Response to county’s Rocky Forge Wind site visit
The news article in the paper week before last contained comments from two supervisors and the director of Community Development. The responses discussing the Rocky Forge site construction, which has resulted in several large sediment discharges into Mill Creek, range from “it looks great now” to “unforeseen heavy rain caused the muddy creek.”
Time is an important factor here, as are facts. What was observed when the supervisors visited is irrelevant; how things were at the time of previous stormwater discharges is paramount. The horse had already left the barn after the barn door was closed, meaning the supervisors visited after the creek damage had occurred. The key point is that required stormwater measures, as documented in site stormwater reports, were not fully compliant for months prior to the first sediment violation, and the not-fully-compliant status remained for two more months. Then the supervisors performed their site visit. The following paragraphs contain relevant facts.
The Rocky Forge Wind construction project hired Nadean Carson’s company to perform stormwater inspections and reporting. An employee of this company inspects the construction site every four working days and writes a stormwater protection report. Before July 10, these reports were accessible by the public in two forms: hardcopy and softcopy. The hardcopy reports were in a three-ring binder outside the construction project gate, accessible at any time. Each report contains a list of standard questions to which the inspector answers “yes” or “no,” and at the end of every stormwater report is a summary statement. The softcopy file contains not only the report, but dozens of photos substantiating what is written in the report. The three-ring binder also contained a QR code pointing to a website containing reports and related photos of every inspection.
Every stormwater report I reviewed from early April to early July contained two or more items that were not fully compliant (i.e, a NO answer instead of YES). Many reports contained the same issues still not corrected, even after several weeks. Yet every stormwater report summary had the same sentence: “Generally, the site is in compliance, but minor corrections need to be implemented.”
Judging by the evidence in the stormwater reports, at no time during this 90-day period were the same recurring “minor corrections” ever corrected. And there were at least four significant sediment discharges during this period, causing considerable damage to Mill Creek. Therefore, “minor corrections” that were not corrected cannot be ruled out as the primary cause of the sedimentation of Mill Creek.
To reiterate, all required stormwater measures were not fully corrected prior to the creek sedimentation events. The county’s certified stormwater expert was required to respond to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) with a detailed report after my formal complaint, yet a FOIA I submitted to obtain this report yielded no report. And in spite of me raising the Mill Creek sedimentation issue, to date no county stormwater official has communicated with me regarding the issue.
As of July 10, the softcopy stormwater reports are no longer accessible by a public shared web link, and the hardcopy reports are now inaccessible except for a 30-minute window of time, by request, “at the developer’s convenience” inside the project gate. Only those who specifically request access are allowed to see the hardcopy reports, not anyone from the general public arriving during this time window. This significant reduction in transparency is both troubling and suspicious.
According to the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and the DEQ regulations, a stormwater sediment discharge into a creek may be considered “a significant source of pollution and may be subject to enforcement action” if it exceeds some thresholds, one being a total daily loading of 6,000 pounds or more of total suspended solids into a creek.
The Rocky Forge stormwater inspector replied to DEQ’s inquiry that the June 18 sedimentation discharge was about 4.75 cubic yards. This quantity of clay soil weighs about 14,000 pounds, far exceeding the threshold for being “subject to enforcement action.” And the June 18 discharge was not the worst sedimentation event. There were at least one prior (April 7) and two subsequent storm events (July 9 and 19) causing far heavier creek silting. These were also reported and yet no known county stormwater inspector enforcement actions have occurred. An unattributed phrase aptly applies here: “You promote what you permit.”
Two supervisors performed their site visit on July 18, after three of four major Mill Creek silting events occurred, and after my previous letter to the editor resulted in public awareness. Neither supervisor is stormwater certified, and their comments focused on what Apex was doing, with no mention of the county stormwater inspector’s oversight role here. This is where the problem lies; evidence documented by the Apex-hired certified inspector in more than three months of stormwater inspection reports contained deficiencies requiring correction, but as of July 25 – the last report reviewed – the county’s stormwater inspector did not ensure the recurring deficiencies were corrected.
On July 30, a news article in The Cardinal News stated the Sunny Rock solar facility in Henry County was fined nearly $121,000 for erosion contributing to sediment being washed into nearby streams and wetlands. Why, I wonder, are Henry County officials working to protect their streams and wetlands but Botetourt County’s are not? This is indeed very troubling.
Botetourt County government transparency and prompt interaction with local citizens are necessary to restore credibility, ensure accountability, and show regulation enforcement actions are equitably applied to all. I, and many others, sincerely look forward to a rapid course correction.
Eric Claunch
Eagle Rock
