Federal Government Shutdown - Impacts to Luray-Page County

For this post, I'm quoting directly out of the Luray-Page County Chamber's weekly "In The Loop" email. As the government shut down wears on, many national news outlets are beginning to highlight the impacts at the local level - and this area is one of those experiencing a significant hit to our economy based on the closure of Shenandoah National Park.

---

Several people have asked me how the shutdown is impacting tourism. Here are few observations:

• On the first day of the shutdown, when Shenandoah National Park was closed, about 90 frustrated people came into the Visitors Center seeking help in making alternative, last-minute plans. They needed to find cabins, campgrounds, scenic drives, hiking routes, etc. We scrambled the jets and kept most of them in Page County.
• Delaware North had to lay off 267 employees in Shenandoah National Park.
• Appalachian Outdoors Adventures told WHSV that they've had about a 25 percent loss of business.
• Raven's Roost lost a two-week booking made by group of hikers.
• Luray Copy Service reports, "Delaware North is our largest customer and normally this time of year we would be printing menus, rate sheets, maps and other various jobs, amounting to significant sales.  This is a loss that we will not recover because the fall season is so short.   On Saturday there was hardly any foot traffic downtown; it was the worst day of sales that I can remember."

The short-term news is not all bad. We are still getting sustained interest in cabin rentals, and one local restaurant-Gathering Grounds-says business is actually up 15 percent.

But the really ominous fact is that each October, tourists to Shenandoah National Park bring $10 million in revenue to the surrounding counties. With the park closed and legions of government workers on furlough, who knows how many of those people will just stay home?

So, I've also been asked, "What's the Chamber doing to fix this?" (No pressure, there, huh?)

We've done a number of media interviews calling on Congress to do its job, spelling out impacts of the shutdown, and pointing out that there are many opportunities to see the leaves and enjoy fall in Page County. We've written a press release to that effect and sent it to dozens of media outlets. I've sent letters to Goodlatte, Boehner and the Washington Post, and we co- signed a letter with the Virginia Chamber of Commerce that will go to all members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation. It's simply not enough for us all to complain to each other. Elected officials (and the media) need to hear from us with hard facts about how their policies are affecting our lives.

And we continue to ask all local businesses to let us know any facts or figures you have about drops in business due to the shutdown. If you can compare lower sales or reduced tourist traffic to this time last year that will especially useful. We will compile all this information and make sure that Congress and the media get to see it.

In closing, the shutdown reminds me of something Ronald Reagan once said: "The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them right away."  --John Robbins, president

---

Ironically, the area used to be in Eric Cantor's district, Virginia 7 - and due to a rule change the House GOP passed on September 30, he is the only member of Congress that can bring forward the bill to stop this crazy thing.  Complaining about the President's role, or any other politician's lack of action, won't do a thing.  Only Cantor - the representative designated as majority leader - can do something about this.  You can contact him via this web page:  http://cantor.house.gov/

The area is currently in Virginia 6 - Goodlatte's district.  Contact him via this web page:  http://goodlatte.house.gov/

The Luray-Page County Chamber also wants to hear from local businesses about the impacts via http://luraypage.com/

Luray-Page County - an Appalachian Trail Community!

This is the Appalachian Trail Conservancy logo
for trail communities.

Hawksbill Cabin is located in Page County, close to Luray and Stanley, Virginia, and to Shenandoah National Park.  One of the treats for me about this location is being so close to a charming, lovely, thriving small community – and the access it provides as a gateway to the park, not to mention that my hikes based out of here frequently include Appalachian Trail (AT) sections.

A couple of years ago I was talking with Howard Thompson in Appalachian Outdoors Adventures in Luray and he told me that the community was beginning the application process to become an AT Trail Town.  It’s a hard won distinction that the Appalachian Trail Conservancy awards to recognize communities that promote and protect the AT.  Here’s more from the AT Conservancy’s web site:

"…counties, and communities along the A.T.’s corridor are considered assets by all that use the A.T. and many of these towns act as good friends and neighbors to the Trail. The program serves to assist communities with sustainable economic development through tourism and outdoor recreation, while preserving and protecting the A.T.Designation as an Appalachian Trail Community™ and participation in the program is aimed to:

• Engage community citizens, Trail visitors and stewards

• Recognize and thank communities for their service to the Trail and hikers

• Act as a catalyst for enhancing sustainable economic development

• Aid local municipalities and regional areas with conservation planning

• Help local community members see the Trail as a resource and asset"

The Festival of Spring a few weeks ago included a celebration of this honor, and it was covered in the Page News and Courier.  Rereading that article now, I see where the Stanley Mayor Doug Purdham has suggested that Ed Goode Park might one day have a connection up to the trail – “It’s a big dream, and years into the future, but it’s possible.”  It sounds like a worthwhile goal, to me. 

Howard is quoted in the piece as saying, about the hikers that visit the area from the AT, "They stay in our hotels, visit our shops, eat in our restaurants - hikers have an economic impact."  He added that between 200 and 300 AT hikers visit the store during the hiking season.

Here’s to all the AT enthusiasts in our community who were part of this effort.  I’m proud of y’all.

Page Valley Cycling Gives Back to the Community

Whenever I have the chance to feature the economic impacts of the active tourism events that take place in the Shenandoah Valley, and specifically in Page County, I’ll do so.  Chris Gould and the Page Valley Cycling team just put together the economic benefit of the four bicycle races that were held last year in a press release – I’ll reprint it in full below.  Not only does the press release highlight the positive impacts on the economy, there is also a listing of charitable giving made possible by the events.  It’s quite a list…

Page Valley Cycling Gives Back to the Community

STANLEY, VIRGINIA – Page Valley Cycling announced today that its 2012 events had a significant positive economic impact for businesses and community organizations in the county, with about 1,490 bike racers and family and friends generating approximately $100 thousand in revenue on food, merchandise, and lodging. This continues a trend of increasing dollars spent each year in the county from Page Valley Cycling events, which in 2012 included the Tour of Page County Stage Race, Shenandoah Time Trail, Page Valley Road Race, and Luray Caverns CX bicycle races.

The positive economic impact is just one way Page Valley Cycling gave back to the community with its events. The club also launched a specific charitable effort and donated $3 thousand to Page One after its December 9th cyclo-cross event. This is in addition to a total of $5.5 thousand in donations to the Shenandoah, Stanley, and Luray Volunteer Rescue Squads; the music departments at both Luray High School and Page County High School; the Town of Luray Parks & Recreation Department; Shenandoah Heritage Society; Valley Star Farm’s “Trees for the Troops” Christmas tree program; and the Mike Fawell Memorial Fund, which was set up to care for the children of a Richmond-area bike race who died in a tragic training accident last year.

Specific findings from Page Valley Cycling’s post-race surveys indicate that:

• A combined total of 1,490 bike racers, family, and friends came to Page County for the various Page Valley Cycling events this past year. This is up from 1,100 last year. 

• Bike racers, family, and friends spent as much as $100 thousand throughout the county on food, merchandise, and lodging – this is up from $80 thousand last year, $56 thousand in 2010, and $40 thousand in 2009.

• About 80% of race participants spent a night or more in the county during the weekend of the Tour of Page County, and 33% of participants for the Page Valley Road Race.

• 89% and 87% of Page Valley Road Race and Tour of Page County participants, respectively, say they’d come back to the county for reasons other than the race. 

Page Valley Cycling promotes bicycling in Page County as a means of transportation, fitness, recreation, and racing. For more information about Page Valley Cycling and its events, visit our website at www.pagevalleycycling.com, or visit our Facebook page.

# # #

A Big Impact from Page Valley Cycling

Early this winter, I was visiting Chris and Rob down at the Hawksbill Bicycles shop.  It was around the time that Chris was preparing to give a couple of presentations to the Luray Town Council and the Shenandoah Town Council about the economic benefits that come from Page Valley Cycling events over the course of a year.

I should make a note about community economics for a moment here, as it has been a favorite blog topic in the past.  Page County has an agricultural sector to its economy, an industrial one, and a tourism one.  In the tourism sector, Luray Caverns and Shenandoah National Park are heavyweights, but there is an emerging “active tourism” sector here, anchored by retailers on Main Street and several outdoors outfitters, which partners with groups like Page Valley Cycling.

Looking back on past posts, I’ve written about one of the Page Valley Cycling events before, in August of 2009.  It turns out this race starts at the Hawksbill Recreation Park in Stanley, which is close to Hawksbill Cabin.  We took a walk down to watch the cyclists at the starting line (post linked below).  I also posted about the Luray Caverns CX, which Mary and I missed this year but I am looking forward to next December!

This year, Chris tells me that four events are planned:

• June 30-July 1: The Luray 200^th Anniversary Edition of the Tour of Page County Stage Race
• July 28:  The Shenandoah Time Trial
• August 4:  Page Valley Road Race
• December 9 (tentative):  Luray Caverns CX

Noteworthy is the Tour of Page County Stage Race – this is a new race with three events, and it has the distinction of being Virginia’s only true stage race, according to Chris.  There is a road race, a time trial, and the Luray criterium, and the routes are focused around Luray in commemoration of the town’s 200^th anniversary. 

Photo by Major Nelson:  Action at the Luray Caverns CX.

These races have a substantial economic impact and they are all growing in popularity.  About 1,100 racers and friends visit Page County during the events, and the estimated monetary impact is around $80,000 in spending around the county.  The events draw from communities within two to four hours’ driving distance, so there is a high likelihood that our “natural beauty and friendly atmosphere” will bring them back for additional visits during the year. 

Chris reminded me that Wisteria Farm and Vineyard and Page County Grown are race supporters, and their local products are included in the prizes.  Here’s one of those times where the agricultural and tourism sectors come together to make something great.

Here are a couple of URLs to follow-up with: 

• www.pagevalleycycling.com (also a Facebook page)
• There are separate Facebook pages for the Tour of Page County and the Luray Caverns CX.
• August 2009 road race post: http://hawksbillcabin.blogspot.com/2009/08/page-countys-bicycle-race.html
• December 2010 Luray Caverns CX:  http://hawksbillcabin.blogspot.com/2011/12/luray-caverns-cx-cyclo-cross.html

I'll revisit this active tourism idea soon with posts about the adventure races and the triathlons.

Adventure Racing in the Valley



Epic shot of Gary crossing the low water bridge in Shenandoah River State Park.



Howard preparing for the biking descent from Edith Gap.



Page County has a wonderful combination of assets – mountains, country roads, and the river – that make it perfect for adventure tourism. It’s proximity to the DC area and other mid-Atlantic population centers make it an attractive venue for triathlons and bike races, and after just a few years of developmental efforts, we already have events on a half dozen weekends annually. I’ve written about this before, but I think this is an exciting addition to the area’s economic mix – it’s something that planners should carefully integrate into any forward looking strategy for the area.

A new event came to town last weekend – adventure racing. Our local folks at Appalachian Outdoors Adventures (AOA) were sponsors, and they fielded a four person team in the event. The sport mixes biking, trail running, trekking, and water sports with navigation skills, making for a very challenging adventure that the word “epic” perfectly communicates. As you can see from the pictures AOA’s Gary Drum shared with me here, it’s a very rewarding experience that brings out the best in the individual and team participants.



The team at the finish...something like 3am, I'm told.



Another team shot, working out a plan.

 The AOA team was comprised of Gary, Howard, Kris Haynes, and Chris Spiller, and they were signed up for the Epic race, which staged from Shenandoah River State Park. There was a canoeing stage of the event that was cancelled because of the rain – I’ve spent a few minutes to myself thinking of all these folks out on the race course while that weather was going on around them, probably not realizing for the most part how dangerous that system was on the whole. It was a relief to hear that the participants made it in safely – still looking for confirmation of one possible storm related injury.

AOA’s sponsorship included providing maps for the navigation challenges, and the store served as the packet pickup location for the nearly 300 participants. Gary tells me there were 33 teams in the Epic event, and the AOA team completed the course in in 19 hours for 16th place overall – pretty good for only their second race.




Waiting for the shuttle at the River checkpoint, since the canoe portion was cancelled.

  Gary said that being in last year’s race provided some important lessons about how to prepare, including being sure that you’d provided proper nutrition – comparing some of the photos from last time to this, which you can do by checking out Gary’s or Howard’s blogs (links below) will show how far they’ve come with the sport already. Granted, only three teams even finished that first race they were in!

I asked Gary what his favorite memory of the event was, and he said the slog through deep water and mud on the state park’s Bluebell Trail was best. The most challenging part was the mountain bike course there in the park; this biking portion was in addition to a 40-mile extension that was added to the course to replace the canoeing when it was cancelled.

Gary says that AOA is looking forward to sponsorship activities for future races, and that yes, with all of the fun they had as a team in this race, they’ll likely do another when the time comes!

Here is a link to some addition photo highlights:  http://www.daddiophoto.com/AdventureRacing/Rev3-Adventure-April-16-2011/16655105_2sRS49#1255610238_QBG8fjm

Here’s the homepage of the race organizer:  http://www.rev3adventure.com/

Gary’s blog (often includes reviews of gear and adventures): http://runtechinthevalley.blogspot.com/

Howard’s blog (often includes reviews of events and other adventure activities): http://adventuresinthevalley.blogspot.com/

"... has been let go"

Between the Page News and Courier and the “LurayVa” blog (link below) I try to stay up-to-date with how things are going in the County. It just seems to me that Page County’s small community (the 2000 Census reports the County population as 23,177 – as compared to Alexandria City’s 2000 population of 128,283, for example) has taken the economic shock much harder than other places in Virginia. And that’s why I spend a lot of time researching the situation and writing about it here on the Hawksbill Cabin blog.


Although the County passed an increase on property taxes last year, there was still budget pressure this year. The Board of Supervisors have just gone through a round of reconciling the budget to a figure of about $58-million, but along the way faced some tough choices. Some of the controversial ones were the closing of Grove Hill Elementary School, stopping construction of a new cell at the landfill, and decisions on levels of funding for the Economic Development Authority.

Another significant decision was to retract the offer of the County’s CTO position to Dave McClure, who had been working as an IT consultant. The offer was made by the past county administrator Tom Cardman, without consultation to the BoS. Stopping the hiring action subsequently became a high priority.

There have been reports about layoffs of County personnel – and there has been a lot of discussion about the justifications of past and current decisions being made on this account. Sometimes the press and discussion seems to be arguing more about the people in these positions rather than about the need for these positions…I think this is a response to the arbitrary decision-making and lack of transparency of the past, something the current BoS seems to be correcting.

However, for two weeks running, over on LurayVa, there has been a post headlined “… has been let go” – it will be good to finally see us turn the corner on this difficult economy.

The LurayVa blog is at http://lurayva.wordpress.com/ . There is typically a good discussion associated with each post there.

Luray's June Triathlon Event

Posting a quick follow-up on the Triathlon event in Page County last weekend.  This is a new race, and over 300 participants were there - quite a few I recognized from last August's races.  There were participants in their teens to their 70's.

My volunteer assignments this time were handing out timing chips and then traffic/direction guidance out on the bike route.  I met Deputy Good from the Page Co. Sheriff's and we had a good chat about the area and event.  I think there may be one or two tasks that I haven't done by now in this Triathlon volunteering thing - I'll try and make sure I complete them in the next event.

The Luray races are organized by David Glover, who himself is an experienced triathlete.  He's won four at Iron Man distances and competed in many more.  I picked up a copy of David's bio - he's very accomplished and a role model and inspiration for everybody.  There's more at his blog site - http://davidglover.net/ .

I mention the Tri because I think the events are important to the economy in Page County - this kind of "active tourism" is a special kind of economic engine that I'd like to see get more attention.  I remember at the end of the August that the event contributed a generous donation to the United Way - so things add up, not just in terms of room nights, meals in town, and shopping...some of that money goes to people who need help.

The race was an inspiration as well.  I don't know that I could really put everything together to participate in a triathlon...it's an interesting thought though.  I'll track Mary's cousin's progress (look for the Shuster Team blog -in German - in the right hand column) and I'll check in at David's site from time to time.  Also, I think I heard Howard mention he and Gary at AOA may do the August Sprint (Gary's done the International too) - their blog is the Adventures in the Valley one over there to the right - incidentally, both of them were out volunteering, and AOA is a sponsor.

I didn't get to take as many photos this time.  At the chip booth, we had a number of last minute arrivals that had to rush to get into their first wave start on the swim.  We motored out onto the course as soon as the first wave of swimmers launched, so not a lot of time to do more than snap a quick shot of the transition area, above.

A Quick Note on Some Page County Items

Just time for a brief post today.  I understand that at the BOS meeting last night there was some resolution about Project Clover, the land deal I've written about several times here.  While I don't have full details yet, it does appear the land deal has been ended.

There will be some review and I am sure there are quite a number of loose ends to tie down.  But I think this is a move in the right direction - let's work together and find the best way forward.

Other matters dealt with at the BOS meeting were some school board funding issues, and reconciling some of the County's staff cuts.  I hope these things are also going to work out for the best.

In the meantime, I know these things mean a lot to my friends and neighbors.  I am very glad to hear how they've worked out.  More to come!

Of Interest to Rockingham County Readers

Thanks patient readers, for your attention while I recap the recent experience in Page County with the potential Fibrowatt plant here.  Hopefully you'll find this a useful summary, even if you have already read or heard some of this material in the past. 

Because they pitch the technology as green, make a lot of noise about the construction jobs that come with the plant and the residual 30 to 50 jobs that may be created once the plant is up and running, and because they tell a story that other uses of chicken litter will soon be illegal, Fibrowatt tends to get very favorable press. They build upon this with an M.O. that involves locking up support from the poultry industry before the general public learns about them, and then sequestering public discourse with NDAs to local government officials, officials who may be ill-informed about what should and shouldn't be discussed with the citizens they represent - so that Fibrowatt can advance their plans out of the watchful eyes of interested citizens.


After the Page County Board sent a letter thanking Fibrowatt for their interest, but saying that they didn't think the industry fit in with the areas plans, FW has moved on - featured in PN&C and DNR article last month. We've heard they are looking at other locations, probably including Elkton and Waynesboro as alternatives.

Our arguments against FW in Page County centered on three main points:

First, environmental concerns - the FW technology is an incineration process, and there are byproducts. They need a 300-foot stack to disperse the steam and particulate matter - which includes a number of toxins, which they argue are released in miniscule amounts. The follow-up question is, if that is a 7/24/365 operation, when does miniscule become an amount that is overwhelming? Also, there is the matter of the semi truck traffic that will be required to haul the litter - as many as 100 trucks a day making round trips into the plant - the roads aren't designed for this and that is a lot of carbon released through truck exhaust. One could argue that the alternative disposal of chicken litter this way will have a positive impact on watersheds and the Chesapeake Bay, but if litter is respectfully spread with proper and legal regard for proximity to watersheds and the Bay, this isn't a problem in the first place.

Second, the economic impacts - FW claims to create construction jobs, which are short-term or contract-based during the construction period. They are not continuous and require periodic work according to the construction schedule for the plant. Then there is the claim that there are a residual 30+ jobs once the plants open - these jobs come at the cost of eliminating one group of jobs, the independent distributor of chicken litter - we were never satisfied that we could get an accurate count of the net increase in jobs, because these impacts were understated or ignored. Another point is the actual competition for materials that FW will go into once the plant is operational - they mix the litter with wood chips (the raw material that makes up litter) to control humidity for optimal burning. So they compete on the resource side with a potential impact that increases raw materials prices for the farmers. Last one, they enter into long-term contracts with the farmers for the litter at reduced prices - this we heard from our own farmers who said they'd have to do better than that to be taken seriously - creating a squeeze by reducing revenues at the same time as increasing costs.

Third one - the Valley relies on tourism as a major industry, and along the South Fork this means we have to respect the Shenandoah National Park interests in the view shed. The 300-foot stack is one thing, but the continuous output from the stack adding to summertime air quality is quite another. I won't go into the details about the particulates being part of acid rain, etc.

Now, there is a concentration of industrial uses at Elkton and Waynesboro. But it seems to me that this plant has adverse impacts that need to be considered in thorough detail before they are located here. I'd make it clear, as I did in my blog, I'm not so averse to this kind of a plant having a role in the future, as long as you get the location correct - no pocket valleys where the output can residually settle, like Page Valley, etc. I'm not so familiar with the Winchester, but that seems a more optimal location as far as proximity to the poultry industry goes.

There just seem to be a lot of risks associated with the potential plant. We know they are already communicating with Robin Sullenberger and that organization, and they are working over the poultry association. They're lobbying for favorable laws and regulations, and tax breaks and incentives in the state. All of this quietly, out of sight and sound with the general public, who will only be told once the negotiations have progressed to a point where there is no turning back.

So Rockingham County, the sights are now set on your loaction for a potential plant.  I've recapped our analysis above, but you can read more by clicking on the Fibrowatt label below or in the labels column to the right.  And there is plenty more available on both sides of the issue with a simple we search.  You need to start thinking now about what you want to see happen in your area especially now that the prospect is on the table, having moved south into your area, where Elkton and Waynesboro are being considered for plant locations.

The Clover Deal...again

It just keeps coming up, this land deal for Project Clover in Page County. Today I am thinking about an EDA meeting that occurred in January 2010 – the meeting minutes are at http://pageforbusiness.com/archives/35/EDA%20Minutes%201-19-10%20Joint%20Meeting.pdf . For background, last year, the Page County Board of Supervisors authorized the purchase of a 200+ acre plot south or Luray. The BOS worked through EDA to make the purchase, and the price was negotiated at $7.5 million – which works out to roughly $40K per acre.


In previous posts about the Page County Economy, I've mentioned the County's economic development plans – the 2004 and 2008 editions, which outline three goals: develop industry, build tourism, and look at sustainable agriculture - as pathways to the future. Next week I’ll take a look at the 2009 update, which was prepared while the Clover negotiations were happening. From what I read, the BOS and EDA believe the land purchase will contribute to one of these goals, for industrial development.

When I posted on the topic of Project Clover in the past, I reported that I simply haven't found anyone who says buying the land was a good idea. Sure, there is an acknowledgement of the need to do something to attract jobs to the County, with a large share of the workforce commuting out for work in good economic times, but the sentiment seems to be that the price for this land, and the need to raise the money for the deal now - poor timing, may simply be a mistake.

I spent some time this morning trying to come to terms with this price of $7.5 million. I found references to two appraisals that were done in 2007 – the height of the economic boom that inflated prices. One valued the undeveloped farmland at $4,300, and the other speculated that a 20-year value of $105K per acre was realistic, assuming that a fully built out industrial park was a benchmark for land values in Page County. Of these two, you’d go with the lower value since nothing is built here yet.

Now, I also came across the assessment on this property, which includes some improvements, including a house. It values the 210 acres at $1.6 million – just more than $7,000 an acre. Even in the Alexandria heydays for real estate, as a rule of thumb, you’d add 20 percent to the appraisal to just values, yielding a price of about $8,400 per acre. The last reference I would make is a listing for 150 acres I found today on the United Country real estate site, for rolling pastureland in Elkton. The listing price is $1.5 million, or $10,000 per acre.

I just haven’t found anything on line that justifies the purchase price – either in remarks from the EDA, BOS, or these market comparisons. Everything I’m reading says this is a bad deal. Many people in the County agree.

I’m not saying this is the way to go, but at this point it seems the County could save itself a couple of million by bagging this purchase, paying the $1 million they are already obligated to – at least that’s how I understand it, paying a kill fee on the rest of the purchase, and buying the Elkton land. You’d come out $3 million ahead with a plan like this one!

Here’s a link to an old Hawksbill Cabin post, for additional background. You can also check out some of the labels: Page County Economy, Page County EDA, and Project Clover, if you are interested.

http://hawksbillcabin.blogspot.com/2009/08/land-deal-is-too-controversial.html

Page County EDA 2008 Strategic Plan Recap, Part 1

Early in the week I posted a summary of my review of the Page County EDA’s 2004 Strategic Plan – today, we’ll move on to summarize the review I did of the 2008 update. Keep in mind that all of this was done at the time the controversial land deal known as Project Clover was being put together. In checking the original posts, I had a couple of thoughts about tourism, sustainable agriculture and retaining existing businesses – I will summarize those here in the next few days before moving on to the 2009 update of the plan.  And by the way, although I have comment moderation turned on to protect the world from spam - your comments are important and appreciated - so take a moment to comment if you care to!


Back in the dark ages, when I went to business school at USC (note: that's Southern California, not the other USC) the emphasis was on entrepreneurship – and as a result, on how to write a business plan to attract investment and support. It’s been so long now that I didn’t have any of those resources at hand to guide my review of the 2008 update; I vaguely recall that the progress through a plan, no matter how it was organized for presentation, was to read the idea first, skip to the resumes, look at how the plan proposed to execute, and then look at financials.

The Page County plan doesn’t include all of this material, but it does start with a vision statement, so at least we can take a look at that as the central idea of the plan. There are five elements of the vision, and I think it can be assumed that these would pass muster with most County residents:

• Better quality of life for the community – includes better wages, improved infrastructure and amenities, a healthy place to live, and improving employment prospects;
• Job retention and creation – seen as a “fundamental” goal;
• Retain the rural character of the community and natural resource protection – including mountains, groundwater, caves, and rivers, but also farms, woodlands and open spaces;
• Balance the growth between agriculture, tourism, and industry – elsewhere these are referred to as Page County’s three-legged stool of the economy; and
• Strengthen the collaboration between the County and towns – the recognition that cooperation is the only way to ensure successful growth. A rule of thumb is that while the towns have concentrated populations and thus require significant infrastructure, they represent only about 30 percent of the county population.

On looking back on this now, an immediate thought springs to mind – where does Fibrowatt fit in with these goals? It potentially would increase the number of jobs, but would sacrifice two or three of these others.

Continuing the review now, with a discussion of tourism in Page County.

Tourism is the economic driver that nobody questions in Page County – but its role in the County creates conflicts with other industries here from time to time, as we saw with the Fibrowatt case. I’ve heard estimates of the number of visitors at SNP as over a million, and a half million at Luray Caverns. The plan acknowledges this with the quote, “Just a few miles in any direction offers visitors a chance to enjoy the abundance of Page County’s natural resources and a range of recreational activities including camping, canoeing, cycling, fishing, golf, hiking, horseback riding, and photography.”

The plan summarizes the impact of tourism, noting expenditures of almost $51 million in 2007, employment of 654 people, and annual payroll of almost $11 million. An occupancy tax generates a budget that is used to promote tourism in the County, guided by the Chamber of Commerce’s Tourism Council. Mary and I have stopped by the Luray-Page visitors’ center and can vouch for how friendly and knowledgeable the staff is; these functions are now housed at the restored Luray train station, making visits to the County memorable.

A new feature of the 2008 plan is a summary for each initiative, presented in something of a scorecard format; at least it is easily adaptable to results reporting in the next update. For each major section of the plan, there is a table that outlines objectives, assigns the lead role, sets a priority for each objective, identifies support roles, and lists resources.

There are four objectives for Tourism. The only “Priority A” objective here is:

“The Director of the Economic Development Department will work with the Executive Director of the Chamber to develop reporting formats for the marketing and financial updates that will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors on a regular basis.”

As I mentioned in past posts, I see the opportunities with tourism as low-hanging fruit in the overall context of economic development for Page County. There’s no question about the natural resources available, you have a solid base of visitors to work from, and you can easily monitor the impacts of improvement objectives.

If less than $200K in promotional funds is all it takes to maintain tourism traffic at 1.5 million visitors, tourism revenues at $51 million, and creating payroll of 654 employees, does simply adding $20K create the opportunity to increase everything by 10%? If that investment won't improve the statistics by 10%, how much will the impact be? If it only creates 10 more jobs, that still seems worthwhile – especially when you compare it to the $7-million plus being considered for clover, or for the millions of dollars in subsidies that would have been offered to Fibrowatt in exchange for 25 jobs.

Seems like an easy place to start to me.

There are two more posts in this wrap up of the 2008 Economic Development Plan. The Agriculture sector is the one I will take a look at next, followed by retaining existing businesses.

The Way Ahead for the Page County Economy

There is a Page County Board of Supervisors meeting on March 16, 2009 – next week. An anticipated moment that may occur at that meeting is a vote on whether to continue the discussions about bringing a Fibrowatt plant to the county. At least I hope this discussion and vote make it onto the agenda – the BOS knows how important this is to the citizens they serve.


For my part here at the Hawksbill Cabin blog, I’ve done enough independent research to come down firmly on the “against” side of the Fibrowatt proposition. While I didn’t set out to advocate, it did turn out that way in the end. The risks of damaging our scenic Valley with the plant, which could affect one of our two key economic engines, tourism, seemed too great.

And because of the geography of our Valley, my sense is that emissions from a proposed plant would not dissipate into the atmosphere, which is the function of a tall stack – instead they would concentrate here in a bathtub-like basin, creating health risks. This may be less of a problem elsewhere, in other topographies, but with the pinching off of this Valley to the south and north, it seems very likely here.

Virginia production farming also would find itself at risk from the presence of this plant. I’ve written about this in two recent posts – calling it the “farmers’ squeeze” because of pressures on farm revenues as well as costs – and I sent a letter to the BOS that included this analysis.  With the plant would come some new economic pressures that these small production farms probably cannot deal with - and therefore might not survive.

I do hope that we are nearing the end of this discussion in Page County, and that talk will now turn to how to address economic in a more proactive way, that is focused on the strengths of the region – tourism and agriculture – balanced with appropriate industry and commerce. I think the answers are in the EDA’s 2004 plan; they are present in the 2008 plan as well, except that somehow the concepts there got mixed up into misguided, almost speculative, land deals, which in turn have led to the desperate need to get a “big” deal like Fibrowatt to justify them.

It is a good moment for the BOS, EDA, and County at large to turn their thoughts to this matter and plan a new way ahead. That’s what I’m hoping for March 16.

Fibrowatt's "Squeeze" on Local Poultry Farmers

I found an article (linked below) in the Winston-Salem, NC paper about Fibrowatt’s failure to negotiate a sales agreement for their power with Progress Energy and Duke Power, the two major utilities in the Carolinas. (Full disclosure: my family owns Progress Energy stock). Here’s an excerpt from the article:


“…the utility companies didn't mention Fibrowatt by name, but indicated that the "single poultry waste" generator proposed prices that would consume a significant amount of the companies' money that they need to buy other types of renewable energy such as solar and wind power.”

Readers will recall that earlier this week I posted an excerpt from a Page County farmer’s analysis of the negative economic impact Fibrowatt could have on poultry operations – basically, because they would seek long-term agreements with poultry farms to buy up used litter, they would seek discounts over current market prices, which would reduce this source of revenue for our farmers. 

This development in the negotiations with the NC power companies means that Fibrowatt will put a lot of pressure on local farmers in order to have better control on its own costs, disregarding the interest of those very farmers - who they also refer to as "partners!"

In fact, the farmer’s letter I posted went on to discuss that the Fibrowatt offer was lower than current market competitive rates, a market that is supported by state and federal level agriculture agencies, which will pay a benefit to farmers outside of Page County for buying and spreading the local litter. The farmer closed his letter with this note:

“As far as poultry growers getting more in terms of total sales dollars for their litter [from Fibrowatt], I don't really see that happening because of the current price of litter. I see a profit margin decrease happening for poultry growers instead of an increase.”

So that is part one of Fibrowatt’s squeeze on poultry farmers – hitting the revenue side of farmers’ litter operations, reducing their total sales dollars. There is also a squeeze on the cost side, which Terry Walmsley discussed in the Page County BOS presentation last Tuesday.

Terry mentioned a couple of things that needed to be done with the litter to ensure that it was a high-quality fuel for the burn process – and that one of the things that is done in the fuel storage room is to mix it with other “biomass” sources, including various raw materials that litter is produced from. In Minnesota, this can include sunflower seed hulls – so you have Fibrowatt actively competing with Minnesota farmers to buy these raw materials from the plant.

It is basic economics that when competition increases on the demand side, prices increase in the short term. Over the longer term, they may level out, but if production is increased to meet the new demand there will be pressure to keep market equilibrium at the higher price, or supplier/producers will switch to other commodities.

Here in Virginia, a large portion of litter comes from wood shavings, which are apparently already in short supply within the Shenandoah Valley region. This product was specifically mentioned as an example of what would be in the mix at the proposed Valley plant.

So once again, Fibrowatt will compete with local poultry farmers for resources, in this case, driving up raw materials costs.

For a company that claims to partner with the poultry, this “squeeze” – raising the costs of inputs and reducing total sales revenues – is an ironic concept. I’ve heard one of the leaders of the local poultry association tout Fibrowatt as a long-term savior of the industry in Page County. It is more likely that these costs will put the smaller operations out of business by making them economically unsustainable!

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/aug/31/302350/fibrowatt-price-high-utilities-say/news-regional-surry/

A Note from a Page County Farmer, re: Fibrowatt

The Fibrowatt issue has consumed my blog for a month now – it’s the first time there’s been a topic of this importance to engage with. I’ve tried to reach out to as many stakeholders as I could – including farmers. I was finally able to have a discussion with a couple of Page County farmers; while those conversations have ranged over a variety of concerns and considerations, I’ve summarized some of the material here.

Since I forgot to get permission to identify the correspondent, I am withholding that information, and I have made a few edits to protect the farmer's identity. Overall, this is a well framed discussion not only about farming economics and the potential impact of a Fibrowatt plant, but in general the state of the industry in Page County.

As the Page County BOS prepares to hear the Fibrowatt proposal, this kind of insight should inform any decision they consider.
====

"As far as the plant goes I am strongly against it. The emissions and the smokestack are of some concern but are not the reason I am against the plant. As a life-long Page County resident, the need for financial stability is the basis of my thought process.

From an agricultural standpoint, the plant stands to be detrimental to the [farming] industry. We use chicken litter to plant our corn because it is an excellent starter fertilizer. Fibrowatt states that they will pay between [$X-$XX]/ton of litter. Currently, poultry litter is above $[XX]/ton because of competition. The competition exists because DEQ will pay $[XX]/ton to haul the litter out of Page County. If Fibrowatt comes in and buys up the remaining litter it will put us and other farmers at a financial disadvantage.

An article in the Southeast Farm Press showed the corn yields in Virginia dropped because of higher fertilizer prices. Assuming the same trend, corn yields in Page County would drop, resulting in corn being sold and reflected in sales dollars that Page County Ag generates. Ironically, our major corn buyers are poultry companies. If poultry companies have to spend more in trucking for corn, thus decreasing their margins, the poultry grower will receive less payment for the chickens they produce. In this scenario, I only see lost sales dollars to the county's most powerful industry.

As far as poultry growers getting more in terms of total sales dollars for their litter, I don't really see that happening because of the current price of litter. I see a profit margin decrease happening for poultry growers instead of an increase. Currently, some poultry growers don't clean out the poultry houses after each flock leaves because of the cost of putting the shavings back in the house. We have one grower who [cleans much less frequently]. If poultry growers don't clean out everytime then Fibrowatt might not have enough litter to burn year round.

During down time Fibrowatt states they will burn wood shavings to compensate. Add to that Page County and surrounding areas have never had abundant sources of shavings. Simple economics says this should increase the cost of shavings to the poultry growers. If Fibrowatt teams up with the poultry companies to force clean outs after each flock leaves this will really cause the cost of shavings to sky rocket. This would cause the overall profitability of the poultry grower to decrease."

Page County Citizens Write Back about Fibrowatt

Last week I sent a note – substantially the same as the “Open Letter to Page County to my Page County Neighbors” linked at the end of this post – to local hospitality and tourism businesses. Page County recently was recognized as “The Cabin Capital of Virginia” and my sense of it is the tourism and hospitality industry would take a significant hit from the presence of a Fibrowatt plant. I worried that it might be a little forward of me to write to them, but I thought it was reasonable to share my opinion, and once they received it, they could (and would) decide for themselves anyway.

To my surprise, I received more than a dozen responses, all but one saying they appreciated the information and that they weren’t inclined to support the Fibrowatt proposal – the one basically a request for more information. I’ve chosen a few of these emails (and disguised the text to protect their anonymity) and now I am posting them below. I thanked each of these and asked them to write letters to their BOS rep.

From B. “I wanted to thank you for a well written letter and bring our concerns to the table. I will write to the supervisors and will reiterate some of your points and my own. We do need help with our tax base and we should be picky and concerned about any industry that wants to come here. There was always a routine for due diligence for every project to be considered but for some strange reason this came out. Something stinks here and I don’t think it’s chicken poop!”

From H. “Thank you for your email, and I'm totally against this project. A few jobs is not worth risking the health of thousands of people in and around Luray/Page County. I was hoping to open a business in Luray within the next year (my products are sold at [another business in Luray] at the moment), and I have been looking for store space, or the possibility of purchasing land to build a proper store...I can tell you that if this project is approved, I will NOT be continuing business in Luray. Further, if there is anything I can do to help fight this incredibly pathetic reason to boost economy, I'd be happy to join in any efforts possible.”

From E. “Thank you so much for this! I agree with your "discussion" and will do everything in my power to block Fibrowatt from coming into our area. [We] were instrumental in blocking a cell tower from being erected on the property that abuts ours and we will do our best to block this issue. “

From H. “Thanks for taking the time to research and sharing of this information. Unfortunately the EDA appears able to do what it wants when it wants, regardless of the opinions of the masses.”

From C. "Thank you Jim, I appreciate your comments. These are all very valid concerns, and ones that I hope the Board will consider in their deliberations on this. Another major area of concern is the amount of water that will be needed for operation. That quantity has not been clearly identified, but based on estimates I’m hearing, it could have a serious impact on water supplies in the area."

From D. “Jim: I read your beautifully constructed letter and I couldn't agree more. I think…the idea will soon die. Thanks for taking your time to do the research and helping to save the beauty and well being of Page County.”

http://hawksbillcabin.blogspot.com/2010/02/open-letter-to-my-page-county-neighbors.html

Prospective Views of the Fibrowatt Stack

When I first came to the Valley, I did so after looking down at the town of Luray from Skyland at Shenandoah National Park.  What a lovely place we saw down below, and my wife and I took a drive down to check it out.  Here we are three years later, having restored a unique one-of-a-kind home for a getaway.

It's a community I've come to love and enjoy.  I want what's best for the people there and do everything I can to promote the Valley back here in the DC area.  

I came across some images that a friend put together using Google Earth to mock up the view of this proposed Fibrowatt plant on the Shenandoah Valley region.  I wish I was skilled enough to make similar ones...but reprinting them here to reinforce my point about the potential for devastating impacts on tourism in the Valley.

More thoughts on Fibrowatt impacts

Following up on the discussion of potential emissions from a power plant in the Valley, today I wanted to think about some different supporting infrastructure that will need to be constructed. The starting point for this analysis is Homeland Renewable Energy’s website, Fibrowatt’s parent company, specifically the technical data sheet about the Minnesota plant, which is the first reference link at the end of the post.

There are two points to call out specifically, both of which will require specialized infrastructure: (1) the stack height of 300 feet, and (2) the voltage that power generated at the plant is delivered to the grid – 115kV.

Starting with the stack height, it’s hard to get a perspective on how tall 300 feet is in Page County, since the Valley is surrounded by two mountain ridges. The nearby peaks in Shenandoah National Park, notably Stonyman and Hawksbill, are 4,000 feet tall. Two easily identifiable peaks in the shorter Masssanutten ridge are Kennedy peak and Duncan Knob, at between 2,500 and 2,800 feet tall.

There are numerous photographs of panaoramic views from these summits on the Hiking Upward site (www.hikingupward.com) or from Google Earth. From those heights, tall constructed objects are visible, but for the time being there are none over 150 feet tall, these being cell towers. As I drove through Luray last weekend I made a mental inventory or a few of them – the Tannery stack, at about 50 feet, the Luray Caverns Bell Tower, also about 50 feet tall, the cell tower on the ridge above downtown about 100 feet, and the tower near Wal-Mart, about 120 feet tall.  There are also water towers in Luray and Stanley, both of which are well below 100 feet.

Three hundred feet is pretty hard to quantify in Page County, because there is simply nothing that tall here – roughly equivalent to a 30 story building. This stack is five or six times as tall as the tannery stack, and nearly three times as tall as the tower near Wal-Mart. A smoke stack of that height would immediately draw attention from all of the panoramic vistas along the Shenandoah National Park ridge, including several of the historic overlooks on Skyline Drive. Hikers on the Appalachian Trail, when they are on the west side of the ridge, would see it from a few miles south of Big Meadow all the way up to the Rileyville area, perhaps as far as Compton Peak – four or five hiking days.

Down to earth, in the Valley, this smokestack would easily be visible from the Luray Caverns parking lot, where 500,000 tourists a year would take in the view. And families and kids at the Hawksbill Recreation Center in Stanley, which is very close to the proposed location at Project Clover, would also have a very clear perspective on the stack. The bike crowd in for state qualifiers – about a thousand of them, would see the stack from all along their route, and it would surely be a topic of conversation for the thousand-plus tri-athletes in June and August, putting an end to these emergent tourist activities.

The second infrastructure issue that draws my attention is the electrical transmission equipment that will be required. The voltage that will be delivered to the grid – 115kV, is considered high voltage and will require high voltage transmission lines. The Valley already has a few of these – but none running through the center area at Project Clover.

A Google search for pictures of high voltage towers to me to a Minnesota state permitting site, which is linked below. There are photos with a couple of examples like this one, and there are some images of big open country towers in the Wikipedia article cited in the references. A string of these (smaller ones!) will be needed to transmit the power to the national grid and to the end customer – a quick note here that that customer could be anywhere in the United States that is connected to Fibrowatt’s entry grid.

As indicated by this simple graphic from the Department of Energy (also found on Wikipedia), there will also need to be a substation, or transformer, built in proximity or on the grounds of the power plant. There's a photograph of a typical transformer station below.  While altitude won’t be significant here, the necessary towers will begin from there, radiating out through the Valley. I suspect that the transmission line will impact the Massanutten Ridge in some form, as I doubt that clearing space for this construction would be allowed in the Park. On the other hand, there are lines in Thornton Gap, so this may be the point of entry for the power to the grid.

In the research I’ve been doing, I have tried to keep an open mind to Fibrowatt and the opportunity to have a biomass plant in Page Valley. The proposed location, as I understand it, at Project Clover is my major point of concern. It is dead center in the Valley with prevailing winds to the northeast and southwest, which means any emission particulate matter will fall on the neighboring towns of Stanley and Luray. The height of the building and smokestack will be visible from throughout the Valley, including prime tourist attractions.

I’ve always been against the use of the Project Clover land for any industrial use, but I am against it even more when that use will require obtrusive construction such as this. If the plant were to come to the Valley in a location with less impact, I might support it – but since the Page County EDA has pushed this site into consideration, I have to make a stand against it.

At this point, I’ve done enough research on Fibrowatt to have an opinion. I foresee devastating economic impacts to the tourism and agriculture industries in the Valley, and the potential for significant environmental degradation. To put it simply: I’d rather not see a plant here.

http://homelandrenewableenergy.us/pdf/fibrominn-tech-data.pdf

http://www.mnpower.com/regulatory_matters/transmission/tower_fact_sheet.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pylon

Page County Board of Supervisors Meeting and Fibrowatt Presentation

My friends in the Valley tell me that there is a meeting at Luray Middle School March 2, 7 pm in the cafeteria. It is a planned working session, which means public questions will not be allowed, and Fibrowatt will be giving a presentation there. 

I am going to try and attend, but no guarantees. 

I was told that if you have questions for the Board, they need to be submitted in advance, and they may or may not be dealt with at the meeting.  As far as how to get the questions to the BOS, their addresses are available from http://pagecounty.virginia.gov/files/agendas-minutes/board%20of%20supervisors.pdf

I hope the information that I've provided on this site is useful to Page County residents in understanding the nature of power plant operations and Fibrowatt.  So far I haven't gotten into the environmental discussions that continue in North Carolina and elsewhere - those are comming once I have a bit more time.

Fibrowatt - the process

Since I am getting pretty far down the road on the Fibrowatt story, I wanted to start this post with a quick reference to the original NVD article where I learned about the company. By posting all of this material, I am simply trying to educate myself about them - Hawksbill Cabin is a blog and not a newspaper, so the purpose here is not to report a deal. That isn't my role.


So how did I learn about the Fibrowatt prospect, or opportunity? Here is the quote in the NVD newspaper that got me started: "Legislation in Richmond from Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, would establish tax credits and other incentives to encourage Fibrowatt LLC to locate a facility in Page County. "We became aware a couple of months ago that they were looking at constructing one of their plants in the valley," Gilbert said, adding that Page is considered a top contender for the site."


Now back to the review of Fibrowatt - today talking about the process for turning chicken litter into power. This is synopsized from the Fibrowatt website.

One of the value statements with the Fibrowatt process is the idea that this kind of renewable or sustainable energy provides an alternative means of disposal for chicken litter. That stuff has to go somewhere, and often the poultry farmer’s least expensive means of getting rid of it is to spread it.

That, said, from the web site, here is a summary of how they make power:
“Fibrowatt assists area growers with poultry litter removal and then transports the poultry litter in tightly covered trucks on prearranged routes to the facility. The trucks then discharge the litter within a specially designed fuel storage building, which is kept at negative pressure to prevent the escape of odors. The litter is combusted at more than 1,500° F, ensuring the destruction of odor and pathogens. Water is heated in a boiler to produce high-pressure, high-temperature steam, which drives a turbine and generates electricity. The remaining ash by-product is beneficially used as a nutrient-rich fertilizer.”

A quick Google search shows that there are a couple of alternatives, one described on a Mississippi State University site (link below):

"A gasifier converts organic materials into gas rather than burning it," said Plodinec, noting the units would be sited at poultry houses around the state. "Then, the gas can be moved somewhere else and burned cleanly. You can generate relatively small but significant amounts of electricity right there for the person who needs it." The MSU article goes on to describe an alternative process that can produce commercial chemicals as opposed to fuels.

The other link below discusses scale issues with these operations – farm-scale, or industrial-scale. It was written in 2002 and discusses various ways that litter can be used for energy. This article emphasizes what were then emerging farm-scale technologies, but it also references some of the issues that larger scale operations need to be aware of and manager, including ash management (the ash can be used as fertilizer, a byproduct of the process), plant emissions, and other regulatory concerns. The article even references Fibrowatt’s plants in England, highlighting their emissions control systems.

For tomorrow’s post, I plan to look at the Fibrowatt plant in Minnesota, known as Fibrominn, and especially to take a look at how the community’s concerns with emissions, truck traffic, and potential odors were addressed within the framework of a community board approach.

http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=2097
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/15/converting-poultry-litter-into-energy-in-the-us

Fibrowatt - an Overview

This is the first of several posts that will go up this week about Fibrowatt, the company that proposes to build a plant that will turn chicken litter into electricity, at Page County’s Project Clover site. You’d expect that there would be challenges from both sides (the community and the company) in negotiating a site, constructing, and operating a plant like this – and that’s exactly the reason why the Hawksbill Cabin blog is looking into this topic.

On the face of it, the estimated impacts – 300 construction jobs and 100 plant jobs after the plant is up and running – all sound like great investments for Page County. But this is an industrial process and it won’t be without its impacts, so on the blog we’ll also take a closer look at the technology that is used, the history of community relations, and some of the controversies that are related to this technology.

The Basics

The company, Fibrowatt LLC, is owned by a New Hampshire-based holding company called Homeland Renewable Energy. Homeland Renewable Energy (HRE) was founded in 2000 by a management team that built and later sold three litter conversion electricity plants in the UK in the 1990’s. Their selling point on the idea: responding to the poultry industry’s need for a litter disposal alternative, by using it to generate renewable energy. HRE claims to be the only firm in the world with experience developing these types of plants.

The entrepreneurs behind the UK plants were Simon and Rupert Fraser, a father and son team. After developing the plants, they sold them in 2003 and started HRE, and subsequently Fibrowatt to market the technology in the US.

The Board

HRE has a five-member board. I’ll profile Rupert Fraser, one of the developers of the UK plants, and John Clarke, Chairman. The other board members are Robert Keller, Richard Constant, and Derek Hasbrouck.

Clarke, as noted, is the Chairman of the Board and the cofounder of HRE with Fraser. He is an investment banker, founding Baldwin & Clarke, which completed $2-billion in M&A and capital raises since 1984. He has other interests, including a small cap community banking enterprise with Keller.

Fraser is listed as President and CEO, cofounding HRE in 2003 when Fibrowatt was acquired from its UK parent. His background includes work as a chartered accountant with KPMG, investment banking, and past leadership in renewable energy trade groups.

Fibrowatt’s US Projects

Just as with the summaries above, we’ve drawn from the HRE and Fibrowatt web pages (linked below) for background on other Fibrowatt projects. In addition to the Page County project that NVDaily posted last week that started us on this research, there are plans for projects in Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, and Mississippi. There is an established 55-Megawatt (MW) plant in Benson, Minnesota (easily found with a Google search for “Fibrominn,” the operating company name). And there are plans for three plants in North Carolina, in Montgomery, Surry, and Sampson counties.

During the next posts on this topic, the blog will focus on the Minnesota project, which is active, and the North Carolina projects, which are in development. We close with URLs for HRE and Fibrowatt:

http://www.homelandrenewableenergy.com/
http://www.fibrowattusa.com/