impact of wind energy development: perceptions and realities

Impact of Wind Energy Development: Perception and Realties

What Drives Growing Opposition to Wind Power Projects

Jay VincentSVP – Energy Sector Practice Leader

Anaheim, CAMay 2011

Overview

• Review 2010 Saint Index Results

• High Level Review of Key Opposition Drivers

• Review of Strategies to Deal with Opposition

US Political Climate for Real Estate Development

The NIMBY Dilemma: Americans say they are more willing to support new development but also say their hometown does not need any new

development.

• 67% of Americans believe the relationship between developers and elected officials makes the approval process unfair – DEEP CYNICISM

• 73% grade their community a C or worse when it comes to deciding what does and does not get permitted – LACK OF TRUST


74% of Americans Oppose Any Development In There Community


MID – ATLANTIC top NIMBY region

MIDWEST most welcoming to development

Key Drivers to Opposition to Wind Energy Projects

1. Saint Index Survey Findings: Fear, Property Values, etc…

2. Education Gap

3. Method of Communication and Grassroots Education

4. Competitive Pressures

Strategies for Mitigating Opposition

1. Early political and opposition risk analysis

2. Fill education gap in a grassroots way

3. Respond directly and often to opposition fear mongering

4. Begin outreach early and before opposition arises

WIND ENERGY SECTOR PRACTICE

Over 30 controversial wind projects of 4000 MW company wide

Highly trained staff in specifically wind energy issues

Jay VincentSVP – Energy Sector Practice Leader312-212-8889 [email protected]

NEXT PRESENTATION

Robert O’NeilEpsilon Associates, Principal

Low Frequency Sound and Infrasound From Wind Turbines

Low Frequency Sound and Infrasound from Wind Turbines

Robert D. O’Neal, CCM, INCERobert D. Hellweg, Jr., INCE Bd. CertifiedRichard M. Lampeter, INCEEpsilon Associates, Inc.

May 24, 2011

The issue of Low Frequency Noise (LFN) and Infrasound are often raised during permitting

• “…significant issues related to audible low frequency noise of a persistent, pulsatile nature, such as created by wind turbines.” [from sworn affidavit filed in wind energy case]

• NextEra Energy Resources commissioned a comprehensive, scientific study to answer this recurring question

Purpose of this presentation is to summarize a scientific study that evaluated LFN and Infrasound

1. Literature search2. Field measurement program3. Comparison to criteria

What is Low Frequency Noise & Infrasound?

• Audible range: 20 Hz – 20,000 Hz

• Low Frequency: 12.5 Hz – 200 Hz

• Infrasound: Below 20 Hz

Low Frequency Noise & Infrasound is found everywhere and is not unique to wind turbines

Guidelines/criteria for three areas of reaction were used to evaluate LFN and Infrasound

Can I hear it? [Audibility criteria]

Can I feel it? [Wall vibration and rattle criteria]

Is it annoying? [Disturbance/annoyance guidelines]

Development and Discussion of Criteria

Audibility ISO 226:2003 for 20 Hz to 160 Hz Watanabe and Moeller for 4 Hz to 20 Hz

Vibration and Rattle CriteriaANSI/ASA S12.2-2008 (indoor)ANSI/ASA S12.9 Part 4 (outdoor)

Disturbance/annoyance GuidelinesUK Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) proposed one-third octave band LFN criteria for use by environmental health officers.ANSI/ASA S12.2-2008 (indoor)ANSI/ASA S12.9 Part 4 (outdoor)

Data were collected for the two most common wind turbines in NextEra fleet• GE 1.5sle (1.5 MW)• Siemens SWT-2.3-93 (2.3 MW)• Horse Hollow Wind Farm, Taylor County, TX• Data collected at 1,000 feet and 1,500 feet from

strings of turbines.• Four houses used for interior/exterior

Horse Hollow Wind Farm

Sound levels were measured under period of maximum electrical power and light ground winds

Siemens turbines – outdoor measurements

Sample #34 = 1,847 kW; hub wind ~10.3 m/s; ground wind = 3.3 m/sSample #39 = 1,608 kW; hub wind ~9.7 m/s; ground wind = 3.4 m/s

Siemens turbines – indoor measurements

Window closed = 1,884 kW; hub wind ~10.3 m/s; ground wind = 3.2 m/sWindow open = 1,564 kW; hub wind ~9.6 m/s; ground wind = 3.7 m/s

Sound level meter with windscreen and ground level meteorological instruments

Comparison to Criteria – Audibility Outdoors

Comparison to Criteria - Equivalent Outdoor DEFRA

Comparison to Criteria – Perceptible Vibration, Rattle and Annoyance – Outdoors

Comparison to Criteria – Perceptible Vibration, Rattle and Annoyance – Indoors

Conclusions

Wind farms with Siemens SWT-2.3-93 and GE 1.5sle wind turbines at maximum noise do not pose LFN or Infrasound problem at 1,000 feet or more.

• Meet ANSI/ASA S12.2 indoor levels for LFN in bedrooms, classrooms and hospitals;

• Meet ANSI/ASA S12.2 indoor levels for perceptible vibration in walls/ceilings;

• Meet ANSI S12.9 Part 4 thresholds for annoyance and beginning of rattles;

• Meet UK DEFRA disturbance guidelines;

• Have no audible infrasound;

• Might have slightly audible LFN at 50 Hz and above depending on other LFN source levels.

Detailed LFN study just published in peer-reviewed technical journal

1.800.580.3765 • WWW.TETRATECH.COM

Cultural Resources:Connecting DevelopersWith Local Communities

AWEA WINDPOWER 2011May 24, 2011

Sydne B. Marshall, PhD, RPANational Cultural Resources Discipline Lead

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�

Goals of Presentation

Use cultural resources to connect with local communities

View cultural resources issues as you would other environmental issues

Present strategies for successful cultural resource management that save time, money, and headache

Narrow View of Cultural Resources

Opera

Movies

Ballet

Broader View of Cultural Resources

Oregon Trail marked by wagon wheel rutsRock pile

Native American stone tools

http://208.56.96.178/cgi-bin/photo/imageSearch.cgi?search=Oregon river Geddis&img=75&currentOrder=�


Hunting cabin in West Virginia Monticello in Virginia

Cultural resources include examples of vernacular and high design


Landscapes and locations of local and national significance are other examples of types of cultural resources

Ground Zero, NY Three Mile Island, PA

Not All Cultural Resources Are Significant

Criteria For Listing in National Register of Historic Places - 36 CFR 60 Districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that embody the quality of

significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture

A. associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history;

B. associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;C. embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or

method of construction; work of a master, significant and distinguishable entity;

D. yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history

National Register-Eligible Resources

Your cultural contractors make recommendations about resource eligibility using the National Register criteria

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) makes determinations of eligibility

Federal law treats NRHP-eligible cultural resources and those listed in the NRHP equally

Locally Important Cultural Resources

Communities may have resources they deem locally important using their own criteria

Host communities may request avoidance of impacts to selected local resources

These local ‘landmarks’ may warrant further attention by a developer

Cultural Resources Identified In Project Area

Cultural resources in your Project Area do not signal the end of your Project

Reap Benefit From Cultural Resources

Use cultural resources as a gateway for communication with locals and an avenue for community support

Choose to identify cultural resources in Project Area, even if not required

Connect with local community by respecting local cultural heritage

Invest in addressing cultural resources to gain support from community, state regulators, and investors

Manage Cultural Resources Issues

Follow same paradigm as managing other environmental issues

• Establish baseline conditions

• Perform on-the-ground surveys

• Evaluate if inventoried resources qualify as significant

• Consider if impacts to significant or locally important resources may be avoided

If Impacts Cannot Be Avoided

Work with local community to understand historic preservation preferences

• Keep relevant permitting agencies involved and informed

• Consider mitigations that will be acceptable to your company and that would be locally meaningful

Strategies that Save Time, Money, and Create Good Will

Strategy 1 – Involve Cultural Resources Specialists in the Early Planning Process

• Cultural Resource Specialists have information that may be useful

• Include cultural resource information in early constraint mapping

• Begin process of site avoidance early in planning process

• These actions will help you anticipate some issues of local opposition

Strategies that Save Time, Money and Create Good Will

Strategy 2 – Communicate

• Keep communication going among entire project team (including contractors)

• Engineering and development interests working together allow meaningful design modifications that minimize additional studies and additional regulatory reviews

• Inform regulators of project modifications


Strategy 3 – Develop and Commit to an Unanticipated Finds Plan

• Required under Federal process (if National Historic Preservation Act applies to Project)

• Voluntary under most other scenarios

• Establishes process to be followed in event of discovery of human remains or unanticipated archeological site

• Paves way to address issue while minimizing delays in construction


Strategy 4 – Understand and Respect Host Community’s Priorities for Cultural Resources Preservation

• Honor community-based requests to design around locally and nationally recognized cultural resources

• Engage with host community to sponsor a local historic preservation project

• Projects must be locally meaningful but not necessarily elaborate or excessively expensive


Support requested to paint local historic structure


Community requested funds to maintain historic cemetery and fence


Scanner Donated to Local Historical Society To

Assist in Curation of Historical Documents


Interested parties may request opportunity to record their sacred sites


Oral History Program

Presentation Take-Away

Use cultural resources issues as a way to connect with local host community

Demonstrate good environmental stewardship by identifying sites in Project Area and avoiding impacts to them, even when not required

Apply the strategies discussed to meaningfully engage the local community and gain project support

Visual Impacts: Providing Decision-Makers With the Information They Need

Thomas Priestley, Ph.D. ASLA/AICP

60

NEPA Requires Analysis of Visual & Aesthetic Resources

• Aesthetically pleasing surroundings• Preservation of important historic, cultural, and

natural aspects of our national heritage• A diverse environment• Integration of the environmental design arts in

planning and decision making

NEPA strives to use all practical means, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources by assuring:

Many States Require Consideration of Visual & Aesthetic ResourcesEnvironmental Analyses in California mustdetermine whether a project would:• Adversely affect scenic vistas• Damage scenic resources in a scenic

highway• Degrade the visual character or quality of

the site and its surroundings• Impact day or nighttime views with

light/glare

61

A Paradigm for Aesthetic Impact Assessment• In the US, an Outgrowth of NEPA’s Requirements and

Federal Agency Investments in the Development ofVisual Resource Management Systems

Systematic Assessment of Visual Change

• Forest Service Scenery Management System

• Bureau of Land Management Visual Resource Management System

• Federal Highway Administration Visual Impact Assessment Method

64

Standard Visual Impact Assessment Procedures

• Determine the viewshed• Identify key viewpoints• Assess existing conditions• Document the project changes• Analyze what the changes mean• Develop mitigation where needed

Viewshed Analysis, AKA: ZVI – Zone of Visual Influence

66

Assessment of Existing Conditions• Identify and Document Key Viewpoints

– photos of existing conditions– identify visual character, quality, and degree of

uniqueness of view

• Determine who sees the views, why they are important, and what formal recognition they have been given– consider viewer perceptions, values, and concerns– give serious consideration to management agency

plans and other adopted public policies that provide protection of the view

Existing View from aKey Viewpoint

Visual Simulation withProject in Place

Document the Changes

• Visibility of turbines and degree of visual contrast created

• Visual effects of vegetative clearing and grading

• Visibility and degree of visual integration of ancillary facilities

What Do the ChangesReally Mean?• To what extent are the changes visible?• When are they visible?• Who sees the changes and under what

circumstances?• To what degree will the visual character

and quality of the view be altered? • What is the relationship of the changes to

identified landscape values and policies?

Identify Measures toMitigate Impacts

• A number of compendia of measures for good siting and design of wind power installations are available

Questions and Answers