
3 make it extremely difficult to predict risk precisely. For risk to be predicted from radar
4 or other measures, the variation in fatality rates among sites would have to be great, with
5 some sites experiencing high fatality rates and others experiencing low rates. However,
6 there is little variation in the rate of night migrant fatalities at wind power facilities. For
7 example, at the NedPower Mount Storm and the Mountaineer wind power facilities in
8 West Virginia, the rate of night migrant fatalities was estimated to be about 2-4 night
9 migrants per turbine per year at the former site and about 3 night migrants per turbine per
10 year at the latter site. These estimates do not differ substantially from other estimates of
11 night migrant fatalities at other wind plants in the eastern United States.
12 The second reason fatality rates have not been predicted precisely from radar
13 study results is because those results vary so greatly from site to site. Recent publications
14 and lectures by radar experts suggest that several factors contribute to the variation in
15 migration rates among radar studies, even in the same state and at the same site. These
16 factors include real variation in numbers of migrating birds, as well as the fact that radar
17 detects insects, bats, birds, ground clutter, and virga (rain that never reaches the ground).
18 These factors have been known for several years among radar experts and there are some
19 ways of dealing with most of them. However, a recent paper appearing in a peer-
20 reviewed journal stated that most radar studies for wind power and other similar projects
21 do not calibrate their radars. In other words, these studies are reporting errors in
22 migration rates that are as much as 400% off the mark. For these reasons, much of my Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 11 of 14
1 risk assessment for nocturnal migrants is based on the many empirical studie of imp :ts
2 conducted at wind power facilities in various parts of the United States. 3 Q. BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THESE SURVEYS, WHAT CONCLUSIONS HAVE 4 YOU DRAWN WITH REGARD TO NOCTURNAL MIGRANTS?
5 A. Migration traffic rate and height of migration are likely to be very similar to other
6 locations in the eastern U.S. and be broad front in nature. Because of this, risk to night
7 migrating birds is likely to be similar to that reported from dozens of other post-
8 construction fatality studies in the U.S. Thus, the numbers of fatalities of night migrants
9 will be in the range reported for other studies from West Virginia and will not result in
10 fatality numbers that are likely to be biologically significant or involve endangered or
11 threatened species.
12
13 RAPTORS 14 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE RESULTS OF THE RAPTOR SURVEYS. 15 A. The numbers of raptors that migrate along the ridge at the Project site are such that the
16 site is not an important migration area for most raptors. The numbers of migrants are
17 smaller than observed at the better known migration hotspots in the northeastern United
18 States. The behavior of many of the birds observed at the Project site is similar to that of
19 raptors migrating along other ridges in the Appalachian Mountains. Many of these birds
20 follow the ridge for a few miles before leaving it to head in the appropriate direction for
21 migration. The numbers of Golden Eagles observed during the spring and fall seasons
22 we studied were greater than at most hawk migration sites in the eastern United States, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 12 of 14
1 suggesting that the ridge is an important area for migrating eagles. Because of Golden
2 Eagle migration, Pinnacle Wind Force decided to eliminate a second string of turbines
3 about one-half mile to the west of the ridge-top, thereby reducing potential risk to those
4 birds.
5 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE CONCLUSIONS YOU REACHED IN THE BIRD RISK 6 ASSESSMENT WITH REGARD TO RAPTORS.
7 A. The migration along the Allegheny Front at the Project site is very similar to migration of
8 raptors along other ridges in North America. For this reason, risk to migrating raptors is
9 likely to be similar or identical to what has been found at other ridge and non-ridge sites
10 in the eastern U.S., including the NedPower Mount Storm site, a few miles down ridge
11 from Pinnacle and the Mountaineer site, a few miles west of Pinnacle. At these and other
12 sites in the eastern U.S., the number of raptor fatalities per year has been minimal and not
13 biologically significant. While it is possible that Golden Eagles may collide with the
14 turbines in small numbers, it was concluded that impacts to raptors would not likely be
15 biologically significant. Support for this contention comes from fatality studies done at
16 dozens of wind plants that have been studied outside of California, including studies on
17 the ridges of Appalachia.
18
19 BREEDING BIRDS
20 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE RESULTS OF THE BREEDING BIRD SURVEY
21 A. The breeding bird study revealed a community of species that is typical of much of
22 Appalachia in species composition and density of individuals. Species found at or near Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 13 of 14
1 turbine,sites were mostly forest or brushland/edge nesting species. Several forest interior
2 nesting songbird species were observed. No endangered or threatened species were
3 located near the locations of turbines. A single Black Vulture, considered to be a “rare”
4 species in West Virginia, was sighted and may nest nearby. This species, though rare in
5 the past, is actually increasing in numbers in West Virginia and other parts of the
6 northeast and is one of many species moving northward as a result of climate change.
7 Q. WHAT CONCLUSIONS HAVE YOU DRAWN BASED ON THE 2007 SURVEY 8 WITH RESPECT TO BREEDING BIRDS?
9 A. Two conclusions can be drawn from the 2007 breeding bird study. First, because the
10 species found on site rarely fly above the canopy during the nesting season, collision
11 impacts will be quite rare and not biologically significant. Second, although no species
12 are likely to be impacted significantly, some birds may be displaced as a result of clearing
13 of forests for turbine sites and roads or as a result of habitat fragmentation. Impacts to
14 brush and forest edge species are likely to be ephemeral, although forest interior nesting
15 species (Ovenbird, Scarlet Tanager, etc.) will likely be displaced for many years or until
16 the forest regenerates completely. However, these impacts will not be any different from
17 those caused by normal harvesting of timber throughout Appalachia. Timber harvest is
18 likely to be ongoing at the project site and fragmentation would have occurred with or
19 without the addition of wind turbines to the site.
20 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 14 of 14
1 CONCLUSION
2 Q- PLEASE DESCRIBE IN GENERAL TERMS THE CONCLUSIONS YOU REACHED 3 IN THE BIRD RISK ASSESSMENT.
4 A. Overall, impacts to birds at the Project site will not likely be biologically significant.
5 Q. ARE THE LIKELY PROJECTED IMPACTS TO THE GROUPS OF SPECIES 6 STUDIED UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT AREA AS COMPARED TO PROJECTED OR
7 ACTUAL IMPACTS FOR WIND PROJECTS IN THE NORTHEAST?
8 A. For the most part, impacts to the groups of species studied will not be unique to the
9 Project. I expect that impacts will be very similar to what has been found in post-
10 construction studies at other wind power facilities, especially with respect to fatality rates
11 and species composition of fatalities. Because traffic rates of Golden Eagles during
12 spring and fall migration were much greater than at most other locations in the eastern
13 U.S., small numbers of fatalities may result.
14 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?
15 A. Yes, it does.
16 PAUL KERLINGER, Ph.D. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 email: [email protected]
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Environmental Consultant and Principal, Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. 1994- (also Adjunct Professor, Collaborative Conservation Program, St. Francis University, Ebensburg, PA, 2005) and Independent Consulting
Director of Research - New Jersey Audubon Society and Director - Cape May Bird Observatory 1987-1994
Assistant Professor - University of Southern Mississippi 1985-1986
Postdoctoral Fellow - University of Calgary 1983-1985
Assistant Professor - Clemson University, South Carolina 1982-1983
EDUCATION
State University of New York at Albany Ph.D., Biology 1982 M.S., Biology 1981 State College of New York at Oneonta B.A., Biology 1976
PROFESSIONAL AND POPULAR PUBLICATIONS: Outstanding publication record in scientific and popular literature - 50+ papers (published in 4 countries), 5 books, 40+ popular articles, 100s of technical reports. List and samples available upon request.
BOOKS PUBLISHED:
Kerlinger, P. 1989. Flight Strategies of Migrating Hawks. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. pp. 374.
Kerlinger, P. 1995. How Birds Migrate. Stackpole Press, Harrisburg, PA. pp. 250.
Fowle, M., and P. Kerlinger. 2001. New York City Audubon Society Guide to Finding Birds in the Metropolitan Area. Cornel1 University Press, Ithaca, NY. Blanchard, P., and P. Kerlinger. 2001. An Islanded Nature: Natural Area Conservation and Restoration in Western Staten Island including the Harbor Herons Region. Published by: Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon, New York, NY.
Vezo, T., and P. Kerlinger. 2001. Wings in the Wild, Habits and Habitats of North American Birds. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA.
HONORS/DISTINCTIONS: Letters of Commendation - Director of US Fish & Wildlife Service - 1995; Governor of New Jersey - 1996; Expert Witness for State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and US Justice Dept. (Endangered Species and Wetlands) - 1988-1995; Reviewer for National Academies of Science National Research Council - wind power and wildlife report - 2007
MEMBERSHIP: National Wind Coordinating Committee - Wildlife Working Group (since 1996); U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Communication Tower Working Group - Research Committee (since 1999)
EXPERIENCE IN WIND POWER AND COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY (1 993-2004)
Expertise: Provide expert advice to corporations and nonprofit organizations regarding avian and habitat issues related to windpower and communication tower impacts to birds in North America, Europe, the Caribbean, and Central America Design and conduct Avian Risk Assessments at proposed wind power and communication tower sites (initial siting issues and assessment of overall avian risks) Design and conduct postconstruction impact studies at wind turbine and communication tower facilities Design and conduct avian research prior to, during, and after construction of wind power facilities (monitoring) Consult on design of wind plants and communication towers for avian safety Provide expertise on reduction of risk at proposed and existing wind power and communication tower facilities Provide expertise regarding habitat management at proposed and existing wind power facilities Serve as a liaison to conservation community and regulatory community for wind power developers Provide expert testimony for permitting and other processes
* * Consulting to nonprofit environmental organizations on wildlife, habitat, and conservation issues and research. Geographic Extent of Projects and Consulting: Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Texas, New Mexico, California, Newfoundland, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Spain (Andalucia, Galicia)
Companies: Zilkha Renewable Energy, PPM, Horizon, FPL Energy, Invenergy, Illinois Wind Power, Midwest Wind Energy, SeaWest Inc., Kenetech Windpower Inc., Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation, Green Mountain Energy, Green Mountain Power Corporation, Vermont Deparment of Public Service, Public Service Company of Colorado, Excel, enXco, Distributed Generation Corporation, Cape Winds, US Cellular, Sprint, AT&T Wireless, KRKO Radio, Superior Renewable Energy, US Wind Force, PPM, RES, Iberdrola, Gamesa, Fishermen’s Energy, AES, Cape Wind, etc.
Nonprofit Clients: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Conservation Law Foundation, New York City Audubon Society, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Michigan State Police and Attorney General’s Office, US DOE - National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Federal Aviation Administration, St. Francis University, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Fermata Inc.
Most Recent Success: Team leader for the Michigan Public Safety Communication Tower Project (Client - Michigan Attoreny General’s Office). Publication of research results (Ecological Applications 2009) on the role of FAA lights to collisions of night migrants at communication towers. Results of our work are now being used by the Federal Aviation Administration to redesign lights on communication towers across North America. Such lighting changes will likely save more than 1 million birds per year. PAUL KERLINGER - ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS
PUBLICATIONS - BOOKS:
Kerlinger, P. 1989. Flight Strategies of Migrating Hawks. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 375 pp.
Kerlinger, P. 1995. How Birds Migrate. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA. pp 240.
Dunne, P.J., R. Kane, and P. Kerlinger. 1990. New Jersey at the Crossroads of Migration. New Jersey Audubon Society. Franklin Lakes, NJ, 74 pp.
Fowle, M., and P. Kerlinger. 2001. The New York City Audubon Society Guide to Finding Birds in the Metropolitan Area. Cornel1 University Press.
Blanchard, P., and P. Kerlinger. 2001. An Islanded Nature: Natural Area Conservation and Restoration in Western Staten Island including the Harbor Herons Region. Published by: Trust for Public Land and New York City Audubon, New York, NY.
Vezo, T., and P. Kerlinger. 2001. Wings in the Wild, Habits and Habitats of North American Birds. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA.
JOURNAL ARTICLES, CHAPTERES IN VOLUMES, REVIEW PAPERS - (Peer Reviewed)
Kerlinger, P. 1981. Habitat disturbance and the decline of dominant avian species in pine barrens of the northeastern United States. American Birds 35: 16-20.
Kerlinger, P. 1980. The migration of Common Loons through eastern New York. Condor 84:97- 100.
Bingman, V.P., K.P. Able, and P. Kerlinger. 1982. Wind drift, compensation and the use of landmarks by nocturnal bird migrants. Animal Behaviour 30:49-53,
Kerlinger, P. and P.H. Lehrer. 1982. Owl recognition and anti-predator behavior of Sharp- shinned Hawks. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 58: 163-173.
Kerlinger, P. and P.H. Lehrer. 1982. Anti-predator responses of Sharp-shinned Hawks. Raptor Research 16:33-36.
Able, K.P., W. Gergits, V.P. Bingman, and P. Kerlinger. 1982. Field studies of avian nocturnal migratory orientation. 11: Experimental manipulation in white-throated sparrows released aloft. Animal Behaviour 30:768-777. Kerlinger, P., J. Cherry, and K. Powers. 1983. Records of migrant hawks from the North Atlantic Ocean. Auk 100:488-490.
Kerlinger, P. and S.A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 1984. Flight behaviour of sharp-shinned hawks during migration. I: Over land. Animal Behaviour 32: 1021 - 1028.
Kerlinger, P. 1984. Flight behaviour of sharp-shinned hawks during migration. 11: Over water. Animal Behaviour 32: 1029-1034.
Kerlinger, P., V.P. Bingman and K.P. Able. 1985. Comparative flight behaviour of migrating hawks studied with tracking radar during autumn in central New York. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63 :755-76 1,
Kerlinger, P. 1985. Water crossing behavior of migrating hawks. Wilson Bulletin 97: 109-1 13.
Kerlinger, P. and S.A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 1985. Seasonal timing, geographic distribution, and flight behavior of Broad-winged Hawks during spring migration in south Texas: A radar and visual study. Auk 102:735-743.
Kerlinger, P., M.R. Lein, and B.J. Sevick. 1985. Distribution and population fluctuations of wintering Snowy Owls (Nyctea scandiaca) in North America. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 1829-1834.
Kerlinger, P. and M.R. Lein. 1986. Differences in winter range among age-sex classes of Snowy Owls (Nyctea scandiaca) in North America. Ornis Scandinavica 17:1-7.
Moore, F.R. and P. Kerlinger. 1987. Stopover and fat deposition by North American wood- warblers (Parulinae) following spring migration over the Gulf of Mexico. Oecologia 74:47-54.
Kerlinger, P. and M.R. Lein. 1988. Causes of mortality, fat condition, and weights of wintering Snowy Owls. Journal of Field Ornithology 59:7-12.
Kerlinger, P. and M.R. Lein. 1988. Population ecology of Snowy Owls during winter on the Great Plains of North America. Condor 90:866-874.
Kerlinger, P. and F.R. Moore. 1989. Atmospheric structure and avian migration. Current Ornithology: 6: 109- 142. Plenum Press, NY.
Moore, F.R., P. Kerlinger, and T. Simons. 1990. Stopover on a Gulf Coast barrier island by spring Trans-Gulf migrants. Wilson Bulletin 102:487-500.
Bednarz, J. and P. Kerlinger. 1990. Monitoring hawk populations by counting migrants. pp. 328- 342. Proceedings of the Northeastern Raptor Symposium, Rochester, NY. National Wildlife Federation Scientific and Tech. Series No. 13. Kerlinger, P. and D.S. Wiedner. 1991. The economics of birding at Cape May, New Jersey. pp. 324-334, in Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, Vol. 1, J. Kusler, ed.
Russell, R., P. Dunne, C. Sutton, and P. Kerlinger. 1991. A visual study of migrating owls at Cape May Point, NJ. Condor 93:SS-61.
Moore, F.R. and P. Kerlinger. 1991. Nocturnality, long-distance migration, and ecological barriers. Proc. XYth Intern. Ornithol. Congr., pp. 1121-1129. New Zealand.
Wiedner, D.S., P. Kerlinger, et al. 1992. Visible morning flight of Neotropical landbird migrants at Cape May, New Jersey. Auk 109:500-510.
Duffy, K. and P. Kerlinger. 1992. Owl migration at Cape May, New Jersey. Wilson Bulletin 104:312-320.
Mabey, S.E., J. McCann, L.J. Niles, C. Bartlett, and P. Kerlinger. 1993. The Neotropical migratory songbird coastal corridor study, final report. A report of the Virginia Council on the Environment to the NOAA. pp. 72. (not peer reviewed)
Mabey, J.M., S.E. Mabey, L.J. Niles, C. Bartlett, and P. Kerlinger. 1993. A regional study of coastal migrtatory bird stopover habitat for Neotropical migrant songbirds: land management implications. Transactions 58thNorth American Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference, pages 358-407.
Moore, F.R., S.A. Gauthreaux, P. Kerlinger, and T.R. Simons. 1993. Stopover habitat: management implications and guidelines. in Proc. Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Eds., D. Finch and P. Stangel, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept., RM-229, pp. 58-69.
Moore, F.R., S.A. Gauthreaux, P. Kerlinger, and T.R. Simons. 1995. Habitat requirements during migration: important link in conservation. in Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. pp. 121-144. eds. D. Finch and T. Martin, Oxford Univ. Press, NY.
McCann, J.M., S.E. Mabey, L.J. Niles, C. Bartlett, and P. Kerlinger. 1993. A regional study of coastal migratory stopover habitat for neotropical songbirds: land management implications. Trans. 58th N. Am, Wild. and Nut. Res. Con$, pp. Wildl. Manage. Inst., Washington, DC.
LOOS,G. and P. Kerlinger. 1994. Road mortality of Saw-whet and Screech Owls in southern New Jersey. J. Raptor Res. 27:2 10-2 13.
Sutton, C. C. and P. Kerlinger. 1997. The Delaware Bayshore of New Jersey: a raptor migration and wintering site of hemispheric significance. J. Raptor Res. 3 1:54-58.
Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, and A.M. Manville, 11. 2009. Communication towers, lights, and birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological Applications 19:505-5 14. Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, and A.M. Manville, 11. In prep. Successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions with communication towers: the role of tower height and guy wires. For submission to Journal of Wildlife Management.
Kerlinger, P., J. Gehring, W. P. Erickson, R. Curry, and J. Guarnaccia. In prep. Night migrant fatalities at wind turbines in North America: A review and the role of FAA obstruction lighting. To be submitted to Wilson Bulletin.
Kerlinger, P., J. Gehring, D. Curry, and J. Guamaccia. In prep. An estimate of avian collision mortality at communication towers in Michigan and other Midwestern states. To be submitted to Journal of Field Ornithology.
PUBLICATIONS - BOOK REVIEWS:
1983. Animal Migration. by D.J. Aidley. in American Scientist.
1987. The Migration of Hawks. by D.S. Heintzelman. in The Auk.
1989. Peregrine Falcon Populations, Their Manage. and Recov. edited by T.J. Cade et al. in Bioscience.
1991. Rapaci in Volo. by Luisella Carretta. in Wilson Bulletin.
2006. Hawks from Every Angle, by Jerry Liguori, in Birding.
RECENT ABSTRACTS AND PRESENTED PAPERS FOR PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS - Since 2003 (complete list dates to 1979)
Kerlinger, P., and J. Kerns. 2003. FAA lighting of wind turbines and bird collisions. Proceedings of the National Wind Coordinating Committee Meeting, November 18,2003, Washington, DC.
Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, and A.M. Manville. 2004. Avian collisions with communication towers: a quantification of the associated tower variables.
Kerlinger, P. 2004. Wind turbines and avian risk: lessons from communication towers. Presented at the American Bird Conservancy-American Wind Energy Association Meeting, May 18-19, 2004, Washington, DC.
Kerlinger, P. 2004. Attraction of night migrating birds to FAA and other types of lights. National Wind Coordinating Committee - Wildlife Working Group Meeting, November 3-4, 2004, Lansdowne, VA. Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, and A.M. Manville. 2004. Avian collisions with communication towers: a quantification of some associated tower variables. Paper presented at the American Ornithologist’s Union annual meeting, Quebec City, Quebec.
Kerlinger, P. 2005. Appalachian ridge following by night migrating birds? A test of the hypothesis using marine surveillance radar in three states. Paper accepted for the joint Wilson Ornithological Society/Association of Field Ornithologists Meeting, April 2005, Laurel, MD.
Gehring, J.A., P. Kerlinger, and A. M. Manville, 11. 2005. Avian collisions with communication towers: a comparison of tower support systems and tower height categories. Wilson OrnithologicaYAssociation of Field Ornithologists joint annual meeting, April 2005. PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS ON BIRDING ECONOMICS/ECOTOURISM STUDIES AS CONSERVATION TOOLS
The publications that follow represent a unique body of conservation research that has been used by numerous environmental organizations, government agencies, and citizens groups to promote open space conservation. Those noted by an asterisk have been peer reviewed and published in the journal or volume indicated.
*Wiedner, D. S. and P. Kerlinger. 1990. Economics of birding: a national survey of active birders. American Birds 44:209-2 13.
*Kerlinger, P. and D. S. Wiedner. 1991. The economics of birding at Cape May, New Jersey. In Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, A collection of papers. 2nd International Symposium Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, 1991, Miami, Florida, J. A. Kusler, Jr., ed., vol. 1, pp. 324-334.
Kerlinger, P. and D. S. Wiedner. 1992. Birding economics, or birders mean big bucks. Living Bird 1 l(1): 8-9
*Wiedner, D.S. and P. Kerlinger. 1992. Economic impact of birding in Cape May, New Jersey. Human Dimensions in Wildlife Newsletter 8(3):23-24.
"Kerlinger, P. 1993a. Birding economics as a tool for conserving Neotropical migrants. Transactions of the 58th N. Amer. Wildlife and Nat. Res. Conf. pp. 438-443. Washington, DC.
Kerlinger, P. 1993. Birding economics and birder demographics studies as conservation tools. Proc. Status and Managem. of Neotrop. Migr. Birds. eds. D. Finch and P. Stangel, Rocky Mntn For. and Range Exper. Station, Fort Collins, CO. USDA For. Sew. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-229, pp. 32-38.
*Eubanks, T., P. Kerlinger, and R. H. Payne. 1993. High Island, Texas: a case study in avitourism. Birding 25:415-420.
Kerlinger, P. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding Whitefish Point, Michigan. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foudation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kerlinger, P. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, New Mexico. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kerlinger, P. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Kerlinger, P. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kerlinger, P., T. Eubanks, and R. H. Payne. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, Texas. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kerlinger, P. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kerlinger, P. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, Ohio. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kerlinger, P. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and . the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kerlinger, P. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge, California. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kerlinger, P., T. Eubanks, and R. H. Payne. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, Texas. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kerlinger, P. 1994. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the area surrounding The Nature Conservancy's Ramsey Canyon Preserve, Arizona. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and The Nature Conservancy.
Kerlinger, P. 1995. The economic implications and demographics of birding ecotourists in Trinidad and Tobago. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and New England Biolabs Foundation.
Kerlinger, P. 1995. The economic implications and demographics of ecotourists at the Chan Chich Lodge, Belize. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the New England Biolabs Foundation.
Kerlinger, P. and J. Brett. 1995. Hawk Mountain Sanctuary: a case study of birder visitation and birding economics. pp. 27 1-280, in Wildlife and recreation: coexistence through management and research, R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Kerlinger, P. and T. Eubanks. 1995. Birds and bucks. Birding 27:21-23 Kerlinger, P. 1995. Birders as ecotourists. Birders World (April):74-76.
Kerlinger, P. and T. Eubanks. 1995. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (National Audubon Society) area, Florida, 1993-1994. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and National Audubon Society.
Kerlinger, P., T. Eubanks, and R.H. Payne. 1995. The economic impact of birding ecotourism on the Sabal Palm Grove Sanctuary (National Audubon Society) area, Texas, 1994- 1995. Report to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and National Audubon Society.
Kerlinger, P. 1995. Preliminary report on the economic impact of ecotourists on the communities surrounding Mohonk Preserve, New York. Report to the Mohonk Preserve, Inc.
Kerlinger, P. 1995. Paying our fair share, birders should back the Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative. Living Bird 14(4):8-9.
"Kerlinger, P. 1998. Establishing an economic basis for protecting bird habitat at the local level. eds. R. Bonney, L. Niles, and D. Pashley. 1996 Partners in Flight Workshop volume from Cape May, New Jersey 1995 meeting volume.
PUBLICATIONS - TECHNICAL REPORTS
Kane, R., P. Kerlinger, and R. Radis. 1990. Arthur Kill Tributary and Greenway Project: Wildlife and Habitat Inventory. pp. 88. New Jersey Audubon Society, Franklin Lakes, NJ.
Kerlinger, P. and J. Palumbo. 1990. Raccoon Creek Tributaries Greenway Project (1990). pp. 68. New Jersey Audubon Society, Franklin Lakes, NJ.
Kane, R., P. Kerlinger, and K. Anderson. 1992. Delaware Bay and River Tributaries Greenway Project (1991-1992). pp. 112. New Jersey Audubon Society, Franklin Lakes, NJ.
Kane, P. and P. Kerlinger. Raritan Bay Habitat and Wildlife Inventory, 1992-1993. pp. 74. New Jersey Audubon Society, Franklin Lakes, NJ. (More than 100 others to industry, US Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, EPA, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, etc.)
PUBLICATIONS - POPULAR LITERATURE/MAGAZINES
Natural History - 1995, 1996 (American Museum of Natural History) Birders' World - 1994,1995; 2000-2006 (Birds on the Move - a regular column) WildBird - 1993,1994,1995, 1996 Atlantic Coast - 1993 New Jersey Outdoors 1995, 1997 The Conservationist (NY S Dept Envior. Conservation) Birding (American Birding Association Kingbird (NY State Federation of Bird Clubs) New England Bird Observer (Mass Audubon Society) Peregrine Observer (Cape May Bird Observatory) Newsletter of the Hawk Migration Assoc. of North America New Jersey Audubon Magazine Records of New Jersey Birds (1988-1994) Bird Watcher's Digest Cape May Bird Report - 1987 - by David A. Sibley (Kerlinger published this book) Winging It (ABA Newsletter) The Living Bird - 1998, 1995, 1992 (Cornel1 Lab of Ornithology) The Eyas (Raptor Research Society)
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
KATHRYN M. KURANDA
May 26,2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 1 of 10
1 Q* PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A. My name is Kathryn M. Kuranda. My business address is R. Christopher Goodwin &
3 Associates, Inc., 241 E. 4th Street, Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland 21701.
4
5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6 Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
7 A. I am employed with R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (“Goodwin &
8 Associates”) as Senior Vice President for Architectural & Historical Services.
9 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND ITS WORK IN
10 RELATION TO CULTURAL RESOURCES.
11 A. Goodwin & Associates is a twenty-eight-year-old cultural resources management firm
12 with a national practice in the full 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,
16 Kansas. All of our professional staff meet or exceed the professional qualification
17 standards established by the Secretary of the Interior in their respective fields.
18
19 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
20 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
21 BACKGROUND. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 2 of 10
1 A. I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in American Studies from Dickinson College and a
2 Master of Architectural History degree from the University of Virginia. My professional
3 qualifications exceed those established by the Secretary of the Interior in the field of
4 architectural history. I am a court-qualified architectural historian.
5 Prior to joining Goodwin & Associates in 1989, I served as the architectural
6 historian with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, where I coordinated the
7 state’s program for built resources, and as Architectural Historian with the Bureau of
8 Reclamation at their headquarters office in Denver. Since joining Goodwin & Associates
9 as a Senior Project 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
14 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
15 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY.
16 A. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the cultural resource investigations in history
17 and architectural history completed by Goodwin & Associates on behalf of Pinnacle
18 Wind Force, LLC (“Pinnacle Wind Force”) in Mineral County, West Virginia.
19 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. WERE ANY FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCIES CONSULTED CONCERNING THE
3 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE WORK DONE TO IDENTIFY CULTURAL
4 RESOURCES? IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN.
5 A. Yes. Consultation with the West Virginia Division of Cultural and History
6 (“WVSHPO’) was initiated in February 2008. Representatives of Pinnacle Wind Force
7 and Goodwin & Associates met with Ms. Susan Pierce, Deputy State Historic
8 Preservation Officer, and Ms. Ginger Williford, Structural Historian, on 13 February
9 2008 to discuss project scope, methodologies, and reporting. A summary of this
10 discussion was submitted to WVSHPO for review on 20 February 2008. In
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
13 coordination was maintained with the WVSHPO throughout the investigation.
14 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SCOPE OF WORK PROPOSED BY GOODWIN &
15 ASSOCIATES TO WVSHPO.
16 A. The Scope of Work defined a two-phase investigation. Phase I included five tasks:
17 1. Refine Area of Potential Effects (“APE”) through computer modeling and field
18 verification;
19 2. Develop the historic context appropriate to the assessment of built resources
20 within the APE;
21 3. Initiate public outreach to identify 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
1 4. Complete reconnaissance-level survey of all resources >50 yr of age within the
2 APE; and
3 5. Identify resources requiring further investigation, including intensive-level
4 survey.
5 The APE for the proposed Pinnacle wind power project (“Project”) was defined to
6 address both direct and indirect effects. The area of direct effects was defined as the
7 footprint 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
10 Project location that are within the viewshed of the Project as defined by computer
11 modeling and verified in the field.
12 Q. WHAT KINDS OF RESEARCH DID GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES UNDERTAKE IN
13 THIS EFFORT?
14 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
16 resources within the refined APE. Archival research was completed at the Keyser-
17 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,
19 Mineral County, and communities within the APE. Themes evolving from this research
20 include coal, timber, railroad, settlement, transportation, and education.
21 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
1 project on 5 May 2008 in Keyser to obtain data on historic properties and areas of
2 historical concern from the general public.
3 Reconnaissance-level architectural survey to locate and to identify built resources
4 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. To verify and to refine the areas likely to be in the viewshed within five miles of
7 the Project area;
8 2. To complete reconnaissance-level survey of all resources 50 years of age or older
9 within the APE with a view of the proposed tower locations; and,
10 3, To identify resources requiring Phase I1 investigation to determine Project effects.
11 Q. PLEASE REVIEW THE RESULTS OF THE PHASE I AND PHASE I1
12 INVESTIGATIONS.
13 A. Preliminary Phase I results were reviewed in the field with WVSHPO Structural
14 Historian Ginger Williford on 22 April 2008. The results of the Phase I investigation
15 were presented in a detailed technical report, Pinnacle Wind Project Phase I Investigation
16 for Architectural and Structural Resources, which was submitted the WVSHPO for
17 review and comment on 23 June 2008. The WVSHPO concurred with the findings of the
18 Phase I investigation in correspondence dated 3 July 2008.
19 The Phase I1 investigations included intensive-level field survey, evaluation, and
20 effects determinations for 21 properties that may have views of the Project. These
21 properties include 17 buildings, 1 district, and 3 cemeteries. West Virginia Historic
22 Property Inventory Forms with accompanying graphic and photographic materials were Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 6 of 10
1 prepared for each of the resources; all survey data was compiled from the public right-of-
2 way. The integrity of each property was assessed, and individual resources and districts
3 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 I1 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 I1 investigations were undertaken for 21 properties,
10 including 17 buildings, 1 district, and 3 cemeteries.
11 The investigation identified a total of 18 properties that meet the National
12 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
14 of Historic Places under Criterion A, and one property possesses the qualities of
15 significance and integrity for consideration for listing in the National Register of Historic
16 Places under Criterion B. The remaining properties possess the significance and integrity
17 for National Register consideration under Criterion C. A statement of significance was
18 completed for each resource and was included in West Virginia Historic Property
19 Inventory forms (“HPI”).
20 Three cemeteries also were documented under Phase I1 investigation. Although
21 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 10
1 the Phase I1 documentation submitted to WVSHPO. All HPI forms and accompanying
2 graphic and photographic documentation were submitted to the WVSHPO as part of the
3 Phase I1 technical report.
4 Q. HOW WERE EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES DETERMINED?
5 A. Following guidance provided in 36 CFR 800.5, analysis was completed to identify
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
12 was determined that the Project will have no direct effect on properties listed in, or
13 meeting National Register criteria. The Project was anticipated to be visible from 18
14 historic properties based on the viewshed model, photo simulations, and field
15 investigation. Unrelated contemporary construction already is present within the
16 viewsheds of eight of these properties, and therefore a visual impact already exists at
17 these properties.
18 Q. WHEN DID YOU PROVIDE THE PHASE I1 INVESTIGATION REPORT TO
19 WVSHPO, AND WHAT WAS ITS RESPONSE?
20 A. The Phase I1 Investigation for Architectural and Structural Resources was submitted to
21 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 I1 submission.
7 A 12 March 2009 review letter from WVSHPO regarding the Phase I1
8 investigations concurred that the Project will have no direct effect on properties listed in
9 or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The WVSHPO
10 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
12 result in a cumulative indirect effect to those resources when combined with
13 contemporary development already within the viewshed. Indirect effects to 10 additional
14 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
17 identified and documented as a result of the current investigation.
18 WVSHPO also requested that the acoustical study of the Project be submitted to
19 their office for review to address possible effects to historic property from noise
20 generated by the Project. An electronic version of the Acoustical Study of Proposed
21 Pinnacle Wind Farm Mineral County, West Virginia (completed by March 2009 by
22 Acentech, Inc.) was submitted to WVSHPO via email on 31 March 2009. WVSHPO Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Kathryn M. Kuranda Page 9 of 10
1 summarized their review of the report in a 21 April 2009 letter, which states that “In our
2 opinion the acoustical study addresses the potential effect to historic resources and that
3 there will be no adverse effect to any architectural or cultural resources eligible for or
4 listed in the National Register of Historic Places.”
5 WVSHPO recommended that the identified effects be mitigated through
6 stipulations defined in a Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) negotiated among
7 Pinnacle Wind Force and the WVSHPO. These negotiations had been initiated during
8 the 26 February 2009 meeting. This MOA will define measures to mitigate the adverse
9 visual effects to the 18 historic properties within the APE. This MOA is anticipated to
10 include the creation of a grant hnd for local historic preservation projects, pursuant to
11 which Pinnacle Wind Force will mitigate adverse visual effects to historic properties and
12 fulfill requirements for architectural and historical resources pursuant to 82 CSR 2, in
13 particular 0 82-2-5: State Review Process.
14 Q. ARE ANY RESOURCES WITHIN THE APE LISTED IN THE NRHP?
15 A. Review of the National Register filed maintained by the WVSHPO identified two
16 properties within the APE that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
17 These are the Mineral County Courthouse, listed in 2005, and the Thomas R. Carskadon
18 House, which was designated in 2002. These properties were included in the
19 architectural investigations as part of the Keyser historic district.
20 Q. SECTION 15 OF THE PSC APPLICATION STATES THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE
21 FILING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY, THE PROJECT LAYOUT WAS
22 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
1 AFFECTED THE CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL
2 SURVEY?
3 A. Analysis of the modified layout and photo simulations of the tower turbine array in
4 September 2008 refined the APE for Phase I1 investigation and eliminated five properties
5 from further study. While these properties will not have views to the Project and are
6 outside the APE, West Virginia Historic Property Inventory Forms were prepared and
7 filed with the WVSHPO to archive data collected prior to the Project modification.
8 The modifications to the Project layout were addressed in the Phase I1 technical
9 report submitted to the WVSHPO on 26 February 2009. The WVSHPO concurred with
10 the results of our reanalysis in correspondence dated 12 March 2009.
11 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?
12 A. Yes, it does.
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 WILLIAM E. LLEWELLYN
May 26,2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of William E. Llewellyn Page 1 of 6
1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. 2 A. William (Bill) E. Llewellyn, CME Engineering LP, 27 East Main Street, Frostburg,
3 Maryland 21 532.
4
5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6 Q* 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 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE CME ENGINEERING LP AND ITS EXPERIENCE TN
11 RELATION TO THE WORK PERFORMED FOR THE PROJECT.
12 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 in four
15 offices in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio. The CME Group, which is comprised of
16 CME Engineering LP and its two sister companies, CME Operations LP and CME
17 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
19 the mid-Atlantic region, including the Liberty Gap project in Pendleton County, West
20 Virginia.
21 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 2 of 6
1 EXPERIENCE
2 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.
3 A. As a project director for CME, I have broad responsibilities for many of the technical
4 aspects of CME’s work, as well as managerial and client interface responsibilities.
5 Pinnacle Wind Force is one of those clients. My project management experience
6 includes engineering and surveying work for a variety of industries, including surface
7 coal, fire clay, sandstone and limestone mines as well as natural gas wells, railroad
8 sidings, tunnels, golf courses, subdivisions and commercial site development. In the past
9 six years, work for the wind industry has accounted for approximately 80% of the
10 workload for me and my staff. I hold certifications related to surveying and quarry
11 permitting from the West Virginia Board of Professional Surveyors and the West
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., a
14 company that I purchased in 1995 and expanded, ultimately employing as many as fifteen
15 individuals.
16 Q. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE
17 COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
18 A. Yes. I provided testimony before this Commission in connection with the Liberty Gap
19 wind energy project in 2007.
20 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 3 of 6
1 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
2 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. 3 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
assisted Pinnacle with the coordination or preparation of permit applications for the
Project. My testimony provides a brief overview of CME’s efforts with regard to the
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 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE GENERALLY THE SCOPE OF CME’S WORK ON THE
10 PROJECT?
11 A. CME has been involved with the Project since soon after its inception. We have been
12 involved in surveying, mapping, field investigations, design work, and permitting for the
13 Project. I am the CME Project Manager assigned to the Project. CME has assisted
14 Pinnacle with numerous aspects of the Project, including but not limited to production of
15 base mapping, turbine layout, surveying, coordination with other consultants, lease
16 negotiation support, environmental site assessments, geotechnical support, wetland
17 delineations, West Virginia Division of Highways entrance designs, preliminary
18 transmission line layout, traffic studies and civil engineering.
19 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 4 of 6
1 PERMITTING
2 Q* WHAT PERMITS HAS PINNACLE WORK FORCE APPLIED FOR IN 3 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 States Fish and Wildlife Service and West
7 Virginia Division of Natural Resources are reviewing the studies of projected wildlife
8 impacts as discussed in the Direct Testimonies of Paul Kerlinger, Mike Sponsler, and
9 Karen Tyrell. Likewise, the State Historic Preservation Office of the West Virginia
10 Division of Culture and History is reviewing the potential impact on historic structures
11 and archaeology as discussed in the Direct Testimonies of Kate Kuranda and Jeff
12 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.
14 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
16 General Permit. The remaining permits and approvals listed in the table on page 5 of the
17 application will be requested after the Commission reaches a decision on Pinnacle’s
18 application for a Siting Certificate in this proceeding.
19 Q. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
20 ENGINEERS’ REVIEW OF THE WETLANDS DELINEATION? Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 5 of 6
1 A. On January 27, 2009, Pinnacle submitted a Wetlands Delineation Report to the U.S.
2 Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) and it is currently under review. 3 Q. WILL A SECTION 404 DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT BE REQUIRED FOR THE 4 PROJECT?
5 A. In consultation with the USACE, Pinnacle Wind Force and CME are currently working to
6 determine whether any streams or wetlands will be affected by the construction of the
7 Project. If there is no impact on streams and wetlands, no Section 404 Dredge and Fill
8 Permit will be needed for the Project. If, however, the USACE determines that the
9 Project will cause relatively minimal impacts on streams and wetlands, then Pinnacle
10 should qualify for one of the existing “nationwide permits” (or “NWPs”) available under
11 Section 404. Pinnacle Wind Force and CME have located road construction, utility
12 corridors and turbine sites to minimize disturbance to streams and wetlands and,
13 therefore, we do not anticipate the need to file a Section 404 NWP application. However,
14 if it is determined that a Section 404 approval is necessary, the Commission Staff will be
15 so advised. 16 Q- WILL A SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION BE REQUIRED FOR 17 THE PROJECT?
18 A. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from WVDEP when an impact to
19 state waters results from a federally-permitted action (such as construction under a
20 Section 404 permit). If no Section 404 Permit is needed for the Project, then Section 401
21 certification is not required. If a Section 404 NWP is required for the Project, then
22 Section 401 certification is automatic. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Paul Kerlinger Page 6 of 6
~~~
1 Q. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE WVDEP REVIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR
2 REGISTRATION UNDER THE NPDES CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER
3 GENERAL PERMIT?
4 A. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit is generally
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, A subsequent
10 revision to the application was made on April 15,2009. WVDEP is expected to complete
11 its review of the application by June 1,2009.
12 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
13 A. Yes.
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
JEFFREY H. MAYMON
May 26,2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Page 1 of 7
1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. 2 A. My name is Jeffrey H. Maymon, M.A. My business address is R. Christopher Goodwin
3 & Associates, Inc., 241 East Fourth Street, Suite 100, Frederick, Maryland 21701 4 5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6 Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY? 7 A. I am employed by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (“Goodwin &
8 Associates”) as a Senior Project Manager for Archeology in the Frederick, Maryland,
9 office.
10 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES AND ITS WORK IN RELATION
11 TO CULTURAL RESOURCES.
12 A. Goodwin & Associates is a twenty-eight-year-old cultural resource management firm
13 with a national practice in the full spectrum of the preservation disciplines. Our firm
14 provides comprehensive services in history, architectural history, historic preservation
15 planning, terrestrial archeology, and underwater archeology. We maintain offices in
16 Frederick, Maryland; New Oleans, Louisiana; Tallahassee, Florida; and Lawrence,
17 Kansas. All of our professional staff meet or exceed the professional qualification
18 standards established by the Secretary of the Interior in their respective fields, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Page 2 of 7
1 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
2 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
3 BACKGROUND.
4 A. I have more than twenty-six years of experience in archeology and cultural resource
5 management, including fifteen years of work in the Mid-Atlantic Region. I have
6 managed a wide range of cultural resource projects ranging from small Phase I
7 archeological surveys to large data recoveries in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia,
8 Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, Connecticut,
9 and Maine. I hold a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of New Hampshire and an
10 M.A. in Anthropology from Binghamton University.
11 12 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
13 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY.
14 A. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the cultural resource investigations in
15 archeology completed by Goodwin & Associates on behalf of Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC
16 (“Pinnacle Wind Force”) in Mineral County, West Virginia. The results of these
17 investigations are detailed in a report included, in redacted form, in Appendix “Y” to the
18 application filed in this case. 19 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Page 3 of 7
1 AGENCY CONSULTATION
2 Q- PLEASE DESCRIBE GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES’ CONSULATIONS WITH THE 3 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 to discuss scoping architectural and
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
11 project engineers. Records and site files research was completed at the WVSHPO office
12 on June 18, 2009. Informal discussion with SHPO office staff regarding the types of
13 resources anticipated occurred at this time.
14 Q. PURSUANT TO THE CONSULTATION WITH WVSHPO, PLEASE PROVIDE A 15 DESCRIPTION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN
16 UNDERTAKEN BY GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES.
17 A. Pursuant to the initial consultation, a Phase I Archeological Survey was conducted within
18 a survey corridor that was intended to encompass all ground-disturbing activities
19 associated with construction and operation of the wind farm. Defined by project
20 engineers, this survey corridor varied between 500 and 800 feet wide and extended for
21 approximately 3.27 miles along the ridgetop. A narrower interconnection corridor Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Page 4 of 7
extending west to existing Allegheny Power transmission lines was also surveyed. The
survey corridor was adjusted and expanded in June and September 2008 and included a
revised interconnection location in the northern portion of the project area. A
supplemental survey was conducted to ensure that all areas that might be impacted during
construction were examined. To maintain design flexibility, this survey area was larger
than necessary for construction and maintenance of the proposed wind turbine array.
7 A total of 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 (1 1.3 degrees),
10 exposed rock, or rock immediately beneath the leaf litter. The testing was conducted at
11 15 meter (50 ft) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 ft) apart along the survey
12 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 of
14 10 centimeters into culturally sterile subsoil, except where soil conditions prevented full
15 excavation. The spacing, diameter, and depth of the shovel tests were consistent with
16 guidelines for archeological investigations issued by the WVSHPO. The soils were
17 removed according to natural stratigraphic horizons and the soil characteristics, including
18 color and texture, were recorded using standard soil nomenclature. All excavated soils
19 were screened through 5 inch hardware cloth.
20 Nine archeological sites were identified within the survey area during these
21 investigations. Five of the sites (designated as sites 46Mi76, 46Mi77, 46Mi78, 46Mi79, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Page 5 of 7
and 46Mi80) are stones set upright to serve as boundary markers. Property surveyors
working for the landowners or Pinnacle Wind Force also identified most of these stones
as boundary markers. The characters “COR No 21 NC Co” were carved into one of these
stones, confirming that it represented a survey marker. Two other sites (46Mi81,
46Mi82) represent remains of possible historic stills in a wooded area north of Green
Mountain Road. These sites are characterized by a circular feature constructed by
removing natural stone from a central area and stacking it to form a low circular wall.
One site (46Mi75) consists of a single isolated chert flake and was likely the byproduct of
shaping or sharpening a stone tool.
10 The final site (46Mi74) is characterized by a cluster of 60 rock cairns and walls.
11 No artifacts were associated with these cairns that would help interpret their origins or
12 use. Situated along the margin of a steep slope on the eastern margin of the ridge, this
13 cluster of rock cairns/walls is located in one of the few locations along the ridge where a
14 plowzone was observed in soil profiles. The thicker soil deposits and plowzone
15 suggested that these cairns/walls were the result of field clearing during the nineteenth or
16 early twentieth century. These sites do not appear to possess either substantive research
17 potential or those qualities of significance as defined by the National Register Criteria’.
18 No further work was recommended at any of the nine sites.
19
The criteria for evaluating properties for the National Register are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffrey H. Maymon Page 6 of 7
1 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND STUDY
Q. DID GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES CONDUCT BACKGROUND RESEARCH TO
IDENTIFY KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES NEAR THE PROJECT AREA
THAT ARE BEYOND THE DIRECT AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (“APE”)?
5 A. 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 corridor. The research was conducted in June
9 2008 and included examination of site files at the Division of Culture and History in
10 Charleston, West Virginia, to document previously recorded archeological sites and
11 examine archeological studies conducted within the 5 miles of the Project area. None of
12 the 21 archeological sites recorded within the 5-mile area were determined to be eligible
13 for or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
14 Q. HAVE YOU PROVIDED THE RESULTS OF THE PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL 15 SURVEY TO WVSHPO?
16 A. Yes. The background research, methods, and results of the Phase I
17 Archaeological Survey, along with the recommendations of Goodwin &
18 Associates, are contained in a draft Phase I Archeological Survey for the Proposed
19 Pinnacle Wind Project, Mineral County, West Virginia (“Archeological Survey
20 Report”) that was submitted to the WVSHPO on March 11, 2009. A redacted Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Jeffiey H. Maymon Page 7 of 7
1 version of the Archeological Survey Report is included in Appendix “Y” to the
2 application filed in this case.
3 Q. HAS WVSHPO RESPONDED TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT?
4 A. No. To date, Goodwin & Associates has not received any formal response to the
5 Archeological Survey Report from the WVSHPO.
6 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
7 A. Yes, it does.
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
MIKE SPONSLER
May 26 2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 1 of 12
1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A. My name is Michael (Mike) Sponsler and my business address is BHE Environmental,
3 Inc., 5300 East Main St., Columbus, Ohio 43213.
4
5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6 Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
7 A. I am employed by BHE Environmental, Inc. (“BHE”) as a Technical Director.
8
9 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
10 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL
11 BACKGROUND.
12 A. I have a Master of Science degree in Zoology from Southern Illinois University at
13 Carbondale awarded in 1982, where I was affiliated with the Cooperative Wildlife
14 Research Laboratory. My master’s research paper compared bird populations on
15 reclaimed mined land to unmined land in two regions of Illinois. I have a Bachelor’s of
16 Science degree in Biology awarded in 1976 from Illinois Benedictine College in Lisle,
17 Illinois, (now known as Benedictine University). I have 30 years of Natural Resources
18 experience through my employment with the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals
19 (“IDMM’), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (“IDNR”), Ohio Department of
20 Natural Resources (“ODNR’) and BHE. While working for the foregoing governmental
21 agencies, I enforced natural resources protection laws related to impacts caused by coal Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 2 of 12
~ ~~
1 mining, industrial mineral mining, and oil and gas extraction. Given the breadth of
2 natural resources affected by energy and mineral extraction, I gained experience with
3 mitigation of impacts and restoration of natural resources in a wide variety of
4 environmental settings.
5 As a Reclamation Specialist and Assistant Division Supervisor with the IDMM, I
6 served as the Department’s representative on the Illinois State Wetland Policy
7 Committee; I chaired the Interagency Stream Diversion Committee; and was the lead
8 reviewer for permitting issues involving wildlife habitat development, endangered
9 species, wetlands, and streams. As Director of the Indiana Division of Reclamation, I
10 adopted procedures to comply with the protection of the Indiana bat from effects caused
11 by coal mining in a manner consistent with the Endangered Species Act. I was also the
12 IDNR representative for conservation planning of the northern copperbellied watersnake.
13 As Chief of the Ohio Division of Mineral Resources Management, I led the ODNR’s
14 signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Fish and Wildlife
15 Service (“USFWS”) for the conservation of the Indiana bat related to the effects caused
16 by surface coal mining operations. I also was the ODNR signer of the US Office of
17 Surface Mining’s Appalachian Reforestation Initiative.
18 At BHE my focus has been on wind farm development, including natural resource
19 studies, critical issues assessments, site permitting and post-construction mortality
20 monitoring.
21 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 3 of 12
1 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
2 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. 3 A. The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor certain portions of the application (the
4 “Application”) of Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC (“Pinnacle Wind Force”) for a siting
5 certificate from the Public Service Commission of West Virginia to construct and operate
6 a wind powered electric generation project with up to twenty-three (23) wind turbine
7 generators and other related facilities and equipment in Mineral County, West Virginia
8 (the “Project”). The focus of my testimony is to explain the potential impacts of the
9 Project on rare, threatened and endangered wildlife and plant species in the area, as
10 reflected in the report prepared by BHE titled: Habitat Characterization and Assessment
11 of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species for the Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral
12 County, West Virginia (the “Report”). The Report is included in Appendix “R’to the
13 Application.
14
15 HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
16 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE METHODS USED BY BHE TO CHARACTERIZE THE
17 HABITAT PRESENT WITHIN THE SITE OF THE PROJECT.
18 A. Prior to conducting field surveys for the Project, BHE queried pertinent agency
19 databases, searched relevant maps, conducted internet searches and participated in a joint
20 meeting with West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (“WVDNR”) and USFWS to
21 determine if protected ecological features, communities, vegetative cover types, and/or
22 habitat have been documented within the Project site. Field surveys were then completed Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 4 of 12
~ ~~~~~~~
1 to verify remote data and vegetative communities and to document pertinent habitat
2 features.
3 Q. HOW WAS THE VEGETATION CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROJECT SITE
4 DETERMINED?
5 A. The vegetation characterization of the Project site began with a desktop ecological
6 stratification. Ecological stratification as used in this study was the hierarchical
7 subdivision of the Project site vegetation into areas of similar biological and physical
8 characteristics to identify potential plant communities of conservation interest prior to
9 field work. The site stratification helped to guide the fieldwork, maximize efficiency on-
10 site, and bring attention to areas with potentially special or differing habitat. Based on
11 the site stratification, characteristics of potentially sensitive features were identified
12 including potential wetland areas, potential nutrient-rich soil areas, conifer forests, strip
13 mines, bodies of water, and areas of unfiagmented habitat.
14
15 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
16 Q. HOW DID BHE CLASSIFY PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING
17 THE STUDY?
18 A. The system developed by Natureserve to identify species diversity and ranking of
19 conservation status was used to classify plant and animal species identified during the
20 study. These state and global status ranks are a concise expression of the rarity, viability,
21 and distribution trends of a particular ecological community or species. These status Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 5 of 12
assessments are developed at the national level by Natureserve and at the state level by
2 WVDNR, using standard national protocols. They are based on the best available
3 information at the time of ranking, and consider a variety of factors such as abundance,
4 distribution, population trends, and threats.
5 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE BHE’S INVESTIGATION REGARDING RARE,
6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.
7 A. Plants:
8 Prior to the field survey, research was conducted to determine the probable distributions
9 of rare plants and natural communities. This research included species known from the
10 site (data provided by WVDNR) as well as species considered possible based on their
11 occurrence in similar habitat types elsewhere along the Allegheny Front.
12 Field work was conducted October 8-12, 2007. Two teams of two biologists
13 examined 37 sample locations along the Allegheny Front where the proposed turbines,
14 roads, and connector line sites will be located and documented habitat along the
15 approximate width of the footprint of projected disturbance area. At each site, the global
16 positioning system point was noted, and information was collected regarding the stand
17 physiognomy, dominant plant species in each stratum, habitat type, habitat quality, and
18 any indicators of past disturbance. Rare plant species and invasive species, if any, were
19 noted. Where plant species identification was uncertain in the field, a specimen was
20 collected, pressed, and subsequently identified. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 6 of 12
1 Animals:
While conducting vegetation surveys within the Project area, habitat suitability was
evaluated for the eastern small-footed bat (Myoits leibii), the eastern spotted skunk
(Spilogale putorius), and the Alleghany woodrat (Neotoma magister), as these species are
ranked as species of concern by West Virginia and have been documented within either
one (1) or five (5) miles of the Project area. Particular attention was paid to rock
outcrops to assess their suitability as habitat for the eastern small-footed bat and the
Allegheny woodrat.
9 Eagles:
10 The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is no longer listed by the U.S. government as
11 threatened or endangered. However, bald eagles and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos)
12 are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and Migratory Bird
13 Treaty Act. The Project is within the nesting range of the bald eagle, so it was deemed
14 appropriate to conduct investigations for the presence of bald eagle nests in the Project
15 area. On March 4-5,2008, two biologists conducted a survey of the Project area for bald
16 eagle nest structures. Using USFWS 2007 Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, which
17 establish a 660-foot land disturbance buffer area, the biologists walked the Project site,
18 including the proposed turbine locations and associated collector lines, searching for nest
19 structures within 660 feet on each side of the turbine string (total survey corridor width of
20 1,320 feet). The biologists also searched for nests along public roads adjacent to the Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 7 of 12
1 turbine locations and conducted a limited survey at Piney Swamp, which is located to the
2 west of the line of turbines. These surveys revealed no nest structures.
3 Q. WHAT RARE, THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES, IF ANY, WERE 4 DOCUMENTED AT THE PROJECT AREA DURING ON-SITE FIELD SURVEYS?
5 A. Plants:
6 No listed plants were observed during the field studies. A single fruiting American
7 chestnut tree with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of approximately six inches was
8 found near the southern end of the turbine string. American chestnut sprouts are
9 common, but an American chestnut with fruit is not, although it is not listed on state or
10 federal protected species lists. Most often, such trees succumb to blight or the fruits are
11 sterile. Most sprouts succumb before they reach four inches dbh, which is about the time
12 they begin fruiting. If they live longer than that, it is usually because they are in isolated
13 positions in the landscape, but they eventually contract the blight. The American
14 Chestnut Cooperators' Foundation is only interested in trees over 15 inches dbh for
15 research purposes. Integrated management for chestnut blight control has been
16 successful only when the chestnut trees have at least low levels of blight resistance,
17 competing hardwoods are controlled by cutting, and the location is favorable, Le., at
18 altitudes below 2,500 feet, in well-drained, acid, sandy-loam soils, on slopes facing from
19 north to east, which receive good moisture from surrounding slopes (American Chestnut
20 Cooperators' Foundation web site accessed October 2, 2008). Such favorable conditions
21 are not present at the site of this single tree or in the Project area generally. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 8 of 12
1 Animals:
2 With the exception of the small-footed bat (Myotis Zebii), which is addressed separately
3 by Karen Tyrell, PhD., BHE Senior Vice President, in her testimony regarding risk to
4 bats, no rare, threatened or endangered species were documented at the Project site.
5 However, as noted below, the Project site contains habitat consistent with the preferred
6 habitat for two other rare, threatened or endangered mammalian species that have been
7 documented within five miles of the Project area - the Allegheny woodrat and the eastern
8 spotted skunk.
9 Q. ARE THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES EXPECTED TO BREED,
10 RESIDE IN, OR USE THE PROJECT AREA AS A PRIMARY HABITAT?
11 A. The Allegheny woodrat and eastern spotted skunk are species of concern that were
12 identified by the WVDNR as having occurrence records within 1 or 5 miles of the Project
13 area. The biologist teams sought signs for both species at the Project site, but none were
14 detected, despite suitable habitat as further discussed below.
15 Allegheny woodrat:
16 Habitat suitable for the Allegheny woodrat was observed within the Project area;
17 however, no obvious signs of active woodrat middens (nests) or latrine sites were
18 observed during the habitat surveys. Numerous rock outcrops and talus areas appropriate
19 for nests were common; however, several of the conditions cited by authorities as
20 adversely affecting the habitat quality, and thereby limiting the range of the Allegheny
21 woodrat, were observed within the Project area. For example, forest damage and
22 defoliation caused by gypsy moths was observed. In addition, game species that may Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 9 of 12
1 compete with the Allegheny woodrat (white-tailed deer and black bear) occur within the
2 Project area. While these conditions do not preclude the presence of Allegheny woodrats
3 in the Project area, the likelihood of presence appears low. Moreover, the rock outcrops
4 and talus areas that the species typically inhabits are not unique to the Project area, but
5 are common throughout the Allegheny Front. The Sweet Birch - Chestnut Oak Talus
6 Woodland community that contains the preferred rock outcrop and talus habitat spans
7 from the central Appalachian Mountains westward to the Western Allegheny Plateau in
8 Pennsylvania. More than 200 individual stands of the community exist according to
9 Natureserve (2008). Thus, if the species were to use the area, removal of relatively small
10 amounts of potential habitat associated with the Project would be unlikely to have any
11 adverse effects to this species, given the abundant suitable habitat available in the general
12 area.
13 Eastern spotted skunk:
14 While uncommon in West Virginia, the eastern spotted skunk’s Global Rank by
15 Natureserve is G5, which means it is common, widespread and abundant. This species
16 utilizes a variety of habitats ranging from rocky, brushy, and wooded, all of which can be
17 found within the Project area. Potential den sites are also available within the Project
18 area. In addition to being a habitat generalist, the eastern spotted skunk is also a
19 generalist predator. Given the available potential habitat and food sources, it is possible
20 that the eastern spotted skunk may be located within the Project area, though no specific
21 sign was observed during the survey, which is not unusual because the animal is a
22 secretive species and often difficult to detect. Because the eastern spotted skunk uses a Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 10 of 12
wide variety of habitats and food sources and it is globally common, widespread and
2 abundant, any elimination of potentially suitable habitat by the Project should not be
3 considered an impact that will adversely affect this species.
4 Q. WHERE THERE ANY OTHER RARE, THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
5 EXAMINED IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK DONE BY BHE?
6 A. The list of rare, threatened, and endangered herptofauna listed for West Virginia was
7 examined for the likelihood of the occurrence of any listed species in the Project area.
8 The likelihood of presence of either of the two amphibians endemic to West Virginia, the
9 Cheat Mountain salamander and the West Virginia spring salamander, is negligible
10 within the Project area due to the range of these species and the habitat present within the
11 Project area. Generally, water habitats necessary to support many reptile and amphibian
12 populations were lacking within the Project area. The likelihood that the Project will
13 adversely affect rare, threatened, or endangered reptiles or amphibians is considered
14 minimal.
15
16 IMPACT OF LOGGING ACTIVITIES
17 Q. ARE YOU AWARE THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE 18 AND SURROUNDING AREAS WAS TIMBERED SUBSEQUENT TO BHE’S FIELD
19 INVESTIGATION?
20 A. Yes, I have been informed by Pinnacle Wind Force that following BHE’s field
21 investigations in October, 2007, the property owner removed virtually all standing timber
22 from a large portion of the Project area. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 11 of 12
1 Q. HOW DOES THE RECENT LOGGING OF THE PROJECT AREA AFFECT THE 2 POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON RARE, THREATENED OR
3 ENDANGERED SPECIES?
4 A. Areas that have been logged would be subject to much lesser effects fiom wind farm
5 development, because existing vegetation and the habitats they contain will have already
6 been eliminated or significantly reduced by the timbering activities.
7
8 CONCLUSION
9 Q. WHAT CONCLUSIONS DID BHE REACH REGARDING THE POTENTIAL RISK 10 TO RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES PRESENTED BY THE
11 PINNACLE PROJECT?
12 A. As previously noted, no plants listed as rare, threatened, or endangered were observed
13 during the field studies. While the existence of a single fruiting American chestnut tree is
14 unusual, such trees are not included on any list for protection and the identified tree is
15 likely sterile and/or will succumb to blight.
16 Of the 21 mammalian species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by the
17 State of West Virginia, only three have been documented within 5 miles of the Project
18 area. Eastern small-footed bat site usage was confirmed. The potential effects of the
19 proposed Project on this species are addressed in a separate bat risk assessment report.
20 Allegheny woodrat and eastern spotted skunk habitat were abundant, but no evidence of
21 site usage by either species was detected. The Project would not be expected to adversely
22 affect the populations of these species. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Mike Sponsler Page 12 of 12
No bald eagle nests were detected. The small size of most of the trees on site
would be unable to support the large, heavy nests constructed by this species.
The likelihood that the Project will adversely affect rare, threatened, or
endangered reptiles or amphibians is considered minimal. Generally, water habitats
necessary to support many reptile and amphibian populations were lacking within the
Project area.
Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? A. Yes, it does.
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
KAREN TYRELL, Ph.D.
May 26,2009 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 1 of 22
Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A. Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. My business address is 7041 Maynardville Highway, Knoxville, TN
3 37918. 4
5 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6 Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
7 A. I am Senior Vice President of BHE Environmental, Inc. (“BHE”). My educational and
8 professional qualifications are set forth on Exhibit KT-1 to this testimony. My firm has
9 been retained by Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC (“Pinnacle Wind Force”), to provide a
10 qualitative evaluation of the risk of effects from the Pinnacle wind project to federally
11 threatened or endangered bats, as well as non-listed bats, and to advise on methods to
12 minimize effects to these species.
13 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE BHE AND ITS EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO BAT
14 STUDIES, INCLUDING RISK ASSESSMENTS.
15 A. For over 20 years, BHE and its professional staff have completed hundreds of bat-related
16 projects, with a focus on endangered species impact assessment and conservation,
17 throughout the United States. These projects have included habitat characterization and
18 suitability evaluation, presence/absence studies, radio telemetry, acoustic studies,
19 population monitoring, risk assessment, and regulatory compliance under the Endangered
20 Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. BHE has evaluated risks to bats for
21 proposed wind projects in Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, Maryland, and West
22 Virginia. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 2 of 22
1 EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION 2 Q* PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL 3 BACKGROUND.
4 A. I specialize in the planning and management of projects evaluating impacts to, and
5 conservation of, environmental resources, especially in the areas of endangered species
6 compliance, bat biology and wildlife habitat management. I received a doctorate degree
7 from the University of Illinois, and am a Senior Vice President for BHE. For the past 15
8 years, I have served on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) Indiana
9 Bat Recovery Team, and am active on a number of industry advisory committees
10 addressing environmental effects of utility-grade wind power facilities. Previously I was
11 on the faculty of two major universities, and I have developed training courses for a
12 number of federal and state environmental programs. 13 Q. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE 14 COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA?
15 A. Yes, I provided testimony on the proposed US Wind Force, LLC, Liberty Gap project
16 with regard to analysis of effects to federally endangered bats.
17
18 PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY 19 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. 20 A. The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor certain portions of Pinnacle’s application (the
21 “Application”) for a siting certificate from the Public Service Commission of West
22 Virginia to construct and operate a wind powered electric generation project. The project Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 3 of 22
1 consists of up to twenty-three (23) wind turbine generators with a total generating
2 capacity of up to 55.2 megawatts; step-up transformers, a collection system to
3 interconnect the turbines; transmissions lines to interconnect the project with existing
4 Allegheny Power transmission lines; and other related facilities and equipment
5 (collectively, the “Project”). I led the evaluation of the Project’s potential impact on
6 federally endangered Indiana bats (‘yotis sodalis) and Virginia big-eared bats
7 (Corynorhinus townsendii virgianus), and non-federally listed species of bats. A copy of
8 the bat risk assessment report titled “BAT RISK ASSESSMENT: PINNACLE WIND
9 FARM MINERAL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA,” is attached to the Application as
10 Appendix T.
11
12 THE BAT STUDIES
13 Q. EXPLAIN HOW BHE DEVELOPED SURVEY METHODS AND A WORK SCOPE
14 FOR ON-SITE BAT SURVEYS.
15 A. Pinnacle Wind Force and BHE developed a scope of work based upon standard survey
16 methods currently used within the wind energy generation industry for preconstruction
17 monitoring, as well as direct consultation with staff of the West Virginia Field Office of
18 the USFWS and the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (“WVDNR’). BHE
19 also used results of preliminary site visits and remotely-accessed data providing reviews
20 of natural communities and habitats present on Pinnacle Mountain to develop site-
21 specific survey protocols and methods for bat field surveys. BHE communicated
22 regularly with the USFWS regarding the scope and timing of surveys, and obtained Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 4 of 22
1 appropriate permits from the USFWS and WVDNR where necessary to carry out field
2 surveys.
3 Q. PLEASE PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE BAT STUDIES. 4 A. Mist net surveys were performed by Stantec, Inc., at eight sites within the Project area
5 during the summer and fall mist net seasons in 2007. In the spring mist net season of
6 2008, six sites were operated by Stantec, Inc. Fewer sites were surveyed in the spring
7 because the proposed project area was reduced from the area surveyed in the fall. These
8 surveys followed the mist net guidelines as provided in the Draft Indiana Bat Recovery
9 Plan (USFWS 2007). The total level of survey effort equaled 32 net-nights in 2007 and
10 24 net-nights in 2008. A “net night” is defined as the operation of one net set for one
11 night. A field supervisor, recognized as a qualified Indiana bat surveyor by the WVDNR,
12 was present throughout the duration of the surveys, which were performed in accordance
13 with the Scientific Collection Permit issued by WVDNR.
14 To assess the presence of potential hibernacula within the Project area, BHE also
15 conducted a hibernacula study. BHE queried the available literature and the West
16 Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Interactive Mapping for the abandoned
17 mine land database layer. BHE also coordinated with the WVDNR and local
18 speleological experts. Two caves were identified within 5 miles of the proposed project
19 area. Both were surveyed during the hibernation period to determine use by Indiana or
20 Virginia big-eared bats.
21
22 Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 5 of 22
1 THE BAT RISK ASSESSMENT
2 Q. PLEASE PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BAT RISK 3 ASSESSMENT.
4 A. The Bat Risk Assessment is a document that describes potential risk to bats as a result of
5 the Project, and includes the following components:
6 Project background and site characteristics
7 Methods and results of on-site surveys (mist net and hibernacula)
8 Life histories of bats potentially present within the Project area
9 Literature review of bat mortality at existing wind projects
10 Potential effects to bats at the Project
11 Outline of post-construction monitoring studies and Adaptive Management Plan
12
13 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
14 Q. WERE ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES DOCUMENTED AT THE
15 PROJECT AREA DURING ON-SITE FIELD SURVEYS?
16 A. No threatened or endangered bat species were documented within the Project area during
17 on-site field surveys. A total of nine eastern small-footed bats (Myotis Zeibii) were
18 captured during the three mist net survey periods, and a single eastern small-footed bat
19 was observed hibernating in Kite’s Cave, approximately 1.2 miles fiom the Project area.
20 While the eastern small-footed bat is not federally listed as threatened or endangered, it is
21 ranked as S1 (extremely rare) by the State of West Virginia. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 6 of 22
1 Q. ARE THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES EXPECTED TO BREED, 2 RESIDE IN, OR USE THE PROJECT AREA AS A PRIMARY HABITAT?
3 A. No. Based upon results of the spring, summer, and autumn mist net surveys, the winter
4 hibernacula surveys, and the Bat Risk Assessment, no federally threatened or endangered
5 species are expected to breed, reside in, or use the Project area as primary habitat. No
6 threatened or endangered species of bats were documented during mist net surveys, and
7 the Project area is not located in the immediate vicinity of hibernacula containing
8 threatened or endangered bat species. However, it is possible that federally endangered
9 bats may occasionally pass through the Project area. While the Project is within the
10 species geographic range of two endangered species of bats, the known range of one of
11 these species (Virginia big-eared bat) is at the periphery of the Project area.
12
13 BAT MIGRATION AND MATERNITY SEASON ACTIVITY
14 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE RESULTS OF BAT MIST NET SURVEYS CONDUCTED
15 AT THE PROJECT SITE.
16 A. The mist net surveys were conducted by Stantec, Inc from August 1-1 1, 2007 (summer);
17 September 5-1 1 2007 (fall); and April 16-May 1, 2008 (spring). A total of 196 bats were
18 captured during the summer, fall, and spring sampling periods (132, 35, and 29
19 respectively). The summer, fall, and spring mist net surveys documented the presence of
20 seven species of bats within the Project area. In descending order of number of
21 individuals captured, the species of bats documented were:
22 big brown bat (Eptesicusfuscus),n = 72; Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 7 of 22
1 northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), n = 63;
2 eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), n = 24;
3 little brown bat (Myotis lucfugus), n = 22;
4 eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), n = 9
5 hoary bat (Lasiuvus cinereus), n = 4; and
6 eastern pipistrelle (Perimyotis subflavus), n = 4
7 Autumn mist net captures at the Project site were relatively low compared to comparable
8 studies done at proposed wind farm locations in the region that were publicly available.
9 When adjusted for level of effort, the number of bats captured at the Project site during
10 autumn was 58.5% below the number of bats captured at the recently approved Laurel
11 Mountain wind project in Barbour and Randolph Counties, West Virginia. During
12 spring, bat captures at the Project site were 68.5% less. With lower documented bat
13 usage of the Project area during migration, lower collision risk would be expected than at
14 Laurel Mountain during the highest risk migratory periods, Summer was the only season
15 where bat captures at the Project site exceeded Laurel Mountain. However, observed
16 mortality of summer resident bats at wind farms has been documented in the literature to
17 be low; therefore the higher summer observations at the Project site do not indicate a
18 substantially greater risk of mortality at this site. Gruver 2002, Howe et al. 2002,
19 Johnson et al. 2003a, Fiedler 2004 (as cited by Arnett et al., 2008) reported lower
mortality of bats at operational wind farms during the summer maternity period, even
21 when relatively large numbers of bats were present in the area of the wind energy
22 generators. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 8 of 22
1 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY BHE OF
2 POTENTIAL BAT HIBERNACULA IN CAVE AND MINE OPENINGS NEAR THE
3 PROJECT.
4 A. In coordination with appropriate State agencies, local experts, and data sources from
5 available literature, BHE identified two caves occurring within 5 miles of the Project
6 area. We focused our attention on caves within 5 miles of turbine locations because
7 previous studies indicate Indiana bat activity during swarming (prior to hibernation) and
8 staging (after hibernation) is concentrated within 5 miles of hibernacula (Romme, et al.
9 2002). The two caves were searched for hibernating bats on March 3-4, 2008. A total of
10 395 bats were observed hibernating in the caves. The 395 bats found during the
11 hibernacula surveys represented four species. Bats found hibernating within five miles of
12 the Project area are (by species, in descending order of occurrence of individuals):
13 0 eastern pipistrelle (n = 222; 56%),
14 0 little brown bat (n = 155; 39%),
15 0 big brown bat (n = 17; 4%), and
16 0 eastern small-footed bat (n = 1; <1%).
17 The low number of caves and abandoned underground mines may in part attract fewer
18 bats to the Project area, by not providing sufficient suitable hibernation habitat for some
19 species, and lack of breeding, maternity, and day roosting habitat for others. The scarcity
20 of suitable caves or mine hibernacula may also indicate fewer individuals will occur
21 during the fall swarming period. The absence of critical and high priority hibernacula
22 near the Project area is consistent with this location having a lower risk to bats than Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 9 of 22
1 proposed wind farms in the sme general geographic region that are closer to important
2 hibernating habitat.
3 Q. WHAT CONCLUSIONS DID YOU REACH RELATING TO THE EFFECT OF WIND
4 PROJECTS ON BATS GENERALLY?
5 A. Collisions between bats and manmade structures are well documented. Numerous
6 impacts with television towers, other communication towers, large buildings, power lines,
7 and fences have been reported, but collisions with wind energy turbine blades appear to
8 occur, in some instances, at much higher rates. Hypotheses concerning the reason(s) for
9 these escalated collision rates were summarized by Arnett (2005), but the underlying
10 causes of mortality remain unknown.
11 Arnett et al. (2008) summarized publicly available studies completed through
12 2006. Twenty-one publicly available studies at 19 different wind energy generation
13 facilities in the United States and Canada had been conducted specifically to investigate
14 bat mortality. Of these, five projects were located in the Pacific Northwest, one in the
15 Rocky Mountains, three in Alberta, Canada, five in the Midwest, one in South-Central
16 US, and six in the Eastern US (Arnett et al. 2008). Average mortality ranged from 0.1 to
17 69.6 bat fatalities per turbine per year. Methods used in these studies varied; mortality
18 estimates were adjusted in many cases for biases presented by searcher efficiency and
19 removal of carcasses by scavengers. A study from New York completed subsequent to
20 Arnett et al. (2008) reported three separate bat mortality estimates, based upon search
21 intervals. Mortality estimates from this study were 24.53 incidents/turbine/sample
22 period, 22.34 incidents/turbine/smple period, and 15-20 incidents/turbine/sample period, Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 10 of 22
1 respectively. These data represent only the mortality that occurred during the sample
2 period and, as such, cannot be directly compared to other studies that report annual
3 mortality.
4 Generally, documented bat mortality at North American wind energy generation
5 sites has been highest in the east (Appalachian Mountains), moderate in the Midwest, and
6 lowest in the western states. In most cases, documented mortality was low - less than 5
7 bats per turbine per year. Mortality exceeding 10 bats per turbine per year has been
8 identified at only five sites: Mountaineer (West Virginia), Meyersdale (Pennsylvania),
9 Buffalo Mountain (Anderson County, Tennessee), Top of Iowa (Iowa), and Summerview
10 (Alberta). Nationwide, more than 99% of fatalities reported by Johnson 2004 were of six
11 species in the United States, with hoary bats accounting for nearly one-half of all
12 mortality:
13 0 hoary bat (47.1%),
14 0 eastern red bat (25.4%),
15 0 silver-haired bat (1 1A%),
16 0 eastern pipistrelle (7.7%),
17 little brown bat (5.6%), and
18 0 big brown bat (1.8%).
19 The so-called “migratory bats” or “tree bats” (including hoary bats, eastern red bats, and
20 silver-haired bats) account for over 84% of known fatalities. Bats that roost (winter
21 and/or summer) in caves, sometimes referred to as “cave bats,” comprise the remaining
22 approximately 16% of bats found during post-construction mortality surveys. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 11 of 22
~~
1 Although mortality has been documented in all months when bats are not
2 hibernating, the majority of bat mortality at operational wind farms has been documented
3 in mid-July through mid-October during post-maternity dispersal from summer habitat to
4 winter habitat. Documented mortality is highest between approximately July 15 and
5 September 15.
6 At the Summerview wind energy generation facility in Alberta, Canada, 6% of the
7 272 silver-haired bat fatalities occurred in May and June, indicating that some mortality
8 does occur during the spring migration period for this species. Spring silver-haired bat
9 mortality was pronounced at the Buffalo Mountain Anderson County Tennessee wind
10 farm, where 84% of the 19 fatalities occurred between mid-April and early June (Arnett
11 et al. 2008). Gruver 2002, Howe et al. 2002, Johnson et al. 2003a, Fiedler 2004 (as cited
12 by Arnett et al, 2008) reported lower bat mortality during the summer maternity period,
13 even when relatively large numbers of bats were present in the area of the wind energy
14 generation facilities.
15 Little information exists upon which to base conclusions regarding the biological
16 significance of bat mortality at wind energy facilities. Researchers do not know if the
17 numbers of bat fatalities represent a meaningful proportion of the populations of these bat
18 species. To date, total population estimates do not exist for any of the species of bats for
19 which fatalities at wind sites have been observed. However, the tree bats that represent
20 the vast majority of fatalities are not listed as species of special status or concern at this
21 time by the USFWS or the state of West Virginia. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 12 of 22
Q. WHAT CONCLUSIONS DID YOU DRAW WITH RESPECT TO THE POTENTIAL 2 IMPACT OF THE PROJECT TO BATS?
3 A. Construction and operation of the Project could potentially affect bats through direct
4 and/or indirect means. Direct effects may occur by collision with turbine blades,
5 barotrauma caused by moving turbine blades, or removal of roost trees when bats are
6 using them. Six of the 10 species of bats likely to be present during some portion of the
7 year at the Project site have experienced mortality at one or more operating wind energy
8 sites. No fatalities of federally listed bat species have been documented at any wind
9 energy site in the United States. Based upon results of mortality monitoring completed in
10 other studies to date, we expect eastern red bats and hoary bats to account for the
11 majority of bat mortality at the Project site. These two species accounted for most of the
12 mortality in turbine searches conducted on Appalachian ridges in 2004 at Meyersdale
13 (73%), and Mountaineer (58%), and in 2003 at Mountaineer (61%).
14 Forest habitat on the Project area is currently undergoing substantial habitat
15 alteration as a result of ongoing timber operations by the propertyhimber owner,
16 including clear cutting to harvest the timber from trees that are dead or dying due to
17 gypsy moth infestation. When current logging efforts are complete, approximately one
18 half to two-thirds of the ridge will be devoid of forest. Loss of this forest habitat would
19 be expected to reduce bat use of the Project and the surrounding area in the short term.
20 Without trees, bats that might otherwise roost in them during migratory stop-overs will
21 not find suitable habitat on the Project area, therein reducing migratory period use of the
22 area. Consequently, this will reduce risk to bats, including hoary, red and sliver-haired Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 13 of 22
1 bats, which are the migratory tree bats most vulnerable to wind turbine induced mortality.
2 Similarly, summer maternity roosting habitat will be eliminated or greatly reduced by
3 logging, therein reducing summer bat usage and resulting in decreased overall collision
4 exposure. For bats that use trees as summer maternity roosts, such as Indiana bats and
5 tree bats, habitat will be absent or only minimally present. The area may continue to be
6 used by bats for foraging activities. However, the presence of bats in the area will likely
7 reflect the abundance of suitable insect prey and species-specific preferences for foraging
8 near forested areas.
9 Indirect effects to bats may occur due to alteration of habitat through the removal
10 of trees and other vegetation during construction of turbines and associated facilities, and
11 or displacement by operating turbines. It is important to consider the Project in the
12 context of forest habitat present in the local area. Mineral County includes approximately
13 328 square miles (209,920 acres), 78% of which is forested (Griffith and Widmann
14 2003). Prior to the timber owner’s clear cutting, construction of the Project was expected
15 to remove about 75 acres of forest, which is less than 0.04% of the forest in the county.
16 Habitat loss or degradation is not expected to present a level of concern.
17 There has been speculation about the potential disturbance of bats by operating
18 wind energy facilities, and the potential for resulting displacement from otherwise
19 suitable habitat. Data does not exist to dismiss the risk of such disturbance or
20 displacement, but preliminary information now available supports the conclusion that
21 wind turbines and their blades do not substantially disturb/displace bats. In 2004 at the
22 Mountaineer and Meyersdale wind sites, bats were commonly observed foraging in forest Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 14 of 22
1 openings at turbine sites. Thermal imaging equipment was used to investigate bat
2 behavior near wind towers. Bats landed on towers, foraged near rotating blades, pursued
3 rotating blades, and flew in patterns that appeared to indicate purposeful collision
4 avoidance (Horn et al. 2008). The presence of bats near operating turbines was also
5 documented at the Buffalo Ridge site in Minnesota (Johnson et al. 2003a), and the
6 Buffalo Mountain site in Anderson County Tennessee (Fiedler 2004).
7
8 SUMMARY OF THE BAT RISK ASSESSMENT
9 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE IN GENERAL TERMS THE CONCLUSIONS YOU REACHED 10 IN THE BAT RISK ASSESSMENT.
11 A. In summary, the findings and conclusions of the Bat Risk Assessment are:
12 1. Risk to endangered bats is considered low.
13 0 Endangered species of bats were not detected during mist net surveys within the
14 Project area.
15 0 Endangered species of bats were not found in the two caves within 5 miles of the
16 Project area.
17 0 Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis). The probability is low that reproductive female and
18 juvenile Indiana bats will occupy the Project area during summer. Thermal
19 conditions in the Project area are less than ideal, and may be entirely unsuitable,
20 for use by females and young. Indiana bats, even if present, are likely to be rare
21 in the Project area, and are likely to be active at heights largely below the rotor
22 swept area. Studies completed at operational wind farms to date have Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 15 of 22
documented very low mortality of resident bats during summer months, even
2 when concurrent mist net surveys and or ultrasound acoustic detection devices
3 indicate the presence of substantial numbers of bats. The risk of mortality of
4 Indiana bats from turbine blade interactions during the summer is considered low.
5 Risk of mortality during autumn migration may be higher than summer, but
6 would still likely be low. The lack of Indiana bat captures, the low captures of all
7 autumn migratory bats, the lack of local or regional cave usage by Indiana bats,
8 and ridgeline clear cutting suggest that autumn risk may be minimal due to these
9 local site conditions.
10 0 Virginia big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus). No signs of
11 summer or winter presence of Virginia big-eared bats were identified through
12 mist net surveys and none were detected in caves within 5 miles of the nearest
13 turbine during winter cave surveys (BHE 2008). Virginia big-eared bats have not
14 been identified utilizing caves within 38 miles of the Project site, or anywhere in
15 Mineral County. During summer these bats travel up to approximately 6.5 miles
16 from their roost cave to feed. No caves utilized by this species are known near
17 the Project area. The risk of fatalities to Virginia big-eared bats is considered very
18 low.
19 Small-footed bats (Myotis lebii). The characteristic low-flying behavior of
20 eastern small-footed bats would typically keep resident bats well below the rotor
21 swept area during the summer. Similarly, resident bats that hibernate near the
22 Project area could potentially use the Project area when winter conditions are Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 16 of 22
1 mild, but generally would be at heights well below the rotor swept area. The risk
2 of fatalities to the eastern small-footed bat is considered low.
3 2. Risks to all bats is considered low
4 0 Capture rates for all bats at the Project site during the migratory periods were low.
5 Only 35 bats were captured in the autumn of 2007 and only 29 were captured in
6 the spring of 2008. Caves are not numerous in the area. Summer mist net
7 captures totaled 132 individual bats. Investigation of the two caves within 5 miles
8 of the site revealed a total of 395 bats for both caves, which is a small hibernating
9 population.
10 0 Site factors suggest risk to non-listed migrating bats with a secure conservation
11 status may be lower than at other Appalachian ridges due to several factors,
12 including relatively low documented bat captures during the critical autumn
13 migration period, removal of roosting and foraging habitat via clear cutting of the
14 site (unrelated to the Project), presence of few caves in the vicinity, and low usage
15 of the caves by bats.
16 0 Mist Net Capture Data Comparison: Autumn mist net captures at the Project site
17 were relatively low. The number of bats captured at the Project site during
18 autumn was 58.5% below the number of bats captured at the Laurel Mountain
19 wind farm project area in Barbour and Randolph Counties, West Virginia (Table
20 7). During spring, bat captures at the Project site were 68.5% less. With lower
21 bat usage of the Project during migration, lower collision risk would be expected
22 during the highest risk migratory periods. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 17 of 22
1 0 Hibernacula: Caves and mine portals are relatively less numerous in the vicinity
2 of the Project area compared to other parts of West Virginia where wind farms
3 have been sited. In addition, the hibernacula classified by the USFWS as critical
4 habitat are not close to the Project area. Mine portals are absent within 5 miles of
5 the Project area, Only two small caves are within 5 miles of the Project area and
6 neither is documented as being used by Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats.
7 Eight of the 11 hibernacula within 40 miles of the Project area have been used by
8 Indiana bats since 2000. Of these, three hibernacula have been used by no more
9 than three bats. The closest hibernacula to the Project with documented Indiana
10 bat use is 22 miles away in Garrett County, MD; however, no usage by this
11 species has been documented since 2000. Prior documented usage was no more
12 than a maximum of five individual Indiana bats. Cornwell Cave at 35 miles
13 distant in Preston County, West Virginia, is the closest hibernacula (Priority 111)
14 with recent (since 2000) documented Indiana bat usage. The average distance to
15 actively used Indiana bat Priority I11 hibernacula is 37.5 miles. No priority I or 11
16 hibernacula are within 40 miles of the Project site. The single Virginia big-eared
17 bat critical habitat cave near the Project area is 38 miles distant at the species
18 outer home range.
19 o Three hibernacula designated as Virginia big-eared bat critical habitat
20 and/or Indiana bat Priority I and I1 hibernacula exist within 40 miles of
21 other wind farm locations. In contrast, no critical habitat for Indiana bats
22 occurs within 40 miles of the Project site. The single cave designated as Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 18 of 22
1 Virginia big-eared bat critical habitat that is present is 38 miles away, the
2 outer limit of this species’ 40-mile home range travel distance.
3 o The low occurrence of caves and abandoned underground mines would
4 tend to attract fewer bats to the Project area, due to the lack of hibernation
5 habitat for some species, and lack of breeding, maternity, and day roosting
6 habitat for others. Fewer hibernacula also means less fall swarming
7 habitat for those species that utilize caves or mines is present. The
8 absence of these critical and high priority habitats near the Project suggest
9 lower risk to bats compared to other wind farm locations.
10 o Results of winter investigation of the two small caves within 5 miles of the
11 Project site showed low bat usage. All bats observed during this study
12 were of non-listed species. A combined total of 395 bats was documented
13 in the two caves. For comparison, the Indiana Bat Recovery Plan
14 (USFWS 2007b) defines a Priority I11 Indiana bat hibernacula as a single
15 feature that contains 50-999 individual Indiana bats.
16 0 Roosting and Foraging Habitat Usage: Forest habitat on the Project area is
17 currently undergoing substantial habitat alteration as a result of ongoing timber
18 operations by the property/timber owner, including clear cutting to harvest the
19 timber from trees that are dead or dying due to gypsy moth infestation. When
20 completed, approximately one-half to two-thirds of the ridge will be devoid of
21 forest. Loss of this forest habitat would be expected to reduce bat use of the
22 Project area in the short term. Without trees, bats that might otherwise roost Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 19 of 22
1 during migratory stop-overs will not find suitable habitat on the Project area,
2 thereby reducing migratory usage by tree bats such as hoary, red and sliver-haired
3 bats, which are the bat species most vulnerable to wind turbine induced mortality.
4 For those bats that use trees as summer maternity roosts, such as Indiana bats and
5 the tree bats, habitat will be lacking. Similarly, summer maternity roosting
6 habitat will be eliminated by logging, therein reducing summer bat usage resulting
7 in decreased overall collision exposure.
8 o Prior to the clear cutting referenced above, construction of the Project was
9 expected to remove less than 0.04% of the forest in the county, and is
10 therefore unlikely to constitute a substantial loss in the habitat available to
11 bats that utilize forested habitat.
12 0 Pinnacle Wind Force plans to conduct post-construction bat mortality monitoring
13 for one year and if needed will prepare an Adaptive Management Plan to prevent
14 and mitigate collision mortality.
15 Q. ARE THE PROJECTED IMPACTS TO THE GROUPS OF SPECIES STUDIED
16 UNIQUE TO THE PROJECT AREA AS COMPARED TO PROJECTED OR ACTUAL
17 IMPACTS FOR WIND PROJECTS IN THE NORTHEAST?
18 A. Wind power facilities generally have the potential to adversely impact bats both directly
19 via collision mortality and indirectly via habitat degradation and displacement. While
20 empirical data to compare these negative impacts to those caused by the construction and
21 operation of other (conventional) types of energy generation facilities are lacking, both
22 direct and indirect mortality to bats from other energy sources are likely. A recent study Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 20 of 22
1 by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA;
2 Lampman and Newman, 2008) of the environmental impacts of electricity generation
3 with an emphasis on risks to wildlife and habitat, concluded that in a comparison of
4 sources of US electrical generation, wind power has among the lowest potential to
5 negatively impact wildlife. In contrast, the NYSERDA study concluded that coal, oil,
6 and natural gas ranked among the highest.
7 While difficult to precisely define, the degree to which a particular facility is
8 expected to impact bats is likely related to species abundance within the project area, the
9 potential for these species to be exposed to the rotor swept area, and the sensitivity of the
10 habitat present within the project area to disturbance. The habitat and species
11 composition of bats on Green Mountain differ fkom those found on forested ridgelines in
12 the state where wind farms have been developed. Pinnacle has fewer caves and mine
13 portals in proximity as compared to other West Virginia wind farms. A substantial
14 portion of the Project area will be cleared by commercial logging prior to Project
15 development. Capture rates of bats during the higher risk autumn migration season is
16 lower than available data from other West Virginia wind farms. The average distance
17 between the nearby tree top levels and the lower edge of the wind-swept area at the
18 Project will be greater than that at existing wind farms in the region (Le., Mountaineer
19 and Myersdale), where post-construction mortality data has been collected. The other
20 facilities were constructed in cleared forest openings along the tops of relatively wide
21 ridgelines. Post-construction, the Project will be located on a narrow non-forested
22 ridgeline where it borders the Allegheny Front. The Virginia big-eared bat and the Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 21 of 22
1 Indiana bat, along with a number of other bat species potentially present at this site,
2 forage at or below the top of the tree line, well below the rotor-swept area proposed for
3 the Project, thereby reducing the possibility of blade collision.
4 Based on site specific factors, mortality at the Project is expected to be lower than
5 other locations in West Virginia; however, accurate predictions of bat mortality at the
6 Project site cannot be made due to the limited amount of data regarding the specific
7 factors that contribute to the higher rates of mortality observed at some wind power
8 facilities.
9 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY? 10 A. Yes, it does. Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC Case No. 09-0360-E-CS Direct Testimony of Karen Tyrell, Ph.D. Page 22 of 22
LITERATURE CITED
Arnett, E.B. (ed). 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas. Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T.J. O’Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, R.D. Tankersley, Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72: 62-78. Curry, R. 2000. Federally listed threatened and endangered species of importance to mining. Pages 5 1-58 in Vories, K. and D. Throgmorton (eds.), Proceedings - Bat Conservation and Mining: A Technical Interactive Forum. USDI, Office of Surface Mining, Alton, Illinois and Coal Research Center, Carbondale, Illinois. Fiedler, J.K. 2004. Assessment of bat mortality and activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, Eastern Tennessee. M.A. Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville Griffith, D.M.; Widmann, R.H , 2003. Forest statistics for West Virginia: 1989 and 2000 Resource. Bulletin. NE-157. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 1 19 p. Gruver, J. C. 2002. Assessment of bat community structure and roosting habitat preferences for the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) near Foote Creek Rim, Wyoming. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. Horn, J.W., E.B. Amett, and T.H. Kunz. 2008. Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:123-132. Howe, R., W. Evans, and A. Wolf. 2002. Effects of wind turbines on birds and bats in northeastern Wisconsin. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Madison Gas and Electric Company. University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. Johnson, G., W. Erickson, M. Strickland, M. Shepherd, D. Shepherd, and S. Saparro. 2003a. Mortality of bats at a large-scale wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. The American Midland Naturalist 150:332-342. Johnson, G. 2004. Overview of available bat mortality studies at wind energy projects. Presentation at November 3-4,2004Wildlife Interactions Research meeting, National Wind Coordinating Committee, Lansdowne, Virginia. Lampman, G., and C. Newman. 2008. The comparative effects to wildlife from wind power to other forms of electricity generation: A life cycle analysis (NYSERDA). Presentation at October 8,2008 National Wind Coordinating Collaborative meeting, USFWS. 2007b. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Region 3 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft Snelling, Minnesota. April 2007. USFWS. 2008. Indiana bat: 2007 Population Estimates. http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/Endangered/mammals/inba/inba~2O07pop.html.Accessed 1 July 2008. ~A~~~ TYRELL, PhD Senior Vice President
~~~~ATI~N Ph.D., Biology, University of Illinois, 1990 B.S., Zoology, University of Wisconsin, 1980
CERTIFICATIONS AND TRAINING 2007, Siting and Transmission for Wind Farms, American Wind Energy Association 2006, Wind Energy Siting Workshop, American Wind Energy Association 2004, Fundamentals of Wind Energy, American Wind Energy Association 1997, Expert Witness in Environmental Litigation, US Fish and Wildlife Service 1995, Advanced Topics/New Applications of the National Environmental Policy Act 1994, Habitat Suitability index Software Application, US Fish and Wildlife Service 1994, Advanced Techniques in Habitat Evaluation Procedures, US Fish and Wildlife Service 1993; 1994, Endangered Species Act, CLE 1993, Environmental Regulations, Executive Enterprises 1992, Habitat Evaluation Procedures, US Fish and Wildlife Service 1991, Soil Genesis and Classification, University of Tennessee, 1991
QUALIFICATIONS AND RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Dr. Tyrell has designed and implemented numerous projects addressing the needs of both commercial developers and federal, state, and municipal government organizations including the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Federal Highways Administration, the US Forest Service, the US Office of Surface Mining, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, state DOTS, and many other state regulatory and resource agencies. Dr. Tyrell has extensive experience with all phases of project implementation, from study development and design, through coordination of field work and final report documentation. Dr. Tyrell frequently serves as QA/QC manager and project principal for BHEs natural resource projects. Many of Dr. Tyrell’s efforts are in response to mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. In completing numerous biological assessments of the effects to endangered species, Dr. Tyrell has developed extensive programs to avoid impacts to endangered species through development of conservation measures, including mitigation for loss of habitat, and habitat restoration. Dr. Tyrell has focused upon integration of land-use planning and predictive impact analyses to develop adaptive management and other strategies to address adverse effects to natural resources in support of project goals. Dr. Tyrell has provides a wide range of environmental support studies for the development of wind energy facilities throughout the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states, where she specializes in wildlife impact analyses and regulatory permit compliance. Dr. Tyrell was Program Manager for the biological assessment and supporting studies for relocation of the US Army Chemical School and Military Police School from Fort McClellan, Alabama, to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, under the Department of Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC). In response to this effort, the Team led by Dr. Tyrell received the prestigious Department of the Army’s Commander’s Award for Public Service for professionalism and staff dedication in providing exceptional service on these projects, recognized by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Leonard Wood, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition to accepting this award, Dr. Tyrell was awarded the US Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District Merit Coin for her efforts on behalf of the BRAC Construction Program. Dr. Tyrell is a consulting member of the US Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Team for federally endangered Indiana bats, and has continuing research efforts associated with aspects of bat ecology. Dr. Tyrell has developed extensive programs to avoid impacts to endangered bats through the development of conservation measures, including habitat restoration and mitigation for loss of habitat. Dr. Tyrell is the author of numerous scientific publications, and has presented findings of both technical and applied studies she has completed. Previously Dr. Tyrell was on the faculty of two major universities, and has developed training courses for a number of federal programs.
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Project Manager (2009) - National Acoustic Monitoring Program to Assess Risk to Bats at Proposed Wind Farms throughout the United States for confidential utility-scale wind energy generation client. Project Manager (2009) - Environmental Impact Assessment to develop summary documentation of environmental impact assessment and mitigation studies for a proposed utility-scale wind farm, Kansas. Agency Scoping (2008) and Project Planning/Permitting - Habitat Conservation Plan to address impacts to federally endangered Indiana bats at a proposed confidential utility-scale wind farm in Ohio. Project Principal (2008) - Environmental Screening Studies and Critical Issues Analysis for a proposed utility-scale wind energy generation facility in Ogle and Lee counties, Illinois. Environmental and Engineering Feasibility Studies (2008) for a proposed wind generation facility at a public university in Indiana, including determination of regulatory and environmental issues and development of a planning approach for impact assessment and environmental compliance. Project Principal (2008) - Early siting studies (Phase I ASTM Site Assessment) for confidential utility- scale wind energy site development in central Ohio. Project Principal (2007) - Habitat Conservation Plan, Incidental Take Permit, and Adaptive Management Plan for the Liberty Gap Wind Farm, Pendleton County, West Virginia. Project Manager (2007) - Critical Issues Analyses and Scoping Studies, Proposed Wind Farm in West Virginia. To support early project scoping, BHE developed the scope for and developed a comprehensive and detailed document characterizing the environmental permits and approvals needed to support the PSC Siting Certificate Application, along with an assessment of potentially difficult (time consuming, expensive, and/or likely to engender public/agency opposition) challenges in the permitting process for the project, and a description how these challenges might be resolved. Confidential Steel Plant, Indiana, Wind Energy Project Preliminary Issues Identification and Work Plan (2007) - Tasks included site visit to the proposed project location to collect information and clarify project requirement,; identification of environmental and other potential siting issues pertinent to this project, and preparation of a strategy and preliminary work plan for regulatory compliance. Expert Witness (2007) - Expert Testimony to the West Virginia Public Service Commission on behalf of the Liberty Gap Wind Force project, Pendleton County, West Virginia. Project Manager (2007) - Integrated Environmental Management, Including Critical Issues Analysis, Agency Scoping, and Preconstruction Studies for a Confidential Utility-Scale Wind Project, West Virginia. BHE developed a scope of work for project integration and streamlining of environmental tasks, with the goal of minimizing cost and schedule impacts, and to avoid data gaps and omissions in preparation of the West Virginia PSC Siting Certificate Application.
Tt,reil, K. 2 Project Manager (2007) - Preconstruction studies, Confidential Wind Project, Maryland. BHE provided pre-construction wildlife surveys at the site of a proposed utility-scale wind farm in southern Maryland to support a power generation siting certificate application to the Maryland Public Service Commission. BHE’s efforts included mist netting and acoustic studies for the presence and identification of bats in the project area in accordance with required pre- construction impact analyses. Project Manager (2006) - Risk Analysis and Best Management Practices, including Adaptive Management Planning, Post Construction Studies, and Conservation Methods to address effects of a proposed wind power facility in Pendleton County, West Virginia. Senior Advisor (2005) - Scoping, site inspection, review of regulatory agency comments, and support for investigating potential effects to bats from a proposed wind farm in Neda, Wisconsin. Program Manager (2006) - Endangered Species Act Compliance, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, including ecological risk assessments of the effects of military training, development of a programmatic biological assessment and a web-enabled GIS conservation management tool. Program Manager (2005) - Natural and Cultural Resource Management Support to the Fort Campbell, Kentucky Environmental Division, including endangered bat surveys, biological assessments, Endangered Species Management and Integrated Natural Resource Management plans, NEPA compliance, biodiversity studies, stream restoration, historic context studies, and cultural resource site detection and National Register eligibility studies. Project Principal (2004) - Scoping, site inspection, review of regulatory agency comments, and support for investigating potential effects to bats from a proposed wind farm in Neda Wisconsin. Issues addressed include presence f the largest known bat hibernaculum in the eastern United States. Project Principal (2003) - Web-Based Knowledge Management System for US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Customer Program - client confidential. Project Manager (2002) - Environmental Compliance for Utilities Privatization at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Project Principal (2001) - EIS support (FWHA) and Endangered Species Act compliance for the upgrade of Westgate Road, Pulaski County, Missouri. Project Manager (2001) - Environmental Assessment for Technology Park and Army Industrial Operations Complex, Compliance, US Army Maneuver Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Project Manager (2001) - Effects to Indiana Bats by the Proposed Union Pacific Rail Road Gasconade River Crossing, Gasconade, Missouri Project Principal (2001) -Study Plan, and Implementation of Phase I Study for Endangered Species Act Compliance to Assess Effects of Methyl Soyate Smoke Tests to Threatened and Endangered Species, University of Missouri Project Principal (2001) - Environmental Assessment of the Privatization of Electric Utilities, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Project Principal (1999) - Preparation of an Environmental Assessment, Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Endangered Species Management Plan, and Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan at Defense Industrial Plant Equipment Facility, Atchison, Kansas. Project Principal (1998) - Biomonitoring Plan and Endangered Species Act Compliance at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
Tyrell, X. 3 Project Principal (1998) - Environmental Baseline Studies for Utility Privatization at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Project Principal (1997) - Ecological risk assessment: Toxicological effects of M18 colored smoke grenades to Indiana bats, gray bats, and bald eagles. Project Principal (1997) - Ecological risk assessment: Effect of fog oil obscurant on selected amphibians, reptiles, and birds at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Project Principal (1997) - Biological Assessment and EIS Support for Realignment of the US Army Chemical and Military Police Schools from Fort McClellan to Fort Leonard Wood. Received the US Army Commander's Award for Public Service. Project Manager (1996) - Biological assessment of effects of ongoing mission activities on endangered species at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Project Principal (1996) - Environmental Impact Statement support for base closure, Fort McClellan, Alabama. Project Manager (1996) - Habitat characterization and survey for endangered gray bats at Fort McClellan, Alabama. Project Manager (1996) - Study of use of restored and created habitat by summering Indiana bats at the Indianapolis International Airport, Indiana. Project Manager (1995) - Conservation of endangered Indiana bats at the Indianapolis International Airport, Indiana. Project Manager (1994) - Survey for endangered insects on Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. Project Manager (1993) - Survey for endangered bats at Fort Benning, Georgia. Project Manager (1993) - Survey of surface mines for the presence of endangered bats. Report to the State of Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation. Project Manager (1993) - Survey of surface mines for the presence of endangered bats. Report to the State of Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation. Project Manager (1993) - Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment: Bat fauna of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Santa Fe National Forest, U.S. Department of Energy. Project Manager (1993) - Western Resources, Kansas: Survey for endangered bats in northeastern Kansas. Project Manager (1993) - Biological Assessment, Supplement to the Biological Assessment, and Conservation Plan to mitigate loss of habitat of the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly at National Steel's Midwest Division, Porter County, Indiana. Project Manager (1993) - Survey for endangered species of plants and animals for Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc., along a pipeline route crossing the Maumee River in Paulding County, Ohio. Project Manager (1993) - Survey for the red-cockaded woodpecker and its habitat on Talladega National Forest, Shoal Creek Ranger District, Cleburne and Calhoun counties, Alabama. Project Manager (1993) - Survey for the endangered false mermaid weed, running buffalo clover, and habitat of the federally endangered Indiana bat along Texas Eastern Pipeline Products' pipeline extension in Boone County, Kentucky. Project Manager (1993) - Mist net and radiotelemetry survey for the endangered Indiana bat on Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project Manager (1993) - Phase Ill studies of endangered Indiana and gray bats for Texas Gas Transmission Corporation's 14-mile Indiana Gas and 87-mile Main Line Expansion project in Kentucky . Project Manager (1992) - Field investigation to determine the scope and feasibility of study techniques for surveys of the spotted bat at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Report to Los Alamos National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Project Manager (1993) - Surveys for the Karner blue butterfly and its habitat at National Steel's Midwest Division, Porter County, Indiana. Project Manager (1992) - Survey for Virginia spirea and other listed species along ATEtT's proposed fiber optic cable right-of-wayin North Carolina. Project Manager (1992) - Survey for endangered plants and animals, and mist netting survey for endangered bats, at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport. Project Manager (1992) - Survey for potential Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) habitat at Marathon Pipeline Company's proposed Wabash River crossing in Lawrence County, Illinois and Knox County, Indiana. Project Manager (1992) - Survey for the endangered false mermaid weed, running buffalo clover, and habitat of the federally endangered Indiana bat along Texas Eastern Pipeline Products' pipeline extension in Boone County, Kentucky. Project Manager (1992) - Field survey for Indiana bats and their habitat at the Rock Island Army Corps of Engineers dredge placement site at Beardstown, Illinois. Project Manager (1992) - Mist net and radiotelemetry survey for the endangered Indiana bat on Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, for the US. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project Manager (1992) - Survey of surface mines for the presence of endangered bats. Report to the State of Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation. Project Manager (1992) - Survey of the chiroptofauna of Los Alamos National Environmental Research Park. Report to Los Alamos National Laboratory, US Department of Energy. Project Manager (1992) - Studies of the endangered Indiana and gray bats for Texas Gas Transmission Corporation's 14-mile Indiana Gas and 87-mile Main Line Expansion project in Kentucky. Project Manager (1992) - Survey for the presence of endangered bats at summer foraging habitat and winter hibernacula along the extension of Indiana Highway Route 37, Perry County, Indiana. Project Manager (1992) - Inventory of suitable habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker on Talladega National Forest, Shoal Creek Ranger District, Cleburne and Calhoun Counties, Alabama. Project Manager (1992) - Study to determine the feasibility and compatibility of developments by the City of Columbus, Georgia with the existence of the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker . Project Manager (1992) - Field survey for the endangered Indiana and gray bats at crossings of the Tennessee Gas pipeline by the AA-Highway in Kentucky. Project Manager (1991) - Field survey for the endangered Indiana bat and its summer habitat at the Indianapolis International Airport, Marion County, Indiana. Project Manager (1991) - Impact of human disturbance on the over-winter weight loss of hibernating Indiana bats in Indiana. Report to Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Project Manager (1991) - Impact of human disturbance on over-winter weight loss of hibernating Indiana bats, for US. Fish and Wildlife Service and Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Project Manager (1991) - Winter cave census for the Indiana bat in non-Priority I hibernacula in Indiana. Report to Indiana Department of Natural Resources and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Project Manager (1991) - Field survey and habitat assessment for seven species of federal and state endangered bats on Fort Benning, Georgia, for Gulf Engineering and Consukants, Inc. Project Manager (1991 ) - A survey for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi), for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation along their 1 5-mile proposed Allentown, Pennsylvania Lateral Natural Gas Pipeline. Project Manager (1991) - A field survey for Parker's pipewort (Eriocaulon parkeri) at the crossing of Rancocas Creek by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation's Proposed Mainline Loop and Trenton-Woodbury Natural Gas pipeline. Project Manager (1991) - Survey at 20 locations for the endangered Indiana Bat along a 206-mile Natural Gas Pipeline in Illinois and Iowa for ENSR Consulting and Engineering. Project Manager (1991) - Environmental assessment studies for Tenneco Gas and Midwest Gas Corporation's 42-mile Tuscola Lateral Project, Champaign, Vermillion, and Douglas Counties, Illinois. Report to FERC for Tenneco GaslMidwest Gas Corporations. Project Manager (1991) - Indiana bat recovery survey and habitat assessment. Statewide environmental assessments for Federal and state endangered and threatened mammals. Project Manager (1991) - Three year study of the summer habitat requirements of the Indiana bat in Indiana, and construction of a habitat model based on the US Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). Project Manager (1991) - Suitability of habitat on the Hoosier National Forest for the endangered Indiana bat. Report to US Forest Service and Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Project Manager (1990) - Development and implementation of a research design to ascertain the impacts of 14-mile and an 87-mile natural gas transmission lines on the endangered Indiana bat in Kentucky, including development of a habitat model acceptable to the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. University of Illinois (1988) - Relationship between barometric pressure, insect abundance, and bat foraging activity . North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences (1986) - Assessment of habitat use, foraging behavior, and distribution of Rafinesque's big-eared bats. University of Illinois (1986) - Adult responses to neonatal ultrasonic vocalizations in two species of Arctic microtine rodents. ~~~L~CATfON~AND ~~~~~NTA~ION~ Tyrell, K. 1987. Differential use of auditory cues in the Malayan false vampire bat (Megaderma spasma). Midwest Regional Animal Behavior Society Meeting. Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL April 11-12. Tyrell, K. 1987. The use of various sensory channels by the Malayan false vampire bat (Megaderma spasma). National Animal Behavior Society Meeting. Williams College, Williamstown, MA. June 21 -26. Recipient, Founders Award for Poster Papers. Tyrell, K. 1987. The use of echolocation and passive audition in foraging by the surface gleaning bat, Megaderrnu spasma. Seventeenth Annual North American Symposium on Bat Research. Toronto, Canada. October 15-17.
ryrell, K. 6 Tyrell, K. 1988. The use of audition in different foraging strategies by the Malayan false vampire bat, Megaderma spasma. Second International Behavioral Ecology Conference. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. October 6-10. Tyrell, K. 1988. The use of prey-generated sounds in flycatcher style foraging by Megaderma spasma. Eighteenth Annual North American Symposium on Bat Research. Calgary, Canada. October 13-15. Feng, A. S., and K. Tyrell. 1988. Do signal characteristics determine a bat's ability to avoid obstacles? In: Animal Sonar Processes and Performances. P. Nachtigall and P.W.B. Moore (ed.). Plenum Press, N.Y. Tyrell, K. 1989. Auditory cue use in surface gleaning and flycatching Megaderma spasma. National Animal Behavior Society Meeting. Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, MA. June 12-16. Paige, K. N., K. Tyrell, T. Juenger, and G. Fuller. 1989. Tracking insect prey from the roost: bats and barometric pressure. Nineteenth Annual North American Symposium on Bat Research. Knoxville, TN. October 19-21. Tyrell, K. 1989. A technique for monitoring insect abundance and biomass in real-time. Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Bat Research. Knoxville, TN. October 19-21,
Miller, P.S., and K. Tyrell. 1990. Bats of the Hoosier National Forest. Indiana Academy of Science. North Manchester, IN. November 2-3. Tyrell, K., and V. Brack, Jr. 1991. Endangered bats of Breckinridge County, Kentucky. Association of Southeast Biologists. Boone, NC. Brack, V., Jr., and K. Tyrell. 1992. The status of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Indiana. The Wildlife Society. Nashville, IN. Tyrell, K., and V. Brack, Jr. 1993. Mitigation of Impacts to Summer Habitat of the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). 23rd North American Symposium on Bat Research. Gainesville, FL. Tyrell, K., and V. Brack, Jr. 1993. Mitigation of Impacts to Summer Habitat of the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) at the Indianapolis International Airport. 1994 Spring Meeting of the Indiana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Madison, IN. Tyrell, K. and V. Brack, Jr. 1993. Invited Speaker. Mitigating Impacts to Endangered Species. Aviation Environmental Symposium of the American Association of Airport Executives. Chicago, IL. Tyrell, K. and V. Brack, Jr. 1993. Endangered Species Regulations and Their Implications for Mitigating Impacts of Development. Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Conference. Gatlinburg, TN. Tyrell, K., V. Brack, Jr., and R. Romme. 1994. Conservation of the Endangered Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis, at the Indianapolis International Airport. 24th North American Symposium on Bat Research. Ixtapa, Mexico. Brack, V., K. Tyrell, and R. Romme. 1994. Food Habits of the Endangered Gray Bat, Myotis griscescens in Missouri. 24th North American Symposium on Bat Research. Ixtapa, Mexico. Romme, R., D. Stauffer, K. Tyrell, V. Brack, Jr., and J. Briede. 1994. A Habitat Suitability Index Model for Summer Habitat of the Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis. 56th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Indianapolis, IN. Salyers, I.J., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack. 1995. Use of Artificial Roost Structures by Bats in Forested Central Indiana. 56th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Indianapolis, IN, Tyrell, K. and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Invited Speaker. Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Endangered Species. National Research Council Transportation Research Board Conference. Washington, DC. Brack, V., K. Dunlap, 5. Johnson, and K. Tyrell. 1995. The Endangered Indiana Bat: Hibernacula in Indiana. National Cave Management Symposium. Mitchell, IN. Salyers, I.J., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack. 1996. Artificial Roost Structure Use by Indiana Bats in Wooded Areas in Central Indiana. 26th North American Symposium on Bat Research. Bloomington, Illi nois. Schmidt, A., R. Romme, and K. Tyrell. 1996. Risk Contours Used to Delineate SafeNnsafe Chemical Aerosol Concentrations for Myotis Sodalis and Myotis grisescens. 26th North American Symposium on Bat Research. Bloomington, Illinois. Madej, R.F., R. Romme, and K. Tyrell. 1996. Noise as a Component of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Summer Habitat Suitability. 26th North American Symposium on Bat Research. Bloomington, Illinois. Tyrell, K. 1997. Studies of bats and their habitat at Fort Benning, Georgia. Southeast Mammalian Diversity Conference. Black Mountain, North Carolina. Schmidt, A., J. Salyers, A. Black, R. Romme, and K. Tyrell. 1997. Developing Cave Air Flow Models for Myotis sodalis hibernacula and Myotis grisescens maternity colonies. 27th North American Symposium on Bat Research. Tucson, Arizona. Tyrell, K., A. Schmidt, and A. Goebel. 1997. Analyzing Pathways for Exposure to Pesticides in Bats. 27th North American Symposium on Bat Research. Tucson, Arizona. Schmidt, A., R. Romme, and K. Tyrell. 1997. An Ecological Risk Assessment for Myotis sodalis and Myotis griscescens: Are the Bats at Risk from Certain Military Aerosols? 27th North American Symposium on Bat Research. Tucson, Arizona. Schmidt, A,, R. Romme, V. Brack, K. Tyrell, and A. Gehrt. 2000. Bioaccumulation of Pesticides in Bats Collected from Missouri. In American Chemical Society Symposium Series 771, Pesticides and Wildlife. Oxford University Press. Schmidt, A, K. Tyrell, R. Romme, and A. Henry. 2000. Environmental Contamination and Sensitive Species: An innovative Solution to Impact Assessment. National Military Fish and Wildlife Association Meeting. Chicago, Illinois. Henry, A, R. Romme, A. Schmidt, and K. Tyrell. 2000. Addressing concerns for bats on military installations, with examples from Fort Drum, Fort Leonard Wood, Camp Atterbury, and Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center. National Military Fish and Wildlife Association Meeting. Chicago, Illinois. Romme, R., A. Henry, R. King, T. Glueck, and K. Tyrell. 2001. Spring and Autumn Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) home ranges near three Missouri hibernacula in symposium proceedings, The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. The Northeast Bat Working Group. Lexington, KY. Schmidt, A., Tyrell, K, T. Glueck, and A. Gehrt. 2003. Lessons Learned: Biomonitoring and the Effects of Exposure to Military Training Materials on Endangered Species at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. 8th Annual Joint Services Pollution Prevention & Hazardous Waste Management Conference & Exhibition. San Antonio, TX. invited Speaker. 2005. Indiana Bats and Highway Development, Ohio Department of Transportation, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highways Administration. Columbus, Ohio. invited Speaker. 2006. Wind Power in Missouri: Opportunities and Constraints in Siting Windpower, Society of American Military Engineers, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Invited Speaker. 2006. Opportunities and Constraints in Siting Windpower, American Water Management Association, Midwest Conference, Kansas City, Missouri. Invited Speaker. 2007. Project Planning & Siting issues for Wind Farms in Indiana, Indiana Wind Work Group Siting Workshop, Indianapolis, Indiana. Invited Speaker. 2008. Wind Farm Siting and Wildlife Impacts in Illinois, Illinois Wind Work Group (US Department of Energy Wind Powering America) Second Annual Conference: Advancing Wind Power in Illinois. invited Speaker. 2008. Scope, Schedule, and Budget: Project Planning for Wind Farms in Indiana. First Annual Windlndiana Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana. invited Speaker. 2008. Siting Considerations. Wind Wildlife Research Meeting VII: introduction to Wind and Wildlife issues, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Tyrell, K. 2008. Using Adaptive Management Scenarios to Address Impacts to Bats at Proposed Wind Farms. 38th North American Symposium for Bat Research. Scranton, Pennsylvania. Tyrell, K. 2008. Siting and Project Implementation. Pennsylvania Wind Energy Symposium, State College, Pennsylvania. Tyrell, K. 2008. Addressing impacts to Indiana Bats at Wind Farms. 69th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Columbus, Ohio. Invited Speaker. 2009. Wildlife and Avian Issues: Wind Opposition Facts, Myths, and Solutions. Siting and Taxing Wind Farms in Illinois Conference. Peoria, Illinois. Tyrell, K., J. Bruck, and M. Bruck. 2009. Adaptive Management Scenarios to Address Impacts to Bats at Proposed Wind Farms. Windpower 2009, Chicago. Sponsler, M., K. Mertz, and K. Tyrell. 2009. Resolving Endangered Species Conflicts: Habitat Conservation Planning for Wind Farms. Windpower 2009, Chicago. invited Speaker. 2009. Preconference Workshop: Windpower 101, Windpower 2009, Chicago. invited Speaker. 2009. Wildlife and Environmental issues. Illinois Wind Work Group (US Department of Energy Wind Powering America) Third Annual Conference (July 2009). PROFESSIONAL ~E~~~R$~IP~ American Wind Energy Association American Society of Military Engineers National Defense industrial Association The National Military Fish and Wildlife Association
~~A~€~~CGRANTS AND AWARDS National Institute of Health Fellowship University of Illinois Research Board Grant University of Illinois Biomedical Research Support Grant Sigma Xi, Grants-in-Aid of Research Verdell Frazier Young Award Animal Behavior Society Founders Award
Tyreil, K. g American Society of Mammalogists Grants-in-Aid University of Illinois Graduate College Dissertation Research Grant University of Illinois Graduate College Conference Travel Support Grant Edwin M. Banks Memorial Award for Graduate Research in Animal Behavior University of Illinois Graduate College ThesWProject Support Grant University of Illinois List of Teachers Ranked as Excellent University of Illinois Outstanding Teacher